(https://i.imgur.com/8CwL3Nu.png)
Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy. It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.
(https://i.imgur.com/8CwL3Nu.png)
Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy. It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.
How does the sequence of play work? Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?
(https://i.imgur.com/3FuDxPum.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JLcrYGBm.png)
Souk • $4 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may spend 3 Buys to gain a Gold.
Spiv (Action, $4)I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
Spiv (Action, $4)I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
(https://i.imgur.com/XUnwook.png)You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.
(https://i.imgur.com/XUnwook.png)You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.
I'm pretty sure the "this turn" in Improve is specifying that the card is being discarded from play this turn, not that the effect happens this turn, since it is already implied that the effect happens this turn.(https://i.imgur.com/XUnwook.png)You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.
I think it does. Scheme's 1st edition wording used "at the start of Clean-up this turn," and Improve's "that you would discard from play this turn" implies that it means this turn's Clean-up phase. Without "this turn," Merchant Quarter wouldn't be specifying that it means this turn's Clean-up phase.
I'm pretty sure the "this turn" in improve is specifying that the card is being discarded from play this turn, not that the effect happens this turn, since it is already implied that the effect happens this turn.(https://i.imgur.com/XUnwook.png)You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.
I think it does. Scheme's 1st edition wording used "at the start of Clean-up this turn," and Improve's "that you would discard from play this turn" implies that it means this turn's Clean-up phase. Without "this turn," Merchant Quarter wouldn't be specifying that it means this turn's Clean-up phase.
Shipping Village - $3
Action
+1 Card
+3 Buys
Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn.
-
While this is in play, you may spend 1 Buy for +1 Action.
Con Artist
Action-Attack (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
You may spend a buy. If you do, each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. If a treasure was trashed by this, + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
Taxidermy
$3 - Project
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.
Spiv (Action, $4)In most kingdoms, this will be fine. But I think this is going to be really strong whenever there's spammable +buy in the kingdom. It might be better balanced if you spent a buy to put the gained card in your hand.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
Spyglass - $5
Treasure/Duration
Worth $2
If you have no Actions left, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Workhouse - Action, $2 cost.
+ $2
You may take Exhausted. If you do, +1 Coffers.
-
When you gain this, play any number of Treasures from your hand, and spend any amount of Coffers for + $1 each. Then pay any amount of $; +1 Villager per $1 paid.
Exhausted - StateI'm trying a new, more complicated version of a card in my fan expansion Revolution. On play, you can spend an unused Action for 1 Coffers; the whole thing with Exhausted lets you do this even when there are no other sources of +Actions, you carry the spent Action over to next turn.
When you next have unused Actions during your Action phase (Actions, not Action cards), immediately return this and -1 Action.
Spiv (Action, $4)I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
Theoretically on turn 2 (with Shelters, Way of the Pig, Seaway, a $5 / $2 opening, and hitting the 1 of 6 draw when you shuffle after you Pig your Necropolis). But even if you were to miss that draw or not have Way of the Pig and/or Shelters, you would still almost certainly get it on turn 3 or 4. So if one player hits the $5 / $2 split and Seaway is in play, the other players would at best have one or two chances to buy this before that player was able to empty the pile.
Could easily be fixed (if you think it is a problem) by adding "other than a Spiv" to first line à la Vampire. Would fit thematically as well, as a Spiv would likely not be taken in by the wiles of another Spiv.
Crooked Quarter - $6
Action
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2
If your hand size is even, discard a card.
If your remaining Actions are even, -1 Action
If your $ is even, -$1
(https://i.imgur.com/DjZFnrZ.png)I think there's precedent for doing -1 Action / -$1, which is probably cleaner to read than "lose one"; for sure precedent on Poor House for "-$1"QuoteCrooked Quarter - $6
Action
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2
If your hand size is even, discard a card.
If your remaining Actions are even, lose one
If your $ is even, lose one
Unassisted: the first is 1/2 Forum + Peddler, and the following are 1/2 Forum + 2Peddler. With hand-size manipulation and +Actions this can be made to give extra actions and cards, but corrects itself in those respects after each play.
Updated for readability:Is it just me, or should the 3 first vanilla bonuses be separated with a line for each of them?
(https://i.imgur.com/2CvuxaJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8CwL3Nu.png)
Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy. It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.
How does the sequence of play work? Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?
Wanted to finally get back into this after getting busy a while back.
(https://i.imgur.com/subPHDI.png)
Spree - Event - $0
Set aside a Copper. If you do, +1 Buy next turn.
(and discard the set aside Copper at the end of your next turn)
It's quite similar to a submission segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20521.msg860180#msg860180)made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.
Goods v4
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.
$4 Treasure
Goods v3
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, when you buy a Landscape, +1 Buy.
$4 Treasure
Goods v2
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
$4 Treasure
Goods v1
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.It's quite similar to a submission segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20521.msg860180#msg860180)made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.
Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.
I'll submit this instead then:
(https://i.imgur.com/LWjKzqG.png)QuoteGoods
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.It's quite similar to a submission segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20521.msg860180#msg860180)made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.
Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.
I'll submit this instead then:
(https://i.imgur.com/LWjKzqG.png)QuoteGoods
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
$2 Treasure
(Even worse, since this strategy uses 6 Goods, it will only be available to the first player.)
Thank you for pointing this out.That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.
I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.
The update is reflected in my original post.
Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)
Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.
Here is the Event:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONYc4fzm.png)
And the two-sided State it comes with:
(https://i.imgur.com/3FuDxPum.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JLcrYGBm.png)
BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.
BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.
BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“. Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.
Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.
Here is the Event:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONYc4fzm.png)
And the two-sided State it comes with:
(https://i.imgur.com/3FuDxPum.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JLcrYGBm.png)
BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.
BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.
BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
Thank you for pointing this out.That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.
I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.
The update is reflected in my original post.
Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:
If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.
Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“.
Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.
The problem of this concept is that it is either too good or too weak. All the four (did I forget one?) cantrips that yield Buys become significantly better whereas it matters little for all other cards.
I also think that it is too automatic. If I did play my 5 Grand Markets and only need 2 Buys, I will automatically buy the Event four times. It has little impact on my strategy, those 5 GMs are good independent of whether they produce 10 Coins or 12 Coins.
This is my submission for the weekI don't understand how this works. Can you "spend all actions but one" if you have no actions left? And if so, do you end up with 0 or 1 action?
(https://i.imgur.com/Zu8pwrr.png)
A card idea that i had for a long time.QuoteDilemma, action $5
You may spend all actions but one, to get +Cards instead.
If you don't, +4 Actions.
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards, +1 Action.
If you didn't, +4 Actions.
Choose one:
- set your number of unused Actions to 1. +1 Card per Action lost this way.
- +4 Actions.
EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:
If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.
This wouldn't work (or rather, this changes what the Event does), as the State is meant to be flipped every time. Who has the State when it's not being flipped does not matter, and taking it shouldn't cost an extra buy. I originally wanted it to just sit next to the Event, but the rules (as I read them) don't permit this.
I looked at Misery when I was doing the wording. My only concern with the way you have it is that it might be a bit confusing. It is not entirely clear that "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" are a single, two-sided State. Thus, it is not self-evident from the text what the "it" in "take it" or "flip it over" is. A player might go looking for the other Market, or think they have a choice.
This is my submission for the week
(https://i.imgur.com/Zu8pwrr.png)
A card idea that i had for a long time.
(https://i.imgur.com/RV6a5c2.png)(https://i.imgur.com/3XqUrdy.png)(https://i.imgur.com/zfoOgIv.png)
This is my submission for the week
(https://i.imgur.com/Zu8pwrr.png)
A card idea that i had for a long time.
Thank you Faust and silverspawn for pointing out the weird wording. I decided to go with Fausts suggestion.
(https://i.imgur.com/7yMh8VC.png)
Hey, look! Woodcutter's back!Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.
(https://i.imgur.com/RV6a5c2.png)
That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Thank you for pointing this out.That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.
I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.
The update is reflected in my original post.
Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
But you can play the combination Village+Dilemma an arbitrary number of times, as it always leaves you with the 1 Action you started with.That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
Hey, look! Woodcutter's back!
(https://i.imgur.com/RV6a5c2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3XqUrdy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/zfoOgIv.png)
The idea is for Buys to function as a different currency (you can skip buying Woodsman entirely). I thought about allowing Woodsman to gain Spirits with unused Buys, but it's more fun to create my own cards.
(https://i.imgur.com/zfoOgIv.png)Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDw9W66V/Wandernder-Bettler.png) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) |
Split Pile Top Half | Split Pile Bottom Half |
Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.
I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.
I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.
Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.
Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.
Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve
Secluded village should say to reveal the hand, so there isn't trust issuesWoodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.
I didn't think it was a major issue to have Woodsman effectively cost $0, because often you will have additional $ to spend on something better. However, I agree that it's awkward if you happen to have Woodcutter in the same game, and it's probably better to limit the special gaining to non-Supply cards so that it isn't too easy to empty out the Woodsman pile.I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.
I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.
Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.
You're right that it would be impossible in some Kingdoms to gain Magic Axe. I had initially though about whether Enchanted Forest should be a Village or give +Buys, but I felt like it would be too easy to stack Woodsmen with it (which were previously quite easy to gain) and also to gain additional Enchanted Forests or Magic Axes.Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.
Thanks - I've modified the set so that you can't gain Woodsmen by spending Buys. Instead I've added Secluded Village, to also address the issue that Xen3k highlighted.Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve
Thanks - the comma doesn't seem necessary, but I've updated the wording anyway to match Improve.
Revised set: (I'll update the OP as well)
(https://i.imgur.com/3fSXDwB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/rRY0p22.png)(https://i.imgur.com/1djBNyv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/HAUqhiW.png)
Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) equal to the unspent (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) the player to your right had on their last turn.
4$ Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman
+1 Buy
+1 $
At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.
3$ Action
----------------------------------------
The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.
+1 Buy
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) for +2 Coffers per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) paid (rounded down).
That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
Promote ③ EventIt's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event.
You may overpay for this, to trash a card you
would discard from play this turn. Then, gain a
card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
thanks for the improvement, I'll implement it in the translation.Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)
My recommended wording:Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) equal to the unspent (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) the player to your right had on their last turn.
You are incorrect, the intention is to only allow increments of 3, in order to prevent the Wandering beggar to be obsolete as soon as other players buy the Tradesman.4$ Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman
+1 Buy
+1 $
At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.
3$ Action
----------------------------------------
The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.
Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), you could spend (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9d/Coin9.png/16px-Coin9.png), you could spend (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording+1 Buy
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) for +2 Coffers per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) paid (rounded down).
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDw9W66V/Wandernder-Bettler.png) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) |
Split Pile Top Half | Split Pile Bottom Half |
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/803168657227776010/Promote_v2.1.png)I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:QuotePromote ③ EventIt's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
Promote - $3+
Event
You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKs7KfPF/Wandernder-Bettler-3.png) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) |
Split Pile (Top Half) | Split Pile (Bottom Half) |
i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/803168657227776010/Promote_v2.1.png)I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:QuotePromote ③ EventIt's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.QuotePromote - $3+
Event
You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
This version of Wandering beggar does not work for multiple reasons.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKs7KfPF/Wandernder-Bettler-3.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) Split Pile (Top Half) Split Pile (Bottom Half)
Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).
3$ Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman
+1 Buy
+1 $
At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.
3$ Action
----------------------------------------
After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.
i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking
i mean, thats more restrictive - do it my way and you can still promote caravans or havens or whateveri think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking
Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRntvr1B/Wandernder-Bettler-6.png) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) |
Split Pile (Top Half) | Split Pile (Bottom Half) |
1. There is no accountibility since the card does not require players to reveal their hands (and if it did it would probably need to be an attack).I fully agree with you here, and thus changed the need to look at their hand.
2. There is no such thing as "unspent $ in their hand". Treasures that have not been played simply did not generate any $. I understand what you are going for, but in terms of rules this is nonsensical.
3. Even if we allowed "common sense" to override the technical issues from the previous point, it is still not well-defined - if I have a Bank and a Copper in hand, how much $ is that?This didn't occur in the testing rounds, thanks for bringing it up, it is also fixed now.
In order to fix the card, I would suggest turning it into an Attack that punishes players if they have Treasures in their hand at the end of their buy phase.
I am also not in love with the 1-to-1 conversion of unspent $ into cash for you. It already feels bad to draw all your money without enough buys, this just punishes people who are already doing badly.
Translations:This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
Translations:This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCHczrsk/Wandernder-Bettler-7.png) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zkzhZN/Geschaeftsmann4.png) |
Split Pile (Top Half) | Split Pile (Bottom Half) |
This is my submission for the week
(https://i.imgur.com/Zu8pwrr.png)
A card idea that i had for a long time.
Dilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.
First, I am kind of confused. When you say playing it immediately, that wouldn't use up an action, which means that you would immediately draw your deck with 2 Actions before you gain it. I'm not totally sure what the card is supposed to doThis is my submission for the week
(https://i.imgur.com/Zu8pwrr.png)
A card idea that i had for a long time.
Another way you could potentially accomplish what I think you are trying to do is by adding a non-supply Action card that (if choosing the first option) you gain to your hand, are forced to play over and over until you are down to one Action, and then returns itself to it's pile. It would look something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/2TTxqV0m.png)
(You would obviously want to rename this and ad art). I think you would technically only need one copy of it in the pile, but you might want 2 just to make it easier to put back. I thought about adding a line and language that says if you somehow gain this by any other means, it goes back to its pile, but I do not think that is possible.
If you added this, Dilemma could be simplified to say:QuoteDilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.
The obvious downside is that [Dilemma Helper] is super wordy and inelegant. The plus side is that it does not require adding the mechanic of spending Actions, and the Action card itself is cleaner. Plus, while the text of the Helper card is wordy, the mechanism is pretty simply, and once players learn it it is not hard to carry out.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian wayi'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more
elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian wayi'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more
Secluded village should say to reveal the hand, so there isn't trust issues
I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:Delaying the effect until clean-up is a lot less necessary for this card, true. Allowing for immediate trash can open up some fancy gain-and-play stuff with Villa or something, which I mean isn't going to be too convoluted, probably, considering that you already have to be pretty precise with tracking money using this Event. I'll allow it.QuotePromote - $3+
Event
You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
i mean, thats more restrictive - do it my way and you can still promote caravans or havens or whateveri think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking
Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.
You may overpay for this, to trash a card youThis would be functionally different in that half-Bonfire isn't possible, but that's fine. Overpaying would also let you overpay Potion, so woohoo. There are fewer words in this one, too, so fine, I'll go with this one. (Actually there aren't fewer words, after accounting for getting rid of the Clean-up phase clause, lol, but I might as well use overpay as a mechanic because it exists.)
would discard from play this turn. Then, gain a
card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
+②
At the start of Clean-up, you
may trash an Action card you
would discard from play this
turn, to gain a card costing
exactly $1 more than it.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
Goods v4
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.
$4 Treasure
This is totally fine, but for the bottom part, you could just say "In games using this, when you buy an Event costing more than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png), +1 Buy." This would still avoid the infinite loops.Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.QuoteGoods v4
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.
$4 Treasure
Save (and any other Event that already had +buy) now gives extra buys!Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.QuoteGoods v4
$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.
$4 Treasure
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Alms) and Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow) once per turn, but Desperation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Desperation) does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Desperation: At first it wasn't limited to once per turn. You don't need to have the experience of "okay I take 15 Curses and buy 6 Provinces" twice.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Alms) and Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow) once per turn, but Desperation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Desperation) does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)
Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle), so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Alms) and Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow) once per turn, but Desperation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Desperation) does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)
Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle), so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.
In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Alms) and Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow) once per turn, but Desperation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Desperation) does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)
Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle), so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.
In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.
It seems to me that all Adventures Events with "Once per turn" have this FAQ, and none of the later such Events do, for whatever reason...
I think it's more intuitive to casual players that you can't buy them again for no effect, but YMMV.
(https://i.imgur.com/mQtAbIy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mQtAbIy.png)
Judgment is coming very soon.
Please ensure your entry is at the top of the thread.
Judgment is coming very soon.
Please ensure your entry is at the top of the thread.
(https://i.imgur.com/hsUrEYp.png)
Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy. It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.
Edit: I changed it from being able to spend 3 actions to 4. Now it feels like it actually cares about the previous actions you have. Previously it might as well have said "choose one: +3 actions, +2 actions +1 card, +2 cards +1 action, or +3 cards"
ENTRY | COMMENT | ||
| +Buys are a strange resource as players can rarely use 3 Buys and 4 rarer still. An effect like this is largely a buff to Market Squares and their ilk as producing large number of Buys is somewhat uncommon. Grand Market and Worker's Village hardly need the boost, but Market Square and Market will be happy to see it. The biggest issue I have is its implementation. Because it uses a shared State and the first buy of Buying Power nets that +$1 where the second buy (regardless of who buys it) will flip back to Bear Market for no effect. This is a large first player advantage. Further than that, in many games the first player to produce an extra Buy will take Buying Power even if the coin isn't needed simply because it disables the other player(s) flipping to Bull Market. I'd much prefer it lean into its Artifact-like nature and be reworded to something like "If you don't have Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, return it." And Bull Market be an Artifact that reads "When you take this, +$1." Then in low-Buy games, +Buys can still turn into +$1, but each player gets that opportunity back only when someone takes Bull Market from them or they set aside time to rid themselves of it. | ||
| Con Artist is a Bandit payload if you can feed it a Buy. The Bandit Attack is a somewhat frustrating trashing effect because of how regularly it misses, so you can really only afford to spend a +Buy if you have more than you can possibly use anyway and you can't proc the ability with expectation of getting that +$1. Without really easy sources of +Buy, you probably will just skip Con Artist. I'd really prefer the card have more consistency, especially for spending a +Buy which is often an expensive cost. | ||
| Crooked Quarter is in its ideal a Lost City + double Peddler, but will typically be most used as a Fugitive + double Peddler. As a $6-cost card, the amount of processing time this card demands might be okay. At the same time, I think on the games in which the Grand Market pile is emptied (which will be much more common as Grand Market games are guaranteed to have +Buy), and how much more annoying those games would be to play if I had to think about each Grand Market I played. Any one of these three conditions would be fine, but all three of them is overwhelming. | ||
| Dilemma is a big draw that eats all but 1 of your Actions, and a minimum of 2 Actions to be used. In order to be sure it always has use, you can always produce +4 Actions with it. 2 Dilemmas produce a hand of 7 cards just like 2 Laboratories would. Smartly, rather than giving a mere +3 Actions to activate itself, Dilemma gives +4 Actions to allow the player to play an extra card in the middle. With other sources of +Action, you can theoretically increase your hand a lot. I don't think the card presents much of a dilemma, but it is a compelling Laboratory/Lost City sort of thing. | ||
| Paying $6 to get a Village is pretty bad compared to Border Village. Using Nobles as a more similar rubric, $6-cost splitters are usually pretty bad at splitting. If the game has some ludicrous form of +Actions otherwise, you can also play this as a Hunting Grounds, but then you're spending +1 Action on a timely Moat, which is a pretty small benefit. This looks mostly to me like a super expensive Smithy that you can play as a Laboratory if you draw it at the wrong time. It looks perfectly balanced but not very interesting. | ||
| Uncertainties regarding buying events aside, Goods is immensely similar to a non-terminal Merchant Guild, where its condition makes it less explosive in multiple. (1 Goods buying 2 cards nets +2 Coffers, which is the same as Merchant Guild; 2 Goods buying 3 cards nets +4 Coffers, which is 2 less than Merchant Guild.) The in-games-using-this effect has become a major annoyance trying to address certain combos: While those combos should probably be addressed, the way it serves as a bandage to the card makes it distracting. I quite like triggering on using all buys. If it had a more unique the function I might be more forgiving of its clumsy in-games-using-this effect. | ||
| Illicit Workshop is a super-Workshop or an awful trasher depending on whether or not you are able to empty your hand and spend all your coins. This is neat because it encourages you to spend all of your coins in a way you might not normally. Further, it doesn't need to worry about emptying the Supply because you can only use one in a turn. It is unique as a bad trasher that turns into a good card in a fashion more meaningful than a card like Trade Route. I am worried that the whims of a money spike or poorly timed Estate will give the card a lot of frustration on second shuffles. | ||
| +3 Cards and +1 Buy is a powerful effect evidenced by Margrave's overbearing strength and the comparative reigning in of Tragic Hero and Barge. Merchant Quarter gives a double Pageant instead, which seems better than Barge (you get the draw and Buy first and decide to lose resources later), but not unreasonably so, as paying $2 is similar to discarding 2 cards. Funny Wine Merchant combo. This seems pretty alright. I'd like something more unique. By the bye, if you're trying to touch up Sanitarium's wording, consider "at the start of your Buy phase, if you have no unused Actions, you may..." | ||
| Unless I'm misreading this, Pawnbroker is just wildly better Expand. If you have an +Action, it is Expand (and, because it does not consume your Action for so doing, any other Pawnbrokers in your hand are also Expands), if you don't have an +Action, it is a Night Remodel. Doing anything other than turning everything into Pawnbrokers and then Provinces is surely a losing move. Non-terminal Remodels are pretty strong, so with a smaller bonus for having an Action, this could be good fun. | ||
| Promote is Enhance from play. The ability to both play a card and trash it makes it a fair bit better than Enhance, which explains the cost hike. You can also throw more coins into it to get more value from it. Promoting Coppers requires $5 to get to a $2-cost card and $6 for a $3-cost which is a fairly poor comparison to Trade. Promoting Silvers has to spending $5 to lose a Silver and get the $5-cost you could've bought anyway. Outside of another nice way to trash Actions that have aged out or tossing $4 to turn a $4-cost into a Duchy in the end-game, Promote doesn't seem to have a lot of use cases to keep it sufficiently differentiated from similar Events. | ||
| Only your first 2 Buys are of high value, so being able to generate a few and then start trading them for much more valuable +Actions sounds interesting on the face of it, but in practice it seems like one will struggle to use Shipping Village as a lone source of +Action. Much like Snowy Village, it generates a lot of "+Actions" in itself, but then disables all others, causing other Shipping Villages to be Ruined Libraries. In thinking about it, it bears more than superficial similarities to Snowy Village, and I find it hard to get excited for that reason. | ||
| Sisterhood is a variation of the splitter with a Buy, where it gives anywhere from +3 Actions to +3 Buys (or more) on the player's choice. Shades of Squire, which can also give +Actions or the same number of +Buys. Donald X. has gone on record before that cards that produce a large number of +Buys are trouble for the typically precipitous drop in value of your fourth Buy in a turn, making such cards either expensive when you don't need the +Buys or silly when you can use them. This generally avoids that problem by being able to act as a major splitter in opposite parts to the +Buys it otherwise provides. I personally won't like it because of how small its benefit is for the frustration that +3 Actions beget on a stop-card. I've played with a fair number of such cards and I always end up unhappy for having far too many +Actions when they clump and then far too many terminals because of a shuffle. | ||
| Souk is a Market Square at $4 where its extra ability is to trade 3 Buys for a Gold, as opposed to Worker's Village which just gives +2 Actions. Compared to Worker's Village, it is a small benefit, but it will be bought often enough as a smooth source of +Buy. Proccing its extra ability requires that you generate at least 1 Buy prior to playing the Souk (often playing 2 Souks will be the easiest way to do that), but unless you're getting a fourth +Buy, you're trading your ~5 card hand for that Gold, which is a middling trade. Buying 3 Souks in an attempt to regularly trigger its ability and then actually buy something sounds frustrating. A Souk flood is sure to be weak (5 $4-cost cantrips in a turn to gain 2 Golds), It seems fine. It think it would end up feeling frustrating when betting on whether or not one can generate an Buy to do something with the Golds that earlier turns generated. | ||
| A Workshop with a benefit that permits spending a +Buy to immediately gain an play the gained card (A +Buy for a Lost City, effectively). With a good source of +Buy, this is sure to be a top tier Workshop. It definitely powers up any available cantrip to the nth degree moreso than most Workshops, which makes me worry about piles in games with the likes of Worker's Village or Market Square. With a less consistent source of Buys, it will be a niche effect that could result in frustrating 0 Buy turns. Its ability to play Night cards mid-turn is probably not worth the confusion of being able to "play" Victory cards. Deceptively simple with room for a fair number of tricks and traps. | ||
| Spree is permits you to transfer a Buy which you couldn't make use of a Buy into another turn. In that way, it reminds me of Tactician, but without having its more exciting combos. I think I'd like it better if it played the Copper to help along the deferred Buy, or even provided extra Buys proper with +2 Buys. | ||
| Spyglass is a Silver that gives you a Lost City next turn so long as you are actually consuming those +Actions. A smart design, as the effect naturally encourages building around terminal Actions, and if you ever miss you're left with a bunch of Treasures you can play anyway. Looks like fun. | ||
| A Faithful Hound you have every turn if you want it. Its timing is inspecific, so I assume I can do it at any point during the turn. You can use a leftover Action to get a 6-card hand at Clean-Up or you can use Caravan Guard on another player's turn to draw an extra card. It is so esoteric, it sounds like a mistake, but as I think about it, I kind of like the effect. | ||
| Tomb Robbers is a cantrip that can be powered up into a super-Baker or else is a Pageant. It has an immediately dangerous overpay for Coffers. Donald X. has gone on record that getting lots of Coffers is dangerous, and overpay-for-Coffers is itself really strong. Each Tomb Robbers helps you get to that dangerous threshold where all your Tomb Robbers become Coffers generators that buff each other up. I am immediately leery of such a scaling effect, especially in buffing itself so much. I would like to see how much trouble this is as a near mono-strategy (as it obviously needs +Buys to be able to use the Coffers it generates). For now, I am too scared of the card to okay it. | ||
| Tough Customer lets you buy a Curse for other players, trade an Action for a Villager ala Patron, and Pageant. An Event that gives out Curses would be bad news, and this edges close to that, but it consumes a card and is timely, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. The loss of a Buy will often mean doing little else, which possibly encourages trading your unused resources for Coffers and Villagers. It is a nice low-cost Curser. I might want it to do a little more for the player of it. As it stands, it looks kind of Young Witch levels of bad. | ||
| Wandering Beggar is a complex Duration draw that later gives coins if the preceding player cannot use all of theirs. No tracking issues here as the Wandering Beggar is sitting on the table. If that number ends up regularly being $2 or more, stacking Wandering Beggars will be crazy. If Tradesman is successfully dug out of the pile, it is likely that Wandering Beggar is generating a fair number of coins which will make Tradesman's Buy and poor Coin-to-Coffers conversion more useful. If that were to occur however, I can't imagine that the game isn't accelerated to a degree that will render Tradesman's appearance too late anyway. Wandering Beggar is a cool idea, but its value is primarily derived by one player getting unlucky between spiking coins or wanting buys, when I would prefer it care more about players doing things they want to do anyway. Tradesman is a largely needless complication. | ||
| Woodsman is just Woodcutter. It comes with an In-games-using-this that adds three whole piles of extra cards in the form of an awful splitter, a repeatable Peddler, and a Treasure Improve. Buying a Woodsman in order to access Enchanted Forest is frankly a possibility, and a nice buff for Woodcutter. Often you're trading a $5-cost buy, but you're occasionally getting a better deal than that. I have only mild issues with a card that is simply an upgrade of an existing card, even if that card is cut. I have bigger issues with the amount of complexity, table space, and card space this consumes with the large number of extra cards it employs. I quite like Enchanted Forest: A lovely Peddler variation which works so easily as a non-Supply pile card, and I'd love to see a set leverage such a non-Supply pile card across multiple Kingdom cards (similarly to Horses). It looks like a great evergreen card that multiple cards could gain, even moreso than the comparatively messy Spirit pile. I would look more favorably upon a $4-cost Woodsman that itself gave permission to grab an Enchanted Forest (rather than an in-games-using-this effect). | ||
| Workhouse is a terminal Silver or a super-terminal Gold that can be "overpaid" for Villagers. The wording to permit overpaying for an on-gain effect is beleaguered: I'd just turn the thing into a proper overpay. Other comparable cards would be Embargo and Duchess as terminal payload at $2, which are weak and this is stronger mostly for its on-gain, or Lackeys as a one-time source of Villagers, but this being nothing but coins is probably weaker. I really love your Exhausted state as a mechanism for a set. It is simple and compelling. Workhouse itself I don't like as much. Terminal Silvers are very expensive in terms of +Actions, so unless you're paying at least $3 for its on-gain effect, you're probably not getting much value out of those Villagers other than feeding the Workhouse itself, and even +$2 and +1 Coffers seems bad for $5. |
TaxidermyPlace: Something_Smart's Illicit Workshop
Types: Project
Cost: $3
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.
Illicit WorkshopWin: fika monster's Dilemma
Types: Night
Cost: $4
If you have no $ and no cards in hand, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand.
Dilemma
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards and +1 Action. If you didn't, +4 Actions.
Win: fika monster's DilemmaGreat job judging! I also thought that Dilemma was the best card this week. Congrats Fika monster!Dilemma
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards and +1 Action. If you didn't, +4 Actions.
Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.I sent you a message :)
My favorites (besides mine) are 1) Goods, 2) Spiv, and 3) Sisterhood. Now that I'm looking at them again, I think Sisterhood could cost $2 (compare to Squire which always gives +$1 and has the Silver option, but Sisterhood is more flexible between actions and buys).mandioca15's Spiv was definitely on my shortlist.
I think Dilemma is too strong. Eating an extra action or two is not enough of a drawback for +4 cards and +1 Action IMO, and it doesn't always eat an extra action.
Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Weekly Design Contest #103: X
and replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.can we make a locked (and possibly pinned)thread with the responsibilities of the winner, so it's more clear on what to do?Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Just give the thread a titleCode: [Select]Weekly Design Contest #103: X
and replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.
Doing a write-up on all the cards is not technically required, but users appreciate it. I recommend doing some write-ups throughout the week (and just keep them in a document somewhere) instead of trying to write them all at once. It makes it easier to ensure you catch all of them and makes it easier to keep to the schedule.
It is expected to post a warning somewhere from 36 to 12 hours prior to your final judgment as well.
If it's all too much pressure, you can just let us know and Something_Smart, as runner up, will take the reigns.
This has all gotten more complicated since we chopped the the thread up (noticed no one has ever asked these questions before). I'm still not sure I understand why that was the right idea.It makes it so much easier to find old challenges. Previously, I had to look at one thread for all of the challenges, and it was impossible to find a specific challenge. Now it is much, much easier. (And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
can we make a locked (and possibly pinned)thread with the responsibilities of the winner, so it's more clear on what to do?Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Just give the thread a titleCode: [Select]Weekly Design Contest #103: X
and replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.
Doing a write-up on all the cards is not technically required, but users appreciate it. I recommend doing some write-ups throughout the week (and just keep them in a document somewhere) instead of trying to write them all at once. It makes it easier to ensure you catch all of them and makes it easier to keep to the schedule.
It is expected to post a warning somewhere from 36 to 12 hours prior to your final judgment as well.
If it's all too much pressure, you can just let us know and Something_Smart, as runner up, will take the reigns.
(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
No, but I sometimes want to skip a challenge because I don't care for it much, so going to different threads would make that 100 times easier(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
Back to the general topic, my only concern is that we lose casual users, and casual users are how the thread grows. I understand that I am in the minority and will drop the subject.
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
Back to the general topic, my only concern is that we lose casual users, and casual users are how the thread grows. I understand that I am in the minority and will drop the subject.
Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.
Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.Except that this discussion ruined that :P
oops.
(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)
oops.
(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)
Well, that benefit is in direct opposition to the benefit of "continued discussion of cards after content ends".
So we can have one or the other, but not both. :)
Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.Except that this discussion ruined that :P