1
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #209: Next Time, Last Time
« on: January 20, 2024, 01:21:58 pm »Werewolf only counts because the word "wolf" is in it.
Do Fisherman and Falconer count because they have "fish" and "falcon"?
Werewolf only counts because the word "wolf" is in it.
should have Doom type.
Dracula ($5 Night-Attack-Doom)
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Spirit or Dracula costing up to $1 per Action card you have in play.
Each other player either reveals a Silver from their hand or receives the next Hex.
Pentagon seems too cheap for its strength or to strong for its price
United Nations seems too expensive relative to Citadel.
Concerning my card having to be a Duration, no. It does nothing after Clean-up and everybody should be able to countdown turns.
Security seems awful to track. It's also completely useless in games with no Attacks. The rest of these all seem pretty good.
Also, what makes these different from Charters?
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=gom6cs496p9ieabsivh93kv2i3&topic=21586.msg899037#msg899037
Coronet aka Princess is too good. You'd often rather have an extra Coin than the benefit of whatever Loot and this is just the baseline. With easy Loot gaining and thus enough extra Buys this can easily yield the equivalent of 6 or 8 Coins.
Drat, you're probably right. I'll have a think how to fix it (assuming it's possible).
Coronet aka Princess is too good. You'd often rather have an extra Coin than the benefit of whatever Loot and this is just the baseline. With easy Loot gaining and thus enough extra Buys this can easily yield the equivalent of 6 or 8 Coins.
Just curious. Is there a reason you’re using a new Jargon mat instead of Exile?
It seems weak compared to something like Forager. Maybe it could cost 3 and/or “gain a Loot to your hand,” or something else.
Security seems annoying to track if the opponent is playing multiple Attacks per turn.
Indulgences is very close to turn 1 autoresign territory if you open 2/5 or 3/4 while your opponent opens 4/3 or 5/2, which happens 25% of the time and a separate 25% of the time for the opponent. So basically half the time Indulgences is in the kingdom, one player at random gets to start the game with what's probably an insurmountable advantage.
In terms of the analogy, half of these are like regular Durations, and the other half are like Reserve cards.
In general, i like this idea.Thanks!
Some of these could use some tweaking.
* Espionage should cost more, maybe $4 and come with a penalty like take your -Card token.
* Tourism should cost more, maybe $5. At $4 i'd include take your -$1 token.
* Nepotism: If you have $8, why would you not buy a Province? I'd price it at $7 and instead of two Duchies, i'd go with a Duchy and a card costing up to $3. That way instead of being flooded in Victory cards at the discretion of another player, you can gain another card to provide some balance to your Dominion.
* The others look good as presented.
The second design should be an addition to the Loot pile. This should be a card that might well be included in Plunder - thus, it should not use any expansion-specific mechanics from sets other than Plunder.
Thinking about this, the other "would gain" (Possession) has a problematic interaction here.A vanilla Reaction! Can be a Copper or a Loot! Can protect you against junkers! Lets you buy a Grand Market using Coppers! Is this a good idea? Who knows! (though Hovel does already come close)
Note that the "would gain" phrasing is required to prevent repeated on-gain reactions.
Also, I would suggest getting rid of "would gain" and using the exchange mechanic instead, the way official cards do. Since exchanging is not gaining, that would also prevent repeated reactions.
Thinking about this more I'm concerned that switching to the exchange mechanic nerfs the card too much. Specifically:Furthemore, I slightly prefer triggering the on-gain reaction of the final, gained card. (And note that Possession still has a "would gain" reaction, while Trader had its for 9 years before being changed.)
- You can no longer play multiple Barters against a single gain, making additional Barters act like dead cards
- You can no longer discard a Barter to protect against gaining a Curse or Copper (though this is less big of a deal).
Will stew on it for a bit...
On Possessed turn, possessed player would gain Province
-- Barter and Possession trigger, resolve Barter first, reveal to gain Province
---- Possession and Barter trigger, resolve Barter first, reveal to gain Province
------ (any number of repetitions)
---- resolve Possession, possessing player gains Province
-- resolve Possession, possessing player gain Province
Essentially, whenever the possessed player would gain a card with Barter in hand, the possessing player can gain any number of cards of the same cost.
A vanilla Reaction! Can be a Copper or a Loot! Can protect you against junkers! Lets you buy a Grand Market using Coppers! Is this a good idea? Who knows! (though Hovel does already come close)
Note that the "would gain" phrasing is required to prevent repeated on-gain reactions.
Also, I would suggest getting rid of "would gain" and using the exchange mechanic instead, the way official cards do. Since exchanging is not gaining, that would also prevent repeated reactions.