Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

101

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 21, 2021, 05:22:52 am »

Deadline for Submissions in 24 hours (6:00 am Forum time)

I will post a list of your actual cards soon. Please check if I missed your card or the newest version of it. From now on, please note any changes of your card or cards that haven't been submitted yet below this post. In the case of card changes, please also update your original entry. If you do change your card after this post, please give a link (or reply#) to your original submission.
 

102

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 20, 2021, 06:31:19 am »

Oh sorry if it wasn't clear. It is terminal. You play an Action, and the instead of following its instructions, you play either another Action or a Treasure. Back to the scenario:

Alice's turn:
Alice plays a Moral Panic
(etc.)

Bob's turn:
Bob has 1 action
Bob spends an action to play a Smithy (and now has 0 actions remaining)
Instead of following the instructions on Smithy (+3 cards), Bob plays an Action or Treasure costing up to $3 from the supply.
Bob chooses Silver. Bob plays Silver, which gives him +$2.
Bob has 0 actions remaining (Silver doesn't give +Action)
It doesn't inherently end your Action phase (e.g. you could spend a Villager or call a Coin of the Realm or Royal Carriage)

Okay, thanks. So, I understood it the way it was intended. I don't know where and how I got confused from your previous reply to Moral Panic. So, nothing serious about the text (length and clarity) of Moral Panic on my part.

103

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 20, 2021, 03:57:08 am »

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?

It's not my entry any more, but no it doesn't end your Action phase.

If Alice plays a Moral Panic, and Bob plays a Smithy, he must instead choose from one of the cards costing $3 or less in the supply. He can choose Silver for +$2

I put that in there so $2 and $3 actions don't get completely nullified (they can be played as Copper for +$1).

At any rate, the wording for the Attack alone takes up 7 lines of text.

Okay, thanks for letting me know. So, I misinterpreted the text. I thought playing the first card as a Silver consumes an Action.

I just put the text of your initial submission, Moral Panic into the Card Image Generator. It gives me 8 lines with a slightly smaller font. The 2 lines of the "next turn" instruction can be even separated by a space from the top part to make the text more readable and it still doesn't look too wordy, in the sense that the words are worth the length, if you know what I mean. I dislike the "non-Command, Action or Treasure" part somehow; I think that can/should be slightly changed, though this wouldn't have any effect on my judging anyway.

So, if your only concern with Moral Panic is the length of its text, don't feel obliged to replace it just because of that.

Edit: I just realized that there would be a problem with Moral Panic's text: That playing the first Action card as a Silver is not terminal is not clear from the text and would need some clarification, which likely would make the text more wordy.

104

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 19, 2021, 04:11:40 pm »

I think it's all clear now. Thanks!

Also gambit, to be clear (and hopefully the new wording helps explain this), the Cursing token is like the token from Adventures in that each player has one and it stays on the pile until you buy another Bewitch to move it.

That part was always clear.

105

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 19, 2021, 11:49:38 am »

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?

At the point where they play the Silver, they have already used an Action to play the original card. You are not playing a card "as" anything here, you are using an Action card to play another card (form the supply). So if you started with one Action and played an Action card, using Moral Panic's effect to play a Silver with it, you would end up with 0 Actions.

Yes thanks, this is how I understand the instructions. I just wanted to be sure whether that it is indeed the intention as this makes the Attack stronger than it would otherwise do.

106

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 19, 2021, 11:30:08 am »

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?

107

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 19, 2021, 02:40:03 am »

I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:

Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

(some of you may recognize it from a past contes, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)

Notes:
• It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
• That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
• I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. It would mitigate for starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
• when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variants, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
• I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"

Any feedback / thoughts?

Yes, it qualifies for this entry. It is all about the wording, to make the emulated card Moat-able, but only as long as it is also an Attack card and not when a second copy is played. I don’t care too much about the wording as long as I can interpret the intention based on the card text and any rule clarifications/notes correctly.

As I am replying to this card anyway, I have a question, just to be sure I interpret the instructions indeed correctly: Aside of Action-Night cards (Werewolf) and via “back-to-the-Action phase” cards a la Villa, the Action card with the Curse token is earliest played in the next turn. So, I guess a player could buy Bewitch, place the token on a pile and that token could wait there until the player plays the first copy of that card even if it is like 10 turns later, right? What happens when you replay the same card (exactly the same copy) via Throne Room or Royal Carriage? With other words, is the Attack type attached to the individual copy of a card or (as I interpret it) to the first play only (and thus not Throne-able)?

108

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 15, 2021, 03:51:05 pm »

Hey gambit05: does mountebank count as an attack-with-choice? like, is it still a choice if the choice is a no-brainer that you'd always take if you could?

Yes, Mountebank would count, but I wouldn't give it a high score.

Question: Does the card have to have the "Attack" type? For instance, would Masquerade count, here?

Good question and difficult to answer. For simplicity I would say, Masquerade or any card without the Attack type do not count.
However, if you would label a Masquerade variant with the Attack type and each other player is potentially affected and has the possibility to react to it (Ill-Gotten Gains comes to my mind as being ineligible), I would count such a card.

109

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 15, 2021, 10:02:17 am »

Just in case anyone is annoyed about the strange Font types the Card Image Generator from Violet CLM & Shard of Honor produces nowadays: DunnoItAll has found a simple fix.

Here is the direct link:

https://cors-anywhere.herokuapp.com/https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/

It's a simple click. I've done it 4 days ago and it still works.

110

Weekly Design Contest / Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

« on: February 15, 2021, 04:58:00 am »

Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices

Design a card that allows the player and/or the opponents to choose between different options.

Example for a player’s choice: Werewolf. A player can use it for drawing or for attacking the other players. This is in my opinion a clever design that combines two seemingly unrelated aspects: Helping your own play versus affecting the play of the other players.

Example for opponent’s choice: Torturer. The attacked players have to decide whether they get junked or whether they start their next turn with a reduced number of cards in their hand. I like the English phrase “caught between a rock and a hard place” to describe the concept of Torturer, although the German phrase (literal translation) “having to choose between plaque and cholera” isn’t bad either.

Giant wouldn’t count in this contest as it doesn't give choices, but rather alternates between attacking and not attacking via the Journey token.


Criteria for judging your cards

Interaction and fun: Don’t create the most brutal attack the Dominion world has ever seen, but rather try to find a clever way that gives the players something to think about. It doesn’t matter much if your card will be dominating games as long as there is a high player interaction. Fun in connection with attack can be sort of misleading, but coming back to the official cards that I have mentioned above: It is fun (for me) to have a card that can be used as an engine component a la Werewolf, but if desired (or forced) for some reason, can be also used to interfere with the game flow of the player’s opponents. In the case of Torturer it is fun (game-wise) to see how the attacked players decide on which pill is less bitter to swallow.

Concept: Probably the major criterion of my judgement. A card that offers a clever and novel concept will score well. If for example just its cost is out of place, it will score better than a well-priced card with an apparently boring concept. Of course, in the end a clever card without flaws (if I am able to find them) will beat a clever card with some flaws, even if minor.

Balance: I try my best to evaluate your card in this respect, but I will probably only figure out whether cards are way too powerful or clearly too weak and not any subtleties. If during the (hopefully upcoming) discussion of your card, someone points out an overwhelming interaction with just one or two official cards, don’t worry. If it is however very likely that hyper-strong combos with official cards are available in a lot of games, better think about some changes of your card.

Text length: Don’t create a card with a wall of text if not necessary. Giving choices comes with a certain text length, but don’t exaggerate it. Don’t misunderstand me here. If you design a clever concept that needs 8 lines of text and every word is worth it and needed, so be it and there will be no penalty for this. However, if you just put a bunch of random options together, resulting in 7 lines of text for example, it will definitely get minus points.

Flavor: Not much to say about this. Just coming back to the examples of the official cards: Torturer has a nice flavor, fitting very well to the card instructions. Werewolf's flavor is to do something productive as a normal person (a blacksmith apparently) during the day and transforming to something evil in the Night.


Submission and deadline

The newest version of your card should be at the top of your first entry (not counting your replies to cards of other people of course). It is helpful when you mention changes of your card in later replies that are related to your card design. If I don’t understand the mechanics of your card and nobody else asked, I will ask about this. If I think your card is not eligible for this contest, I will let you know. Don’t hesitate to ask if something is unclear about the requirements of this contest round.

Depending on the number of entries, the number of late card changes/submissions and things that happen in my real life outside of Dominion, I will give a 24 hours warning in about 6 days (Sunday, 21st February). Then I probably need quite some time for the evaluation of your cards after closure of the card submissions. As it has become a helpful habit, I will list your card submissions sometimes around the warning message for submissions. So, in your own interest, please check it in about 6 days.

111

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 15, 2021, 04:18:10 am »

Thank you very much for judging all those cards, and of course, picking Musketeer as the winner of this contest round.

I am looking forward to the next round, which will be about Attack cards. I am just in the process of preparing the text for it and will soon post it in a new, separate thread.

112

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion Card Image Generator

« on: February 11, 2021, 01:54:40 am »

I don't know if it is of any help (I am no expert), but I noticed a few things:

- When I open the Card Image Generator, and the correct Fonts are not displayed, in the legend (bottom left) some symbols are displayed in upper case (usually they are in lower case). This is easily visible for the @ Symbol for Debt, which is an encircled "A" instead of "a" when it doesn't work properly.

- In Windows with the Chrome Browser, when I right click inside the generator (outside any text fields) and then go to "Inspect", in the following window near the top right corner, there is a red circle (with a cross and a 3 next to it). When I click on it, I get the following information:

Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 403 (Forbidden) etc...

The three failures are all related to Font types. The problem appears to be to load the required sources.

113

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 08, 2021, 03:54:52 pm »

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

Is it really like that?
Imagine the following scenario: Early phase of a game with 3 players and each player already gained one Musketeer. On each section of the Musketeer mat is 1 token (starting condition).

Now player A plays their Musketeer. More often then not they will choose the Peddler option (i.e. they do not take any of the single tokens from the mat). Player A then adds a token to the mat. If Coffers are clearly more valuable than Villagers or Horses, they will add it to one of the latter sections, say Horses. Then player B plays their Musketeer. Again, it will be often better to use the Peddler option. Where does player B add the token? Villager section I would say. Now player C plays their Musketeer. It could be worth now to take the 2 Villagers (maybe they already had enough $ collected for their purchase). However, if player C doesn’t take any tokens from the mat, where do they add their token now?

In summary, if a certain type of token is clearly more valuable than the others (all of you think it is Coffers) then players will add tokens to the other sections of the mat. At a certain point, several Villagers or Horses should become more valuable than a single Coffers most of the time.

I missed the fact that the mat is communal instead of personal (and I think segura and faust probably didn't realize that either). Ignore my previous comment.

Well, if it is true that the criticism is based on the assumption that each player has their own mat then it is my fault to not explicitly point out that it is a communal mat. The basic concept is floating around in my head for years now and with that in mind I always saw one single (virtual) mat and just didn't realised that it could be in a different way.

114

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Another Mechanic from my 2nd expansion

« on: February 08, 2021, 03:45:10 pm »

I think too much is going on, especially with the King. I would simplify them, e.g.:

King $6 – Action +$3 Choose one: +$1 per 1 VP on your    Descendancy mat; or Exile a Queen    from the Supply. At the start of Clean-up, for each pair of King and Queen you have in play,  add 1 VP to your Descendancy mat.

Queen $6 – Action - Duration +$3 +2 Cards +1 Action At the start of your next turn,    +$1 per Queen you have in Exile.

I am not sure whether this is balanced (maybe it can be adjusted by different costs or minor additions), but I feel it looks much simpler and thus easier to play.
I think you don't need the dividing line in the text of King.

115

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 07, 2021, 05:05:07 pm »

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

Is it really like that?
Imagine the following scenario: Early phase of a game with 3 players and each player already gained one Musketeer. On each section of the Musketeer mat is 1 token (starting condition).

Now player A plays their Musketeer. More often then not they will choose the Peddler option (i.e. they do not take any of the single tokens from the mat). Player A then adds a token to the mat. If Coffers are clearly more valuable than Villagers or Horses, they will add it to one of the latter sections, say Horses. Then player B plays their Musketeer. Again, it will be often better to use the Peddler option. Where does player B add the token? Villager section I would say. Now player C plays their Musketeer. It could be worth now to take the 2 Villagers (maybe they already had enough $ collected for their purchase). However, if player C doesn’t take any tokens from the mat, where do they add their token now?

In summary, if a certain type of token is clearly more valuable than the others (all of you think it is Coffers) then players will add tokens to the other sections of the mat. At a certain point, several Villagers or Horses should become more valuable than a single Coffers most of the time.

116

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 07, 2021, 03:57:46 pm »

Gambit, you may want to clarify in the OP that there is only one communal Musketeer Mat for all players, as that wasn't immediately obvious (to me at least).

Thanks! Haven't thought about that. Though, I guess the criticism is unrelated to that.

117

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 07, 2021, 03:54:16 pm »

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

118

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 07, 2021, 03:40:02 pm »

It's a really neat idea to have "horse tokens"!  When you exchange the tokens, are the Horses going into your discard pile as normal or into your hand?

Thanks! As is, it is intended to discard the Horses. Without other changes of the card, gaining them to hand is probably too strong.

All for one and one for all. - Alexandre Dumas

I'm not sure this will work out as you intend.

It is rather penalising to take the tokens as you don't get the Peddler effect - so you want to do it as little as possible. The tokens that benefit most from being stockpiled are Coffers. So in the large majority of cases, I think it will be best to stockpile Coffers and cash in once at the end.

Used this way, Musketeer is like a super-Baker; you get the cash now AND the Coffers. That is a bit too strong for the price point, and also kind of boring. If you want the other tokens to be more usable, then I think it needs to be easier to retrieve them.

I honestly disagree.
First of all, there are Kingdoms with a scarce source of Actions in which Villagers become more  valuable than Coffers. Then there are some Kingdoms that have enough of other $-payload sources, but no good drawing cards and Horses may become more valuable.

Secondly, don’t forget that players don’t start with a perfect deck with which they can chain their Musketeers from the beginning on just like they want. They first have to build such decks. Also keep in mind while building such decks, other, maybe stronger $5 cost cards are around and for sure compete. Anyway, when a player plays their first Musketeer, it is usually not worth to use the token taking option. So they add something to the mat, and usually they will leave something there that is less valuable for the opponents. But hey, after a while, maybe it is worth to take 3 Villagers, especially when a player has a couple of terminal Action cards in hand, but no Actions left (e.g. one Action is lost by playing the Musketeer this way, but 3 Actions are gained). Maybe, the Musketeer is the last Action card in hand, and the player has just enough $ for the next purchase, either by playing it as a Peddler (and then adding a token to the mat), or already before playing it and then they take some Horses or whatever is on the mat.

Thirdly,

It is rather penalising to take the tokens as you don't get the Peddler effect - so you want to do it as little as possible.

That was my intention. It avoids too much craziness with every single Musketeer play, but in my opinion has still enough potential left for gaining a couple of precious tokens.

Used this way, Musketeer is like a super-Baker; you get the cash now AND the Coffers.

Maybe, I miscalculated something, but here is an example: A player plays 3 Bakers. They get 3 Coffers, +$0 and have +1 Action. A player plays 3 Musketeers, the first two add a Coffers to the mat, the last one collects. They get 2 Coffers, +$2, no Action left. Is that a super Baker? Edit: And to come to that point, Musketeer likely runs before as a $5 cost Peddler.

Finally, I am not saying that this is the best version possible. There is for sure enough potential to improve the mechanic. By the way, thanks for calling this concept boring.

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

119

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #104: Raise the Ceiling

« on: February 07, 2021, 10:50:17 am »

My Submission:

Musketeer $5 – Action Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action and +$1; or take         all Coin tokens from one of the          sections of the Musketeer mat. Either way, add a Coin token to a section of the Musketeer mat of your choice.

Musketeer mat Setup (before a game starts): Add 1 token to each section. When tokens are taken from the mat during the game: Horse section (left): Exchange for a Horse. Coffers section (top right): Move to your Coffers mat. Villager section (bottom right): Move to your Villagers mat. Edit: The Musketeer mat is shared by all players.

All for one and one for all. - Alexandre Dumas

120

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New Weekly Contest: Fan Card Mechanics

« on: February 05, 2021, 11:48:34 am »

My Submission:

Shrine $2 Action – Reaction +1 Action You may discard a card, for +1 Worshipper. ------------------------- When another player plays      an Attack card, you may first       play this from your hand.

121

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest

« on: January 22, 2021, 05:30:19 am »

This is an oldie but I think it is neat for a promo. On the surface it is a more expensive Harem with variable Coin/VP values, so it will be immediately familiar. Strategically it plays different though, being perhaps most similar to Fairgrounds.

It's main downside is that due to the "modern" prevalence of engines, Province play (this does after all cost as much as Province, if there is just one further Treasure or Victory Kingdom card) is often the dominant strategy. A non-variable price, most likely $6, could be a necessary buff.

As this is almost always at least as good as Harem (you only need one other Treasure in play and one other VP card in your deck to make it +$2+2VP), it shouldn't have a fixed cost of $6 IMO.
If you want to make the price non-variable, I'd suggest $7 (which is also the price it currently has when there's no other extra Treasure or VP piles in the kingdom, and no empty piles.) But it may also be fine as is.

It is very had to say. LastFootnote has argued that Harem could very well cost $5. I like the variable price because it creates a relationship between the cost and the power of the card and am going to stick with it but if it is too weak $7 is, as you have said, likely the best first shot at a fixed price.

I don't know whether the card as is has a reasonable cost on various boards, but I would like to say that the idea is brilliant. I've thought a lot in the past couple of months about different ways to create cards with variable costs. This one easily beats all of them.

 

122

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest

« on: January 12, 2021, 11:03:49 am »

My Submission:

Unicorn $8* Action +4 Cards Gain a Horse. -------------------------- When you buy this, you may Exile an Action card other      than a Unicorn from your hand      to pay $1 less per $1 it costs.

123

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: January 08, 2021, 02:32:53 pm »

I would start simple. Then it is helpful to look at the wording of official cards and to avoid random capitalisation of words.

A simple start would be:
"Exile an Action card from your hand. Gain a cheaper Spirit from one of the Spirit piles."

Then one can think whether "from one of the Spirit piles" is really necessary. It is the official wording of Exorcist, but wording changes over time and tends to get shorter.

More importantly, concept-wise, one can also think about whether allowing to Exile Treasures, which would then be "Exile a non-Victory card..." 

If that all looks interesting, you may add more or, usually better, leave it as it is and think about the cost.

124

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: January 07, 2021, 09:52:47 am »

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

A bit shorter wording: "....During Clean-Up draw 1 card less; then put one of the Wishes into your hand."

125

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: January 07, 2021, 03:11:11 am »

I like it! I think it should cost $3.