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.

51

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #6: Cornucopia

« on: December 05, 2013, 08:19:54 pm »

Scarecrow
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +2 Actions. Reveal your hand. Discard duplicate cards one at a time until you have no duplicate cards in hand.

Good to see this guy getting some love. When I first saw it, I was worried it might be too strong: so what if I have to discard a bunch of Coppers and some Estates ad even a Silver or two, I'm cycling my deck and drawing my Attack cards more often than you are, and because of the +2 Actions I'm not gonna draw them dead.
But now that I've thought about it some more, the discard would make this very difficult to use by midgame, on the vast majority of boards. It really is the anti-Menagerie: you want these when you just have a few strong terminals in your deck, but it becomes a liability later on.

Showman
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Reveal a card from your hand, then reveal the top card of your deck. If they don't match, +1 Card and +$1.

Like Showdown said, it is thematically a fantastic card. It is simple and fits Cornucopia's theme. Plus I always like the guessing type cards in Wishing Well, Mystic, etc. One of my favorites.

I like it too, and I'll vote for it, but there is an interesting difference between it and the existing 'name a card' crowd. With Wishing Well and Mystic, you wouldn't build a strategy around drawing a bunch of guessed cards (even though they combo with Scout!). Either you count cards and name the most likely thing in your deck to play the averages, or guess the card that would most improve your hand in that situation. Conversely, here you have a very good chance of guessing the wrong card, so it's just a smidgen strictly worse than a Peddler. What gives me pause is that the probability of it whiffing is small enough that it won't really affect your overall strategy, but when it does it's because you drew it with 4 Coppers or something else outside your control.

52

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Template for Photoshop v2.1

« on: December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 pm »

Totally kidding, I'm glad to make a card for anyone! I'll even try to match your card with a nice piece of art if you don't have one picked out!

Just PM or email me (in the template readme), include the card specs, and a link or file for your art (if you have any) and the artists name when possible. I can PM or email you back with the .psd file (photoshop file) or the card as a .png or .jpg, or pretty much any picture file format you wish. All I ask is a simple Thank You in return!

PMed the simple thank you already but once more so everyone can see: OP delivers! He even found the image, which fits the one I had picked out, but looks way more like official card art.

53

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Template for Photoshop v2.1

« on: November 30, 2013, 08:34:16 pm »

Ooh, it looks like these files work with Gimp, in case anybody was interested.

Also, a question: for those of us who don't have the time to learn basic Photoshop skills, what's your policy on commissions?

54

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: November 25, 2013, 03:10:22 pm »

Yeah, but I still promised some of them a +1.

55

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: November 25, 2013, 01:02:55 pm »

Soo, are the other four finalists gonna be outed?

56

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #6: Cornucopia

« on: November 21, 2013, 03:03:11 pm »

I don't think having showman in the same set as tournament is a good idea. Both have +1 Action, if __, +1 Card, +$1. I think a $5 card would fit into the set better, and my favorite of those is raffle. But even that has some major problems, like OPness and bad flavor. Here's what I suggest to change it to if it wins:

Trinket Show
Action - $5
+1 Action
Play any number of treasure cards from your hand. Draw until you have 4 cards in your hand.

I think it should definitely be nerfed to 'draw up to four cards in hand' but keep the restriction to differently named treasures. If that makes it a $4 card, then we can do that. As for the name, "Money Changer" would be super thematic both for the card and for Cornucopia's festival setting, but it might be confusing next to Moneylender. The thesaurus was unhelpful, and any historical synonym I might find would probably just be the Italian word for money changer.

57

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #A: Prize Card

« on: November 20, 2013, 10:37:43 pm »

Just getting my two cents in here. The cards I don't like have all been pretty unpopular, so I can just cover the ones I find particularly interesting.

Favour
Types: Action – Prize
Cost: $0*
You may return this to the Prize pile. If you do, +5 Cards and trash any number of cards from your hand.

I should just say up front that I want the new Prize card to be a one-shot, and I'd be really happy if it helped someone catch up if they're behind. Both Tournament and the prize cards are very good at helping a small lead snowball into a huge one, but none of them are very nice to the player who didn't get the Province first. Here, if a junked player manages to win a tournament, he can get back in the game with one play of this guy. Even if he comes late to the Prize party, there's a good chance it's been gained and returned. Besides the opportunities for catch-up, I like that you have a chance of a good prize being available throughout the entire game.

Some people are pretty sure it's too strong, even for a one-shot. I don't know either way, but I think it could be easily fixed by tweaking the numbers: either reduce to +4 cards, or cap the number of cards trashed to 4-5, or perhaps both. Even if you're worried about it, this looks to me like the purest case of 'vote now, tweak later' that we've seen so far.

Wizard
Types: Action – Prize
Cost: $0*
If this is the first Action card you played this turn, +3 Cards and +1 Action. Otherwise, +1 Card and +3 Actions.

This guy I like, but I don't see it as all that terrifying to be a Kingdom card. Judging from the name, the designer might have tried it out as a potion-cost card, and I think that's the perfect place for it. It's viable at $3P, and I doubt it'd be game-breaking if it dropped down to $2P. I want to see this in the Alchemy contest.

Magic Lamp
Types: Action – Prize
Cost: $0*
Gain an Action card costing up to $4. Play it.

Just echoing earlier comments; this card adds something new to the prizes and adds something unique to the game, but it should be made into a cantrip in order to make the power comparable with the other prizes. Luckily I think we could get some sort of consensus on this.

58

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #6: Cornucopia

« on: November 20, 2013, 04:58:07 pm »

Field
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one of each differently named card revealed into your hand. Discard the rest.

I know there are a lot of terminal draw cards, but I really like how simple and thematic this is. Come to think of it, Cornucopia doesn't have a terminal draw (outside Followers, which I don't count), so this could easily be a worthy addition.

Cornucopia is a small set, so it's kinda supposed to have a different distribution of cards than a standalone. It's a good card, but my thought is still that if it wins, fully half of our winning cards will have been 'terminal draw with limited filtering'. +1s to the designer, but I'm not gonna vote for it for that reason alone. Sorry. 

Storyteller
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. If this is the first time you played a Storyteller this turn, +1 Action.
While this is in play, when you play an Action card that you don't already have a copy of in play, +1 Action.

Clarification: The first Storyteller you play only gives you +1 Action, not +2 Actions, because it wasn't in play when you played it.

I like LFN's idea of simply making it a cantrip itself. Certainly makes it easier. Plus 2nd Storyteller just plain sucks if it is a terminal +1 Card. I really like the idea though! One of my favorites.

Think about what would happen if you played four Storytellers in a row, followed by a Smithy or Hunting Grounds, and then get back to me.

I wouldn't be opposed to making it a cantrip if the effect was edited to "If you have a Storyteller in play . . .", but that would still take out a lot of the excitement in the card. Buy or gain a bunch of Storytellers so you can play one every turn, and if they collide then spam them until you get to your strong terminals (most of which will now be strong non-terminals). It  looks like the designer thought hard about this one, and I wouldn't fiddle with anything that looks important.

Harvest Queen
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Set aside any number of differently named Action cards from your hand. Play them in any order.

This looks intense. I like the Tactician interaction, but am I right in saying this is basically a village that gives +? Actions for each different action card? A $5 card that only gives +Actions doesn't sound that great. Any thoughts on that?

'Interaction' seems like kind of an understatement. Black Market has an interaction with Tactician; this card could be scary. Golem is the only card in the game that can trigger multiple Tacticians in a single turn, and it requires a lot of luck to do so, and it costs $4P.
Aside from that, it seems disingenuous to say it only gives +Actions, when it gives you exactly as many actions as you as you would need to play a bunch of terminals. Harvest a Harvest Queen and some terminal draw, and you could play a megaturn without villages or nonterminal cards. This is a card where you want terminals to collide, and it allows you to build decks which couldn't really exist before. I feel like the cost might work, but it would be a whole lot safer at $6.

That's it for now! Stay tuned to hear my opinions on Scarecrow and Showman.

59

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #A: Prize Card

« on: November 13, 2013, 04:48:45 pm »

I agree with the sentiment, although there's one Treasure- and one Attack-Prize versus four Actions -- I don't think vetoing entire types is helpful at all.
However, there's currently zero Treasure-Attacks: that's a type people want to see, but there aren't many non-stacking attacks you can put on a silver (that is, if you don't want Militia to look stupid in comparison).
Also, Renovate/Fortress can't autopile if there's no Renovate pile to begin with!

60

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #A: Prize Card

« on: November 11, 2013, 09:48:47 pm »

I really think that we should have a "rule" that 5 prizes are chosen randomly to play with each game.  ("Rule" in quotes because obviously it can't be enforced, people will play however they want, but I think it should be the standard.)  If we make a sixth prize and make all six prizes available in every game with Tournament, then either we make the prize weak enough so as not to overshadow Followers and Trusty Steed, in which case it doesn't affect the game much, or it's a competitor for Followers and Trusty Steed, in which case Tournament gets a buff that I think we can all agree it really doesn't need.  On the other hand, if we pick five randomly each game from however many we end up with total, then Tournament gets a bit of a nerf, which is nice, and more variety from game to game, which is fun and interesting.

  This. The more we throw in, the more games we get without Trusty Steed in the prize pile, and that I'm all in favor of.

That being said, I think it makes sense to have more than one winner, and to choose the number of winners based on how the votes fall and how many extra slots are left of the 150 cards.  (For example if the top cards are like 20 votes for A, 18 votes for B, then 9 votes for C and D, then everything else less than 9 votes, and we only have three slots left, probably you wouldn't call C or D a winner because there's a clear gap between second and third place, plus it's a tie for third, so you would just have two prizes and an extra blank card.)  Of course then there's kind of an awkward pause for second place potential winners, where they have to wait until the end of the entire contest before finding out if their prize wins.  Maybe it would be better to just declare some number of winners based on the votes, and let that determine how many victory cards are allowed in the set.

  That's a possibility, but I don't see any implementation of that going over well. If the cutoff depends on the actual votes after they're counted, then there's no way to keep it from feeling capricious or arbitrary. What I'd be in favor of (and actually something I'd like to see for all the contests) is to have the second place card get commemorated as well. Nothing fancy, but when we put up the card list on a sticky, post the winner and the Honorable Mention next to it.

  I guess I really should've started a new thread for this, but every contest since Hinterlands has been incredibly close, and we've seen a lot of ties. In several of those contests, the second place finisher would have a serious handicap if it was submitted again. I'm warming up to Observatory, but it still doesn't look to good when compared with Mortuary, which has already won. Renovate is a really good card with one really bad interaction, and the cleanest way to fix it would be to make it into a Duration or something similar. But since Recycle won the Seaside contest, nobody's going to give the last Seaside slot to another Duration (or just gain-to-hand) Remodel variant. It's going to be kind of a big deal now that we're seeing the one-shot contests, which are also going to be the most popular. Once the losing cards have no chance of winning any more contests, voting will get even more contentious.

  It's no big deal in the long run, and there's no need to decide until after the contest winners are posted, but the 2-3 top cards each round have consistently been of equal quality. If the second place cards can't make it into the box, they should still be recognized.

61

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: November 10, 2013, 09:28:13 pm »

I wonder if Prefecture would still be strong enough if, instead of being worth the flat 2VP, it got the more interesting VP clause from Landlord.

I don't think every card needs to be IGG. Prefecture is a very well-thought out action card, and one of the consequences of its construction is that it needs to be typed Action-Victory; the exact value doesn't matter. Similarly, Landlord is an alt-VP with a unique scoring mechanism, and the best way to make that viable in a game is for the card itself to give you some utility in alt-VP rushes. I think fusing them together would not only be a waste of one really good card, but also make the result a little bloated.

62

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #A: Prize Card

« on: November 08, 2013, 08:00:23 pm »

I'm hoping Palanquin makes an appearance. It sounded like a really fun card, just a little too scary in large quantities.

63

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Can we have another one of these?

« on: November 08, 2013, 01:40:16 pm »

Honestly, given the initial response on the Seaside and Intrigue ballots, I'm guessing other people were getting bored or burned out as well. Going on hiatus for a week or so each month might be best, especially since all the cards are going to have two rounds of voting.

64

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Can we have another one of these?

« on: November 05, 2013, 10:23:48 pm »

Figured this might be the spot to type this up instead of within one of the mini-set design contest threads.

I am going to try and bring this up tactfully and respectfully as I don't want to step on toes. The first thing to say is thanks to LastFootnote for all the work he has done thus far. Very appreciative of the time and energy he has put into this thus far. The second thing to say is that if he wants to continue running this contest, he should absolutely be able to do so.

However, from the appearance of this contest completely stalling out over the last few weeks I am wondering if he might either some to help or someone to take over. Lastfootnote hasn't posted anywhere on the forums since he posted the cards for Intrigue. As a result we are left wondering what the next steps are and when they are going to happen. My hope is that Lastfootnote is okay and just taking an extended break and will be back shortly. If not, however, I don't think we should just let the contest disappear and with his permission perhaps find someone to help in the process or take over the process.

I don't have a specific candidate in mind. Unfortunately I can't volunteer myself. That is a discussion to be had after LF and the rest of us determine if he is coming back and if we want to continue it if he isn't.

Again, thanks to LF for all the work thus far. I hope you are doing well and hope to see you back on the forums if at all possible.

If he's super busy or actually burnt out, he's probably not going to be browsing the forum to see this. Send him a PM, so he gets an email notification, and just say you're willing to cover the next few contests. Alternately, ask him to make a burner account and give it moderator privileges, and then PM the password to an appointee of his choosing.

65

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 28, 2013, 06:36:04 pm »

Wait, why is everyone revealing their cards now if there is still another round of voting?

Also, while prices can be changed, I prefer having them be part of the submissions. It's nice to have a suggested price for each card, rather than try to figure out what the price of each card should be. That would be a headache. Also, sometimes the price is important because it highlights self-interaction (or lack thereof).

Again, even if we don't know the exact cutoff we still have a good idea of what cards made it to the final round. It's essentially the same list as before, but now LFN can take the top five, nine, or eleven cards to the next round. If your card got eight votes or less, I don't think there's any danger in talking about it. I like the secret histories better when they're spread out, rather than getting them all posted on the same day.


Now that voting's over, I guess I'll give my opinion on the top five.

Landlord - 16 (5.8%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.
Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

Yes. It's an alt-VP that's powerful enough to force rushes, but I like this better than Silk Road or Duke. Because those cards power up with the amount of green in your deck, you get penalized for losing the SR/Duchy split, above and beyond the raw point value of each card. If you split the Tunnels or Islands 2-6, you're down (6-2)*2=8 points, while losing the Duchy split 2-6 in a Duke game makes it impossible to win, even if you contest the Dukes and buy a bunch of Provinces. Giving you points for having more points than your opponent is a really stupid bonus, and I like this card because it synergizes with itself without falling into that trap. It's worth the same amount of points for each player, and it gives you more utility in a clogged deck. I would be very happy if this won.

Overseer - 13 (4.7%)
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Put a marker on an empty District of the Overseer Mat. If you put it on the…
Residential District, +1 Card and +2 Actions
Craftsmen's District, +3 Cards
Commercial District, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1
Industrial District, gain a card costing up to $4
Logging District, +1 Buy and +$2
If four districts of the mat have a marker, remove all the markers.

Rules Clarification: There is one communal Overseer mat, split into the five districts.

Already given my opinion. I'll vote for it in a future contest, if it gives a useful flat bonus and switches to randomizer cards instead of a mat. Heck, I'll vote for any card that makes the randomizers useful.

Prefecture - 13 (4.7%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card. If you do, put it and one other revealed card into your hand. Discard the rest.
Worth 2 VP.

 

Homestead - 10 (3.6%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.
Worth 1 VP.

Yes and yes. I seem to be unique in that I like both of them, and I actually like Homestead a bit more. It'd be fun to see what sort of decks people would make if Homestead was the only village, but it is worrying that you might have to shuffle multiple times a turn.

Monastery - 10 (3.6%)
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $6. For each $1 over $4 it costs, each other player may choose one: he trashes a card from his hand; he gains up to 2 Coppers, putting them into his hand; he discards his hand and draws 5 cards.

Not feeling it, sorry. The concept is fine, but the options are way goofier than they need to be. "Draw a card; or trash up to two cards from your hand" would have made me happy, but as is, it just feels bloated. Maybe make the trashing better and toss the second option?

66

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 27, 2013, 02:39:01 am »

Yeah, the conversation's been interesting, but maybe we should start talking about another card. Ironmonger is reliable because it always gives you the cantrip and the filtering (and because you can spam them until the variable bonus becomes reliable). With this guy, giving a flat +1 action on top would be lunacy, but it needs a good flat bonus that'll tempt you to put it in your deck, even as a 40% terminal. "Gain a coin token' feels right to me; if we switch from the mat to using randomizer cards, I'll vote for this in the Guilds contest.

"Setup: Lay the randomizers for Village, Smithy, Workshop, Peddler, and Woodcutter in the center of the board. These are the District cards."

I think you already know where to go from here   

This would require owning Base and Prosperity, which is probably not ok for an Intrigue-themed Treasure Chest card.

getting warmer . . . You might not own Base if you own Cornucopia. That's why Young Witch doesn't say "Setup: Add Moat to the supply". Any time you have the temptation to reference a specific card, there's a dominiony and an undominiony way to proceed.

67

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 23, 2013, 07:16:56 pm »

I think Overseer would work best as 5 cards (which is how many spare slots the set will have), with each effect being on one of the cards.

Like this:
Overseer
Action - $4
If there are 4 or more district cards face down, flip them all face up.
Choose a face up district card, follow the instructions on it

Then on each card would be, for example "+3 cards, flip this card face down"

"Setup: Lay the randomizers for Village, Smithy, Workshop, Peddler, and Woodcutter in the center of the board. These are the District cards."

I think you already know where to go from here   

68

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Proposal for future rounds

« on: October 23, 2013, 05:25:35 pm »

  Back to the OP's idea, I'm in favor. It would be nice for the people who wrote the bizarre 'choose one' cards to explain how the options fit together, because a lot of them are inscrutable. (If it keeps people from submitting a random assortment of bonuses disguised as an idea, so much the better.) If a card is interesting but broken, it would be nice to frame the discussion in terms of the degree of the tweaks we can make without changing it to a different card entirely. This was the problem with Hinterland from the second contest, which had the silliest implementation of a cool idea. More text to wade through is a dangerous idea, but I think if it limited to 140 characters, and only allowed for cards that don't already require rule clarifications, it'll be bearable.

  That being said, I disagree about Tilller: I think the price was reasonable, but just writing an interaction on the card doesn't automatically make it interesting. The worst card your opponent can pick is the most expensive one Remodel could've given you, so you lose all the flexibility but retain plenty of the strength, especially since it expands $5 cards. It's terrible at getting rid of copper, yeah, but so is Remodel.
You know what card your opponent will name in every conceivable situation, so you're only going to play it when he doesn't have a choice: you might as well write "Trash a card costing more than this. If you do, gain a Province." It'll get the same amount of play as Tiller (provided there's no $7), and it's still viable at $4, but I don't find it interesting.

69

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Proposal for future rounds

« on: October 23, 2013, 01:32:09 pm »

Honestly, I don't really think that explicitly stating the concept of each card helps anymore than just a reminder that we are voting on the concept of the card and not the card itself.  Plus, it means there's a lot more text to read; it already takes quite a while to read through all the submissions.  Furthermore, I feel like a lot of cards (maybe most cards?) are such that their concept is best expressed by the card itself; often times reading the concept in addition to the actual card text is just redundant.

Also, as I and others have pointed out, Tiller is not strictly worse than Remodel.  With no $7's on the board, it can turn $5's into Provinces, and with no $4's on the board, it can turn $2's into $5's.

... You realize Tiller is a $4?

You realize Supply piles do not contain an infinite number of cards?
Also Black Market

70

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 22, 2013, 05:06:27 pm »

Number of responses has gone up to 32. Sounds like LF granted the lazy folk a reprieve.

It is ironic that people who don't spend hours on an online forum are called "lazy" here and "busy" in the outside world.

Pshh. We all know what's really important in life. 

In other news, Landlord has overtaken Overseer for first place, and Majordomo's gotten some love.

71

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 22, 2013, 12:23:37 am »

Number of responses has gone up to 32. Sounds like LF granted the lazy folk a reprieve.

72

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 21, 2013, 06:03:40 pm »

I don't know why Overseer go so many votes. I'm not so fond of it, mainly because I find it's a bit too much going on for one card, as well as the choices all being rather boring.

It seems pretty divisive. Some people love it, others hate it.

Also remember that we're voting more based on ideas than exact implementations. While it isn't the most complete card, I think people are excited about the possibilities for how it could be tweaked.

   It's a complete card and well thought out, and I don't think it would be a good idea to try and spice it up. I think the main problem is that it's not on theme. Having a communal board where you're vying for control in order to make your cards better could be fun, but mechanically it's more like a different boardgame than any Dominion expansion. It's not adding a new card to the list of Dominion fan cards, it's adding a whole new component to the game of Dominion which will only interact with one card out of 200. Coin tokens would be the only analogue for this in the official expansions: every other component is just an organizational tool or a visual reminder of something that your card did for you.
The card is interesting and provokes a competitive interaction without giving the first player too much of an advantage, and the author is going to get plenty of upvotes next week. I just don't feel it's right for the contest.


   If you don't want to look through the list to figure out what the finalists are, here they are. LFN said the top 5-10 cards would make the cut, which means the threshold is most likely eight votes.

Overseer - 12 (5.9%)
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Put a marker on an empty District of the Overseer Mat. If you put it on the…
Residential District, +1 Card and +2 Actions
Craftsmen's District, +3 Cards
Commercial District, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1
Industrial District, gain a card costing up to $4
Logging District, +1 Buy and +$2
If four districts of the mat have a marker, remove all the markers.

Rules Clarification: There is one communal Overseer mat, split into the five districts.

Landlord - 11 (5.4%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.
Worth 1 VP per empty Supply pile.

   

Prefecture - 9 (4.4%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card. If you do, put it and one other revealed card into your hand. Discard the rest.
Worth 2 VP.

Monastery - 8 (3.9%)
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $6. For each $1 over $4 it costs, each other player may choose one: he trashes a card from his hand; he gains up to 2 Coppers, putting them into his hand; he discards his hand and draws 5 cards.

   

Homestead - 8 (3.9%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. Reveal cards from the top of your deck unti you reveal a Victory card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.
Worth 1 VP.

Observatory - 8 (3.9%)
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed a Victory card, put all the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, discard them.

   

Nouveau Riche - 8 (3.9%)
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may discard an Estate. If you do, +3 Cards. You may discard a Duchy. If you do, +$2. You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action.

Clarification: It should be clear from the wording here, but you don't choose between these three options. You choose whether or not to do each in order.

Dungeon - 8 (3.9%)
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
Worth 1 VP per $ in the cost of the cheapest card in your deck (in Coins).

   

If the cutoff is seven votes, then there's three more cards.

Quartermaster
    - 7 (3.4%)
Architect (A)
    - 7 (3.4%)
Acropolis
    - 7 (3.4%)

73

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #4: Seaside

« on: October 07, 2013, 05:52:34 pm »

It was noted during discussion.  I think $1 and $1 would make the card a lot less interesting over all, and if the Province-piling is problematic then it doesn't fix it.  Someone proposed making the second turn an actual Upgrade (exactly $1 more) but I believe that this would be a buff overall because it lets you trash Copper freely.

I have a couple of suggestions though:

1. Make the FIRST turn a Governor (exactly $2 more).  This reduces some flexibility, most importantly Province->Province but also Estate->Silver (or $3 engine piece).  You can still Gold->Province and Province->Province on the second turn, but I think that's more an interesting gambit than anything broken (I don't think the original is broken either, but this is markedly less so).

2. Add "not a victory card" to one of the gains.  Adding it to the first turn would be the bigger nerf because then you can't get to Province without a $7 on the board.

Less related, another nerf would be to reverse the effects -- have it be an upgrade the first turn, remodel on the second turn.  This is a nerf because then you have fewer options as to what gained card to put into your next hand.

Of all the suggestions, I still think second turn Upgrade is the best. The most important part of a Remodel rush (at least in Base Set games) is trashing Provinces out of the supply as soon as you have a lead, and that requires you to play a terminal action on each turn, and to match up the cards on both turns. Getting a guaranteed Gold->Province->Province by playing a single action is too powerful, and that's what needs to be nerfed. If the possibility of trashing Copper on the second turn is OP, then we just boost the cost to $6.

My second choice would be the $4 option, because you wouldn't be able to gain Provinces and pile them out with the same play of the card.

74

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #4: Seaside

« on: October 07, 2013, 01:56:56 pm »

But how often do you think you'll be willing to trash an expensive card with this, like you would with Apprentice? Not often, I'll wager. Although it's cool in theory, I think it's going to be very underwhelming in practice. You'll probably trash your Estates and then have a dead card.

This. It doesn't matter how unique a card's power is if there aren't any situations where you would actually use it.

Recycle fills a very cool niche: a Duration Remodel. And it does it in a way that makes the Duration matter: by putting the card into your hand next turn. I think it's a little clunky with the way it does another remodel on the next turn. That seems unnecessary to me. It makes the card less compelling in my mind and also runs the risk of running out the Provinces very quickly. But obviously I'm in the minority, since I saw Recycle and created Dispatch as an attempt at a more compelling version of the concept. It tied for 3rd with four other cards.

Dispatch I liked much better: I assumed it was Robz's card, because it was exactly like Renovate but with an elegant fix for the autopile combo. Is there any chance at all you could put the 3rd place cards on the new ballot? The difference between 11 and 10 votes isn't really significant.

75

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Flavor of the Month - Round 5

« on: October 06, 2013, 05:54:12 pm »

I'm partial to Hideout. It matches up perfectly with the mechanics of the card, it's thematic, and it contrasts nicely with Moat, Tunnel, and Secret Chamber. It doesn't make much sense for a Locksmith to be lying about or concealing your cards, and Trapsmith just sounds awkward.

Hideout, huh?... I like it!! A hiding place where you can put your stuff/treasure/vips when other monarchs send out their goons to attack you! Very flavorful!

I suggested that in my post...

That's why I seconded it.