Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - ShadowHawk

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 15, 2019, 01:59:58 am »
This may not be valid for this contest, but Iíll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

Subtle note I like about this - it uses the pre-errata Inheritance wording so you can turn your curses into Feasts/Embargos/other one-shots and they can then autotrash themselves. Very cool.

I like it too, though I must ask mandioca why he wants the card set aside rather than just have the player place their Devil token on a card in the Supply? Add some suspense for this deal with the Devil.

Oh and Mandioca, here's an art suggestion if you like it, though it'll need editing for an Event - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/8c/9b/8f8c9b6b4d42b11f2c5a8a065983c4b8.jpg

2
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 15, 2019, 01:27:43 am »


Originally thought about doing a Coppersmith variant affecting all of the Base Treasures, but decided to go with a Bridge variant instead.



3
An aside: how do I add the function present in other posts where clicking on the image will expand it? Right now I'm adjusting the size on imgur rather than adjusting it in the post.

4
Updated previous submissions to the weekly design contest



A Duration with a weak-ish attack that facilitates 3 pile wins, a "counter" attack to the Curse supply, and deck ruining by depleting Supply piles.



Another Duration that provides a counter bonus to your opponents gaining Victory cards. Not sure if the card should be adjusted to a $6 price point or if the Duration ability should be nerfed to +1 Cards.

Both of these cards could also be turned into Reactions.

5
Moved Foreign Merchant to $4.



Here is a new take on Scholasticus



So now it is a Command that has no upper limit on the cost of the card it can access...save cards denominated in Debt...but it takes a while to get there. Should the price be dropped down to $3 or does $4 work as a decision point?

6
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 27, 2019, 04:00:14 pm »

I think this is a huge improvement. However, you want the card to be drawn after the reveal of your hand, otherwise that one card can screw things up. So I'd do it this way.

Quote
+1 Action, +1 Buy

If the revealed cards all have different names, +1 Card, +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Card.

That does say it better grr. Will make the change. Thank you


7

You should update the OP with all the updated cards. It says it has all the updated cards, but it doesn't, and the newest version of Manorialism isn't anywhere in this thread.

Done.

8


So different approach than the one I submitted. After making changes based on what majiponi said, it was basically a Band of Minions. Assembly by Gazbag was my favorite card, so I liked the idea of a Throne Room element.

Play up to two different Action cards from the Supply that have Student tokens on them, leaving them there.
-
When you gain this, put a Student token on a non-Command Action Supply pile costing up to $4.


So it does not permit a throne room double play, as you need to play two different cards or just play one. The token mechanism slows the card down, which I'm hoping justifies the cards's cost being at $4 instead of $5. Still very Band of Minions-ish, but the double play makes it more effective once you have two tokens out.

I would price this at at the very least. It only takes two Scholasticus gains to make it WAY better than BoM. Which means that just two or more people have to open with it and it suddenly becomes a broken card. I would probably price it at .
I'd go further and claim that this is broken at any price.
After two gains this is a e.g. double Lab in a Kingdom with Village and Smithy (and we know from the secret history that DXV was never able to make a double Lab work).
Advisor and Silk Merchant net draws 3 cards and yields an extra Buy. Mono-card-engine at a piece price of $4 is crazy.
The worst case is something like Pearl Diver and Moat but even then it is still a Lab.

It only takes up one card slot, so Pearl Diver + Moat is net +3 Cards and +1 Action, so that's actually slightly better than double Lab, and Village + Smithy is net +4 Cards and +2 Actions, or a triple Lab plus a Village.

Now that you've pointed this out, I completely agree that Scholasticus doesn't work at any price.

Good catch segura, it's broken.

9
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 26, 2019, 11:19:51 pm »
@segura
@Fragasnap
@DEGwer

updated:

New take, menagerie but +Cards/+Actions flip, +1 Buy. Changed name to avoid thematic dissonance.

Still assists in playing several differently named Actions. I thought about changing part of it to a digger, but dropped it. I then thought about making the consolation bonus be more cards and an Action, but then it gets to be too overpowered. I want the Son to sometimes "succeed" and sometime "fail".

10
Thanks Gubump. Made the change to Manoralism and that finally clarifies the cost clarity requests.

11
Two more new ones, this below is from the most recently concluded contest regarding Command cards.



So different approach than the one I submitted. After making changes based on what majiponi said, it was basically a Band of Minions. Assembly by Gazbag was my favorite card, so I liked the idea of a Throne Room element.

Play up to two different Action cards from the Supply that have Student tokens on them, leaving them there.
-
When you gain this, put a Student token on a non-Command Action Supply pile costing up to $4.


So it does not permit a throne room double play, as you need to play two different cards or just play one. The token mechanism slows the card down, which I'm hoping justifies the cards's cost being at $4 instead of $5. Still very Band of Minions-ish, but the double play makes it more effective once you have two tokens out.

Partly related to Scholasticus is a Woodcutter-Potion-Black Market variant:



So you have 12 Kingdom cards instead of 10, but only 2 of those are available for purchase or gaining when Foreign Merchants is in play. This shifting of 2 piles from Supply and out of it allows for some interesting combos, but there is likely a problem with a card or five that I'm missing.

12
Going to try this instead after feedback:



Each player (including you) reveals a card from their hand. Note the highest cost of the cards revealed. You may trash a card you have in play or in hand to gain a card from the Supply costing up to $1 more than it. Then all other players may trash a card from their hand to gain a card from the Supply costing up to $1 less than it.

The phrase "note the highest cost of the cards revealed." Was made so that the following sentences could refer to "it" rather than type that twice.



Okay, so now Estates and Duchies can act like Bridges, but to get this you need to pass up on buying a Province.

Feast needs to say something along the lines of "highest cost in ." Neither Overlord nor Estate cost more nor less than the other, so just "highest cost" is undefined in cases like that.

Manorialism needs to be rephrased, because as worded, you could just keep revealing the same Estate over and over again to make all cards free. Here's my suggested wording:
"Once during your turn, you may reveal any number of Estates or Duchies from your hand. All cards cost less per card revealed for the rest of the turn."*
*Doesn't need the "but not less than " clause due to the recent errata.

Thanks mate.

So I'm confused. Official cards never clarify the cost regarding potions or debt. I've always understood it that potion costs and debt costs don't factor in such cases. The wiki states such costs are orthogonal and have no official equivalency. So why does this keep popping up in comments on the board? Is this just a preference in the community? I'm late to this board so some things are still over my head in the community's ideas. Anyway, I'll phrase it as you said, "highest cost in coins ($)" to make it clear.



For Manoralism, how would this language work? "Once per turn, you may reveal any number of Estates or Duchies from your hand. If you do, cards cost $1 less per card revealed, but not less than $0." The beginning clause is used in some Events, and it would be really odd to execute this on another player's turn. I'm going to keep the end clause and wait till I see it changed in the Digital game.



13
So this is a new card.



I wanted to make a Treasure that could toy with Supply-Demand after seeing Tejayes's Rare Earth winner in Design Contest #4. This is my third take on it. To emulate the speculation crash of the Dutch Tulip madness, players can time the plays for big payouts but then someone is going to have to trash their cards.

Is it intentional that Tulips counts other players' Tulips?

Yes

14
So this is a new card.



I wanted to make a Treasure that could toy with Supply-Demand after seeing Tejayes's Rare Earth winner in Design Contest #4. This is my third take on it. To emulate the speculation crash of the Dutch Tulip madness, players can time the plays for big payouts but then someone is going to have to trash their cards.

15
Going to try this instead after feedback:



Each player (including you) reveals a card from their hand. Note the highest cost of the cards revealed. You may trash a card you have in play or in hand to gain a card from the Supply costing up to $1 more than it. Then all other players may trash a card from their hand to gain a card from the Supply costing up to $1 less than it.

The phrase "note the highest cost of the cards revealed." Was made so that the following sentences could refer to "it" rather than type that twice.



Okay, so now Estates and Duchies can act like Bridges, but to get this you need to pass up on buying a Province.

16
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 25, 2019, 01:09:47 pm »


Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

First Born is either a worse Fugitive (discard first is worse than discarding after) or a Villa without the + or the on-gain effect. I think First Born is too weak to cost and should probably cost .
I don't want to disagree with your assessment, this is a weak $5. But you cannot ignore the Heirloom, i.e. Cellar-Fugitive is stronger due to Father's Sword than it would be without it.
I'd change the Menagerie option though. An extra Buy is smart to make Father's Sword payoff but the other stuff seems too weak.

I could make the Menagerie option more like a weaker Festival (add +$1) or make it +2 Actions. The Village default is probably fine unless it would be more interesting to use a gainer option, gaining an Action costing up to the number of differently named cards in hand.

Edit: made the Menagerie option Festival. Left the Village option intact rather than make it a Smithy + Action, but I did move the discard to after the draw. Dropped the price to $4.


17
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am »


Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

Edited 10/25/2019 after input by segura and Gubump
Edited 10/26/2019 after further input from segura, DEGwur and Fragasnap.
Edited 10/27/2019 to use rephrase by grrgrrgrr.

18
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 24, 2019, 10:11:45 pm »
Quote
Good point. How about this?



Nice, but I wonder it should let you play a Potion-cost card or a $6 card.

Neither  ;D I should limit it to "on a non-Command Action Supply pile costing $5/$4 or less." But now it's just a Band of Misfits, so I'll drop it and come up with something else. Thank you.

19
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 24, 2019, 03:52:42 pm »
congrats to CC and Gazbag!

20
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: October 24, 2019, 03:48:01 pm »

Quote from: ShadowHawk
I don't think setting Schola aside is needed.  Playing an expensive card via this seems nice, but you have to have them in hand together.  Until that, Schola is dead.  I prefer just buying the target card.

Good point. How about this?

21
Sorry for the delayed replies. Out of town on business.

@spineflu - noted. That said, is averaging the cost too much math for a game?

@GendoIkari - Yeah, limiting it to the basics would make it easier to deal with. Since posting though, I've thought about it and I wonder if it's worth giving a bonus to a player for buying what they were likely going to buy anyway (Province) and if the ability should be limited to Duchies and maybe Estates. Course this just makes them a very similar variant of Harem.

An idea I've been considering is if revealing Estates and Duchies in your hand could have a Bridge effect instead..capping it at 2, maybe 3.


22
How is making Victory cards produce $1 similar to Secret Chamber? I'm not making the connection.

Playing a card for $1 is, the majority of the time, exactly the same as discarding it for $1.

I follow that. Still don't follow how that is similar to Secret Chamber. Maybe I'm dense.

If you play a Secret Chamber, you can discard (similar to play) victory cards to produce each. If you buy Manorialism, you can play (similar to discard) victory cards to produce each.

In other words, Manorialism could almost read "at the start of each of your buy phases, discard any number of cards for each." AKA "at the start of each of your buy phases, resolve the effects of playing a Secret Chamber."

A wording issue with Manorialism... it doesn't allow Victory Cards to be played. It just says what happens if they do get played. That's easily fixed by either making Victory cards into Treasures (similar to Capitalism), or just saying "you may play victory cards". It seems like it would be potentially confusing with action-victory cards that already do other things though.

Sorry, I thought he was referring to my version, not the old one.

I see now. Yeah...and trying to convert the VP points into $ would likely be broken. Will rethink.

Edit: So what if I did do that, make the listed VP amount have a worth equal to it? Raise the price to $8. So a player has to decide to skip the Province buy for the extra coin to later buy more Provinces.

23
bad idea - no one likes fractions.

So sad.

Looking at the Debt cards in Empires, 8 Debt seems to be equal to $6, so I'll stick with "equal to 2 more than the cost"

24
How is making Victory cards produce $1 similar to Secret Chamber? I'm not making the connection.

Playing a card for $1 is, the majority of the time, exactly the same as discarding it for $1.

I follow that. Still don't follow how that is similar to Secret Chamber. Maybe I'm dense.

25
mail-mi, thank you for letting me know. I looked it up. YEah, same idea just you have the player pay $2 upfront, I'm tagging the $2 to the debt. Technically the same since it's rare for a player to have $0 in hand.

Maybe to make the interest vary with the purchase, I can use some unorthodox card text.



$2 = 3 Debt
$3 = 5 Debt
$4 = 6 Debt
$5 = 8 debt
$6 = 9 debt
$7 = 11 debt
$8 = 12 debt

Bad idea or better?

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 19 queries.