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.

1

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #172: Trait Me Right

« on: December 19, 2022, 09:16:00 am »

This is a specific enough scenario that I think it's fine, but the actual problem with Resourceful is that it has tracking issues due to being able to topdeck Duration cards the same turn you play them in. It ought to not be able to topdeck Durations.

If you topdeck a duration, do you still have to pretend the duration is still in play?  I assumed that once a duration is no longer on the field, its effect ends (ie. topdecking your Lighthouse loses you the +$1 next turn and makes you vulnerable to attacks again, topdecking your Voyage loses you the extra turn, etc.).

That is not how the rules of Dominion work. The Duration still does what it does but tracking becomes difficult. That is why official cards like e.g. Captain don’t allow such a mess.

Darn, that would have been a good interaction.  Okay, I'll edit my submission.

2

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #172: Trait Me Right

« on: December 19, 2022, 08:36:45 am »

This is a specific enough scenario that I think it's fine, but the actual problem with Resourceful is that it has tracking issues due to being able to topdeck Duration cards the same turn you play them in. It ought to not be able to topdeck Durations.

If you topdeck a duration, do you still have to pretend the duration is still in play?  I assumed that once a duration is no longer on the field, its effect ends (ie. topdecking your Lighthouse loses you the +$1 next turn and makes you vulnerable to attacks again, topdecking your Voyage loses you the extra turn, etc.).

3

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #172: Trait Me Right

« on: December 18, 2022, 11:42:51 pm »

Resourceful
When you gain a Resourceful card, you may put an Action card you have in play onto your deck.

I considered letting you topdeck any card, but then I considered how many treasures (especially loot) would make it much easier to keep buying the resourceful cards each turn and empty the pile quickly.

2 Magpies, pile out.

Eh?

4

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #172: Trait Me Right

« on: December 18, 2022, 06:51:06 pm »

Resourceful
When you gain a Resourceful card, you may put a non-Duration Action card you have in play onto your deck.

I considered letting you topdeck any card, but then I considered how many treasures (especially loot) would make it much easier to keep buying the resourceful cards each turn and empty the pile quickly.

5

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #170: 2/7 Offsuit

« on: December 02, 2022, 04:06:52 pm »

Judge question: Could we submit an Attack that costs 7* and has an ability that lets you gain it for a different cost, similar to cards like Animal Fair and Peddler?

6

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #168: Turkey Time

« on: November 19, 2022, 05:55:22 pm »

Beekeeper - Snes
    Really cool idea, with a similar mechanic to tormentor.  I fear that this would be too good with big money and as a result would make many kingdoms less interesting, and that's without the reaction.  This is a very strong reaction, especially in response to non-discard attacks.  Probably underprice/over powered imo. 6/10

That's fair.  I waited until the last minute to start designing this one, so I was in a bit of a rush to incorporate the themes I wanted to include.  I think I'll set aside the design for another card.

Here's my second crack at a Beekeeper.

Beekeeper - $3
Action - Reaction

+$2
If you have six or more cards in hand, you may gain a Gold.
-
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to trash that card.

7

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #168: Turkey Time

« on: November 18, 2022, 12:22:17 am »

Beekeeper - $4
Action - Reaction

+2 Cards
If you have no other cards in play, gain a Gold.
-
When another player plays an Attack, you may first play this from your hand.

8

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 31, 2022, 01:15:04 am »

It is a spamable +vp. Unlike monument, you don’t need villages, but rather draw.

I personally think that +1 card, +1 action, you may reveal a non-revealed victory card from you hand (until end of turn) for +(1) is fine. Suedo discard, without providing the fodder to spam play these as the last cards as with oasis.

Is it more spamable than Chariot Race?  I could make it more like Chariot Race and have you reveal the card you draw and only get the benefit if you draw a victory card.

9

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 30, 2022, 12:55:42 am »

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

Well, Peddler makes it too spammable, I think it needs to decrease handsize. Oasis might work, though it's a bit weird to have two separate discard triggers. And it's possibly too weak then. I'm not quite sure what an ideal top would look like.

Okay, how about this:

Tapestry - $5
Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +$1 and +1VP.
-
Once per turn: When you gain this, you may spend an unused Buy to gain another Tapestry.

It ranges from a vanilla cantrip to a Peddler + 1VP, but it's limited by how many victory cards you have in your deck.  Do you think the +VP might be too much?

10

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 27, 2022, 02:04:26 pm »

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.

11

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 26, 2022, 09:34:14 am »

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.

That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?

12

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 25, 2022, 12:54:44 am »

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.

13

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 24, 2022, 08:01:29 pm »

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

14

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 20, 2022, 12:18:18 am »

Tapestry - $5
Action

+1 Action
+$2
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many.
-
Once per turn: When you gain this, you may spend an unused Buy to gain another Tapestry.

Tapestry lets you spend extra buys to weave the tapestry even longer!  I initially designed the top half as just being Peddler, but I thought it would lead to the pile being emptied way too quickly.  By making it an Oasis+, I limit the potential of stuffing a deck full of them while (hopefully) still making them an okay buy even if you can't get the buy bonus.

I do wonder if it might play better if I changed it to +$1, +2 Cards, Discard 2 cards.

V0.2 EDIT: I think this plays a bit better.  Instead of an Oasis with +$1, it's now a Cellar with +$2.  I also changed the bottom effect to only trigger once per turn.  I think that's the simplest solution to prevent players with three buys from gaining three Tapestries for only $5.

15

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

« on: October 16, 2022, 06:31:22 pm »

Two independent submissions:

• Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
• Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.

Edit: as noted below, Old Bridge is my submission for this contest, but I leave Con Artist here because why not.

I feel like the "can't buy 0" rider on Old Bridge is really only there to justify the card costing $1.  It will almost never come up when trying to buy any other card, and just because you can't stack copies of a card doesn't mean it's balanced.  Candlestick Maker and Ducat are both comparable to this (being non-terminal cards that give +1 Buy), and they both cost $2.  Herbalist is also similar, and it doesn't even replace the action.  I think you're undervaluing the bridge effect.

I also don't get the flavor.  "Old Bridge" conjures to mind a rickety bridge that can't take too much weight, yet this card says that it can't take too little wight?

16

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #165: More Favorites, More Fun

« on: October 12, 2022, 11:02:09 am »

Oil Merchant
+$3, +1 Buy with a compulsory Borrow - probably too strong for $5 as a BM card. That's without the Action opt out. For much of the game you're buying Actions with this (if you're making an engine) so it's very strong. Probably too strong and will lead to games that are over too quickly.

I don't think I agree with the assessment that "Woodcutter +1$ +Borrow" is too strong for $5.  Borrow being a "free" event signals to me that adding its effect to an action card is more of a downside than an upside.  Look at Sacred Grove: assuming all Boons have equal value, it's worth the equivalent of a Woodcutter +$2 with a downside five-sixth of the time, and one-sixth of the time it has no downside.

You could be right about the version I posted being too strong.  I hemmed and hawed for a long time about what the criteria should be for dodging the penalty.  My first draft had you get -1 Card if you didn't gain an Action and -$1 if you didn't gain a non-Action, but I worried it was a bit too wordy and hard to parse.  What if you got the token if you didn't gain both an Action and a non-Action that turn?  I think that would help slow things down, and make interesting decisions for the player: do you sacrifice your early turns by rushing for big money or multiple actions, or do you keep your early turns consistent by stuffing your deck with a mix of Actions and Silvers?

17

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #165: More Favorites, More Fun

« on: October 10, 2022, 10:42:47 pm »

Oil Merchant - $5
Action

+Buy
+$4
-
When you discard this from play, if you did not gain an Action card this turn, put your -1 Card token on your deck.

I love Wine Merchant and the potential it opens for huge early-game purchases, balanced out by a downside that makes it go away for a while.  I think this use of the -1 Card token does a fair job of emulating that downside.

18

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #137: From Whence It Came

« on: December 15, 2021, 03:55:49 pm »

Barmaid
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
When you buy a card, you may call this, to put that card onto your deck. If that was the second card you bought this turn, return this to your tavern mat.
$2 - Action - Reserve

Inspired by jakav's Collector, I decided to make a Reserve card that returned itself to the tavern mat so you could call it again without needing to replay it.  I spent a lot of time hemming and hawing over whether or not she should give you +1 Card as well.  I think it might be better if she doesn't, since that means there's more of a cost to playing her (and, as a result, more of a cost to calling her).

19

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #137: From Whence It Came

« on: December 15, 2021, 10:44:43 am »

My submission for this week's contest is Collector. Collector is a reserve card that will help you smooth your money. It likes Silver and can be a good opening buy. It should provide some more options for spiking higher price points.

Here it is:

Collector
$4
Action - Reserve

+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your buy phase, you may
put this on your Tavern mat for +$2.
-
After you buy a treasure costing 3 or less
you may return this to your discard pile for +$1.

That's not the way reserve cards are worded.  Reserve cards that you can remove from the tavern mat for a benefit say "you may call this" (Ratcatcher, et al), and the one reserve card that goes directly from the tavern mat to your discard simply says "discard this" (Wine Merchant).  You can't have a card say "return this to your discard pile" unless it was already in your discard pile to start with.

20

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season

« on: December 03, 2021, 02:59:41 pm »

Looking Glass
$4 - Treasure - Command
Play a non-Command Treasure from the Supply, leaving it there.
Each other player may gain a copy of it.

In basic Kingdoms, Looking Glass offers you the flexibility of playing it as a Copper, Silver, or Gold, with the caveat that your opponents may choose to gain a copy of the emulated card.  I think it will probably get played most often as a Silver, with players only needing to play it as a Gold to hit certain price points.

Looking Glass will be more interesting when there are Kingdom Treasures available e.g. Scepters and even Loan.  There is a strong combo with Capital, but if opponents choose to gain Capitals, the pile will eventually empty and so players will no longer be able to exploit the interaction between Looking Glass and Capital.  However, if it turns out to be broken, I suppose the card could be revised to have similar wording to the original Overlord in order to avoid that.

There is no cost restriction, so Looking Glass can be played as Platinum or Fortune; players would just need to assess whether they will benefit more than their opponents.

There is a danger of piles running low quickly in games with more than one Kingdom Treasure (or Capitalism games), but those situations should be rare.

I'm not really seeing a point where this card is a fun addition to a kingdom.  Action - Commands make sense because of the versatility they provide; different actions are useful in different situations.  With treasures, most of the differences between them are in how much $ they produce.  A few have other utilities, but if they cost less than this you're just buying an expensive copy of the same card with a downside, and if they cost more you're giving your opponents a huge advantage, saving them a lot of $ and a buy to get a potentially powerful card.

You'd pretty much never want to copy a basic Treasure unless you're in the final turns of the game and you want to snatch the final few Victory cards before your opponents can use the big treasures you just handed them.  There are a few obvious synergies in cards like Capital and Cache, but there are just as many anti-synergies with cards like Hoard, Quarry, Stash, and Ill-Gotten Gains.  I think this would only be interesting with a very specific kingdom setup with at least two other Treasure piles from a very short list, and how often will that situation come up?

21

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season

« on: December 03, 2021, 09:23:40 am »

First ever contest entry.

Choir
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure card and an Action card. Put those cards into your hand and discard the rest. Each opponent does the same, except they choose one and put it on top and discard the rest.
$5 - Action

Seems pretty cool. And welcome to the forums!

If the first card you reveal is e.g. Crown, I assume you stop there?

That's a good point, I hadn't considered the Action - Treasure edge-case.  I suppose it would also interact poorly with Capitalism for the same reason.  Do you think it's worth changing the card so it works as intended in those cases, or should I just accept that negative interaction as an unfortunate consequence of the design?

22

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season

« on: December 03, 2021, 01:09:40 am »

Choir
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure card and an Action card. Put those cards into your hand and discard the rest. Each opponent does the same, except they choose one and put it on top and discard the rest.
$5 - Action

First ever contest entry.  My idea was to take the Farming Village model and apply it to Laboratory, eliminating the potential for dead draws by ensuring that you get the two most useful card types.  Hopefully the free draw sculpting it gives your opponents offsets the advantage enough that it still works at the same cost as the original.  If anyone has any art that could work, let me know and I'll make a render.

There is an unfortunate edge-case where you reveal a single card that is both a Treasure and an Action (ie. Crown or any +$ card while you have Capitalism) and have to stop there.  I could change the wording to only stop when you've revealed any two cards that are Treasures and/or Actions, but that gets pretty wordy, and it's pushing the word limit as it is.