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 - terminalCopper

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: April 02, 2019, 01:28:54 pm »
Lost Highway, Action, 2$

+Card
+Action
Trash this.
While this is not in play, each card costs 1 less, but not less than 0.

2
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: March 14, 2019, 05:06:44 pm »

Quote
Foodstall
$1* Action - Duration - Shelter
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy

Wonderful! This innocent little shelter can create games with one and a half buy per turn on average, which is game-changing and new afaik.

3
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 11, 2018, 09:48:17 am »


Terminal draw coupled with discard for benefit puts a cap on the usefulness (after several plays) of this for the opponents.
Among the 'party for everybody cards' we mainly had draw with Council Room and Governor as the 3 other vanilla thingies are not savable but with tokens they are.
Marketeers are Buy tokens; VP tokens could be easily broken in overdrawing engines.

I like the idea a lot, despite being just a smithy at first glance, I think people will buy it at 5$, too. But I think it would be better to reduce it to the villager gain. Itís simplier, and also I believe that itís stronger that way, because the moment where your opponents stall will come earlier.

4
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 07, 2018, 04:35:57 am »
This card probably looks better than it is - itís a good trasher for estates, but itís very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, youíve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And itís hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out itís fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (itís not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If itís a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

One common omission in fan cards is specifying where cards must be when you use them. If a card's effect is to "Put any number of Treasure cards on top of your deck," where do those Treasure cards come from? From your hand? From play? From your discard pile? From the supply piles? It may sound pedantic to require this to be specified explicitly, but since different cards look for things in different places, the clarity is important.

Where are these cards trashed from? The supply? Your hand? The top of your deck? Your discard pile?

From your hand. I edited it, thanks for the remark.

5
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 06, 2018, 01:12:23 pm »
This card probably looks better than it is - itís a good trasher for estates, but itís very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, youíve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And itís hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out itís fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (itís not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If itís a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)
This could get quite silly with Recruiter. The other official Villager cards probably work fine with it, but Recruiter... oh man.

It is certainly a Powercombo, but I donít think it makes the game a silly one. Going for the split and building an engine simultaneously isnít trivial.

Imho, itís not a problem if a card is a dominant must-buy under certain conditions. E. G., i wouldnít call hermit poorly designed just because of its mindblowing synergy with market square. I think this doesnít make it unbalanced or OP.

6
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am »
This card probably looks better than it is - itís a good trasher for estates, but itís very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, youíve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And itís hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out itís fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (itís not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card from your hand.
If itís a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)




7
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 05, 2018, 04:28:16 am »
Going for Renaissance themes of simplicity + Coffers:



Quote
Stock Exchange
Action/Victory - $5
-
+2 Coffers
-
Worth 1VP for every 3 Coffers (round down) on your Coffers mat at the end of the game.

Go to the Stock Exchange to invest, and as long as you can hang on to those investments, the more this is worth. I'm still working on the cost and the Coffers-to-VP ratio. Right now, with no other Coffers gainers in play, you'll need to play Stock Exchanges five times to make it worth as much as a Duchy. However, it could potentially get pretty nutty with good Coffers gainers in play, like Merchant Guild. May bump it to 1VP per 4 Coffers (or 2VP per 7 Coffers). Will try to playtest if I have time.

I am actually thinking about a similar idea (vp for 2 villagers), but a problem is the temptation to keep building which makes it a boring long game. I will probably make it trash victory cards to give it an indirect limit.

8
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:11:36 am »
This is extremely strong, which is not necessarily a No-Go. But I would rather try it with 10 copies, because with only 5 copies, it is extremely advantageous to be P1, especially with 4 players.

9
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 30, 2018, 03:11:42 am »


I think/am worried that having 1 more Lily than your opponent gives enough endgame control that it's a big deal.

Certainly not, and it is not even close.
A normal engine often catches up a 3-5 province split against BM, corresponding to 12 lily plays. Also, almost no board will give you the time for that, most engine boards end before T15. I don't expect your first lily play
much before T10, unless you buy gilt early, which is terrible, similar to opening small castle.

10
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 30, 2018, 02:59:24 am »
CHALLENGE #8 SPLIT PILE W/ ACTION AND CHEAPER TREASURE

   

Clarifications:
-Victory cards with a varying VP amount (Gardens, Duke, Vineyard, Fairground, Silk Road, Feodum, Humble Castle, King's Castle and Pasture) cannot be used with Timberland. :(
-Monster is a type I made up to help players remember that while that card is in the Supply, it has an effect on certain parts of the game. In this case, Victory cards cost $2 more.

According to what the cards do, Treant is closer to be a treasure than Timberland. I think that Treant is OP. But aside from not really being a treasure, Timberland looks decent.

11
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:36:53 am »
I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Thanks for your feedback, but I donít think so: To avoid this, I put the treasures below ...

Great challenge this week! Indeed, itís not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: itís at most 2 villagers in total. If you donít like the wording, Iím happy about better suggestions!

I also playtested it: with good sidekicks (Splitters helped saving Villagers, other Treasures helped gaining 2 per Goldsmith), the first medallion was already a gold, and ended up being better than platinum.

Of course, this was an extreme edge case (simulation with Forager and Coin of the Realm, which fit perfect). Without splitters or other Treasures, Medallion might be worth 0 and be skipped.

But then again, I donít think a card is badly designed if sometimes half of the pile isnít bought. I even think that a good ratio is e. g. if a card is entirely skipped in 30% to 60% of all games, and if it is the best card in the kingdom at a rate of roughly 10%.

What do others think?


12
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 29, 2018, 02:27:04 am »
Great challenge this week! Indeed, itís not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: itís at most 2 villagers in total. If you donít like the wording, Iím happy about better suggestions!










Remarks: There are 5 Gold Smithies on top

13
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 28, 2018, 05:56:14 am »
Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Equus equum lupus est.
Translation: A horse is a wolf to horses.

The question that bothers me more is, why you no interact with Horse Traders?

At least, itís great with butcher.

14
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 27, 2018, 02:12:16 pm »

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0*
[*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP
I think the flavor implications of buying multiple Brides for the sole purpose of impregnating them and have them raise children easily beat Harem in terms of offensiveness.


5 Horses on top, 5 Paddocks below, like a standard split pile. If a Goat is allowed to be a Treasure then Horse is too! It also trashes things a bit like Goat. Horse might be able to get away with costing $2? I thought I'd play it safe but am open to changing it. At first I had Paddock revealing for treasures first before the +3 Cards, but I like it this way because it works with Wishing Well type things which is always fun. I didn't want the cards to specifically mention each other like a lot of split piles do.
Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

15
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 27, 2018, 10:52:48 am »

I feel like Contract should be more expensive. In the majority of situations, it is better than CotR.

I agree with Faust, but I think that villa is the closest relative. Both net a buck, an action and a buy at the cost of one card. Also, both synergize with draw to X, notably bookkeeper. That being said,  3$ seems logic as price, because this is what villa effectively costs.

16
Dominion General Discussion / Re: is royal seal underrated?
« on: November 23, 2018, 02:43:17 am »
Well, Delve is an Event; it doesn't have the same dynamic as a $4 Silver+ kingdom card (where buying it up hastens the end of the game in a way that buying Silver doesn't).

If you have buy Delve twice and any $2 cantrip, that's pretty close to being a $4 Silver+.

FTFY

17
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 22, 2018, 04:44:30 am »
Thanks @Holunder9 and @faust, I agree with your suggestions for Rewording.

I donĎt think Visionary is too weak in terms of "too weak to be bought on a frequent basis". I believe that Visionary is strong on every board with a spammable card which lacks one of the engine components "draw, +actions, +buy". These aren't rare.

On the other hand, this mediocre strength wastes the best part of the card: playing with multiple visions, and managing interesting decisions when to call it and where to put the tokens. This will happen much more often if players get multiple Visionaries, and fight for the Vision split. It's a very interesting situation, if one player has a strong deck with 4 Visions (enabling two tokens per turn), and the other has a weaker deck, but 6 visions.

With this situation in mind, I agree with Holunder9 that it's better game design to buff Visionary, maybe even by a lot. I think I will test to reduce cost to 5$, with +2$ on top. I am pretty confident this won't lead to boring games, because Visions need interactions; also Visionaries become lousy terminal Silvers once the Visions are gone, which is an additional motivation to buy other cards.

18
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2018, 03:16:20 am »

I removed Bride/Child from the contest, it was simply unbalancable. HereĎs a new try ...

IĎve heard complaints about Peasant being too easy to play, and a boring must-buy? LetĎs change this:

Here come the one-shot-tokens.



Visionary, Action, 6$

Gain a Vision.


Vision, Action, 0*
Put this on your Tavern mat.

At the start of your turn, you may call this to move your  +card, +action, +$ or +buy token to an Action supply pile you have no tokens on.
When you discard this from play, remove all tokens.

(This is not in the supply).


**********************
Visionary is weaker than Teacher, but more accessible. ItĎs sometimes skippable, and itĎs tricky to manage a constant flux of visions. Alternatively, you can call them all at once for little megaturns, which is quite fulfilling (if it works).

Also, I like that true Visionaries donĎt care much about what Teachers said ...




19
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 21, 2018, 03:14:10 am »


Here's my entry: Treaty and Domain.  Treaty is a terminal, one-card trasher that especially loves trashing Estates in the early game, and then later, you can win a Domain from your Treaty.  Domain is 5 VP all together, though just 3 VP if you trash it later, which you probably will.  Trashing a Domain with Treaty gains you a Silver and a Gold to hand, yeeha--hopefully you still have some Coppers left to win that next Domain.  This makes for a fun minigame to try and churn through the Domains, though you'll need some extra help to keep lining up your Treaties with trash targets and the needed treasures to activate.  There are eight Domains in a two-player game, otherwise there are twelve.

ItĎs a cute mini-game, but I donĎt like the pricing.

At the beginning, itĎs better than Salvager, because +Silver is better than +buy.
When triggered, it gives at least +3VP, even 5 VP in the endgame.
If it trashes a Domain, it means Ągain a silver, gain a gold, +5$ď.

That being said, I think it should be a 5$ card.

20
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 19, 2018, 02:21:44 am »


When scoring: If you have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 Excavation Pieces, you get 1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34 VP.
(This is not in the supply.)

There are only 8 Excavation Pieces in the game.

How about  ďThis is worth 1 VP for every 2 Excavation Pieces you have (round down)Ē?
This version scores 0/2/3/8/10/18/21/32, which is similar, but less weird for those which are unfamiliar with Fibonacci.



21
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 18, 2018, 03:29:45 pm »

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0*
[*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP
8 Coffers and 4VP would be crazy even if Child did not buff NecropolisBride.

Oh, maybe I should reword it, you should pay 6 coffers, not gain them.

22
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am »
Removed - i am unable to balance the concept. Feel free to do so :)

23
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 15, 2018, 03:01:47 am »


Here's my revised entry, an Action-Attack-Duration!  Stowaway is sort of a mashup of Gear and Ambassador: you save cards from this hand for next hand, and give a copy of one of them to your opponents.  Early game, this will neatly keep Estates and extra Coppers out of your shuffles while junking the other players, though being a duration means it only works every other turn.  In the mid and late game, a pair of these can function as handy utility cards to keep your shuffles clean, as well as set up big turns, just be sure to keep some junk around to hand out copies of (or perhaps a Province when you're ready to end the game).

*Revised to change to an Action type instead of Night, so to fit within the parameters of this week's contest.

To me, this is the best card, and itís not even close. Iíd love to play with it! Some reasons:

1.) Its constructive part is imho the most interesting one in this weeks competition. You can
  • setup a big turn
  • use it as pseudotrashing
  • bring synergic cards together

Itís gear on steroids, without being terminal. There might be ďdouble stowaway decksĒ similar to ďdouble tacĒ - but without the nasty ďdiscard your handĒ part.

2.) The card seems balanced to me.
Despite having a very interesting constructive part and a strong attack, I donít think itís OP, because it is a duration and doesnít draw, which is both a huge downside.

3.) It defends against itself via pseudotrashing.
Unlike other junk attacks, the game neednít turn into a slog.

4.) I like games encouraging to buy curses.
This is always an interesting mini-game for me.




24
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: November 08, 2018, 11:15:30 am »
Old:
Quote
Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote
+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Why would the player to your left even write another number than 1?
It is not that simple. I know too little about game theory to give a good answer but I guess that the best strategy is to randomize your number with higher probabilities for lower numbers and lower probabilities for higher numbers. Always choosing 1 is definitely not best as this is then a save $1 for the opponent.

That said, the card is obviously far too weak.

ThatĎs true. The best strategy is to write down

1$ in 12/25 cases,
2$ in 6/25 cases,
3$ in 4/25 cases,
4$ in 3/25 cases.

Even with full information about this strategy, your opponent will have an expected outcome of exactly 12/25, no matter what he does.


25
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: November 07, 2018, 03:16:17 am »
Atheism
Project $5

Card types donít exist. They are just an illusion purposefully spread by DXV.


Agnosticism
Project $5

We donít know whether card types exist. Each player
chooses the card types he likes.


Machiavellianism
Project $5

No matter what they pretend to be, all cards are attacks.


Buddhism
Project - $5

During your turn, no card is an attack.


Startupism
Project $10

During your turn, all cards are projects.


Puberty
Project - $20

Donít let others tell you that it isnít your turn!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 18 queries.