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 #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 26, 2024, 03:54:02 pm »

Dude, your card is a $5, you mispriced it at $4 and don’t care. There is nothing else to say if you are willfully ignorant and don’t care.

It is like designing a Lab variant (not a nerfed Lab like Advisor or Lab but Stables or Hunting Party), pricing it at $4 and asking for an explanation for what the issue with that is supposed to be.

In that case the issues would be:
1) Making other draw variants obsolete on boards with this hypothetical card.
2) Strategies in games with this card becoming too similar, with enough easy to gain terminal draw you can just fill your deck with it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Your card does not net draw, it is a sifter. If you think that it is no biggie that you mispriced a $5 self-gaining sifter at $4 because sifters are somehow a card category that is somehow exempt from elementary design principles you are woefully mistaken.

2

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 26, 2024, 03:33:48 pm »

Dude, your card is a $5, you mispriced it at $4 and don’t care. There is nothing else to say if you are willfully ignorant and don’t care.

It is like designing a Lab variant (not a nerfed Lab like Advisor or Lab but Stables or Hunting Party), pricing it at $4 and asking for an explanation for what the issue with that is supposed to be.

3

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 26, 2024, 03:16:13 pm »

Fugitive for $4 is already OP.

These cards can exist because 'OP' isn't really a problem in dominion

Nope. You cannot ignore powerlevel, especially not around the critical 4-5-threshold.

It is well established that Fugitive as a Kingdom card would be a $4.5 which is why it does not exist and why Ferryman, Fugitive with a bonus, costs $5.

Explain to me why I cannot ignore it around the 4-5 threshold.

You really want an explanation for why one should not cost a $5 as a $4? Like, seriously dude?

If you don’t care about basic design principles, that is your prerogative. Just don’t expect a round of applause for mispricing cards.

4

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 26, 2024, 01:12:02 pm »

Fugitive for $4 is already OP.

These cards can exist because 'OP' isn't really a problem in dominion

Nope. You cannot ignore powerlevel, especially not around the critical 4-5-threshold.

It is well established that Fugitive as a Kingdom card would be a $4.5 which is why it does not exist and why Ferryman, Fugitive with a bonus, costs $5.

5

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 26, 2024, 01:25:38 am »

Fugitive for $4 is already OP.

6

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 24, 2024, 02:36:08 am »

How is the splitt? 5-5 makes no sense because in the absence of cards that gain from the trash, like Lurker or Rogue, there could be only one Factory.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to make Factory a non-Supply?

7

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #225: When was THAT invented?

« on: July 23, 2024, 12:26:14 pm »

I think this is a very cool idea. I would consider adding more bomb copies though an consider trashing the cards. Not for deep mechanical reasons, but simplicity reasons .(one fewer game area) and flavour reasons.

8

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #224

« on: July 22, 2024, 02:40:20 am »

He wrote that it READS as very powerful and points out the disadvantages in the very same sentence.

9

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #224

« on: July 17, 2024, 12:47:04 pm »

The effect that can be both negative and positive is the +1 Buy next turn.

As written, you aren't under any obligation to use that buy, as it happens after the start of your next turn (where the compulsory buys effect expires).

And yet there is a not-insignificant possibility that you will be obliged to use that buy, because Con Artist is in the kingdom, so another player might play one before your next turn.

Couldn't you just have made that into "while this is in play..." instead of "until then..." that way you'd always have to use your extra buy. easy fix.

While this is in play is outdated and never used anymore. And anyway that makes it very weak since the attack affects you on 2 turns and opponents on one.

No, that change would mean that the card affects you on one turn instead of none.

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Trying to understand why Remake is good

« on: July 16, 2024, 01:22:08 pm »

The other question is: If Copper-trashing is so good, why is Moneylender a mid-tier card (not particularly strong, not particularly weak)?

Because, like Remodel, it cannot trash all junk.

11

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Trying to understand why Remake is good

« on: July 16, 2024, 07:30:23 am »

The answer to your question is simple: Copper trashing. You misevaluate massively how hood Copper trashimg is. And while e.g. Steward also does the job and later is not dead but a weak engineering piece, you do not mind the 3 Silvers Remake provides as conpensation for the loss of payload.

So maybe that's my question: Why is trashing a Copper from hand so incredibly good, when trashing a Copper from hand and using the remaining $3 to buy a Silver has the same impact on your deck (in terms of deck control and total money in the deck) as not trashing and using $4 to buy a Poacher?

This is a partial view. Remodel has only half the thinning power as Remake and in games without $2s, the Copper-Estate-4 Remodel path is so slow that it is rarely viable. One card enables you to get rid of all the junk quickly whereas the other does not.

You also have to consider dynamics: quick thinning, faster cycling and so on.

12

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Trying to understand why Remake is good

« on: July 16, 2024, 02:21:12 am »

The answer to your question is simple: Copper trashing. You misevaluate massively how hood Copper trashimg is. And while e.g. Steward also does the job and later is not dead but a weak engineering piece, you do not mind the 3 Silvers Remake provides as conpensation for the loss of payload.

13

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #224

« on: July 14, 2024, 11:55:34 am »

A worse (discard 3 after a Militia attack, discard 4 from a normal hand) Embassy with an extra Buy? Seems neither strong nor interesting enough.

14

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #224

« on: July 11, 2024, 11:56:20 am »

Con Artist
$4 Night - Duration - Attack

At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Buy and +$1.
Until then, players may not end their Buy phases when they could buy a card.

FAQ:

• In most situations, the attack just means that other players must use up all of their Buys on their turns, which may mean buying cards costing $0.
• However there may be other factors which make a player unable to buy a card and thus able to end their Buy phase. These include:
• Being in debt. (A player is not required to pay off debt even if they have sufficient coins.)
• Unable to afford any card in the Supply. (A player is not required to spend Coffers or play Treasures to make a card affordable.)
• The effects of Mission, Deluded or Contraband which make some cards unbuyable.

Normally extra Buys can only be good, but with Con Artists around extra Buys can be bad. Especially this +Buy for next turn, which gives time for other players to get their own Con Artists into play.

I chose the name without noticing the pun. But now that I've noticed it, well, I can only hope that this Con Artist is a Pro. Sorry.

The idea is not new but there are very few fan cards with it. I love the card but do not see how it fits the contest. It is a pure attack that does not hurt you in any way unless you consider the notion that the card becomes weaker when other players also go for the card.
I would not as a Curser like Witch also becomes weaker when other players go for Witch.

15

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #224

« on: July 09, 2024, 04:16:28 pm »

The best card is discarded so this is more like an anti-sifter with weak vanillas.

16

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: July 02, 2024, 12:37:12 pm »

I'm not actually sure what the Ferryman / Acolyte question is. Is it, can Acolyte get an Augur? That would go back to, what exactly is the rule for gaining outside of the supply. We want the default to be supply only; you can't Workshop stuff not in the game, and we don't want to have to say that on Workshop. We also want e.g. "gain a Horse" to not need more text to let you know you really can get one, when anyone playing will be sure they can get a Horse. And "gain a Duchy" can't gain a non-supply Duchy, one you left out because you only had two players. That all seems intuitive, so the tricky case is gaining by type. You know that "gain a Loot" works, and of course that's the same thing as the Horse case, except it's a type. And it's all covered in the rulebook, what "gain a Loot" means and how you shuffle the Loots. Augurs don't anticipate this. Augurs are a pile, so they work fine with Ferryman; you get an Acolyte, it says "gain an Augur," and there's no Loot-like exception there.

I can see the argument that it should be defined differently. But it can't just be e.g. "gaining has to be of cards being used this game," unless you want Workshops gaining Ghosts and things. And you know, those non-supply piles were made with the idea that Workshops couldn't get them.

Yeah, I don't think these rules are very intuitive.
"Gain a Rats" is equivalent to "gain a Rats from the Rats pile".
"Gain a Loot" is equivalent to "gain a Loot from the Loot pile".
"Gain a Reward" is equivalent to "gain a Reward from the Reward pile".
"Gain an Augur" is equivalent to "gain an Augur from the Supply".

On the contrary, they are quite intuitive and don’t cause any issues.

17

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #223: Weak is good, actually

« on: July 02, 2024, 12:11:32 pm »

This is very narrow, I only see this with Gardens or Guildhall.

18

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #223: Weak is good, actually

« on: July 01, 2024, 02:51:50 pm »

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What am I missing about library?

« on: June 30, 2024, 01:16:31 am »

It's also one of my favorite base set cards (as implied by my name), because I think draw-to-x strategies are fun.

Do you find Adventurer fun as well?

Yeah, Adventurer is like a total draw to X card.

20

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #223: Weak is good, actually

« on: June 30, 2024, 12:25:37 am »

Quill

Treasure - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and you may play an Action from your hand twice.

Notes: A simpler Mastermind variant (because it can’t be used on itself), which is much weaker because it only doubles an Action instead of tripling it.

Seems more like a weaker Royal Galley to me.

21

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Revised versions of published cards

« on: June 29, 2024, 06:20:05 am »

All of these range between dubious and crap which shows that Copper not being a Supply pile to save money or whatever is a bad idea in hindsight.
There are also other cards which would be affected like Swindler or Gardens.

22

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #222: Take Five

« on: June 26, 2024, 07:18:33 am »

Leap (Action, $5)
+5 Cards
+1 Action
At the start of your Buy phase, loose all $ and discard down to 3 cards in hand.

Spelling error: should say "lose all $"

my thoughts: seems too all or nothing in a way. im wondering if it could instead be
"at the start of your buy phase, gain one debt for each card in your hand"

That is a totally different animal. The actual card is fine for single Province (payload e.g. Gold,Gold,Silver) gaining or other ways to Victory like remodeling. It totally sucks with virtual Coins whereas your card loves virtual Coins and hates Treasures (with 2 in play, Golds are mere Coppers).

23

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #222: Take Five

« on: June 22, 2024, 08:45:15 am »

Silversmithy • $5 • Action
+5 Cards
Trash this unless you trash a Silver from your hand.

24

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #222: Take Five

« on: June 20, 2024, 11:49:06 pm »

I don’t see the mitigation. Sure, min-forging two cards into a $7 is a possibility but giving up a $3 and a $4 respectively a $2 and a $5 (and above all the chance to play them in this turn) is always a steep price.

So yeah, the interaction in this split pile is a bit low.

I’d simply run with a straightforward Duchy interaction (make it simpler, you don’t need that Coffers thing). Might still be too strong (you draw far more than with Encampment) but then again it is a $7.

25

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #221: I Am Forever in Your Debt

« on: June 20, 2024, 03:20:54 am »

Without virtual Coins? You play Treasure first and then buy a Debt-costed card (I could as well have used an on-buy trigger)! The point of it all is to make it harder to go for Archduke once you already have green in your deck.