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.

276

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #4 - Zombie

« on: July 20, 2012, 06:56:29 pm »

Can a Zombie be moved into an empty pile?

Presumably it can be moved into pile that already has Zombie on top. (Stack four or five Zombies on top of Possession....)

I assume the answer to both of these is yes. Which means (importantly) that Zombie could be used to undo empty piles and slow down a 3 pile ending. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but adds to the strategy of the card.

^^^ That. We played it last night and I buried the Harem cards 3 deep in Zombies. It's powerful being able to shut off certain strategies, even if for just a short while. The empty pile thing never came up for us, but that's an intended interaction.

277

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #4 - Zombie

« on: July 19, 2012, 08:50:28 pm »

I feel like the reveal/choose mechanic needs to go. Not because it's too political or anything, but because it weakens the card too much. If you can only block action cards your opponent already has, there's a good chance he wasn't planning to buy more, anyway. You should just be able to pick a pile to block. It's probably wise to restrict it to action (or maybe kingdom) cards, though, because a) putting one of these on the provinces would be really obnoxious, let alone two or three, and b) it helps keep the feel distinct from embargo.

I wasn't sure how annoying that would be. Say two players buy Zombies. It's conceivable that after turn 6, there's only 5 non-Zombie Kingdom piles left. The more players you add, the worse the potential. I suppose it only gets really annoying if everyone is buying them and using them specifically to blank the piles, but it's an easy fix just buying or moving them off the zombified piles, and they run out quick enough on their own (also, you can just move them around with your own zombies rather than buy them up). I think it might be fine your way; the greatest appeal is how much more elegant it makes the card:

Zombie (3)
Action - Attack
+$2
Move a Zombie card from any Kingdom pile onto a Kingdom pile of your choice.
---------------
If Zombie is on a Kingdom pile, cards beneath it can't leave that pile.

Waaaaaaaaaaaay cleaner. Hopefully not incredibly annoying.

With the +$2, I'm a little worried that this card is too close to a strictly-better duchess. The fact that you can gain duchesses for free is probably enough to compensate, though.

I'm not sure why you're comparing this specifically with Duchess. Their effects aren't that similar, Duchess costs $1 less, and plenty of actions cards costing $3 provide $2 + an effect.

The blocking effect could be much stronger in multiplayer, because often nobody would want unblock a pile for fear of giving their opponents an advantage.

At the same time, if you play a Zombie and move a card off a pile, you're the first person with the opportunity to purchase from that pile. The interplay might work there.

This card should swing the balance toward big money, since the money player will probably have the actions he needs before you can block them.

This also has a funky way of both emptying the Zombie pile and preventing other piles from going empty. I'm not sure who that favors, play-style-wise.

This card counters itself pretty strongly, because you aren't impeded by the zombies on the turn you play it. The only alternative counter is to buy the zombie on top of the pile you want to get at, so either way, you end up with a zombie in your deck. Generally, I don't like that sort of thing. I'd like there to be an alternate way to get rid of the zombie. Paying extra $ to get the card might work, but isn't very thematic. Maybe discard an action card to lure away the zombie?

I wouldn't like that style of play if it was over-used, but an occasional card seems fine. It can be easy enough to just avoid Zombies sometimes, going Big Money or some other insular strategy.

278

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #4 - Zombie

« on: July 19, 2012, 06:51:23 pm »

You need to change the wording.  How about "If any player would gain a card from that supply pile, he gains the Zombie on top of it instead".

So you Ironworks a covered Great Hall and get nothing.  Except for BRAAAAAINNSS

That wording could work. I'd probably make it "If a card would be gained or trashed from that Supply pile, the Zombie on top is gained or trashed instead." But I'm not convinced that the wording I've chosen isn't intuitive. Not yet, at least.

EDIT: Changed it anyway. Even if it takes a few more words, I want the intention to be clear.

279

Variants and Fan Cards / Clasic_Cards #4 - Zombie

« on: July 19, 2012, 05:37:14 pm »

Initial design:

Zombie (3)
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals an Action card from his or her hand or reveals a hand with no Action cards. Choose a card revealed this way. Move a Zombie card from any supply pile onto the supply pile of that card.
---------
If Zombie is on a Supply pile, cards beneath it can't leave that pile.

Zombie (3)
Action
+$2
Move a Zombie card from the top of any Kingdom pile onto the top of another Kingdom pile of your choice.
---------------
If Zombie is on top of a Kingdom pile, it must be gained before other cards in that pile. The same is true for buying, trashing, and moving.

• Zombies created more zombies! This might be thematically awkward with inanimate Action cards like Moat, but I still enjoy the overall idea.
• When a Zombie is on a pile, it has to leave that pile before cards beneath it can. It can still be bought, gained, trashed, or otherwise moved as though it were on its original pile. Is that clear with my wording? Do you think I'd have to explain it more explicitly?
• I likely missed problems with this card. Please, feel free to point them out.

EDIT: Changed it to +$2 because +2 Cards don't interact all that well with the other mechanics.
EDIT2: I've changed the wording on the second clause 10 times already. I like the current because it seems the most direct.

280

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #3 - Investigator

« on: July 18, 2012, 05:38:29 pm »

It's not really in the spirit of Dominion to choose who you interact with. A relatively unique aspect of the game is that it manages to create an interesting multiplayer experience with little to no politics. People who want that kind of political interaction are probably going to prefer a game like Settlers of Catan.

Edit: Also, if it wasn't clear from Schneau's post, if a player is targeted by an investigator, every player who goes before him can re-investigate him and know exactly what to pick. That's not a desirable mechanic.

We used to play a lot of Settlers around here. We now like Dominion much more.

Initially, this card was just going to reveal all players' hands, but I felt that was too easy a trigger condition. I overlooked that my fix doesn't actually change that in multiplayer if you target the player on your right and other players are using Investigators. It's tricky getting this idea of multiplayer interaction down since it's so prevalent at all times, as opposed to a game with a slow and steady accumulation of resources.

Given that in mind, I suppose I would change it to the player on your left ala Tribute.

I'm not sure I get this one.  I don't really see a balance problem, but I'm not sure what my goal would be when buying one.  If I wanted to trash cards from the supply, I guess I'd purposely choose a card that my chosen opponent didn't buy?  On the other hand, if I want the +Card and +Buy, I'd try to get a hit.  But if it fails, how would trashing a supply card be a helpful thing for me, except maybe once in a while by purest coincidence?

Trashing cards from the supply is a really rare thing to actually want to do.  One case might be if you're going for Provinces but your opponent is going Gardens (for example; any two distinct VP strategies will suffice), and then you might be happy to trash the other player's Victory cards out from underneath him.  That would be fairly marginal, though, and in any case second choice to buying up some of the other card for yourself, however.  And this card restricts you to Action cards anyway, so never mind.

Anyway, whenever you do want to do it, it's weird that this card would make you come up with a bad guess in order to do it; and if you'd rather have the +Card and +Buy, then I'm thinking you'd rarely if ever care about supply trashing as the consolation prize.

Just to be clear, it's perfectly fine to have a card whose usefulness is situational.  I just don't see the synergy within the card.  It's entirely possible I'm missing some clever use of the card, but I don't see one off-hand.

The strategy I'm trying to suggest is one that aims to gather VP quickly and eliminate piles. Ideally, you'd always name a card in your opponent's deck early on. If you hit, you get the direct benefits. If you miss, you still press the piles. Whether this card effectively pushes that strategy is up for question, but that's the intention of its design.

281

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #3 - Investigator

« on: July 18, 2012, 02:17:44 pm »

I think it would be slightly more stable to have it always be the player to your left. That way, in multiplayer games, you don't have the issue of being able to see someones hand when a player before you plays Investigator, and have an advantage of knowing what is in their hand.

I didn't want it to be a useless option if the player to your left is going big money. I also think this type of interaction allows for some fun interplay, and allows you to target someone, say, to your right that's going all Pirate Ship or some other insular strategy. I'm not sure how important foreword information of a player's hand is in this game, but it's a topic I'd enjoy hearing more theory about.

282

Variants and Fan Cards / Clasic_Cards #3 - Investigator

« on: July 18, 2012, 01:06:31 pm »

Original version

Investigator - (4)
Action
+$2
Choose another player and an Action card from the supply. That player reveals his or her hand. If a copy of that card is revealed this way: +1 Card, +1 Buy. Otherwise, trash that card from the supply.

Changed due to the issues outlined in the responses below.

Investigator - (4)
Action
+$2
Choose an Action card from the supply. The player to your left reveals his or her hand. If a copy of that card is revealed this way: +1 Card, +1 Buy. Otherwise, trash that card from the supply.

• This card came about from brainstorming ways to press the piles. If the inspection succeeds, you get extra buys. If it doesn't, you at least can trash a card from the supply.
• I restricted it to Action cards because I didn't want people choosing Copper and Estates right away. I could have written that out on the card instead, but it looks ugly and tedious.
• It doesn't grant extra actions because the self-combo just doesn't seem that interesting when accomplished so easily. I didn't want this to just be another Conspirator.
• Cards don't usually target specific players (and for good reason), but it seems fine in this limited case, especially since it doesn't directly harm said player (unless he or she has a single pile strategy). *see posts below*
• Since it came up in my last thread: I'm naming these threads like this so it's easier to track them should I ever want to revisit or catalog them.

283

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #2: Vampire

« on: July 17, 2012, 05:13:19 pm »

As mentioned pinning opponents is no fun, KC+KC+Bridgex3 ends the game, KC+KC+Vamp*3 makes the game unplayable for the other players. I think you can accomplish what you want with a modified margrave effect.


Vampire - (4)
Action - Attack
Each opponent with less than 3 cards in their hand draws a card.
Each opponent discards a card. +1 VP for each Victory card discarded this way.

I like the "draw and discard" idea as a balancing feature. I don't like how it matches the concept, but that isn't damning of the idea itself.

It's not that it doesn't further your gameplan; it's that it doesn't further the game. In other words, with Bishop, you score points but also have to trash cards; if you don't want to run out of cards to trash with Bishop you have to continue to buy cards; and buying cards brings the game closer to ending on piles. Vampire scores you points without giving you any incentive to bring the game closer to ending.

Ah, right. It doesn't eliminate piles. That's as much a problem with Thief as it is with my card (though arguably Thief leads you toward buying things). I'm enjoying how one short-sighted design can reap so many lessons.

The issue here is the potential to shut down your opponents' turns.  If you can get to the point of KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge, you're in a position where you will almost certainly win and win big, but what it doesn't do is obliterate any chance that your opponents will be able to respond.  They'll still have a proper turn afterward (if you don't end the game that very turn).  With the official Dominion cards, the only way you can lock out your opponents is by using King's Courts, Masquerade, and a discarder attack (Militia or Goons, for example) in conjunction.  Note, however, that this combo was not noticed during playtesting of the game, and Donald X. has stated that he probably would have killed the combo if it had been noticed before publication.  (Though more recently he said maybe not, so who knows.)

Sensible enough. One of the first things I noticed about the game was how clever the design of Militia was for multiplayer. Don't know why I forgot that so quickly.

In some cases, the design of the official attack cards prevent lock-out in a very subtle way.  Notice how Sea Hag doesn't just say "put a Curse on top of your deck."  If it did, five plays would mean five Curses constituting the entirety of your next turn.  Instead, the "discard the top card of your deck" bit ensures is a safeguard against lock-out.

Similarly, Rabble works on the top 3 cards instead of the top 5, and Torturer lets you take Curses instead of sacrificing your whole next turn to multiple Torturers played in a row.

Without safeguards against lock-outs like this, it would be too easy to build an engine that would shut your opponent(s) out for whole turns or even, indeed, the entire rest of the game, which doesn't wind up being a whole lot of fun for the victims and possibly not the attackers, either.  True, it's not gamebreaking in the sense that there is something inherently wrong with the mechanics of a game that allowed lock-out, but it runs contrary to the principles upon which the official Dominion cards are founded.  As such, fan cards that break those principles probably aren't going to go over well with the players who are attracted to Dominion in the first place because like like those very qualities.

I have to keep in mind how the turn structure works. It's easy to gloss over.

Here, the issue is more that the potential point swing in a 2-player game is 1 VP per play, while in 4-player it's 3 VP per play.  So triple the power.  No fixed extra benefit (like a flat +$2 to the player) will either fix or further break this scaling issue.

Admittedly, some of the official Dominion attack cards do scale differently.  Thief can get you 3 Golds in a 4-player game, but only 1 in a 2-player game.  The likelihood that Thief will miss mitigates this difference somewhat, but the potential is still there.   However, Thief is weak enough anyway that it's not massively overpowered at 4-player, just better.

Even with that category of cards, though, there are subtle scaling fixes.  Pirate Ship is a great example.  You don't get a coin on your mat for EVERY Treasure card you trash -- you only get a coin IF you trashed any Treasure cards.  This is one way to rein in the scaling on your card:  gain a VP if ANYBODY discards a Victory card.  This has a drawback too:  it'll mean players will have to be careful to respond to the attack in order (because in the last seat I'm going to wait to see if someone else discards a Victory card before discarding mine), thereby slowing down the game, so there are still issues to either try to fix or decide to live with.  But it's one way in which the scalability issue might be addressed.

That's a good review. The trick as always will be finding the right fit.

By the way, the posts in "The Bible of Donald X." subforum are also really interesting reads.  They're all Donald X. telling stories about how Dominion was designed.  There is mention somewhere, though I can't remember exactly, that he experimented with a "everybody discards a card" attack, ultimately realizing that the lock-out possibilities that introduced didn't lead to the kind of game he wanted to make.  It's entertaining and illuminating stuff.

Anyway, a quick footnote:  I do appreciate your interest in making simple cards.  I agree that fan cards tend to be more complex than they need to be, and I'm a huge fan of very simple cards that nevertheless allow for interesting strategy.

Thanks for all the input. It's been helpful.

-----------------------------

I suppose that one of the problems with my "Vampire" idea is that it's just a Thief variant at heart; that is, it's trying to steal VP from players. I don't think that's inherently unhealthy, but it's definitely something that should be handled carefully. I've been looking over the idea for an elegant idea that solves all the problems, but I don't see one that's satisfactory.

284

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #2: Vampire

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:46:59 pm »

"Clasic" in the thread title is just referring to my user name, as in "my cards". Hence the single "s" spelling. As for the general design, I whole-heartedly admit that I'm a newbie at Dominion design and will graciously accept whatever scathing reviews you'd like to offer. It took me years to get good at designing Magic, and I doubt I'll know all the nuances of designing this game right away.

Ah, gotcha. I noticed it was spelled Clasic, but didn't get the connection.

I like your new Bureaucrat version of this card much better, though it still has the VP accumulation issue a little bit.

I'm not sure I get the problem, per se. Is it that you see gaining VP quickly with this card as drastically easier than with, say, Bishop? Or is it that this card doesn't further your own gameplan in any way other than gaining VP?

Also, I'm at the portion of the article you linked on "Myths About Card Prices", and it's clear how poor an influence Magic design can translate to be at times.

285

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #2: Vampire

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:30:08 pm »

Man, when I saw your thread titled Classic_Cards #1: Blood Diamond, I assumed you were starting a series of discussions on "Classic" bad card ideas. A.K.A. bad card ideas that many different Dominion beginners come up with before they really understand the dynamics of the game. Then I read the post and realized you were seriously proposing that same card again and merely titling it "Classic" because of the idea's simplicity.

Now I read this thread, with a card containing two more "Classic" blunders: an Attack that when played repeatedly can cause your opponents to discard their whole hand and a card that generates infinite VP chips without causing the game to approach an end condition. Now I'm starting to think this series really is a sort of clever stealth Public Service Announcement-type thing after all.

If you really are seriously proposing these cards, please, please take the time to read Rinkworks' Dominion Fan Card Creation Guide.

"Clasic" in the thread title is just referring to my user name, as in "my cards". Hence the single "s" spelling. As for the general design, I whole-heartedly admit that I'm a newbie at Dominion design and will graciously accept whatever scathing reviews you'd like to offer. It took me years to get good at designing Magic, and I doubt I'll know all the nuances of designing this game right away.

Thanks for the link; I read some of it earlier, but apparently I should read it all.

286

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #2: Vampire

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:19:50 pm »

But KC-KC-Vampire-Vampire-Vampire shuts down all opponents and gets you infinite VPs. I think that needs a fix.
You either need a Torturer-like clause to opt not to discard or a Militia-like clause for players with more than X cards in hand.

I see the KC-KC-(...) set-up mentioned a ton. Is this a common issue in the custom card realm? This doesn't seem stronger than KC-KC-Bridge*3. Or KC-KC-Goons*3. KC is a strong card that enables strong plays, but should God-hands temper the design of lesser cards that much?

And I like to point out, that it scales differently in multiplayer. I don't know if this intended, but in 4 player games, this can be pretty strong.

I tried to make it balanced for a 4-player game, which is why I decided against extra benefits.

You can pin opponents with multiple plays of this every turn, and in a 3-4 player game, the player in last seat is never going to win. This also scales poorly in multiplayer (there's the possibility of gaining multiple VP per play of this card).

I haven't thought about this "last seat" issue much in regards to design, but it gets talked about a lot, and I've definitely experienced why. Using "discard down to four" just makes this card play really poorly, though. Hmmm... that's an interesting problem to tackle.

This looks very similar to Torturer to me, except that Torturer's 1 VP penalty is not permanent (as opposed to a 1 VP benefit in the form of a VP token, which is permanent), and Torturer's options help a player weather the attack when chained and this doesn't. There's also the fact that Torturer's attack does nothing after the Curses run out.

There was a version of this design that gained discarded VP instead of gaining tokens. That version felt really awkward playwise (though more flavorful thematically). It's an interesting feature, since early on it drains Estates out of players decks, which they're all too happy to give away, then starts hurting a bit more later down the road.

In short, your card is rather weak in BM (it's either a half Militia or a Monument, neither of which gives $), incredibly strong in engines (it can pin opponents), and scales poorly with more players.

Noted. I'll have to think about this a bit. Any suggestions would be illuminating.



EDIT: Perhaps a Bureaucrat route might work. Something like:

Vampire - (4)
Action
Each other player discards a card or reveals a hand with no Victory cards. +1 VP for each Victory card discarded this way.

287

Feedback / Is there any desire for Dominion specific smilies?

« on: July 17, 2012, 01:59:27 pm »

Specifically, it'd be nice to have all the Treasure images, as well as the VP symbol, as recognizable smilies that can be added to posts from a menu and have basic tags associated with them. If these already exist, could I be directed toward them? If they don't... would anyone else like them? I can whip up some crude images if need be.

288

Variants and Fan Cards / Clasic_Cards #2 - Vampire

« on: July 17, 2012, 01:43:04 pm »

Vampire - (4)
Action - Attack
Each other player discards a card. +1 VP for each Victory card discarded this way.

• The vampire drains players, gaining vitality along the way.
• I like the subgame this creates. Do players give you VP, or do they sacrifice useful cards?
• I could imagine this costing only (3), but it seems oppressive at that point, especially if two are purchased immediately. I don't necessarily think it'd be overpowered, but weakening it a bit makes it more fun overall. There's a good possibility that means this card should provide coins or cards, but I felt the methodical VP gaining was enough, if a bit lackluster in two-player games.

289

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Secret Agent

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:54:59 am »

Maybe add in the may clause, so you don't have to gain a curse if he shows 3 curses.

"The player to your left reveals three cards from his or her hand. You may choose one of the revealed cards and gain a copy of it, putting it in your hand. If you do, discard a card."

That's an unlikely case most times, and an acceptable drawback I'd say. It won't come up all that often, and will create funny stories when it does.

290

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: ANOTHER Random card idea/concept I need opinions on.

« on: July 16, 2012, 09:51:27 pm »

Why not just:

+1 Action
You may trash this card. If you do, gain two cards each with a cost equal to the number of copies of this you've played this turn (including this).



The cost mechanic seems a bit funky for what you're attempting with the card. Anyway, it seems interesting, but hard to maneuver and VERY parasitic. But I like the idea anyway.

291

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Cards for the following mechanics?

« on: July 16, 2012, 08:50:41 pm »

Buried Loot [5]
Treasure
$2
When you buy this, immediately put it and all treasure cards you have in play on top of your deck.

292

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Secret Agent

« on: July 16, 2012, 08:41:19 pm »

How about limiting the number of cards revealed? It sets a different parameter and creates some interaction. For instance:

Secret Agent -
Action
The player to your left reveals three cards from his or her hand. Choose one of the revealed cards and gain a copy of it, putting it in your hand.  Discard a card.

This would synergize with Militia, etc.

Are you saying this is a good feature, a bad one, or just pointing it out?

293

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #1 - Blood Diamond

« on: July 16, 2012, 08:40:30 pm »

A set that cares about costs:

Wheelhouse - 1
Action
+1 Action
+$1
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs more than the combined cost of cards you have in play: +1 card.

Bad Village - 2
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-----
As an additional cost to buy this, discard a victory card.

Barter Village - 2
Action
Choose one: +2 Cards; or +2 Actions.

Dumper - 2*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
-----
This costs $2 more while being trashed.

Match Maker - 3
Action
+1 Action
Reveal a card from your hand, then reveal cards from the top of your deck until revealing one with the same cost in coins. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Molder - 3
Action - Reaction
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If they have different costs: +1 Card, +1 Action.
---
If you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain that card putting it in your hand.

Inspector - 3*
Action - Attack
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of his deck and either discards or puts it back, your choice. For each card revealed, if its an...
Action, +1 Action.
Treasure, +$1
Victory, +1 Card.
-----
This costs $1 more for each other player in the game.

Panhandler - 4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck and discards each costing more than $0. If he discarded exactly 1 card, he gains a Copper. If he discarded exactly 2 cards, he gains a curse.

Sifter - 4
Action
You may trash a treasure card from your hand. If you do, cards cost $ less this turn equal to the $ that card could have produced.

Urban Village - 4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
When you buy this, trash a card from your hand. If it's an...
Action, put this on top of your deck.
Treasure, +1 coin token.
Victory, +1 VP token.

Sanctuary - 4
Action
Trash any number of differently costed cards from your hand. +$1 per card trashed.

Orchard - 4
Victory
Worth VP equal to the most common cost in coins among cards in your deck. If two or more costs are tied for most common, use the highest cost.

Stockroom - 4*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.
-----
As you buy this, you may gain up to 2 coppers. This costs $2 less per copper gained.

Factory - 4
Action
Choose one - Gain a card costing up to $4; or gain 2 cards with combined costs equaling up to $5.

Scam Artist - 5
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each player (including you) trashes a card from his or her hand. You gain a card costing exactly $1 more than your trashed card, putting it into your hand. Each other player gains a card costing exactly $1 less than his or her trashed card, putting it into his or her hand.

Hanging Gardens - 5
Victory
Worth 1 VP for every 3 cards in your deck costing $5 or more.

Metropolis - 5
Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-----
As an additional cost to buy this, discard 2 cards.

Ravager - 5
Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals his hand and discards the highest costing card from it.

Dividends - 7
Treasure
When you play this, its worth $1 per different cost among cards you have in play.

Groves - 7
Victory
Worth 4VP
-----
Rather than buy this, you may trash any number of cards from your hand with total costs exactly equal to this card's cost.

294

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Clasic_Cards #1 - Blood Diamond

« on: July 16, 2012, 08:22:57 pm »

This post is for storing all my CC threads, good or bad. Posterity and all that jazz.

• Blood Diamond
• Vampire
• Investigator
• Zombie
• Catapult
• Scarecrow
• Tilted Scales
• Hanging Gardens
• Trickster
• Junkyard
• Scavenger
• Trick Coin
• Coal
• Lost City
• Brokerage
• Digger
• Clubhouse
• Ruins
• Barge
• Wrecking Crew
• Casino
• Werewolf & Moon
• Ghost Town
• Factory
• Trust Fund
• Plaza
• Blockade
• Studio
• Viaduct
• King Midas
• Overflowing Landfill
• Investor
• Senator
• Groves
• Embezzler
• Vagabond
• Refinery
• Reserve
• Metallurgist
• Scam Artist
• Coffers
• Assembly Line
• Tithe
• Bunker
• Inventor
• Peacekeeper
• Dividends
• Stockholder

295

Variants and Fan Cards / Clasic_Cards #1 - Blood Diamond

« on: July 16, 2012, 08:17:28 pm »

Blood Diamond -
Treasure
$3
When you buy this, gain a Curse card.

• I wanted to make a flavorful, simple card. I feel that a lot of the expansions get bogged down with too many complex cards for their own good.
  
• I considered costing it at , but that seems like it pushes the power level a bit. I'd want to playtest it a bit to find out.
• I wanted to just make this a "Curse(d?) Treasure", as that just sounds way neater, and I would have were the wording on cards like Witch different. As is, if I understand the rules well, "Curse card" refers to its card type, not its name. I could jump through hoops to make a "Curse Treasure" version work, but the card above seemed more elegant.

296

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Secret Agent

« on: July 16, 2012, 07:47:26 pm »

How about limiting the number of cards revealed? It sets a different parameter and creates some interaction. For instance:

Secret Agent -
Action
The player to your left reveals three cards from his or her hand. Choose one of the revealed cards and gain a copy of it, putting it in your hand.  Discard a card.

297

Introductions / Long time game-designer finds a new game he really likes

« on: July 16, 2012, 07:02:57 pm »

Hello! My name's Rush_Clasic. I happened upon Dominion a few months ago and now the family and I own the whole run of sets. I'm a rather competitive player, but I mostly joined these forums for the card design areas. I'm a long time Magic: the Gathering player and have been running around designing home-brew cards and sets for that game over 10 years now. I'm eager to check out what the crowd here is like.

On the real world side of things, I run the family book-and-game store, where I'm trying to get some weekly games running. Hopefully that'll turn into my regular Dominion playzone.