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.

376

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 06, 2021, 02:41:43 pm »

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

Same way Diplomat's "first reveal this..." and the +1 Card token's "you first get +1 Card" effect work. The card you play goes into play, then before you start resolving it, you discard a card.

Essentially, even when you put a card into play, the game's rules consider you to not have even started playing it until you start following its instructions. Otherwise, Diplomat would need to be revealed before Attacks go into play (i.e. they'd require you to be psychic), and the +1 Card token would give you the +1 Card before the card goes into play (which lacks accountability).

"When you play a card, first do X" is basically shorthand for "when you play a card, before following its instructions, do X." And like other "first" effects, you'd discard a card before you even make the decision of whether to use a Way or not.

377

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 06, 2021, 12:35:56 pm »

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

Oops! Thanks for noticing the typo.

378

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 06, 2021, 11:50:49 am »

I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...

"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be

each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

I had a hunch that my Collector might've been misworded. Thanks; I've applied the change.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

That fact that it can trash opponents' Coppers makes sure it's frequently a Gold minus instead of just being a Gold plus, which is correct given the cost. I think it's fine as-is.

379

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 06, 2021, 12:32:53 am »

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:



Philanthropist is a cantrip attack that self-junks and also junks your opponent's deck (but likely benefits them in the near term).  You could try to build a deck that will be able to gain Provinces with Philanthropist, but it might be more optimal to trash it early to gain a better card.  Philanthropist and Counting House would be a strong combo, but with only 5 copies of Philanthropist in the Kingdom, it shouldn't be game-breaking.  There are also synergies with cards like Beggar, Settlers, and Ill-Gotten Gains. 

Benefaction can help mitigate the Copper junking from Philanthropist.

Benefaction doesn't need the dividing line. See Improve and your own Philanthropist.

380

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 05, 2021, 04:11:00 pm »

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.

381

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 05, 2021, 01:27:20 am »

Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?

Yes it is, and that comparison makes it clear that it's too strong.

382

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!

« on: August 04, 2021, 11:53:17 pm »

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

383

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 03, 2021, 05:53:15 pm »

This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

All the discussion has made me want to change my card a bit to make the choice an actual choice (rather than "do I have something i want to trash or not?)

Revolutionist
Action- Duration, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, trash a card.

Edit: updated again

The next-turn trashing also needs to specify "from your hand." It would also read better if it said "at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and trash a card from your hand."

384

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 03, 2021, 02:51:13 pm »

This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

All the discussion has made me want to change my card a bit to make the choice an actual choice (rather than "do I have something i want to trash or not?)

Revolutionist
Action- Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

This is significantly less powerful than the previous version, and I'd want to price it down at $3, but then I think it's too obvious to open with 2 of them most of the time. So it stays at $4. Does it need a buff?

If you don't trash, this is the same as Caravan. This is basically "choose one: Caravan or cantrip trasher", so it's strictly better than Caravan at the same price.

385

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 03, 2021, 02:14:28 pm »

This sounds complex, but it's really quite simple - a non-terminal, trashing, conditional duration, handsize-reduction attack:

Revolutionist
Action- Attack-Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards 1.

This is great for clearing your early junk and attacking at the same time, but once you clear the junk, it's a boring, expensive cantrip with no benefit, and is a liability if you have terminal draw.

Wouldn't "Revolutionary" be the more commonly used word? While I'm not sure that a pure cantrip trasher is too strong at $4 (there was a recent discussion about that here), a cantrip optional trasher might be. The other problem that I see with this card is that you always want the Duration effect to trigger. The +1 Card on the following turn is far better than a cantrip (which does nothing), so there is little incentive not to trash. What might be more interesting is if you gave the choice of +$1 this turn or trash a card and +$1 next turn. (The problem there is I have no idea how to price that, as you run into issues with Junk Dealer; it might need dynamic pricing or an on-gain effect).

We use Revolutionary as the person (noun), commonly, but it can also be an adjective describing a person, idea, etc. Revolutionist strictly refers to the person.

Regarding the choice to always trash... yes, to maximize the card's benefit, you want to. But by midgame, there are times you have a hand with no cards you want to trash. I've had more than a few times that I didn't play a Junk Dealer because unless I drew junk, I didn't want to have to trash something.

Maybe the attack added on just makes it too strong then.

To me this card does not follow the chalange. It is not the choise “now or next turn”. The choice is: “is there anything i want to trash”

With that logic, Sawmill doesn't qualify either because the choice is "do I want this to be non-terminal or terminal," and Copycat doesn't qualify because the choice is frequently "do I want to pass up playing an Action to possibly gain a better Action." All three qualify for the same reason, which is that their staying out is optional.

Revolutionist staying out is tied to whether you trash or not, and it gives you the choice of whether or not it trashes, so it does in fact give you the choice of whether it stays out or not.

386

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 03, 2021, 12:32:43 pm »

This is strictly better than Hunting Grounds, except for the latter's on-trash ability.

Hunting Grounds is weak and more importantly, as you point out, it has an on-trash ability and thus isn't actually strictly worse. If Hunting Grounds didn't have its on-trash effect, I'd agree that this couldn't cost , but neither one is actually strictly worse or better than the other.

I have designed cards like this, and they raise a question (which I do not believe arises in any official card's design), which is this: do you have to choose the number of cards you want to draw, then draw them all at once? Or can you draw one at a time, and decide after each (until you reach 4) if you want to draw another card this turn or draw the rest next turn? The latter ability is significantly better than the former.

With cards like Cellar and Chapel, you decide the number up front; you don't get to trash Cultist and then trash one of the cards you drew. I'd rule the same way about Harbor, that you decide up front.

387

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 02, 2021, 12:15:19 pm »

You don't need "for the rest of." That's implied (see Bridge, Livery, and Inventor).

I'm pretty sure "from your deck" means "from the top of your deck" unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, both Scrying Pool and Golem (which only say to "reveal cards from your deck" rather than "reveal cards from the top of your deck") would allow you to reveal cards from anywhere in your deck.

Thanks

Estate trader v 0.2
Action - Duration
Cost
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a top card of your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.

My second comment was refuting segura's statement that it should say "from the top of," not agreeing with it. The previous wording was fine except for the unnecessary "for the rest of." In fact, this wording is now grammatically incorrect, so it should either be "you may set aside the top card of your deck" or go back to "you may set aside a card from your deck."

388

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 01, 2021, 04:01:55 pm »

Hello there, Dominion Strategy Forum users. I was really interested in this Weekly Design Contest, so here is my first card. English is not my native, so I will gladly take any feedback on my wording.

Estate trader
Action - Duration
Cost

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
For the rest of this turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a card from your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.

The wording is ambiguous. I guess you intend "you may draw a card and set it aside" and not that you can look through your deck and pick a card of your choice.

I'm pretty sure "from your deck" means "from the top of your deck" unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, both Scrying Pool and Golem (which only say to "reveal cards from your deck" rather than "reveal cards from the top of your deck") would allow you to reveal cards from anywhere in your deck.

389

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: August 01, 2021, 11:06:15 am »

Hello there, Dominion Strategy Forum users. I was really interested in this Weekly Design Contest, so here is my first card. English is not my native, so I will gladly take any feedback on my wording.

Estate trader
Action - Duration
Cost

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
For the rest of this turn, when you gain a Victory card, you may set aside a card from your deck face down (on this). At the start of your next turn, put those cards into your hand.

You don't need "for the rest of." That's implied (see Bridge, Livery, and Inventor).

390

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 31, 2021, 11:55:10 pm »

I assume that's supposed to be Merchant Wagon?

391

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 30, 2021, 07:29:35 pm »

I'm highly considering this change for Skipper:

Skipper | Action - Duration | $5
Play an Action card from your hand up to two times. If you played it once, set aside a copy of that card from the Supply under this. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card and return it to the Supply.

Now Skipper can unambiguously re-play Duration cards. Okay, well there still is some ambiguity.

• Turn 10: you Skipper Wharf α  (choosing to play it once), you get +2 cards this turn and set aside a Wharf β from the Supply.
• Turn 11 you get +2 cards from the Wharf α you played, then you play the Wharf β that is set aside for another +2 cards, then you return that Wharf β to the Supply
• on Turn 12 you have no Wharves in play, but you still get +2 cards from Wharf β, if you remember to do so. This is a tricky case but it already exists in Dominion (see: Bonfire)

But I think this is still much less confusing than the original phrasing what would happen if you played Wharf. The same card is being played again while still in play? Awkward.

These changes also has the affect of "holding" onto a card from the Supply. There's only one Lost City left and I don't want you to gain it, I can then play my Lost City once, then set aside the last one from the Supply. At the start of my turn I play a lost City, return it to the supply and it's ready for me to buy this turn. It's also stronger because next turn I have the chance to draw the card next turn and still play it, along with the copy from the Supply I played.

With these changes, there isn't room for gain to deck.

Thoughts? Is this an actual improvement in card quality?

Setting aside a copy from the Supply that gets returned immediately after it's played anyway seems largely pointless most of the time imo; that very rarely really accomplishes anything different from how it currently works, except allowing you to redraw the played card. This change would also have the unintended consequence of trashing one-shots from the Supply (e.g. the copy of Pillage that was set aside from the Supply would trash itself as part of playing it, and then Stop-Moving would prevent it from being returned to the Supply). Otoh, the current wording doesn't work at all with one-shots, so maybe it's a good change if you really want it to work on those?

392

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 30, 2021, 02:56:35 pm »

Changing out my entry, after having slept on it a minute.

Sovereign • $5 • Action - Duration
You may play a non-Duration Action from your hand twice. If there's a copy of it in the Supply, you may set it aside and at the start of your next turn, play it twice.
 
Until then, the first time another player plays a copy of the set aside card on their turn, they play it again afterwards.

Now and later throne room. The 'later' only works if it's a supply card with some still available - no double-double on patricians once they're gone, knights, prizes, necropoli, etc. However the drawback is your opponents get throne effects on that card until your next turn too.

Adapted from a card (Sultan) that gubump posted in the discord.

"If there's a copy of it in the Supply, you may set it aside..." makes it sound like you set aside the copy that's in the Supply.

better?

Yep, better.

393

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 30, 2021, 01:43:03 pm »

Changing out my entry, after having slept on it a minute.

Sovereign • $5 • Action - Duration
You may play a non-Duration Action from your hand twice. If there's a copy of it in the Supply, you may set it aside and at the start of your next turn, play it twice.
 
Until then, the first time another player plays a copy of the set aside card on their turn, they play it again afterwards.

Now and later throne room. The 'later' only works if it's a supply card with some still available - no double-double on patricians once they're gone, knights, prizes, necropoli, etc. However the drawback is your opponents get throne effects on that card until your next turn too.

Adapted from a card (Sultan) that gubump posted in the discord.

"If there's a copy of it in the Supply, you may set it aside..." makes it sound like you set aside the copy that's in the Supply.

394

Weekly Design Contest / Re: weekly fan card contest ideas (for future contests)

« on: July 29, 2021, 03:49:49 pm »

• An Attack that encourages variety, whether by rewarding it or punishing a lack of it.
• A Village that doesn't cost .
• A card that uses "in games using this."
• A Reaction card that can play itself (examples: Sheepdog, Falconer).
• A terminal Action that gives + and no other vanilla bonuses (Coffers, Villagers, and + count as vanilla).
• A card with an unused combination of vanilla bonuses (so as to not be trivial, Coffers, Villagers, and + don't count).
• A card that qualifies for at least two past contests.

395

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 29, 2021, 01:16:41 am »

I've updated my entry:



Novice is a delayed, terminal Apprentice that allows you to trash up to two cards.

1. Is it intentional that this behaves wonky with cards that don't cost purely ? For example, if I set aside a Transmute and a Copper, this would wait until next turn to trash them (because + = =/= ) even though it doesn't draw anything. If not, it should say "if their total cost in ..."

2. This could be worded more simply: "Set aside up to 2 cards from your hand (on this). If their total cost in $ is $0, trash them. Otherwise, at the start of your next turn, trash them and +1 Card per they cost."

396

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 28, 2021, 05:46:02 pm »

Information Broker - $5
Action - Duration
+3 Cards
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take 4 Debt.

A Smithy+. Either you take the debt the same turn to have it be non-terminal with an extra draw, or you delay the debt to get an extra card and action on the following turn. I wanted the debt cost to be significant enough to make it a real choice to take the turn you play Information Broker or not. I am not sure how successful I was. I imagine it will be much more powerful later in the game when the average value in your deck is higher. Please let me know what you think, feedback is appreciated.

Imo, +4 Cards, +1 Action, take is already super strong for even without the ability to delay part of its effects to next turn.

397

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 28, 2021, 01:12:53 am »

Salvage • $4 • Treasure
Choose one: +$1; or You may trash a card costing $2 or more from your hand, and at the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, +$1 per copy of that card in the trash.

tortured wording on that second clause to work around the possibility of a) counterfeiting this and b) trying to do the trashing from a hand full of coppers, and phrased in that order rather than the more typical "you may trash a card from your hand, if it cost...otherwise..." because the otherwise it seemed to imply you'd get the +$1 next turn.

Cares about the number of trashed cards in the trash at the start of your 2nd turn, so there may be a tempo-deterrent effect for later players to avoid giving free dollars.

I don't think you need "You may" for the second option, as the player can almost always just choose the first. If you keep it, it should not be capitalized.

I also don't know that you need to design around using Counterfeit. If there were any official Treasure-Durations, it would probably be errata'ed to say non-Duration, but for now it works the same as if you Crowned it and then used Bonfire to trash it (alternatively, when using it you could just presume the errata on Counterfeit).

I agree with the 2nd point (I also think Procession didn't need the "no longer works on Durations" errata), but I think it's problematic to have an option lack accountability, even if you could always just choose one of the other options. I have the same gripe with Treasurer and Graverobber.

398

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 28, 2021, 12:46:03 am »

My Submission:


Just in case you haven't heard about this, the whole setting-aside bit that Innovation and Summon use is unnecessary because of the following errata:

I'm changing the rules for playing a card you can't physically put into play. The new rule is, you can't! Wait: except, Thrones still get to play cards a 2nd time that went into play the first time but then vanished (I would like to kill this, but players are too attached to it). This rule as phrased by Ingix:

"An effect that tries to play a card for the first time can only do so when the card is where the effect expects it to be. If it can play it the first time, subsequent plays will also work.".

(I.e. Stop-Moving now prevents Harbor from being played if it's moved to somewhere it doesn't expect itself to be.)

399

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 28, 2021, 12:21:16 am »

Here's my entry this week. Sentinel is a cheap Night-Duration sifter/next turn set up card, granting you a double City Gate-like ability (or Secret Chamber reaction, remember that card) either during this Night phase or at the start of your next turn. +Cards at Night is a little awkward sometimes, but you can save your best two leftover cards for next turn (especially nice for dead-drawn Actions) while potentially sifting some junk out of your next hand. Using it at the start of next turn can help prevent duds and activate cards that care about the top of your deck (e.g. Wishing Well, Ironmonger, Chariot Race, etc.). Both options should see usage.

P.S. I was moments away from posting a nearly identical card to emtzalex (mine didn't have the on-play +Buy, but was otherwise the same, including the name!). Great minds I guess.

Just an FYI, a card with the same name won a recent contest (contest 118, specifically)--in fact, coincidentally, the creator of said card is the current judge--so you may want to change the name.

400

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 123: Duration? Are You Sure?

« on: July 27, 2021, 04:47:38 pm »

Novice is a Duration-Draw version of Apprentice.  I added a slight on-gain buff since it otherwise seemed on the weaker side of $5.

1. This could almost certainly stand to be unconditionally non-terminal. As it currently is, it compares really poorly to Research, which costs less. And it would honestly still compare poorly to Apprentice. Being able to play it on-gain is not nearly enough to offset the drawbacks of being Duration draw rather than regular draw.

2. This has difficult-to-track issues. You have to remember what you trashed for an entire round of play. That's why Research sets aside cards, to track how many cards you're supposed to draw next turn. Ofc, this approach would make it a lot weaker (by making you unable to draw the set-aside cards and thus unable to draw deck this turn), to the point of being strictly worse (identical if you take my advice in #1) than Research on-play.