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.

51

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 21, 2019, 03:26:30 pm »

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

I'm assuming this is meant to proc once per turn. If so, it needs an extra bit added on:

"If this is the first time you played a Shanty Library this turn, +1 Actions."

52

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 20, 2019, 03:19:59 am »

Welcome back Doom Shark! Your Weekly Design Contest seems to be a big success. Anyways, as for your card, I'll repeat something you once told me:

"Looks horribly broken to me."

Worst case scenario you can discard your whole hand for +5 Coffers. Then there really isn't anything you can't buy at that point. Opening two of these you can potentially have +10 Coffers by your second shuffle, while if your opponent collides they are at +5 Coffers. That's a very big swing based purely on shuffle luck.

Cool concept, but I think it needs some adjusting.

53

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 20, 2019, 02:21:44 am »

CHALLENGE #45 SUBMISSION

[UPDATE] Escsort seemed a little to strong so I changed a few things up:
(1) You can now only play the top card of your discard pile. You can still run through your whole pile, but it now requires more thought and setup.
(2) You can now play Treasure cards. This means Escort can act as a type of Peddler using Coppers from your discard pile. This gives Escort more utility early, but this functionality is probably short lived as you'll wanna stack Actions instead.

Overall this card still has a lot of potential, but it will now require more thought as skill to get the most out of it.



Escort can be bonkers strong with a large amount of Action cards in your discard to play from, but the trick is having a discard pile. These are best in high numbers, but these don't really work well until you have an equally high number of other Action cards with +Action amounts to play off of. Can play other Escorts from the discard pile for extra card draw.

The +1 Card serves to allow precise, incremental drawing from the discard and helps keep the power level of Escort in check as these will eventually get rid of your discard pile when reshuffling occurs.

Escort
$4 - Action
+1 Card
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal an Action from it and play it.

54

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 19, 2019, 12:38:34 pm »

Congrats Commodore Chuckles!

Frontier by anordinaryman

Frontier - Action - $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

A Level 1 extra turn. Obviously, there's no reason to play more (barring some weird reason to want coppers). It feels unnecessary to even put the "per frontier you have in play" clause. That aside, this sounds a bit too strong. Outpost gives you three cards and costs $5. This gives you 4 cards plus a copper and costs $3. Yes, you get junked, but it shouldn't be too hard to trash it it (consider that trashing is usually necessary in an outpost strategy anyway to guarantee getting reasonable cards in your 3 card draw).

When you copied my card description, you omitted the super important part "this stays in play" at the end. In the image it also says "this stays in play." The whole point is that each time you play it it gets worse, you get one more copper, and you only get one play out of each card. So, you buy one, play it and you get one copper. Second one you buy and play and you get now two coppers, etc. I agree that the card as you read it is over powered and not interesting  and can't cost 3. I'm curious how the proper reading changes your thoughts/ideas. Also, I'd like to know anything I could have done to make it more clear so it wasn't easy to miss that last sentence.

I think the main problem is the top part doesn't technically keep the card in play for any reason. Something like this might work while keeping the mechanics the same way:

For the rest of the game: When you play a Frontier (including this time) gain a Copper onto your deck.

If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

(This stays in play.)


[UPDATE] Other than that, I think this is a really innovative design that has a lot of play potential. I would start it at $4 though to mostly avoid opening with 2 of these.

55

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 19, 2019, 12:50:41 am »

@naitchman - Good catch. I think I'll slip in a clause saying you can't play Attack cards on your extra turn. It is a Refuge after all! Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

56

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 17, 2019, 01:01:32 pm »

I'm changing your bolding to focus on the more important aspect of what I said.

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.

"+2 Cards, +$2" is too strong for $5 and too boring for $6.  Coffee Roast moves the effect sideways by costing $4P with the extra turn stuff and moving it to a Treasure where the +Cards become awkward.  It hopefully pulls down the earlier Coffee Roast turns as a pseudo-stop-card, but I'm not sure it will do that.  Later Coffee Roast turns will be great because of its self-synergy.
If you really want to, you can view the extra turn as the +Buy after which you are asking, but you want to manage much more than that on your Coffee Roast turn.

Also, theme.  It's caffeine, so you get to take another turn.  The card draw represents productivity, but it is of an unusual and undirected sort that you might not be able to leverage very well as society adapts to the common consumption of caffeine.

I think I'm being misrepresented here. I'm re-quoting the below in case you missed this. I don't like cards that solve all their problems. I like cards that are clearly focused.

What's weird is I think we actually agree a lot more than it seems. When I read your sentence I wanted to explain what cards design I like and a ton of the examples you gave were the same examples I'd give. To me I also don't like when one card solves all of it's problems -- Margrave is a good example of a card with too much going for it. I like it when cards are about single topics such that they naturally effect themselves. On the flip side, Margrave's attack is well designed: it is not an attack the second time it's a benefit to the opponent, so that reacts with itself. That's what I mean by single-concept cards that naturally have synergy or anti-synergy with itself.

My opinion was that I really loved the concept of the tome and cursing and I think there's a separate concept of "cheap cursers" and I thought it would be better if you focused on one of those concepts. Of course, that's totally opinion. I still would really love to see what you did with Tome and curses to hand without the concept of "cheap curser" also.

In case you saw this earlier, I'm going to try to explain again.

The +2 cards is like adding a 4th hole to a pair of pants. Shirts need 4 holes, pants don't. By the way, I don't think that adding a +buy is actually the way to make this card better, it was just a way of showing clearly, hey here is something that is more focused. The +buy makes it too powerful and wouldn't be great design.

 +2 cards just muddies the concept. There's a whole wonderful card design involved around getting +2 cards as a treasure and making that work, and there's a whole wonderful card design around balancing extra turns. Slamming those two concepts together is leading to a poorer design. And the hope that it draws cards you wanted -- that doesn't impact the next turn in the same way that discarding from the top of your opponent's deck is not an attack. If you wanted to make it more focused you could draw 2 action cards, but you might as well discard them from top of deck instead of draw in treasure phase.

There's a lot to like about this card. Using potions is a really great way of balancing the extra turn mechanic.

I thought I had clearly articulated that before, but I guess not. Perhaps we disagree on this -- do you like to add many different concepts onto a card at once? If so, I'll definitely stop providing you feedback to pare your cards down to one focused concept.

I feel like I'm jumping halfway into a conversation, so I'll just apologize now if this is off topic! One of my favorite things about Dominion is trying to figure out how to extract the maximum value out of a card. Sometimes this is a question of how many of a card to buy and when, but mostly it's about figuring out those key Kingdom card interactions.

Coffee Roast is doing a lot of great things: drawing, giving coin and giving an extra turn, but as you said they all sort of bump into each other. Probably for good reason too as all of these alone would make a powerful and problematic card. Players that manage to solve this puzzle and draw without effecting their next turn, get an extra Buy and navigate the high cost of $4P are going to be rewarded with an awesome card. Those who don't will stumble. Balance is maintained!

57

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 12, 2019, 06:00:30 pm »

Skipping your Clean-up phase the turn this is played will make all the cards you played that turn unavailable for your extra turn. Just wanted to make sure this was intended.

Neat way of keeping the power level in check. Your extra turn could get kind of junky, but I can think of a few ways this could be a positive.

58

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 11, 2019, 06:36:14 pm »

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Is Voyager supposed to be an Artifact that can bounce between players? As stated, Voyager can't be gotten rid of and thus you can only have one extra turn per game.

59

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 11, 2019, 06:26:07 pm »

CHALLENGE #44 - SUBMISSION

[UPDATE] I decided to go big and allow infinite turns with this. Is that crazy? Well I think instant win scenarios like King's Court / Bridge are neat to have around. Besides you need four to six of these at cost $8 to make it work so I think it will usually be unrealistic. Hopefully we can all overlook the fact that jerk players can stall the game with just two of these. I always design for IRL play so I don't think table etiquette will ever allow that to happen.



So on to what it does. You essentially are gambling on whether your Action, Buy or Night phase will be most useful for your extra turn. Playing two of these on the same turn though allows you to choose both your Action and Treasure phases for what essentially is a full, extra turn! Very powerful, but the price and issues with lining these up should keep that it check.

Thanks for looking!

Refuge
$8 Night - Duration
Name a phase (Buy, Night, etc).
If this is the first time you played a Refuge this turn, take an extra turn after this one, where you can only play your Clean-up and phases named this turn with Refuges.

60

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kudasai's Random Dominion Cards

« on: September 09, 2019, 03:25:09 pm »

Messing around with ideas to add consistency to Dominion games. My idea:

Leaders: Players in turn order may choose any one Leader at the start of the game. There are no limits on Leaders so players could possibly all choose the same leader. Leaders add benefits, but they also come at a cost.

Here are some rough concepts:






Feedback is always appreciated. Devout probably will have the most issues, but I think it could be fun. Anyone else have any ideas for Leaders?

61

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 09, 2019, 03:09:27 pm »

@anordinaryman - Sent you a PM with an image that might work for Excavated Village.

62

Dominion Articles / Urchin - Tormentor Combo

« on: September 07, 2019, 04:36:35 pm »

Has anyone seen this combo before?

(1) Play any number of Urchins.
(2) Play a Tormentor.
(3) React with all Urchins to remove them from play and get Mercenaries.
(4) Gain an Imp from Tormentor because it is now the only card in play.

Found this by accident and thought it was cool and worth sharing!

63

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 03, 2019, 04:50:46 pm »

CHALLENGE #43 SUBMISSION

A great trasher that gets more risky the more you play it. Play it enough though and you no longer have to trash any cards and are left with a double Laboratory.

Apostate
$6 - Action

+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand costing at least $1 per token on your Apostate mat (or reveal you can't). Add a token to your Apostate mat.

64

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 01, 2019, 08:49:23 pm »

Vendor

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, +$1.

Action
$5

Cool concept, but I think it's plenty strong enough even without the added "Otherwise, +$1" clause.

65

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 30, 2019, 06:14:15 pm »

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)


I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Functionally, "when you play a Copper, you do not follow its instructions" can be replaced with "Coppers make $0".

That's possible. Though I was hesitant about this because of how coppersmith would work (does it produce $0 after or before coppersmith adds $1)

I could say copper makes $1 less though. Though why not just use the same language that's on the other party if the card.

True! I hadn't thought of Coppersmith. I think the increase and decrease order would be in the order you played Riot and Coppersmith. I personally like that Coppersmith can counter the negative effects. Wombo-combo!

66

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 30, 2019, 05:22:32 pm »

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)


I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Functionally, "when you play a Copper, you do not follow its instructions" can be replaced with "Coppers make $0".

67

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Industrial Revolution!

« on: August 30, 2019, 05:08:30 pm »

90% of the time in my experience, people choose the cards in the kingdom randomly. If there's no village, tough. I don't know many people who just add a village to suit their needs. You could say "why do we need any more village cards, we have village already", but we all know that doesn't fly. Each expansion that adds a village increases the chance of a village popping up, and with any additional effects it has, a chance of a new slightly different and hopefully cooler engine.

So no, this card doesn't help the issue of kingdoms having a village card more than just adding any other new village. But what this card does do, is marginally increase the chance of their being a village AND marginally increase the chance of their being a handsize increaser, AND marginally increase the likelyhood of their being a +Buy, etc. No other card in the game does that. That's what makes Theatre special.

I admit there are some rule issues, and I need help working those out, but I don't think that's a very fair reason to completely rule out a card. Otherwise no new expansion would be possible, because they all modify the rules in some way or another.


Now to the point. How I intend is for it to be like city, so yes piles that are emptied no longer count as being in the supply. That is standard rules a la Overlord. And yes, only the top card matters, because when you buy a card from any supply card, it can only ever be the top card, think ruins and castles. Because the supply is all cards you can buy, technically only the top card is in the supply.

How can I change the wording so that this is more clear, I'm sure its possible.

I think the wording is clear enough. Not everything can be spelled out in the limited text space on a card and at some point players need to know the rules. What exactly are you seeking help on? Just the overall wording or are you looking to strip this down a bit? There are probably ways to remove the variable pricing.

Anyways, I think the mechanics of this are very unique and innovative, although perhaps not always useful. Cool direction though!

68

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 29, 2019, 01:11:43 pm »

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER ENTRY



I don't believe Dominion has any official cards that gain and draw on one card so I thought I'd give that a go. Has a lot of dud potential in terms of drawing, but it will always gain a Silver and draw at least one card, which isn't too bad. The draw on this can get a bit crazy, but the Silver gaining and draw itself should help keep itself in check. The former, because Headhunter cares about diversity and you are Silver flooding, the latter because drawing will often force a reshuffle and cut off your draw power from your discard pile. Should work well with both Big Money and Engines, but since there is usually more card diversity in Engines, that should be the optimal play.

This seems fun to play, but could turn out to be tedious.
Thoughts are always welcome!

Headhunters
Cost: $5 Type: Action
Gain a Silver then reveal your discard pile. +1 Card per differently named card revealed.

69

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 28, 2019, 05:32:53 pm »

Hurray thanks for judging anordinaryman 

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER

A monogainer is a card-shaped thing that gains cards from exactly one named pile. Examples of monogainers are: Bureaucrat (gains Silver), Baron (gains Estate), Rats (gains Rats), Dominate (gains Province), Pillage (gains Spoils), and Tormentor (gains Imp). Cards that are not monogainers include: Workshop, Tournament, Black Market, Beggar, Count, and Rebuild, for these cards can gain multiple cards with different names.

The goal of this challenge is to design a monogainer. If needed, you may also design the card your monogainer gains.

The gained card must be of a single name and fixed per-game, but I will allow cards where the gained pile is randomly chosen at setup (a la Young WItch banes).

Should I assume gaining Wishes (or any similarly made fancard) is off the table as Wishes can then in turn gain any card costing up to $6?

70

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 25, 2019, 04:12:44 pm »

Shaman
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is... Treasure: Trash this for +$3; Victory: Trash this for +3VP.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

I think that is a wild understatement. Players only have 3 Victory cards each, so I imagine a lot of games will be decided by whoever gets the +VP out of Shaman before forcing Treasures or Shaman to outnumber the Victory cards in the trash.

The goal with Shaman is to have the strength of the rewards correlate with how long the game has progressed (or more specifically how trashing generally progresses in a game). Victory cards are usually the first things that end up in the trash so players won't have to wait long before they can trash this for VP tokens. Coin takes a bit longer and should reflect a higher reward for players who have managed to hang on to their Shamans.

A +$3 to +3VP ratio just doesn't fit this objective so I'll drop the VP to +2VP. This is still a nice amount of VP, but it should be offset mostly by the opportunity cost of potentially being behind on trashing and engine components.

Thanks for your input!

I decided to go back to the original 3 options and tack on a +Action. I liked the Pawn-like sometimes-useful nature of the original, but the fact is that giving a bonus to your opponent is going to be a big demotivator for a card you don't really need that much. As an explicit, but weak, Village, the choice becomes more interesting.

Your original post does not seem to have been updated!

71

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 23, 2019, 04:28:11 pm »

Removed ambiguity. Having "the choices must be different" between the other two turned out to be less awkward than I thought.

I'm starting to think this should only be $1. It looks pretty weak next to Pawn.

Really digging the design aspect. Offers a lot of interactivity without bogging down the games by having your opponent constantly making choices during your turn.

Aside from that though, this card is quite weak and I don't believe changing the cost from $2 to $1 will make it any better. It's best early use is for +1 Coffers and +1 Villager. Hard to say, but this is probably about a $3 cost value. Pricing it lower at $2 or $1 with a penalty of giving your opponents +1VP doesn't seem to justify the price change.

I'd think about adding a non-conditional element for the player who played it. Adding +$1 allows the following combos:

+$1, +1 Coffers and +1VP (a better Monument) at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Villager.
+$1, +Coffers and +1 Villager (comparable to Patron) at the cost of giving your opponents +1VP.
+$1, +1 Villager, +1VP at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Coffers.

The on-play effects for the current player seem a bit more inline for how much you're helping your opponent. Anyways, cool card!

72

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 22, 2019, 01:53:11 pm »

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:



Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Seems very situational, but if played correctly could lead to amazing value for a $3 cost. Recognizing what boards this works on doesn't seem trivial, so abusing shouldn't be easy. Really nice looking card!

73

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction

« on: August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am »

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

74

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm »

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE SUBMISSION



Well, this may automatically get dinked because its interactive part is conditional on having a trasher in the Kingdom. I think trashers are common enough though that this should rarely be an issue.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

A few things to clarify:
(1) If neither the Treasure or Victory types have the most cards in the trash, as is the case when the games starts and when there is a tie, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor +3VP.
(2) If a non-Treasure or non-Victory type like Action has the most in the trash, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor 3VP.
(3) The type check happens before Shaman trashes, so if when played there are 3 Treasures in the trash and 2 Actions, Shaman would trash and give +$3. There would then be a tie between Treasures and Actions, so the next Shaman played would not trash.

Thanks for looking!

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is:
Treasure, trash this for +$3;
Victory, trash this for +2VP.

75

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 21, 2019, 01:31:19 pm »

Thank you so much! I really appreciated this contest, it made me think a lot about Dominion and balance and game-design. I hope this next contest can inspire people as yours inspired me.

We're going to take aim at one of the more common complaints of Dominion:

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing. I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction, so simply making a new artifact isn't likely to win this contest, but who knows, maybe if the interaction is interesting enough, it could win!

One of my favorite card concepts is Contraband. Lovely player interaction with non-obvious choices for what to limit what your opponent can buy. Can they afford a province this turn? What action card do they really need? Contraband pushes Dominion towards games being different depending on who is playing, rather than just what the Kingdom is. Contraband is too weak to often be useful, but the concept itself is tight. Some other cards with interesting interactions include Council Room, Lurker, Embargo, and Advisor/Envoy. Yes, Embargo would count for this contest.

I really don't want to mess up anybody's entries again. 24 hours before I start judging, I will make a post that has all the current entries. If I have made any mistakes, you will have 24 hours to reply to let me know my mistake (or make new submissions / submit new post updates to old ones). Once I make that post, I will not read anything before that post, so editing past posts will not help.

Would a Forager type card that cares about what's in the trash count? Since the trash is available to all.