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.

3326

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: July 10, 2019, 11:53:59 am »

I like this one the best.

The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

That's a good point. Possible fix could be to make it cost $5 (which of course would still benefit the first player is they drew 5/2) or maybe even $6 (may be worth switching to on gain then).

Any thoughts on the last two?

Thematically (and not meaning mechanics, but meaning relating to concept of a "Coven"), I prefer the ones that work on play more. i.e a Witch allows you to Curse a player when you play a card (Witch), but get a gathering of Witches together to do the same thing but in a stronger way.

I think I'm favoring the last one, because it's a cheap way of giving a curse, hopefully on your next turn, if you can plan it well. In a 2 player game, a regular witch costs 5 and will typically hand out 5 curses (assuming your opponent also bought a witch). This coven would cost you 10 to hand out 5 curses, but:
1) it doesn't have to be attached to a terminal play
2) by costing 2, you can spread out the purchase more easily
3) it can't be defended

I'm sure I'm missing something though.

3327

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: July 09, 2019, 02:10:11 pm »

I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.

You can edit the original if you want, but it will make it easier for me if you also make a new post. I would really appreciate that!

Definitely. I'll always do both, just to avoid any confusion.

How much time left for us to make our final decisions?

3328

Feedback / Re: Familiar cards setting not working for me when I use Automatch

« on: July 09, 2019, 02:08:33 pm »

Ah. Is there any way to play rated games with just the base deck?

I don't see how that could work, because you would have different people playing a completely different thing, and yet being rated against each other. For base-only games to be rated, they would need to be rated separately, with their own leaderboard and their own rankings.

Well, if you don't have a subscription and you play another unsubscribed player, those base card only games are rated.

3329

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm »

Hi all, back from the long weekend! As I suspected, I wasn't able to post any, but have been following along and we have some great cards this week!

I've also had a plenty of time to think how I can improve Coven.

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursed token to an Action Supply pile with no other Cursed token on it. (When any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a Curse.)

The feedback I've gotten so far really helped frame my thoughts (thanks!):

I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

The immediate and obvious problem of Coven is how often it will push big-money strategies to the forefront, because one can always avoid Coven completely by having no Action cards. You could possibly have it move the Cursing token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 (to exclude Coppers).

I really liked Naitchman's method of posting several different versions, so I hope no one minds, but I'm going to post several different versions I've been considering. Since no one else has done an Adventures' "place token on a pile" Event, these will be a more varied; if that's an issue, let me know and I can move this to my dedicated thread.

The way I see it there are basically 4 general options here:
• Cursed token - curse a player when they play a card (Cursed Gold variant; the current version)
• Cursed token - curse a player when they buy or gain or a card (Embargo variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you buy or gain a card (Ill gotten gains variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you play a card (Witch variant)


One of the issues with the Cursed token is the difference between 2 and 4 player games; ideally the token would only work on other players, which is fine in two player games, but not really fair in 4 (the first player to play a token on a pile affects 3 others players; the second player's token on the pile, only one - the first player). Like I said in my original post I got around that by affecting all players, but I don't love that. Also having 4 piles that are cursed is a lot.

naitchman's idea of a single Cursed token could work, but it'd be less on theme (since Adventure tokens are per player). I'm already having it be a little different in that the token's effect affect everyone.

The second issue is Fragasnap's point that big money gets pushed to the forefront. I think this can be helped by slowing down the cursing. So the first variant is that: only the first card you play is cursed. (another idea I had to slow it down is to use the Journey token to make it curse every other play; or even combine both, so it curses every other turn that you play the cursed card).

(Fragasnap's suggestion of moving the token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 is also good, but I still think might still be too much of a slog compared to just once per turn)




The second variant is the Embargo variant. Since embargo already exists, I tried making this different by being on gain. That, and the fact that you don't have to wait to place the token, of course, makes it stronger (though that is balanced some by only being Action Supply piles).




Overall, I am now leaning towards switching this to a Cursing token. That seems to fit better with the "this token helps only you" theme of the other Adventures tokens.

Variant 3 is therefore the ill gotten gains variant. I made it on buy instead of on gain so I could price it low enough to buy early.




The last, the Witch variant, is obviously the strongest. If it worked always and you could convert any cantrip into a Familiar: . Fortunately, it also can be slowed down to only once a turn. I decided to also weaken a little more by limiting to non attacks.




I do have one bonus variant - of the last type, but it's a little different by being one-shot. It also doesn't make the card into an Attack, so it can't be reacted to.




So if you've made it this far, thanks for bearing with all my thinking. Please let me know what you think - which one generally do you like best? I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.
 

3330

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: July 03, 2019, 05:24:20 pm »

I would call it a Cursed token rather than Cursing. Cursing makes it sound like it gives other players curses rather than cursing yourself.

It does give other players curses though... I mean it can curse yourself also, but you'd be putting it on an action that your opponents are playing more than you.

But also cursed sounds cooler.

I agree Cursed sounds better and I think more accurate. The pile itself is cursed. Cursing works better if the token allowed you to do the cursing when you played the card (which could be a variant, if this way is too un-fun, though would have to be priced higher for sure).

I'll make this change for v0.2.

Other changes / tweaks I'm considering if it's too strong or slows games down too much:
• Adding "once per turn" for the token's effect: "Once per turn, when any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a curse."
• Gain the curse to your hand, so you can plan to deal with it immediately.

For now, though I still like this version.

3331

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm »

Coven



Change log:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - changed to make your cards into Cursers


Theme: Adventures
• Events
• Card-shaped things that put player specific tokens on piles

Secret History:
This started out as a "cursed" token that hurt everyone equally; but to be more in line with the other Adventurers tokens (putting them on a card makes that card better for you than for other players), it is now a "cursing token" that changes your cards from that pile into cursers.


Thematically (and not meaning mechanics, but meaning relating to concept of a "Coven"), having this work on play seemed to fit best, i.e a Witch allows you to Curse a player when you play a card (Witch), but get a gathering of Witches together to place that same power on another card.

[the below applies to v0.1 of Coven]

I started out having it only curse other players and unlimited tokens (1 per player) per pile. But that didn't scale well in a 3-4 player game: if you were the only player following a particular strategy, all your opponents placing curse tokens on a pile would "pile" up on you (hehe). So then I limited to only 1 Cursing token per pile. The problem now, of course, it could be too big advantage to whoever bought it first. So now it curses everyone.

I'm not really sure if it works, but I like its simplicity.

I'm thinking it would either make a player buy more of a variety of cards*, so they could skip playing the cards from a cursed pile, or they would need TfB in order to get rid of them. Or Watchtower.

* it definitely hurts engines that expect playing multiples copies of a card

And it may still not work great in a 4 player game, as you could have 4 cursed piles (i.e. it may just slow the game down way too much)

One thing that could make it interesting in a 2 player game, is the sense of (I'm not sure how to express it) give and take. i.e. you don't buy this too early, as you want to wait and see what your opponent is doing, and then you also want to do something different from them, but they may switch gears once they see what you are doing.

Please let me know if you think it could be tweaked to make it better (should it cost different?) or just scrapped completely.

(I also am not sure how much time I'll have this (USA) holiday weekend, so wanted to at least get something in early for feedback)

3332

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 29, 2019, 06:22:57 pm »

I've decided make a minor update to Cabal, making it a little stronger (and with simpler wording):



Now, it is never drawn dead (though you may still be wary of putting more than 1 on top of your deck) and you can still put it on top when you have another Night card you don't want to play.

3333

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 29, 2019, 06:19:22 pm »

Maybe it's the mathematician in me being too pedantic, but I think this new wording doesn't work.

I would simply first, i,e if I trashed 6 cards, I would read this as "Gain a non-Victory card costing up to -$1 (but not less than $0)" and think I couldn't gain a card since I can't gain anything that both costs up to -$1 and not less than $0.

Maybe use Poor House's wording: "(You can't go below $0.)"? Still doesn't work exactly, but it's better.

Like I said, probably too pedantic.

I think the wording is fine; even if you want to be pedantic, you could easily read the "not less than $0" part as a modifier on the cost, not a prohibition on gaining cards costing less than $0.  That reading puts mental parentheses around "costing up to ($5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0))", which is both an acceptably pedantic way to read it and the normal, non-pedantic way that it was intended.

Mentioning "going below $0" would be more confusing for me, since the card doesn't give you money or take away any money, and that wording would seem to be saying something about your coin total rather than the cost of the gained card.

Ultimately all these would just be clarified in the FAQ, and most people would assume the correct play and not need to check the rulebook.

OK, sure, with the parenthesis I see how it can be read that way. And I agree, you don't actually need them; just explain in FAQ is enough.

3334

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 29, 2019, 06:08:45 pm »

A couple of minor tweaks while I continue to figure out Archbishop / Chalice, Blessing, and Cloister. (I've made some changes that I'm letting simmer, while also pondering a much more radical change).

Worshippers mat: wording changed to a) be more like the other mats and also now requires you to trash if you "spend" the Worshipper. Will only matter if I add a negative aspect to Worshippers, like "at most X Worshippers" for Archbishop, but I like it better anyway.

Convent: dropped cost even more to $2. Still may not be very useful, until I get rid of it completely might as well price it at a cost that makes it more attractive.

3335

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 27, 2019, 11:32:00 pm »

Sanctuary
Action - $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0).

Here's my card. Good for trashing and gaining. If you only trash one card, it's strictly worse than Altar, but Sanctuary can trash a lot more and can be used once you're out of trash fodder.

Version 2: Updated the wording and made it non-Victory gaining to prevent easy double duchies in the endgame.

Maybe it's the mathematician in me being too pedantic, but I think this new wording doesn't work.

I would simplify first, i,e if I trashed 6 cards, I would read this as "Gain a non-Victory card costing up to -$1 (but not less than $0)" and think I couldn't gain a card since I can't gain anything that both costs up to -$1 and not less than $0.

Maybe use Poor House's wording: "(You can't go below $0.)"? Still doesn't work exactly, but it's better.

Like I said, probably too pedantic.

3336

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 27, 2019, 05:37:32 pm »

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief).

The strictly better was to the suggested modification of "I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type", not the original.

3337

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Congregation / Blessing

« on: June 27, 2019, 04:43:49 pm »

I think Villagers should work though, although I don't think the top half of Developing Village is a viable card. Having a $2 cantrip that gains a card every time you play it is just going to burn through piles really fast.

You may be right that Developing Village is not the right card for overpay for actions (though I'm not completely sure). I do think the card otherwise has potential. It will burn through piles fast - I just think that would make games with it a different beast and you'd have to alter your strategy to account for it. Similar to when someone goes Workshop / Gardens.

Actually, how about these tweaks to Developing Village:



I added the " If you do, +1 Action; if you don't, +1 Card." tweaks. But more importantly, two simple words: differently named, so you can't trash for the same card.

So it's a cantrip that can become a village if:
• you do trade for a different card
• overpay to get villagers

Or you could still save those villagers for something else.

3338

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Congregation / Blessing

« on: June 27, 2019, 03:49:34 pm »

If Blessings with $6-costs does prove to be too much a possible solution would be to reduce Blessing to gain something costing $1 more. Although I imagine making the Blessings terminal has weakened them quite a lot already.

Sure, I'll should probably just playtest as is, before I change it any more. Need to gather the troops.

How do others playtest? Solo or with friends? (I have several friends who enjoy Dominion, but don't play that frequently; not sure if I should subject them to my custom cards!)

Werewolf being Night affects how it interacts with other copies of itself, with Cloister it affects how it interacts with other cards. Personally I think that making a card as simple as it can be should take priority over how it interacts with other cards in one specific situation.

I agree with erring on the simple vs overcomplicating for specific situations. That said, I don't think of "not drawing dead" as too specific a situation, nor making the choice be Action vs Night vs Action vs Action as overcomplicated.

Yeah that's right, on 3/4 you only trash 1 Estate and add the Graveyard to your deck so you're not net-trashing any victories from your deck before you shuffle. 

I believe overpay for Coffers was testing for Guilds and was deemed crazy, so I doubt that's going to work. I think Villagers should work though, although I don't think the top half of Developing Village is a viable card. Having a $2 cantrip that gains a card every time you play it is just going to burn through piles really fast. I think following Lackey's and Silk Merchant's lead and making the card terminal might be a good idea, perhaps a non-drawing terminal to differentiate it from those a bit? I like the idea of attaching it to a crappy terminal that you might not want to waste a Villager playing, even just a terminal Silver for $2 sounds alright to me.

Do you know any more about what was so crazy about overpay for Coffers in their testing? The biggest issue I see is that you could get a huge hand of 20 coins and only 1 buy, and so buy this so it doesn't go to waste. But I'm sure I can think of a clever way to make this work!

You may be right that Developing Village is not the right card for overpay for actions (though I'm not completely sure). I do think the card otherwise has potential. It will burn through piles fast - I just think that would make games with it a different beast and you'd have to alter your strategy to account for it. Similar to when someone goes Workshop / Gardens.

I actually am trying to avoid being too similar to Lackeys, Silk Merchant, and Spices, as I just see those as forced overpay:

• Spices is just a silver with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens.
• Lackeys is a $0 Action with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens.
• Silk Merchant is $2 Action with a forced overpay of 2 for 2 tokens (and on trash benefit).

3339

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 27, 2019, 12:30:22 am »

1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead.

Yes it can. You can only topdeck one per turn, so if you draw multiple Cabals with no other Night cards, all but one of them was drawn dead.

True. I was thinking of the case where you only one Cabal, that it couldn't be drawn dead.

Interestingly, if you had 3 of them, you would be able to top deck 2 of them. (of course, outside of other effects, top decking two Cabals means you'd only draw three other cards)

3340

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 26, 2019, 10:38:52 pm »

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

1. You're absolutely right. I actually thought of that before writing my post and then forgot to include it.

2. Fair point (especially when adding in the pro of never being drawn dead).

One other point I want to make. I don't even think the Kingdom needs to be Night intensive. With just one Night card, the Night TR ability could be enough to make it worthwhile.

Cabal originally began as a cheaper TR just for Night cards, until I said "DUH" and realized that was useless on a Kingdom with just 1 Night card (you could just buy a 2nd copy of the Night card, since they are non terminal).

However, now Cabal offers you the ability to effectively get that 2nd Night card but transform into a TR when you don't want that.

For example, rather than get Two Vampires, you can get Vampire and Cabal. And once it's a bat, you've got options: if you have more than 3 cards to trash, you can still double bat with Cabal, but now, you don't have to. If you only have 1 or 2 cards to trash, save Cabal for your next turn.

Or Cabal and Changeling (use it mostly as a regular TR, until you have a desire to double Changeling (and you get to keep the Cabal after).

Even with Raider as the only night, using it occasionally as a +$6 next turn seems pretty powerful.

3341

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm »

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal



Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

3342

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Overpay for tokens

« on: June 26, 2019, 12:01:05 am »

OK, I mocked up the overpay Graveyard and at the same time came up with an overpay for Villagers and one for Coffers.

My guiding principle was to continue the synergies between: Victory cards - Worshippers, Action cards - Villagers, Treasure card - Coffers.

Here are the initial drafts:

Graveyard, overpay for Worshippers
Developing Village, overpay for Developing Village
Endowment, overpay for Coffers




Comments / Questions:

To be honest, I'm not yet sure what I think of these. Do they have any potential?

Outside of Graveyard, which is just a flat 2VP, I tried to be at least little creative.

The main thing (as always) I'm unsure of are the specific numbers: their costs and in this case, the fact that they are all +$1 per token on the overpay. (at different times, I tried different numbers)

So general possible tweak:
• change the number of tokens gained per overpay (and consequently, its cost)

In the case of Graveyard, I keep comparing to Cemetery. While 1 Worshipper is significantly less than 4 cards, part of the challenge with cemetery is even having 4 cards in your hand when you buy it (though it does combo with gainers). The Worshipper will always be useful, and you can get more with higher overpaying.

Possible tweaks:
• always give 1 Worshipper on gain
• change from plain 2VP to something more creative (could be similar to Endowment, that you have to have at least one Worshipper; but I'd prefer it to be different, or to change Endowment then)

Developing Village, as the name states, has some DNA from both Develop and Village. By overpaying it can be a village for at least some turns. And it will get you the equivalent +1 card; usually, you can just gain the same card if it's what you want, or you can "trade" for something that would be more useful. But you don't have to trash, e.g. in case you reveal a valuable Prize, or it's a Province and you don't want to decrease the Province pile by one.

Possible tweaks:
• changing the gained card to "up to the same cost", or "up to $1 more than the the cost"
• add either : "If you do, +1 Action" or  "if you don't, +1 Card." or both. With probable cost increase.
• alternatively, allow you to discard the card (in the examples above, you'd likely keep the prize on top, but discard the province). Either this or the previous option would allow you to string together several of these.

Endowment basically says, as long as you keep some Coffers around, it's a cheap silver. I think it could be an interesting decision if you have 6 whether you buy a gold that is always $3 or buy this and get 4 (1 of which you may never ant spend) coffers. But I am worried that may be too strong.

Possible tweaks:
• only require one Coffers total rather than per Endowment in play
• remove this requirement altogether

3343

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 25, 2019, 11:34:41 pm »

...

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


thanks - it's literally been ... seven years? eight? since i used a phpbbs. social media hasn't been kind to my markdown skills.

and re: disqualification: i'd hope not. the card itself doesn't give cards, actions, or villagers, it just changes how other existing components interact.

True. The rules allow for making a card that is modified by other random cards, but don't specify about making a card that modifies other cards (or in this case, tokens).

Note that you didn't get the Fragasnap +1, so it seems as if this would, in fact, get disqualified. (unless they just missed it)

3344

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Graveyard

« on: June 25, 2019, 07:55:13 pm »

I was thinking more on Graveyard and I think perhaps this version isn't the best. It's kind of wonky with openings making a 4/3 much better than a 3/4, which isn't a terrible thing, tons of things do stuff like that but it feels off to me somehow. I had the idea of making it overpay for Worshippers and cost $3, overpay for tokens is something we never got so that'd be cool and it seems fairly balanced to me. Weaker at lower costs but you can build up one big trash and also use it as a simple $3 cost victory late in the game.

Overpay for tokens is definitely interesting and different, if I can figure it out.

Can you help me understand why 4/3 would be so much better than 3/4? Is it that after two turns you'd trash 2 estates, while 3/4 would only trash the 1? I'm trying to make sure overpay wouldn't create the same issues, so I think maybe it wouldn't give any worshippers at cost:

Graveyard - Victory - $3
2 VP
-
You may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, +1 Worshipper.

Alternatively, I'm considering in making it a Victory - Night, as that feels thematic for Graveyard. Maybe take the Night clause from Cloister, if I change that one more dramatically:

Graveyard - Victory - Night - $3
+1 Worshipper
-
2 VP

I think I like overpay better. Now I want to make some overpay cards for Villagers and Coffers.

3345

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 25, 2019, 05:00:12 pm »

...

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


thanks - it's literally been ... seven years? eight? since i used a phpbbs. social media hasn't been kind to my markdown skills.

and re: disqualification: i'd hope not. the card itself doesn't give cards, actions, or villagers, it just changes how other existing components interact.

True. The rules allow for making a card that is modified by other random cards, but don't specify about making a card that modifies other cards (or in this case, tokens).

3346

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm »

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal



Changelog
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - can now top deck without restriction, simpler wording


Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.


[UPDATE: the below only applies to the v0.1 wording, which had you reveal a hand with no Cabals in order to top deck]

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

3347

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm »

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


3348

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Congregation / Blessing / Cloister

« on: June 25, 2019, 12:26:11 am »

Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained and not very well structured but I hope you can glean some value from my ramblings.

I love (and need) any feedback, so no worries. As you saw from my last post, I am definitely gleaning lots of value.

I think it's much stronger at $6 than $5, Remodels can be weird like that. I really like this idea now but I think it would be way cooler if Blessing worked on any trash, currently it just seems like it's stopping me from having fun. I think being a cantrip might be a little dangerous for this effect though thinking about it, once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect (costing $6 would mean you don't need the Gold hence why I think it'd be stronger). So just being +1 Action might end up working out better, but you need testing for this kind of thing really.

Feel free to let me know what you think of the latest. I feel like I'm struggling with the right balance on this one.

It's either too strong as it is currently (at least it feels too strong with the fact that you can just stockpile blessings and then trash just one Gold).

Or my ideas to weaken it go too far. For example, my idea if having it cost you an extra worshipper to call the Blessing, means that you'd have to play Congregation three times in order to remodel once. (I guess I could remove the one shot aspect). Any thoughts are welcome.

FYI, the possible wording I'm considering if I do have it cost another Worshipper is:
"When you trash a card not from the Supply, you may call this to remove a Worshipper token from its mat. If you do, gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card and trash this."

So in this case, it can be called after any trashing, which does help some. (note that similar to above thoughts, without requiring the use of the extra Worshipper, my concern was allowing, for example, remodel of a Gold for a province, then call Blessings for more provinces)

I'm still not a fan of Cloister, it doesn't really have a reason to be a Night card anymore. Werewolf does because it's terminal draw and the original Cloister did because it let you play it after a trasher but this new one could just be a "choose one" Action. It also just feels a bit bland to me, it's another card that "just trashes" and I think Apse Chapel does that better.

The reason I have it as Night is so that it can't be drawn dead. (otherwise, like you said it is just a choice)

When you mention Werewolf's reason to be Action-Night is so it doesn't draw *itself* dead? Should it matter much (as far as reasoning goes) if the card itself does the drawing or something else does?

The point about just another card that just trashes is valid. It's true, but I do think the choice makes it more interesting. But it probably does need something else.

I have come up with another idea for Worshippers. I'm debating whether it's for a new card or maybe for Cloister.

3349

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 24, 2019, 09:41:16 pm »

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Fortune is a Treasure, so you they wouldn't be able to choose it.

I'd also be concerned for lots of pedantic type issues:
• choosing a card not in the game
• choosing a card not in the Supply (e.g. Madman)
• choosing a card from the middle of a pile (e.g. Knights, Spilt Piles, etc)
• gain is usually to discard, so you're playing from there, but some cards gain to other locations

So, a possible rewording that hopefully covers all this might be:

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a visible Action card from a Supply pile costing more than it. Gain it to your hand, then play it.

Alternatively, if you don't like "visible", you could opt for "from the top of a non-empty Supply pile".

I don't think you need the "visible" part. BoM only specifies from the Supply, but you can't choose Crumbling Castle when Humble Castle is on top, or Sir Martin when covered by other Knights. Only the top card is "in the Supply."

OK, that's right. Found this in the wiki:

For this reason, although the entirety of any Supply pile is physically part of the Supply, only the top card of any pile is considered to be "in the Supply".

So updated suggestion is:

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names an Action card from the Supply costing more than it. Gain the named card to your hand, then play it.

(I also changed one of the "it"s to avoid confusion)

3350

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 24, 2019, 09:09:57 pm »

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Fortune is a Treasure, so you they wouldn't be able to choose it.

I'd also be concerned for lots of pedantic type issues:
• choosing a card not in the game
• choosing a card not in the Supply (e.g. Madman)
• choosing a card from the middle of a pile (e.g. Knights, Spilt Piles, etc)
• gain is usually to discard, so you're playing from there, but some cards gain to other locations

So, a possible rewording that hopefully covers all this might be:

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a visible Action card from a Supply pile costing more than it. Gain it to your hand, then play it.

Alternatively, if you don't like "visible", you could opt for "from the top of a non-empty Supply pile".