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.

1176

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 30, 2019, 06:32:38 am »

Usurper's Crown
Artifact

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When a player gains a province, they may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.

The Artifact is fine but I fail to see the appeal of playing any competitive (you can obviously lose as a team in a coop) game in which everybody can lose. Here this will happen basically always among players of a similar skill level.

1177

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 27, 2019, 11:00:36 am »

Treasure Cove
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $?
+$1 per differently named Treasure in play.Worth 1VP for every differently named Victory card in your deck.This costs $1 per differently named Treasure / Victory card in the Supply.

It will cost $7 providing up to $4 and 4VP typically, which sounds pretty bonkers and gets even stronger if any other Victory cards show up.  Even if you were able to reel it back in some reasonable fashion, I think back to those rare games where Harem is relevant in which crossing your fingers for good draws in Harem-infested decks is frustrating.  I can't imaging Treasure Cove would end up playing a whole lot differently, merely more commonly dominating the game due to the strength of its Victory points.

Seems pretty tricky to draw Copper (or a Kingdom Treasure), Silver, Gold and Treasure Cove to me. In an engine you don't want that many Treasures. But of course you are right that the card could be too good in a money-Smithy situation.

1178

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 27, 2019, 10:55:49 am »

King - Action - costs 5
Choose one: play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Here's a throne room that can throne room a unique card each game. Sometimes this will be very powerful depending on what the Arms pile is. However, it's limited, you only get 10 usages of King'ing the Arms pile before it's gone.

This is playable with the better option as often as (straightforward) junkers. So it is safe to say that it is a bit too good: we know from Crown that you don't mind paying $5 for a TR and even if the Arms pile is something weak like Pearl Diver this is a Lost City.
But it looks very fun!

1179

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 23, 2019, 11:43:18 am »

the / is confusing.

True that, "and" would be more precise but there are formatting issues with too much text.

I think you mean the total number of dvictory and treasure cards supply piles. I said supply piles because castles has so many differently named victory cards.

No, I don't. I first wanted to condition it on piles but this becomes bonkers with Castles.

But what about treasure-victory cards, do they count twice?

No, because Harem is not named different from Harem.

Or “this costs 1 for every treasure and/or victory card visible in the supply” which has the neat affect of it costing less when a pile runs out

Again, overpowered with Castles. Also, I don't want this to merely cost $6 in a Kingdom with Encampment in which every player is virtually guaranteed to get at least one copy of Plunder.

1180

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 23, 2019, 09:28:01 am »

Good or Evil.  Action-Attack

Choose one : +1 Action or +1 Card or +$1 +1 Buy
Choose one effect of one of Temptation mat Attack : the attack or the benefit.
-
Set up : 2 random Attacks build the Temptation mat
-
This costs the same price as the most expensive Attack in Temptation


Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

My first idea was with only one Attack, or « 1 or 2 ». I finally decided for two, for more fun and strategy. But…

Variable cost : I know that it is not in the « tradition » of Dominion but it seems to me necessary here.

So, for example, I choose Swindler's trash effect, then each other player trashes the top of their deck, then they don't gain anything, as I have to choose "one effect", right? I mean, what is "one effect", each command, each sentence, each paragraph, or each on-play effect?

Swindler's benefit is the +$2, Swindler's attack is the trashing attack. Benefit impacts you, attack effects the other players.

I think that this very seperation idea is pretty neat, but the anti-terminalizing breaks the card.

1181

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am »

1182

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 23, 2019, 07:05:06 am »

Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

Torturer is a DoubleLab and broken at any price. Oracle in combination with this is better than Lab so even if there is a $5 Attack on the map it would be underpriced.

1183

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 22, 2019, 05:45:47 pm »

Gang
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may play an Initiate card from your hand.Setup: Choose a different random Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Initiate cards.

Notes: Gang can't choose itself. If it is the only Action Supply pile, it fails to choose one.

Conditional super Laboratory variant. Compare to Stables, which has you discard a much more common Treasure card, this lets you chain into a specific card.  It's only "non-terminal" if it chooses a non-terminal card, though.  When it chooses a cheap card you can possibly rely on it.  If it chooses a big $5+ card, it will be harder to proc, so maybe would be better at +2 Cards costed $3.  I don't know that I like how much +2 Cards tastes like Cultist.  What do you think?

A Smithy that can be a DoubleLab is too strong. I suggest: Discard a card. If it is an Initiate card, play it.

1184

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 22, 2019, 01:19:47 am »

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

That has less to do with Sleepwalker being too strong but with Mountebank and Goons being too strong and centralizing.

Sleepwalker is at best a target-draw Sage and at worst a dead card. The latter is a serious downside.

1185

Dominion Articles / Re: A Different Way To Look at Dominion

« on: November 20, 2019, 09:18:17 am »

I also think that you can exaggerate interactiveness. If you judge the Kingdoms correctly and see that the best way to play is aim for a 2 Provinces per turn engine, you should build until that very moment, i.e. relatively independently of what the opponent does. The notion that you should build up (although you reached the sweet spot) further because it is not a solo game is then highly dubious.

I think the greater sin is people not paying enough attention to their opponent. Knowing what your opponent's deck can do in general, and in particular next turn (or next shuffle) seems absolutely key to me.

Why would this not matter? IMO this sort of tracking and assessment separates good players from great ones.

I used a particular example: evaluating a Kingdom ex ante correctly (obviously you can only guess that you did so in hindsight) with the result that an engine that gains 2 Provinces per turn is best. Now if the opponent starts to green before you do (to make the argument more forcefully, suppose he plays money), throwing your entire plan into the sink hole and not building up another turn until you have the greening power that you actually want could end up being contraproductive.

Of course you gotta watch the opponents but you also gotta trust your assessment.

Assessments are allowed to change though. You should always be reevaluating as much as your mental stamina will allow you. Say on your example, the opponent greens two turns before you can double Province, then the decision becomes trickier, as it can lead to a 4-4 Province split if you aim for double Province and come down to estates.

Sure and of course there are other sources of VPs. For example if somebody goes heavy on Chariot Races, greening earlier to increase the likelihood of his Chariot Races missing can be an option.
My only point was to follow a good plan as much as it is tactically feasible.

It's like in chess. Of course you have to react to what your opponent is doing but if you have no ideas of your own and no plan to follow through you are unlikely to play well.

1186

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Small Hands

« on: November 20, 2019, 06:05:36 am »

Great Outdoors does not need the first line and the card drawing should happen before you put the card on the Tavern. Mat. Well, I guess so, otherwise this is nearly strictly better than Village. by the way, I'd discard them start of Clean-up (not Buy phase due to Villa) in order to prevent loops. When you discard them during the Action phase, you can play them again and you can easily imagine a scenario with Diadem where this then creates unlimited Action and thus Coins.

Reflection features a wording which is unclear. I guess you mean "If this is the time you played Reflection this turn, play it again."

Spreeee features a nice pile blocking idea but is too weak to ever get bought.

Cutting Servce should force the other player to reveal his hand.
Try to use official wording like that of Apprentice, i.e. "+1 Card per the set aside card costs." and "Put the set aside card into the discard pile of the player to your left." Although it is clear what you mean, send is not a defined game term.

1187

Dominion Articles / Re: A Different Way To Look at Dominion

« on: November 20, 2019, 04:08:49 am »

I also think that you can exaggerate interactiveness. If you judge the Kingdoms correctly and see that the best way to play is aim for a 2 Provinces per turn engine, you should build until that very moment, i.e. relatively independently of what the opponent does. The notion that you should build up (although you reached the sweet spot) further because it is not a solo game is then highly dubious.

I think the greater sin is people not paying enough attention to their opponent. Knowing what your opponent's deck can do in general, and in particular next turn (or next shuffle) seems absolutely key to me.

Why would this not matter? IMO this sort of tracking and assessment separates good players from great ones.

I used a particular example: evaluating a Kingdom ex ante correctly (obviously you can only guess that you did so in hindsight) with the result that an engine that gains 2 Provinces per turn is best. Now if the opponent starts to green before you do (to make the argument more forcefully, suppose he plays money), throwing your entire plan into the sink hole and not building up another turn until you have the greening power that you actually want could end up being contraproductive.

Of course you gotta watch the opponents but you also gotta trust your assessment.

1188

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 20, 2019, 04:05:58 am »

Without wanting to take anything away from Kudasai's great card, the idea is not totally new. This is a design by GeneralRamos and underneath is my adapated version of the idea of a Hireling-esque card with negative VPs.

It certainly felt like an idea that has been done before. Thanks for confirming! Also, was your version meant to have the Curse type?

No, I did not want to delve into that but of course it makes the entire thing more interesting. That's the beauty of your card, it implies a tricky trade-off in games with Cursers and in games without!

1189

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 02:11:25 pm »

Without wanting to take anything away from Kudasai's great card, the idea is not totally new. This is a design by GeneralRamos and underneath is my adapated version of the idea of a Hireling-esque card with negative VPs.

1190

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 01:41:26 pm »

I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.

Which decision? The decision to include them at the start of the game?

To take Curses or Curses 2.0. Perhaps I wrongly assume that both piles are in the game but that simply seems far more interesting than a straightforward Curse substitute (and as already mentioned, mosts card in this thread work well as extra instead of just substitutes as they are not strictly better than Curse).
Both ways lead to scaling issues but that is simply because alt Curses are messy no matter what.

1191

Dominion Articles / Re: A Different Way To Look at Dominion

« on: November 19, 2019, 01:16:43 pm »

It is a decent article but I dislike the focus on engines and building vs. greening.
We all like these games but there are also hybrids (neither money nor engines, e.g. a few Stables and some Silvers) or engines that are only able to buy one Provinces per turn, money decks and above all different sources of VPs.
Not trashing a starting Estate in Kingdoms without (easy) extra Buys or gainers, Landmarks, VP tokens etc. are all more tricky.

Timing and closely watching your opponents still matter but it is not as trivial as just timing the greening moment.
There are also sea-saws, volatile (e.g. when something like Festival is your only village, chances of missing your terminal draw is larger) decks which require you to oscilate between greening and further building. Not every engine glides into the overdraw realm before it goes into the greening territory.

I also think that you can exaggerate interactiveness. If you judge the Kingdoms correctly and see that the best way to play is aim for a 2 Provinces per turn engine, you should build until that very moment, i.e. relatively independently of what the opponent does. The notion that you should build up (although you reached the sweet spot) further because it is not a solo game is then highly dubious.

1192

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 12:37:22 pm »

However, I was thinking of this with a greater focus on the alt-VP.

There is no viable alt-VP strategy:

- An even split, i.e. 5 Curses and 4 Demons, would be 15VPs spread over 9 cards. Less than 2VP per (semi-)dead card in your deck is not feasible (compare this with Shepherd-Pasture, you gotta make these 2VP cards quasi-cantrip-Lab-hybrids to make it viable)
- Let's make this more extreme, 7 Curses and 7 Demons. Extremely unrealistic as a smart opponent would buy more Curses once he realizes that you go for Demons. That's 42 VPs spread over 14 cards, i.e. they are all Duchies. Even if half of them come for free, not all that impressive (and, as already mentioned, not realistic).

Perhaps there is something there with 2VPs/Curse. No idea. But the current alt-VP idea is simply too weak.

1193

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 12:28:15 pm »

I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).

I don't think there's anything wrong with it being strictly better than Curse, given that it replaces the regular Curses.

I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.
Also, your card in and of itself, i.e. without he negative VPs, is pretty decent. It is probably a $3 and in many engines likely preferrable to Woodcutter. So we don't talk about some moderate form of improved Curses like Ruins (in which case your notion of a straightforward Curse substitute would have more merit) but a decent Action card.

1194

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 06:23:14 am »

Haunted Shop
$0
Action - Duration - Curse
+1 Action. Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and +$1.
--
While this is in play, you must use all of your Buys during your Buy phase, if you can. -1 VP.

(When playing with this, replace the Supply Curses with an equal number of Haunted Shops.)

I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).

1195

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2019, 06:11:59 am »

My entry is a 5/5 split pile:



This is supposed to work such that you can't gain Demons until all the Dark Rituals are gone. If this wording doesn't accomplish this, please let me know how to fix it 

P.S. The images from the shardofhonor tool are huge. Is there a way to make them show up smaller on the forum without manually resizing the files?

I like this but it has some obvious issues.

In the presence of other Cursers and with few players, it is unlikely that somebody will go for Dark Rituals (i.e. either buy them or take a Dark Ritual instead of a Curse). It is simply too slow.

Without other Cursers and in 3P games (2P game situation: if Alice goes for Dark Rituals, Bob can simply not go for them and Alice having 5 dead cards in her deck before she converts them into junkers is simply harmful for her and not for Bob) this is interesting.

One solution is to make this a parallel pile, i.e. both cards are always available.

1196

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 17, 2019, 08:03:33 am »

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

I think that this implies no choice at all: without trashing you obviously avoid the quadratic thing (even 5-5 split in a 2P game would make this a -5VP curse) and with trashing you take the Working Villages.

I think it is more nuanced. When there is no trashing, you can still pick up a Slave, as they provide a +Buy and the +Actions can still be useful.

You refer to the case of no Cursing and no trashing. This is also trivial, you will pick up one or two Slaves. Three is highly unlikely.

1197

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 17, 2019, 06:57:01 am »

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

I think that this implies no choice at all: without trashing you obviously avoid the quadratic thing (even 5-5 split in a 2P game would make this a -5VP curse) and with trashing you take the Working Villages.

1198

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 15, 2019, 09:32:03 am »

This may not be valid for this contest, but I’ll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

This is better than in Inheritance in 3 ways: cheaper, good when Cursers are in the Kingdom, Curses are cheaper than Estates. It is worse in 2 ways: you don't start your deck with Curses and it is a VP spread of 3.
Perhaps this could get away without the -2VP? Hard to say. But definitely the coolest Inheritance variant I have seen.

1199

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: New card Idea- Attic

« on: November 15, 2019, 09:28:14 am »

Attic is a Treasure.

1200

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: herw's cards

« on: November 15, 2019, 09:26:49 am »

I don't like the new version, it is all over the place with weird Debt costs and Treasure hand gaining (be careful with that, Sculptor is the obvious benchmark of a non-terminal Silver hand-gainer).
Why don't you stick with the old one and either ignore the virtual Potion issue or simply do a Silver for $5 that junks Coppers?