201
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 22, 2019, 11:33:26 pm »
I think 48 hours after the winner is declared would be a good time.
Show Posts
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.
202
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 21, 2019, 12:00:45 pm »
No problem, didn't mean to rush you. Looking forward to it.
203
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 21, 2019, 09:18:27 am »
So is the judging today?
204
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm »Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.Not necessarily a proof; TR also doesn't have any cost restrictions. (BTW Prince and fortune wouldn't work; Prince will not be in play by cleanup, and fortune is useless if played at the start of your turn). Regardless I decided to change the price.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.
Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.
You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.
You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.
205
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 07:29:33 pm »The big difference is that if you target a Smithy (or any draw, really) with Copy, you get to draw cards and still have +Actions left, as opposed to other "Throne Room" variants which don't leave you with +Actions. I'd recommend a cost of $5.I'm not sure what you mean.
That'd be like getting a haunted woods over a smithy when your opponent has a champion because you'll get the cards on a turn you didn't use up your action. Sure there are edge cases where it helps, but in general, getting things now is better than getting things later.
206
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 03:48:49 pm »You're missing that you're picking a card already played; so it will get played a total of twice. Throne Room is actually a Band of Misfits variant... Throne Room could also read "+1 action. Play this as if it were an card in your hand". It would mostly play the same. Basically, Throne Room acts like another copy of any action card you draw it with, with an extra +1 action tacked on.Holy smokes.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I wrote something so similar it's uncanny. I swear I was writing before you posted. LOL
207
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 03:46:45 pm »This isn't a TR variant. TR plays twice, which is a huge difference in the case of Actions over a mere copy.
So BoM/Overlord is the appropriate comparison.
I disagree. TR + smithy (for example) is the same as playing TR as a smithy with a +action tacked onto it and then playing your smithy like you normally would.
If you're not using this reaction on your opponenet's turn (which unless you have bad draw won't happen often, as I said), this is like playing a Crown (that can also be used on night cards) that gets its second play next turn.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said TR variant in the last point. In that case you're right. If you use it with bad draw, then it will play more like BoM since you'd reveal it on your opponent's turns more. I'll change that.
The overall idea is like this:
If you reveal it on an opponent's turn it's more powerful (it doesn't have a delayed effect) and plays more like BoM (Choose a card and play it as that card).
If you reveal it on your turn it's weaker (it has a delayed effect, despite the fact that it can be used on treasures and night) and plays more like a delayed TR.
It can work in a drawing engine but it is going to have drawbacks over TR. Being able to play TR every turn is huge (especially with power cards like Grand Market, or Level 3 City, etc). You also don't have as much flexibility as with TR since you don't know what you'll need next turn.
In a game without good draw (BM or alt VP) it's going to work much better as I said before. You will be revealing this more on your opponent's turn in this game, but I will add the drawback that this can only play as cards your opponent played which might not be what you need. This can't just play as any card on the board.
I've thought about it and I really can't view pricing this at $5. I would rarely take this over a royal carriage or a crown.
In response to math, it shouldn't be a duration. It doesn't stay in play, it gets set aside. Just like prince is not a duration. besides it doesn't get a delayed effect when played, only when it is revealed.
208
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 13, 2019, 12:34:45 pm »
Here is my submission (Card has been updated)
Notes:
1) You may select any card in play (actions, treasures, night). You may also select duration cards from other players play area.
2) If you select an opponent's inherited estate this will play as your type of inherited estate at the beginning of your next turn. If you didn't buy inheritance, it will have no effect when played.
Rationale for price:
I'm comparing this to throne room/crown, and not BoM because it plays more like them. Ignoring it's ability to react on your opponents' cleanup phases (we'll get back to that later), it doesn't look as good as a crown. They both allow you to play itself as a card you already own without taking up an action.
Pros of copy over TR/crown
1) Can play as a night card (or treasure card in the case of throne room)
2) Can't draw dead
3) If you get crown late in your turn with no good targets, it stinks.
4) Can use multiple copies to play as the same 1 action card you have (e.g. you can use multiple of these to play trusty steed)
5) More useful for while-in-play effects
Cons of copy over TR/ crown
1) Takes effect next turn (which severely limits the number of times you can play it, and it also will miss the reshuffle)
2) dead card the turn you get it
3) Doesn't work as well with cards that trash themselves
I think this has use as a BoM variant in games without good draw. If you don't draw that much, you're much more likely to get to use it's reaction on your opponent's turn (thus getting the benefit quicker and not causing it to miss the reshuffle) which will usually allow you to use it as something worthwhile.
What do you guys think of the price?
Update: After enough people saying it, I've upped the price to $5.
Notes:
1) You may select any card in play (actions, treasures, night). You may also select duration cards from other players play area.
2) If you select an opponent's inherited estate this will play as your type of inherited estate at the beginning of your next turn. If you didn't buy inheritance, it will have no effect when played.
Rationale for price:
I'm comparing this to throne room/crown, and not BoM because it plays more like them. Ignoring it's ability to react on your opponents' cleanup phases (we'll get back to that later), it doesn't look as good as a crown. They both allow you to play itself as a card you already own without taking up an action.
Pros of copy over TR/crown
1) Can play as a night card (or treasure card in the case of throne room)
2) Can't draw dead
3) If you get crown late in your turn with no good targets, it stinks.
4) Can use multiple copies to play as the same 1 action card you have (e.g. you can use multiple of these to play trusty steed)
5) More useful for while-in-play effects
Cons of copy over TR/ crown
1) Takes effect next turn (which severely limits the number of times you can play it, and it also will miss the reshuffle)
2) dead card the turn you get it
3) Doesn't work as well with cards that trash themselves
I think this has use as a BoM variant in games without good draw. If you don't draw that much, you're much more likely to get to use it's reaction on your opponent's turn (thus getting the benefit quicker and not causing it to miss the reshuffle) which will usually allow you to use it as something worthwhile.
What do you guys think of the price?
Update: After enough people saying it, I've upped the price to $5.
209
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 12, 2019, 05:07:25 pm »I will post an image and name later, but for now:
Cost: 5
When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.
I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.
This can also create an infinite loop with secret chamber:
Opponent plays attack
Reveal secret chamber
Draw Lab-reaction (+ 2 cards)
topdeck lab-reaction and some other card
reveal secret chamber again
Repeat
210
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 12, 2019, 02:55:38 pm »
Just for clarification, are you just saying a reaction without the main types (action, treasure, victory, night) but it could be a reaction-looter or reaction-attack, or that it is a pure reaction with no other types, no exceptions?
Also a formatting Q to the public: What do you do when you have no on play effect but you have a reaction/ while in play effect? Do you make a line with nothing above it and write your reaction part underneath? Or do you just skip the line? Or do you write above the line "This card cannot be played" or something like that?
Also a formatting Q to the public: What do you do when you have no on play effect but you have a reaction/ while in play effect? Do you make a line with nothing above it and write your reaction part underneath? Or do you just skip the line? Or do you write above the line "This card cannot be played" or something like that?
211
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 12, 2019, 08:51:45 am »No idea where you pull the 9 points from. This is a dynamic matter, hard to evaluate and incredibly board-dependent. Estates and Duchies yields the same VPs, so a Silk Road or Gardens game is likely favouring whomever does not thin his deck.I'm guessing his logic is this:
Points for not Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 13 points (10 for income tax 3 for estates)
Points for Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 1 (for income tax because chapel itself is worth 1 point, and you usually don't get rid of it)
So there's a 12 point difference between going for chapel and not, 3 for estates and 9 for income tax. So basically income tax gives you a 9 point penalty for going for chapel, and he's saying this is not enough of a deterrent for him in most boards (not surprising since neither was trench). Yes, in some games he might forego chapel (like with gardens) but in most games he wouldn't.
IMO, there's more to this than just a loss of 9 points. provinces and the cards that help get you provinces (gold, $5 action cards) are worth -1, so going for provinces is not going to net you nearly as much as in a normal game. Scooping up cheap cards (estates and 2 other piles) especially with +buy seems viable and in that case, chapel isn't necessary because you don't need high $ density. Just to compare: if your opponent uses chapel, gets all 8 provinces (likely will take more than 20 turns) that's 40 minus his higher cost cards + his lower cost cards. He could easily be at 40 or less. If you don't chapel and buy 8 estates and 12 other cheap cards, you'd be at 41 (30 for income tax, 11 for estates). If you opponent can't get all the provinces himself (especially true in some BM strategies) 3 piling cheap cards would really work in your favor.
212
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 11, 2019, 10:52:17 pm »
Congrats to King Leon. Thanks for the judging MeNowDealWithIt.
naitchman Regret http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802910#msg802910For the record, Donald X. said they tried chapel that only trashed 3 cards and it was too slow. steward can at least pivot to a $2 or +2 cards in the late game. A card that just allowed you to trash 2 cards would be way too slow. Chapel with regret would be even worse because you sacrifice your whole turn to trash 2 cards (you can't even use the other 2 cards in your hand). That was the idea. I kind of agree with your other point; it would be fun, but crazy. This was a hard challenge!
I expect to buy Chapel on boards with this as frequently as I buy Steward.
213
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 11, 2019, 04:40:19 pm »
So, when's the judging?
214
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 06:04:18 pm »
Made an update to my card (see original post for explanation)
215
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:25:06 pm »And here comes my submission. (The separate post is intended, because this one is unrelated to the previous.)This looks like scout but actually a reasonable buy
Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4*
+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing $2 or less into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
During your Action phase, this costs $2 less, but not less than $0.
Still this seems close to apothecary and for (relatively) less $. It loses the +1 card but gets the ability to draw itself from the top. It also draws estates/shelters (and other 2 cost cards) things you start with. You could probably win by just buying these and 1 copper and then piledriving provinces.
216
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:21:48 pm »Newb question: I can't figure out how to post images in this forum. I always think submissions look better when they appear in card form...you can make the cards here
217
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 02:47:25 pm »Regret, Hoard House and Landfill Tax are useless when there is no trasher in the game. I think, the card should be also usable without Chapel in the game (even Moat is usable without attacks and Tunnel without discarders gives at least some victory points).
I was thinking about this. In the end I tried to keep the text count low. At the end of the day there is precedence for cards that only make an impact if trashing is available (Rats, Tomb, Sewers). In general I agree with your idea; you should avoid making cards that need specific kingdom conditions without supplying that condition from the card itself (example: Old Witch. It allows others to trash curses from their hand. What if there's no cursers? Don't worry it's a curser too). I just think exceptions should be made for conditions which are very common (+buy, trashing, villages, +actions, +$, etc.) especially for sideways cards (worse case scenario, they don't have an impact and you can just pretend they're not there)
A good example would be conspirator; it's only really worth it if you can play 2 actions before it, otherwise you should just buy silver. What if there are no +actions in the kingdom? Possible but highly unlikely. Another one would be Labyrinth. What if there's no +buy and no gainers? Again, not likely.
I agree that the card shouldn't just focus on chapel; all the cards you mentioned, however, have an impact on trashers in general.
218
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 12:42:36 pm »Here's my current submission:
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, you're not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.
I assume the "not from the supply" is just to avoid weird Lurker interactions? It could also be read as "you only set it aside if it doesn't have a supply pile". I would change the wording, assuming my interpretation is correct, to "when you trash a card from your hand", to avoid ambiguity.
I want to keep cards trashed not from your hand, like knights and swindler.
Technically the word "from" would exclude your interpertation. "From" usually denotes where the card was when the thing happened/ happens (discard a card from your hand means to discard a card in your hand, not a card that you originally gained from your hand). If I meant to exclude cards that have a supply pile, I probably would have written "a card not in the supply", like BoM. I don't know; do you have a better wording that only excludes cards trashed from the supply but not from your deck or discard pile, without being too wordy. What about, "when you trash a card other than from the supply"?
219
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 06, 2019, 12:01:43 pm »
Here's my current submission (this card has been updated):
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, your not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.
Updates:
1) This now happens after you trash rather than when you trash. thus any "when you trash" abilities happen before this. If the card is no longer in the trash Regret has lost track of it. This was mainly to make it so someone couldn't posses you and then trash your cards (choosing to use Regret's ability first), set them aside, and then put the good ones in the trash. As a result, you now cannot set aside your fortress with this.
2) changed "not from the supply" to other than from the supply" to more clearly indicate trashing a card directly from the supply.
3) You now put your cards back at the end of every turn (including other player's). This is to make it a little less swingy. it used to be if your opponent knights you twice, then on your turn if you play a steward, you get to trash 2 cards (instead of what would be effectively 1 in a game like this) and get your 2 cards back. Now, if your opponent knights you twice, you trash 1 and keep 1. You obviously don't have control over what happens on your opponents turns so I think this is better. Technically cards trashed from donate will get put back at the end of your next opponent's turn.
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, your not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.
Updates:
1) This now happens after you trash rather than when you trash. thus any "when you trash" abilities happen before this. If the card is no longer in the trash Regret has lost track of it. This was mainly to make it so someone couldn't posses you and then trash your cards (choosing to use Regret's ability first), set them aside, and then put the good ones in the trash. As a result, you now cannot set aside your fortress with this.
2) changed "not from the supply" to other than from the supply" to more clearly indicate trashing a card directly from the supply.
3) You now put your cards back at the end of every turn (including other player's). This is to make it a little less swingy. it used to be if your opponent knights you twice, then on your turn if you play a steward, you get to trash 2 cards (instead of what would be effectively 1 in a game like this) and get your 2 cards back. Now, if your opponent knights you twice, you trash 1 and keep 1. You obviously don't have control over what happens on your opponents turns so I think this is better. Technically cards trashed from donate will get put back at the end of your next opponent's turn.
220
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 05, 2019, 10:37:47 am »Because this week's judging was a bit earlier than normal, I think time needs to be allowed to account for that. The last challenge was posted a week ago from today, so I think today is when the "extra time" clock should be started, not when the results were announced a couple days ago. So maybe 24 hours from this evening, giving exactly 8 days from when the last one was started?But then again it was stated in the original post that the contest would end on Tuesday at Noon, meaning the clock has already started (and is almost done).
221
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 05, 2019, 09:33:16 am »
So should we set a time today at which if MeNowDealWithIt doesn't start the next challenge, Segura will take over as judge?
222
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:21:43 pm »Onto this week's competition!I get a feeling MeNowDealWithIt still hasn't found out he's won. He might not even know that the judging was early. Hope he checks the forum soon. I'm itching for another challenge.
P.S. Thanks for the honorable mention, Kudasai
223
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:10:50 pm »2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be.
Okay, fair point. I just reread your note 1. I guess it hadn't fully registered the first time, nor had the black background; I was reading it as an Action card.
LOL
I kinda see where you're coming from now.
224
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:02:16 pm »
I've updated the card to deal with some of the issues
1) There's no switching phases, and you can at least play villages now. You can basically only play 1 terminal (excluding villagers, coin of the realm, throne room variants, or other shtick).
2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be. Outpost and Mission also have restrictions because extra turns are a big deal (If i can double province each turn, getting an extra turn unconditionally would be like a card that gave you 2 provinces). I could say that I would never buy outposts in big money and I would only buy it in engines with great trashing (or with guide or minion); that's the point! It's not always supposed to be a viable card, it depends on the board. It's also supposed to make your extra turn harder, or else getting the extra turn would be a no-brainer (extra turns are powerful, especially at the end). Mission costs $4 for a single extra turn that you can't buy cards. What's the point of having an extra turn if you can't buy cards? Plenty if you're creative enough; you can trash cards, cycle through your deck, upgrade travellers, gain coffers, gain villagers, gain victory tokens, or gain cards. You might not buy it with big money, or with an engine that can't do much of those things above, but you will buy it in the cases where it is helpful. In this case you get an extra turn where you can only play one terminal. Is that worth it? depends on what your non-terminals can do. I think there's plenty of situations where I would buy a Grand Tour at it's price point (especially since you only buy one of them).
3) There are plenty of engines that could run without villages; scrying pool, throne room variants, villagers, coin of the realm, labs/alchemists, Cantrip decks (like Grand Market), single card engines (minion or governor). Also, like you said this would work with big money.
4) I'm thinking the price would have problems if $4 or less. Opening with it would be very powerful, since in the beginning, nobody has too many terminals and extra turns in the beginning are great when you're trying to build your deck. Then, if you don't need it you could trash it or leave it in your deck if you have to.
1) There's no switching phases, and you can at least play villages now. You can basically only play 1 terminal (excluding villagers, coin of the realm, throne room variants, or other shtick).
2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be. Outpost and Mission also have restrictions because extra turns are a big deal (If i can double province each turn, getting an extra turn unconditionally would be like a card that gave you 2 provinces). I could say that I would never buy outposts in big money and I would only buy it in engines with great trashing (or with guide or minion); that's the point! It's not always supposed to be a viable card, it depends on the board. It's also supposed to make your extra turn harder, or else getting the extra turn would be a no-brainer (extra turns are powerful, especially at the end). Mission costs $4 for a single extra turn that you can't buy cards. What's the point of having an extra turn if you can't buy cards? Plenty if you're creative enough; you can trash cards, cycle through your deck, upgrade travellers, gain coffers, gain villagers, gain victory tokens, or gain cards. You might not buy it with big money, or with an engine that can't do much of those things above, but you will buy it in the cases where it is helpful. In this case you get an extra turn where you can only play one terminal. Is that worth it? depends on what your non-terminals can do. I think there's plenty of situations where I would buy a Grand Tour at it's price point (especially since you only buy one of them).
3) There are plenty of engines that could run without villages; scrying pool, throne room variants, villagers, coin of the realm, labs/alchemists, Cantrip decks (like Grand Market), single card engines (minion or governor). Also, like you said this would work with big money.
4) I'm thinking the price would have problems if $4 or less. Opening with it would be very powerful, since in the beginning, nobody has too many terminals and extra turns in the beginning are great when you're trying to build your deck. Then, if you don't need it you could trash it or leave it in your deck if you have to.
225
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm »
Okay this is my submission (for now) (this card has been updated)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) resetting your actions to 1 means that you now have 1 action regardless of how many you had before that.
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) resetting your actions to 1 means that you now have 1 action regardless of how many you had before that.