Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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.

Messages - naitchman

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 08:44:06 pm »

Type: Action - Attack - Duration
Cost: $5

Each other player gains a Curse.
At the start of your next turn: +$3
While this is in play, when you gain a card, put that card onto your deck.
For a second I was like, what's so bad about putting gained cards on your deck? Then I realized it topdecks the curses you gain. Nice.  :)
I'm wondering if this should follow sea hag's idea of discarding the top card (or at least giving you the option) so you don't get pinned.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 01:37:52 pm »
As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?
You're right. It does look much cleaner like this.

I'll work on a new submission.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:43:51 am »
I like the idea but given that you can only buy one copy of it in a Kingdom with enough virtual money, I think that it is strategically a bit too straightforward.

It works pretty similar to a project (which you can also only buy one copy of). It has less to do with how you'd play this one card, but more to do with how you'd structure your deck around it.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:41:19 am »
Charity is going to have serious tracking issues if it is removed from play (via trashing or Mandarin) and then played again.

Interesting point. It says "if this is in play". I wonder if it would fall under a lose trackish type of rule since it's no longer the "same" card when played the 2nd time (since charity lost track of itself). I think I'll just fix it by saying, "While this card is in play" rather than "if this card is in play".

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 12:07:34 am »
Why does it have to activate at the start of the buy phase? There's only two situations I can think of where it matters (Storyteller and Black Market).

It's a matter of preference. To me, it feels like treasures should work in the buy phase, not the action phase (excluding text under the line, usually actions work in action phase and treasures work in the buy phase). Also, I felt I didn't want it to work with storyteller or black market. The idea is you get a big bonus of $4 but you have to use it in the buy phase and you don't get to use any treasures. Not being able to use black market or storyteller seems like it should be part of the trade-off.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 29, 2019, 11:55:28 pm »
Charity is intended to stay out and work in a deck that doesn't use treasures. I doubt using it as a one shot is as good as some people are implying.
1) If you're using a one shot for coin it's usually to reach a specific thresh hold fast. If that thresh hold is $5, well that's just stupid. You bought the charity for $5 so you could reach $5? Obviously it would have to be a $6+ card. There aren't a high proportion of those cards so this wouldn't come up so often. When it does, it may be worthwhile to one shot this card (grand market, kings court); you still have to pass up permanently having a $5 card, which are usually strong and may be able to help you reach that thresh hold anyway.
2) You might say that you're using it for a one shot $4 with +buy (maybe from market square, it doesn't matter).  You'd still have to be buying at least one card that cost $6+ with those buys or it wouldn't make sense, and if you're buying $6+ cards we revert back to point #1. If you're only buying cards that are $5 or less, than you could have bought a $5 card outright instead of charity and then you would've been able to buy the other cards you wanted with $4 less (for instance, if you wanted to buy a two $5 cards with your charity, you could have bought one of them instead of charity and then you'd have $6 this turn instead of $10; enough to buy the other card you wanted). It's kind of like when new players are confused that gold costs $6 ("Why would I pay $6 for $3?). They're right, if you didn't get to play the gold over and over again. So why would you pay $5 for $4? Other than reaching a thresh hold (or some edge cases) it wouldn't make sense.
3) The best comparisons for virtual coin one shots are pixie, mining village and Wine Merchant. Mining village is a non-terminal one shot that gives you $2. But it's obviously better than that since it draws 1 card and is not just non terminal but is a village. In addition you don't have to one shot it if you don't want to and it still plays as a village. So a non terminal one shot for +$2 should clearly cost less than 4. Pixie is an even better comparison. It's a non terminal one shot that (could) give you +$2 (Field's gift or Forest's gift). It also draws and will give you +2 actions or +2 buys. And it only costs $2. Charity on the other hand is a $4 one shot that works on the turn after you play it and costs $5. If a one shot $2 should cost <$2 I don't think this is too cheap at $5. Wine Merchant (if never called) is a terminal one shot $4 the turn you play it with a + buy (you can also call if you need to later). Charity is a non terminal one shot $4 the turn after you play it (with no +buy). Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 29, 2019, 11:02:54 pm »
Charity also lets you buy the Villa pile in one turn as worded, since it would give you $4 at the start of every extra Buy phase that Villa gives you (after its extra Action phase).

Fair point. Forgot about villa. I'm going to fix that.

Alms does still take a Buy. Buying Events still takes a Buy. I still think it should probably cost $6, though.

So does buying a card for the $4 that charity gives you. Charity requires you to buy a $5 card then start gaining $4 cards; with alms you can start gaining $4 cards right away. I still don't see why this is stronger than alms.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 29, 2019, 10:50:32 pm »

Being able to simply forgo playing Treasures and buy a $4-cost every single turn until you do play a Treasure (and still having +$4 the turn you do) is WAY too powerful for just $5, especially since it's non-terminal.
That sounds pretty similar to alms which doesn't require you to buy a card.

It also still allows you to play Treasures the same turn as it since you can simply play the Charity last. I would buy it over Platinum most of the time. I would price it at $9 or $10.
Right after I uploaded it I had a similar thought, so I already changed it. I still don't think it's better than platinum anyway since it can only be used once that way. definitely not $9 or $10.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm »
This is no longer my submission (Due to it being changed to a project). I'm leaving this up so reading through the thread doesn't get confusing. (My submission is now Grand Tour; see later)

A couple of things:
1) Thematically nobody wants to give you charity if they know you have money of your own. :)
2) The "if this card is in play" part is important so the effect doesn't continue after you trash it.
3) Also you can't counterfeit or crown this since the second time you play it, it will trash itself.
4) Not sure if the pricing is correct. I'm open to hear other people's opinions. I'm trying to find cards to compare this to. Closest I can find is Treasury ( it's kind of like +$1 for rest of the game with victory card caveat), though obviously losing the ability to play money is a big consideration.
5) A couple places I could see this working: double tactician, poor house, engines that don't have good enough draw to deal with treasures anyway, rush strategies.

6) I wanted Kudasai's verdict on this. Does this count as a vulnerability? You aren't really restricted per se, but playing treasures defeats the purpose of this card. So in effect, it's a duration that (kind of) prevents you from playing treasures.

Note: This card has been updated
1) so it only works on subsequent turns
2) only works for the 1st buy phase each turn (to prevent piledriving villas)
3) Has while in play effect to get rid of tracking issues

and it must actually be infinite (so gaining silvers doesn't count since the silvers will run out).

I don't know if you're referring to Watno's answer in the spoiler, but if you are, that one is still valid because it's contingent on buying Forums, not gaining Silvers. The Silver gaining is just a by-product of reacting with Trader to prevent the Forums from running out.

I didn't understand it before. Now I get it.

A drowned kernel got a similar answer to what I was thinking. The loop should actually do something (so infinite moats don't count), and it must actually be infinite (so gaining silvers doesn't count since the silvers will run out). There are a couple variations on the same idea all legitimate.

My one was capitalism is bought. Traveling Fair is an event. Hand is watchtower, rogue, rogue, steward, steward. Mandarin in trash.
During buy phase, play steward and draw 2 cards, play rogue and gain mandarin, trash it with watchtower, put rogue and steward on deck. Repeat. Use Travelling Fair to buy the whole supply.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 28, 2019, 10:53:00 pm »
3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

You can always choose to take 0 ; in which case you would get a card costing or less on your mat. Why would you ever choose to not do that if it were optional?

If you already had all cards that 4 or less on your mat and you don't want to bring the game closer to an ending. (especially true if there's few cards that are 4 or less).

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm »
Hi all, this is my first attempt at creating a custom card, so all comments are welcome!

Students "study" other actions and are then able to perform those actions for the rest of the game.

FAQ / Secret History:

At first, I had it put Student tokens on Supply piles, but didn't that didn't work well with Spilt Piles (or Knight or Knights).

I wasn't sure of cost, because it really could be almost anything (since it's cost affects how many debt tokens you need to take to "study" a new action). So I could also see it as a $4.

Was also unsure if "studying" should be on buy or on gain. (if you only gain this, it's a stop card, which could also make it interesting to use with some attacks like Ambassador).

Lastly, the intent was that these cards are not part of your deck at the end of the game. This works differently that Inheritance, so I'd be curious to hear opinions on that (and if they do count, should I also limit them to non-Victory?)

P.S. Where do you all get your images for the cards? I would love to add a public domain student to it. Thanks!

I think the biggest problem is the big power difference when it is in a Kingdom with cards that cost more than vs when in a Kingdom without such cards. When King's Court or Grand Market are in the kingdom, it feels like this would be overpowered... for taking just once; you can now buy King's Courts and/or Grand Markets for just . But in a Kingdom where is the most expensive action card (which I think is most Kingdoms), then this is generally just a worse Band of Misfits

I don't think this is strictly worse than BoM (even in kingdoms where the most expensive card is $5). BoM lets you play $4 cards. That's a bad deal ($5 for a $4 card) if it wasn't for the ability to choose which one on the fly. The advantage of BoM is the choice it allows you. Here, it will take longer to get the choices advantage, but it will be from a better pool of cards. Instead of having the power to choose from a bunch of weak $4 and $3 cards, with 3 buys of this you'll have 3 cards that can play (for example) as a wharf, witch or lost city (depending on what you need). Also, as stated above, this works on piles that run out, so this could be used to great effect to get even more than 10 cities (and have the choice advantage to boot). Compare this to BoM board with only 1 village where the BoM can copy the village for a short time before the pile runs out and BoM suddenly isn't as strong as it was.

My worry is the exact opposite. Going for this card might be a necessity, since if your opponent gets all 10, he now has 10 cards that can play as anything on the board. This can be compared to overlord which can do the same thing (in most boards with only 5 or less cost cards), but cost 8 (debt) rather than 6 ($5+1 debt). In addition, winning this split can be much more decisive; if I have only 1 overlord it's just as powerful as each of my opponent's overlords, whereas my 1 student is going to be much less powerful than my opponents 9 students.

A couple of side suggestions:
1) to prevent infinite loops of playing student as a student, you should prevent student playing as a student (or prevent putting a student on your student mat). (As an aside, with a ferry and a BoM you will have an infinite loop. Turning the cards over like necromancer would fix the BoM loop and the Student loop).
2) You should probably say the number of tokens in $ (I can't take 8 debt and put an overlord on my student mat).
3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

Puzzles and Challenges / Infinite Loop Without Throne Room Variant
« on: May 27, 2019, 01:21:41 pm »
The Puzzle is simple. Create an infinite loop able to be executed in a normal game (10 kingdom cards, 2 events/ landmarks/ projects), without using a throne room variant card (Throne Room, King's Court, Disciple, Procession, etc.). You can choose whatever parameters you want (number of players, kingdom, etc.) but it should not rely on shuffle luck.

Note: I know of at least one answer.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 25, 2019, 11:27:21 pm »
Edict (LastFootnote's idea)
Setup: Each player may take <1>. If they do, they put all starting cards into their hand, and put 5 cards onto their deck.

Interesting idea. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to get the wrong opening hands on the wrong board. I'm not sure if reducing your initial buy power by $1 will always be worth the opening hands you want, but perhaps.

Seems like the most logical opening hands you could force are:
$1-$5 (If you had $4-$3 and wanted a $5 cost)
$3-$3 (If you had $5-$2 and wanted two $3 cost)

I just wonder if there's some wording that would allow your combined, initial, buy power to remain at $7. Like having the debt only hit you after your 2nd turn, etc. Maybe that's not a direction you want to go with this though.

I tried taking debts after T2, but that was too easy to forget. This version is simpler and still gives a choice to have $7.

What about putting a debt token under your deck? Then when you reshuffle you'll remember to take it.

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 22, 2019, 04:21:12 pm »

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?
Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:32:12 pm »
Ok. Here is my submission:

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 19 queries.