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.

151

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 20, 2020, 04:53:26 pm »

So, I've decided to scrap Repossess as I'm having trouble making it in a way I like. Instead, I give you:

Surveyor
Action - Fate
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal the top 3 boons. The player to your right chooses one of them for you to discard. Receive the other two.

Though I am in now way qualified to tell if this card is good or not, I probably think that this card is OP. Let's say that you get three vanilla boons: Forest's Gift (+$1, +1 Buy), Field's Gift (+1 Action, +$1), and Sea's Gift (+1 Card). That means that your opponent chooses you to either get:

+2 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1, which is a lab and a market

+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$1, which is a lost city and a peddler

+1 Card, +2 Actions, +$2, which is a bazaar and a peddler

Maybe it is just me, but I think that even if your opponent gets to choose between these options the card is probably too good to cost $5.

152

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 20, 2020, 12:12:25 am »

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at " problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +, then it's simply a Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at ; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than- effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

What is an escrow?

"a bond, deed, or other document kept in the custody of a third party and taking effect only when a specified condition has been fulfilled.".

That works! Thanks, LittleFish

153

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2020, 07:19:20 pm »

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at " problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +, then it's simply a Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at ; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than- effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

What is an escrow?

154

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm »

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at " problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +, then it's simply a Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at ; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than- effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

155

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm »

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

v1 (outdated)
? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers


Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

v2
Escrow - Action
Cost - $4 (outdated)

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

v3
Escrow - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

156

Dominion General Discussion / Online old games

« on: November 16, 2020, 03:13:21 pm »

Is there any way that you can find the logs for previous games for Dominion Online?

157

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording

« on: November 14, 2020, 02:04:07 am »

Just wondering, why has Donald X. stopped using the "while this is in play" wording. Is it because of the new ways that emulators work (and all of the ways).

158

Dominion General Discussion / How do you upload files from your computer to the Forums?

« on: November 13, 2020, 05:33:01 pm »

Just as the title says. I was wondering in case I ever wanted to.

159

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording

« on: November 09, 2020, 01:51:00 pm »

Two reasons. First, Donald X. is now avoiding "while this is in play" wherever possible. And unfortunately, that's everywhere! These days, if a card won't work without "while this is in play", that card probably won't get to exist. Luckily I don't think that's yet caused a card to be cut during testing, but I could be misremembering. Anyway that's why all recent effects like this have been "this turn".

Second, in the case of Inventor (and Priest), I think the published wording is probably clearer. I think your suggested wording would send most players to the rulebook, wondering whether the cost reduction applied to the gain on the card. I get that it's elegant, but elegance does not always equate to clarity.

I definitely agree with you here. I know before I found the forum and dominionstrategy that I would have checked the rules. On the other hand, I do not think that it would cause much confusion if it was put in the FAQ inside the rulebooks. Also, why is Donald X. trying to avoid "while this is in play." I find that phrase very self explanatory and not confusing

160

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording

« on: November 09, 2020, 01:49:02 pm »

This has probably already been answered somewhere, but I am going to ask anyway. Why wasn't Inventor worded as
Gain a card costing up to $3.
______________________________________________________________
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less

For one thing, it can't be Throne Roomed that way (at least not the cost reduction part).

I know that it can't be throned this way, but in What Donald X. might do with a time machine he said "I would consider whether I like Bridge as is, in its Throne-able glory, or if I would rather phrase them the way I think such stuff in general should be phrased, like Highway etc." so I would have assumed that he would have made this non-throne-able also.

161

Dominion General Discussion / Inventor wording

« on: November 09, 2020, 01:05:27 pm »

This has probably already been answered somewhere, but I am going to ask anyway. Why wasn't Inventor worded as
Gain a card costing up to $3.
______________________________________________________________
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less

162

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Menagerie

« on: March 24, 2020, 11:15:42 am »

When is the secret History for this set supposed to come out?

163

Rules Questions / Fortune Secret History

« on: November 24, 2019, 04:24:45 pm »

Hi.

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but why does Donald X. say that Throning a Throne is not doubling a doubler, but King's Court on King's Court is? Because isn't Throne Room a doubler, which would make Throning a Throne doubling a doubler?

Thanks

164

Dominion FAQ / Re: Maximum Possible VP?

« on: November 11, 2019, 06:48:13 pm »

I played against Lord Rattington online and because of a glitch in the game, he did nothing on all of his turns and had only 3 cards. It was a game with Base Cards and Gardens, and I scored 267 points.