51
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #137: From Whence It Came
« on: December 18, 2021, 09:42:14 am »
24 Hour Warning
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.
52
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 24: Heritage Cards
« on: December 17, 2021, 11:29:23 am »
My vote goes to the Secret Santa contest....spineflu would you be able to lead that?
53
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #137: All's Well That Ends Well
« on: December 09, 2021, 12:06:48 pm »
Oh rats! I looked through #1-100 and didn't see it, but I did have a feeling it was done before. I'll delete and come up with new one
EDIT: The new one is up
EDIT: The new one is up
54
Weekly Design Contest / Weekly Design Contest #137: From Whence It Came
« on: December 09, 2021, 09:54:16 am »
WDC #137: From Whence It Came
Rules:
Rules:
- Design a card that contains the text "return this"
- If your card is a non-supply card, State, or Artifact, please also submit a Supply card that interacts with it
- Examples of official cards that qualify include Experiment, Horse Traders, Madman, Wish, Horse, Way of the Butterfly, Way of the Horse, Deluded, Envious
- I can bend the first rule if you want the card to say "return it" rather than "return this" as long as it would have the same meaning if the phrases were substituted (see Spoils and Encampment)
- This is similar to Contest #93, but your submission doesn't need to return itself to its pile (see Horse Trader)
55
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season
« on: December 09, 2021, 09:11:49 am »
Thanks for the judging and the win, AJL828! You had some great feedback on the entries.
I'll try to have the next contest up shortly.
I'll try to have the next contest up shortly.
56
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season
« on: December 04, 2021, 06:58:14 am »Charlatan (Action, $5)This is obviously too good. It is two Labs vs something that is weaker than a Village (Coins and Buys evaporate when it is not your turn, Draw can be hurt by Militias).
+3 Cards
+1 Action
———
When you gain this, each other player may play an Action card from their hand.
Non-terminal big draw, but your opponents get to play a card for free, possibly improving their hand and/or attacking everyone. For clarity, cards are played in clockwise order.
There are edge cases where your opponents could actually do quite a lot on a Charlatan turn (e.g. if they have two King's Courts and a draw card in hand to kick off and they have gainers or Remodelers in their deck). But in general, yes, a lot of Action cards don't provide much value if played outside your turn.
Would it work better if it just gave +4 Cards instead, rather than the nonterminal card draw?
Possibly, although I’m not really sure how this would balance out. On the one hand, you might be reticent to buy Charlatans if you think your opponents might have one in hand (and there’s probably a first player advantage here); on the other, you probably want them in your deck if there aren’t other good draw cards in the Kingdom especially if you think your opponents will buy them.
57
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season
« on: December 03, 2021, 03:44:18 pm »QuoteLooking Glass
$4 - Treasure - Command
Play a non-Command Treasure from the Supply, leaving it there.
Each other player may gain a copy of it.
In basic Kingdoms, Looking Glass offers you the flexibility of playing it as a Copper, Silver, or Gold, with the caveat that your opponents may choose to gain a copy of the emulated card. I think it will probably get played most often as a Silver, with players only needing to play it as a Gold to hit certain price points.
Looking Glass will be more interesting when there are Kingdom Treasures available e.g. Scepters and even Loan. There is a strong combo with Capital, but if opponents choose to gain Capitals, the pile will eventually empty and so players will no longer be able to exploit the interaction between Looking Glass and Capital. However, if it turns out to be broken, I suppose the card could be revised to have similar wording to the original Overlord in order to avoid that.
There is no cost restriction, so Looking Glass can be played as Platinum or Fortune; players would just need to assess whether they will benefit more than their opponents.
There is a danger of piles running low quickly in games with more than one Kingdom Treasure (or Capitalism games), but those situations should be rare.
I'm not really seeing a point where this card is a fun addition to a kingdom. Action - Commands make sense because of the versatility they provide; different actions are useful in different situations. With treasures, most of the differences between them are in how much $ they produce. A few have other utilities, but if they cost less than this you're just buying an expensive copy of the same card with a downside, and if they cost more you're giving your opponents a huge advantage, saving them a lot of $ and a buy to get a potentially powerful card.
You'd pretty much never want to copy a basic Treasure unless you're in the final turns of the game and you want to snatch the final few Victory cards before your opponents can use the big treasures you just handed them. There are a few obvious synergies in cards like Capital and Cache, but there are just as many anti-synergies with cards like Hoard, Quarry, Stash, and Ill-Gotten Gains. I think this would only be interesting with a very specific kingdom setup with at least two other Treasure piles from a very short list, and how often will that situation come up?
You're right that this won't have the same degree of flexibility as an Action command card, but I think it can still be useful even without Kingdom Treasures and I don't agree that you would never want to copy a basic Treasure except during the greening phase. For instance, in Kingdoms where you want to try and spike a certain price point after the first shuffle you may consider opening with Looking Glass, since being able to emulate Gold could be useful. Of course, there is the downside of potentially giving your opponent a Gold, but if they don't see it until after the second shuffle and aren't able to buy Inheritance or whatever, then it'll be a net benefit for you.
I don't think Looking Glass will be too bad early in the game. Your opponents' desire to gain Silvers will wane quickly if they are looking for consistency with their deck (and even gaining a bunch of Golds can sometimes be a trap), and I think being able to hit certain price points can be important for your tempo and outweigh the downside of gifting Treasures to your opponents.
Even if it's just cheap payload that you're trying to gain and play on your final turn, I don't see the problem with that. A card isn't only fun if it's useful in the early game or mid-game.
58
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season
« on: December 03, 2021, 07:21:07 am »Charlatan (Action, $5)This is obviously too good. It is two Labs vs something that is weaker than a Village (Coins and Buys evaporate when it is not your turn, Draw can be hurt by Militias).
+3 Cards
+1 Action
———
When you gain this, each other player may play an Action card from their hand.
Non-terminal big draw, but your opponents get to play a card for free, possibly improving their hand and/or attacking everyone. For clarity, cards are played in clockwise order.
There are edge cases where your opponents could actually do quite a lot on a Charlatan turn (e.g. if they have two King's Courts and a draw card in hand to kick off and they have gainers or Remodelers in their deck). But in general, yes, a lot of Action cards don't provide much value if played outside your turn.
59
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #136: ‘Tis the Season
« on: December 03, 2021, 05:52:59 am »
Quote
Looking Glass
$4 - Treasure - Command
Play a non-Command Treasure from the Supply, leaving it there.
Each other player may gain a copy of it.
In basic Kingdoms, Looking Glass offers you the flexibility of playing it as a Copper, Silver, or Gold, with the caveat that your opponents may choose to gain a copy of the emulated card. I think it will probably get played most often as a Silver, with players only needing to play it as a Gold to hit certain price points.
Looking Glass will be more interesting when there are Kingdom Treasures available e.g. Scepters and even Loan. There is a strong combo with Capital, but if opponents choose to gain Capitals, the pile will eventually empty and so players will no longer be able to exploit the interaction between Looking Glass and Capital. However, if it turns out to be broken, I suppose the card could be revised to have similar wording to the original Overlord in order to avoid that.
There is no cost restriction, so Looking Glass can be played as Platinum or Fortune; players would just need to assess whether they will benefit more than their opponents.
There is a danger of piles running low quickly in games with more than one Kingdom Treasure (or Capitalism games), but those situations should be rare.
60
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 24: Heritage Cards
« on: December 03, 2021, 02:09:29 am »Quote
Charnel House
$4 - Action
Trash a card from your hand. Draw until you have 6 cards in hand. If you did not draw any cards, +1 Action.
Heritage: Graveyard
Quote
Graveyard
$3 - Victory - Reaction - Heritage
1VP
-
When you trash a card, you may discard this for +1VP
Partly inspired by the discussion about Tomb.
Graveyard is priced at $3, so it can be plucked out of the trash with Graverobber or Rogue.
61
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 24: Heritage Cards
« on: December 02, 2021, 12:40:34 am »
That is a good point, but I am not sure how to properly resolve it. I wanted Fish to be a valid trash for benefit source that does not run out. Is it overly easy to abuse?
I don't think it's overly easy to abuse, but I can see certain game states where players have decks primarily consisting of Young Anglers, Fishing Hole, and some Treasures (in fact, if you have enough overdraw, you'd just need one Treasure) and all they do is gain Fish off Young Angler and then play and trash them for points.
On the other hand, Fish do give you Coffers, so that should entice players to start buying green cards at some point.
Quote
Edit: If you mean that this card can give a constant source of VP tokens with Tomb, I would say it is similar to any of the cards that pull things from the Trash (like Lurker) along with a Trasher. The Fish will be a more straight forward way to do this, but I would say that is an issue with Tomb more than anything. IDK, but thanks for the feedback.
I think Fortress-Tomb with any trasher that isn't a remodeler would be a better example, as that would be a constant source of VP without necessarily advancing the game towards completion (with Lurker, you will eventually get to a three-pile ending).
The interaction with Tomb is just the equivalent of sticking "+1 VP" on each Fish. A nice bonus, but hardly game-warping
My concern in the case of Tomb games is that the Fish get returned to their pile when trashed, so if all players go for this strategy it could theoretically lead to long games where players don't need to gain any other cards other than Fish to score points. But as I mentioned above, maybe the fact that you would gain a bunch of Coffers with Fish would entice you to buy cards.
62
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 24: Heritage Cards
« on: December 01, 2021, 11:06:39 am »
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a card. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Card
Fish card, +1 Card
Treasure card, gain 2 Fish
Victory card, +$1
(Heritage: Fishing Hole)
Victory - Reaction - Heritage
1VP
----
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to reveal the top 3 cards of the Fish pile. Gain 1 and trash the rest.
The mechanic of returning the Fish to their pile when trashed is interesting, but there is a potential infinite VP issue with Tomb.
63
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 29, 2021, 11:16:20 pm »spineflu's Bromides (A Sparing Father, A Spending Son, Make Light Work, Look a Gift Horse, Reach for the Sky, Over the Moon, Tricks of the Trade)
Unlike Laws, Bromides are randomly selected from the set based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, there would be 3 available. As emtzalex pointed out early in the thread, have 3 to choose from in 2-player game will essentially only give the players a choice the first time they place their cube (e.g. Player 1 selects Bromide A, Player 2 then selects Bromide B, then Player 1 has no choice but to select Bromide C, and Player 2 has no choice but to select Bromide A, and so on). Tweaking the rule to using n+2 Bromides, where n is the number of players, would give the player an actual choice to make.
Bromides have an interesting feature whereby they give the active player a bonus and a different bonus to their opponents. In the case of a Spending Son and Make Light Work, the bonus that your opponents get is arguably better than what you get, so you need to be wise about whether your really need to take the +$1 or +1 Action. On the other hand, a well-timed Over the Moon might not give your opponent any advantage if their discard pile is empty, and the remaining Bromides generally have better bonuses for the active player than their opponents. It may mean that players will gravitate towards the latter ones.
I don't think giving the players a choice every time is a good idea - you're going to be stuck on your particular orbit through the bromides, and your opponents can plan for that. Otherwise the "better for your opponents than yourself" ones will never get picked; it's like randomly getting a dud Council Room draw.
I can see the potential appeal of not having a choice except for the first card you pick, especially if it allows you to plan for the bonus that you're likely to get on your next turn or your opponent's turn. However, I don't know that this set of Bromides is conducive to that kind of tactical foresight, except for Over the Moon.
64
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 26, 2021, 01:33:53 am »
JUDGEMENT
Thank you all for your submissions!
Aquila's Policies (Secrets Best Kept, One Man's Trash, Another Man's Treasure, Risk Assessment)
Secrets Best Kept can be a free Way of the Worm if there are Estates in the trash but will usually be less interesting if there are only Coppers in the trash (unless there are cards like Gardens or Fountain in the Kingdom).
One Man's Trash seems quite strong with the trashing from hand and +1 Buy. It will probably be the most appealing of the bunch, and could lead to interesting decisions in Kingdoms without +Buy especially if you don't have any junk in hand to trash at the start of your turn but really need that extra Buy.
Another Man's Treasure lets you trash a card from hand and then gain a card from the trash to your hand. It'll often be a poor man's Transmogrify unless there are good cards in the trash.
Risk Assessment, like the name suggests
The set feels cohesive and I like the metagame that it creates. It will most notably change the dynamic of games with trash-for-benefit, as there is a downside to trashing nicer stuff since three of Policies will let your opponents grab stuff from the trash. But I think therein lies a potential issue with the set - if it too strongly dissuades trash-for-benefit strategies, then you will mostly have junk in the trash which could make the decisions about which Policy to choose less meaningful. There will be Kingdoms where you will be able to pull off combos with certain start-of-turn effects and these Policies, but it won't be possible in most cases.
I think players will often just go for either One Man's Trash and Risk Assessment if available until their decks are thin, and the other two Policies will not anything substantial for them.
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
This is an intriguing set with some good synergy. Succession allows you to set aside an Action card from your hand in order to power up Primogeniture, Dead Hand, and Estate Tax. Primogeniture and Dead Hand are like Inheritance for Duchies and Curses, respectively, except that most of the time these cards will still clutter your deck. It's not clear to me that you would want to gain Duchies or Curses in order to take advantage of Primogeniture and Dead Hand, unless you are playing with Archives and can stash them away for turns where they would not be activated. Setting it up through Succession also comes with an opportunity cost since you are removing an Action card from your deck. I could definitely see it being detrimental, since it will not only slow down your tempo but having Curses and Duchies in your deck during turns where Dead Hand or Primogeniture are not available will make your deck less reliable. I suspect that Estate Tax would probably be the strongest Law of the bunch and the most contested one.
spineflu's Bromides (A Sparing Father, A Spending Son, Make Light Work, Look a Gift Horse, Reach for the Sky, Over the Moon, Tricks of the Trade)
Unlike Laws, Bromides are randomly selected from the set based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, there would be 3 available. As emtzalex pointed out early in the thread, have 3 to choose from in 2-player game will essentially only give the players a choice the first time they place their cube (e.g. Player 1 selects Bromide A, Player 2 then selects Bromide B, then Player 1 has no choice but to select Bromide C, and Player 2 has no choice but to select Bromide A, and so on). Tweaking the rule to using n+2 Bromides, where n is the number of players, would give the player an actual choice to make.
Bromides have an interesting feature whereby they give the active player a bonus and a different bonus to their opponents. In the case of a Spending Son and Make Light Work, the bonus that your opponents get is arguably better than what you get, so you need to be wise about whether your really need to take the +$1 or +1 Action. On the other hand, a well-timed Over the Moon might not give your opponent any advantage if their discard pile is empty, and the remaining Bromides generally have better bonuses for the active player than their opponents. It may mean that players will gravitate towards the latter ones.
The Alchemist's Traits (Judicious, Industrious, Opulent, Bucolic, Sagacious, Pious)
A set of 6 cards of which you would randomly select 4 for each game. These were originally designed to be drafted at the start of each game, and I assume have permanent effects. Judicious will be impotent unless you have enough Action cards in your deck. Industrious looks potentially interesting if you have enough money but lack +Buy. Opulent could occasionally be helpful, but mainly if you have +Buys to take advantage of it. Bucolic could be very useful, provided its available to you at the right time. Sagacious has a once-per-game restriction, which I don't think is ideal for a Law. Pious is also potentially useful but very situational. I think the situational nature of these cards works as Traits, but as Laws I can see them leading to a lot of frustration for players.
Mahowrath's Necromantic Law (Apprenticeship, Construction, Surveillance, Summoning)
Necromantic Law adds a fourth Zombie, Zombie Summoner, to the trash and has a set of Policies that let you play each of the Zombies. Zombie Summoner lets you gain an Imp every other time you play it (unless there are other cards in the Kingdom that use the token), which is quite nice. All of the policies require you to play a Zombie (it isn't optional) and also come with penalties. Generally, Surveillance, Summoning and Apprenticeship will be innocuous but Construction could be risky. The penalties may seem harsh in cases where you aren't able to make much use out of the available Zombies. Surveillance will probably be the most universally useful Policy since playing Zombie Spy at the start of your turn will increase your hand size and act as a splitter. I wonder if the penalties are necessary at all - they are intended to avoid over-accelerating the game, but given that in a 2-player game, you would have at most 2 Zombies to choose from and the one you may really want to play might not be available.
WINNER:
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
Thank you all for your submissions!
Aquila's Policies (Secrets Best Kept, One Man's Trash, Another Man's Treasure, Risk Assessment)
Secrets Best Kept can be a free Way of the Worm if there are Estates in the trash but will usually be less interesting if there are only Coppers in the trash (unless there are cards like Gardens or Fountain in the Kingdom).
One Man's Trash seems quite strong with the trashing from hand and +1 Buy. It will probably be the most appealing of the bunch, and could lead to interesting decisions in Kingdoms without +Buy especially if you don't have any junk in hand to trash at the start of your turn but really need that extra Buy.
Another Man's Treasure lets you trash a card from hand and then gain a card from the trash to your hand. It'll often be a poor man's Transmogrify unless there are good cards in the trash.
Risk Assessment, like the name suggests
The set feels cohesive and I like the metagame that it creates. It will most notably change the dynamic of games with trash-for-benefit, as there is a downside to trashing nicer stuff since three of Policies will let your opponents grab stuff from the trash. But I think therein lies a potential issue with the set - if it too strongly dissuades trash-for-benefit strategies, then you will mostly have junk in the trash which could make the decisions about which Policy to choose less meaningful. There will be Kingdoms where you will be able to pull off combos with certain start-of-turn effects and these Policies, but it won't be possible in most cases.
I think players will often just go for either One Man's Trash and Risk Assessment if available until their decks are thin, and the other two Policies will not anything substantial for them.
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
This is an intriguing set with some good synergy. Succession allows you to set aside an Action card from your hand in order to power up Primogeniture, Dead Hand, and Estate Tax. Primogeniture and Dead Hand are like Inheritance for Duchies and Curses, respectively, except that most of the time these cards will still clutter your deck. It's not clear to me that you would want to gain Duchies or Curses in order to take advantage of Primogeniture and Dead Hand, unless you are playing with Archives and can stash them away for turns where they would not be activated. Setting it up through Succession also comes with an opportunity cost since you are removing an Action card from your deck. I could definitely see it being detrimental, since it will not only slow down your tempo but having Curses and Duchies in your deck during turns where Dead Hand or Primogeniture are not available will make your deck less reliable. I suspect that Estate Tax would probably be the strongest Law of the bunch and the most contested one.
spineflu's Bromides (A Sparing Father, A Spending Son, Make Light Work, Look a Gift Horse, Reach for the Sky, Over the Moon, Tricks of the Trade)
Unlike Laws, Bromides are randomly selected from the set based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, there would be 3 available. As emtzalex pointed out early in the thread, have 3 to choose from in 2-player game will essentially only give the players a choice the first time they place their cube (e.g. Player 1 selects Bromide A, Player 2 then selects Bromide B, then Player 1 has no choice but to select Bromide C, and Player 2 has no choice but to select Bromide A, and so on). Tweaking the rule to using n+2 Bromides, where n is the number of players, would give the player an actual choice to make.
Bromides have an interesting feature whereby they give the active player a bonus and a different bonus to their opponents. In the case of a Spending Son and Make Light Work, the bonus that your opponents get is arguably better than what you get, so you need to be wise about whether your really need to take the +$1 or +1 Action. On the other hand, a well-timed Over the Moon might not give your opponent any advantage if their discard pile is empty, and the remaining Bromides generally have better bonuses for the active player than their opponents. It may mean that players will gravitate towards the latter ones.
The Alchemist's Traits (Judicious, Industrious, Opulent, Bucolic, Sagacious, Pious)
A set of 6 cards of which you would randomly select 4 for each game. These were originally designed to be drafted at the start of each game, and I assume have permanent effects. Judicious will be impotent unless you have enough Action cards in your deck. Industrious looks potentially interesting if you have enough money but lack +Buy. Opulent could occasionally be helpful, but mainly if you have +Buys to take advantage of it. Bucolic could be very useful, provided its available to you at the right time. Sagacious has a once-per-game restriction, which I don't think is ideal for a Law. Pious is also potentially useful but very situational. I think the situational nature of these cards works as Traits, but as Laws I can see them leading to a lot of frustration for players.
Mahowrath's Necromantic Law (Apprenticeship, Construction, Surveillance, Summoning)
Necromantic Law adds a fourth Zombie, Zombie Summoner, to the trash and has a set of Policies that let you play each of the Zombies. Zombie Summoner lets you gain an Imp every other time you play it (unless there are other cards in the Kingdom that use the token), which is quite nice. All of the policies require you to play a Zombie (it isn't optional) and also come with penalties. Generally, Surveillance, Summoning and Apprenticeship will be innocuous but Construction could be risky. The penalties may seem harsh in cases where you aren't able to make much use out of the available Zombies. Surveillance will probably be the most universally useful Policy since playing Zombie Spy at the start of your turn will increase your hand size and act as a splitter. I wonder if the penalties are necessary at all - they are intended to avoid over-accelerating the game, but given that in a 2-player game, you would have at most 2 Zombies to choose from and the one you may really want to play might not be available.
WINNER:
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
65
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 24, 2021, 04:09:30 pm »
Submissions Closed.
I will aim to have the judging done by tomorrow evening.
I will aim to have the judging done by tomorrow evening.
66
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #135: Go Big or Go Home!
« on: November 23, 2021, 04:17:23 pm »It should be the opponent - thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. I will add “their choice” similar to how Torturer is worded.Quick question: who chooses whether the other players receive the next hex or discard a copy of the card gained? The wording is ambiguous currently.
There's probably some crazy combo with Sceptre, but you said to go big.
If you do this, you should technically add "(or reveals they can't)" after "discards a copy of it" to deal with accountability issues (see Villain).
When I first saw the card I presumed they had to discard the copy to avoid the Hex (akin to Mountebank). In that case the language should be: "Each other player may discard a copy of it. If they don’t, they receive the next Hex."
Thanks - you're right. The Torturer wording wouldn't work in this case, since the intention is that the opponent gets hexed if they choose not to or can't discard a copy of the gained card.
67
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #135: Go Big or Go Home!
« on: November 23, 2021, 11:49:40 am »
There's probably some crazy combo with Sceptre, but you said to go big.
Quick question: who chooses whether the other players receive the next hex or discard a copy of the card gained? The wording is ambiguous currently.
It should be the opponent - thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. I will add “their choice” similar to how Torturer is worded.
68
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #135: Go Big or Go Home!
« on: November 23, 2021, 09:22:37 am »
Thanks to Xen3k and emtzalex for pointing out the issues with the wording; I've edited the text as per emtzalex's suggestion
Original:
There's probably some crazy combo with Sceptre, but you said to go big.
69
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 23, 2021, 09:10:14 am »
I realize I didn't mention when the contest would close in the OP, but since it's supposed to be a weekly contest and it's already been over a week...
24 Hour Warning
So far I see submissions from Aquila, emtzalex, spineflu, The Alchemist, and Mahowrath.
24 Hour Warning
So far I see submissions from Aquila, emtzalex, spineflu, The Alchemist, and Mahowrath.
70
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 19, 2021, 05:28:14 pm »Okay so I don't know if this is allowed, but I made a similar concept called Traits with different rules than Laws, but I realized the card names/art and effect could easily reinterpreted to be laws. I don't have time to re-format these cards, so if you would oblige me, ignore the types on these cards and pretend they say laws. Naming-wise they are similar to your laws in the OP, but I agree they sound more like the names of policies than laws. The effects are also all intended to be significantly weaker, weaker than even one vanilla bonus per turn.
How many of these cards are you proposing would be available in each game? All of them, or would you randomly select a certain number to be used?
71
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 16, 2021, 11:06:08 am »Logistically, there should be some way to identify Laws / Policies that go together. I mean as fan cards we don't *have* to, but imagine if this was ever in an official printed set; you'd want to quickly be able to identify all the Laws / Policies from the set you want to use, while only using one from each as a randomizer.
So maybe thematically, the laws in the OP could be the "type" of Law / Policy, with the actual individual Laws / Policies being more specific names. For example for Employment Law, you'd have "at-will", "unionized" etc...
Of course the issue with that is that's a lot of characters for the small diagonal... :/
But some way to group would make this feel more fleshed out, for me, at least.
It could be done with a symbol at the bottom right that is unique to each set.
72
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 16, 2021, 09:47:17 am »This mechanic should add interest to the game if done right, but there's also the potential to take it away. It's a good challenge!
Firstly, I think I prefer to call them Policies, since they're a bit more open than laws. You can't really choose which law to obey, but you can follow different policies.
Secondly, I assume they will be included in games randomly along with WELPs, with one set being one of the recommended 2 landscapes?
Thirdly, I agree to 4 per set with one cube denial for 2 player and two for 3+.
In any case, some design observations:
- They add a bit of player interaction and more poignantly make each turn different, so they can move games away from exact mirrors.
- One player can get one effect at most every other turn.
- They should all be on the same power level, and each be relevant in every game (maybe one could get away with being niche), so the choosing is always interesting.
- Keep an eye on first player advantage. Effects that are strong early may be best made available on 2 or more Laws/Policies.
- Speaking of power level, they're free global effects. More positive effects will definitely speed the game up more, and negative slow it down. They could each have a positive and negative to them, but, they should probably be all positive, all negative or all mix, so there's no sting of all the positives being unavailable.
- Adding some kind of cost might often be necessary to open up a stronger positive effect without losing game balance.
- If effects are made to come in later game (e.g checking for empty Supply piles) the choosing aspect is lessened and an ideal game course can be set up.
- Effects requiring another mechanic to be present in order to work can be done if another one of the Laws/Policies makes it happen.
Thanks for the comments about the mechanic. I was having trouble coming up with a good name (I even considered Decree). You don't get to choose which Laws to follow, but I was thinking about it more from the perspective of being able to choose which laws to set (since we are playing as monarchs). However, I like Policies as a name too.
Oh boy, another new landscape. These are always the hardes to make good ones for. And aren't these just edicts with extra steps?
There are similarities to Edicts, but of course the main difference is that Laws are not permanent effects, which I think has the potential to impact gameplay in meaningful ways as Aquila pointed out.
How many laws are set out per game? N + 1? All of them?
All of the laws in a given set should be used regardless of player count, and only one set of Laws per game. However, you are welcome to modify this if you wish (e.g. if you want the number of laws that are used to be variable based on the player count).
Question: if I made a set of laws concerning the playing of zombies, would I be able to include a 4th zombie from wdc 109, or would that count as reusing an entry?
I don't have any issue with that.
73
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 12, 2021, 10:30:52 am »Do you have a Custom Color you would prefer for us to use?
Yes, if you wish to use the same colour scheme as in the OP, you can use this template.
74
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #134: This is Worthless
« on: November 12, 2021, 10:28:12 am »
There are 12 copies of Fairy in its pile.
I thought it would be interesting to explore a Way that lets you gain non-Supply cards. I considered making it gain Will-o-Wisps or Horses, but I think a new non-Supply card will add a bit of variety. Fairy is a cantrip that lets you dig for Actions, but if it finds one it gets returned to its pile. Probably weaker than Horses in this respect, although they will stick around if you don't find an Action. You could even play Fairies as Way of the Ladybird to stockpile Fairies if that floats your boat.
75
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 23: Laying Down The Law
« on: November 12, 2021, 08:57:36 am »Laws are landscapes that come in sets of 3, and provide any effect that will apply to a player's turn.
The rules are as follows:
- Each player will have a wooden cube in their colour to track which Law will apply on their turn
- Starting on Turn 3, at the start of each player's turn, that player will place their wooden cube on one of the available Laws
- In a 2-player game, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains the other player's cube. In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes. In a game with 6 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains three cubes
- You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn
I really like this concept, but I think there is a bit of an issue with this implementation. In a 2 player game, after Turn 3, no one gets to choose where their cube goes. At the start of each turn after that, there is (a) the Law your cube is on, (b) the Law your opponent's cube is on, and (c) the Law with no cube on it. Under these rules, your only "choice" is to move your cube to (c).
In a 5 player game, is be impossible to follow those rules in one situation. If at the start of your turn (after all the cubes are down) your cube is alone on a Law, that means that each other Law has 2 cubes on it. At that point, you either have to violate the rule that "In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes" or the rule that "You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn" but you cannot follow both.
I don't immediately have a solution that I love for these. The most obvious would be to make it so there are 4 Laws in a set, but that seems like it might be too much. You could fix the issue with the 5 player game by allowing 3 cubes per Law, and just leave the 2 player rule, but it will make the mechanic play radically differently in 2 versus 3+ player games.
Thanks for the feedback.
Good catch on the lack of choice for 2-player games. I think you're right that the most obvious fix is to increase the number of Laws per set to 4, so that you have 2 Laws to choose from.
I think for the scenario in the 5-player game that you mentioned, perhaps the rule should be tweaked to say you must move "you must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn if you can"
Scaling this well based on the number of players is difficult, but I think Dominion already becomes a very different game at more than 3 players.
Another solution is to not outright forbid choosing the same law as the opponent, but instead make the player you copy gain a reward such as a Horse. Of course, this has its own complications regarding first player advantage.
At any rate, you are free to pretend Dominion is a 2-4 player game.
I've changed the rule so that the default number of cards per set is 4.
However, I will permit rule changes - so for instance if you would like to allow players to break the placement rules if there is an reward for their opponents, that would be possible.