Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Did you ever consider Traits to be applied to Night card piles as well?

dang! I really wanted to make a trasher that could trash itself, and i wanted a chain trasher that could be a smithy or more. But i agree with you that its too strong as it.

i came up with 2 alternative versions that im curious what people think about:

Sir Pounce by faust

Assuming that Favors are your only tokens to use with this in most games, there are a lot of Allies with which this would not do anything. Any start of turn ones, since you won't have more differently named cards than Sir Pounces, barring Durations (Cave, Crafters, Desert, Forest, Pickpockets, Mountain), some that trigger at strange times (Astrologers, Masons, Coastal Haven, Island Folk, Plateau Shepherds) and some that are only useful if you have some way to gain cards other than buying them (Trappers, Nomads, City-State, Architects). So a lot of the time the reaction will be irrelevant.

I find this analysis a bit reductive. Yes, there are kingdoms where the Reaction cannot be triggered. This is pretty normal for Reaction cards. A cursory computation I did shows that in fact around 60% of kingdoms with Sir Pounce will also have other spendable tokens, so your assumption at the beginning there is false. Yes, for a couple of Allies, you need extra support. But I think even if you can never react, the top effect of Sir Pounce is okay at $4 (roughly on par with Underling, so a bit weak, but not unplayable), and that never even enters into your analysis.

Judging

This is only my second time judging so any feedback would be great.
Hunting Dog by Zoyarox


This is pretty powerful. I don't think it's too good though. It's very unreliable and needs good thinning before you start chaining it. The wording is not the best. Put any number and discard the rest doesn't make sense, since why would I want to discard something I could put in my hand? (Other than discard Reactions.) You'll play it before putting things in your hand or discarding and so you'll have multiple sets of cards in reveal-land. This wording is much better than the first version though. It's significantly different from existing blue dogs. I had so much fun playtesting this. It might not be completely balanced, but it's definitely fun to play with.

Finalist
Sled Dog by JW
- Action Reaction
+3 Cards
----
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Treasure to play this from your hand.

This is balanced and simple, but to me feels too similar to Stables. I never even got a chance to play it as a Smithy. Every time I played it, it worked exactly like a Stables. If Stables didn't exist, this would definitely be a finalist and might even win, but it overlaps too much in my opinion. In theory you would draw this other than the start of your turn sometimes, but if you used Sled Dog as your only source of draw then it was identical to Stables.
Royal Hound by RovingBear


A little too powerful, I think. It's almost as good as Throne Room (sometimes better) in an Action-heavy deck. You can even discard a RH with a played RH, then discard another RH to draw 4 cards and discard two, and if you draw the RH you discarded you can discard it again to play it twice again. The wording could be better. I suggest “When you discard an Action card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this from your hand to play that Action card twice.” It’s definitely different from existing blue dogs, and fun to chain (although a little difficult to keep track of what happens).
Starly by Melon


Pretty good balance. You might want to make the drawing conditional on the discarding, or maybe “Discard two cards. If you discarded at least one, +4 Cards.” Great wording. The reaction isn’t unique, but the way the top uses it is. It reminds me a bit of Minion, but since you discard first and it’s terminal it’s much harder to chain.

Out of curiosity, what's a Starly?

Finalist
Junk Dog by anordinaryman


I'm worried this will be a plain +2 Cards most of the time. Junking yourself with a Ruins is usually not worth the bonus (at least until the end of the game) and the trashing might never come up. Or maybe it does, but by the time you start getting these you've trashed all your Coppers. It's also possible people would gain Ruins just to trash them to trigger the Reaction. I don't think that would happen (Watchtower?). It's interesting though, maybe I'm underestimating it.
Black Bear (Blessed Gems) by BryGuy

Black Bear • $3 • Action - Reaction
Choose one: +2 Cards; or trash up to three copies of a card from your Hand.
-
When you gain a card, you may play this from your Hand to put the gained card into your Hand.

Heirloom: Blessed Gems

Blessed Gems • $2 • Treasure - Heirloom
$1
If you've trashed a card this turn, gain a Spoils.

I see Steward when I look at this. It seems similarly strong. You are probably always going to open with this. The Reaction feels a bit clunky though. It's not really related to what the card does (it's primarily a trasher, and I think more interesting would be to discard this to put the gained card in your hand). It's also mostly strictly better than Sheepdog. The Heirloom also feels unnecessary. To me the problem is that it does too many things at once. It trashes, draws, gains Spoils, and puts gained cards in your hand, and is non-terminal when you do that. It's a good idea but could be split up between two or three cards.
Golden Retriever by NoMoreFun
Action/Reaction - $4
+2 Cards
You may set aside a Gold for +3 Cards, then
You may set aside a non-Copper treasure for +2 Cards
Discard any set aside cards at end of turn
_________
When any player gains a Gold, you may play this.

This seems a bit like Storyteller, with the huge drawback that it has no +Action, and that it can't play Coppers. Actually, I would recommend making it work like Storyteller: "+2 Cards. You may play a non-Copper Treasure from your hand, then pay all your $ and +1 Card per $ you paid." Two options for setting aside seem unnecessary. The Reaction is interesting. How good does Gold get when it can act as a super-Lab and can turn your terminal draw non-terminal? Very good, I think.
Trailsniffer by LibraryAdventurer
$3 - Action - Reaction
+3 Cards.
Discard two cards.
-
When you gain, trash, or discard this other than in clean-up, you may play it.

This mostly differs from Trail in that it can trigger itself. With support, Trail is probably stronger (since it's non-terminal) but by itself, this is much better. I'm not sure how effective it is as draw. Each one you discard will increase your handsize by one. Playing a Trailsniffer and discarding two is equivalent to playing two Forums and a Smithy (please tell me if this is wrong), which does seem very good. It's not a finalist because, well, you copied Trail.
Watchdog by silverspawn


This is something like Stowaway + Mapmaker. It's amazing how many different iterations you can get out of +2 Cards and a different play time. I do like that the at the start of your next turn part lets you make use of it after buying a Victory card. That probably matters even more for Victory cards than for other cards. Simple and effective. I like the image (though I'm not judging based on that).

Finalist
Hyena by fika monster


+2 Cards and trash! Not only that, but chainable. This might be too powerful, similar to Recruiter/Cultist/Masquerade, all very strong cards. Is the self trashing necessary? It could be better without that. While you can't chain without trashing, chaining with trashing is a huge boost early in the game. In 95% of games I will get this as my first $5, and probably my second (or even 3rd) too. The self trashing might be a bonus even. It prevents it from working as draw, but it does let you trash your trasher for free, which can strongly affect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way.

Finalist
Sir Pounce by faust

Assuming that Favors are your only tokens to use with this in most games, there are a lot of Allies with which this would not do anything. Any start of turn ones, since you won't have more differently named cards than Sir Pounces, barring Durations (Cave, Crafters, Desert, Forest, Pickpockets, Mountain), some that trigger at strange times (Astrologers, Masons, Coastal Haven, Island Folk, Plateau Shepherds) and some that are only useful if you have some way to gain cards other than buying them (Trappers, Nomads, City-State, Architects). So a lot of the time the reaction will be irrelevant.
Royal Hound by Gubump

The top here does not synergize with the bottom. While that might be intentional, it will probably lead to a lot of games that either use this card as "+2 Cards" or "+1 Action draw until 5". I think this card would be much more interesting if there was an easier way to use both halves of the card.
Cwn Annwn by grep

A chainable one-shot Witch? That you can open with two of? I don’t think this card will be very fun to play with. Opening with it is going to be common. It reminds me a lot of Ill-Gotten Gains, except it doesn’t junk you. Ill-Gotten Gains looks innocent; a Copper with on-gain Cursing? That’s basically a Peddler worth 1 VP! But it’s not, and I think this is better.
Golden Retriever by stars

The main problem with this is that the most common way to gain cards is to buy them, and drawing two cards after buying something is useless (outside usual edge cases). So it only works if there is a gainer, or if other players are buying them (or another Reaction card). If other players know you are relying on them for terminal space though, they won’t buy this. And then you won’t buy it. So I’m worried it will feel a lot like either a Moat, or a very restricted Sheepdog. To fix this either the top could be more interesting (see Watchdog) or the bottom less restricted.
Assisting Dog by grrgrrgrr

Put this into play without following the on-play instructions? That’s going to be very confusing for some people. Does the etc. include 1/one by 2? I’m going to assume here it does. Considering its effects on some simple cards (imagining it was played separately and spent an action):
Village: +1 Card +2 Actions
Smithy: +1 Card +1 Action
Market: +1 Card +2 Actions +$1 +1 Buy
It of course gets much better when a card has varied bonuses, but so far it seems reasonable. Would you need to say non-Duration or would it stay in play? This is definitely interesting. I have no idea how balanced it is.
Farm Hound by kru5h

It looks fairly weak to me. The on-play is not great, and the reaction isn't the best either; it's similar to Diplomat but less powerful, and does not enable interactions with itself. It could cost $2 for sure. I don't know what to say; it's reasonable but doesn't excite me.
Winner: Starly by Melon
Runners up: Hunting Dog by Zoyarox, Watchdog by silverspawn, Hyena by fika monster

I tried to playtest and didn't have time. Does anyone know of an online way to playtest fan cards? (I've heard of Tabletop Simulator.)

Great cards everyone!

Trek(v3)

I found the best price at Game Nerdz. I ordered it seven days ago and got it today.

I think it takes a different kind of person to exaggerate results than to fake them, though.

Did you guys know that in 1968 papers were not required to publish experimental data? You could just describe your experiments and your conclusions and then hit publish. That paper single-handedly made me 3x as appreciative of modern norms of publishing

I kind of get it. In a world without digital storage, where would you even put a massive data set? You can hardly make the paper have like 1000 pages.

Now we can do that, but hardly anyone checks (it's also hardly to find definitive evidence) and lots of data used for research papers is forged. I'm not sure how much modern norms of publishing are an improvement.

Man I'm just realizing that the paper on Function Decision Theory https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 is only published on arxiv. That is absolutely ridiculous; whatever you think about Miri and Eliezer, the FDT paper is a major contribution to game theory; it should be a massive deal in the field. I think even the anti-Miri people, unless they're very stupid, acknowledge it for this paper.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIA ISN'T VERY GOOD AT DETERMINING THE MOST VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE SAME IS HAPPENING WITH EM THEORIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS I MEAN IDK BUT JUST SAYING

Well, Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture is only published on arxiv. It's not always a question of whether journals will accept it, but also of whether the author wants to submit it to a journal.

Q as in genderqueer is not more of a container term than the B.

I don't buy that. Bisexual is pretty staight-forward, whereas queer I think most people just consider a container, even if there's some asterisks

Bisexual is a container for people who feel sexual attraction but aren't straight or gay. Genderqueer is a container for people who aren't men or women. I guess there is the difference that genderqueer includes genderless people while bisexual doesn't include aces, but I don't think that's a particularly useful point to draw the line between what counts as a container.