As I said before, I'm very impressed by the quality and quantity of entries this week. Props to all of you.
With that out of the way: It's Judging Time!
2 sided events by
grepWhen I first saw the idea of 2 sided events, I was a bit skeptical. My main concern was that this would become a game of figuring out if you should buy the event and open up the other side to your opponent, which might work well in 2p but feels more random in 3 or 4 player games. I think you handled this well by giving the events +buys, keeping the price low, and making the 2 sides synergize with each other. This makes it likely (and worth it) to buy both sides in one turn, meaning the side that starts face up on your turn is less relevant. Overall, it's simple yet interesting; I like it.
Morning Cards by
SpinefluThe idea of Morning Cards (cards that are played at the beginning of your turn as opposed to night cards) has been suggested before (
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329#msg823329) (not a negative, just pointing it out). I have a couple of issues with this implementation.
1) This one gives effects to all players, and only a slightly better effect to the person who actually played it. In many cases, it feels like buying a morning card is a sucker move, because you waste the time and money buying it and playing it (which takes 1 card if you draw it naturally at the start of your turn, and 2 cards if you hold onto it from one turn to the next), and your benefit doesn't seem to be worth all the trouble.
2) You can only get the recurring benefit of one card (which can stop if someone else plays a morning card). This means you can't even stack the benefit. And if someone else gets a morning card, getting one yourself becomes even less worth it; The only extra thing you get by playing it is the bottom half. In addition when your opponent plays his morning card again, your morning card goes back in your discard to clog up your deck again.
3) Rather than having a homogeneous pile, you have 4 different types of cards in each pile. Most of the time I think the personal benefit is marginal, but in some case, like if there's no other +buy, getting Dew or Sunrise becomes really strong. If it was a homogeneous pile, it wouldn't be as bad, because everyone would buy one. But because this is a mix, it can lopside things.Player 1 might buy Dew turn one and have little reason to buy any other morning cards (since only 1 will stay in play). Meanwhile, Player 2 needs a +buy to be competitive but the top card of the morning pile is now Dawn Chorus. Does he buy it with the hopes of hitting a Dew or Sunrise? He might have to buy 3 or 4 junk morning cards before he hits the morning card he's actually going to use.
I think allowing someone to hold onto a morning card in addition to their new 5 cards as opposed to as part of their new 5 cards would help a little bit (since it wouldn't clog your deck as much every time you play it) but there are still some kinks to work out on this one.
2 sided events by
MajiponiI'm not sure whether you independently thought of the same idea as grep, or saw his idea and decided to add some more cards. I'll assume the former.
Suggestions: I don't think you should have the duration type on these events. Duration usually goes on things that stay in play, but events never really go in play. You can just leave the next turn effects above the line (like expedition does)
Ignoring the duration thing, I liked grep's implementation of the idea a bit more; his usually went for some synergy between the 2 sides when bought in one turn and gave +buys to many of them which meant buying both sides in one turn was very likely. Without the +buy it becomes a game of trying to figure out if you should buy the event and thus open up the other side to your opponent. In 2p this could be interesting, but in 3p or 4p games this starts to fall apart and feels more random and dependant on who's sitting to your left.
Single Cards by
NoMoreFunI've tried in the past making cards with only one in the game and it is definitely hard to do. If it's too powerful, it just becomes a race to get it. Also, if it stays in one players deck, whoever gets it is going to have an edge. Overall I like the way you did many of these cards, allowing them to return to the piles or transfer to other people. They're also done in such a way that it's still worth it for the first person who actually buys it. The only card I think doesn't work is Communion; why buy it if everyone's going to share in the benefit? I could see some situations, but in general I could see games where no one buys it because it doesn't give you enough of an edge over your opponents. That aside, I do like the mechanic in general (it's interesting to see cards passed around and affect the game in interesting ways); well done.
Blockade by
somekindoftonyI'm not sure exactly what the new mechanic is; this seems like a single card not a general mechanic. I'm guessing the mechanic is blocking piles? I would be interested to see some more examples of cards that could use this. That being said, I imagine there is only so much you can do with mechanic; it would pretty much be used to strategically block your opponent from getting cards you don't want them to. Other cards with this mechanic would probably feel similar. Besides the questions of how returning cards/cards that tell you to gain the card specifically work, I'm also not a fan of completely blocking the pile. Embargo doesn't block the pile, it just makes you take a hit to buy from it (and it doesn't affect gaining). Also the lack of +buy on this card means that if I want to unblock piles my opponent blocked (let's say provinces), I might have to wait another turn to actually start buying the cards (compare this to Doorman by NoMoreFun). Overall, I think this needs some work.
Armor by
4estSuggestion: I think a dividing line with the equip part on the bottom would look a little nicer
That being said, I like the idea of this, beefing up cards for the rest of the turn. I can definitely see how this could be used in plenty of different situations (and you did a good job showing a few). Nice job.
Reload by
mandioca15Suggestion: Rather than +1 reload, I think plain "reload" would be better since you're not getting a new reload (and there's no such thing as +2 reload, so the 1 is really unnecessary).
At first I thought this was very similar to "discard your deck", but I see the difference now. It's a new shorthand that allows you to gain cards and kind of topdeck them (but not completely). It's cute, but I think the uses will feel pretty similar (put something in your discard pile, then reload to have a chance at getting it on the top of your deck).
Workers by
D782802859I think you did a pretty good job of showing how these can really shine. There's a lot of ways you go with these cards (which I like). Some of these can be used in a coffer/villager way (get something to be held onto for later time). I particularly like the cards that can untap themselves (which gives you the decision of keeping the card for more uses or getting the moreful effect). Pretty good.
Rules by
grrgrrgrrSuggestion: Golden era should probably say that Gold costs $1 less (because then it doesn't get confusing with bridge). Fair start has some problems with shelters and heirlooms as pointed out by scolapasta.
Overall these are nice and versatile. While it is new to the official game, I've definitely seen different iterations of these with the same idea over the forums (I know someone called them Edicts).
Jewelry by
scolapastaI think the idea it's good that you attached a +buy to all these cards. You have some interesting effects. I don't know how I feel about adding yet another phase to the turn (and messing up the easily understood ABC acronym), but in general the idea is pretty good. It allows treasures to care about buys and yet still give $; something we couldn't previously have.
Strength by
X-traA bit of rules for this one but I think I get it. I think the 2nd iteration (not allowing you to use cards from your hand) definitely fixed some issues. To some degree, I can picture some fun battles for strength, but on the other hand, I can see some problems coming from it.
1) Very strong attack that have a likely chance of not hitting; and by that I mean not hitting at all, not just one person who has a moat. This means there's quite a swing to these; most attacks in dominion have a positive benfit to the person who plays it, meaning that even if it's blocked by all players, you still get something. And it's possible to only be blocked by some of the players and not others. Some of these cards have quite a swinginess depending if you win the battle or not (flamethrowers, Experimental Magic, Gunpowder Barrel).
2) Forced to go for it: I'm not such a fan of cards that demand you buy them because of their mere presence (regardless of the rest of the kingdom). I've never played with these cards, but my hunch is that (at least in a 2p) if one person goes for them and the other doesn't, the "stronger" player will have a huge edge because of how powerful these cards are when they "hit".
3) 3 or 4p interactions: I could see games where 2 out of 3 players go for these and knock each other out because they keep preventing the other from using their cards to the full extent. I can also see this making dominion more political (something many players don't like); A and B decide to not block each others pikemen while they both block C's pikemen.
I also feel that this a lot to learn and will probably slow the game down.
Equipment by
[TP] InfernoI feel this has potential, I just don't think you showcased this well. Like others have said, many of the cards don't really have an interesting choice of when to hold them and when to discard them (the strategy is to just hold). I'm sure it's possible to come up with cards that will work with this and make it interesting; like you said, it's back to the drawing board.
Card Costs by
AquilaI really like this one. It has the benefit of making non $ costs without the downsides of potions. And unlike debt (which is pretty much strictly cheaper than $), this is a different category of cost altogether (BTW, I'm assuming 2 different cards with card cost are uncomparable cost-wise). You did a great job showcasing how this could be implemented in different ways (especially including your "musings"). One of my favorites from the contest.
Mount Cards by
GazbagAn ability you can keep using until it becomes too much. I think you did a great job on this one, and it can really add a lot to the game.
Threat Cards by
FragasnapThese seem like a reactionish attack on top of an action card (since you can do both). To me, it doesn't feel like it adds more than already exists. It's kind of like a duration attack that gets to be played early. It would seem that the things you could do with these cards could be replicated pretty similarly with the existing mechanics. I'd probably have fun playing with some of these cards, I just don't know if the whole new type feels justified. Also, I do think having an unblockable attack is something that shouldn't be done, but that's just me. All that being said, cool cards.
Roundabout Cards by
SnowyowlI have a couple issues with this:
1) Extra Setup: This doesn't technically add any extra setup, but when I draw a roundabout card, I'm going to have be more careful with the order of the kingdom cards. Imagine you're drawing kingdom cards for the kingdom and the 5th one is Pearl. Oh shoot! what was the order of the other ones? And once you figure that out, you gotta be careful to not lose track of the order of the next 5. If anything, the mere presence of this in your box (not even in the kindgom) can add setup time, because I'll have to be careful about the order of any kingdom for fear of drawing a roundabout card. Of course, you could instead randomize an order after you draw all kingdom cards (if there's a roundabout card), but then it's still more setup time.
2) Putting cards in an arbitrary order can be annoying to some players. I don't know how other people setup their table, but I usually order the kingdom cards based on price (like they do online). Having them in a circle with real order would drive me nuts.
3) This whole thing seems like a roundabout (pun intended) way of avoiding tokens which would probably be more appropriate here. Many of the piles could just use some tokens or pile markers (like young witch's bane marker). Pearl could use 3, smuggling ring could use 1, and with some differences in rules many of the others could too.
Enchantments by
Something_SmartI like the idea. It feels a great way to build up your cards and engine. I can see the depth of strategy and the versatility of the mechanic. Great job!
Side note: I think Arcane tower might be a little broken as a defense against cursers. Buy one arcane tower and buy a curse with it in hand; you are now impervious to curses (of course you do get 1 curse but it's not in your deck).
Leaders by
KudasaiLike I said earlier, this is technically dq, but here are my thoughts. I really like the idea. It adds a bit of personality to each person's deck. I'm assuming the idea would be to have different sets of leaders that would sometimes be available. I don't know if the ones you showcased would be balanced but the idea in general seems fun.
Final Results: Among the top contenders were (in order of posting) Single Cards, Armor, Workers, Card Costs, Mount Cards, and Enchantments.
Runners Up: Single Cards and Workers. Both have so much potential and flavor to add to a game.
Winner: Card Costs by Aquila. I really think this opens a new avenue on ways to acquire and alot could be done with this. Congrats Aquila.