Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 241 242 [243] 244 245 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1618177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1122
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6050 on: June 15, 2020, 03:57:16 pm »
+1



Isn't the Treasure card reveal clause a little political too? Technically, with 2 other players both revealing a Gold, you could make one of them trash theirs and have the other keep the Gold. I know why the active player has that choice; it's to not accidentally aid your opponents by trashing their Coppers. Maybe then, to fix this problem, it could be worded like Bandit, which excludes Copper from being trashed? But then, this could make the card too wordy. I dunno.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 03:58:45 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6051 on: June 15, 2020, 04:06:13 pm »
0

It's true that Cabin isn't strictly better than village, but the case where you terminal-draw into Cabin and it lets you continue your turn seems like it would come up far more than the case where you urgently need the draw from Cabin. The worst case of playing it for +1 card +1 action is also far better than that of Village, which can be drawn completely dead.
Not all boards have terminal draw, you also want splitters if there are $5 terminal Silvers.

With $5 terminal Silvers only, Cabin is functionally identical to Village. Either you have a terminal Silver in hand, in which case you play it and then Cabin, or you don't, and even if you draw into a terminal silver it's the same as if you had played Village as you weren't going to get to use the extra action anyways. (This is the scenario in which you would rather have a normal Village than a Cabin with terminal draw; however, this is more than compensated by the situation where you draw terminal draw with no village because you have a higher chance of drawing Cabin with terminal draw than vice-versa).

Also, if you play Cabin and then draw into ANY terminal, it was a worthless cantrip.

There are two cases here. Either you started with X-X-X-X-Cabin, in which case having a Village wouldn't have let you play another action anyways; or you started with X-X-X-Terminal-Cabin, in which case you should play the terminal action followed by Cabin's reaction and it acts like a Village.

As I can see it, this doesn't hold true in two situations:

a) Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky; a hand of X-X-X-X-Terminal Draw pulling up a Cabin counterbalances this effect though, because your terminal draw presumably draws more than one card. (In addition, X-X-X-X-Terminal Draw could have any terminal action replacing the 'X's, so it is more likely to appear than X-X-X-X-Cabin in most decks).

b) You draw Cabin with a terminal action you don't want to play right now, but would later in the turn. The only way that Cabin VS Village makes a difference in this case is if the Cabin draws you a draw card (if the Cabin drew up whatever you wanted to have in your hand when playing your terminal, then this is identical to Village as you only had one terminal come through your hand that turn anyways). This seems like a rare situation to me, because cards that you care about the order of play with are relatively uncommon, and you usually don't want many of them in your deck. I can see an argument for Village being better than Cabin being true on a board with these sorts of Actions and good non-terminal draw, but there are significantly fewer non-terminal draw cards than terminal ones.

Something like Village, Village, Smithy, Smithy is also not that uncommon; you are not guaranteed to have equally distributed villages, something that Cabin wants.

X-Cabin-Cabin-Smithy-Smithy plays the same as X-Village-Village-Smithy-Smithy. With X-Cabin-Cabin-Smithy-Smithy you just play Smithy --> Cabin --> Smithy --> Cabin and it ends up giving you the same net effect as Village --> Village --> Smithy --> Smithy. (This might not be true if you decide to stop drawing because of what you drew up with your first Smithy, but in general, you want to play your draw cards.)

So, no, I simply don't see any support for your claim that one effect is always and clearly dominating the other. It is much more unclear and Kingdom-sensitive which is why I don't think that a price of $4 is necessary (not that there is a huge difference between $3 and $4).

I don't mean to claim that Cabin is always better than Village. My claim is that Cabin is significantly stronger than village a large percentage of the time. Even though $4 isn't strictly necessary, it feels bad to me to have two cards at the same price that have such a similar effect where one does its job significantly better than the other.



This one's a bit messy. (I have a lengthy FAQ, but won't bore you with it.)


This is potentially wacky in multiplayer games, in 4P with trashing this can get really crazy, especially if they can play each other as the current iteration of the card can (I think spineflu's suggestion of a Command type would fix that problem elegantly though). As long as it can't play itself though, it sounds like it wouldn't get out of hand; Jester exists and that doesn't cause problems.

It also feels really sad when you hit a Copper with this in its current iteration, and I don't think the rest of the card makes up for that. The effect for revealing an Action is often weaker than Jester's, and Jester's worst case early game is "+$2, give your opponent a Copper" which is a lot better than the complete dud you can get with Rebellion. You could probably add vanilla effects as segura suggested to make up for some of this, although I think that changing what revealing a Treasure does might also be a good idea.

edit: Was just thinking about this, it should probably not let you play durations either because of tracking issues.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 04:19:26 pm by alion8me »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1580
  • Respect: +1493
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6052 on: June 15, 2020, 04:43:18 pm »
0

Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky
What you call "unlucky" I call significant downside that compensates the strength of the card.

That's precisely the old situation that illustrates why Festival-Smithy, which superficially looks so brilliant, can suck: Festival does not draw whereas Village can.

Drawing into terminals (or non-Actions, a situation in which you can accumulate Actions with Village but not with Cabin) with Villages matters. A lot.
An unequal distribution of villages, like having several in your hand, that you gotta play before you draw into any Actions, also matters a lot. It happens in all of my games frequently. I'd even guess that it happens more often than drawing into a splitter without having any Actions left.

Perhaps Cabin is a $4 though, I don't know. But it is certainly not a top level $4 village like Ministrel or Port or whatever and if you can do a village at $3, I'd first try it at that. We have lots of Village+ at $4 but very few, better and worse than Village at $3.

You can emulate this stuff. Just play Saunavanto but skip the stuff the quasi-Action that Avanto yields. It does not sound that exciting in theory (this ignores that Sauna comes with some trashing on top and it ignores the other stuff that Cabin does, but it is the best benchmark that comes to mind). So yeah, my totally uneducated hunch is that Cabin is a $3.
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6053 on: June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm »
0




This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6054 on: June 15, 2020, 05:40:55 pm »
0

Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky
What you call "unlucky" I call significant downside that compensates the strength of the card.

That's precisely the old situation that illustrates why Festival-Smithy, which superficially looks so brilliant, can suck: Festival does not draw whereas Village can.

Drawing into terminals (or non-Actions, a situation in which you can accumulate Actions with Village but not with Cabin) with Villages matters. A lot.
An unequal distribution of villages, like having several in your hand, that you gotta play before you draw into any Actions, also matters a lot. It happens in all of my games frequently. I'd even guess that it happens more often than drawing into a splitter without having any Actions left.

Perhaps Cabin is a $4 though, I don't know. But it is certainly not a top level $4 village like Ministrel or Port or whatever and if you can do a village at $3, I'd first try it at that. We have lots of Village+ at $4 but very few, better and worse than Village at $3.

You can emulate this stuff. Just play Saunavanto but skip the stuff the quasi-Action that Avanto yields. It does not sound that exciting in theory (this ignores that Sauna comes with some trashing on top and it ignores the other stuff that Cabin does, but it is the best benchmark that comes to mind). So yeah, my totally uneducated hunch is that Cabin is a $3.

I would argue that the opposite situation, drawing into a Village dead, is quite a bit more common. That more than makes up for this situation in my opinion.

There's an important difference between this and Festival-Smithy: Cabin does draw eventually, whereas Festival never does.

The only case where you're sad about Cabin is when you don't have a terminal in hand to play with it. My argument is that this happens somewhat infrequently, and that the case where Cabin saves you is notably more common.

I don't think this would be unbalanced at $3, it just feels bad to me when Village already exists.

I feel like Saunavanto is significantly weaker than this if you ignore the extra action from Avanto. All the other terminal draw is either cheaper than Avanto or it does something better than +3 Cards. (as we're ignoring the extra action). This also neglects the case where you draw 2X terminals + Cabin.






This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

This seems about as political as Jester/Pillage/Contraband/Advisor/Envoy are to me.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1580
  • Respect: +1493
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6055 on: June 16, 2020, 01:39:03 am »
0




This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.
As if anybody would ever do that.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1353
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6056 on: June 16, 2020, 09:36:02 am »
+4

revised downthread
I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title

Quote
Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 10:31:55 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6057 on: June 16, 2020, 05:19:09 pm »
0




This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.
As if anybody would ever do that.

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players. People have a lot of other resasons for their decisions than win the game. Political decisions often come from this kind of misrepresented playing. Maybe are couples in love that don't want hurt each other, maybe two players go into a metagame of hurt only each other just for the fun of it, etc.

I saw some situations like that happen with the cards alion8me listed (quote below) or also Swindler and Oracle. Of course, it's not optimal play, but may happen if the card gives room for that. However, that's not a big problem, as the cards pointed prove.

Other situation is when players play a kind of tournament in which the winner is the person who wins more games that day. I have seen many groups playing that way. If someone is ahead in the matches score but is lost in that specific game, maybe he wants to kingmaking. In our groups, we don't allow it and anyway no one of us wants to kingmake, but these cards that make you decide about other player deck have this potential.

Anyway, as I said, no big deal.

This seems about as political as Jester/Pillage/Contraband/Advisor/Envoy are to me.

Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1580
  • Respect: +1493
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6058 on: June 16, 2020, 05:28:28 pm »
0

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.
I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6059 on: June 16, 2020, 05:41:33 pm »
0




This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.
As if anybody would ever do that.

People also make different choices for each other player when the playing group includes a child, as a kind of handicap. In general, players agree about this being a praiseworthy use of these political decision feature.
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6060 on: June 16, 2020, 05:48:48 pm »
0

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.
I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.

Of course, as I said, it's misrepresented playing.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6061 on: June 16, 2020, 08:45:22 pm »
+2

Redistrict
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.
An issue is also that it's very swingy in that case - if you draw it with 4 Coppers, that's basically game over.
The bigger issue is probably the swinginess in the non-Shelters case. Either the Ruins you previously gained is dead or you manage to convert it into an insta-5. That is a huge difference.
Thank you both for the commentary.
While I think Redistrict is held back fairly well through being unable to gain Attacks, putting the gained card straight into hand is a no-brainer benefit compared to receiving the circumstantial Ruins effect twice.  The card would be much more tactical if the benefit garnered when trashing a multi-type card was less immediate, so I will change it from a gain to hand to a gain to the top of the deck.  That way a hand of "Redistrict, Estate, Abandoned Mine, 2 Copper" will be choosing between doubling whatever Ruins by trashing an Estate or trashing the Abandoned Mine for a $5-cost card next turn.
Quote
Redistrict v2
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it into your hand on top of your deck. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.



Goblin City
$5 Action-Atttack-Looter
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may discard an Action card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Ruins into their hand.
-
This costs $1 less if you have any Ruins in play.
I think making splitters strong junking Attacks is a bad idea.  I have a weaker junking Village, but it self-junks to hold it back.

Wishing Fountain - $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand. Otherwise, you may either trash it, discard it or leave it on top.
This has a lot of additional words and complexity when it may as well just automatically name the Action type.

Quote
Hoarder
Types: Night, Attack
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. Each other player gains a Junk.
Setup: The Junk pile has as many cards as the Curse pile.
Quote
Junk
Types: Action
Cost: $0*
+$1. Trash this.
(This is not in the Supply
Hoarder is fun, but the Junk cards are so many cards that have to be printed for a single thing.  I agree that Cursing is too strong, and making it a Looter won't work on account of the number of types that sticks into it.  I don't know the solution, but I don't like the Junk one.

Adept
Types: Action, Command
Cost: <8>
Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.
When you gain this, gain a Copper.
You could clean up the self-piling problem and reel in its general strength by taking a page from Imp and wording it "you may reveal an Action from your hand you have no copies of in play."  Then it can't target itself and further has a harder time gaining and playing whatever it wants: It could then lose the clumsy on-gain draw-back.

So, no, I simply don't see any support for your claim that one effect is always and clearly dominating the other. It is much more unclear and Kingdom-sensitive which is why I don't think that a price of $4 is necessary (not that there is a huge difference between $3 and $4).
I don't mean to claim that Cabin is always better than Village. My claim is that Cabin is significantly stronger than village a large percentage of the time. Even though $4 isn't strictly necessary, it feels bad to me to have two cards at the same price that have such a similar effect where one does its job significantly better than the other.
I agree with alion8me.  Shanty Town versus Village is a fair argument: Where most Kingdoms I prefer Village, sometimes I can get +Actions from other sources and leverage that to use Shanty Town as a less-consistent Lost City.  The only intrinsic reason (obviously pile control, differently named cards, and differently typed cards matter) I would buy Villages ahead of Cabins is because I am reliant mostly upon non-terminal draw, except that then I will likely have fewer terminal Actions in my deck and will therefore not buy many splitters anyway.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.
As if anybody would ever do that.
Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.
I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.
Allowing a trailing player to accelerate the end-game puts the leading player in a better position.  I often take such things into account in multiplayer games, and people have certainly gotten mad at me before for such decisions.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 10:40:23 pm by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1580
  • Respect: +1493
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6062 on: June 17, 2020, 04:34:20 am »
+1

I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title

Quote
Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.
It is a very cool idea but it might be too strong. Selecting one of the revealed cards would like already suffices to make this a Peddler+ at $5 but it might too often be a Double- or TriplePeddler. Hard to say in theory though.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1353
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6063 on: June 17, 2020, 09:03:49 am »
0

I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title

Quote
Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.
It is a very cool idea but it might be too strong. Selecting one of the revealed cards would like already suffices to make this a Peddler+ at $5 but it might too often be a Double- or TriplePeddler. Hard to say in theory though.

Yeah it's tough like
on the one hand, it could reveal two estates and be a pretty bad peddler/sifter.
on the other, it could reveal like.... werewolf (+$4), haunted mirror (+$2), hovel (+$2), curse (+$1), crumbling castle (+$2), ghost (+$2) and be a nonterminal +$13, and you get one of the cards that were revealed.
I think it's really going to award bibimbap play but do poorly in a more consistent deck.
I think figuring out what the middle cases look like is going to really influence the pricing and that's gonna be super kingdom-dependent.

Potential Fixes:
• add a "discard a card from your hand" clause to the top so that it also costs some handsize
• drop the $ aspect entirely (although that was the impetus behind its naming, coming from the cellar/storeroom family)
• limit the $ by changing the $ clause to "If you revealed at least three types, +$X" ($3? $2?)
• leave wording as-is and change it to a $6 or $7 cost?
• Potion-cost? like $2P or something? The more i think about it the more it reminds me of Scrying Pool.
I'm open to suggestions
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 10:31:41 pm by spineflu »
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1122
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6064 on: June 17, 2020, 09:28:29 am »
+2

Hoarder is fun, but the Junk cards are so many cards that have to be printed for a single thing.  I agree that Cursing is too strong, and making it a Looter won't work on account of the number of types that sticks into it.  I don't know the solution, but I don't like the Junk one.

Agree'd. Seeing as Dominion accommodates up to 6 players, this would mean that 60 Junk cards would need to be printed. Plus the 10 Hoarders. That's 70 cards just for one specific Kingdom. Now, in this thread, we assume that these cards are not to be printed, but rather act as simple ideas for what could be. Or at best, we can imagine a scenario where these cards could be played online, in which case a lot of real life problems go away. But I don't like being sloppy and always prefer looking at the bigger picture; what if these cards truly existed? What would be the actual real pitfalls these cards would entitle? So like I said, I agree. Having 70 cards for not much is asinine. A fix is needed !

Here's what I have for the V3 version of Hoarder:



This fix junks with Copper this time. However, not unlike Mountebank, your adversaries have an option of discarding a Copper in hand to avoid the junking. Thus, if you play, say, 2 Hoarders in your night phase, at best they'll only gain one Copper in their hand and discard it right after, numbing the power of this Night Attack card. Early game, anyway, it's not too hard to just, y'know, discard a Copper to say nay to Hoarder's attack, in which case you just got Cutpurse'd. And I dunno. Sometimes you hit and you want that Copper anyway.
Logged
Bottom text

Marpharos

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6065 on: June 17, 2020, 05:17:33 pm »
+3

And congrats to Marpharos! Still relatively new here and already snatching a win like that. Awesome! :)

Thank you! I've been playing this game since about 2009 I think and would be lying if I said I hadn't lurked around here on and off for a few years. I'm enjoying seeing all the submissions and measuring them against each other, more fun than I'd anticipated honestly!

-

24-hour (ish) warning everyone!

Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1353
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6066 on: June 17, 2020, 10:31:01 pm »
0

last minute revision:

Quote
Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Discard a card from your hand.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
I went with it costing a card in advance, i guess making this an Oasis variant.
Early on that's whatever, it'll cost a copper or an estate. Later in the game, it may hurt more. Either way, there's a -1 card penalty to playing it.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 03:09:03 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6067 on: June 17, 2020, 11:32:19 pm »
+1

Following scolapasta suggestion to the card have more intersting decisions, I'm changing my entry to:



Quote
Wishing Fountain - - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you  may discard it..

Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6068 on: June 18, 2020, 01:51:59 am »
+2

...
Adept
Types: Action, Command
Cost: <8>
Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.
When you gain this, gain a Copper.
You could clean up the self-piling problem and reel in its general strength by taking a page from Imp and wording it "you may reveal an Action from your hand you have no copies of in play."  Then it can't target itself and further has a harder time gaining and playing whatever it wants: It could then lose the clumsy on-gain draw-back.
...

This suggestion sounds like it would make a good card, but it would also be fundamentally different from the concept I originally had in mind when making Adept, which was to be a very powerful Action gainer with some drawback that prevents you from getting too many of them.

I think my newest solution fulfills these requirements.

Quote
Novice

Trash a card from your hand. If you did, gain a card costing less than it. +1 Coffers per $1 less the gained card costs. If you trashed an Action card, you may exchange this for an Adept.

$4
Action
Quote
Adept

Reveal an Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.

(This is not in the supply.)

$0*
Action
Logged

mandioca15

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
  • Respect: +237
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6069 on: June 18, 2020, 05:01:18 am »
+1

Just so there's no ambiguity, I will declare my entry to be as follows:

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand twice. If it is still in play, you may play it a third time; if you do, trash it.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6070 on: June 18, 2020, 10:27:49 am »
+2

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:



Quote
Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 12:08:11 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6071 on: June 18, 2020, 12:25:33 pm »
0

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:



Quote
Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? And should this version go back to $5? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 12:50:16 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1353
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6072 on: June 18, 2020, 12:51:31 pm »
0

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:



Quote
Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)

I think the existing v0.3 makes more sense / is less cheesable than the "last gained" option.
also what do you think about the name "Rusted Bridge" since its sort of a reverse-iron
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6073 on: June 18, 2020, 03:11:59 pm »
+1

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:



Quote
Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)

I think the existing v0.3 makes more sense / is less cheesable than the "last gained" option.
also what do you think about the name "Rusted Bridge" since its sort of a reverse-iron

Thanks for the feedback.  For playtesting*, I'll want to try both ways, but for the contest, I feel the Wayfarered Iron Bridge is more interesting. It does however get the cost back to $5.

* if I ever get to playtesting, IRL games are from the before times

So here it is, v0.4:



Quote
Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last card gained this turn cost $2 less.

Oh, and "Rusted Bridge" is clever, but feels better suited for a Ruined version of Bridge.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 04:31:35 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Marpharos

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #6074 on: June 18, 2020, 05:14:52 pm »
+5

Results are in, here we go.

LibraryAdventurer
Quote
Goblin City
$5 Action-Attack-Looter
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may discard an Action card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Ruins into their hand.
-
This costs $1 less if you have any Ruins in play.

I like the theme of this, and having a village that attacks seems fun and unique to me! Forcing others to discard their actions is tough, but if multiples are played then you can at least discard the Ruins you previously gained. I enjoy the variable cost of this too, making it cheaper for you if you’ve just been hit by it. A fun card.


NoMoreFun
Quote
Quadrangle
$7 – Action
+3 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand.
If it’s an…
Action: +2 Actions
Treasure: +$2
Victory: +2 Cards
Then, put the revealed card onto your deck.

Definitely an improvement on the original idea. I like that the card you revealed is placed back on top of your deck – sure you didn’t get to play it this turn, but you can have it again next! It makes you question whether you really want to reveal a Victory card too which is a fun decision.  And sure, you revealed an Action card for +2 Actions, but you can’t play it yet. I can’t tell if $7 is a bit much or not enough for this.


spineflu
Quote
Larder
Action - $5
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.
+$1 per unique type revealed.
Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.

This improved as before it was almost like a worse Monument when it duds. Even if you dud quickly it doesn’t seem to hurt too bad. If you’re lucky this could be worth up to $8 within 5 cards in very specific kingdoms, but I’d guess this’d be $2 or $3 fairly consistently. And getting to play that Swamp Hag you just revealed makes that trip to the fridge that little bit tastier.


X-tra
Quote
Hoarder 
Night - Attack - $5
Gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. Each other player may discard a Copper, or gain a Copper to their hand if they don’t.

Definitely an improvement on what it was. I enjoyed the disappearing Junk effect a lot, but it wasn’t without its issues. Now though, it’s attack is much more consistent and stacks much more nicely. I really like that its own types help power up this card too.


scolapasta
Quote
Iron Bridge  
Action - $5
Gain a card costing up to $4.
This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last card gained this turn cost $2 less.

This is a really neat gainer. For previous versions of this I wondered if setting the gained card aside purely for tracking purposes might make it easier to follow, but with the current wording this helps fix that to some extent. Ofc, playing multiple of these will likely end in some headaches over the maths, but this card does seem really fun to play with and brings some very interesting decisions over what to gain.


[TP] Inferno
Quote
Repurpose 
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each card type it had (Action, Attack etc.), +1 Card now and at the start of your next turn.

This is nice, but I think it should cost $5. Yes, it’s better than Caravan for the trashing ability, it gets rid of your opening hand nice and quickly, and then it really wants to trash itself which I like. I can imagine very late into the game this might become dead weight, but overall I think this is great!


Aquila
Quote
Tutor 
Action - Duration - $3.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it is a...
Victory, discard it and +1 Card;
Action, play it;
Neither type, trash it.

Unlike a lot of cards that use “if it is a…”, I like that this allows for if the card type does not fit the mould. A nice way to trash Coppers and Curses, helps when a kingdom lacks villages and sifts unwanted Victory cards. I might even remove the Action from it.


majiponi
Quote
Plumber 
$5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, you may gain it.

Simple and effective, if a little weak. Sure, it will gain you a Gold but when it reveals a Victory card and does nothing I’d feel a little disappointed, especially when chaining them. I think even just adding a clause for discarding Victory cards would make this a solid $5. Also, I think it should read “you may gain a copy of it from the supply.”


faust
Quote
Caravansary 
Landmark
When you buy a card that does not share a type with the pile with the Caravansary token, +1% and put the Caravansary token onto its pile.
   -
Setup: The last player in player order puts the Caravansary token on any supply pile.

I like that this is a wandering victory point and the setup clause looks real nice. Simple, but provokes plenty extra levels of strategy – if I buy a Duchy and gain a VP, does my opponent then buy a Province or should they go for something else to second guess me? My one criticism is that if you have multiple +buys, does alternating treasure-action keep getting you +1VP or is it limited to gaining 1 per turn?


grrgrrgrr
Quote
Weapon Storage 
$4 – Action
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many. Then, if you discarded at least one...
... Action, +2 Actions
... Treasure, +$1
... Victory Card, gain a Horse

I’m a little confused by this one. Discarding action cards for +3 actions? The other two effects seem right to me but that one seems off somehow.


grep
Quote
Crusader 
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
You may trash a card from hand. If you did, +1VP, and each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with it, or reveals a hand with no such cards.

I really like this. Trashing a Curse? Everyone else discards and has to wait for it to come round again to trash theirs. Trashing an Action? That definitely hurts an engine. Trashing a Treasure? Dang, now I’m on $7. This is great!


Carline
Quote
Wishing Fountain
$5 – Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck. If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you may discard it.

This is now a really solid card. There’s not much more to really say - versatile in just the right way at just the right time.


mandioca15
Quote
Decree
$5 – Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. If it is still in play, you may play it a third time; if you do, trash it.

I like that this is a TR most of the time, but when you really need it it’s a KC. Having it trash for the extra benefit is great, and the wording really doesn’t let you mess around too much.


alion8me
Quote
Novice / Adept
        Novice
$4 – Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you did, gain a card costing less than it. +1 Coffers per $1 less the gained card costs. If you trashed an Action card, you may exchange this for an Adept.
   
   Adept
$0* - Action
Reveal an Action card from your hand. Gain a copy of it.
(This is not in the supply.)

A great pair of cards. The coffers are a nice consolidation if you do choose to gain a Copper (or a Curse, I’ll always remind you that option is available!) Having the Adept available to provide more things to trash definitely makes this though.


segura
Quote
Fish Monger 
$5 – Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an…
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, +1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nice and simple. Gives you a little bit of what you might be needing. I like this!


Something_Smart
Quote
Cabin 
$3 – Action Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
   -
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions left, you may play this from your hand.

This is a huge engine enabler. I almost wonder what this would be like if it did not +1 Action and gave a different benefit instead? You’re almost always guaranteed to be able to play this (how does this work with snowy village?) This will almost always drive a pile out as well.


Fragasnap
Quote
Redistrict
$4 – Action Looter
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it on top of your deck. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

Nice. I like the “gain a card with only one type” effect, and I like that it balances itself out by providing you with cards of at least two types in case there are none other than itself in any given game.


D782802859
Quote
Phantom
$2 – Night Reaction
Look through your discard pile. You may put a card from it onto your deck.
   -
When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this card from your hand to have them put the card onto their deck.

I like the idea that when you reveal this, it’s because the estate was haunted. Spooky. The played effect of this is nice, and its pricepoint is spot-on. I also like the reaction part, but shouldn’t it be an Attack as well? I thought about whether this should be discarded when it’s revealed as those turns when you gain multiple provinces/Victory cards are going to hurt, but I like it as it is – if you’ve top-decked 5 Victory cards in one turn then that’s on you.


spheremonk
Quote
Rebellion
$5 – Action Attack
Each other player discards the top card of their deck. If it is; an Action, you may play it (leaving it there); a Treasure, you may have them trash it; neither, they gain a Curse.

I’m going to start this one off by saying that I really like Tribute. That said, this card has a lot of effects going on and I can’t say it’s easy to follow. Playing with any more than 2 players it becomes a real slog with all the decisions and remembering what effects are beneficial to you. Also, if your opponent reveals an attack, does it affect you or your opponent? And this becomes so much worse when you stack this. How many cards should I have drawn? How many actions do I have remaining? This is one of those cards that is likely going to drive a game toward chaos. And yet, deep down, I know that I’ll enjoy having played this card.


Runners Up
Repurpose - [TP] Inferno
Crusader - grep
Wishing Fountain - Carline

Winner
Larder by spineflu! I liked that this started as a Harvest variant but thought it needed a bit more to make it worth $5. Now it is and I'd say better than Hunting Grounds too. I haven't thought too much about TR this or WotChameleon but even still it's a really solid card. Well done!


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 241 242 [243] 244 245 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 3.274 seconds with 21 queries.