# Dominion Strategy Forum

• August 13, 2024, 11:57:02 am
• Welcome, Guest

### News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 327  All

### AuthorTopic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1668247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Chappy7

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 542
• Respect: +662
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #625 on: November 09, 2018, 11:48:14 am »
0

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.
I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, it produces 1 fewer \$."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?
"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, they take their -1\$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.
I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion.

Actually I was thinking about it wrong.  This would be the same.  I was thinking that the -1 token would be once per turn, but now I see that if you played 5 peddlers in a row you'd just be getting it and returning it over and over.  Thanks for the suggestion.
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9737
• Respect: +10814
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #626 on: November 09, 2018, 11:49:30 am »
0

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.
I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, it produces 1 fewer \$."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?
"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, they take their -1\$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

If you say "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, they first take their -1\$ token", then it would act exactly like your original card intended; except if combined with other attacks that give the - token.

However, it really seems like you can get the same basic thing with a lot less complexity with simply:

Action-Attack
+2 Coffers
Each other player takes their - token.

If you want non-stackable coin penalty, the - token is the way to do it. And if this was only a duration so that it hurts your opponents while it is in play, as opposed to because it helps you next turn, then there's no reason for it to be a Duration if you are using the - token.

*Edit* Oh dang, missed that you want it to be stackable in terms of each time your opponent plays a card... so my idea is quite different and weaker.

But I think making it hit all cards could be way too strong. Even just playing one per turn completely destroys a lot of decks.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 11:51:46 am by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Chappy7

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 542
• Respect: +662
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #627 on: November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am »
0

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.
I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, it produces 1 fewer \$."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?
"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces \$, they take their -1\$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.
I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion.

Actually I was thinking about it wrong.  This would be the same.  I was thinking that the -1 token would be once per turn, but now I see that if you played 5 peddlers in a row you'd just be getting it and returning it over and over.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9737
• Respect: +10814
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #628 on: November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am »
0

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Chappy7

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 542
• Respect: +662
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #629 on: November 09, 2018, 11:54:34 am »
+1

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9737
• Respect: +10814
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #630 on: November 09, 2018, 11:56:28 am »
0

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "" whether that has a number inside of it or not.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Chappy7

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 542
• Respect: +662
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #631 on: November 09, 2018, 11:59:42 am »
0

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has + in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "" whether that has a number inside of it or not.
I gotta get some more Capitalism games under my belt for sure.
Logged

#### Chappy7

• Minion
• Offline
• Posts: 542
• Respect: +662
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #632 on: November 09, 2018, 12:04:33 pm »
0

My post is now edited with the new - \$1 token wording
Logged

#### faust

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 3421
• Respect: +5249
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #633 on: November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm »
0

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

EDIT 2: Restricted to players with 5-card hands.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 12:52:53 am by faust »
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

#### silvern

• Young Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 126
• Respect: +170
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #634 on: November 09, 2018, 12:15:29 pm »
0

Thought of this one a few weeks ago, finally made it into card form today...hopefully, it still counts!
(....even if it doesn't count for the contest, per se, I'd still like feedback!)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 12:26:24 pm by silvern »
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9737
• Respect: +10814
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #635 on: November 09, 2018, 12:30:42 pm »
+1

My post is now edited with the new - \$1 token wording

I don't think it's clear if they take the token before or after resolving the card. Under the normal rules of "when", it would be after, but people won't know that necessarily. If you want it to be before (which would match your original wording), then you can put "first" to make it work similar to things like Moat.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### artless

• Offline
• Posts: 32
• Respect: +38
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #636 on: November 09, 2018, 12:32:36 pm »
+1

Two card ideas:

Heretic
\$4
+1 Card
+1 Villager
If you have 4 or more villagers, each opponent gains a curse.

\$3
+1 Action
+1 Card
Set aside a card from your hand face up.
At the start of your next turn, put it into your hand.
When another player gains a copy of the set-aside card, that player takes 2 debts.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 12:41:47 pm by artless »
Logged

#### King Leon

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 478
• Respect: +406
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #637 on: November 09, 2018, 12:38:32 pm »
0

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card
Logged

#### Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +382
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #638 on: November 09, 2018, 04:02:58 pm »
+1

Asper, would you except a faux-Attack card like this?

DXV had something similar during Adventure playtesting, an Event that attacks you if you did not buy it (here the trigger is different).
I think that's a cool idea to explore but the concrete card is dubious as gaining it makes it more likely that you are hit. Sure, any engine play does but you can easily imagine player just resorting to money to evade getting cursed in Kingdoms without trashers (and in Kingdoms in which engine play is nonetheless good this is just a Peddler).
So perhaps buying the card should make it easier to defend yourself against the auto-Attack such that the pile will actually empty?
Logged

#### Doom_Shark

• Tactician
• Offline
• Posts: 434
• Respect: +411
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #639 on: November 09, 2018, 04:05:16 pm »
0

Quote
Extortionist
Action - Attack \$5
+\$3
Each other player may discard a treasure card. If they don't, they gain a curse
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

#### Kudasai

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 470
• Respect: +289
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #640 on: November 09, 2018, 04:46:18 pm »
+1

CHALLENGE #7 - ACTION-ATTACK CARD

The wording for how to interact with the Coffers/Villagers mat is likely incorrect, but as I do not yet have a physical copy of the game and the online manual does not cover this very well, it will have to be as is for now.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 05:26:14 am by Kudasai »
Logged

#### Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +382
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #641 on: November 09, 2018, 04:49:55 pm »
0

Quote
Extortionist
Action - Attack \$5
+\$3
Each other player may discard a treasure card. If they don't, they gain a curse
I like this. Cutpurse that can target other Treasures is neato!

CHALLENGE #7 - ACTION - ATTACK CARD

Attack cards are not my strong suite, but perhaps there's room for a Coffers Attack card.

I think this would be more interesting if it yielded Coffers such that the card becomes an Attack that potentially defends against itself. I think 4est had an idea along these lines some time ago.
Logged

#### faust

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 3421
• Respect: +5249
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #642 on: November 10, 2018, 02:34:02 am »
0

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card
Well, Fortress likes Knights and they are still an attack.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

#### faust

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 3421
• Respect: +5249
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #643 on: November 10, 2018, 02:41:09 am »
+1

Thought of this one a few weeks ago, finally made it into card form today...hopefully, it still counts!
(....even if it doesn't count for the contest, per se, I'd still like feedback!)

This is somewhat iffy with Duration rules. By the rules, you should discard this on the last turn it does something. But with the current wording, the last turn it does something is actually the turn of your last opponent, so by the rules, you would have to dscard it during your opponent's turn, which is just weird. I believe this is this reason why other Duration-Attacks always still do something at the start of your next turn.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

#### Kudasai

• Witch
• Offline
• Posts: 470
• Respect: +289
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #644 on: November 10, 2018, 03:39:15 am »
0

I think this would be more interesting if it yielded Coffers such that the card becomes an Attack that potentially defends against itself. I think 4est had an idea along these lines some time ago.

Just a quick remark, I've changed the Attack to care about Coffers or Villagers and now the setup gives +3 Villagers instead of +3 Coffers.

As for you comment, that'd be a fun concept to tinker with. I tend to shy away from Attacks that counter themselves. I guess I've had it ingrained in my head that this type of scenario just leads to a card that doesn't get purchased. But maybe it can work if that blocking mechanism also gives benefits (i.e. Coffers or Villagers tokens). For this though competition I'm going to keep it the way it is. I like the idea of players anguishing over whether to use their small pile of 3 Villagers to keep their turn going or use them to block Curses.

DXV had something similar during Adventure playtesting, an Event that attacks you if you did not buy it (here the trigger is different).
I think that's a cool idea to explore but the concrete card is dubious as gaining it makes it more likely that you are hit. Sure, any engine play does but you can easily imagine player just resorting to money to evade getting cursed in Kingdoms without trashers (and in Kingdoms in which engine play is nonetheless good this is just a Peddler).
So perhaps buying the card should make it easier to defend yourself against the auto-Attack such that the pile will actually empty?

Yeah, this was all thrown together very hastily. I was really just posting to see if it was worth pursuing further for this competition. The card most definitely will need some attention. The premise for Centaur is that you're getting a Peddler for a good deal at cost \$4.0 given it's about a cost \$4.5, but that comes at the cost of increasing your chances of triggering the Attack. But the difference between \$4.0 and \$4.5 probably isn't worth any amount of Curses. Maybe Ruins would be a better fit? Also, I'd probably change it to 5 cards in play to hit Big Money strategies harder.

I hope to make other Monster cards with various Attacks. Stronger Attacks seem like a natural fit for Split Piles, having a non-Monster on top so the Attack is delayed.
Logged

#### Commodore Chuckles

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1284
• Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
• Respect: +1979
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #645 on: November 10, 2018, 09:25:41 am »
+2

Logged

#### Asper

• Governor
• Offline
• Posts: 4995
• Respect: +5352
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #646 on: November 10, 2018, 10:11:29 am »
0

About Drunkard, it generally counts as an Attack to make opponents take something bad (e.g. "Miserable" or their "-1 Card" Token). Taking that bad thing is what Moat keeps from happening.

Drunkard however is not taken, it is given. I find it unclear how Moat should interact with this, as the hit player technically isn't told to do anything.
Logged

#### spiralstaircase

• Apprentice
• Offline
• Posts: 274
• Respect: +453
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #647 on: November 10, 2018, 11:52:12 am »
0

About Drunkard, it generally counts as an Attack to make opponents take something bad (e.g. "Miserable" or their "-1 Card" Token). Taking that bad thing is what Moat keeps from happening.

Drunkard however is not taken, it is given. I find it unclear how Moat should interact with this, as the hit player technically isn't told to do anything.

OK - kind of like how Masquerade isn't an Attack, then?

I've reworded Drunkard to be "The player to your left takes this card into their play area", does that work for you?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 04:11:55 am by spiralstaircase »
Logged

#### Gubump

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 1538
• Respect: +1686
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #648 on: November 10, 2018, 04:55:07 pm »
0

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card
Well, Fortress likes Knights and they are still an attack.

I really don't see how Pretender is an attack. Each other player playing an Action card for free seems like a benefit for them, the opposite of an attack.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 04:56:51 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

#### Holunder9

• Jester
• Offline
• Posts: 837
• Respect: +382
##### Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #649 on: November 10, 2018, 05:21:40 pm »
+1

The key thing to realize is that they get to play a card non-terminally whereas you don't. So in this respect Pretender is a gift.

But if the card they play is a village it sucks (you get a village, they get a cantrip) for them. Or more generally, all the vanilla stuff except for card draw is wasted. So being forced to play a Smithy seems like a gift.
Here we come to the last issue, handsize attacks. Suppose Alice has Village and Smithy in hand and Bob players Pretender. Alice doesn't want to play the Village as mere cantrip and she doesn't want to play the Smithy lest the Militia hits her afterwards. She wants to keep both Actions in hand but cannot due to Pretender's "Attack".

This is hard to judge but my hunch is that more often that not this is rather a gift than an Attack. The card, or more generally the copy-stuff-from-other-players idea behind it, is very interesting. But I wouldn't categorize it as Attack. Attacks nearly unambiguously always hurt. Sure, you might love Treasure Hunter being hit by Enchantress or love those incoming Curses to feed your Foragers but these are, just like the Knight-Fortess example that faust mentioned, exceptions.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 327  All

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 21 queries.