Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1639152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +662
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #675 on: November 12, 2018, 06:41:33 pm »
+1

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour
Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 478
  • Respect: +406
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #676 on: November 13, 2018, 01:07:07 am »
0

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour
Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"

I actually had similar wordings, but the text became too tiny, so I wanted to compress it. This is the shortest version I could find.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 02:40:50 pm by King Leon »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #677 on: November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm »
+1

Regicide
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If it's not a Regicide, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't).
The turn-order advantage will probably make Regicide brutal.  There are enough Kingdoms with singular important engine cards that slapping out of hand will be devastating, and if it misses it is functionally because your engine failed this turn.  This might even become a little targeted, as if you Regicide a Regicide a Smithy, you'll get to see all the Actions in the hands of players who don't have Smithy cards before you choose the next Action you'll Regicide.  It is a slick design, though.

Stowaway
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Set aside any number of cards from your hand face-up (on this). Each other player gains a copy of one that you choose. At the start of your next turn, put these cards into your hand.
I think Donald X. has said that Estate junking isn't so good because they empty so fast--which is especially no good when other pile-emptying Attacks are around.  Ignoring that, I think Stowaway is way stronger than it looks at a glance.  Because two Stowaway cards can juggle all the junk elements out of your deck forever.  I mean: Any number of cards?  Having a bunch of Stowaway cards can set aside other Stowaway cards to ensure they never misfire.

Tax Collector
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $5
+2 Coffers. Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card with a +$ amount in its text, they take their -$1 token.
This needs a next turn effect so it stays in play.  The Attack is super cool.  I don't like the vanilla bonus very much: Butcher and Villain already do the +2 Coffers thing and I don't want a glut of cards that do that.  Thematic ties to Tax Man make me wish it could trash Treasures somehow.

Purists
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws a card and gets +1 Villager.
The theme is nice, but the Attack doesn't really fit into it: The other players are the purists?  Either way, +1 Villager is better than having a Village, so I think this Attack is actually super weak.  I might cost Purists at $4 so it's more accessible or have it draw 3 Cards so it's stronger but the stacking gets hairy.

Angry Mob
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player removes a token from their Coffers/Villagers mat. If they don't, they gain a Curse.
Setup: Each player gets +3 Villagers.
Neat concept.  The value of this Attack is going to vary wildly based upon whether or not you can generate Villagers in the Kingdom, so it might be worth figuring some way to inject Villagers other than setup.  I worry that losing Villagers will feel pretty unfun, anyway.

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #678 on: November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm »
0

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)



Quote
Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 11:59:51 pm by Tejayes »
Logged

GreyEK

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Shuffle iT Username: GreyEK
  • Respect: +58
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #679 on: November 14, 2018, 01:07:56 am »
0



War keeps anything from being perfect, including player's decks.  Maybe your opponent's gotten a bit more thin than you'd like them to be,
well perhaps trashing some stuff out of their deck would help.  And you get to help thin yourself too!
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 478
  • Respect: +406
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #680 on: November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am »
0

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)



Quote
Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.



War keeps anything from being perfect, including player's decks.  Maybe your opponent's gotten a bit more thin than you'd like them to be,
well perhaps trashing some stuff out of their deck would help.  And you get to help thin yourself too!

This actually helps your opponents to get rid of Estates. In a 3 player game, all Arms Dealers are gone after the third play. I don't like this. Later on, this is a Workshop plus trashing Cutpurse. Horrible ...
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 01:16:28 am by King Leon »
Logged

GreyEK

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Shuffle iT Username: GreyEK
  • Respect: +58
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #681 on: November 14, 2018, 01:22:02 am »
0

This actually helps your opponents to get rid of Estates. In a 3 player game, all Arms Dealers are gone after the third play. I don't like this. Later on, this is a Workshop plus trashing Cutpurse. Horrible ...

Oh god, that's right.
People actually play multiplayer.

In response to your other point, you definitely don't get this before your opponent has gotten thin.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #682 on: November 14, 2018, 08:19:22 am »
0

I don't really like my current submission, so I'm going to cancel that one and make another one. Quick question for anyone in particular: We all know that Masquerade doesn't count as an Attack, but if only each other player had to pass a card would that make it an attack? There's other parts to my idea, but would that by itself be an Attack?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5352
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #683 on: November 14, 2018, 08:50:35 am »
0

I don't really like my current submission, so I'm going to cancel that one and make another one. Quick question for anyone in particular: We all know that Masquerade doesn't count as an Attack, but if only each other player had to pass a card would that make it an attack? There's other parts to my idea, but would that by itself be an Attack?

If you reveal Moat, are you skipped when passing cards? Do you receive a card, but not pass any? The other way around? Arguably, Minion "attacks" you just as much as the other players, and I wouldn't expect a self-Cursing Witch to be anything but an attack, either. So, to more or less answer your question: I wouldn't expect such a card to win this round.

Speaking of which, I am going to pick the winner in about 24 hours.
Logged

Tejayes

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +132
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #684 on: November 14, 2018, 09:39:12 am »
0

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)



Quote
Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.
Logged

crlundy

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Shuffle iT Username: crlundy
  • Respect: +324
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #685 on: November 14, 2018, 12:19:11 pm »
0

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour
Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"

I actually had similar wordings, but the text became too tiny, so I wanted to compress it. This is the shortest version I could find.

Dominion would usually say "2 or fewer" instead of "fewer than 3". Here's my suggestion, though you may not like that the discarding is not its own paragraph, or that "it" is potentially confusing:

Quote
+3 Cards

Discard 2 cards. Each other player may reveal that their hand has 3 or more Coppers. If they don't, they gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from it onto their deck.
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 478
  • Respect: +406
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #686 on: November 14, 2018, 01:48:19 pm »
0

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)



Quote
Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.

Bureaucrat is a weak gainer with an a moderate handsize attack. It's a poor card overall. If you are playing Base Set only, it is a goid pick in Gardens vs Gardens, though.

Braggart, however, has better gaining, but a horrible attack. Copper junking is not as bad. Copper always gives you $1 if you draw it and  a hand of 5 Coppers is not the worst hand, because you can at buy powerful actions and Duchies.

However Bureaucrat's attack is much more nasty. It can force you to return your Copper to your deck again and again, letting you play with 4 usable cards only. Given your opponent has a 15 card deck, the Copper only weakens every third draw. Bureaucrats topdecking can be repeated much easier and slows the opponent's deck more down. Unlike Curse and Estate, Copper is not a dead card and it is even better than most Ruins (Ruined Market is an edge case). That is the point.

I also submitted a Copper junker, but my card comes with a handsize attack and it has an ability to prevent most pins which also prevents the 5 Copper hand.
Logged

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +662
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #687 on: November 14, 2018, 04:13:18 pm »
0

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)



Quote
Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.

Bureaucrat is a weak gainer with an a moderate handsize attack. It's a poor card overall. If you are playing Base Set only, it is a goid pick in Gardens vs Gardens, though.

Braggart, however, has better gaining, but a horrible attack. Copper junking is not as bad. Copper always gives you $1 if you draw it and  a hand of 5 Coppers is not the worst hand, because you can at buy powerful actions and Duchies.

However Bureaucrat's attack is much more nasty. It can force you to return your Copper to your deck again and again, letting you play with 4 usable cards only. Given your opponent has a 15 card deck, the Copper only weakens every third draw. Bureaucrats topdecking can be repeated much easier and slows the opponent's deck more down. Unlike Curse and Estate, Copper is not a dead card and it is even better than most Ruins (Ruined Market is an edge case). That is the point.

I also submitted a Copper junker, but my card comes with a handsize attack and it has an ability to prevent most pins which also prevents the 5 Copper hand.

I disagree completely.  Bureaucrat's attack is not very good at all.  In a game with any trashing, I'll get rid of my estates and Bureaucrat won't do anything to me at all until I start greening.  At that point my deck can handle it.  Gaining any junk card, and yes Coppers are most definitely junk cards, is often far worse.  Even if a hand of 5 coppers can get you a decent card, as you said, you won't get to that card as often if you keep gaining Coppers.  We all know that trashing is the most important thing in Dominion.  Gaining junk is the opposite of that. Junking is a brutal attack.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #688 on: November 14, 2018, 04:45:34 pm »
+1

Bureaucrat is mainly weak due to the Silver gaining. The Attack in and of itself is fine although slightly weaker than the more reliable Fortune Teller. But in rare instances Bureaucrat Attacks do stack.
All of this has nothing to do with Braggart which is a bad design. In Kingdoms with decent $2s it is a Workshop that hands out free gifts, in Shepherd games it is a Workshop that hands out very nice gifts and only otherwise (or once the respective piles are empty) it is a Copper junker which is the mildest form of junking.
Logged

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #689 on: November 14, 2018, 05:02:17 pm »
0

Purists
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws a card and gets +1 Villager.
The theme is nice, but the Attack doesn't really fit into it: The other players are the purists?  Either way, +1 Villager is better than having a Village, so I think this Attack is actually super weak.  I might cost Purists at $4 so it's more accessible or have it draw 3 Cards so it's stronger but the stacking gets hairy.
This is true, it's like each other player gets a 4 card hand where one is Necropolis. So that leads me to a change I wish to make to my entry. Can't do a mockup just now:

Quote
Enforcer - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then chooses either +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.
Purists wouldn't really hand out money, so here's a person enforcing and rewarding a small hand law.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #690 on: November 14, 2018, 05:04:10 pm »
0

Here is a quick shot at a mitigated Knight attack:

Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #691 on: November 14, 2018, 06:54:54 pm »
0

Alright, I changed my entry now. It's a reverse Druid, each other player has the choice between three hexes. I hop it's not too weak. I played around with different vanilla bonuses and this one seemed the best.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1979
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #692 on: November 14, 2018, 08:05:24 pm »
+2

Here is a quick shot at a mitigated Knight attack:



Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3399
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #693 on: November 15, 2018, 12:54:47 am »
0

Updated Pretender so that it now only attacks 5-card hands.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

terminalCopper

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #694 on: November 15, 2018, 03:01:47 am »
+1



Here's my revised entry, an Action-Attack-Duration!  Stowaway is sort of a mashup of Gear and Ambassador: you save cards from this hand for next hand, and give a copy of one of them to your opponents.  Early game, this will neatly keep Estates and extra Coppers out of your shuffles while junking the other players, though being a duration means it only works every other turn.  In the mid and late game, a pair of these can function as handy utility cards to keep your shuffles clean, as well as set up big turns, just be sure to keep some junk around to hand out copies of (or perhaps a Province when you're ready to end the game).

*Revised to change to an Action type instead of Night, so to fit within the parameters of this week's contest.

To me, this is the best card, and it’s not even close. I’d love to play with it! Some reasons:

1.) Its constructive part is imho the most interesting one in this weeks competition. You can
  • setup a big turn
  • use it as pseudotrashing
  • bring synergic cards together

It’s gear on steroids, without being terminal. There might be “double stowaway decks” similar to “double tac” - but without the nasty “discard your hand” part.

2.) The card seems balanced to me.
Despite having a very interesting constructive part and a strong attack, I don’t think it’s OP, because it is a duration and doesn’t draw, which is both a huge downside.

3.) It defends against itself via pseudotrashing.
Unlike other junk attacks, the game needn’t turn into a slog.

4.) I like games encouraging to buy curses.
This is always an interesting mini-game for me.



Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #695 on: November 15, 2018, 04:04:39 am »
0

Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.
I disagree completely. If you play an engine you will only have a few Silvers in your deck and it is more likely that Knights hit Actions. Just play a Knights game and take a look in the trash at the end of the game. I bet that the ratio of Actions to non-Copper Treasures is around 2:1 or 3:1.

This Attack only hits, on average, every two times. Sea Hagging a Ruins sounds quite nasty whereas exchanging an Action for a Ruins that hedges you against the next Mob Attack sounds pretty sweet. This is especially relevant in multiplayer and when somebody goes for several Mobs.
No idea about the Mountebank comparison as it is just the other way around with Mountebank: you often want 2 as the second one being played during one turn has a higher chance of hitting than the first one. With Mob it is the other way around, the second one has zero chance of hitting.

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3399
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #696 on: November 15, 2018, 06:03:40 am »
0

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.

There is precedent for Attacks that do not hurt BM in Enchantress. I don't think it's an issue per se, only if the card is strong enough to actually force BM on a large chunk of boards.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5352
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #697 on: November 15, 2018, 09:17:16 am »
+1

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?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this.

Not really like Masquerade... More like, uh, Possession? Or if Ambassador told you to put the card in another player's discard pile instead of making them gain it, or if Swindler had you trash the cards from the top of other players' decks... It just seems like something you don't want to create an precedent for if you can avoid it. "Hey, I am not affected, does that mean my play area is not affected?". If it's YOU doing stuff when attacked, then you not being affected is more clear. So yes, I will accept the new wording.

That said, I'm writing up the results right now...
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #698 on: November 15, 2018, 10:01:43 am »
0

Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.
I disagree completely. If you play an engine you will only have a few Silvers in your deck and it is more likely that Knights hit Actions. Just play a Knights game and take a look in the trash at the end of the game. I bet that the ratio of Actions to non-Copper Treasures is around 2:1 or 3:1.

This Attack only hits, on average, every two times. Sea Hagging a Ruins sounds quite nasty whereas exchanging an Action for a Ruins that hedges you against the next Mob Attack sounds pretty sweet. This is especially relevant in multiplayer and when somebody goes for several Mobs.
No idea about the Mountebank comparison as it is just the other way around with Mountebank: you often want 2 as the second one being played during one turn has a higher chance of hitting than the first one. With Mob it is the other way around, the second one has zero chance of hitting.

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.
I think Mob is about balanced in most games, but when there's things that don't cost $3-$6, i.e. Potion cost cards, $7 cost cards, that are pretty hard to get, that's where Mob can be too strong, since it could hit one player's Ruin and another player's Kings Court or Possession. Also, "If they did trash trashed"
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #699 on: November 15, 2018, 10:51:03 am »
0

That said, I'm writing up the results right now...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 21 queries.