Print

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

[Kudasai]

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

   

Expanded Instructions:
Excavation - You must choose one of the options three times. It can be any combination of choices and does not have to be the same choice each time.

Refinery - Set aside Treasures come from the Supply and are returned there at the end of the current turn. If the Treasure Supply pile is empty you cannot set aside a card from there and thus cannot get the extra $1 when you play copies of it.

[terminalCopper]

Thanks @Holunder9 and @faust, I agree with your suggestions for Rewording.

I don‘t think Visionary is too weak in terms of "too weak to be bought on a frequent basis". I believe that Visionary is strong on every board with a spammable card which lacks one of the engine components "draw, +actions, +buy". These aren't rare.

On the other hand, this mediocre strength wastes the best part of the card: playing with multiple visions, and managing interesting decisions when to call it and where to put the tokens. This will happen much more often if players get multiple Visionaries, and fight for the Vision split. It's a very interesting situation, if one player has a strong deck with 4 Visions (enabling two tokens per turn), and the other has a weaker deck, but 6 visions.

With this situation in mind, I agree with Holunder9 that it's better game design to buff Visionary, maybe even by a lot. I think I will test to reduce cost to 5$, with +2$ on top. I am pretty confident this won't lead to boring games, because Visions need interactions; also Visionaries become lousy terminal Silvers once the Visions are gone, which is an additional motivation to buy other cards.

[Holunder9]

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

   

I don't think that I am a big fan of Excavation but Refinery looks very interesting, a Copper(Silver/Gold)smith variant that actually works.

[Commodore Chuckles]

To me, the basic idea of Excavation seems interesting: You have to decide whether to harm your current hand or gamble on trashing something random. The main problem, I guess, is how strong trashing 3 cards is. Most of the time trashing 3 cards from your hand is so strong you won't care what you're missing out on, but then trashing 3 known junk cards from the top of your deck is possibly brokenly strong. It also seems like the best option will nearly always be to forget the Refineries and just trash as much as possible.

Refinery, on its own, also seems interesting: You have to decide whether to pile up a bunch of cheap treasures or try to get a lot of expensive ones. I feel the interaction between the two cards is weak, though.

[MrHiTech]

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

   

Refinery should be a Duration card.

[Gubump]

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

   

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

[Holunder9]

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

[Kudasai]

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

Hmm, Imgur was giving me issues last night so I used another wacky hosting site. Are they showing up now?

Also, thanks for everyone else's comments. I will unfortunately have to wait to respond to them until the end of the day!

[MrFrog]

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

[Gubump]

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

Hmm, Imgur was giving me issues last night so I used another wacky hosting site. Are they showing up now?

Also, thanks for everyone else's comments. I will unfortunately have to wait to respond to them until the end of the day!

Now Excavation is showing up twice, and Refinery still isn't showing at all.

[Holunder9]

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

[faust]

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

[Holunder9]

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

I think the "issue" (well, one combo isn't really an issue) is that these will all be discarded if Capitalism is active whereas Refinery will not as it references a precise point in time.

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

Technically that's totally right. But giving that fellow a touch of orange for the sake of one combo and at the cost of utter confusion in all other Kingdoms is not something you want to do.

[MrHiTech]

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

I think the "issue" (well, one combo isn't really an issue) is that these will all be discarded if Capitalism is active whereas Refinery will not as it references a precise point in time.

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

Technically that's totally right. But giving that fellow a touch of orange for the sake of one combo and at the cost of utter confusion in all other Kingdoms is not something you want to do.

You're right. I misinterpreted "your next buy phase" as "the buy phase of your next turn".maybe "this turn's buy phase" would be better

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Just realized it's almost been a week, better pull my ideas together.

It's a bit thematic. I hope it doesn't look like something I slapped together at the last minute (which it is ).

[Kudasai]

I ended up rewording Refinery. It should play cleaner now and interact better with Capitalism. The only big difference in play is now you need to decide what Treasure to add the +$1 to before actually knowing how your hand will turn out. Mostly this won't matter as you'll likely just choose the most common Treasure in your deck, but it could create some interesting choices for players.

To me, the basic idea of Excavation seems interesting: You have to decide whether to harm your current hand or gamble on trashing something random. The main problem, I guess, is how strong trashing 3 cards is. Most of the time trashing 3 cards from your hand is so strong you won't care what you're missing out on, but then trashing 3 known junk cards from the top of your deck is possibly brokenly strong. It also seems like the best option will nearly always be to forget the Refineries and just trash as much as possible.

Refinery, on its own, also seems interesting: You have to decide whether to pile up a bunch of cheap treasures or try to get a lot of expensive ones. I feel the interaction between the two cards is weak, though.

I agree with most of what you've said. Excavation is strong enough on it's own to justify the $6 price without ever getting a Refinery. But Refinery is so good that I think players who actively build to get a few will fare much better as the time to get your economy back up is drastically cut. And that is really the connection between the two cards that I was going for.

If the whole thing proves too strong I'll make Excavation trash 3 cards no matter what. This will make it far less playable late game and likely make it so a player has to trash more Coppers in order to get Refineries. That decision will be for another day though.

Thanks everyone for the comments and Happy Thanksgiving (even for ya'll outside the U.S. that don't celebrate it)!

[King Leon]

Just realized it's almost been a week, better pull my ideas together.

It's a bit thematic. I hope it doesn't look like something I slapped together at the last minute (which it is ).

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

[Kudasai]

Redevelop may be a bit too hard to get.

Redevelop is quite good and should be hard to get. I think what you have now is great. Mass Silver gaining is not likely the best way to get to Redevelop, but even if a player chooses this route, they can turn those Silvers into $5 cost cards. So you have a solid baseline strategy, but with many other options (including stuff you can do with Architect).

I do worry the cost of $6* is too good if you got 2 Redevelops.

Great submission!

[spiralstaircase]

Asper already pointed out with a similar card that having to play a Ruined Library several times is a pretty harsh cost.

Good point.  I'd nerfed Plotter a bit from my original idea, because I was concerned that it made it too easy to gain Gunpower Plot, but I've now reverted to the slightly more powerful version, which gives you one Villager per Plotter in play.  Now, you could play it as two Ruined Libraries and a cantrip, or as three cantrips and a Vilage, and have enough spare to get one (if you want one).

The megaturn Night card is interesting but too narrow for my taste. If you time it badly you destroy your entire deck.

Time it well, then :-)

The idea is that with the villagers you get from Plotter, you should be able to set up a megaturn even on boards where the other cards are all terminal.  And then, you get your megaturn again!

[Seprix]

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

[King Leon]

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

[Holunder9]

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

And? Suppose you have just one Action left and Miltia and Witch in your hand. Also suppose that Alice is already down to three cards (because Bob played a Miltia on his turn) whereas Bob has 5 cards.
So your claim that Gallows is political is identical to the claim that such a choice that could occur in Base Dominion is political. This might actually be true, depending on how narrow you define "political" when it comes to games. But given that the base game enables such an option and given DXV's total hatred for political games I think it is fair to claim that this is a very mild form of political. Also note that in a 3P game, constant Militia plays always hurt just one player (because the third fellow got already Militia-ed in the previous turn).

You could imagine something similar: only one Curse is left, Alice has a Lighthouse out whereas Bob has not so playing Witch would be political. Yuu could have a Smithy in hand but decide that cursing Bob matters more than drawing an extra card. Is this a political choice? Technically, yes totally.
But it doesn't convert the game in something like Star Realms where you can always choose whom to hurt. So I'd rather view it as ordinary player interaction. Don't got enough Ligthouses? Your mistake.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

And? Suppose you have just one Action left and Miltia and Witch in your hand. Also suppose that Alice is already down to three cards (because Bob played a Miltia on his turn) whereas Bob has 5 cards.
So your claim that Gallows is political is identical to the claim that such a choice that could occur in Base Dominion is political. This might actually be true, depending on how narrow you define "political" when it comes to games. But given that the base game enables such an option and given DXV's total hatred for political games I think it is fair to claim that this is a very mild form of political. Also note that in a 3P game, constant Militia plays always hurt just one player (because the third fellow got already Militia-ed in the previous turn).

You could imagine something similar: only one Curse is left, Alice has a Lighthouse out whereas Bob has not so playing Witch would be political. Yuu could have a Smithy in hand but decide that cursing Bob matters more than drawing an extra card. Is this a political choice? Technically, yes totally.
But it doesn't convert the game in something like Star Realms where you can always choose whom to hurt. So I'd rather view it as ordinary player interaction. Don't got enough Ligthouses? Your mistake.

Yeah, I don't think it's political, at least no more than any other attack cards.

[Seprix]

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

okay I misread, don't see the politics really still but wow is that attack busted, you get to stack up villager tokens and also curse and discard potentially at whim? JEEZ. That is going to be a "the rich get richer" card, first guy to get it knocks down everyone else with discard attacks and cursing, and also gets infinite tokens. Discarding with Executioner is even optional. Man.