Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 [All]

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent  (Read 21407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 20, 2021, 12:30:12 pm »
+9

Previous judgments I ran: Contest #23: Curses, Contest #35: No-Vanilla, Contest #69: Pseudo-Terminal

Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
Make a Kingdom card or WELP that cares about the +Actions, Buys, or Coins that you have.  Consider using the resource as a condition or a reference, or perhaps directly spending it in some unusual way.  Be wary of tracking issues with these invisible resources.

Current examples include but are not necessarily limited to: Basilica, Diadem, Pageant, Storyteller, and Wine Merchant.  Overpay effects count, which adds Doctor, Herald, Masterpiece, and Stonemason to the list.  Free "terminal" Events that can be bought multiple times like Delay are a unique way to "spend" your Buys.  Donald X. once talked about an old Diadem variant that was a terminal Action that jumped back up into your hand, which could definitely be counted as "caring about the +Actions you have."  I'll do my best not to discredit any entries.

All submissions:
Find Judgment here!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 07:02:35 pm by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2021, 01:40:23 pm »
+5



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

Edit: I changed it from being able to spend 3 actions to 4.  Now it feels like it actually cares about the previous actions you have.  Previously it might as well have said "choose one: +3 actions, +2 actions +1 card, +2 cards +1 action, or +3 cards"
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 12:01:57 pm by Chappy7 »
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2021, 01:44:07 pm »
0



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

How does the sequence of play work?  Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2021, 01:46:57 pm »
0



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

How does the sequence of play work?  Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?

Based on how these kinds of effects normally work, you decide at once how many Actions to spend.
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.

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2021, 01:54:39 pm »
+3






A Village that duplicates itself if you prove that you need more Villages. There are 15 copies in the pile.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 07:22:08 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.

mandioca15

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
  • Respect: +237
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2021, 02:13:33 pm »
0

Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.

A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2021, 02:30:22 pm »
+1

Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)

Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.

Here is the Event:



And the two-sided State it comes with:





BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.

BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.

BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2021, 02:38:00 pm »
+2





And yes, that is a painting of actual bulls and bears in a literal market. You're welcome.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2021, 03:48:34 pm »
+8



Quote
Souk • $4 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may spend 3 Buys to gain a Gold.

Market Square variant.
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2021, 05:48:54 pm »
0

Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.

A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2021, 06:22:45 pm »
+1

Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.

A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.

Theoretically on turn 2 (with Shelters, Way of the Pig, Seaway, a $5 / $2 opening, and hitting the 1 of 6 draw when you shuffle after you Pig your Necropolis). But even if you were to miss that draw or not have Way of the Pig and/or Shelters, you would still almost certainly get it on turn 3 or 4. So if one player hits the $5 / $2 split and Seaway is in play, the other players would at best have one or two chances to buy this before that player was able to empty the pile.

Could easily be fixed (if you think it is a problem) by adding "other than a Spiv" to first line à la Vampire. Would fit thematically as well, as a Spiv would likely not be taken in by the wiles of another Spiv.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 06:34:15 pm by emtzalex »
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2021, 06:33:49 pm »
0


You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2021, 06:57:26 pm »
0


You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.

I think it does. Scheme's 1st edition wording used "at the start of Clean-up this turn," and Improve's "that you would discard from play this turn" implies that it means this turn's Clean-up phase. Without "this turn," Merchant Quarter wouldn't be specifying that it means this turn's Clean-up phase.
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.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2021, 07:16:55 pm »
0


You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.

I think it does. Scheme's 1st edition wording used "at the start of Clean-up this turn," and Improve's "that you would discard from play this turn" implies that it means this turn's Clean-up phase. Without "this turn," Merchant Quarter wouldn't be specifying that it means this turn's Clean-up phase.
I'm pretty sure the "this turn" in Improve is specifying that the card is being discarded from play this turn, not that the effect happens this turn, since it is already implied that the effect happens this turn.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 07:44:12 pm by BBobb »
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2021, 07:22:30 pm »
0


You don't need the "this turn" part. See Improve.

I think it does. Scheme's 1st edition wording used "at the start of Clean-up this turn," and Improve's "that you would discard from play this turn" implies that it means this turn's Clean-up phase. Without "this turn," Merchant Quarter wouldn't be specifying that it means this turn's Clean-up phase.
I'm pretty sure the "this turn" in improve is specifying that the card is being discarded from play this turn, not that the effect happens this turn, since it is already implied that the effect happens this turn.

Removed the "this turn" from Merchant Quarter.
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.

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +581
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2021, 10:45:03 pm »
+5



Quote
Shipping Village - $3
Action
+1 Card
+3 Buys

Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn.
-
While this is in play, you may spend 1 Buy for +1 Action.

A Snowy Village for Buys that allows you to use Buys as Actions? Is this even useful? I think it could be good in some Kingdoms with cantrip +Buys and terminal draws, but I really am not sure. The price and number of Buys it provides is up for adjustment as needed. I am more than happy for any feedback offered.
Logged

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2021, 12:56:48 am »
+2

Quote
Con Artist
Action-Attack
+
You may spend a buy. If you do, each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. If a treasure was trashed by this, +  
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2021, 01:20:05 am »
+4

My entry:
Quote
Taxidermy
$3 - Project
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.


Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
In most kingdoms, this will be fine. But I think this is going to be really strong whenever there's spammable +buy in the kingdom. It might be better balanced if you spent a buy to put the gained card in your hand.
EDIT: Then again, compared to the recent power gainers Inventor and Groom, it's probably good how it is even with spammable +buy.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 01:24:40 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2021, 02:31:08 am »
+11


Quote
Spyglass - $5
Treasure/Duration

Worth $2
If you have no Actions left, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Aquila

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 525
  • Respect: +764
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2021, 04:00:42 am »
+1

Quote
Workhouse - Action, $2 cost.
+ $2
You may take Exhausted. If you do, +1 Coffers.
-
When you gain this, play any number of Treasures from your hand, and spend any amount of Coffers for + $1 each. Then pay any amount of $; +1 Villager per $1 paid.
Quote
Exhausted - State
When you next have unused Actions during your Action phase (Actions, not Action cards), immediately return this and -1 Action.
I'm trying a new, more complicated version of a card in my fan expansion Revolution. On play, you can spend an unused Action for 1 Coffers; the whole thing with Exhausted lets you do this even when there are no other sources of +Actions, you carry the spent Action over to next turn.
The on gain bit is simply overpay that works at the Action phase for when you Workshop it, worth the complication I hope since you may need Actions now. Spending any number of $ can make tracking issues, as opposed to Storyteller's pay all $, which might be undesirable.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 06:43:15 am by Aquila »
Logged

mandioca15

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
  • Respect: +237
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2021, 05:01:56 am »
+1

Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.

A Workshop variant that lets you play gained cards immediately, at the cost of a Buy. Perhaps you have spare Buys, or perhaps you don't care if you're not able to buy anything later this turn.
I just wanted to mention that with a +Buy token on this, you can drain the whole pile.

Theoretically on turn 2 (with Shelters, Way of the Pig, Seaway, a $5 / $2 opening, and hitting the 1 of 6 draw when you shuffle after you Pig your Necropolis). But even if you were to miss that draw or not have Way of the Pig and/or Shelters, you would still almost certainly get it on turn 3 or 4. So if one player hits the $5 / $2 split and Seaway is in play, the other players would at best have one or two chances to buy this before that player was able to empty the pile.

Could easily be fixed (if you think it is a problem) by adding "other than a Spiv" to first line à la Vampire. Would fit thematically as well, as a Spiv would likely not be taken in by the wiles of another Spiv.

Fair point, I don't want the pile to be drained immediately in some situations. Will change it to:

Spiv (Action, $4)

Gain a card other than Spiv costing up to $4.
You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2021, 05:03:52 am »
0

Mechanics aside, I don't think 'use' is a good word. How about 'spend'?

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2021, 08:21:32 am »
+2



This is a messy and controversial one.

The Baker effect is neat but it take some effort to build up. Potentially explosive if the board has megaturn potential, otherwise saving 8 Coffers to get DoubleBakers is likely wrong.

I first played this with an unlimited conversion of Coins into Coffers. That was totally crazy. The current version might be too weak (it is basically a stackable Pageant) but "2 for 2" or "X for X -1" doesn't feel elegant.

The overpay effect was (as intended) weak during playtesting. Getting a $5 is usually superior to getting a Coffers and a Tomb Robber.
The worst potential abuse is generating 3 Coffers during the endgame when you hit $7 and then buy the Province next turn. Well, you could have also bought a Duchy in each turn for the same VPs.
Logged

Mahowrath

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2021, 11:41:24 am »
+3


Updated for readability:


Quote
Crooked Quarter - $6
Action

+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2

If your hand size is even, discard a card.
If your remaining Actions are even, -1 Action
If your $ is even, -$1

Unassisted: the first is 1/2 Forum + Peddler, and the following are 1/2 Forum + 2Peddler. With hand-size manipulation and +Actions this can be made to give extra actions and cards, but corrects itself in those respects after each play.
Keeping track of action & coin parity isn't too bad either, as after each of these you'll always have odd everything (ie buffed for coins only), so you only need look back as far as your previous one.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 12:32:01 pm by Mahowrath »
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2021, 11:49:19 am »
+2



Quote
Crooked Quarter - $6
Action

+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2

If your hand size is even, discard a card.
If your remaining Actions are even, lose one
If your $ is even, lose one

Unassisted: the first is 1/2 Forum + Peddler, and the following are 1/2 Forum + 2Peddler. With hand-size manipulation and +Actions this can be made to give extra actions and cards, but corrects itself in those respects after each play.
I think there's precedent for doing -1 Action / -$1, which is probably cleaner to read than "lose one"; for sure precedent on Poor House for "-$1"
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 12:00:03 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Mahowrath

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +192
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2021, 12:16:56 pm »
+1

Thanks spineflu; updated.
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2021, 12:25:55 pm »
0

Updated for readability:

Is it just me, or should the 3 first vanilla bonuses be separated with a line for each of them?
Logged

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2021, 01:22:39 pm »
0



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

How does the sequence of play work?  Does the player need to decide at once how many Actions they will spend, or can they spend an Action, draw a card, and then decide if they want to spend more Actions?

It would be all at once
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2021, 04:13:10 pm »
+1

Wanted to finally get back into this after getting busy a while back.



Edit: removed submission because it was uncomfortably similar to something submitted for a different contest before
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 06:54:03 pm by alion8me »
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2021, 04:19:26 pm »
0

Wanted to finally get back into this after getting busy a while back.



I had a similar project idea (Recruitment Center: "At the end of your Action phase, you may spend an Action for +1 Villager."), but I decided it against it because it seemed too similar to Barracks. In the case of Town Hall, it's even potentially stronger (assuming there's a Village in the Kingdom) at half the cost.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2021, 04:25:29 pm »
+1

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2021, 04:40:16 pm »
+4

This week: Spree, a pseudo buy token (for one turn at least):



Quote
Spree - Event - $0
Set aside a Copper. If you do, +1 Buy next turn.
(and discard the set aside Copper at the end of your next turn)

So the main idea was a way to save a buy from one turn to the next. Since we don't have buy tokens, tracking is an issue, so I use a set aside Copper for that. Which, I think, actually adds some interesting side effects to it:
• now maybe you don't want to trash all your coppers
• allows it to cost zero, but really it is effectively $1
• you may use it (if you have the buys) just to have your coppers skip a shuffle, but you can't do that every turn (at least not all your coppers)

Some considerations:
• thought of making a project, but was too close to Fair (in fact, as a Project I called it County Fair)
• thought about limiting once per turn, but since you need to spend a buy in it, I decided to go with version for the initial feedback
• considering setting aside any treasure (the better treasure, the less likely you want it to skip the shuffle; but then takes away the "charm" of giving extra meaning to your coppers)

Feedback?

(@Fragasnap, please tell me for some reason this doesn't qualify - conceptually, it's about saving a buy, even while mechanically you do this by spending your buy in the normal way.)
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2021, 04:53:12 pm »
+4

I like the idea of using a Copper to track a next-turn effect.  It's pretty clever.

I think I would still want to trash my Coppers unless this was the only source of +Buys.
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2021, 06:53:08 pm »
+4

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v3

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, when you buy a Landscape, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v2

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$4 Treasure

Quote
Goods v1

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure

edit: Changed pricing after faust pointed out it was too good as a monolithic strategy.
edit2: Added additional effect after faust observed the interaction this has with the $0 cost events.
edit3: Changed effect to prevent Advance+Fortress+Goods interaction seen by Something_Smart.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 11:44:53 pm by alion8me »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2021, 01:12:48 am »
+2

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.

(Even worse, since this strategy uses 6 Goods, it will only be available to the first player.)
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 01:16:11 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

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2021, 02:53:26 am »
+2

It's quite similar to a submission segura made a short while ago for the Renaissance set expansion contest.

Wow that is remarkably similar to what I had.

I'll submit this instead then:



Quote
Goods

$1
+1 Buy

If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.

$2 Treasure
This is unfortunately way too strong. If you open Goods/Goods, then it's not too hard to get 6 Goods by the end of shuffle 2. That means that, if you use spare buys on Coppers during shuffle 3, you'll end up with 12 Coffers. That's enough to consistently buy Provinces for the next 3 turns while probably amassing even more Coffers.

(Even worse, since this strategy uses 6 Goods, it will only be available to the first player.)

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2021, 03:23:32 am »
+1

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

mutated

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2021, 01:30:18 pm »
0

Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)

Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.

Here is the Event:



And the two-sided State it comes with:





BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.

BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.

BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.

Wording suggestion for Buying Power, using Misery ("If this is your first Misery this game, take Miserable. Otherwise, flip it over to Twice Miserable.") as a template:

If this is your first Buying Power this game, take Bear Market. Otherwise, flip your Market state over.

There may be a way to make the names make more sense, or make the "Market state" term more clear, but that reads better to me.

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 01:31:36 pm by mutated »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2021, 01:41:04 pm »
0

Yes! There have definitely been times where I have ended up with lots of Buys and little money and wished there was some card/landscape/mechanism that would let me convert one to the other. (This probably says more about my ability than about the game's design, but still...)

Originally it was just an event (called Buying Power) that cost $0 and gave +$1, but I think that is too good a trade (or rather, it makes some cards like Market Square too good). This is how I tried to make a Buy worth approximately $0.5.

Here is the Event:



And the two-sided State it comes with:





BUYING POWER
Event
$0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.

BEAR MARKET
State (side 1)
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.

BULL MARKET
State (side 2)
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“. Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.

The problem of this concept is that it is either too good or too weak. All the four (did I forget one?) cantrips that yield Buys become significantly better whereas it matters little for all other cards. I also think that it is too automatic. If I did play my 5 Grand Markets and only need 2 Buys, I will automatically buy the Event four times. It has little impact on my strategy, those 5 GMs are good independent of whether they produce 10 Coins or 12 Coins.
Logged

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2021, 03:13:58 pm »
0

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.

Yeah, this also seems like a problem to me.

After some consideration I decided that adding "In games using this, when you buy a Landscape, +1 Buy." to the card is probably the best way to go. I think it produces interesting effects sometimes while never leading to super monolithic strategies, and hopefully isn't too complex.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2021, 04:38:57 pm »
0

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.

This wouldn't work (or rather, this changes what the Event does), as the State is meant to be flipped every time. Who has the State when it's not being flipped does not matter, and taking it shouldn't cost an extra buy. I originally wanted it to just sit next to the Event, but the rules (as I read them) don't permit this.

I looked at Misery when I was doing the wording. My only concern with the way you have it is that it might be a bit confusing. It is not entirely clear that "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" are a single, two-sided State. Thus, it is not self-evident from the text what the "it" in "take it" or "flip it over" is. A player might go looking for the other Market, or think they have a choice.


Except for the first time this is bought, it is „convert 2 Buys into 1 Coins“.

That is the basic idea. It converts a Buy into $0.5 an unlimited number of times. There is a free half-buy for the first player to use this. While that introduces a little bit of swinginess, I don't think $1 is enough to force players to rush out and try to get it.


Unless the opponents have no extra Buys in their decks, you will never ever buy this only once in your turn and thus help your opponents.

Never EVER? Certainly not if you're dueling Market Squares, but there may be a lot of cases where you would consider it.

What if your opponent has only one +Buy in their deck. What if it's Skulk (and they have really good trashing)? Are they going to give up trashing their Skulk (or are they going to play one of the worst terminal actions, if they have other choices) just to steal $0.5? Are they going to eat an Estate from Baron for it? I would posit that 9 times out of 10 they will not. Similarly, if they would have otherwise used that spare Buy, it probably will not be worth trading for the coin (depending on the numbers).

Conversely, even if your opponent has no +Buys, if they draw an all-green hand they still have one buy that they can use to trash your half coin. That strategic choice--put the $0.5 out there where it might be stolen or let it go to waste--is the reason I settled on a single State, instead of one for each player (or the terrible ideas I had before that, like using the cubes from Projects or the Journey token).


The problem of this concept is that it is either too good or too weak. All the four (did I forget one?) cantrips that yield Buys become significantly better whereas it matters little for all other cards.

I count five (Market, Grand Marker, Market Square, Worker's Village [unless you consider this a village and not a cantrip], and Sanctuary), plus four marginal cases: Hamlet (you need to discard for the +Buy), Pawn (have to give up either the card or the action if you want the buy) Snowy Village (no more +Action potentially limits total plays) and City (only once 2+ supply piles are empty). With the exception of Market Square and Worker's Village, I don't see any of those cards being significantly improved by the presence of this card, or becoming must-buys.

Having Market or Grand Market go from +$1 to +$1.5 or +$2 to +2.5 is a pretty marginal change. Sanctuary's power is in the ability to Exile cards efficiently, gaining some extra coins does not change that significantly. Plus, buying a Sanctuary or two to at least mess with your opponent's residual 1/2 buy at the margins is not that likely to severely mess up strategies that would not otherwise be going for it, as the deck improvement they get from Exiling their VP cards would likely make up for it.

The marginal cases would similarly see little improvement, for the reasons outlined (especially not Pawn, which will generally allow you to trade the Buy for $1, twice as much).

I do recognize that this makes Market Square and Worker's Village quite a bit better. This is especially true if you want to buy a bunch of Market Squares in hopes of having one or two around for a trashing. I have certainly done that, only to find myself with a bunch of extra buys. But I would argue that that is what a lot of landscapes do. Way of the Chameleon completely transforms Poor House from a questionable afterthought to by far the most powerful terminal draw card in the game (for its price). Advance can turn a Horse or an Experiment from an cheap one-shot into Nobles or a Grand Market. Capitalism can significantly improve any number of terminal +$ cards (including Poor House again).

As for it being too weak, I think that is another common occurrence with landscapes. As powerful as Capitalism can be in some games, if the only +$ is Bard, it's an easy pass. Completely ballparking it, I would say that an Event in a game goes completely unused 40% of the time, if not more. And for some events, that happens a lot more often. Banish, Mission, Pilgrimage, Ritual...those are almost always ignored. I don't think every card needs to completely transform the game every time to have value.


I also think that it is too automatic. If I did play my 5 Grand Markets and only need 2 Buys, I will automatically buy the Event four times. It has little impact on my strategy, those 5 GMs are good independent of whether they produce 10 Coins or 12 Coins.

That's the idea. It converts extra buys into coins. The impact it has on strategy is to make buying those cards with +Buy a better proposition. As I said before, it would have little impact on the already-powerful Grand Market, but a much bigger impact on some other cards. Also, with the single copy of the State there is a little strategy in deciding whether to spend that last spare Buy and risk having that $0.5 stolen.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2021, 04:46:03 pm »
0

There are no half Coins. First Buy (during your turn) of the Event wastes a Buy, second one converts it into 1 Coin and so on.
Problem is that all those cantrip are totally fine so I fail to see why they should be buffed. Because this is what your Event basically does, you will rarely go for it if there only Woodcutter variants in the Kingdom.
Logged

fika monster

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +459
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2021, 05:55:00 am »
+2

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

[/quote]
Dilemma, action $5
You may spend all actions but one, to get +Cards instead.
If you don't, +4 Actions.
[/quote]
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2021, 06:48:22 am »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
You may spend all actions but one, to get +Cards instead.
If you don't, +4 Actions.
I don't understand how this works. Can you "spend all actions but one" if you have no actions left? And if so, do you end up with 0 or 1 action?

The "+ cards instead" is weirdly phrased. Instead of what? You haven't gotten anything else at that point.

Here is a wording solution that I think comes closest to what you want:

Quote
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards, +1 Action.
If you didn't, +4 Actions.

That would be fairly balanced I think. Two of them can function like two Labs, but also allow you to play a terminal in between.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2021, 07:09:39 am »
+3

How about:

Quote
Choose one:
- set your number of unused Actions to 1. +1 Card per Action lost this way.
- +4 Actions.

This is exactly like the intended card with the one exception that, in the case where you have 1 Action before playing, you can choose the first option to get +1 Action. But this is obviously strictly worse than the second option.

mutated

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2021, 05:05:30 pm »
0

EDIT: I didn't realize that there is only one copy of Bear Market/Bull Market. In that case, may I suggest:

If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, flip it over.

This wouldn't work (or rather, this changes what the Event does), as the State is meant to be flipped every time. Who has the State when it's not being flipped does not matter, and taking it shouldn't cost an extra buy. I originally wanted it to just sit next to the Event, but the rules (as I read them) don't permit this.

I looked at Misery when I was doing the wording. My only concern with the way you have it is that it might be a bit confusing. It is not entirely clear that "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" are a single, two-sided State. Thus, it is not self-evident from the text what the "it" in "take it" or "flip it over" is. A player might go looking for the other Market, or think they have a choice.


It is not entirely clear that Bull Market and Bear Market are a single, two-sided State when posted here on the forums, but I think it would be obvious to someone taking the physical cards out of the box, similar to Fool/Lost in the Woods, or the Artifact cards.

If the state is to be flipped every time, I think you can word it as simply "If you don't have Bear Market or Bull Market, take it. Flip it over."

Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.  :)
Logged

fika monster

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +459
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2021, 02:36:01 am »
+2

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Thank you Faust and silverspawn for pointing out the weird wording. I decided to go with Fausts suggestion.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 03:30:36 am by fika monster »
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2021, 12:07:49 pm »
+6

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!

EDIT: Revised set

EDIT2: Revised card text for Secluded Village to say: “+2 Actions. Reveal your hand. If you have no Action cards in hand, +2 Buys” instead of "+2 Actions. If you have no Action cards in hand, +1 Buy."



There would be 10 copies each of Secluded Village, Enchanted Forest, and Magic Axe.

Quote from: Original Set


The idea is for Buys to function as a different currency (you can skip buying Woodsman entirely).  I thought about allowing Woodsman to gain Spirits with unused Buys, but it's more fun to create my own cards.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 10:01:44 am by Timinou »
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2021, 12:34:00 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.

Thank you Faust and silverspawn for pointing out the weird wording. I decided to go with Fausts suggestion.


That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)

Your original version doesn't have this problem  (and also seems more elegant than this version to me, if you can find a reasonable wording).
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 12:38:02 pm by Holger »
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2021, 12:43:49 pm »
+3

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2021, 12:44:26 pm »
+4

Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2021, 12:58:37 pm »
0

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2021, 01:13:41 pm »
+2

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
But you can play the combination Village+Dilemma an arbitrary number of times, as it always leaves you with the 1 Action you started with.

Yes, Hunting Grounds does the same in combination with a Village. But it costs $6, unlike Dilemma, and doesn't have Dilemma's second option to be nonterminal by itself. Playing any even number of Dilemmas has the same effect as playing the same number of Labs (if you start out with 1 Action). Hunting Grounds doesn't have this flexibility to cope with collisions.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 01:16:44 pm by Holger »
Logged

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +581
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2021, 01:27:16 pm »
+1

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!





The idea is for Buys to function as a different currency (you can skip buying Woodsman entirely).  I thought about allowing Woodsman to gain Spirits with unused Buys, but it's more fun to create my own cards.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2021, 01:29:13 pm »
+4

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2021, 03:49:52 pm »
+1


Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2021, 05:56:19 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...
Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
Logged

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2021, 06:47:38 pm »
0

Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2021, 07:36:03 pm »
+3

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

I didn't think it was a major issue to have Woodsman effectively cost $0, because often you will have additional $ to spend on something better.  However, I agree that it's awkward if you happen to have Woodcutter in the same game, and it's probably better to limit the special gaining to non-Supply cards so that it isn't too easy to empty out the Woodsman pile.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.

You're right that it would be impossible in some Kingdoms to gain Magic Axe.  I had initially though about whether Enchanted Forest should be a Village or give +Buys, but I felt like it would be too easy to stack Woodsmen with it (which were previously quite easy to gain) and also to gain additional Enchanted Forests or Magic Axes. 

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

Thanks - I've modified the set so that you can't gain Woodsmen by spending Buys.  Instead I've added Secluded Village, to also address the issue that Xen3k highlighted.

Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve

Thanks - the comma doesn't seem necessary, but I've updated the wording anyway to match Improve.

Revised set: (I'll update the OP as well)

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 07:39:08 pm by Timinou »
Logged

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2021, 08:17:26 pm »
+2

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

I didn't think it was a major issue to have Woodsman effectively cost $0, because often you will have additional $ to spend on something better.  However, I agree that it's awkward if you happen to have Woodcutter in the same game, and it's probably better to limit the special gaining to non-Supply cards so that it isn't too easy to empty out the Woodsman pile.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.

You're right that it would be impossible in some Kingdoms to gain Magic Axe.  I had initially though about whether Enchanted Forest should be a Village or give +Buys, but I felt like it would be too easy to stack Woodsmen with it (which were previously quite easy to gain) and also to gain additional Enchanted Forests or Magic Axes. 

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

Thanks - I've modified the set so that you can't gain Woodsmen by spending Buys.  Instead I've added Secluded Village, to also address the issue that Xen3k highlighted.

Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve

Thanks - the comma doesn't seem necessary, but I've updated the wording anyway to match Improve.

Revised set: (I'll update the OP as well)

Secluded village should say to reveal the hand, so there isn't trust issues
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2021, 08:24:59 pm »
+1

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

My recommended wording:
Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+ equal to the unspent the player to your right had on their last turn.

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=, you could spend twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=, you could spend three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):
Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording
+1 Buy
+
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of for +2 Coffers per paid (rounded down).
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.

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2021, 09:51:32 pm »
+4

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 09:53:56 pm by pubby »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2021, 01:44:50 am »
+2

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
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 Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2021, 01:48:44 am »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2021, 01:58:59 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2021, 02:07:17 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2021, 02:50:01 am »
+3



Quote
Promote ③ Event
You may overpay for this, to trash a card you
would discard from play this turn. Then, gain a
card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards). (This is no longer true after the change in wording. But now we can overpay Potion! And uh I guess you can still pay ④ to trash a Copper if there's no card costing ① in the Supply. Go nuts, woo.)

EDIT: Updated wording to make it an overpay card.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:26:33 pm by MochaMoko »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2021, 04:31:46 am »
0

I think this needs a 'this turn' clarifier

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #68 on: January 25, 2021, 06:05:56 am »
0

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

My recommended wording:
Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+ equal to the unspent the player to your right had on their last turn.
thanks for the improvement, I'll implement it in the translation.


4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=, you could spend twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=, you could spend three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):
Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording
+1 Buy
+
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of for +2 Coffers per paid (rounded down).
You are incorrect, the intention is to only allow increments of 3, in order to prevent the Wandering beggar to be obsolete as soon as other players buy the Tradesman.
But using the tradesman you can limit the Wandering beggar to +2$.

Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

Updated english wording.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2021, 06:37:47 am »
+3



Quote
Promote ③ Event
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:

Quote
Promote - $3+
Event

You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #70 on: January 25, 2021, 07:49:27 am »
+1

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #71 on: January 25, 2021, 08:10:22 am »
+1



Quote
Promote ③ Event
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:

Quote
Promote - $3+
Event

You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #72 on: January 25, 2021, 09:02:37 am »
0

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.
This version of Wandering beggar does not work for multiple reasons.

1. There is no accountibility since the card does not require players to reveal their hands (and if it did it would probably need to be an attack).
2. There is no such thing as "unspent $ in their hand". Treasures that have not been played simply did not generate any $. I understand what you are going for, but in terms of rules this is nonsensical.
3. Even if we allowed "common sense" to override the technical issues from the previous point, it is still not well-defined - if I have a Bank and a Copper in hand, how much $ is that?

In order to fix the card, I would suggest turning it into an Attack that punishes players if they have Treasures in their hand at the end of their buy phase.

I am also not in love with the 1-to-1 conversion of unspent $ into cash for you. It already feels bad to draw all your money without enough buys, this just punishes people who are already doing badly.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:10:16 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

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #73 on: January 25, 2021, 09:46:08 am »
0

i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking

Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2021, 10:44:26 am »
0

i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking

Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.
i mean, thats more restrictive - do it my way and you can still promote caravans or havens or whatever
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2021, 10:46:21 am »
+2

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2021, 10:59:27 am »
0

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

1. There is no accountibility since the card does not require players to reveal their hands (and if it did it would probably need to be an attack).
2. There is no such thing as "unspent $ in their hand". Treasures that have not been played simply did not generate any $. I understand what you are going for, but in terms of rules this is nonsensical.
I fully agree with you here, and thus changed the need to look at their hand.

3. Even if we allowed "common sense" to override the technical issues from the previous point, it is still not well-defined - if I have a Bank and a Copper in hand, how much $ is that?
This didn't occur in the testing rounds, thanks for bringing it up, it is also fixed now.

In order to fix the card, I would suggest turning it into an Attack that punishes players if they have Treasures in their hand at the end of their buy phase.

I will not turn this into an attack, as it doesn't directly affect any players in this new version, but your fix is also flawed, as this would just allow players to play the treasure cards instead, but I did include it along with the old text, to solve both problems (as you maybe intended).

I am also not in love with the 1-to-1 conversion of unspent $ into cash for you. It already feels bad to draw all your money without enough buys, this just punishes people who are already doing badly.

The 1-to-1 conversion didn't seem to be an issue, as no player received more than 4$ per card in testing, (my cards are generally to be seen as cards from prosperity (regarding colonies) so buying a colony is always an option) and not having enough buys is your fault for which you should be punished, as having a +buy card in the game is guaranteed, because of the tradesman.

But now you can simply choose not to play a gold and the next player will only gain +1$ instead of +3$,
so gaining too much using the wandering beggar shouldn't be a problem, even in province games.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2021, 11:14:20 am »
0

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.

(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2021, 11:47:28 am »
0

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.

(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)

I guess them showing you their hand is the only option then, I'll implement it later.
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2021, 11:59:42 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.
Logged

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2021, 12:12:28 pm »
+1

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards
The player to your right, has to reveal their hand prior to the Clean-up phase.

At the start of your next turn:
+1$ per Treasure revealed by the player to your right. +X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

Reworded Wandering Beggar, I will not classify it as an Attack, as it doesn't hurt anyone directly. (Duchess and Council Room are also not classified as an attack, even though they can hurt the other players)
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2021, 12:19:20 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.


Another way you could potentially accomplish what I think you are trying to do is by adding a non-supply Action card that (if choosing the first option) you gain to your hand, are forced to play over and over until you are down to one Action, and then returns itself to it's pile. It would look something like this:



(You would obviously want to rename this and ad art). I think you would technically only need one copy of it in the pile, but you might want 2 just to make it easier to put back. I thought about adding a line and language that says if you somehow gain this by any other means, it goes back to its pile, but I do not think that is possible.

If you added this, Dilemma could be simplified to say:

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.

The obvious downside is that [Dilemma Helper] is super wordy and inelegant. The plus side is that it does not require adding the mechanic of spending Actions, and the Action card itself is cleaner. Plus, while the text of the Helper card is wordy, the mechanism is pretty simply, and once players learn it it is not hard to carry out.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #82 on: January 25, 2021, 12:33:20 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.


Another way you could potentially accomplish what I think you are trying to do is by adding a non-supply Action card that (if choosing the first option) you gain to your hand, are forced to play over and over until you are down to one Action, and then returns itself to it's pile. It would look something like this:



(You would obviously want to rename this and ad art). I think you would technically only need one copy of it in the pile, but you might want 2 just to make it easier to put back. I thought about adding a line and language that says if you somehow gain this by any other means, it goes back to its pile, but I do not think that is possible.

If you added this, Dilemma could be simplified to say:

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.

The obvious downside is that [Dilemma Helper] is super wordy and inelegant. The plus side is that it does not require adding the mechanic of spending Actions, and the Action card itself is cleaner. Plus, while the text of the Helper card is wordy, the mechanism is pretty simply, and once players learn it it is not hard to carry out.
First, I am kind of confused. When you say playing it immediately, that wouldn't use up an action, which means that you would immediately draw your deck with 2 Actions before you gain it. I'm not totally sure what the card is supposed to do
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2021, 12:38:38 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #84 on: January 25, 2021, 01:30:51 pm »
0

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way
i'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2021, 02:15:11 pm »
0

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way
i'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more

comes down to a matter of taste. I find 'non-Duration' much less icky, but I can't justify it intellectually.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2021, 02:20:23 pm »
+3

Secluded village should say to reveal the hand, so there isn't trust issues

Alternatively, maybe Secluded Village should just be

Choose One: +2 Actions; or +1 Buy

This is slightly stronger (unless you have Diadem, the +2 actions doesn't help if you would be getting the +buy in the original version). But I think the original version is too weak even for a $0 cost card. This version would still be a very situational buy (no Villages in the Kingdom, etc). And simpler wording than using the original wording and adding a reveal clause for accontability.
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

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2021, 04:18:07 pm »
+1

I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:

Quote
Promote - $3+
Event

You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
Delaying the effect until clean-up is a lot less necessary for this card, true. Allowing for immediate trash can open up some fancy gain-and-play stuff with Villa or something, which I mean isn't going to be too convoluted, probably, considering that you already have to be pretty precise with tracking money using this Event. I'll allow it.

i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking

Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.
i mean, thats more restrictive - do it my way and you can still promote caravans or havens or whatever

I still prefer "would discard from play this turn" because of tracking. Sometimes non-Duration cards stay out, like Throne Rooms and King's Courts and stuff. I mean of course they would like to leave play, but for tracking, it's still better to make it "would discard from play".

All that being said, the overpay wording actually seems kind of clunky compared to the original wording, imo. It might be fine to say something like,
Quote
You may overpay for this, to trash a card you
would discard from play this turn. Then, gain a
card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
This would be functionally different in that half-Bonfire isn't possible, but that's fine. Overpaying would also let you overpay Potion, so woohoo. There are fewer words in this one, too, so fine, I'll go with this one. (Actually there aren't fewer words, after accounting for getting rid of the Clean-up phase clause, lol, but I might as well use overpay as a mechanic because it exists.)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:31:34 pm by MochaMoko »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2021, 05:45:59 pm »
0

I would avoid the 'would' wording at all cost, and not do the card at all if that weren't possible. I don't think any official cards says 'would'. Trader used to, and it was changed.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 06:20:11 pm by silverspawn »
Logged

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2021, 05:50:52 pm »
+1

The "you would discard from play this turn" is directly borrowed from Improve's card text:
Quote
+②
At the start of Clean-up, you
may trash an Action card you
would discard from play this
turn, to gain a card costing
exactly $1 more than it.

I am glad Trader's "would gain" has been phased out. We can have better and cooler blue dogs.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2021, 06:20:03 pm »
0

I withdraw my objection. The 'would' wording is fine.

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2021, 06:33:51 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...
Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2021, 06:40:55 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...
Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
This is totally fine, but for the bottom part, you could just say "In games using this, when you buy an Event costing more than , +1 Buy." This would still avoid the infinite loops.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:32:45 pm by BBobb »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2021, 10:19:06 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...
Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
Save (and any other Event that already had +buy) now gives extra buys!

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #94 on: January 26, 2021, 02:34:16 am »
+5

Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #95 on: January 26, 2021, 07:04:21 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.

Yes, I didn't realize that playing Dilemma uses up one of Village's two Actions, sorry for the confusion! :-[
So you'd need to play two Villages before a Dilemma to be able to use Dilemma's first option and get the net effect of three Labs, which is still okay but not overpowered.
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #96 on: January 26, 2021, 07:16:20 am »
+1

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 08:04:34 am by Holger »
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #97 on: January 26, 2021, 08:41:21 am »
0

As an aside, Donald's Secret history comment for Desperation seems weird to me:
 
Quote
Desperation: At first it wasn't limited to once per turn. You don't need to have the experience of "okay I take 15 Curses and buy 6 Provinces" twice.

Desperation only gives $2 per Curse gained, so 15 Desperations would only net you $30, giving less than 4 Provinces and not 6, if it wasn't limited to once per turn. You'd need to gain 4 Curses for each Province, netting you 2VP. This would still make it reasonable to spam Desperation on your last shuffle if you have enough spare buys, but I'm not sure if it would really break the game...
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #98 on: January 26, 2021, 09:40:50 am »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-

Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.

In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #99 on: January 26, 2021, 10:19:08 am »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-

Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.

In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.

It seems to me that all Adventures Events with "Once per turn" have this FAQ, and none of the later such Events do, for whatever reason...
I think it's more intuitive to casual players that you can't buy them again for no effect, but YMMV.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #100 on: January 26, 2021, 11:16:34 am »
+1

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-

Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.

In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.

It seems to me that all Adventures Events with "Once per turn" have this FAQ, and none of the later such Events do, for whatever reason...
I think it's more intuitive to casual players that you can't buy them again for no effect, but YMMV.

Given that Desperation and Seize_the_Day were released five years after Adventures (and less than a year ago), perhaps Mr. Vaccarino presumed players would understand that the same once-per-turn rules apply, or just has not gotten around to writing full FAQs in a year full of other distractions.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

D782802859

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
  • Respect: +381
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #101 on: January 26, 2021, 12:13:28 pm »
+4

Logged

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +581
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #102 on: January 26, 2021, 12:42:16 pm »
0



I really like this concept, but depending on the Kingdom I can see it becoming pretty easy to get the Expand effect. I think this would take some playtesting to determine if it is priced correctly as even a Night form of Remodel is really solid at $5.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #103 on: January 26, 2021, 12:58:38 pm »
0

Indeed. The card would be fine at $5 as a Night Remodel but the Expand option makes it far too good. Cards like Altar and Expand that can trash a card and gain a $5 have prohibitive prices for very good reasons.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #104 on: January 26, 2021, 01:37:55 pm »
+2



When you say "any unused Actions" do you mean to include cases where the player has 1 unused Action? I think that would be the plain reading of the card's text. This makes it way more powerful, as it would be triggered where the player (1) played no Action card or (2) played only cantrips. If that is all that is required to turn Coppers into Silvers and Silvers into Golds or (more powerfully) turn Estates into Duchies and Duchies into Provinces, I feel like that becomes the only viable strategy.

I also think a Remodel variant is more highly improved by being a Night than some other actions, as cards you have in your hand at the end of the turn are, by the very fact that they are still there, dead cards. Think about Exorcist, which gives you nothing for $0 cards, a mostly place-holding cantrip for Estates and other $2, and requires trashing something costing $5 to get a really powerful card. By contrast, it would not be hard for this to consistently turn Curses into Silvers or Villages, or Estates into powerful $5 Actions or Treasures. And while the cost jump from Exorcist's $4 to $5 is big, its not that big.

One solution might be to have the card gained cost up to $1 more per unused Action, to a max of $3. That gives it a small amount of utility with no spare Actions, notably more with the easily attainable 1 spare Action, but require combining it with villages to get the more potent benefit.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #105 on: January 26, 2021, 02:57:19 pm »
0

With Pawnbroker, you can also potentially trash cards that you gain during your Buy phase (for example if you have Sleigh in hand or if you buy cards like Den of Sin which are gained to hand). 
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #106 on: January 26, 2021, 10:03:05 pm »
+4

Judgment is coming very soon.
Please ensure your entry is at the top of the thread.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #107 on: January 26, 2021, 11:45:42 pm »
0

Judgment is coming very soon.
Please ensure your entry is at the top of the thread.

Just noticed my card image wasn't updated to match the newest version of the text, this should be fixed now.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #108 on: January 27, 2021, 12:55:32 am »
0

Judgment is coming very soon.
Please ensure your entry is at the top of the thread.

I've updated Secluded Village in the OP based on feedback from Littlefish and GendoIkari.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 10:02:28 am by Timinou »
Logged

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #109 on: January 27, 2021, 12:02:45 pm »
+1



Does this qualify? It's pretty simple, it can be a plain +3 actions, a village, a lab, or a Smithy.  It will never be super strong, but it is super flexible.

Edit: I changed it from being able to spend 3 actions to 4.  Now it feels like it actually cares about the previous actions you have.  Previously it might as well have said "choose one: +3 actions, +2 actions +1 card, +2 cards +1 action, or +3 cards"

If it's not too late, I made a last minute edit to my submission, reflected in my original post now.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #110 on: January 27, 2021, 02:17:55 pm »
+8

ENTRY
COMMENT


Quote
Buying Power
Types: Event
Cost: $0
If you do not already have it, take the State called Bull Market or Bear Market; whether or not you took it, flip it over.
Quote
Bear Market
Types: State
Setup: In games using Buying Power, place one copy of this on the table with this side up.
Quote
Bull Market
Types: State
When you flip this over to this side, +$1.
+Buys are a strange resource as players can rarely use 3 Buys and 4 rarer still.  An effect like this is largely a buff to Market Squares and their ilk as producing large number of Buys is somewhat uncommon.  Grand Market and Worker's Village hardly need the boost, but Market Square and Market will be happy to see it.
The biggest issue I have is its implementation.  Because it uses a shared State and the first buy of Buying Power nets that +$1 where the second buy (regardless of who buys it) will flip back to Bear Market for no effect.  This is a large first player advantage.  Further than that, in many games the first player to produce an extra Buy will take Buying Power even if the coin isn't needed simply because it disables the other player(s) flipping to Bull Market.

I'd much prefer it lean into its Artifact-like nature and be reworded to something like "If you don't have Bull Market, take it. Otherwise, return it." And Bull Market be an Artifact that reads "When you take this, +$1." Then in low-Buy games, +Buys can still turn into +$1, but each player gets that opportunity back only when someone takes Bull Market from them or they set aside time to rid themselves of it.


Con Artist
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. You may spend a buy. If you do, each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. If a treasure was trashed by this, +$1.
Con Artist is a Bandit payload if you can feed it a Buy.  The Bandit Attack is a somewhat frustrating trashing effect because of how regularly it misses, so you can really only afford to spend a +Buy if you have more than you can possibly use anyway and you can't proc the ability with expectation of getting that +$1.  Without really easy sources of +Buy, you probably will just skip Con Artist.

I'd really prefer the card have more consistency, especially for spending a +Buy which is often an expensive cost.


Crooked Quarter
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2. If your hand size is even, discard a card. If your remaining Actions are even, -1 Action. If your $ is even, -$1.
Crooked Quarter is in its ideal a Lost City + double Peddler, but will typically be most used as a Fugitive + double Peddler.  As a $6-cost card, the amount of processing time this card demands might be okay.  At the same time, I think on the games in which the Grand Market pile is emptied (which will be much more common as Grand Market games are guaranteed to have +Buy), and how much more annoying those games would be to play if I had to think about each Grand Market I played.

Any one of these three conditions would be fine, but all three of them is overwhelming.


Dilemma
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards and +1 Action. If you didn't, +4 Actions.
Dilemma is a big draw that eats all but 1 of your Actions, and a minimum of 2 Actions to be used.  In order to be sure it always has use, you can always produce +4 Actions with it.  2 Dilemmas produce a hand of 7 cards just like 2 Laboratories would.  Smartly, rather than giving a mere +3 Actions to activate itself, Dilemma gives +4 Actions to allow the player to play an extra card in the middle.  With other sources of +Action, you can theoretically increase your hand a lot.

I don't think the card presents much of a dilemma, but it is a compelling Laboratory/Lost City sort of thing.


Freight Ship
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+3 Actions. You may spend up to 4 actions to draw that many cards.
Paying $6 to get a Village is pretty bad compared to Border Village.  Using Nobles as a more similar rubric, $6-cost splitters are usually pretty bad at splitting. If the game has some ludicrous form of +Actions otherwise, you can also play this as a Hunting Grounds, but then you're spending +1 Action on a timely Moat, which is a pretty small benefit.  This looks mostly to me like a super expensive Smithy that you can play as a Laboratory if you draw it at the wrong time. 

It looks perfectly balanced but not very interesting.


Goods
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
$1, +1 Buy. If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.
Uncertainties regarding buying events aside, Goods is immensely similar to a non-terminal Merchant Guild, where its condition makes it less explosive in multiple.  (1 Goods buying 2 cards nets +2 Coffers, which is the same as Merchant Guild; 2 Goods buying 3 cards nets +4 Coffers, which is 2 less than Merchant Guild.)  The in-games-using-this effect has become a major annoyance trying to address certain combos: While those combos should probably be addressed, the way it serves as a bandage to the card makes it distracting.

I quite like triggering on using all buys.  If it had a more unique the function I might be more forgiving of its clumsy in-games-using-this effect.


Illicit Workshop
Types: Night
Cost: $4
If you have no $ and no cards in hand, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand.
Illicit Workshop is a super-Workshop or an awful trasher depending on whether or not you are able to empty your hand and spend all your coins.  This is neat because it encourages you to spend all of your coins in a way you might not normally.  Further, it doesn't need to worry about emptying the Supply because you can only use one in a turn.

It is unique as a bad trasher that turns into a good card in a fashion more meaningful than a card like Trade Route.  I am worried that the whims of a money spike or poorly timed Estate will give the card a lot of frustration on second shuffles.


Merchant Quarter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards, +1 Buy. At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2 for +2 Coffers.
+3 Cards and +1 Buy is a powerful effect evidenced by Margrave's overbearing strength and the comparative reigning in of Tragic Hero and Barge.  Merchant Quarter gives a double Pageant instead, which seems better than Barge (you get the draw and Buy first and decide to lose resources later), but not unreasonably so, as paying $2 is similar to discarding 2 cards.  Funny Wine Merchant combo.

This seems pretty alright.  I'd like something more unique.
By the bye, if you're trying to touch up Sanitarium's wording, consider "at the start of your Buy phase, if you have no unused Actions, you may..."


Pawnbroker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Trash a card from your hand. If you have any Actions remaining (Actions, not Action cards), gain a card costing up to $3 more. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $2 more.
Unless I'm misreading this, Pawnbroker is just wildly better Expand.  If you have an +Action, it is Expand (and, because it does not consume your Action for so doing, any other Pawnbrokers in your hand are also Expands), if you don't have an +Action, it is a Night Remodel.  Doing anything other than turning everything into Pawnbrokers and then Provinces is surely a losing move.

Non-terminal Remodels are pretty strong, so with a smaller bonus for having an Action, this could be good fun.


Promote
Types: Event
Cost: $3+
You may overpay for this, to trash a card you would discard from play this turn. Then gain a card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
Promote is Enhance from play.  The ability to both play a card and trash it makes it a fair bit better than Enhance, which explains the cost hike.  You can also throw more coins into it to get more value from it.  Promoting Coppers requires $5 to get to a $2-cost card and $6 for a $3-cost which is a fairly poor comparison to Trade.  Promoting Silvers has to spending $5 to lose a Silver and get the $5-cost you could've bought anyway.

Outside of another nice way to trash Actions that have aged out or tossing $4 to turn a $4-cost into a Duchy in the end-game, Promote doesn't seem to have a lot of use cases to keep it sufficiently differentiated from similar Events.


Shipping Village
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +3 Buys. Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn.
While this is in play, you may spend 1 Buy for +1 Action.
Only your first 2 Buys are of high value, so being able to generate a few and then start trading them for much more valuable +Actions sounds interesting on the face of it, but in practice it seems like one will struggle to use Shipping Village as a lone source of +Action.  Much like Snowy Village, it generates a lot of "+Actions" in itself, but then disables all others, causing other Shipping Villages to be Ruined Libraries.

In thinking about it, it bears more than superficial similarities to Snowy Village, and I find it hard to get excited for that reason.


Sisterhood
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+3 Actions. At the start of your Buy phase, you may convert each of your unused Actions into +1 Buy.
Sisterhood is a variation of the splitter with a Buy, where it gives anywhere from +3 Actions to +3 Buys (or more) on the player's choice.  Shades of Squire, which can also give +Actions or the same number of +Buys.  Donald X. has gone on record before that cards that produce a large number of +Buys are trouble for the typically precipitous drop in value of your fourth Buy in a turn, making such cards either expensive when you don't need the +Buys or silly when you can use them.  This generally avoids that problem by being able to act as a major splitter in opposite parts to the +Buys it otherwise provides.

I personally won't like it because of how small its benefit is for the frustration that +3 Actions beget on a stop-card.  I've played with a fair number of such cards and I always end up unhappy for having far too many +Actions when they clump and then far too many terminals because of a shuffle.


Souk
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy. You may spend 3 Buys to gain a Gold.
Souk is a Market Square at $4 where its extra ability is to trade 3 Buys for a Gold, as opposed to Worker's Village which just gives +2 Actions.  Compared to Worker's Village, it is a small benefit, but it will be bought often enough as a smooth source of +Buy.  Proccing its extra ability requires that you generate at least 1 Buy prior to playing the Souk (often playing 2 Souks will be the easiest way to do that), but unless you're getting a fourth +Buy, you're trading your ~5 card hand for that Gold, which is a middling trade.  Buying 3 Souks in an attempt to regularly trigger its ability and then actually buy something sounds frustrating.  A Souk flood is sure to be weak (5 $4-cost cantrips in a turn to gain 2 Golds),

It seems fine.  It think it would end up feeling frustrating when betting on whether or not one can generate an Buy to do something with the Golds that earlier turns generated.


Spiv
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card other than Spiv costing up to $4. You may use a Buy. If you do, play it.
A Workshop with a benefit that permits spending a +Buy to immediately gain an play the gained card (A +Buy for a Lost City, effectively).  With a good source of +Buy, this is sure to be a top tier Workshop.  It definitely powers up any available cantrip to the nth degree moreso than most Workshops, which makes me worry about piles in games with the likes of Worker's Village or Market Square.  With a less consistent source of Buys, it will be a niche effect that could result in frustrating 0 Buy turns.  Its ability to play Night cards mid-turn is probably not worth the confusion of being able to "play" Victory cards.

Deceptively simple with room for a fair number of tricks and traps.


Spree
Types: Event
Cost: $0
Set aside a Copper. If you do, +1 Buy next turn. (and discard the set aside Copper at the end of your next turn)
Spree is permits you to transfer a Buy which you couldn't make use of a Buy into another turn.  In that way, it reminds me of Tactician, but without having its more exciting combos.

I think I'd like it better if it played the Copper to help along the deferred Buy, or even provided extra Buys proper with +2 Buys.


Spyglass
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $5
$2. If you have no Actions left, at the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Spyglass is a Silver that gives you a Lost City next turn so long as you are actually consuming those +Actions.  A smart design, as the effect naturally encourages building around terminal Actions, and if you ever miss you're left with a bunch of Treasures you can play anyway.

Looks like fun.


Taxidermy
Types: Project
Cost: $3
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.
A Faithful Hound you have every turn if you want it.  Its timing is inspecific, so I assume I can do it at any point during the turn.  You can use a leftover Action to get a 6-card hand at Clean-Up or you can use Caravan Guard on another player's turn to draw an extra card.

It is so esoteric, it sounds like a mistake, but as I think about it, I kind of like the effect.


Tomb Robbers
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: +1 Coffers per 4 Coffers token you have; or at the end of your Buy phase, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, +1 Coffers.
Tomb Robbers is a cantrip that can be powered up into a super-Baker or else is a Pageant.  It has an immediately dangerous overpay for Coffers.  Donald X. has gone on record that getting lots of Coffers is dangerous, and overpay-for-Coffers is itself really strong.  Each Tomb Robbers helps you get to that dangerous threshold where all your Tomb Robbers become Coffers generators that buff each other up.

I am immediately leery of such a scaling effect, especially in buffing itself so much.  I would like to see how much trouble this is as a near mono-strategy (as it obviously needs +Buys to be able to use the Coffers it generates).  For now, I am too scared of the card to okay it.


Tough Customer
Types: Night, Attack
Cost: $4
You may spend a Buy to have each other player gain a Curse. You may spend an Action for +1 Villager. You may spend $1 for +1 Coffer.
Tough Customer lets you buy a Curse for other players, trade an Action for a Villager ala Patron, and Pageant.  An Event that gives out Curses would be bad news, and this edges close to that, but it consumes a card and is timely, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.  The loss of a Buy will often mean doing little else, which possibly encourages trading your unused resources for Coffers and Villagers.

It is a nice low-cost Curser. I might want it to do a little more for the player of it. As it stands, it looks kind of Young Witch levels of bad.


Wandering Beggar (top 5)
Types: Action, Duration
+2 Cards. The player to your right reveals their hand prior to their Clean-Up.
At the start of your next turn: Per Treasure revealed by the player to your right: +$1. +$X equal to the unspent $X the player to your right.
Quote
Tradesman (bottom 5)
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$1.
At the start of your Clean-Up, spend each $3 unspent $ for +2 Coffers.
Wandering Beggar is a complex Duration draw that later gives coins if the preceding player cannot use all of theirs.  No tracking issues here as the Wandering Beggar is sitting on the table.  If that number ends up regularly being $2 or more, stacking Wandering Beggars will be crazy.  If Tradesman is successfully dug out of the pile, it is likely that Wandering Beggar is generating a fair number of coins which will make Tradesman's Buy and poor Coin-to-Coffers conversion more useful.  If that were to occur however, I can't imagine that the game isn't accelerated to a degree that will render Tradesman's appearance too late anyway.

Wandering Beggar is a cool idea, but its value is primarily derived by one player getting unlucky between spiking coins or wanting buys, when I would prefer it care more about players doing things they want to do anyway.  Tradesman is a largely needless complication.


Quote
Woodsman
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$2
In games using this, during your Buy phase you may spend 1 Buy to gain a Secluded Village, 2 Buys to gain an Enchanted Forest, or 3 Buys to gain a Magic Axe.
Quote
Secluded Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2*
+2 Actions. Reveal your hand. If you have no Action cards in hand, +2 Buys.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Quote
Enchanted Forest
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1
At the start of Clean-Up, if you have any unused Buys, you may put this onto your deck.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Quote
Magic Axe
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5*
$2, +1 Buy. At the start of Clean-Up, you may trash a card you would discard from play this turn to gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Woodsman is just Woodcutter.  It comes with an In-games-using-this that adds three whole piles of extra cards in the form of an awful splitter, a repeatable Peddler, and a Treasure Improve.  Buying a Woodsman in order to access Enchanted Forest is frankly a possibility, and a nice buff for Woodcutter.  Often you're trading a $5-cost buy, but you're occasionally getting a better deal than that.

I have only mild issues with a card that is simply an upgrade of an existing card, even if that card is cut.  I have bigger issues with the amount of complexity, table space, and card space this consumes with the large number of extra cards it employs.  I quite like Enchanted Forest: A lovely Peddler variation which works so easily as a non-Supply pile card, and I'd love to see a set leverage such a non-Supply pile card across multiple Kingdom cards (similarly to Horses).  It looks like a great evergreen card that multiple cards could gain, even moreso than the comparatively messy Spirit pile.  I would look more favorably upon a $4-cost Woodsman that itself gave permission to grab an Enchanted Forest (rather than an in-games-using-this effect).


Quote
Workhouse
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may take Exhausted. If you do, +1 Coffers.
When you gain this, play any number of Treasures from your hand, and spend any amount of Coffers for +$1 each. Then pay any amount of $; +1 Villager per $1 paid.
Quote
Exhausted
Types: State
When you next have unused Actions during your Action phase (Actions, not Action cards), immediately return this and -1 Action.
Workhouse is a terminal Silver or a super-terminal Gold that can be "overpaid" for Villagers.  The wording to permit overpaying for an on-gain effect is beleaguered: I'd just turn the thing into a proper overpay.  Other comparable cards would be Embargo and Duchess as terminal payload at $2, which are weak and this is stronger mostly for its on-gain, or Lackeys as a one-time source of Villagers, but this being nothing but coins is probably weaker.

I really love your Exhausted state as a mechanism for a set.  It is simple and compelling.  Workhouse itself I don't like as much.  Terminal Silvers are very expensive in terms of +Actions, so unless you're paying at least $3 for its on-gain effect, you're probably not getting much value out of those Villagers other than feeding the Workhouse itself, and even +$2 and +1 Coffers seems bad for $5.



Show: LibraryAdventurer's Taxidermy
Taxidermy
Types: Project
Cost: $3
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.
Place: Something_Smart's Illicit Workshop
Illicit Workshop
Types: Night
Cost: $4
If you have no $ and no cards in hand, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand.
Win: fika monster's Dilemma
Dilemma
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards and +1 Action. If you didn't, +4 Actions.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 07:02:26 pm by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #111 on: January 27, 2021, 02:56:51 pm »
0

Win: fika monster's Dilemma
Dilemma
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If you have more than one Action, you may spend all Actions for +4 Cards and +1 Action. If you didn't, +4 Actions.
Great job judging! I also thought that Dilemma was the best card this week. Congrats Fika monster!
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #112 on: January 28, 2021, 12:56:36 am »
+1

My favorites (besides mine) are 1) Goods, 2) Spiv, and 3) Sisterhood. Now that I'm looking at them again, I think Sisterhood could cost $2 (compare to Squire which always gives +$1 and has the Silver option, but Sisterhood is more flexible between actions and buys).

I think Dilemma is too strong. Eating an extra action or two is not enough of a drawback for +4 cards and +1 Action IMO, and it doesn't always eat an extra action.

fika monster

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +459
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #113 on: January 28, 2021, 01:33:11 am »
0

Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #114 on: January 28, 2021, 01:45:25 am »
+1

Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.
I sent you a message :)
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #115 on: January 28, 2021, 12:53:08 pm »
+2

My favorites (besides mine) are 1) Goods, 2) Spiv, and 3) Sisterhood. Now that I'm looking at them again, I think Sisterhood could cost $2 (compare to Squire which always gives +$1 and has the Silver option, but Sisterhood is more flexible between actions and buys).

I think Dilemma is too strong. Eating an extra action or two is not enough of a drawback for +4 cards and +1 Action IMO, and it doesn't always eat an extra action.
mandioca15's Spiv was definitely on my shortlist.

Dilemma could be too strong.  It offers a nice variation on non-terminal draw that is not as brainless as that of Den of Sin, Stables, and Laboratory without becoming difficult to resolve, which is why it has received my utmost vote.  If testing proves it to be overwhelming or monolithic, either increasing its cost to $6 (shout out to Chappy7 for the then similarity of Dilemma to Freight Ship) or dropping its draw to +3 Cards instead of +4 Cards would each be perfectly reasonable balancing attempts considering the ability to weave extra Actions into it with its own +4 Actions or to feed its draw with cheaper sources of +Actions.

Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.
All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Just give the thread a title
Code: [Select]
Weekly Design Contest #103: Xand replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.

Doing a write-up on all the cards is not technically required, but users appreciate it.  I recommend doing some write-ups throughout the week (and just keep them in a document somewhere) instead of trying to write them all at once.  It makes it easier to ensure you catch all of them and makes it easier to keep to the schedule.
It is expected to post a warning somewhere from 36 to 12 hours prior to your final judgment as well.

If it's all too much pressure, you can just let us know and Something_Smart, as runner up, will take the reigns.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #116 on: January 28, 2021, 12:57:48 pm »
+2

I also think Dilemma is too strong. (It's a good design otherwise.) But it's not the first time a card I suspect is busted has won the WDC.

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #117 on: January 28, 2021, 01:24:54 pm »
+2

Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.
All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Just give the thread a title
Code: [Select]
Weekly Design Contest #103: Xand replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.

Doing a write-up on all the cards is not technically required, but users appreciate it.  I recommend doing some write-ups throughout the week (and just keep them in a document somewhere) instead of trying to write them all at once.  It makes it easier to ensure you catch all of them and makes it easier to keep to the schedule.
It is expected to post a warning somewhere from 36 to 12 hours prior to your final judgment as well.

If it's all too much pressure, you can just let us know and Something_Smart, as runner up, will take the reigns.
can we make a locked (and possibly pinned)thread with the responsibilities of the winner, so it's more clear on what to do?
Logged

spheremonk

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #118 on: January 28, 2021, 01:49:09 pm »
+2

This has all gotten more complicated since we chopped the the thread up (noticed no one has ever asked these questions before). I'm still not sure I understand why that was the right idea.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 01:50:40 pm by spheremonk »
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #119 on: January 28, 2021, 01:54:16 pm »
+3

This has all gotten more complicated since we chopped the the thread up (noticed no one has ever asked these questions before). I'm still not sure I understand why that was the right idea.
It makes it so much easier to find old challenges. Previously, I had to look at one thread for all of the challenges, and it was impossible to find a specific challenge. Now it is much, much easier. (And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Logged

spheremonk

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #120 on: January 28, 2021, 02:02:16 pm »
+2

(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 02:03:33 pm by spheremonk »
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2021, 02:31:56 pm »
+2

Thanks a lot Fragasnap! Feels a little unreal to have won. I have a flight today that i need to take in about 2 hours, but after that i should be available. Could someone Message me with the step by steps for what your supposed to do when you win a week? In the meantime, i'll try to think of a good theme for next week.
All you need to do is post a new thread in this forum with a theme of any sort and then choose a winner and 1 or 2 runner-ups (in case the winner can't or doesn't want to run the next contest) after a week.
Just give the thread a title
Code: [Select]
Weekly Design Contest #103: Xand replace X with a snappy description of your contest theme.

Doing a write-up on all the cards is not technically required, but users appreciate it.  I recommend doing some write-ups throughout the week (and just keep them in a document somewhere) instead of trying to write them all at once.  It makes it easier to ensure you catch all of them and makes it easier to keep to the schedule.
It is expected to post a warning somewhere from 36 to 12 hours prior to your final judgment as well.

If it's all too much pressure, you can just let us know and Something_Smart, as runner up, will take the reigns.
can we make a locked (and possibly pinned)thread with the responsibilities of the winner, so it's more clear on what to do?

yep. made this. leaving it unlocked for a bit if anyone wants to comment on stuff i missed or glossed over, and i'll update it accordingly.



(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.

i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?
It's also easier for judges - they only have to check their one thread to make sure they didn't miss an entry, which was happening a lot in the 300pages of the old WDC thread.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 02:37:40 pm by spineflu »
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #122 on: January 28, 2021, 02:49:04 pm »
+6

(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
No, but I sometimes want to skip a challenge because I don't care for it much, so going to different threads would make that 100 times easier
Logged

spheremonk

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #123 on: January 28, 2021, 02:57:43 pm »
+2


(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.

Back to the general topic, my only concern is that we lose casual users, and casual users are how the thread grows. I understand that I am in the minority and will drop the subject.   
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #124 on: January 28, 2021, 03:03:10 pm »
+4


(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.

Back to the general topic, my only concern is that we lose casual users, and casual users are how the thread grows. I understand that I am in the minority and will drop the subject.

My disagreement with this is measuring "convenience" in number of clicks - it's easier to ignore threads and discussion that is non-germane when you can just close the tab/thread with that in, rather than having to search through to see where the next conversation picks up. It's also easier to follow conversations that aren't quoting each-other when the contests are divided by... well, by contest.

Personally, i think separate threads will help casual users - a three to five page thread is much less intimidating to read than a 300 page one.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #125 on: January 28, 2021, 03:05:56 pm »
+5


(And it is easier for me when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest Entries for the 4th time).
Wait. What? It's easier, when you go back and look at all the contests, to click on 102 threads separately? We've gotta get you a new computer -- yours ain't doin' it right.
i mean, how are you doing it? opening all 300 pages in one thread or something?
We can have a reasonable, fair disagreement as to which is format is more convenient overall -- there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But what you wrote above, regarding specifically "when I will inevitably go back and read all of the Weekly Design Contest" (which was the subject), makes no sense. No matter how you open them, if you want to look through all past contests, the clicks are increased, and the convenience decreased, by separate threads. If you disagree, please explain your precise math.

Back to the general topic, my only concern is that we lose casual users, and casual users are how the thread grows. I understand that I am in the minority and will drop the subject.

It's easier to find a particular contest than to search into a big thread that barely loads on mobile because of all of the pictures in it anyway. So yeah, there's a lot to gain here in term of convenience. Not only that, but all Weekly Contest threads can be regrouped in this subforum, once again, making it easier to find them.

As for losing users to this contest, I don't think there's cause for concern. Contest #101 had 19 entries and contest #102 had 22. These numbers are well within the norm of submissions when compared to the 100 other contests. And these last 2 contests have been particularly hard too. I, myself, have not participated in both and I'm normally active here. I didn't participate, not because it's less convenient with this updated format, but because I found these 2 contests difficult to create something for. Maybe other users felt like me too. Anyway, all of that to say, let's not be too hasty to jump to conclusions. :)
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 05:16:35 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #126 on: January 28, 2021, 04:20:28 pm »
+5

As someone who was a casual user not too long ago, I much prefer the current format.  I'm not a fan of bloated threads in general, and I have never gone through all of the old Weekly Design Contest thread because it's intimidatingly long.

If it were broken out into separate threads, I would have read through the ones where I found the theme interesting, but it's not practical to do that with the old one.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #127 on: January 28, 2021, 10:29:34 pm »
+4

Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #128 on: January 29, 2021, 01:12:56 am »
+2

Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.

I do prefer the single monolithic thread, however, this is an excellent argument for separating contests into their own threads.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #129 on: January 29, 2021, 02:29:24 am »
+2

Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.
Except that this discussion ruined that :P
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #130 on: January 29, 2021, 03:53:59 am »
+1

oops.

(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #131 on: January 29, 2021, 10:57:11 am »
+1

oops.

(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)

Well, that benefit is in direct opposition to the benefit of "continued discussion of cards after content ends".

So we can have one or the other, but not both. :)
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #132 on: January 29, 2021, 11:09:47 am »
+1

oops.

(It'll work for most of the threads anyway...)

Well, that benefit is in direct opposition to the benefit of "continued discussion of cards after content ends".

So we can have one or the other, but not both. :)

I think we still get both. With multiple threads, start on the last page and hit prev once or twice to get the results. With monolithic thread, even if you find a contest start, you have to hit next each time to get to final results. And there’s room to continue discussing cards.

I’ve been convinced that multi thread is the way to now actually.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #133 on: January 29, 2021, 10:34:12 pm »
+6

Another thing that makes it easier with separate threads is that you can just look at the last page of each thread to see all the cards in the judging post.
Except that this discussion ruined that :P

Both of your avatars have never been more fitting.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 [All]
 

Page created in 0.646 seconds with 20 queries.