Print

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

[naitchman]

Here's my submission:

(Sinister plot is unique in that it's the only cards where you put coin tokens on.) Takes a little time but you can get a couple free cards to hand with it. Also gives you some flexibility at the start of your turn.

[MochaMoko]

Land of the People
⑨* Victory
Worth 1 VP per 2 Coppers
you have (round down).
-
During a player's Buy
phase, this costs ① less per
differently named Action
card they have in play.

It's Fountain, but in card form. The main unique thing it does is decrease cost from Action to Buy phase, like Peddler. There also aren't a lot of things that care about how many Coppers you have specifically (what, is it like, Keep, Fountain, Palace, uhhh Coppersmith kinda?), but that's not really the direction I was going necessarily. Oh, and sure, it costs ⑨. Woo!
I've been considering whether it should be 2 VP per 3 Coppers, or 1 VP per 2 Coppers, but I think I'm going towards 2/3 for now. Even though it's ⑨, it's going to be cheaper than Province... okay actually I like it better as a more chunky Victory card. It's going to 1/2. (Talked myself out of it).

[Gubump]

Here's my submission:

(Sinister plot is unique in that it's the only cards where you put coin tokens on.) Takes a little time but you can get a couple free cards to hand with it. Also gives you some flexibility at the start of your turn.

Are you supposed to be able to remove tokens other players put on it? If not, it should say "remove any number of your tokens here..." (See Sinister Plot's wording)

[mathdude]

I'm just going to use the Pass mechanic from Masquerade, which I've always wanted to figure out how to use again.  It's not an easy one to keep balanced and fair, without doing almost the same thing as Masquerade!  So here is my attempt:

+2 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards reveals a card from their hand. For each, you choose: they pass it to you; or they gain a copy to their hand.

I think the most likely cards to reveal are Coppers, especially early in the game, because then someone (either the attacked or attacker) will get a few extra coins, at the cost of a bit of junking.  You could reveal and Estate, but you're basically sure you're going to get another one junking your deck.  Later in the game, this can be particularly harmful if you have optimized your deck though, so with this on the board, you will have to make sure to keep something around that you don't mind "Pass"ing off.

[LastFootnote]

Here's my submission:

(Sinister plot is unique in that it's the only cards where you put coin tokens on.) Takes a little time but you can get a couple free cards to hand with it. Also gives you some flexibility at the start of your turn.

This is the same piece of art I used for Sinister Plot during Renaissance testing.

This lets you gain a Copper to your hand for free. That might be fine, but just pointing it out.

[naitchman]

Here's my submission:

(Sinister plot is unique in that it's the only cards where you put coin tokens on.) Takes a little time but you can get a couple free cards to hand with it. Also gives you some flexibility at the start of your turn.

Are you supposed to be able to remove tokens other players put on it? If not, it should say "remove any number of your tokens here..." (See Sinister Plot's wording)

good point. I'll update it.

[LastFootnote]

Land of the People
Victory ⑨*
Worth 1 VP per 2 Coppers
you have (round down).
-
During a player's Buy phase,
this costs ① less per
differently named Action
they have in play.

It's Fountain, but in card form. The main unique thing it does is decrease cost from Action to Buy phase, like Peddler. There also aren't a lot of things that care about how many Coppers you have specifically (what, is it like, Keep, Fountain, Palace, uhhh Coppersmith kinda?), but that's not really the direction I was going necessarily. Oh, and sure, it costs ⑨. Woo!
I've been considering whether it should be 2 VP per 3 Coppers, or 1 VP per 2 Coppers, but I think I'm going towards 2/3 for now. Even though it's ⑨, it's going to be cheaper than Province... okay actually I like it better as a more chunky Victory card. It's going to 1/2. (Talked myself out of it).

The text on the bottom should be "During your Buy phase, this costs $1 less per differently named Action you have in play."

[MochaMoko]

The text on the bottom should be "During your Buy phase, this costs $1 less per differently named Action you have in play."

Thanks for replying! Now I have an excuse to make a post where I can put any replies to any other cards that I have something to say about.
I've been going off of DomBot's !text, which now uses "During a player's Buy phase..." -- this has been updated from the "During your Buy phase" wording that DomBot's Peddler text had ~last year. I trust you because you're, well, LastFootnote, but just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. I was under the impression that the wording had changed to be more clear or something like that.

+2 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards reveals a card from their hand. For each, you choose: they pass it to you; or they gain a copy to their hand.

This looks slightly miserable. Soiree thins one card out of your deck for you, and it junks one card to your opponent (most likely). That's a strong effect, especially when it comes with +2 Cards (see Masquerade's power level). But if 2 players are playing one Soiree a turn, their decks will get no thinner, as they are junking and thinning at the same rate. If this is the only thinning, someone who gets a deck that plays more Soirees faster (whether by luck or by more efficient building) seems like they will just slowly get thinner than their opponent and accumulate a huge snowballing advantage.

Let's say we've got clean though, maybe there was an awesome thinner elsewhere. Since the attack happens with 4 or more cards, someone who wants to be immune (I say immune, but you'd be getting free junk to feed your own Soiree, basically) to the attack later must have 2 junk cards in hand (at some point when we are cleaner, I want to take your junk from you, trash it, and attempt to steal a good card from your hand). I suggest making the attack only trigger at 5 or more cards, similar to how Masquerade usually can only pass one good card from an opponent to your hand. I probably wouldn't like playing with this card much even after that, but the card should be a bit less infuriating then. (Also 3-4 player games will be miserable, but that's how it is with most junking ain't it)

[LastFootnote]

The text on the bottom should be "During your Buy phase, this costs $1 less per differently named Action you have in play."

Thanks for replying! Now I have an excuse to make a post where I can put any replies to any other cards that I have something to say about.
I've been going off of DomBot's !text, which now uses "During a player's Buy phase..." -- this has been updated from the "During your Buy phase" wording that DomBot's Peddler text had ~last year. I trust you because you're, well, LastFootnote, but just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. I was under the impression that the wording had changed to be more clear or something like that.

Hrrrrrm, iiiiiinteresting. Either I wasn't aware of that or I don't recall it. Fisherman uses "your turn" and "your discard pile", not "a player's turn" and "their discard pile". But it's possible this Peddler wording is more recent? Regardless I personally prefer the "your Buy phase", but I guess both are in use right now. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Timinou]

Prize pile from Tournament AND auction mechanic from Mountain Pass.

FAQ: This happens after the first time each player gains a Province, whether it was bought or gained another way. The player who gained the Province names an available Prize of their choice. Then the player to the left of that player bids first, then the player to their left and so on, ending with the player who gained the Province. Each bid can be a pass or a higher bid than the previous bid. Bids are in amounts of Debt. The player who bid the highest (if any) gains the Prize onto their deck and the Debt they bid. You may wish to use Project cubes to track who has already triggered this.

Slight nitpick - I think the card text should say "...gains the Prize onto their deck..." (if that's the intent).

And this may also be a silly nitpick, but the way the card is currently worded, it's not super clear that you can't name and gain a Prize that was already previously gained through Auction.  I know it's clear from the FAQ that you can't, but you could just add "(from the Prize pile)" for clarity, similar to Tournament unless space is an issue.

[LastFootnote]

Prize pile from Tournament AND auction mechanic from Mountain Pass.

FAQ: This happens after the first time each player gains a Province, whether it was bought or gained another way. The player who gained the Province names an available Prize of their choice. Then the player to the left of that player bids first, then the player to their left and so on, ending with the player who gained the Province. Each bid can be a pass or a higher bid than the previous bid. Bids are in amounts of Debt. The player who bid the highest (if any) gains the Prize onto their deck and the Debt they bid. You may wish to use Project cubes to track who has already triggered this.

Slight nitpick - I think the card text should say "...gains the Prize onto their deck..." (if that's the intent).

And this may also be a silly nitpick, but the way the card is currently worded, it's not super clear that you can't name and gain a Prize that was already previously gained through Auction.  I know it's clear from the FAQ that you can't, but you could just add "(from the Prize pile)" for clarity, similar to Tournament unless space is an issue.

It could perhaps be "name an unclaimed Prize".

In general, errata is (or will soon be) removing things that are between turns and putting them at the end of turn.

[Holger]

Mountain Pass - only official card that involves bidding

My Submission:

VALLEY RETREAT LANDMARK Before the first turn, players bid VP, not more than 40VP, continuing until no player wants to bid lower. Lowest bidder takes 7 Debt and the VP they bid.

I'm not sure why, but this challenge was especially tough. Fortunately, I had previously created Valley Retreat, which fits the criteria, as it involves bidding. Valley Retreat was meant to be a variant (or reverse) of Mountain Pass. Instead of bidding Debt to collect a fixed number of VP tokens, players bid VP to collect a fixed amount of Debt.

I had previously created this Landmark while contemplating the question "what is your opening worth?" and thinking about how to put that question directly into the game. The answer was this Landmark. Players must decide how much VP they need to forego those two opening buys. As a point of clarification--when the bidding happens, the players not only know what is in the Kingdom and the turn order, but also what their opening hand will be. All of that information contributes to the decision of how much to bid, and may make the opening less valuable to some players than others. This (maybe) can have the effect of making the randomness of your opening position have less of an impact on the game, as the player who has it worst can trade their lousy opening away for VP.

I wanted to set the maximum bid very high so it would never be higher than a reasonable bid, but I did not want the maximum to be unlimited so that players spent an hour slowly bidding down from 1000VP. I wanted to allow players multiple bids because I did not want to advantage any players (unlike Mountain Pass, which rewards the player who buys the first Province with the final bid, no player at the start of the game has earned such a benefit). That said, I would definitely encourage house rules to streamline the bidding process.

That's an interesting concept. But
I'd suggest to reword the card to say "...players may bid VP...": It's possible in principle (though extremely rare) that the optimal bid would be above 40, e.g. in a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"... 

[Shael]

Refuge - $3
Action/Command

Play a face-up, non-Duration Action you have in Exile, leaving it there and turning it face down.
-
When you gain or trash this, exile an Action from the supply.

This utilises the Necromancer mechanic of flipping cards face down. Note that, unlike with Necromancer, they are not flipped back at the end of the turn.

Version history:

Version 0.1 did not have the on-trash ability.

Refuge really seem like superintendant from Witchcraft (especialy the v0.1):

I also think it's a good  idea a command from exile even if Refuge seem a litle bit weak.

[spheremonk]

Prize pile from Tournament AND auction mechanic from Mountain Pass.

FAQ: This happens after the first time each player gains a Province, whether it was bought or gained another way. The player who gained the Province names an available Prize of their choice. Then the player to the left of that player bids first, then the player to their left and so on, ending with the player who gained the Province. Each bid can be a pass or a higher bid than the previous bid. Bids are in amounts of Debt. The player who bid the highest (if any) gains the Prize onto their deck and the Debt they bid. You may wish to use Project cubes to track who has already triggered this.

Slight nitpick - I think the card text should say "...gains the Prize onto their deck..." (if that's the intent).

And this may also be a silly nitpick, but the way the card is currently worded, it's not super clear that you can't name and gain a Prize that was already previously gained through Auction.  I know it's clear from the FAQ that you can't, but you could just add "(from the Prize pile)" for clarity, similar to Tournament unless space is an issue.

It could perhaps be "name an unclaimed Prize".

In general, errata is (or will soon be) removing things that are between turns and putting them at the end of turn.

Thank you both for your thoughts. Almost every aspect of my wording was forced by an attempt to avoid the dreaded four-line landscape text. So I tried to cheat it and push the available/unclaimed concept to the FAQ. As I recall, at one point during my revisions, the two letter change from “onto their deck” to “to their deck” kept it on three lines. It seems I neglected to go back and test it again once I was finished – now it fits and I have changed it in the OP.  Thanks!

[emtzalex]

Mountain Pass - only official card that involves bidding

My Submission:

VALLEY RETREAT LANDMARK Before the first turn, players bid VP, not more than 40VP, continuing until no player wants to bid lower. Lowest bidder takes 7 Debt and the VP they bid.

I'm not sure why, but this challenge was especially tough. Fortunately, I had previously created Valley Retreat, which fits the criteria, as it involves bidding. Valley Retreat was meant to be a variant (or reverse) of Mountain Pass. Instead of bidding Debt to collect a fixed number of VP tokens, players bid VP to collect a fixed amount of Debt.

I had previously created this Landmark while contemplating the question "what is your opening worth?" and thinking about how to put that question directly into the game. The answer was this Landmark. Players must decide how much VP they need to forego those two opening buys. As a point of clarification--when the bidding happens, the players not only know what is in the Kingdom and the turn order, but also what their opening hand will be. All of that information contributes to the decision of how much to bid, and may make the opening less valuable to some players than others. This (maybe) can have the effect of making the randomness of your opening position have less of an impact on the game, as the player who has it worst can trade their lousy opening away for VP.

I wanted to set the maximum bid very high so it would never be higher than a reasonable bid, but I did not want the maximum to be unlimited so that players spent an hour slowly bidding down from 1000VP. I wanted to allow players multiple bids because I did not want to advantage any players (unlike Mountain Pass, which rewards the player who buys the first Province with the final bid, no player at the start of the game has earned such a benefit). That said, I would definitely encourage house rules to streamline the bidding process.

That's an interesting concept. But
I'd suggest to reword the card to say "...players may bid VP...": It's possible in principle (though extremely rare) that the optimal bid would be above 40, e.g. in a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"... 

I appreciate the feedback. I agree that it is important for a player to be able to pass (in fact, it's essential, since, unlike Mountain Pass, this contemplates players making more than one bid). When I designed the card, I borrowed the language from Mountain Pass, and it didn't even occur to me that a player couldn't pass her turn (because you can with the official card). I went back and looked at looked at the Mountain Pass card page, and in the FAQ it says "Each bid can be a pass, or a higher bid than the previous bid."

[spineflu]

Mountain Pass - only official card that involves bidding

My Submission:

VALLEY RETREAT LANDMARK Before the first turn, players bid VP, not more than 40VP, continuing until no player wants to bid lower. Lowest bidder takes 7 Debt and the VP they bid.

I'm not sure why, but this challenge was especially tough. Fortunately, I had previously created Valley Retreat, which fits the criteria, as it involves bidding. Valley Retreat was meant to be a variant (or reverse) of Mountain Pass. Instead of bidding Debt to collect a fixed number of VP tokens, players bid VP to collect a fixed amount of Debt.

I had previously created this Landmark while contemplating the question "what is your opening worth?" and thinking about how to put that question directly into the game. The answer was this Landmark. Players must decide how much VP they need to forego those two opening buys. As a point of clarification--when the bidding happens, the players not only know what is in the Kingdom and the turn order, but also what their opening hand will be. All of that information contributes to the decision of how much to bid, and may make the opening less valuable to some players than others. This (maybe) can have the effect of making the randomness of your opening position have less of an impact on the game, as the player who has it worst can trade their lousy opening away for VP.

I wanted to set the maximum bid very high so it would never be higher than a reasonable bid, but I did not want the maximum to be unlimited so that players spent an hour slowly bidding down from 1000VP. I wanted to allow players multiple bids because I did not want to advantage any players (unlike Mountain Pass, which rewards the player who buys the first Province with the final bid, no player at the start of the game has earned such a benefit). That said, I would definitely encourage house rules to streamline the bidding process.

That's an interesting concept. But
I'd suggest to reword the card to say "...players may bid VP...": It's possible in principle (though extremely rare) that the optimal bid would be above 40, e.g. in a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"... 

I appreciate the feedback. I agree that it is important for a player to be able to pass (in fact, it's essential, since, unlike Mountain Pass, this contemplates players making more than one bid). When I designed the card, I borrowed the language from Mountain Pass, and it didn't even occur to me that a player couldn't pass her turn (because you can with the official card). I went back and looked at looked at the Mountain Pass card page, and in the FAQ it says "Each bid can be a pass, or a higher bid than the previous bid."

is the winning bid on this ever not 3?

[faust]

Refuge really seem like superintendant from Witchcraft (especialy the v0.1):

I also think it's a good  idea a command from exile even if Refuge seem a litle bit weak.

Ha! I haven't seen this before. The mechanics used are pretty similar, but the two cards would play completely differently. Superintendent is a slow setup card, whereas Refuge is is more like a card that gives you what you want at a discount, but with drawbacks.

[faust]

is the winning bid on this ever not 3?

Why would the winning bid be 3? That seems like a bad consolation pirze for not being able to do anything on the first shuffle.

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all. The bigger issue with this is that it will just feel terrible to win this. Even if it's worth the VP that you get, you will play the whole game feeling like you're behind and being able to do less than the other players. I'm not convinced that it's a fun gameplay experience.

[Timinou]

is the winning bid on this ever not 3?

Why would the winning bid be 3? That seems like a bad consolation pirze for not being able to do anything on the first shuffle.

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all. The bigger issue with this is that it will just feel terrible to win this. Even if it's worth the VP that you get, you will play the whole game feeling like you're behind and being able to do less than the other players. I'm not convinced that it's a fun gameplay experience.

My concern would be that it doesn't make sense not to open the bidding at 40VP, so you could end up going through many bidding rounds and the end result could be very underwhelming.  I'm not sure it's worth making the game longer.

[scolapasta]

Hi all, I was away for the long weekend (and our university gave us an extra day), so here's the:

24 Hour Submission Deadline

I'll start working on a list of all the submissions so people can check if I missed any late changes.

[emtzalex]

is the winning bid on this ever not 3?

Why would the winning bid be 3? That seems like a bad consolation pirze for not being able to do anything on the first shuffle.

I think a bid of 3VP would always win the auction, but would not be a good value proposition.

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all.

I think that's possible, although I'm not entirely convinced. Holger suggested it might not be worth bidding in "a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"...  "

In theory, if you're going to get completely pinned, then it might not be worth 40VP, although I'm not sure how that would work.

With a strong golden deck strategy the best case scenario (as far as I can tell, absent something extremely elaborate) is that you can buy a Colony each turn after Exiling the one your previously bought (Platinum - Gold - Gold - Sanctuary - Colony), probably set up with Donate and maybe Treasure Map. In that case, the player who wins the bidding could still go after that golden deck, they would just be two turns behind. In a 2 player game that would result in a 3/5 Colony split, which would only be a 20 VP advantage. Even if you split 6/2, a 40VP bid would tie the game.

If someone is going to end the game on turn 1, then this might be the only way to for the other players to get any VP[?!?].

The bigger issue with this is that it will just feel terrible to win this. Even if it's worth the VP that you get, you will play the whole game feeling like you're behind and being able to do less than the other players. I'm not convinced that it's a fun gameplay experience.

I guess it could feel this way in a Kingdom with really a great engine, that you would miss out on, but otherwise I think it would feel like you are starting out ahead, and the other player(s) are trying to catch up. To look at it another way, you are doing less, but you have less you have to do to win.

One of the things I kind of like about this is it makes it so the players aren't playing exactly the same game. Those who don't win the auction have to figure out a way to make up for the deficit, while the player who did win needs to figure out how to keep the head start while playing with a weaker deck. There is a gameplay element that can sometimes be missing from Dominion.

My concern would be that it doesn't make sense not to open the bidding at 40VP, so you could end up going through many bidding rounds and the end result could be very underwhelming.  I'm not sure it's worth making the game longer.

I do think 40VP is usually (if not always) the opening bid, which may be quickly followed by 39, 38, etc., but at some point the players will have to decide how low they are are actually willing to go, which they would have to spend some time thinking about, which they would do at the same time (and as part of) thinking about what strategy they want to use given the Kingdom. I think that would add a little time at the beginning, but I don't think there would necessarily be long, drawn out bidding sessions (but I could be wrong).


Thinking about this, it occurred to me that you could actually test this card out on Shuffle iT, bidding in the chat box, having the winner forego buying anything to pay down the (imaginary) debt, then adding the (not game recognized) VP won to the official score at the end of the game.

[faust]

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all.

I think that's possible, although I'm not entirely convinced. Holger suggested it might not be worth bidding in "a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"...  "

I was mostly thinking of megaturn engines like KC-Bridge or Horn of plenty with support. If you're clearing out the Provinces in one turn, then it doesn't matter that the other player has a 40 VP lead. I agree that Golden Decks aren't a threat.

The bigger issue with this is that it will just feel terrible to win this. Even if it's worth the VP that you get, you will play the whole game feeling like you're behind and being able to do less than the other players. I'm not convinced that it's a fun gameplay experience.

I guess it could feel this way in a Kingdom with really a great engine, that you would miss out on, but otherwise I think it would feel like you are starting out ahead, and the other player(s) are trying to catch up. To look at it another way, you are doing less, but you have less you have to do to win.

I mean, yes, but most Kingdoms have engines, and building engines is the most fun you have in Dominion.

One of the things I kind of like about this is it makes it so the players aren't playing exactly the same game. Those who don't win the auction have to figure out a way to make up for the deficit, while the player who did win needs to figure out how to keep the head start while playing with a weaker deck. There is a gameplay element that can sometimes be missing from Dominion.

I understand the appeal in that, but still it seems that one player is playing a game that is less fun. But maybe it's not as crippling as I imagine.

[Holger]

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all.

I think that's possible, although I'm not entirely convinced. Holger suggested it might not be worth bidding in "a kingdom with a strong pin or golden deck strategy. Or in one of those puzzle solutions "win the game in 1 turn"...  "

I was mostly thinking of megaturn engines like KC-Bridge or Horn of plenty with support. If you're clearing out the Provinces in one turn, then it doesn't matter that the other player has a 40 VP lead. I agree that Golden Decks aren't a threat.

I was thinking of a Golden deck like Fortress-Bishop which gives you 12 VP per turn if you get 5 Fortresses and 4 Bishops. With 2 turns ahead, it's almost certain that you can gain e.g. a sixth Fortress, which prevents the Retreated player from building the same deck (in the absence of other villages, they only get 10 VP with 4 Fortress and 4 Bishops). So the non-Retreated player nets 2 more VP than the Retreated player every round, and can thus overcome any starting point deficit.

[Holger]

One of the things I kind of like about this is it makes it so the players aren't playing exactly the same game. Those who don't win the auction have to figure out a way to make up for the deficit, while the player who did win needs to figure out how to keep the head start while playing with a weaker deck. There is a gameplay element that can sometimes be missing from Dominion.

I understand the appeal in that, but still it seems that one player is playing a game that is less fun. But maybe it's not as crippling as I imagine.

I suppose you could "invert" the card to make it more appealing psychologically to win the bid:
 
VALLEY RETREAT
LANDMARK
Before the first turn, players bid VP, continuing until no player wants to bid higher. Unless several players bid above 40, the highest bidder gets two extra turns immediately, and at the end of game loses the VP they bid.

[spineflu]

is the winning bid on this ever not 3?

Why would the winning bid be 3? That seems like a bad consolation pirze for not being able to do anything on the first shuffle.

I think there are certainly boards on which it is optimal for no player to bid on Valley Retreat at all. The bigger issue with this is that it will just feel terrible to win this. Even if it's worth the VP that you get, you will play the whole game feeling like you're behind and being able to do less than the other players. I'm not convinced that it's a fun gameplay experience.

My concern would be that it doesn't make sense not to open the bidding at 40VP, so you could end up going through many bidding rounds and the end result could be very underwhelming.  I'm not sure it's worth making the game longer.

yeah, if you want to make this shorter, just do one round of blind bidding - everyone scribbles their bid on a piece of paper and reveals them at the same time; lowest bid(s) get the points+debt