Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three  (Read 9985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lackar

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2022, 02:02:54 pm »
0

Does this seem not as aggressive and priced right?


Tbh I think it's kinda weak now. E.g, why would you want to use an action to trash a single copper, if every other player also gets to trash a card, and I also don't see how the +1 Card option is ever going to get chosen, unless you don't have a copper you want to trash.
Imo replacing +1Card with +1 buy or +2 crads might be better, alltgough +2 cards could be a little bit strong.
I like the extend use of Victory tokens in this newer Version, but other than that I don't really see a use for this card, because it can't thin your deck (and even helps your opponents), nor does it actually harm your opponents.
As it stands right now the play is probably to hope someone else buys it, that way you get to thin your deck a little, and spend your 5$ on more worthwile cards.

And btw I would put a "+" infront of the coin and victory token, and add the Doom typing to the card.


Something still feels off about this and to me is too much like the original bishop?
Logged

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2022, 02:33:08 pm »
0

Does something like this count? The only mechanical difference is that you evaluate your first choice completely before figuring out what your next choice will be (the turning face down makes it so that you still can't choose something multiple times). I thought this would be better in this situation than having to choose all the choices at the same time.













I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).

Logged

mathdude

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +230
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2022, 02:38:15 pm »
0

I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



If you do end up using this version of the card, I would recommend reordering the list, so it is more synergistic.  To my understanding, "choose cards" work by first choosing all the options, then by resolving them in the order they are listed on the card.

The final 3 options would likely prefer to be "look at top 5 cards", then "discard the top 3", then "look through discard and trash.  It's also possible you might want at least the first two of these to happen before the option to "+1 Card".
Logged
he/him

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2022, 02:47:15 pm »
0

I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



If you do end up using this version of the card, I would recommend reordering the list, so it is more synergistic.  To my understanding, "choose cards" work by first choosing all the options, then by resolving them in the order they are listed on the card.

The final 3 options would likely prefer to be "look at top 5 cards", then "discard the top 3", then "look through discard and trash.  It's also possible you might want at least the first two of these to happen before the option to "+1 Card".

Huh, I thought you got to choose the order. Seems like that isn't the case though from the rules clarification for scrap. Yet another reason the first version is better (even if it is a little looser on fitting the contest requirements).
Logged

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2022, 06:02:32 pm »
+1


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


The most accurate translation of the cards name would probably be "Haunted Castle", but that name is already taken by an offical card.

The choices may seem confusing at first, but there is a lot of flexibility. E.g the card can be equivalent to Hunting Grounds (+4 Cards) or Tragic Hero (+3 Cards and +1 Buy), which is also the reason why the card costs 6.
Furthermore the trashing and coffers allow for situational plays.

The chosen actions must be followed in the order in which they are listed (similar to Scrap).
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2013
  • Respect: +2129
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2022, 09:09:47 pm »
+5

Swiss Village
Action - $4
Choose three (the choices must be different):
+1 Card; +1 Action; another +1 Action; +1 Buy; trash a Copper from your hand.

Rules clarification: After you choose, the options are performed in the order that they're written (so you can trash a Copper from your hand after drawing)

« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 03:09:40 am by NoMoreFun »
Logged

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2022, 10:01:26 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


The most accurate translation of the cards name would probably be "Haunted Castle", but that name is already taken by an offical card.

The choices may seem confusing at first, but there is a lot of flexibility. E.g the card can be equivalent to Hunting Grounds (+4 Cards) or Tragic Hero (+3 Cards and +1 Buy), which is also the reason why the card costs 6.
Furthermore the trashing and coffers allow for situational plays.

The chosen actions must be followed in the order in which they are listed (similar to Scrap).

Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.
Logged

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2022, 10:08:06 pm »
0

Swiss Village
Action - $4
Choose three (the choices must be different):
+1 Card; +1 Action; another +1 Action; +1 Buy; trash a Copper from your hand.

Rules clarification: After you choose, the options are performed in the order that they're written (so you can trash a Copper from your hand after drawing)

At first I thought this was strictly better than workers village without realizing you'd have to give up the +card. This seems pretty balanced and I like the flexibility. Have you tested how it plays at all? If not I'd be willing to test it out in tabletop simulator if you have that.
Logged

arowdok

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +129
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2022, 12:44:42 am »
0

So I hear you want 3s, so I made a 3 and added a side of 3 and topped it with a 3. I was not satisfied so put more 3s on your 3s then added a few more 3s and just for good measure shoved in some extra 3s for you.


Quote
Tres Leches
$3@3
Victory
Worth 3% if you have exactly three of this (otherwise worth 0%).
-
When you gain this, choose three: +3 Coffers; or +3 Villagers; or Exile three Golds from the Supply; or Queue three Slivers from the Supply; or gain three Horses; or gain three Spoils. The choices must be different.

I really like your submission, but I feel it's kind of too good. Especially if you buy this turn 1, there is a high likelyhood of you ending up with 4 golds in your deck by turn 3/4 (by queuing silver, gaining spoils, exiling gold, then buying gold). Which forces everyone to pursue the same strategy, as having that much buying power this early on is just too much of an advantage
Imo you should lower the T1 buying incentive by either only being able to exile a dingle Gold, or just removing that option outright to stick with the "3" Theme.

If you buy this on turn 1 choosing Coffers and Gold (and any 3rd choice), you're actually guaranteed to have 4 Gold in your deck by the end of turn 4 by spending the Coffers with your first  $3+ hand in the second shuffle. (You'll usually already have them after T3, unless you've drawn all 3 Estates and 2 Coppers for T3.)

Even without the Gold option, the on-gain bonus seems very strong - e.g. choosing Coffers, Horses and Villagers means you effectively get an Experiment, a Ride and an instant-Acting Troupe put together (plus a green card) for just one buy and at most $3.

So here is my updated version, that removes the Exiling of Golds and Queueing of Sliver from the Supply as they seemed too pushed.

**Updated Version**v1.3

Quote
Tres Leches
$3@3
Victory
Worth 3% if you have exactly three of this (otherwise worth 0%).
-
When you gain this, choose three: +3 Coffers; or +3 Villagers; or Queue the top three cards of your deck; or gain three Horses; or gain three Spoils; or trash up to three cards from your hand. The choices must be different.

As far as being a mega version of an Experiment, a Ride and an instant-Acting Troupe put together. I think having a dead card (Green worth 0VP unless you commit more effort) in your deck is quite the downside so the on gain effect needs to be strong enough to make the card worth it.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1453
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2022, 01:35:32 am »
+1

Does something like this count? The only mechanical difference is that you evaluate your first choice completely before figuring out what your next choice will be (the turning face down makes it so that you still can't choose something multiple times). I thought this would be better in this situation than having to choose all the choices at the same time.




I can also create a version that follows the rules of this contest more strictly, although the card image generator isn't working for me right now so it'll have to be later. In case I don't get to it before the contest deadline, here is what it would look like (it is still an Action costing $5).



Yes, the first version would count, since the player is choosing 3 things from what is effectively a list potential effects. The fact that you put each list item on a different card doesn't change what is happening.

It would also be acceptable to say something like "Choose 3, in any order: ..." (if you wanted to go with the second version).

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.

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2022, 12:24:11 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.

Yes it's better than Hunting Grounds, but not strictly. Being able to trash it to gain a Province and a duchy with remodel is something you can't do with my card, so I have to disagree with you.
I would never increase the cost to $7 as that wouldn't be much fun with the current concept.
I also don't think the card is too good, as hunting grounds is in my opinion not worth the 6$, especially as it's not better than Wharf, which only costs 5$.
The only thing I would consider changing is making it so that if you "choose" +4 Cards, that you have to discard one afterwards.

But to be honest, I don't really like this card either.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 12:26:07 pm by Meta »
Logged

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2022, 01:32:08 pm »
0


Quote from: Translation
Ghost Castle

Choose three:
Trash 2 Cards from your hand; +3 Cards, put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck;
+2 Cards; +1 Card; +1 Buy; +1 Coffers.
The choices must be different.

6$  Action


Note that this is strictly more powerful than a Hunting Grounds without the Duchy gain ability on trashing, because the +4 Cards is an option *in addition* to other choices you have. The other combinations of choices don't seem like much to write home about, but the flexibility plus the fact that this is Hunting Grounds at a minimum makes this too strong IMO. You could increase cost to $7 but I think generally it's better to decrease the power level than have a card with a really high cost. That being said, I can't see it being too broken, just seems like it would play like Wharf where you get it almost every game since it was balanced on the (much) stronger side.

Yes it's better than Hunting Grounds, but not strictly. Being able to trash it to gain a Province and a duchy with remodel is something you can't do with my card, so I have to disagree with you.
I would never increase the cost to $7 as that wouldn't be much fun with the current concept.
I also don't think the card is too good, as hunting grounds is in my opinion not worth the 6$, especially as it's not better than Wharf, which only costs 5$.
The only thing I would consider changing is making it so that if you "choose" +4 Cards, that you have to discard one afterwards.

But to be honest, I don't really like this card either.

Hunting grounds is definitely a solid $6. You shouldn’t compare to wharf, since wharf is just a $6 card that Donald decided to make cost $5 for some reason. I also don’t think getting rid of a strong engine component in rare cases to snag a duchy at the end of the game is super strong. But, like I said, it’s still a six cost. Just would be sad next to hunting grounds.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1453
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2022, 07:00:23 pm »
+3

24 Hour Warning!!!

Here are the submissions I have so far (please tell me if I got the wrong one, or if yours is missing):
Lackar, please confirm which version of Cursed Bishop you want to be your submission. And nyxfulloftricks, your Architect didn't qualify, so it isn't included. If you want to submit something, please do so in the next 24 hours. And everyone else, please get any submissions or changes you have in by then.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 01:01:14 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.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1679
    • View Profile

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1453
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2022, 01:01:28 pm »
+1

You missed mine:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21027.msg883834#msg883834

Corrected. Thanks.

EDIT: FAQ: Choices must be different. Do I need to add "Choices must be different" on the card? or is that the default rule?

I just saw this. Since that is how the official cards do it, I would prefer it to say "The choices must be different" (or "Choose 3 different things" like Scrap). However, the FAQ is fine and I won't count it against you.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 01:28:04 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.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +738
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2022, 06:31:00 pm »
+1

OK, here's my entry - definitely feels like a v0.1 as there are several things I'm unsure of. But I want to get it posted asap, in order to get some feedback, as I like the general idea.



Quote
Informant - Action - Reserve - $4

The player to your left chooses three (for you): +1 Villager; +1 Coffers; gain a Horse; put this on your Tavern mat. The choices must be different.
-
At the start of your buy phase, you may call this for +1 Buy.

OK, so the general idea is to let your opponent choose 3 options for you. I'm willing to consider changing the ones there, but I did
like the idea of making them Market-like; though I switched from Action, Card, $1, etc to Villager, Coffers, Horse, etc. so that if those options were chosen they could still help you. And since there's currently no "buy tokens" I used the reserve aspect to simulate that (I've had at least one other card like that, Gondolier).

Of course doing that (the reserve part) makes it necessary to make all choices different. I would've preferred to allow for the same. If I wanted to introduce Buy tokens (+1 Buyer?) then I could change that up. That also could resolve the fact that this card might sit in reserve for a while (i.e. this choice is one the player to your left while likely often choose) - I could make it +2 Buys or +1 Buy, +$1 to make that one stronger?

Otherwise what do you all think?

(The other thing I'm unsure of is the name / theme - not 100% sure Informant fits for this, but it needed some kind of name that involved interacting with others)

Maybe do +1 Buy and cost reduction? Or have it give you a choice - call it at the start of turn for cost reduction, at buy phase for +1 Buy?

Also themewise, maybe "Stores"/"larder"/"pantry", as in where one stockpiles excess?

Sorry I never responded to these suggestions earlier. I think the're decent and if after play testing some it needs a tweak these are definitely possible directions. (I did realize that switching to a +Buy token that and then allow repeated choices would be bad, as I think you'd likely just to +3 buys many times (though I could also see some 3 pile situation where someone collects all these buy tokens then buys the last X curses, with a big enough lead of course). Anyway, the conclusion is that "the choices must be different" is pretty important to make this card interesting.

And the name ideas are good for the Buy reserve / tokens part, but lack on the interaction part. So, at least for this contest, I'm leaving it all as is. But I appreciate the feedback!
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1453
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2022, 08:38:36 pm »
+5

CONTEST CLOSED!!!

Sorry for the delay in posting this. I got stuck in a meeting. Once again, I am posting what I think is the complete list of all of the submissions. If I am missing any, or if the link is to the the wrong one, please let me know ASAP. I will try to have the judging completed in a day or two.

Lackar, I am planning to judge the last version of Cursed Bishop you posted (on Thursday at around 2:00 p.m. contest time) unless I hear otherwise.





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.

Lackar

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #67 on: January 18, 2022, 09:36:41 am »
0

CONTEST CLOSED!!!

Sorry for the delay in posting this. I got stuck in a meeting. Once again, I am posting what I think is the complete list of all of the submissions. If I am missing any, or if the link is to the the wrong one, please let me know ASAP. I will try to have the judging completed in a day or two.

Lackar, I am planning to judge the last version of Cursed Bishop you posted (on Thursday at around 2:00 p.m. contest time) unless I hear otherwise.


Yes that will be the one I will enter. Thanks
Logged

exfret

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2022, 04:46:18 pm »
+4

CONTEST CLOSED!!!

Sorry for the delay in posting this. I got stuck in a meeting. Once again, I am posting what I think is the complete list of all of the submissions. If I am missing any, or if the link is to the the wrong one, please let me know ASAP. I will try to have the judging completed in a day or two.

Lackar, I am planning to judge the last version of Cursed Bishop you posted (on Thursday at around 2:00 p.m. contest time) unless I hear otherwise.



You there? Would love to see your comments!
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1792
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2022, 12:41:58 am »
+8

You there? Would love to see your comments!

I'd like to see emtzalex's comments as well. But it's been a week since the contest closed and there's no sign of them. I don't know what the protocol is in these instances, but it seems like a forum moderator should step in soon to keep things moving (declare a winner for this contest, post a new contest, assign the opportunity to post the next contest to the previous contest's first runner up, etc.).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2022, 09:58:32 am »
+12

If the cards haven't been judged in about 3 hours from now, I will judge them and post the results sometime in the next 24 hours.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1353
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2022, 10:08:54 am »
+1

If the cards haven't been judged in about 3 hours from now, I will judge them and post the results sometime in the next 24 hours.

Thank you LF
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #72 on: January 28, 2022, 11:30:04 am »
+3

Ha ha! And I forgot. I'll judge them right now.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #73 on: January 28, 2022, 12:26:36 pm »
+10

Master Laborers by CaptainReklaw

This one really suffers from too much text, which admittedly is going to be a natural problem to run up against with this contest. I guess the idea here is to choose a card that's not otherwise playable? And the Curse-gaining option is there in case you've chosen Curse for this and want to gain more of them? But even then, a non-terminal +1 Buy and +$1 with -1 VP attached to it doesn't sound great. Maybe there's something I'm missing here.

Hack of all Smithies by LibraryAdventurer

Well the options are pretty bland, but I like that it only happens every other time due to the Journey token. That makes the card more interesting. In a game with more players, I'm guessing the Copper-junking will get really oppressive though. Yeah it's only every other play, but if this is your smithy you're often going to be playing several each turn.

Foreman  by Xen3k

Six options is a lot! It's a tough line to walk between having terse options and having interesting ones. I do appreciate that the text isn't tiny. Gaining a card to your hand is pretty unique. I don't know, I'd probably cut at least one of these options for simplicity and with the hope that players will resolve it faster.

Weaver by AJL828

It reminds me a lot of Scrap! Still, it seems like a perfectly reasonable card. Simple too.

Worm Hole by mathdude

Tiny text! Choosing effects for yourself and an attack for others is clever, but it's political in a very un-Dominion way. Specifically the ability to choose the topdecking attack which may only hit the player to your right. Are they winning? Hmmm.

Black Spot by spineflu (with Marked)

OK. I feel like a lot of work went into this one to plug all the holes, but the whole thing still feels kludgy in a Fool kind of way. And I fought to keep Fool in Nocturne! Am I a hypocrite? Sort of. I think having "the first time you play this" on Fool would have been better than Lost in the Woods. Aaaaanyway I like the core premise of choosing Hexes, but I think that premise could be done more simply. Though maybe not with "Choose 3"! Man this is a hard contest.

Railway by Augie279

Buh. That's a lot of text and options. Um, hmmm. So it's a strong card that makes it easier to gain more of itself. I'm glad none of the options is +Actions. I think overall there must be some version of this that doesn't have the +1 Buy and "Discard a card" up top. As it is the card is so busy.

Monastic Village by JW

Well outside this contest, this could be worded a lot better. I'm not going to hold that against it though. Yeah, this is pretty cool. The only thing I don't like about it is that it's so similar to Chapel in how quickly it can trash early on. It's OK if some cards are similar to others, but that's an effect that I don't think there should be much of in the game. Still, cool card.

Will by 4est

OK, this one I'm all about. My instinct says it's weak early on. It might need some tweaking. But as a premise it's solid and I think it's probably close to being a great card. The thing I worry about it it running piles pretty fast. And in games with a cheap alt-VP it can gain a ridiculous amount of VP in the end-game. Maybe you can even just rush it. Hmmmm. In any case I feel like the concept has a lot of potential.

Informant by scolapasta

Bile rises in my throat when I see so many different expansion mechanics in a single card. Other than that I like it. A unique mechanic, not too wordy. I think requiring the choices to be different is the way to go regardless of the Tavern mat. Otherwise you just give them Villagers forever. Eventually you have enough Villagers, you know? But honestly the card would be better if the options weren't all things you could save. As it is the context of what you give them matters less, and therefore the decision is slower.

Cleanse by xyz123

I wonder if this fits on an Event with the large font.  Um, this is maybe balanced. It doesn't really grab me. It gives you so much of exactly what you want. I don't know.

Town Hall by The Alchemist

Well that's sure a powerful effect. A super-Count. I have no idea if it's balanced. Probably not though, right? I mean you can just choose to topdeck two cards and discard 3, and often that's better than discarding your hand to Tactician. And the payoff is arguably way better. But of course it costs $8. Maybe it's weak at that cost! Either way it's complex.

Cursed Bishop by Lackar

Yeah I think it's too much like Bishop. Also trashing a Silver from hand is a very steep price to pay in order to Hex other players. I guess technically you could choose that option without a Silver in hand, but I doubt that's the intent.

Tres Leches by arowdok

Too much text! The 3 thing is cute, but I think you went overboard with it.

Yacht by jakav

Huh. This is an interesting one. I think I'd put the gaining option last. I was thinking it should be first so you can gain Copper and then draw it, but there's already +$1 as an option. Anyway I like the premise. The execution is a little too much of "everything you want in a Smithy", which is a neat trick with so few words.

Scrier by exfret (with Spells)

Whoa that feels like a lot of options, mostly because the ordering matters so much. It's an interesting way to do it, though.

Geisterschloss by Meta

Uh well, this doesn't really grab me either. Well I think I maybe like that +2 Cards and +1 Card are both options. That's cute in a way. But drawing 3 and then putting two back, and then drawing 2 or 3? Seems real fiddly.

Swiss Village by NoMoreFun

Perfectly reasonable, but not interesting.



I feel pretty bad. I think you all did well considering what an absolute beast this prompt was. Sorry for being harsh.

Honorable Mentions:
Weaver by AJL828
Monastic Village by JW
Foreman by Xen3k

Runner-up:
Informant by scolapasta

Winner:
Will by 4est
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 12:28:54 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #140: Choose Three
« Reply #74 on: January 28, 2022, 12:29:15 pm »
+2

Sorry, meant to add Foreman to the Honorable mentions. That's been fixed now.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 21 queries.