Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?  (Read 6571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« on: October 14, 2022, 02:19:42 am »
+6

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

With recent errata, the "when you buy" trigger has been mostly removed and replaced by "when you gain" (or sometimes "when you gain a card you bought"). The buys are sad; noone pays attention to them anymore!

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them. Also note that the official Overpay mechanic is still tied to buying, so any Overpay card would be a valid entry for this contest.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Udzu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Respect: +153
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2022, 06:48:06 am »
+1

If anyone's interested, here's DXV's rationale for getting rid of the "when you buy" triggers (and the related changes to Overpay).
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1815
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2022, 09:35:08 am »
+3

Isolated Village
- Action
+1 Card and +2 Actions.
You may spend a Villager to trash a card from your hand.
_________________
Overpay: Gain a Villager per $1 overpaid.

Note: I will not have time to do the next contest, so in the event that I win please have the runner up do so.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2022, 09:26:00 am by JW »
Logged

SignError

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Shuffle iT Username: SignError
  • Respect: +231
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2022, 10:30:36 am »
+1

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them.

I agree that we shouldn’t use any “when you buy,” because those have all been eliminated or re-worded.  But how does everyone feel about “when you gain… in your buy phase” or “when you gain… if you bought it”?

Because those still exist in the game, I feel like those can be fair game, assuming there is a reason to only count buys. For example, Hoard needs the “if you bought it” wording to prevent loops, but Port is fine working with any gain.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2022, 11:23:32 am »
+1

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them.

I agree that we shouldn’t use any “when you buy,” because those have all been eliminated or re-worded.  But how does everyone feel about “when you gain… in your buy phase” or “when you gain… if you bought it”?

Because those still exist in the game, I feel like those can be fair game, assuming there is a reason to only count buys. For example, Hoard needs the “if you bought it” wording to prevent loops, but Port is fine working with any gain.
I think "in your buy phase" does not have sufficient emphasis on buys to qualify. "If you bought it" does. It is however worth noting what Donald X. had to say about those clauses in the post linked above:

Quote from: Donald X.
Let's be clear: "When you gain a card you bought" is awful. It's not "yeeha, just what I've always wanted"; it's, "this is my least bad option, oh well, I take it." Other things you can do in these cases, e.g. "once per turn," were more of a change; despite how it may look, I was trying to minimize changes.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +529
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2022, 11:26:27 am »
+1

It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Do "when you gain without buying" triggers (such as the joke Christmas Landmark Tree) qualify for this contest?
Logged
they/them

SignError

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Shuffle iT Username: SignError
  • Respect: +231
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2022, 11:47:40 am »
0

"If you bought it" does. It is however worth noting what Donald X. had to say about those clauses in the post linked above:

Quote from: Donald X.
Let's be clear: "When you gain a card you bought" is awful. It's not "yeeha, just what I've always wanted"; it's, "this is my least bad option, oh well, I take it." Other things you can do in these cases, e.g. "once per turn," were more of a change; despite how it may look, I was trying to minimize changes.

I definitely agree with Donald X.’s assessment that “gain… bought” isn’t the best wording. But I think the point of the errata is that when comparing it to “when you buy,” “gain… bought” is the lesser of the two evils.  Otherwise he would have just left cards like Hoard as “when you buy.”  It really is nice that all the old “when buy” triggers have the same timing as the rest of the “when gain” triggers.
Logged

4est

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +1473
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2022, 12:52:04 pm »
+8



Bargainer is a Woodcutter with a Haggler-like reaction that lets you discard it to gain a cheaper card than one you or someone else purchased. Unlike Haggler, this can gain other VP cards, but it usually only works once per turn since you have to discard it. On your own turns, it can sort of function like Charm where you can decide if the the +$2 and Buy is worth more vs. the Haggler reaction. On other people's turns, if it's in your hand, you can sneak in a free gain (they buy Province, you nab a Duchy on the house).
Logged

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +736
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2022, 06:01:04 pm »
+1

Handicraft City
cost $3+ - Event
Gain a card costing up to $4.
Overpay: +1 Villager per $1 you overpaid.
Logged

IlstrawberrySeed

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2022, 07:08:25 pm »
0

Quote
Bargain Market
———
+1 card
+1 action
+2 buys
+(2)
Each other player may discard a card to draw a card.
-
Once per turn (even if you discard multiple), when you discard this from play, each other player may gain a non-victory card costing up to (1) per leftover buy. If any player does, you may gain a card costing up to (3).
———
{4}
———
Action

A cheap market that gives +(2) and +2 buys, at the cost of sifting opponents and letting them gain cards based on your wasted buys. Do you flood yourself with coppers? I thought about not having the sifting, and couldn’t think of a better wording for the once per turn. Would rather have it be at the end of buy phase, but that increases the length by a long shot.
Logged

CaptainReklaw

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +33
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2022, 11:36:02 pm »
0

Painter:

+2 Cards
This turn all Victory cards are also treasures worth $1
-
Overpay: Gain an Estate per $1 overpaid.


If anyone has an idea for a good way to reword this so it makes Harem and Pasture give one more $1 without making multiple painters stack, I'd like to hear it.
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1685
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2022, 11:46:51 pm »
+2

Painter:

+2 Cards
This turn all Victory cards are also treasures worth $1
-
Overpay: Gain an Estate per $1 overpaid.


If anyone has an idea for a good way to reword this so it makes Harem and Pasture give one more $1 without making multiple painters stack, I'd like to hear it.

"If this is the first time you've played a Painter this turn, then this turn, Victory cards are also Treasures, and when you play a Victory card, you first get +."

or alternatively, you don't even need to give Victory cards the Treasure type:

"At the start of your Buy phase this turn, play any number of Victory cards from your hand, then + per Victory card played."
« Last Edit: October 14, 2022, 11:50:06 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.

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
  • Respect: +2148
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2022, 02:28:06 am »
+2

Appraiser
Action - $5
+$3
The next time you gain a card this turn, if...
...you bought it, put it onto your deck;
...it's an Action, +1 Buy;
...it costs less than this, +1 Action
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2022, 05:40:00 am »
+1

It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Do "when you gain without buying" triggers (such as the joke Christmas Landmark Tree) qualify for this contest?
I would say that this qualifies.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Udzu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Respect: +153
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2022, 09:26:07 am »
+3

Wine Merchant variant (with a hint of Galleria):

Logged

Builder_Roberts

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: +183
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2022, 02:28:40 pm »
+4

Well, for certain cards, there's no practical difference between a "when buy" trigger and a  "when gain" trigger; especially when the card cares about treasures in play.
Here's Mythryl, it's Mint but it's connected to an actually good card.

Quote
Mythryl - Treasure - $7
$4
-
When you gain this, trash any non-duration treasures you have in play.
Logged
Just living a life, you know?
All of the Best cards I've made:http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21287.0

SignError

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Shuffle iT Username: SignError
  • Respect: +231
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2022, 03:54:28 pm »
+1



Quote
Night Market - $5
Night - Duration - Attack

+1 Buy
+$1

Return to your Buy phase. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card. Until then, when any other player gains a card they bought, they skip to their Night phase.

Night Market does everything that Market does.  It can safely be drawn dead by terminal draw, and it provides its draw at the start of the turn when it is most useful. However, the fact that it is stuck in play for 2 turns makes it weaker than Market and most other sources of +Buy. So it has an Attack that partially nullifies the other sources of +Buy.

Much like Haunted Woods and Swamp Hag, it needs the "gains a card they bought," otherwise it would be too oppressive.  Even "gains a card in their Buy phase," would shut down cards like Supplies far too much.
Logged

nagdon

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2022, 05:57:43 pm »
+4

Two independent submissions:

  • Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
  • Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.
Edit: as noted below, Old Bridge is my submission for this contest, but I leave Con Artist here because why not.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2022, 11:21:49 am by nagdon »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2022, 04:23:45 am »
+1

Two independent submissions:

  • Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
  • Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.
Only one submission is allowed per participant. Please specify which of these should be judged.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

nagdon

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2022, 11:19:46 am »
0

Ok, then I choose Old Bridge (if the "cannot buy" effect fulfills the "cares about buying" goal).
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2022, 02:02:09 pm »
0

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

To clarify, you are looking for something that cares about buys rather than Buys (the resource that you start your turn with one of, can get more of through the vanilla +Buy effect, and spend during your Buy phase to buy cards)? In other words, submissions from WDC 102 that spent/cared about Buys would not qualify for the challenge.
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.

nyxfulloftricks

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2022, 02:39:00 pm »
+1



Quote
Gift Horse - $5
Action - Duration - Attack

Each other player gains a Horse and a Copper onto their deck.

Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy, +$1 and when you gain a card, if you bought it, gain a Horse onto your deck.

I was feeling like making a card dealing with horses this week, so here is Gift Horse. A "subtle" attack card that sets you up for future turns. I am unsure whether this card's power level is at more of a $4 or $5 so I'm willing to change on that. Overall I had fun with this week's submission and I hope you all enjoy it too. Just remember, don't look your gift horse in the mouth!

Logged

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2022, 06:31:22 pm »
0

Two independent submissions:
  • Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
  • Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.
Edit: as noted below, Old Bridge is my submission for this contest, but I leave Con Artist here because why not.

I feel like the "can't buy 0" rider on Old Bridge is really only there to justify the card costing $1.  It will almost never come up when trying to buy any other card, and just because you can't stack copies of a card doesn't mean it's balanced.  Candlestick Maker and Ducat are both comparable to this (being non-terminal cards that give +1 Buy), and they both cost $2.  Herbalist is also similar, and it doesn't even replace the action.  I think you're undervaluing the bridge effect.

I also don't get the flavor.  "Old Bridge" conjures to mind a rickety bridge that can't take too much weight, yet this card says that it can't take too little wight?
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +529
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2022, 08:08:37 pm »
+3



An Innovation Treasure because why not. Better than Gold if you buy a terminal Silver (or even just regular Silver) but not strictly so. Costs $6 because buying one with one in play effectively makes this cost $4. (Compare buying Spices with its own Coffers)
Logged
they/them

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2022, 12:40:47 am »
0

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

To clarify, you are looking for something that cares about buys rather than Buys (the resource that you start your turn with one of, can get more of through the vanilla +Buy effect, and spend during your Buy phase to buy cards)? In other words, submissions from WDC 102 that spent/cared about Buys would not qualify for the challenge.
Either is fine for me. Buys relate to buys after all, and it's best to be generous. However it wouldn't be enough to simply submit a card with +Buy.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

xyz123

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +511
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2022, 02:17:17 am »
+4

Lumberjack
$4
Action - Night - Duration

If it's your Action phase +2 Buys $2. Otherwise add a token here per unused buy you have. At the start of your next turn, remove them for +1 Card each.


- I decided to make a card that allows you to turn unused buys into something else. The Night option allows you to turn unused buys into draw on your next turn.
- The action option is there because the card itself has to be a source of +buys to keep the Night part relevant in a kingdom with no other sources of buys.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2022, 03:29:56 am by xyz123 »
Logged

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +529
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2022, 02:21:15 am »
+1

Otherwise at the start of your next turn +1 Card per unused Buy you have.

Needs to put Tokens on itself like Garrison. Otherwise, it'll count the +Buys you have at the start of your next turn, not when you initially play the card as intended.
Logged
they/them

xyz123

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +511
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2022, 03:30:27 am »
+1


Needs to put Tokens on itself like Garrison. Otherwise, it'll count the +Buys you have at the start of your next turn, not when you initially play the card as intended.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Logged

BryGuy

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • Respect: +203
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2022, 09:47:13 am »
+1

For context, i use Gophers for future Buys, just like Coffers and Villagers for future coins and actions.


« Last Edit: October 19, 2022, 04:46:54 pm by BryGuy »
Logged

IlstrawberrySeed

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2022, 02:22:53 pm »
+2

It should either be "take a gopher," matching the technical terms, or "+1 gopher," matching coffers/villagers/vp shorthand.
Logged

nagdon

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2022, 04:59:01 pm »
+3

I feel like the "can't buy 0" rider on Old Bridge is really only there to justify the card costing $1.  It will almost never come up when trying to buy any other card, and just because you can't stack copies of a card doesn't mean it's balanced.  Candlestick Maker and Ducat are both comparable to this (being non-terminal cards that give +1 Buy), and they both cost $2.  Herbalist is also similar, and it doesn't even replace the action.  I think you're undervaluing the bridge effect.

I also don't get the flavor.  "Old Bridge" conjures to mind a rickety bridge that can't take too much weight, yet this card says that it can't take too little wight?

I think that the simple "+1 Action +1 Buy, cards cost $1 less this turn" card would be a balanced card for $4 that is comparable to Bridge: initially the +$1 of Bridge is stronger than the +1 Action, but it is significantly easier to build a megaturn when you don't need so many villages (or you can use the villages to support e.g. smithy variants). Also note that, similarly to Bridge Troll, there would be lots of stuff bought for $0 in the last few important turns, because Coppers are usually trashed and getting a Silver / Gold is almost always weaker than yet another copy of "+1 Action +1 Buy -1 cost". Personally I would dislike this card, because it is too centralizing: the optimal strategy is to trash quickly, get as many copies of it as you can, and then empty three piles. (Other cost reducers are more complex: with Highway, you need to get Buys/gains, with Bridge, Inventor and Bridge Troll you need to get villages.)

I added the "can't buy 0" condition to rule out decks that use this card as the only payload and make pileouts a bit more interesting (taking the last Estate may be difficult...). And once this condition is present, the cost of $1 ensures that it is easy to get the first Old Bridge, but it is difficult to buy up many copies of it quickly (unless there is another strong source of +Buy) – which mirrors the fact that the first copy of this is relatively weak, but many copies are very strong together.

These mean that Old Bridge differs from the existing cost reducers in the following areas: (1) it does not help gaining more copies of itself (2) it needs more $ production than other cost reducers and (3) it is less effective for pileouts (you cannot buy up the Estates or last few copies of cheap action cards).

I completely agree that the name "Old Bridge" is unfortunate – it fits the low cost, but does not fit the "cannot gain cheap card" effect. Does anyone have a better idea?
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
  • Respect: +2148
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2022, 02:33:48 am »
+2

I completely agree that the name "Old Bridge" is unfortunate – it fits the low cost, but does not fit the "cannot gain cheap card" effect. Does anyone have a better idea?

I think it's a great name. It's a rickety old bridge so you can't extend it (buy another one) or put too much weight on it (buy a bunch of cheap cards). It's the perfect name for a cheap card.
Logged

lompeluiten

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +79
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2022, 06:32:47 am »
+1

Gold reserve $5
Action - Duration

Now and at the beginning of next turn:
+1$
+1 buy
-
While in play, whenever you buy an card costing 5$ or more, gain an gold.


So i was looking for cases where if you would just gain it instead, you would break the game. This is 1 example. If it would say "Gain" you pile down the gold pile in 1 turn.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2022, 01:51:35 pm by lompeluiten »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2022, 07:24:52 am »
+3

Gold reserve $5
Action - Duration

Now and at the beginning of next turn:
+1$
+1 buy
-
Whenever you buy an card costing 5$ or more, gain an gold.


So i was looking for cases where if you would just gain it instead, you would break the game. This is 1 example. If it would say "Gain" you pile down the gold pile in 1 turn.
Note that the way this is phrased, you would always get a Gold with a buy of $5 or more in games using this, since below-the-line effects are always active and not contingent on playing a card or it being in play. I assume that is not the intention.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2022, 12:56:52 pm »
+1



Quote
Picky Patron - $4
Action
+$3
+1 Buys
This turn, when you play a card costing $1 or more, –1 Buy. (You can't go below 0 Buys.)

A Woodcutter for $4 that gives +$3. The catch is that you will have vanishing Buys as each card you play (that costs more than $0) afterwards subtracts a buy. Combos nicely with +Buy cards as you break even after you play them. Not sure how appealing this is as a concept, but figured I'd give it a shot. Feedback appreciated.

Edit: Changed it to not subtract a Buy when you play Copper. This makes it a far more appealing early buy, but later game will require designing your deck to benefit from it or get rid of it. Thought about it having a ceiling instead of a floor, so only cards costing less than $5 subtract a Buy, but I am not sure that is as compelling a penalty. Feedback is appreciated.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2022, 06:05:11 pm by Xen3k »
Logged

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +529
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2022, 01:25:53 pm »
+3

This turn, when you play a card, –1 Buy. (You can't go below 0 Buys.)
As phrased, this counts plays of Treasures, making it a lot weaker than it probably should be.
Logged
they/them

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2022, 01:52:01 pm »
0

This turn, when you play a card, –1 Buy. (You can't go below 0 Buys.)
As phrased, this counts plays of Treasures, making it a lot weaker than it probably should be.

That is intended in the current design. Like I said, I am unsure how appealing it would be. I could limit it to playing Action cards, but I am not sure that is all that interesting a drawback to play and design a deck around.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2022, 01:56:57 pm »
+6

My Submission:



Quote
Symposium • $6 • Action
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. This turn, when you gain a copy of that card, if you bought it, +1VP.

My submission is Symposium. One of my favorite on-Buy effects (now on-gain-during-buy-phase) is Colonnade. This is a combo of that effect and a Lab. You only get the VP token for the card played by Symposium's virtual +Action, and only one. However, if you play multiple copies of Symposium (and play the same card with them) then you can get more per buy. Plus, unlike Colonnade, there's not a 6VP per player cap. There's some similarity to Collection as well, with the VP token effect being more limited, but with the card being more playable/spamable.

It also fits very nicely with the theme of Empires (which contains the Landmark that inspired it).
« Last Edit: October 19, 2022, 01:59:49 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.

nagdon

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2022, 07:40:53 pm »
0

I also like Colonnade and it is nice to see another card with that kind of effect :)

As the wording of Symposium is already similar to Imp, what would you think about giving it an Imp-like "that you don't have a copy of in play" restriction? This would allow you to e.g. decrease the cost from $6, add +1 Buy and/or increase the VP bonus back to the original +2VP / buy of Colonnade; and the fact that you cannot stack more +VP onto each buy would make this card less similar to Collection and Groundskeeper (which give 1 VP / gain, but you usually stack many copies of them).
Logged

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2022, 12:18:18 am »
+2



Quote
Tapestry - $5
Action

+1 Action
+$2
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many.
-
Once per turn: When you gain this, you may spend an unused Buy to gain another Tapestry.

Tapestry lets you spend extra buys to weave the tapestry even longer!  I initially designed the top half as just being Peddler, but I thought it would lead to the pile being emptied way too quickly.  By making it an Oasis+, I limit the potential of stuffing a deck full of them while (hopefully) still making them an okay buy even if you can't get the buy bonus.

I do wonder if it might play better if I changed it to +$1, +2 Cards, Discard 2 cards.

V0.2 EDIT: I think this plays a bit better.  Instead of an Oasis with +$1, it's now a Cellar with +$2.  I also changed the bottom effect to only trigger once per turn.  I think that's the simplest solution to prevent players with three buys from gaining three Tapestries for only $5.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2022, 01:23:11 am by Snes »
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2022, 11:05:19 am »
0

I also like Colonnade and it is nice to see another card with that kind of effect :)

As the wording of Symposium is already similar to Imp, what would you think about giving it an Imp-like "that you don't have a copy of in play" restriction? This would allow you to e.g. decrease the cost from $6, add +1 Buy and/or increase the VP bonus back to the original +2VP / buy of Colonnade; and the fact that you cannot stack more +VP onto each buy would make this card less similar to Collection and Groundskeeper (which give 1 VP / gain, but you usually stack many copies of them).

I considered this, but that would mean the card would have to be cheaper and/or give other bonuses/more VP tokens. The risk with that is that while that change will usually mean that only one copy of a card is played with Symposium each turn, that's not the case with one-shots, especially those that return themselves to the Supply. In addition to Experiment, any card played using Way of the Horse or Way of the Butterfly can have multiple Symposia play them each turn. Especially with Experiment/WotH, you could quickly run up a ton of VP tokens. Instead, I made it very expensive, and able to stack without trickery.
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.

J410

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
  • Shuffle iT Username: J410
  • Smile! =J
  • Respect: +81
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2022, 11:05:35 am »
+1

Quote
Thriving Market - $6 - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+$2

At the start of Clean-up, if you have any Buys
remaining, exchange this for Silent Market.
Quote
Silent Market - $4* - Action

+2 Coffers

At the start of Clean-up, if you have no Buys
remaining, exchange this for Thriving Market.

(This is not in the Supply)
A Grand Market variant. It gives you +Buys, but you have to use them up or it will go away for a while. Silent market does help a lot to get itself back in shape, or maybe you wanted the Coffers anyways.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2022, 02:29:37 pm by J410 »
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1815
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2022, 11:27:21 am »
+1

SNES, I suggest making Tapestry “if you bought it” rather than “if it’s your buy phase”. That way, you can’t spend multiple buys for a single purchase of the card, which should let you avoid making the base card weak to avoid peddler-like pile emptying and cascades.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2022, 12:22:41 pm »
0

Here is your 24 hour warning!
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

lompeluiten

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +79
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2022, 01:52:38 pm »
0

Gold reserve $5
Action - Duration

Now and at the beginning of next turn:
+1$
+1 buy
-
Whenever you buy an card costing 5$ or more, gain an gold.


So i was looking for cases where if you would just gain it instead, you would break the game. This is 1 example. If it would say "Gain" you pile down the gold pile in 1 turn.
Note that the way this is phrased, you would always get a Gold with a buy of $5 or more in games using this, since below-the-line effects are always active and not contingent on playing a card or it being in play. I assume that is not the intention.
I looked at goons again, and now I get why it stated: "While in play". I added that to my submission
Logged

arowdok

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Respect: +129
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2022, 03:16:53 pm »
0

Here is my entry

Quote
Tycoon
$5
Action
If this is the first time you played a Tycoon this turn, +3 Buys
At the end of your Buy phase this turn, +1 Coffers per unused Buy you have.

I intend this card to give +3 Coffers if the player does not use any of the extra +3 Buys and +4 Coffers if they don't buy anything. The bottom text should stack with future copies, so if a player used four of theses in one turn and bought only 1 Card that turn they would have +3 Buys leftover and they would gain +12 Coffers = +3buys*4copies. This card's Coffers are delayed so the card should be a bit weaker then most cards that give Coffers which can be used right away.
Logged

AJL828

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2022, 06:00:52 pm »
+4



Barter
Action ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
This turn, when you gain a card you bought, gain a card costing up to $4.

With just one buy, this is essentially a delayed version of a cantrip $4 gainer (not bad, but doesn't allow for gain and play barring Villa or Cavalry). With multiple buys though, it can get pretty nuts, but will still (usually) have the restriction of only being able to use your new cards next turn. It obviously needs the "when buy" trigger since otherwise it could auto pile anything costing $4 or less by itself.
Logged
Did you hear about the skyscraper with one really tall floor? I could tell you but it’s a long story…

SignError

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
  • Shuffle iT Username: SignError
  • Respect: +231
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2022, 12:06:29 am »
0

I looked at goons again, and now I get why it stated: "While in play". I added that to my submission

A recent errata changed all “while in play” to “this turn” (Bridge Troll’s new wording is a good example).  It also replaced all “when buy” with “when gain,” sometimes including an “if you bought it” clause (see Hoard’s new wording).  You can apply that to your new wording with something like this:

On this turn and your next turn, when you gain a card costing $5 or more, if you bought it, gain a Gold. Now and at the start of next turn: +1 Buy and +$1.
Logged

lompeluiten

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +79
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2022, 01:46:27 pm »
+1

I looked at goons again, and now I get why it stated: "While in play". I added that to my submission

A recent errata changed all “while in play” to “this turn” (Bridge Troll’s new wording is a good example).  It also replaced all “when buy” with “when gain,” sometimes including an “if you bought it” clause (see Hoard’s new wording).  You can apply that to your new wording with something like this:

On this turn and your next turn, when you gain a card costing $5 or more, if you bought it, gain a Gold. Now and at the start of next turn: +1 Buy and +$1.
Jesus, i really dislike that wording. Sooo, wordy.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1979
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2022, 02:26:53 pm »
0

Fortified Village
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-
When you gain this, if you bought it, trash it. In games using this, when you draw your hand after Clean-up, you may discard an Action or Treasure card to gain a copy of this from the Trash to your hand.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2022, 02:47:59 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2022, 02:44:07 pm »
0

Fortified City
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-
When you gain this, if you bought it, trash it. In games using this, when you draw your hand after Clean-up, you may discard an Action or Treasure card to gain a copy of this from the Trash to your hand.

What does it cost? (No one respond with the Thanos meme)
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.

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +529
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2022, 12:53:59 am »
0

What does it cost? (No one respond with the Thanos meme)
Got edited to say it costs $4.
Logged
they/them

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2022, 04:52:06 am »
0

Alright, a bit late, but now the

Contest is closed!

The judging will be later on the weekend.
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: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2022, 01:21:10 pm »
+9

Alright, sorry about the delay. The judging is now complete. Each submission gets a score from 0-10; I am stingy so getting a 7 is already a pretty good result. My comments below are in alphabetical order by card author.

4est's Bargainer
This seems decent. I see it mostly as a Woodcutter/Workshop mashup. The fact that you can use it on another player's turn makes it more exciting.
However. I don't really see that this should have the "card they bought" clause. There isn't anything really that requires this to be so restrictive. Unlike Haggler, there is not going to be an issue with this firing off of its own gains. So this could be simpler, but then of course it would no longer qualify for this contest. This unfortunately has to affect the rating.
6/10
AJL828's Barter
This looks like a lot of fun! But I feel like it's going to wind up being a bit too powerful, especially for the endgame. YOu can get so many gains off of this. just imagine Travelling Fair in the game, you can gain 20 cards (+10 Coffers) just with 2 Barters in play and $10, and already 2 piles are empty.
8/10
arowdok's Tycoon
I don't think this is quite interesting enough. It's not a difficult decision whether to spend the Buy, and then you'll keep the rest. The fact the you get the Coffers delayed makes this a bit weak.
However it enables a pretty strong stockpile strategy where you just don't buy stuff and get 4 Coffers every time. 2 time sof doing this and you basically have an exiled Province. That is why I think 4 Coffers from a single card is too much.
4/10
Augie279's Perpetual Wheel
This seems solid. I am questioning why it is restricted to gains by buying (other than the contest rules, of course). Does it break without that? I think not.
I also wonder whether the initial cost of $6 is too high for you to go for this. Innovation is at its best with gains during the Action phase, this doesn't quite work with Perpetual Wheel. But I also understand the reasoning that it would otherwise be too cheap with a Perpetual Wheel already in play.
7/10
BryGuy's Buyer's Remorse
Generally speaking I would prefer no fan mechanics.
This is a bit strange because it provides +Buys that it can't also benefit off of. If Buyer's Remorse gets you lots of Buys, then there are lots of spare Buys in the game, and then that implies that you don't need any Gophers. And if there aren't a lot of Buys, then hey will not be left unused and then Buyer's Remorse is crap.
So ultimately I don't think this card works.
3/10
Builder_Robert's Mythryl
This doesn't really qualify. In the submission, it says that there is no practical difference between "when buy" and "when gain" for this -  fair I suppose (of course there are edge cases), but that doesn't mean this card cares about buying.
But I'll still consider this. I feel like the problem here is that it's too automatic. Getting Mythryl is always going to be a straight upgrade, trashing a bunch of Coppers and maybe a Silver or two for a $4 Treasure is always good. And once it's in your deck it's not like it does anything particularly interesting. It's fine overall, I think the balance is good, but I find it a bit boring.
5/10
CaptainReklaw's Painter
This does not work on two levels. First of all, it's unclear what would happen with Victory cards that already are Treasures. The intended effect is to have them make $1 more, I suppose. That could be fine.
However the Overpay also doesn't work. You don't want Estates even if they occasionally generate $1. The overpay effect would mainly be useful in a 3-pile, and that is not a fun reason to have this effect.
4/10
Fortified Village
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-
When you gain this, if you bought it, trash it. In games using this, when you draw your hand after Clean-up, you may discard an Action or Treasure card to gain a copy of this from the Trash to your hand.
Commodore Chuckles's Fortified Village
I think it would be good if the gaining of this did not happen during Cleanup. It would be natural at the start of your next turn, but of course you wouldn't want to buy this just for your opponent ot take advantage of it. I also think that the "cares about buying" on this is a bit artificial, it could just work the same for any gain.
Overall I think it would be fun if this leaned heavier into the "on-demand village" side. Maybe it goes to the Tavern mat so only you can retrieve it? Or something like that.
5/10
emtzalex's Symposium
I think this is quite cool. You will usually want to play a cheap cantrip with this, but at some point those will run out and then you have to find other ways to get those sweet +VP.
One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
10/10
Quote
Bargain Market
———
+1 card
+1 action
+2 buys
+(2)
Each other player may discard a card to draw a card.
-
Once per turn (even if you discard multiple), when you discard this from play, each other player may gain a non-victory card costing up to (1) per leftover buy. If any player does, you may gain a card costing up to (3).
———
{4}
———
Action
IlstrawberrySeed's Bargain Market
I think I get what you mean, but please be aware that your notation for $ is not standard around here. Now onto the card. Sadly, this is just too much text to fit well onto a card. That is because this wants to do too much. I'd say you either give your opponents the filtering or the gains. I also don't like the political nature of this, where a single player gaining something makes sure you'll also get something. Preferably the clause that gives you a $3 would also be removed.
If it was just Grand Market with extra buy, it could work, though the first of these would probably still be a must-open. Maybe "+$1 per Bargain Market in play"? This makes it scale better.
5/10
J410's Thriving/Silent Market
This is actually the second Grand Market variant in here! I think this one creates an interesting tension. Converting one Thriving Market to Silent is fine but if you have lots of Thriving Market you really need to spend all your buys.
I feel like maybe the exchange condition on Silent Market could be something a bit different, so you can make a deck with some Thriving and some Silent Markets work.
9/10
Isolated Village
- Action
+1 Card and +2 Actions.
You may spend a Villager to trash a card from your hand.
_________________
Overpay: Gain a Villager per $1 overpaid.
JW's Isolated Village
It seems counterintuitive to me to stick overpay Villagers onto a card that already is a village. You can use the Villagers differently, sure, but it seems like that is the only way you're ever going to spend the Villagers with this around.
The trashing effect itself it a bit underwhelming. You first need $5 to get it started at all, and then you'll only be able to trash one card. Sure that's situationally useful, but I doubt that you'd want to get this over a $5. It's better if you can overpay more, but on the other hand if you can overpay more then it's already later in the game and trashing one card at a time is less useful.
So I guess where I arrive is that this is a bit weak and mainly useful for its village effect. Which is fine, lots of villages are like that, just not super exciting.
7/10
Gold reserve $5
Action - Duration

Now and at the beginning of next turn:
+1$
+1 buy
-
While in play, whenever you buy an card costing 5$ or more, gain an gold.
lompeluiten's Gold Reserve
"While in play" is a deprecated mechanic, so I'd rather see this with something else. But let's look at the actual effect.
It seems that this is kind of similar to Hoard, but a bit more versatile. It wants to be in an engine because +$1 +1 Buy is a terrible effect for Big Money, but the Gold flooding makes the engine difficult. So I feel like either way you'd mostly want to use this during greening, which makes it even more similar to Hoard. But it seems stronger and a bit more interesting, which is good.
7/10
Handicraft City
cost $3+ - Event
Gain a card costing up to $4.
Overpay: +1 Villager per $1 you overpaid.
majiponi's Handicraft City
First, let's discuss flavor. I don't think an Event card should be flavored as a place, that is just weird.
Okay, now onto mechanics. This Event is like Delve for all $4 costs (kind of, it doesn't give +Buy). That along is quite game-warping. Many $4 costs are costed that way so that you can't usually open with 2 of them. Of course other cards have broken this before. But then this also give Villagers, so now every time you have $4 you'll just get a free Villager. That just seems a bit too much for me, and also not particularly interesting.
4/10
nagdon's Old Bridge
I like this take on Bridge. It's more interesting if your megaturn still requires you to have some payload, and if you get lots of Old Bridges getting other engine components may suddenly prove difficult.
One things that worries me a bit is how easy it is to gain these with Remake and the like. Poor House in comparison is often something you'd rather not get from Remaking, whereas you're probably happy to a bunch of Old Bridges. I would have to play a game to see exactly how big of a problem that is. But otherwise I like the card.
8/10
Appraiser
Action - $5
+$3
The next time you gain a card this turn, if...
...you bought it, put it onto your deck;
...it's an Action, +1 Buy;
...it costs less than this, +1 Action
NoMoreFun's Appraiser
This is kind of neat, giving variable effects depending on how the card is used. I have doubts about the +1 Action bit though. In order for this to be useful, you'd need (a) an extra Action after you played Appraiser (b) something that allows for mid-term gaining in the kingdom. This seems pretty niche and a lot of setup just to get a measly +1 Action.
The other effects are reasonable and interesting, but I would suggest replacing this last one.
7/10
nyxfulloftricks's Gift Horse
There is a common wisdom that Copper junking isn't great. This one sweetens the deal with a Horse. It's also slowed down by the fact that it's a Duration, so you can only play it every other turn. That could work.
Then, however, we have the Livery-like effect. It's better than Livery, working also on cards bought costing less than $4, and the Horses are gained to the top of your deck, and it lasts for 2 turns. That just seems too much, it is pretty much better than Livery for $4.
5/10
SignError's Night Market
"You only get one Buy" is an interesting enough concept for an Attack. It can be quite punishing though, and the only way to escape it is with your own Night Markets. I don't think I'm the biggest fan of attacks that are their own counter. Night market pretty much forces everyone to get one.
You can still get Events, maybe sometimes that will be enough. I kind of want this to work but maybe it could be less punishing, like you lose some $ when you gain a card you bought? Not sure.
7/10
Snes's Tapestry
I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
6/10
Udzu's Rug Merchant
Two bought cards isn't all that much of a requirement. I suppose the first time you play Rug Merchant, you might rather go for a single $5 or $6 but afterwards I'd expect that you can discard Rug Merchant every turn. I don't think this card is very far from a blanket "+1 Buy +$3", and it is too strong.
The inverse direction might be better for this - you only get a discard if you didn't buy more than 1 card.
5/10
Xen3k's Picky Patron
I like this concept. This is clearly strong in the opening but gets more tricky to use later on. I think right now it may be a little too punishing, may it could also allow Silvers? I think "when you play a card costing as much as this or more" would be a sufficient downside.
I'm not sure how well it will play but I would be interested to find out.
9/10
Lumberjack
$4
Action - Night - Duration

If it's your Action phase +2 Buys $2. Otherwise add a token here per unused buy you have. At the start of your next turn, remove them for +1 Card each.
xyz123's Lumberjack
I think this is quite neat. Not sure how good the Night option really is without other support, but if you spend one buy each Lumberjack after the first can be a Den of Sin, that could be enough actually.
There is also a bit of a weird interaction where if you play this during your Buy phase, you will get the full benefit from all your buys. Maybe this is neat? But I feel like it's unintuitive.
9/10

And with that, we come to the conclusion:

Runners-Up: Thriving/Silent Market by J410, Picky Patron by Xen3k, Lumberjack by xyz123

Winner: Symposium by emtzalex
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2022, 02:47:01 pm »
+2

Winner: Symposium by emtzalex

Thanks to faust for the judging and the win. I'll post the next contest later today.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 11:52:51 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.

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2022, 08:01:29 pm »
0

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

AJL828

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2022, 08:55:43 pm »
+2

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.
Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.
Logged
Did you hear about the skyscraper with one really tall floor? I could tell you but it’s a long story…

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #57 on: October 25, 2022, 12:54:44 am »
+1

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.
Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #58 on: October 25, 2022, 08:47:03 am »
+1

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.
Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.
It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.
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: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #59 on: October 25, 2022, 08:53:21 am »
0

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?
Well, Peddler makes it too spammable, I think it needs to decrease handsize. Oasis might work, though it's a bit weird to have two separate discard triggers. And it's possibly too weak then. I'm not quite sure what an ideal top would look like.
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: 744
  • Respect: +469
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #60 on: October 25, 2022, 10:24:13 am »
+1

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.
That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.
I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.
Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.

If Symposium didn't have the "if you bought it" restriction, it wouldn't be "strictly more narrow" than Collection:
Collection being a Treasure means it can only give you VPs for Actions gained in your buy phase - not for Actions gained in your Action phase with Workshops, Remodels etc. (in the absence of Villa or other "return to Action phase" cards).

Symposium might still be fine without the restriction, though - I don't think it would be worse than Collection+Stampede, though that does not say much...

FWIW, "unrestricted Symposium"+Stampede would "only" give 15 VP per turn if you play 3 Symposia, a Horse and 2 Gold each turn, while Collection-Stampede gives 50 VP.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2022, 10:49:00 am by Holger »
Logged

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #61 on: October 26, 2022, 09:34:14 am »
0

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.
That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Respect: +1475
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #62 on: October 26, 2022, 11:07:59 am »
+1

If Symposium didn't have the "if you bought it" restriction, it wouldn't be "strictly more narrow" than Collection:
Collection being a Treasure means it can only give you VPs for Actions gained in your buy phase - not for Actions gained in your Action phase with Workshops, Remodels etc. (in the absence of Villa or other "return to Action phase" cards).

There are also at least 5 official cards (Storyteller, Herb Gatherer, Courier, Specialist, Black Market) that let play Treasures during your Action phase.

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.
That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?

My second reaction to Collection was that if someone had submitted it to a fan card contest I was judging, they would have almost certainly lost, and my main point of feedback would be that the card is totally busted with Stampede. I was a bit more reserved on the forum, but my sentiments are very similar to faust's regarding that card.

To Snes's point, I don't think's it's so black and white. The existence of Stampede doesn't mean that "no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions", but it does mean (imo) that every such card needs to be evaluated in the context of a potential combination with Stampede. You also have to look at the different options that might avoid super-powerful bonuses. For example, Collection could only work on Action cards you bought, or Action cards you gained from the Supply, or the first copy of each Action card you gain. These (1) add complexity, and (2) take away from Collection's power when Stampede is not on the board (which, in the vast majority of cases, it won't be). You have to weight those "downsides" (if that's what (2) is) against the downside of a super-strong combo. Imo (which is relevant to submissions in contest I will judge), the existence of a combo that is really busted almost always warrants changing the card, even if it makes it slightly worse. My metric is Lost Arts + Smithy, and if I think the combo of a submission with an existing card/landscape is stronger than that, I'd consider it to be busted.

With Symposium, I think restricting it to "if you bought it" is fine. First, I tend to think it is on the stronger side anyway. It is basically a Lab ($5), and my sense is that it's virtual +Action is a benefit in more cases (e.g. Toil, Scepter, Gamble) than it is a downside (e.g. Diadem, Cavalry). Thus, it's worth at least $5 before the VP benefit, which, on an engine component, is especially strong (since it self-synergizes in helping you to play multiple copies). It also makes playing a gainer/remodeler after it easier, another reason for the limit. Thus, I think the "if you bought it" language is the best approach for the card I wanted to make.
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.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #63 on: October 26, 2022, 12:28:06 pm »
0

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.
That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?
I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2022, 02:04:26 pm »
0

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3390
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2022, 03:43:24 am »
+1

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.
I would actually agree with you if this was just a single bad interaction with Stampede, but it's not. It interacts badly with multiple Horse gainers (at least those that gain Horses during the buy phase: Livery, Supplies in particular, Ride to a lesser extent, honorary mention for Cavalry). If there are 3 cards with bad interactions, that is sufficient grounds for me to modify a card.
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: 744
  • Respect: +469
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2022, 07:07:06 am »
0

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.
I would actually agree with you if this was just a single bad interaction with Stampede, but it's not. It interacts badly with multiple Horse gainers (at least those that gain Horses during the buy phase: Livery, Supplies in particular, Ride to a lesser extent, honorary mention for Cavalry). If there are 3 cards with bad interactions, that is sufficient grounds for me to modify a card.

Agreed. Also, while "when you gain an Action card from the supply" is technically a different ability, it doesn't make a difference in 90% of kingdoms. There are only two kingdom cards (Devil's Workshop, Exorcist), one heirloom (Magic Lamp) and no events that regularly gain a non-supply pile other than Horse in the buy phase or later (Night phase/clean-up). Combinations of Collection with both phase shenanigans like Villa and non-supply gainers are an order of magnitude rarer still in random kingdoms.

So the main effect of restricting Collection to supply cards would be to remove the risk of stalemates with Horse gainers.

I don't really understand why Collection was allowed to work with Horses, while on the other hand  Hoard has the much more restrictive (and IMO confusing) "when you gain, if you bought it", and Bonfire was significantly nerfed just to prevent a hypothetical infinite loop that practically never comes up in randomized kingdoms.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1979
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2022, 11:34:45 pm »
0

I also think that the "cares about buying" on this is a bit artificial, it could just work the same for any gain.

Not true. If it trashed itself on all gains, well, then you could never gain it from the Trash. It could get around this using Fortress's "put this in your hand" wording in the "in games using this" clause, but then it would have a bad interaction with gain-to-hand cards like Cobbler. It would force you to get it by discarding something from your hand, since any other way to gain it would put it in the Trash.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2022, 11:37:38 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2022, 12:55:42 am »
0

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?
Well, Peddler makes it too spammable, I think it needs to decrease handsize. Oasis might work, though it's a bit weird to have two separate discard triggers. And it's possibly too weak then. I'm not quite sure what an ideal top would look like.

Okay, how about this:

Quote
Tapestry - $5
Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +$1 and +1VP.
-
Once per turn: When you gain this, you may spend an unused Buy to gain another Tapestry.

It ranges from a vanilla cantrip to a Peddler + 1VP, but it's limited by how many victory cards you have in your deck.  Do you think the +VP might be too much?
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

IlstrawberrySeed

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2022, 07:29:10 pm »
0

It is a spamable +vp. Unlike monument, you don’t need villages, but rather draw.

I personally think that +1 card, +1 action, you may reveal a non-revealed victory card from you hand (until end of turn) for +(1) is fine. Suedo discard, without providing the fodder to spam play these as the last cards as with oasis.
Logged

Snes

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2022, 01:15:04 am »
+1

It is a spamable +vp. Unlike monument, you don’t need villages, but rather draw.

I personally think that +1 card, +1 action, you may reveal a non-revealed victory card from you hand (until end of turn) for +(1) is fine. Suedo discard, without providing the fodder to spam play these as the last cards as with oasis.
Is it more spamable than Chariot Race?  I could make it more like Chariot Race and have you reveal the card you draw and only get the benefit if you draw a victory card.
Logged
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 1.133 seconds with 21 queries.