Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent  (Read 3983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« on: May 13, 2023, 10:57:21 pm »
+5

The challenge is:
Design an Attack card that is neither a handsize attack, junker, trasher, deck-order attack nor Doom.
In short, design a new attack method. Official cards that would qualify include Enchantress, Bridge Troll, Gatekeeper, Warlord, and Frigate. I count -1 Card token as handsize attack. As for Frigate, it's an edge example. I count it as something like Action-worsening attack, so OK.
I am a newbie judge. I will use the usual criteria like balance, fun, et al. And I appreciate it if the attack method is novel and eye-catching.
Feel free to ask question about qualification of design and anything. This idea gains help from Timinou.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2023, 01:42:32 am by Ethan »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2015
  • Respect: +2142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2023, 11:16:59 pm »
0

Did you intend to allow for trashers (e.g. Knights) the other kind of basic attack?
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2015
  • Respect: +2142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2023, 11:35:26 pm »
+6

Quiet Village
Action/Duration/Attack - $5
+1 Card, +2 Actions
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action. Until then, other players are capped at 2 Actions (Actions, not Action Cards)

Rules clarification: So for example, if you got hit with a Quiet Village, and play a Bustling Village, you have 2 Actions left afterwards (instead of 3). You spend an Action before playing an Action card so playing a single standard village still works normally, but your 2nd one will just be a cantrip (you have to alternate it with terminals).
Logged

czzzz

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2023, 11:49:01 pm »
+3

Logged

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2023, 01:39:24 am »
0

Did you intend to allow for trashers (e.g. Knights) the other kind of basic attack?
I would like to ban it. I will edit the thread.
Logged

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +582
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2023, 11:14:45 am »
+3



Quote
Port Embezzler - $5
Action - Duration
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +2 cards and +1 Buy.

Until your next turn, each other player must exchange the first card they gain on their turn for a cheaper card. If they can't, exchange it for a Curse.

Half a Wharf that messes with the cards other people gain. I limited it to effecting non-Victory cards to prevent it from blocking Provinces, but I may have nerfed it too much with that. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Changed it to effect the first card gained regardless of type. The exchange for Curse caveat is for when there is no cheaper card to exchange for. At that point, if the Curse pile is empty, the originally gained card is kept. This means just buying a Province won't work, but as long as you have an extra buy you can grab a Copper (which is exchanged for a Curse) and still get that Province. This allows it to still have an impact late game. Provides +Buys on itself, so they will always be in the game. It may become a tad centralizing if it is the only source of Buys, but that can't be helped.

Old Version
Quote
Port Embezzler - $5
Action - Duration
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +2 cards and +1 Buy.

Until your next turn, the first time each other player gains a non-Victory card costing $1 or more on their turn, they must exchange it for a cheaper card.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2023, 06:46:51 pm by Xen3k »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2023, 02:48:19 pm »
+1

Quiet Village
Action/Duration/Attack - $5
+1 Card, +2 Actions
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action. Until then, other players are capped at 2 Actions (Actions, not Action Cards)

Rules clarification: So for example, if you got hit with a Quiet Village, and play a Bustling Village, you have 2 Actions left afterwards (instead of 3). You spend an Action before playing an Action card so playing a single standard village still works normally, but your 2nd one will just be a cantrip (you have to alternate it with terminals).
Looks a bit too strong compared to other cards in the Lost City family like Longship.
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1684
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2023, 10:52:55 pm »
+2

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.

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +736
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2023, 05:34:45 am »
+1

Loan Shark
cost $5 - Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +3 Actions; +3 Cards; +$3; or +3 Buys.
Until then, when your opponent gets +2 or more Actions, they take <1>; this effect is not cumulative.
Logged

fika monster

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 501
  • 27 year old swedish guy. PFP by haps
  • Respect: +507
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2023, 07:19:19 am »
0



Nice card but feels a bit too close to highway man in effect, with the +2 cards

Try changed the +2 cards to something else? Maybe +2 actions, or +1 card +1 action.
Logged
Swedish guy, Furry hipster otter

xyz123

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +511
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2023, 12:39:00 pm »
+3

Gossip
Action - Attack - Liaison
$5

+1Buy
$2

Discard up to 2 cards for +1 Favor each

Each other player spends a Favor


*A nice topic. It does get you thinking about new aspects of Dominion to explore.


- Following feedback I have changed it from discarding any number of cards for 1 favor each to discarding up to 2 cards for 1 favor each.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2023, 02:11:25 pm by xyz123 »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2023, 01:50:11 pm »
+1

Seems pretty crazy with Island Folk and League of Bankers.
Logged

xyz123

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • Respect: +511
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2023, 02:11:58 pm »
+1

Seems pretty crazy with Island Folk and League of Bankers.

Thanks. I have put a limit that up to 2 cards can be discarded for 1 favor each.
Logged

4est

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +1464
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2023, 06:02:11 pm »
+3



Ransom is a Gold gainer that digs for an opponent's Action card and holds it hostage outside their deck until they gain a VP card. Sort of like a trashing Attack, except players can rescue their cards if they want by greening. Multiple Ransomed cards can all be rescued with the same VP card gain.

This should be a bit more painful than my previous one-turn any card version (and making it gain Golds makes players less likely to want a bunch of them). Once the ransom is paid, the kidnapped cards go back to the top of the victim's deck where they usually will immediately draw them for next turn. It's not a Duration anymore, since the set-aside cards should provide enough tracking. Players just keep them there until they get a VP card (which they'll likely be keen to pay attention to).

Previous version:
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 02:34:44 pm by 4est »
Logged

Augie279

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
  • Shuffle iT Username: Augie279
  • f.ds's Resident Furry Trash™️
  • Respect: +508
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2023, 06:20:23 pm »
+4



An inverse Mine attack. One of the rare few cases where "Gain a Gold to your hand" might be worse than just +$3, since other players will probably downgrade it to Silver.
Potion cost to avoid steamrolls if someone manages to draw it turn 3.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2023, 06:23:22 pm by Augie279 »
Logged
they/them

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1684
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2023, 07:29:07 pm »
+2



Ransom takes one of your opponent's cards hostage for a turn and you get paid if they try to use or gain copies of it. To clarify: the +2 Coffers is supposed to be either/or per player, not cumulative. If you Ransom Copper, and they play 4 Coppers, you get +2 Coffers not +8. Feedback appreciated, I know this likely needs tweaking. This was a tough one to come up with something! Cool prompt idea though.

I'm not sure I'd really call this an Attack? It doesn't really hurt your opponents that much more than Monkey does (although I suppose it can prevent you from being able to draw and subsequently use one specific card in their deck, but that can be a good thing if it hits a Copper or Victory card).

That aside, you have a typo: Its types list "Action" a 2nd time instead of "Attack."
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1684
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2023, 07:59:13 pm »
+1

Clarification question about how Ransom works with 3+ players: If Bob has a Copper set aside and Alice has a Silver set aside, and they each play a copy of their respective set aside cards, do you get +4 Coffers? Or do you just get +2 Coffers if any player plays a copy of their set aside card, no matter how many players do so? I have a wording suggestion for if it's the latter case (and I may be able to come up with one for the stacking case, too). I get from your comment with the card that if Alice plays two Silvers, you only get +2 Coffers, but the "per player" part of your comment makes it sound like you can get more Coffers if more players play their respective cards.

(And ftr, if it does stack with player count, I don't think cards should scale this severely with player count.)
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.

4est

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +1464
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2023, 09:02:12 pm »
+2

All good feedback here, thanks Gubump, yeah there's definitely some inspiration here from Jester, and I felt letting it scale by player would be okay, but agreed that for Coffers it's likely a bit too strong. Definitely want to rethink how to make this feel more like an Attack--I see the comparison to Monkey. Okay, revisions coming soon, stay tuned.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2023, 08:26:50 am »
+8


Quote
Tollgate - $3
Treasure/Duration/Attack

Now and at the start of your next turn, gain a Horse.
Until then, during each other player's cleanup phase, they choose two cards they would discard from play that turn to remain in play.

This is inspired by Journey; the cards chosen stay in play for another turn. This can be good for your opponents (if it causes Coppers to miss the shuffle), but the better their deck gets, the more it will hurt.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2023, 01:36:53 pm »
+3

While this is similar to Exiling Attacks, it is different enough to be novel and interesting. But it is also pretty centralizing (if you don’t contest the pile and the opponent play it consistently, 10 cards stay in nirvana) and as the vanilla net effects are those of Caravan, just more delayed, this has to be nerfed somehow.
I would make I terminal. As non-terminal, easy-gainable $3, you want the entire pile even if the attack did not exist.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2023, 01:37:54 pm by segura »
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 982
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1799
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2023, 02:03:09 pm »
+2

Crooked Jeweler
- Action Duration Attack
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a Silver or Gold, they set it aside and, at the start of Clean-up, exchange it for Copper or Silver, respectively.
At start of your next turn, +3 Cards and you may exchange a Treasure from your hand for a Treasure costing up to more than it.

Notes: Inspired by Corsair. The attack might be oppressive as an opener (as turning a Silver into a Copper hurts more than trashing it per Corsair), which is why it is designed such that it costs $6. The theme is that the Jeweler steals the fancy jewels for their own benefit.

FAQ: For the attack part, they still get the benefit of the played Treasure. If they play a Silver and then a Gold, the attack only applies to the Silver. For the duration effect, note that the exchanged-for Treasure is put into your discard pile.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1802
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1690
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2023, 08:49:57 pm »
+2

This is an improved version of a card I submitted to a weekly design contest a few months (?) ago.
(Does this count as a junking attack?)

Quote
Buttinski
$4 - Action - Duration - Attack
You may trash a card from your hand.
Now and at the start of next turn: +$1.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player trashes a card costing $2 or less on their turn, they discard the trashed card.

grep

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
  • Respect: +466
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2023, 10:26:23 pm »
+1


Arquebusiers
Action - Attack - Duration - $5
+1 Action
+$3
At start of your next turn, take the -$1 token.
-
While this is in play, other players cannot play Attack cards from their hands.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2023, 04:03:39 am »
+1

While this is similar to Exiling Attacks, it is different enough to be novel and interesting. But it is also pretty centralizing (if you don’t contest the pile and the opponent play it consistently, 10 cards stay in nirvana) and as the vanilla net effects are those of Caravan, just more delayed, this has to be nerfed somehow.
I would make I terminal. As non-terminal, easy-gainable $3, you want the entire pile even if the attack did not exist.
I feel like it's not quite so strong. In the early game, the attack is actually a benefit more often than not (or doesn't do anything, if you aren't shuffling). If an opponent goes hard for these, that can be counteracted quite easily by getting more Coppers as fodder to remain in play. It forces you to adapt how you build your deck, but I don't think it's too centralizing.

If it were terminal, the vanilla effect would be weaker than Sleigh, and that's a $2 that has other stuff going on as well. The comparison to Caravan is interesting, and maybe I'll up the price to $4, though I think the Horse gaining is significantly weaker than start-of-turn draw.
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: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2023, 05:28:52 am »
+2


Arquebusiers
Action - Attack - Duration - $5
+1 Action
+$3
At start of your next turn, take the -$1 token.
-
While this is in play, other players cannot play Attack cards from their hands.

"While in play" is outdated, but moreover, it was never used on Attacks in the first place. The reason is that it would not be possible to defend against this with Moat/Lighthouse etc., since the attacking bit is not an on-play effect.

I am more generally not sold on this effect, seems like most of the time the person who manages to play this consistently first just wins when there are any other Attacks worth playing on the board.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5332
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2023, 06:48:24 am »
0

Yeah, the problem is that attacks in dominion are often engine pieces with an attack tagged on, like Rabble

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2023, 12:25:21 pm »
0

While this is similar to Exiling Attacks, it is different enough to be novel and interesting. But it is also pretty centralizing (if you don’t contest the pile and the opponent play it consistently, 10 cards stay in nirvana) and as the vanilla net effects are those of Caravan, just more delayed, this has to be nerfed somehow.
I would make I terminal. As non-terminal, easy-gainable $3, you want the entire pile even if the attack did not exist.
I feel like it's not quite so strong. In the early game, the attack is actually a benefit more often than not (or doesn't do anything, if you aren't shuffling). If an opponent goes hard for these, that can be counteracted quite easily by getting more Coppers as fodder to remain in play. It forces you to adapt how you build your deck, but I don't think it's too centralizing.

If it were terminal, the vanilla effect would be weaker than Sleigh, and that's a $2 that has other stuff going on as well. The comparison to Caravan is interesting, and maybe I'll up the price to $4, though I think the Horse gaining is significantly weaker than start-of-turn draw.
Normally you buy an Attack card for the effect. Torturer is an exception, you want it for imps, and so are Smithy variants. But you don't want Mountebank due to it being a terminal Silver.

Your card on the other hand provides non-terminal draw. It is definitely the weakest unconditional Lab variant but for $3 that is a bargain and you might want the entire pile no matter what. Add an attack on that and it becomes highly dubious.

I also don't think that the attack is weak. Sure, if somebody piles it early, trashing becomes less relevant. But what if you already added a trasher and then somebody goes for your card? If the mere presence of a $3 makes everybody not trash, then there is something odd going on.
Logged

RovingBear

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2023, 12:56:42 pm »
0

Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2023, 01:48:40 pm »
+5

This is far too harsh and monolithic. Harsh as you force the opponents to play their terminal and thus shut down any engine play. Monolithic ss Marionette is a good defense against itself (if somebody fears the Attack and plays BM, it is after all a Lab).
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5332
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2023, 02:14:38 pm »
+2



I also had this idea, but unfortunately, this will lock out people on many boards. You just select a terminal, and their turn is dead.

PPE'd!

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2023, 02:20:40 pm »
+6



I first tried a terminal Action that gave you tokens for stuff you gained in both turns but that felt too good. Then I had an Iron version (Coffers for Treasure, Villager for Action, Horse for Victory) but that was too wordy for my taste. So here is the simpler version. It might be too boring with the vanilla compensating for the Attack (in 2P games).
Logged

RovingBear

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2023, 02:24:12 pm »
0

This is far too harsh and monolithic. Harsh as you force the opponents to play their terminal and thus shut down any engine play. Monolithic ss Marionette is a good defense against itself (if somebody fears the Attack and plays BM, it is after all a Lab).
it can be harsh but also can be dud- youll have many time where you have 1 action in hand, or a few actions that arent terminal. And just to correct- not a lab but a village.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2023, 02:29:22 pm »
+2

This is far too harsh and monolithic. Harsh as you force the opponents to play their terminal and thus shut down any engine play. Monolithic ss Marionette is a good defense against itself (if somebody fears the Attack and plays BM, it is after all a Lab).
it can be harsh but also can be dud- youll have many time where you have 1 action in hand, or a few actions that arent terminal. And just to correct- not a lab but a village.
You can have 4 non-terminals in hand, if you are forced to play that 1 Smithy they all become dead. That's not a dud turn but total engine shutdown.

Marionette never duds, at worst you get draw or you make a decision for them that does not hurt them.

I make a simple prediction: the dominant strategy in all Marionette Kingdoms will be money.
Logged

4est

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +1464
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2023, 02:39:00 pm »
+2



Here's my updated submission (also updated in the OP). Same name and idea, but should be a bit more painful as an Attack since it targets Action cards and holds them hostage until the player gains a VP card. I have it gain Golds so players likely don't want a bunch of them, and it's not a Duration anymore since the set aside cards should provide enough tracking.
Logged

LTaco

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • Shuffle iT Username: LTaco
  • Respect: +131
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2023, 07:43:18 pm »
+9

Logged

BryGuy

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 327
  • Respect: +199
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2023, 08:57:19 pm »
0

Quote
Lieutenant • $4 • Action - Command - Attack
Each other player takes their deck's top card and sets it aside face-up. You may play one face-up set aside card, if it is an...: Action, once; or Treasure, twice. Each player discards one card set aside.
:) You can use a player's cards to take advantage of their improved deck and remove it from their use for one turn. 
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 08:58:21 pm by BryGuy »
Logged

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +736
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2023, 01:27:58 pm »
0



I also had this idea, but unfortunately, this will lock out people on many boards. You just select a terminal, and their turn is dead.

PPE'd!

How about making it a Duration like Green Village?  It protects you from locking out.
Logged

AJL828

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2023, 01:49:01 pm »
+1



I also had this idea, but unfortunately, this will lock out people on many boards. You just select a terminal, and their turn is dead.

PPE'd!

How about making it a Duration like Green Village?  It protects you from locking out.
The problem with that fix is that you’re pretty much required to buy your own Marionette to counter an opponent’s Marionette. Attacks shouldn’t be designed as their own counters.
Additionally this attack has problems in more than 2 player games. If player A designates a card for player C to play first, then what happens player B plays a Marionette? You can’t play multiple cards as the first card, and if the most recent Marionette played is the one that takes priority, you start to move into targeted attack territory.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2023, 01:52:48 pm by AJL828 »
Logged
Did you hear about the skyscraper with one really tall floor? I could tell you but it’s a long story…

AJL828

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJL828
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2023, 03:02:07 pm »
+3



Ravager
Action - Attack - Duration ($5)

At the start of your next turn, + 3 Cards.
Until then, whenever any other player gains an Action or Treasure card, they set it aside and put it into their discard pile at the end of their next Cleanup.

This is a really hard prompt!
Ravager slows down opponents by setting aside their gained cards, causing them to miss shuffles. It can also be used to prevent gain-and-plays. Like Haunted Woods, the attack doesn’t stack, but can be pretty annoying to work around, which is why I feel the start of turn draw is an appropriate secondary effect.
It can be countered by a few things, anything that can move cards from their expected location (like Watchtower, Tiara, or Tracker) or cards that can access your discard pile (like Harbinger, Mountain Village, or Messenger). It also anti-synergizes a bit with Treasure junking attacks like Charlatan.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2023, 11:10:48 pm by AJL828 »
Logged
Did you hear about the skyscraper with one really tall floor? I could tell you but it’s a long story…

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +468
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2023, 05:29:30 am »
0

While this is similar to Exiling Attacks, it is different enough to be novel and interesting. But it is also pretty centralizing (if you don’t contest the pile and the opponent play it consistently, 10 cards stay in nirvana) and as the vanilla net effects are those of Caravan, just more delayed, this has to be nerfed somehow.
I would make I terminal. As non-terminal, easy-gainable $3, you want the entire pile even if the attack did not exist.
I feel like it's not quite so strong. In the early game, the attack is actually a benefit more often than not (or doesn't do anything, if you aren't shuffling). If an opponent goes hard for these, that can be counteracted quite easily by getting more Coppers as fodder to remain in play. It forces you to adapt how you build your deck, but I don't think it's too centralizing.

If it were terminal, the vanilla effect would be weaker than Sleigh, and that's a $2 that has other stuff going on as well. The comparison to Caravan is interesting, and maybe I'll up the price to $4, though I think the Horse gaining is significantly weaker than start-of-turn draw.

I also think so. Additionally, the draw is delayed by a full shuffle compared to Caravan, which is a significant disadvantage. E.g. Bandit Camp is a Village that effectively comes with a Gold delayed by one shuffle, for only $5 instead of $3+$6. (Gaining a Spoils each play is actually slightly better than gaining a Gold once, since you can keep the Spoils for the next shuffle if you dont need the $.)
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +468
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2023, 08:31:08 am »
+1

Quote
Lieutenant • $4 • Action - Command - Attack
Each other player takes their deck's top card and sets it aside face-up. You may play one face-up set aside card, if it is an...: Action, once; or Treasure, twice. Each player discards one card set aside.
:) You can use a player's cards to take advantage of their improved deck and remove it from their use for one turn. 

Discarding the top card doesn't hurt at all on average, so I wouldn't call this an Attack. (Tribute isn't an Attack either.)

Besides, I think it's very swingy, especially in 2 player games: You don't know if it’s terminal or not when playing it (same as Tribute, again), and it does nothing when only green cards are revealed. I think I'd give it at least +1 Action.
 
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2023, 09:48:09 am »
0

Quote
Lieutenant • $4 • Action - Command - Attack
Each other player takes their deck's top card and sets it aside face-up. You may play one face-up set aside card, if it is an...: Action, once; or Treasure, twice. Each player discards one card set aside.
:) You can use a player's cards to take advantage of their improved deck and remove it from their use for one turn. 

Discarding the top card doesn't hurt at all on average, so I wouldn't call this an Attack. (Tribute isn't an Attack either.)

Besides, I think it's very swingy, especially in 2 player games: You don't know if it’s terminal or not when playing it (same as Tribute, again), and it does nothing when only green cards are revealed. I think I'd give it at least +1 Action.
Actually, as it is worded, the attacking player puts the opponents' cards into their own play area (as there is no "leaving it there"), so that would be a pretty nasty Attack. Though it is likely not intended that way.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2023, 11:51:47 am »
0

While this is similar to Exiling Attacks, it is different enough to be novel and interesting. But it is also pretty centralizing (if you don’t contest the pile and the opponent play it consistently, 10 cards stay in nirvana) and as the vanilla net effects are those of Caravan, just more delayed, this has to be nerfed somehow.
I would make I terminal. As non-terminal, easy-gainable $3, you want the entire pile even if the attack did not exist.
I feel like it's not quite so strong. In the early game, the attack is actually a benefit more often than not (or doesn't do anything, if you aren't shuffling). If an opponent goes hard for these, that can be counteracted quite easily by getting more Coppers as fodder to remain in play. It forces you to adapt how you build your deck, but I don't think it's too centralizing.

If it were terminal, the vanilla effect would be weaker than Sleigh, and that's a $2 that has other stuff going on as well. The comparison to Caravan is interesting, and maybe I'll up the price to $4, though I think the Horse gaining is significantly weaker than start-of-turn draw.

I also think so. Additionally, the draw is delayed by a full shuffle compared to Caravan, which is a significant disadvantage. E.g. Bandit Camp is a Village that effectively comes with a Gold delayed by one shuffle, for only $5 instead of $3+$6. (Gaining a Spoils each play is actually slightly better than gaining a Gold once, since you can keep the Spoils for the next shuffle if you dont need the $.)
Horses are more or less similar in strength to immediate draw. The delay is compensated for by the increase of consistency as well as ability to Throne and Remodel Horses.
Logged

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 21, 2023, 08:17:08 am by Ethan »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2023, 07:44:03 am »
0

You seem to have missed my card.
Logged

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2023, 08:17:28 am »
0

You seem to have missed my card.
sorry, I have corrected it.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5332
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2023, 06:39:16 am »
+3

Last!



FAQ: if blocked by Moat, you don't get to move/place the token.

Edit: This version is outdated; new one here:

« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 03:30:03 am by silverspawn »
Logged

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2023, 08:30:10 am »
+1

We got a new submission, so-
CONTESET CLOSED
Hope I can do the judgement tomorrow.
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +468
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2023, 11:36:51 am »
+2

Last!



FAQ: if blocked by Moat, you don't get to move/place the token.

So one player's Moat protects all other players in multiplayer games? That's very unusual, no other Attack works like that AFAIK. Shouldn't Moat just protect the player revealing it from taking debt?
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5332
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2023, 12:20:39 pm »
0

agreed; I realized that but it was too late to think of a fix. (It would ordinarily be not an attack but then it skirts the boundaries of the contest.)

NoMoreFun

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2015
  • Respect: +2142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2023, 07:18:02 pm »
+5

Last!



FAQ: if blocked by Moat, you don't get to move/place the token.

I think what makes sense for Moat is that the token is still there but you don't take the debt if you blocked the attack (the debt is the attack, not an inherent feature of the token which is used for tracking).

This will be brutal Sanctioning Copper as written

Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2023, 07:29:39 pm »
+2

Last!



FAQ: if blocked by Moat, you don't get to move/place the token.

I think what makes sense for Moat is that the token is still there but you don't take the debt if you blocked the attack (the debt is the attack, not an inherent feature of the token which is used for tracking).

This will be brutal Sanctioning Copper as written
This is true, but I think the card would be better reworded to reflect this. The current form is not ideal anyways, as it has a dividing line that shouldn't be there. I would suggest
Quote
Move your Sanction token to a supply pile. At the start of your next turn, take it back and +$3.
Until then, when any player plays a card from that pile, they first take 2D.
The Copper sanctioning is still a problem and can lock people out of the game if you have a $5/$2 opening.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1568
  • Respect: +1472
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2023, 01:39:00 am »
0

Obviously the card should only be able to punish Action cards. Hitting Silver or Golds can be brutal as well. Suppose Alice hits Silvers and Bob hits Golds. No way Charlie can do anything useful in his turn in a Kingdom without few virtual Coin cards.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 01:40:28 am by segura »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5332
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3271
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2023, 03:28:52 am »
+1

This is true, but I think the card would be better reworded to reflect this. The current form is not ideal anyways, as it has a dividing line that shouldn't be there. I would suggest
Quote
Move your Sanction token to a supply pile. At the start of your next turn, take it back and +$3.
Until then, when any player plays a card from that pile, they first take 2D.
The Copper sanctioning is still a problem and can lock people out of the game if you have a $5/$2 opening.

Whelp I really was tired when I made this. Missed both the horizontal line (?!) and the fact that it can hit Coppers. I very much want it to hit custom Treasure cards but not Copper/Silver/Gold. So "Kingdom supply pile" should do it.  And it shouldn't have the attack type; it's an attack like Embargo that doesn't have the type bc the interaction with moat is awkward

Updated Version (it's fine if this doesn't make it into the contest anymore).

« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 03:31:12 am by silverspawn »
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +468
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2023, 11:49:24 am »
+1

This is true, but I think the card would be better reworded to reflect this. The current form is not ideal anyways, as it has a dividing line that shouldn't be there. I would suggest
Quote
Move your Sanction token to a supply pile. At the start of your next turn, take it back and +$3.
Until then, when any player plays a card from that pile, they first take 2D.
The Copper sanctioning is still a problem and can lock people out of the game if you have a $5/$2 opening.

Whelp I really was tired when I made this. Missed both the horizontal line (?!) and the fact that it can hit Coppers. I very much want it to hit custom Treasure cards but not Copper/Silver/Gold. So "Kingdom supply pile" should do it.  And it shouldn't have the attack type; it's an attack like Embargo that doesn't have the type bc the interaction with moat is awkward

Updated Version (it's fine if this doesn't make it into the contest anymore).



I think it could be an Attack just like the other duration attacks Blockade and Swamp Hag are. The only difference to those two cards is that TB can also hurt the player themself, but this is rarely relevant when sanctioning an Action, and Moat clearly states that it only reacts to another player playing an Attack, not to your own Attack. TB hurts the opponents badly e.g. when sanctioning the only village or a strong cantrip.

Unrelatedly, you don't need a token if TB sets aside a copy from the pile instead (like Blockade, but returning it to the pile next turn).
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 11:50:51 am by Holger »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3385
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2023, 03:19:23 pm »
+2

Unrelatedly, you don't need a token if TB sets aside a copy from the pile instead (like Blockade, but returning it to the pile next turn).
I thought about this, but you'd often want to Sanction empty piles, so if you disallow that it would be a significant nerf.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2023, 09:13:16 am »
+5

Sorry for the delay. COVID hit me.

I would like to nominate
Winner: Horse Lord by LTaco
Runner-up:
Port Embezzler by Xen3k
Ransom by 4est

Sorry again for the absence of detailed comments, I will make it up when I recovered :(.
Logged

Ethan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +194
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #187: The Law Falls Silent
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2023, 12:40:09 pm »
+3

Finally, works have been done.

Quiet Village
Action/Duration/Attack - $5
+1 Card, +2 Actions
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action. Until then, other players are capped at 2 Actions (Actions, not Action Cards)
Village this turn, Lost City next. Quite strong vanilla effect but restricted by other players' copy. A direct comparator is Longship, which has a big problem about sailing/starting up. Quiet Village has no such problem about consistency. Longship cannot be called strong in many situations, but it is still a . So, in my opinion, Quiet Village is a bit too strong, since the restriction can be avoided or even not set by your opponents. Aside from the above, it's a quite simple and interesting card.


An interesting discard attack. I like it quite a lot about how it qualifies for this contest, as a discard attack but not handsize attack. Oppressor hurt much earlier and stronger than Villain. I think it will dominate many boards. Neat and impressive.



Port Embezzler - $5
Action - Duration
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +2 cards and +1 Buy.

Until your next turn, each other player must exchange the first card they gain on their turn for a cheaper card. If they can't, exchange it for a Curse.
Half a Wharf, or in other words, weaker Barge. The attack is similar to - coin token attack, while many differences make it worth to create a new attack. Port Embezzler affects gainers while - token not. Port Embezzler cannot be counter by extra coin, especially when you want to gain the most expensive card in the Supply. In which case, the Curse option gives an interesting choice.


The only submission that doesn't create a new method of attack. Duration draws are always sweet. But Robber is not such inspiring compared to Enchantress, which is also Duration-Attack that gives +2 Cards. And as mentioned, it is like a cheaper Highwayman.

Loan Shark
cost $5 - Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +3 Actions; +3 Cards; +$3; or +3 Buys.
Until then, when your opponent gets +2 or more Actions, they take <1>; this effect is not cumulative.
Another entry that worsens Villages. The attack part is interesting and novel. But I doubt if the vanilla part need so much free agency. I would suggest more centralization on the attack effect. Maybe simply a duration village.

Gossip
Action - Attack - Liaison
$5

+1Buy
$2

Discard up to 2 cards for +1 Favor each

Each other player spends a Favor
A Liaison-Attack. Will you keep your Favor for next best match or use it as fast as possible to avoid your opponents' Gossip? Simple and interactive, I like it. Nothing to complain.


Cage your opponents' Action. I like this idea and the flavor. It can change the game deeply and painfully. As you said, players unlikely want numerous Ransoms, so no more complaint.


Another Gold gainer. It's a much better version of Bandit in several ways.
  • The Gold is gained to hand, which means +;
  • Attack 5 cards other than 2 makes a bigger chance to hit;
  • Attacker chooses which treasure to trash when hit more than 1;
  • It directly worsens the very turn of your opponents.
Notice the fact that you usually don't want many Larcenists, but I still think it may be overpowered at . Another fact is that the -cost makes Potion an available option when being attacked. It's hard to say whether it's a good thing, but I think it’s fun.


Quote
Tollgate - $3
Treasure/Duration/Attack

Now and at the start of your next turn, gain a Horse.
Until then, during each other player's cleanup phase, they choose two cards they would discard from play that turn to remain in play.
It is hard to judge Tollgate. It grows stronger when opponents grow. And can be very harmful when stacked. The Horse gaining can be nearly to drawing when Horses fill your deck. So, I agree it need nerf or increase in price. I am sorry I can't tell more; I think it need playtesting to learn the depth of this card.

Crooked Jeweler
- Action Duration Attack
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a Silver or Gold, they set it aside and, at the start of Clean-up, exchange it for Copper or Silver, respectively.
At start of your next turn, +3 Cards and you may exchange a Treasure from your hand for a Treasure costing up to more than it.
One more Treasure-worsening attack. At first glance, I think it is too much like Corsair. But the mix of trashing and junking attack does sound interesting. And the next-turn part is soild, but maybe a little slow? If I make this card, I will give out Copper no matter whether Silver or Gold is attacked (a little more hurtful) and give +1 Card and Mine-effect (gain to hand) next turn. Anyway, I enjoy Crooked Jeweler's design and flavor.

Buttinski
$4 - Action - Duration - Attack
You may trash a card from your hand.
Now and at the start of next turn: +$1.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player trashes a card costing $2 or less on their turn, they discard the trashed card.
Decline opponent's trash.  Brilliant. It has to cost . I just wonder if the vanilla part is too weak. Could it be non-terminal since the attack doesn't stack?

Arquebusiers
Action - Attack - Duration - $5
+1 Action
+$3
At start of your next turn, take the -$1 token.
-
While this is in play, other players cannot play Attack cards from their hands.
I think Arquebusiers explore an untouched design space. It's true that this card has several problems mentioned by other commentator. Maybe the attack-part can be changed to 'Until then, the first time each other player plays an Attack card on their turn, it doesn't affect other players'? Well, the revison seems too weak. I just want to say Arquebusiers does give me some inspiration about attack, which is what I would like to see in this contest.


Maybe make decision for opponents' second action or last action in next turn? I have not got a good idea to amend this card.


Many of submissions are self-countered, Thug is the most direct one among them. If there is a good strategy to maximize the coffer-gaining power, you will expect your opponent will also buy this card. If so, the game turns into Thug-matching game.  As a result, this design becomes less attractive.


We all like diversity, and we all like Horse Lord as the vote says. Gaining and playing Horses can be used to anti others' Horse Lord. But if you gain too many horses, there will be a Horses' traffic jam.  It is one of my loved cards.

Lieutenant • $4 • Action - Command - Attack
Each other player takes their deck's top card and sets it aside face-up. You may play one face-up set aside card, if it is an...: Action, once; or Treasure, twice. Each player discards one card set aside. 
The idea that uses opponents' cards is fine, some other boardgames have it. But discarding the top is not attack as discussed.



Ravager
Action - Attack - Duration ($5)

At the start of your next turn, + 3 Cards.
Until then, whenever any other player gains an Action or Treasure card, they set it aside and put it into their discard pile at the end of their next Cleanup.
Quite simple and create a lot of interaction. I like it. It could definitely be listed in runners-up if I had nominated more at the time.


I believed it can be an attack like Blockade, which is the replacement of Embargo. Interestingly, Trading Bureau is sort of attack-on-play version of Blockade (attack-on-gain). Trading Bureau hurts especially deeply when there is a key card in the kingdom, this is a big problem.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2023, 12:51:50 pm by Ethan »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 20 queries.