Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]  All

Author Topic: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #1 and #2!  (Read 63643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #175 on: July 11, 2012, 03:00:19 pm »
0

One other idea:  Curses only come off the mat one at a time.  So you can control the deck-bloating a little more, and not be completely screwed over if you really need that extra coin on a single turn later in the game.  And you can still keep them all on the mat on an engine game.
I think the cool part of the card is that the Curses slowly build up, and the need to discard a Treasure becomes greater as more Curses pile up.
Logged

Thanar

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #176 on: July 11, 2012, 11:31:26 pm »
0

If you don’t already have an image picked out for Soothsayer, here are a couple ideas:

Soothsayer - A person who professes to foretell events.

The Crystal Ball by John William Waterhouse (1902)
Hi-res version - http://www.femme-classic-art.com/John-William-Waterhouse-03/The-Crystal-Ball-John-William-Waterhouse-large.jpg
A possibly better hi-res version is here


Svetlana by Aleksandr Novoskoltsev (1889)
Hi-res version – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Svetlana_by_Aleksandr_Novoskoltsev.jpg

« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 11:40:35 pm by Thanar »
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2012, 07:50:09 am »
0

I suggested "start of turn, gain in hand" above. :)

Sorry, yeah, my intention was to support your idea, but it looks like I was calling it mine.

But after further thought, I think I have to recant.  If it's at the start of your turn, you (1) might not have your trasher in hand yet, and more importantly (2) you likely don't know if you can spare a Treasure card yet -- or, worse, don't have one in hand yet and thus CAN'T make that decision.

I also think "any time within your action phase" is too loose and could lead to all kinds of crazy, unforeseen interactions that are either confusing or broken, given that that includes being able to do so during the resolution of some other card.  Even without that wrinkle, it just doesn't feel structured enough a mechanic to be a good gameplay element.

So I'm back to supporting my original draft a few posts back, with the one change:  "At the end of the game, trash the cards on your Soothsayer mat."  How's that?
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2012, 09:18:19 am »
0

So I'm back to supporting my original draft a few posts back, with the one change:  "At the end of the game, trash the cards on your Soothsayer mat."  How's that?

I'm not a big fan of trashing the Soothsayer mat cards at the end of the game. I think that this would really encourage people to keep their Cursers there, especially nearer the end of the game. Plus, after all the Curses have been distributed, you get a weird interaction where playing Soothsayers doesn't hurt others, but there are still cards on the mat you are trying to keep around.

I think if you want to have it trash Curses from the mat, it might be better to have that option every turn. Two options are:

- "In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand and trash all cards on your mat. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game."
- "In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard any number of Treasures from your hand. For each discarded Treasure, trash a card from your mat. Then, discard all cards on your mat. Return all set aside cards to your deck at the end of the game."

The first of these options lets you discard a treasure to avoid all the curses. This seems pretty similar in power to Cutpurse. The second allows you to trash 1 Curse per Treasure discarded, so it's a bit stronger of a card, but still probably reasonable at $4. I think either of these would avoid the many-turn-discards, if we decide that's the direction we want to go (which it might not be).
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2012, 10:17:39 am »
0

So I'm back to supporting my original draft a few posts back, with the one change:  "At the end of the game, trash the cards on your Soothsayer mat."  How's that?

I'm not a big fan of trashing the Soothsayer mat cards at the end of the game. I think that this would really encourage people to keep their Cursers there, especially nearer the end of the game.

Don't we want that though?  Because if people just pull Curses into their deck, the card is not really any different from Witch, and an undercosted one at that.  The reason Soothsayer would be weaker would be if it's practical to keep your Curses there if it is possible and practical to do so.

But I don't think there is.  If we accept the premise that deck clog hurts worse than -1 VP (except at the end of the game), then I think there is ample encouragement to keep Curses on the mat.  But keeping Curses on the mat requires a pretty stiff penalty of Cutpursing yourself every turn, effectively turning one card of every hand into a dead card -- in other words, simulating the very deck clog penalty that keeping Curses on the mat is supposed to spare you.  So you might as well take the Curses off the mat every turn, and now we're back to the situation where we have an undercosted Witch.

By allowing cards kept on the mat to be trashed at the end of the game, sparing the victim from the VP penalty, the scales tip a little bit more in favor of keeping the Curses on the mat.  Probably not greatly -- because the simulated deck clog you will incur keeping those Curses on the mat is still going to be worse on average than the actual point penalty.  But at least then there's a trade-off there that you can strategize around.

It's also worth pointing out that this would more accurately replicate the original function of the card people voted upon.  The original draft had cards on the mat NOT counting against you in the scores until they were added into your deck.  The timing of when the Curses were "gained" had to be tweaked to avoid broken interactions with Trader and Watchtower, but if we trash mat cards at the end of the game, we can undo one of the side-effects of fixing that "gain" timing.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2012, 10:54:59 am »
0

For what it's worth, I'm with rinkworks on this. That would also make the card wording slightly shorter, which is good.

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Trash the set aside cards at the end of the game.

I'll mock up a card to see if it's concise enough.

EDIT: It's not concise enough, at least for the normal font sizes. I'll mess with some alternatives.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 11:01:53 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2012, 11:01:50 am »
0

For what it's worth, I'm with rinkworks on this. That would also make the card wording slightly shorter, which is good.

Soothsayer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Curse, setting it aside on his Soothsayer mat.

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase you may discard a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, discard all cards on your mat. Trash the set aside cards at the end of the game.

I'll mock up a card to see if it's concise enough.

I would change the wording of the last sentence to: "Trash all cards on your Soothsayer mat at the end of the game."
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #182 on: July 12, 2012, 11:04:00 am »
0

I would change the wording of the last sentence to: "Trash all cards on your Soothsayer mat at the end of the game."

I wouldn't. It's clear to anybody that it only means the cards set aside by Soothsayer, and the FAQ can clarify. On a card like this, you need to economize words as much as possible.
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #183 on: July 12, 2012, 11:07:18 am »
0

I guess your right. But the wording could be manipulated if, say Native Village is out and which cards are trashed. But if the FAQ would clarify, then yeah, it's fine
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #184 on: July 12, 2012, 12:16:12 pm »
0

You could probably drop "in games using this", and instead say "at the start of every buy phase".  The "every" should imply that it occurs even when the card isn't in play; the FAQ can clarify.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #185 on: July 16, 2012, 04:31:13 pm »
+3

I thought you might like to know I playtested Almoner in a real, live game last week.  It plays very well -- this is a cooler card than I initially thought it would be.  The on-play decisions resemble those of IGG very much, but since buying them out only depletes one pile, not two -- and doesn't slow down your opponents, either -- the viability of a Duchy rush is a lot more situational.

Nonetheless, I actually came quite close attempting this against my opponent, who was doing something else entirely.  I can't remember the full kingdom, but I know that it was a slow board with lots of okay cards but no obvious power combos.  Woodcutter and Monument were on the table.  I opened with Monument, because although that wasn't part of my strategy I didn't want to fall behind on VP chips.  And my other opener was Woodcutter, the only cheap source of +Buy.  I figured the +Buy was critical, and a terminal Silver not so bad when I would only be targeting Duchies and $2 cards.

I bought a single Silver and then dove into the Almoner pile, picking up two at a time when possible.  I won the Almoner split 9-1 (as I say, my opponent was doing something else) and then hit Duchies as hard as I could.  As with IGG, I gained a Copper to hand whenever I needed one to hit $5 but not otherwise.  However, this is harder than with IGG!  Almoner giving you +1 Card instead of +$1 makes playing a hand a lot more speculative.  True, with a single Almoner, you're fine -- because you draw the card before deciding if you'll take the Copper.  But with a hand of multiple Almoners, it's not clear what the maximum $ amount you can hit is.

In fact, I missed an opportunity to pick up a Province this way.  I had a hand full of mostly Almoners, drawing more with some of them.  I was so concerned about ensuring I hit at least $5 that I never picked up on the fact that I could have reached $8 had I gained more Coppers from Almoners that turn.  I did reach $5 and bought a Duchy, but the next turn I was alert to the possibility of reaching $8, did so, and snagged a Province.  It was the only one I managed that game.

Anyway, once I figured out the strategy for playing a stack of Almoners, it was pretty cool.  I figured out that I had to figure out what the maximum and minimum possible $ amounts I could hit, given the Almoners left in my hand, and go from there.  It was a different kind of strategizing than you get with IGG or, indeed, any other Dominion card, so that was a delightful discovery.

As my opponent started snagging Provinces, I rushed the Duchy pile, picking one up each turn.  My opponent eventually started helping me and took the last 2-3 from me.  Meanwhile, I'm picking up Estates whenever I come up short.  The Woodcutter helps me pick up multiple Estates at a time sometimes.  The game ends when the Estates are gone -- there were three or so Provinces left in the pile.

I lost by 6.  Had I snagged a Province on that turn I could have had one, possibly I'd have only lost by 3, but it's hard to say since the extra Coppers would have changed the dynamics of my deck.  My Monument was worth 6, which certainly helped close the gap a little, but my opponent didn't buy a Monument at all, so likely there was room to optimize his play as well.

Now here is the clincher:  Although it was a 2-player game, we played with 12 Provinces, 12 Duchies, and 12 Estates, which is wrong, but it's how we play.  Had we played with 8 of each, like you're supposed to, the Duchies would have been gone 4 turns earlier, and the Estates gone sooner still, almost certainly ending the game with fewer Provinces in my opponent's deck.

So while I lost, I think I've proven to myself that an Almoner/Duchy rush can be a viable strategy on a slow board.  I don't believe it would outrace a good engine, but it's probably something you should consider every time Almoner shows up.  As for pricing, I have no doubt whatsoever that $2 is exactly where it should be.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #186 on: July 16, 2012, 05:18:48 pm »
0

I thought you might like to know I playtested Almoner in a real, live game last week.  It plays very well -- this is a cooler card than I initially thought it would be.  The on-play decisions resemble those of IGG very much, but since buying them out only depletes one pile, not two -- and doesn't slow down your opponents, either -- the viability of a Duchy rush is a lot more situational.

Nonetheless, I actually came quite close attempting this against my opponent, who was doing something else entirely.  I can't remember the full kingdom, but I know that it was a slow board with lots of okay cards but no obvious power combos.  Woodcutter and Monument were on the table.  I opened with Monument, because although that wasn't part of my strategy I didn't want to fall behind on VP chips.  And my other opener was Woodcutter, the only cheap source of +Buy.  I figured the +Buy was critical, and a terminal Silver not so bad when I would only be targeting Duchies and $2 cards.

I bought a single Silver and then dove into the Almoner pile, picking up two at a time when possible.  I won the Almoner split 9-1 (as I say, my opponent was doing something else) and then hit Duchies as hard as I could.  As with IGG, I gained a Copper to hand whenever I needed one to hit $5 but not otherwise.  However, this is harder than with IGG!  Almoner giving you +1 Card instead of +$1 makes playing a hand a lot more speculative.  True, with a single Almoner, you're fine -- because you draw the card before deciding if you'll take the Copper.  But with a hand of multiple Almoners, it's not clear what the maximum $ amount you can hit is.

In fact, I missed an opportunity to pick up a Province this way.  I had a hand full of mostly Almoners, drawing more with some of them.  I was so concerned about ensuring I hit at least $5 that I never picked up on the fact that I could have reached $8 had I gained more Coppers from Almoners that turn.  I did reach $5 and bought a Duchy, but the next turn I was alert to the possibility of reaching $8, did so, and snagged a Province.  It was the only one I managed that game.

Anyway, once I figured out the strategy for playing a stack of Almoners, it was pretty cool.  I figured out that I had to figure out what the maximum and minimum possible $ amounts I could hit, given the Almoners left in my hand, and go from there.  It was a different kind of strategizing than you get with IGG or, indeed, any other Dominion card, so that was a delightful discovery.

As my opponent started snagging Provinces, I rushed the Duchy pile, picking one up each turn.  My opponent eventually started helping me and took the last 2-3 from me.  Meanwhile, I'm picking up Estates whenever I come up short.  The Woodcutter helps me pick up multiple Estates at a time sometimes.  The game ends when the Estates are gone -- there were three or so Provinces left in the pile.

I lost by 6.  Had I snagged a Province on that turn I could have had one, possibly I'd have only lost by 3, but it's hard to say since the extra Coppers would have changed the dynamics of my deck.  My Monument was worth 6, which certainly helped close the gap a little, but my opponent didn't buy a Monument at all, so likely there was room to optimize his play as well.

Now here is the clincher:  Although it was a 2-player game, we played with 12 Provinces, 12 Duchies, and 12 Estates, which is wrong, but it's how we play.  Had we played with 8 of each, like you're supposed to, the Duchies would have been gone 4 turns earlier, and the Estates gone sooner still, almost certainly ending the game with fewer Provinces in my opponent's deck.

So while I lost, I think I've proven to myself that an Almoner/Duchy rush can be a viable strategy on a slow board.  I don't believe it would outrace a good engine, but it's probably something you should consider every time Almoner shows up.  As for pricing, I have no doubt whatsoever that $2 is exactly where it should be.

Awesome, glad to hear you tried it out! Now I need to find people to play it with me :)
Logged

Dubdubdubdub

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +124
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #187 on: July 19, 2012, 05:15:39 am »
0

I playtested Soothsayer yesterday. I was kind of excited about it too, but to be honest it didn't really live up to the expectations.

I played two games with it, I'm afraid I forgot with what kingdoms (it was a long night).

In game 1, Soothsayer was the only curser. Chapel and Fool's Gold were there, which made Soothsayer much stronger (he wrongly trashed almost all his coppers).
I actually had a quite some fun with it as I was attacking; he quickly got 4 curses on his mat, which was exciting for me. I was trying to remember the current score and we very pretty close, meaning that 4VP-swing really mattered. He, on the other hand, didn't have a good time. For one, he had to make a negative choice every single game, without any hope of some forgiveness. You can at least not play a Torturer one turn; the Soothsayer mat will always be there - he called it a 'nagging' feeling. The other problem he had, was that the choice wasn't interesting. He was never going to let those curses in, ever. He'd rather discard his only Gold, unless he could buy the last province and gain a 2VP lead.

In game 2, I was the victim, and the feeling was quite different. There were 2 more curses in the Kingdom (Young Witch and Mountebank). I went for Mountebank, he went for Mountebank and Soothsayer. There was also fishing village, so there were plenty plays of these cards.
With Mountebank dealing out most of the curses, I only got 2 curses on my Soothsayer mat. I didn't really feel the 'nagging' so badly. Probably because FV and Mountebank were giving me at least $5 in most turns.
I definitely agreed with him on the second problem, though: the choice is too 'easy'. It was too obviously the right choice not to let the curses in. Of course, you could accept that and say that Soothsayer just means your opponent has to discard a treasure card every turn. But that's not what I expected.


I didn't dislike the card like my opponent, though I did expect a bit more. He agreed later on that he might have been a bit frustrated in the first game (he had some bad luck, not sure what). I really think we should playtest this more and see what other people's experiences are. After all, this was just 2 games. And I have hated Swindler in many more than that.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #188 on: July 19, 2012, 11:18:25 am »
0

I playtested Soothsayer yesterday. I was kind of excited about it too, but to be honest it didn't really live up to the expectations.

Thanks for testing it! It's quite possible that it needs tweaking or even scrapping. Although I'm not yet convinced that discarding the Treasure is the "obvious" choice. If neither of you ever took the Curses, how do you know that the other choice was better? I've seen opponents that refuse to ever take a Curse from Torturer, too. They generally lose.

One possible tweak would be that if the player doesn't discard, they discard a single card from their mat, rather than all of them. Do you think that would help?
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #189 on: August 16, 2012, 04:44:09 pm »
+4

Canopus
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may trash a card from your hand.

Vega
$4 - Action
+1 Action
+$1
You may trash a card. If you do, +1 Card.

Gacrux
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Trash a card from your hand.

Polaris
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may trash a treasure card from your hand.
If you don't, trash this card.

So close to making up Dark Ages' Junk Dealer.  Gacrux came closest with its mandatory trashing but was off $1 on the price.  Well done, all.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3671
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #1 and #2!
« Reply #190 on: August 16, 2012, 04:46:55 pm »
+4

It's the mandatory trasher peddler we always knew Donald would make.
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #1 and #2!
« Reply #191 on: August 16, 2012, 06:30:20 pm »
0

Also, Ironmonger is the Ironworks/ Tribute version of Peddler a few people submitted variants on, including myself. I like the Ironmonger card quite a bit.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]  All
 

Page created in 1.935 seconds with 20 queries.