Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 55  All

Author Topic: Asper's Cards  (Read 320340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #100 on: February 11, 2015, 06:07:19 pm »
0

Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.

Hmm, yeah... I saw the benefit of adding it in the fact that it covers all cases, making the card possibly easier to grasp. You won't sit there, wondering "Huh, and what does it do if the card costs more?". I might be wrong, though, and i'm far from unwilling to remove this part if that's better.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 06:08:27 pm by Asper »
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3837
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #101 on: February 11, 2015, 06:13:26 pm »
+4

Have you considered adding underline text?

"In games using this, bridge costs $17P."

EDIT: just to be safe.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 06:21:54 pm by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #102 on: February 11, 2015, 08:27:20 pm »
0



Allright, i think i have narrowed it down to these two. I like the wording on the right better, but the left one allows more combos and i'm leaning a bit more towards it for this reason.

A PPBBB hand can still get crazy if you play a Highway first, but that's a 3-card-combo. You can also play a Bridge before setting up that hand, but you'd either have to use Prince (another 3-card-combo) or have PPBBBB in hand and an action to spare, which is quite a bit harder to do. Either way, i can live with those possibilities. Highway can get played up to 3 times depending on how many you played before, but it doesn't do anything Pawn can't on those additional plays, so that's fine.

And Princess... Um, well... Let's just say she's very much into politics.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9692
  • Respect: +10712
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #103 on: February 11, 2015, 08:35:51 pm »
+1

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #104 on: February 11, 2015, 08:52:56 pm »
0

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 08:53:57 pm by Asper »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9692
  • Respect: +10712
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #105 on: February 11, 2015, 08:58:58 pm »
+1

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #106 on: February 11, 2015, 09:28:59 pm »
0

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.


Thanks for the tips and considerations :)
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7494
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10716
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #107 on: February 11, 2015, 09:48:22 pm »
+3

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #108 on: February 12, 2015, 12:44:31 pm »
+1

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

This really looks much better than my template.
Thank you again for sharing :)

I also allready tried it out a bit. Very nice :)
Here's something i did with it, a variant that gives you the choice to take a buy instead of returning it to your hand. Without Villages, it's a Woodcutter that draws instead of giving coins, so it's pretty weak. Ah, maybe it's really too weak...



Anyhow, i will test both the version you mocked up and this as soon as i can. If it shows Jeweleriver isn't too superior to Smithy, i'll go with it, but it's nice to have an alternative, i guess. I can't tell when my next playtest will be, though, i'm procrastinating my studies right now as is... ;)
Logged

TheOthin

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 459
  • Shuffle iT Username: TheOthin
  • Respect: +447
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #109 on: February 12, 2015, 04:23:12 pm »
+1

Throne Room could have some weird interactions with that wording, although it's not like an excess of buys would matter too often.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11800
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12828
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #110 on: February 12, 2015, 04:27:18 pm »
+2

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #111 on: February 12, 2015, 05:34:47 pm »
+1

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

You're playing... um... uh... Big Money, maybe? Or... a slog? Yeah... a slog, that's it!

Allright, i know a buy isn't awesome. I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #112 on: February 12, 2015, 08:01:39 pm »
+1

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

I thought about this. Let's just assume there's no Village. What could make you buy a River with a buy? A cantrip engine? Hardly. Would you buy Smithy for a cantrip engine? I don't know about you, but i probably wouldn't. River doesn't need to be good on any board. Smithy isn't, either. It's okay if you have actions to spend or if you are basically playing big money. The buy adds a few Alt-VP scenarios. I think that's sufficient. But i might want to price it at $2 with the version i suggested. I really don't know. Which is why i'll make a few solo playtests now. It's far from as good as multiplayer, but hey, it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3837
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #113 on: February 12, 2015, 08:07:39 pm »
+1

it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #114 on: February 12, 2015, 11:00:06 pm »
+1

it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.

Silly pacovf, we're not talking basic River costing $2. We're talking River-with-a-buy costing $2.
But i wouldn't want you to die, so let's just claim i never said that. Unless of course, playtesting reveals that's actually reasonable.

About playtesting, did i mention how unsatisfying solo playtests are? I just played a game with River-plus-buy for $3, and while there were no Villages, there was Highway, and all other cards giving buys costed $5 or more. River-Highway barely won against Wharf-Big Money and Stewart-Counterfeit-supported Grand Market. Why? Because solo playtesting sucks. Or at least i do suck at solo playtesting. Curse those neighbors and their petty "need for sleep".
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +863
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #115 on: February 13, 2015, 12:01:58 pm »
+1

You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper ;) I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I will give you my thoughts on your cards, always referring to the most recent version of them I can find.

Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this :D

Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about ;) Simpler is better in this case.

Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

Politician: This is the right way to do a political card ;) You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #116 on: February 13, 2015, 03:47:22 pm »
0

You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper ;) I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I like to do new things, i guess. Some of them end up good, others not so much. I'm glad you think some ideas are cool :)
At some point i tried to make a fan set or two, but half of the cards were always not good enough, and so i was left with a random mix. It's why this thread is "Asper's cards" and not "Asper's Fan Expansion" ;)
Also your post reminds me that i should probably update my Opening Post.



Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

I think i saw it as the non-obvious downside that a Curser would give you quite a lot more junk than usual if you gain Swamps. 10 Curses in a 2-player game are bad, but 10 Curses and 10 Swamps are awful. It prolongues the junking. That said, i'm accepting that the overall feedback on Swamp is negative. I wanted it to be bad enough to not destroy junkers completely and at the same time add something you might buy it on your own. Probably that's where the problem comes from, it'll always be too bad or too good.



Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Well, as i said to LastFootnote, this started out as a cantrip trasher for $2. It always had the exact same text above the line, and was grotesquely powerful. One way to weaken it would be to remove the draw, but then it's just not the same card anymore:

Quote
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
(Left out the discard option for obvious reasons)

For the Hinterlands contest, i instead tried a version that would get set aside when gained, only to be put in your discard after your next shuffle. Well, turns out that a delayed gain doesn't do enough to keep this from being dominating. So i tried it at $3, then $4. That seemed okay, at least you can't normally open double-Homunculus (or Artifact, at that time), anymore. Just, if it costs $4 and is gained with a delay, i could just as well make it cost a Potion and trash that on play. At least you don't have to worry about weird Trader, Inn or whatever interaction, and don't need to introduce new rules. So, this actually wasn't a Potion card for a long time - it just solved two problems at once. I can imagine a lot of reasons why a card shouldn't cost a Potion, but here i saw it as the best option.



Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

Well, when choosing between only two, this is still commonly better than Vagrant if the first card is worse than the second. It's about equally good if both cards are bad or the second card is worse than the second, as long as you don't consider handsize. Ranger is worse than Vagrant if both revealed cards are something you'd want to draw, or if both at least are better than you can expect from your deck on average. Having said that, i would rather drop this than letting it reveal 3 cards. We'd have another Outlook then (i assume it would have to cost $3), and i think Outlook doesn't need a brother. Considering it's generally viewed as boring, dropping seems appropriate.



River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this :D

That would be great. Do so and tell about it :D
I guess we can consider this the preferred version of the card right now (pacovf may disagree ;) ).



Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Woo-Hoo! Thanks :)



Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about ;) Simpler is better in this case.

Yeah, i guess you two are right. I'll change it.



Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

i tried to add a bit of complexity by nerfing this before in the Prosperity contest (it made attacks you played while it was out do nothing). It was not well received. Power wise, i think it's more than decent, but it's certainly one of the more boring cards. Anyhow, it's one of the better tested cards, too, and plays nice and easy. As it allready exists, i'm not worrying about card space, either. I can see why you would want something more appealing, though.



Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Good to hear you don't mind the bonus. As you figured, the attack's strength is why the bonus is not worth much on its own. You need other cards to go with. I imagined it could be interesting to have an attack engine where the attack plays the Village part. It wasn't ever playtested, though, so i wouldn't be surprised if i missed something here. Maybe the attack is just too cruel to be fun, too.



Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Thanks :)



Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

The Chancellor effect is rubbish. LastFootnote told me, you tell me, and i kind of saw it coming anyhow. The only reason why this card is still there the way it is is because i didn't undertake any effort to fix it. Probably because i know that the core concept itself isn't very fun (choose whether opponent keeps or discards his hand).
I don't quite see why it's political, though. I mean, you choose the worst option for every opponent. Though i CAN see how you get the idea - it could theoretically be used to actively support a certain player... Generally, i find choosing an option for all players even more political. If four people play and only the leading guy has a good hand, do i let them all draw new cards, even if it helps more players than it hurts?
I'm going to remove this card for now. Maybe i'll bring back the core idea later, but at this time it just has too many issues.



Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

I see this isn't really popular. Still i kind of want to try this out sooner or later. But you guys have a reason to not like it, and maybe i'm being stubborn. I'll put it on my testing list and take it out for now.



Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

That would be awesome :)
My group tested it a bit and it's fairly popular, but of course that doesn't mean anything (as they are mostly relatives without in-depth dominion strategy knowledge).



Politician: This is the right way to do a political card ;) You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Thanks :)



Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Hmm, interesting point. I figured that gaining a Copper would be an incentive to buy something if you allready watered down your deck for that extra coin. I mean, if you don't, your deck will constantly become worse. I might misjudge Hospitals power, but i believed that this would be a rather weak strategy, potentially beatable with things as simple as Big Money+. Of course, if there is decent trashing, you might as well create a timed Golden Deck. If it works, the Copper pile should drain quickly. The worst case would probably be a game where all players attempt such a Golden deck, only to find out that the trashing isn't good enough (and not bad enough to make switching to another strategy better). Then again, you can have a game where everybody thinks an unsupported Poor House/Rats/whatever other support-dependant card was the best choice...



Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

I'll change it for now. If it turns out to be better with that option, i can still add it again, later :)



Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Thank you :)
I'd be curious as to how it turns out if you playtest it.



Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

I don't mind doing that, if it turns out to be needed.



Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Yeah, another one that's more about the idea than about the card. I think it is balanced, but it's certainly bland. I don't really see the self-synergy with Meadow, though. I mean, i think Farmlands has more of that than Meadow, i think.



Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

This was the most elegant way i found, but maybe there's something better. Obviously Jeweler is obsolete if River stays in in the form LastFootnote suggested.



Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.

That's fine. I'm aware it's a bit off. It's from a time when i was working on a "Fantasy" expansion and started out as one of those awful "Curse/Actions". Now we all know Curse/Actions are horrible. This was my solution as to how you can avoid the issue with trashing, make it scale with each use, and still not be dependant on the Curse pile or on new tokens. It's a bit like Jeweler. An experiment about whether you can actually make a certain concept work while staying inside Dominion's existing ruleset.



Thank you very much for your critique and suggestions :)

Edit: I'm going to update the OP as soon as i am finished mocking up the current versions with LastFootnote's awesome template. Yay! :D
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 03:54:47 pm by Asper »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7494
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10716
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #117 on: February 13, 2015, 03:59:55 pm »
+1

I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #118 on: February 13, 2015, 05:31:51 pm »
+1

I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.

I have thought a bit about this, and the idea you suggested to put Jeweler and River together is just too good. Unless there comes up hard data that says it behaves better in both engines and Big Money, i'd say let's just use the Reaction version.

Also, i'm not even sure River is better for BM. It's like a Smithy that always draws a Copper as the third card. Depending on how your deck looks, it might be worse.

Edit: I updated the OP with new mockups made with your awesome template. Yay! :D
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 06:09:32 pm by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #119 on: February 14, 2015, 04:59:41 pm »
0

I really wish it was possible to find pictures of medieval nobleman on horses looking fierce and holding a pergament... :(
I mocked up a version for Charter with only pergament (sans fierce guy on horse), but that simply doesn't look like an attack anymore...



Edit: Renamed it because without the horse-person "Charter" neither looks nor sounds very attack-like.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2015, 05:04:28 pm by Asper »
Logged

polot38

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Respect: +35
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #120 on: February 14, 2015, 06:31:59 pm »
+1

A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…
2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).
3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2015, 06:33:41 pm by polot38 »
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3837
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #121 on: February 14, 2015, 06:46:32 pm »
+1

2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #122 on: February 14, 2015, 06:52:41 pm »
+1

I declare there to be three
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #123 on: February 14, 2015, 08:20:06 pm »
+2

A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…

Argh, no... When i mocked up the card with LastFootnotes new template, i accidentally added a +1 Card...
This is how it should look like:





2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

I admit i am having a hard time to judge River's power. Originally the card was just "+2 Cards, return this to your hand". There was some discussion as to how strong it was. pacovf argued it was a Smithy plus, and should cost $5. I argued that it was a Moat plus, and should cost $4 or $3. I decided $3 was fine, because double-openings were a horrible idea, obviously.

Then it was pointed out plain River was Moat (minus) in Village-less games, and wouldn't be bought. I considered to ignore it, but then it seemed an issue too big to ignore. LastFootnote suggested to fuse basic River and another card, Jeweler, together, to get this new version of River.

I am starting to think that, while i'm sure that "perpetual Smithy" and "Smithy plus" are misinterpretations of what the card does, this version is too close in power to Smithy, and should cost $4. Maybe it doesn't necessarily need to be - it's not "strictly" better than any $3 card, and in a limited array of situations it's worse than smithy. But i am very much in doubt, and i think that if you treat River like Smithy, playing each copy only once, it's still about on par. Smithy has more cycling, River draws a guaranteed "Copper". So it "should" cost $4. The thing is just, i'm not sure whether a $4 version of River makes sense. I would prefer a version that's easily available and where balancing how many you get is the real issue. This version isn't as easy to get anymore and balancing is less of a problem, as it's still a Copper when drawn dead.

Hmm... The more i'm thinking about this, the less i like that aspect. It just makes the card too easy to play. I considered this as a problem of Jeweler before, but it itches me more with River, which was supposed to be a "clever little card", while Jeweler was supposed to be a "strong $5 card". Shame. It seemed like a really cute fix. Even if it actually could cost $3 (which i'm not saying it can't) i don't like the fact that it loses much of the strategical challenge.

This should keep that aspect:





3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.

Well, compare it to Mountebank: It gives +$2, has a bane and junks you. Unlike Mountebank, this is spammable. Unlike Mountebank, it gives only only one junk card, causes no victory point loss, and gives you the bane (which also doubles as an actually useable card) in hand.

Then again, a Witch variant with an action - no matter how weak its attack would be - couldn't cost $5, either. Then again, Minion is another nonterminal attack that gives +$2, and that's annoying, but balanced. I admit it doesn't scale, though.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2015, 08:33:19 pm by Asper »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5340
    • View Profile
Re: Asper's Cards
« Reply #124 on: February 14, 2015, 08:31:10 pm »
+3

2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?

Consider my jimmies thoroughly rustled.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 55  All
 

Page created in 0.125 seconds with 21 queries.