Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: silverspawn on July 02, 2014, 10:01:47 pm
-
untested ideas!
c4 - Action - ?
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Card; or look through your discard pile, and put a card from it into your hand.
A little bit like scheme, a little bit like the card that searches for any card you want.
c10 - Action - 5$
Dig for a Victory card, putting it on top of your deck. You may put up to three revealed Treasure cards into your hand. Discard the rest.
sort of a less terrible Adventurer variant. you dig like this. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29970540/dig....txt)
c11 - Action - 5$
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1$
---
When you buy this, set any number of cards from your hand and all Treasure cards in play aside. Discard them immediately after the next time you shuffle your deck.
A peddler+ with a pseudo-trash effect on-gain. Sort of a reverse mandarin.
c13 - Treasure - 5$
Worth 1$
+1 buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Silver.
A simple silver gainer. I really need some cards with +buy.
c14 - Action - 4$
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put the revealed c14's into your hand and discard the rest. You may play a c14 from your hand. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to 1$ more per c14 you have in play.
One more attempt at a card that counts itself.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
Dunno if this idea is new, it probably isn't. The card is most similar to quarry, but it's different.
c16 - Action - Reaction - 4$
Trash two cards from your hand. Gain a card costing less than both of them combined.
---
When another player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.
A new remodel attempt. I'm hoping for a cute interaction/combo with knight attacks
request: cards that are dropped/moved to testing
c1 - Treasure - ??
Play this as if it were a Treasure card in Play that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
I already knew about Counterfeit, but I also saw this exact card in the outtakes. That's probably enough reason not to try it.
c2 - Action - ??
+1 Action
Look at the top X cards of your deck. Put one of them into your hand and discard the rest.
It's honestly just not original enough for my tastes...
c3 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may put your deck into your discard pile
causes too many reshuffles IRL, and not really interesting either.
c5 - Action - 4$
You may play a c5 from your hand
+1$ per c5 in Play.
too similar too fools gold
c7 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1$ per non-Treasure card in it.
this might not be terrible, but the usage seems narrow, and you can already do similar things with discard for $ -> redraw. it just seems like a less interesting take on the same idea.
c8 - Action - 4$
+4$
+1 buy
Each other player may trash 2 cards from his hand and gain a card costing less than both of them combined, but no less than 0$
morphed into c16
c12 - Victory - Reaction - 3$/4$
2VP
---
When you gain a card costing 0$, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Prayer from the Prayer pile.
I want to like it... but I don't see it working, except in slogs.
c6 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1 card per differently priced card in it.
-> testing
c9 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set a card from your hand aside. Discard it immediately after the next time you shuffle your deck.
-> testing
-
c1 is funny, but I doubt it could be a card. There is already Cache which is a $5 Gold. It's not strong, and the copper gaining is either helpful, or easier to deal with. This can whiff badly.
c2 has been proposed before. Isn't this the while Demonic Tutor thing from Magic? I've seen this at 3 cards, 4 cards, even searching for a specific card. Don't feel like finding the threads with them though.
c3. You say this as if Chancellor just came out :P It's super weak. Chancellor has $2 on it, which is mostly the reason it's even bought in the first place since it's effect isn't very helpful most of the time.
c4. This could be interesting. a To-hand Scavenger. I imagine it's actually really good. It's like Scheme, and I'd say it should be $3 at least.
c5. I'm sure I've seen this idea before. For sure I've seen it with Victory cards, worth more for each copy of itself in your deck. I'd have an opinion, but it's getting late.
-
c3. You say this as if Chancellor just came out :P It's super weak. Chancellor has $2 on it, which is mostly the reason it's even bought in the first place since it's effect isn't very helpful most of the time.
yea but, a 3$ has to compete with silver. a 2$ doesn't have to compete with anything. I actually don't think it's weak at all, it's definitely better than Pearl Driver. I worry more about the excitingnessnessness...
but I doubt it could be a card.
I do too...
c2 has been proposed before.
yes, yes, i know. that's why I didn't specify it. that doesn't answer whether it's actually a good card in any of its forms.
c5. I'm sure I've seen this idea before. For sure I've seen it with Victory cards, worth more for each copy of itself in your deck. I'd have an opinion, but it's getting late.
sleep tight :P
-
Cantrip chancelllor is probably on the upper half of two-costs. And now it REALLY combos with counting house
-
I'd echo that C4 seems really good. If it whiffs it's just a Cantrip, but if you're building up an engine it could help a lot to play the cards you just bought. I have a hunch that top-decking is something that is undervalued, and this is like better than topdecking.
-
good as in strong or as in interesting? if it's strong, that's not really worth much
-
good as in strong or as in interesting? if it's strong, that's not really worth much
I meant strong. I think it's interesting, as well, for versatility reasons.
-
c5 is extremely similar to Fool's Gold in practice. It has a bit more explosive potential, but it is terminal so it does not go well with BM-terminal draw the way Fool's Gold is. I feel like it should be a treasure. Anything that just produces money should be a Treasure (I guess Merchant Ship is the only non-Treasure that only gives you money, but also it is a Duration and a Treasure/Duration was probably not worth it the additional FAQ). However,if you make it a Treasure, it would be even closer to Fool's Gold.
-
c5 is extremely similar to Fool's Gold in practice. It has a bit more explosive potential, but it is terminal so it does not go well with BM-terminal draw the way Fool's Gold is. I feel like it should be a treasure. Anything that just produces money should be a Treasure (I guess Merchant Ship is the only non-Treasure that only gives you money, but also it is a Duration and a Treasure/Duration was probably not worth it the additional FAQ). However,if you make it a Treasure, it would be even closer to Fool's Gold.
There's also Harvest, and Death Cart is pretty close.
-
Good points. But I stand by my definition, those (together with Poor House) do not "just" give money, they actually do stuff.
-
added some more to the OP (the ones from the gunpowder thread). some more opinions would be nice. there's no hurt pride, if even one of those turns out to be a thing and the other 7 don't work, that's already a good thing. they're all just ideas.
-
c7 also feels similar to Poor House, in the sense that it would be good in more or less the same context. It has some differences, so it may be fine. It seems weak though.
I really like the penalty for c8. It is interesting. However, +$4, +1 Buys is dull, and I do not see it combining with the penalty at all. It may even be too good for BM. I would use the penalty as part of the action of a card. Like
+2 Cards
Trash two cards from your hand and gain a card costing less than the sum of their cost. If you did not gain a card, gain a Curse.
This seems a bit like Masq, but the card gaining could be good for semi-Forge late game. I would evaluate if you need the Curse, and whether you want less or exactly or up to.
-
c1 - Treasure - 5$
Play this as if it were a Treasure card in Play that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
The card that eventually became Counterfeit started out in Prosperity as just a Throne Room for Treasures. That's basically what this is except you can use any number of these to copy the same Treasure, which is nice. I think probably it should cost less. Like, $3. There's no guarantee it'll be worth more than $1, or even if it'll be worth anything at all.
The swinginess problem (especially with Platinum) may or may not be an issue. It's worth noting that Counterfeit solved it by making you trash the Treasure, making it better when it was at its worst (Copper) and worse when it was at its best (Platinum). Personally, I'm not sure this is different enough from Counterfeit to be interesting.
c2 - Action - ??
+1 Action
Look at the top X cards of your deck. Put one of them into your hand and discard the rest.
Donald tried so many versions of this. The ones in the Outtakes article all looked at 4 or more cards. It's possible that a version that looks at 3 cards could work. That feels useful, but not crazy. Probably such a card would be cheap (≤$4). Maybe it should put one of the other cards back on your deck? Don't know why, just a thought I had.
c3 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may put your deck into your discard pile.
The problem here is one of logistics. Cantrip Chancellor is just begging you to reshuffle several times during your turn. Play c3, put your deck into your discard pile. Play another one, shuffle, draw a card, put your deck into your discard pile. Play Smithy, shuffle, draw 3 cards.
I could maybe see a version that put your deck into your discard pile at the end of your Buy phase. Then I thought, having more than one of them is now moot, so maybe it should have some vanilla bonuses that weren't so spammable. Something like [+1 Action; +$2] at $5. Then I realized I had invented an (arguably worse) version of Royal Seal.
c4 - Action - ?
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Card; or look through your discard pile, and put a card from it into your hand.
Eh, pretty similar to Scheme, but probably stronger in most cases? I don't really love the idea.
c6 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card in it that's worth between 2$ and 6$
Doesn't really excite me. I'd try it without the cost bracket. Just, +1 Card per differently costed card in your hand. See how that works before nerfing it.
c7 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1$ per non-Treasure card in it.
Seems very similar to Secret Chamber. Except it stacks, and you can still play those Action cards afterward. But you need a Village for that. Well, it doesn't excite me, but it might work.
c8 - Action - 4$
+4$
+1 buy
Each other player may trash 2 cards from his hand and gain a card costing less than both of them combined or a curse.
How about, instead of a Curse, it's just "but not less than $0" so that they can gain a Copper instead? The Curse is just a kludgy way of saying, "Hey, you can't just trash 2 cards with this," but it still looks bad. Trashing two Coppers from hand to gain a Copper into your discard is still plenty weak.
-
but not less than $0" so that they can gain a Copper instead?
you're right, I did add that part so you can't just trash 2 cards, and you're right, this is the better way to do it. I mostly thought about curses/ruins, but even there this version is better, because when curses are flying around there might be none left in the supply, which would just remove the "curse-penalty"
Maybe it should put one of the other cards back on your deck? Don't know why, just a thought I had.
If it does, it's just like Lookout, except you replace "trash one of them" with "put one if them into your hand"
-
Maybe it should put one of the other cards back on your deck? Don't know why, just a thought I had.
If it does, it's just like Lookout, except you replace "trash one of them" with "put one if them into your hand"
Yeah, I realized that. Could be different enough in practice, though. I mean, Lookout's main feature is trashing.
Let me know if you want to talk about and/or push back on any of these other concepts. As always, sorry if I am too harsh.
-
c6 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card in it that's worth between 2$ and 6$
The very one thing I really like here is the goal to have "big diversity in hand". This seems pretty new to me, and I think it can lead to very interesting games :)
However, I would change some details - most notably, I would make it a gainer, and remove the "between 2$ and 6$" clause. Example given:
"Reveal your hand. Gain a card costing up to the number of differently priced cards in it."
Furthermore, it has to be nonterminal; otherwise, you will have to play all your other nonterminals before it, and so, they will no more contribute to your number of differently priced cards, which is quite frustrating. Sure, villages can help you out, but a card that heavily depends on village support is badly designed.
The costs should be either $4 or $5 - hard to say without playtesting.
-
c6 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card in it that's worth between 2$ and 6$
The very one thing I really like here is the goal to have "big diversity in hand". This seems pretty new to me, and I think it can lead to very interesting games :)
However, I would change some details - most notably, I would make it a gainer, and remove the "between 2$ and 6$" clause. Example given:
"Reveal your hand. Gain a card costing up to the number of differently priced cards in it."
Furthermore, it has to be nonterminal; otherwise, you will have to play all your other nonterminals before it, and so, they will no more contribute to your number of differently priced cards, which is quite frustrating. Sure, villages can help you out, but a card that heavily depends on village support is badly designed.
The costs should be either $4 or $5 - hard to say without playtesting.
...Horn of plenty?
-
c6 - Action - 5$
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card in it that's worth between 2$ and 6$
The very one thing I really like here is the goal to have "big diversity in hand". This seems pretty new to me, and I think it can lead to very interesting games :)
However, I would change some details - most notably, I would make it a gainer, and remove the "between 2$ and 6$" clause. Example given:
"Reveal your hand. Gain a card costing up to the number of differently priced cards in it."
Furthermore, it has to be nonterminal; otherwise, you will have to play all your other nonterminals before it, and so, they will no more contribute to your number of differently priced cards, which is quite frustrating. Sure, villages can help you out, but a card that heavily depends on village support is badly designed.
The costs should be either $4 or $5 - hard to say without playtesting.
...Horn of plenty?
well horn of plenty looks at names, not at cost, but yea it's kinda similar. more importantly though, I already have a workshop variant (http://www.scon.comze.com/dominion/requests/silverspawn/Shrine.png), I'm most likely not going to have more than one. it's a terminal draw, and it can draw more than 3 cards, that's why it's at 5$.
-
Consider this:
Horn-in-Hand, ACTION 5$
+Action
Reveal your hand. Gain a card costing up to the number of different cards you reveal.
Despite the obvious similarity, this card will certainly play completely differently from Horn-Of-Plenty, for it's a much more challenging task to keep different cards in hand than having them in play.
Even horn of plentys downside -it gains green cards only once- seems rather small to me because of the megaturn option. In comparison, a gainer referring to diversity in hand is clearly weaker, even more so, if you only look at different card costs. It would be an interesting nonterminal at 4$.
To emphasize the thing I really want to see in play: The most innovative part of Silverspawn's idea is not to seek for different card costs but the goal to have different cards in hand.
I already have a workshop variant, I'm most likely not going to have more than one.
Well, if you don't want a gainer, it's difficult to balance the card, as drawing 1 card is incredibly different from drawing 5. (Apprentice is way better balanced because the more cards you draw the more you will regret having trashed the card.)
Here's two ideas how to balance it:
CostVarietyTurnsMoatIntoHuntingGrounds, 4$, ACTION
+ 2 cards
You may reveal 5 cards with different costs. If you do:
+ 2 cards
CostVarietyTurnsPeddlerIntoGrandMarket, 5$, ACTION
+action
+card
+1$
You may reveal 5 cards with different costs. If you do:
+1$
+buy
-
Well, if you don't want a gainer, it's difficult to balance the card, as drawing 1 card is incredibly different from drawing 5
certainly, but revealing two coppers (+2$) is also very different from revealing a village and a province (+2cards, +2actions), and tribute works too. +2 cards is very different from +2 cards, +1 action (http://www.scon.comze.com/dominion/requests/silverspawn/Crusade.png), and (the top half of) crusade works out well so far. having situational cards is pretty much the theme of my set.
+ 2 cards
You may reveal 5 cards with different costs. If you do:
+ 2 cards
well I guess I'm just not as pessimistic about the original version. but if it turns out to fail for whatever reason, I might try this/something like this. though my gut says that 5 different cards is asking too much, I'd probably try it with 4 first.
CostVarietyTurnsPeddlerIntoGrandMarket, 5$, ACTION
uh no I don't like this one. the success doesn't influence whether it works a second time, so it will most likely lead to turns where you play lots of them and none of them triggers. I can already feel that being frustrating.
-
I think I'll use this thread for all of my new ideas. when I'm either confident enough to try a card, or convinced that it doesn't work, I'll remove it from the OP
c9 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set a card from your hand aside. Discard it the next time you shuffle your deck.
any thoughts about this one?
-
Don't remove from the OP, just add a section for ideas that didn't cut it.
-
I've tested c2 at $3 while looking at the top 3 cards of the deck and it seems to work well.
-
c2 with looking at 3 cards is another card that we tried in the German forums at $3, but then raised the cost to $4 (again, some years ago...). Depending on the deck variance, the card can be stronger than a Lab or just a useless cantrip. Today I'd say it mirrors Advisor. You want exactly the opposite kind of deck with it.
I think I'll use this thread for all of my new ideas. when I'm either confident enough to try a card, or convinced that it doesn't work, I'll remove it from the OP
c9 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set a card from your hand aside. Discard it the next time you shuffle your deck.
any thoughts about this one?
Nice idea. It compares best to Vagrant. Vagrant has a lower chance to hit a dead card (because he looks only at one and c9 normally looks at 5 cards). That's why I'd say in terms of getting through the deck, c9 is better. However, it is weakening your current turn because handsize is lowered while Vagrant gives you a dead card which you might use for discard effects/ tfb or stuff.
I think it is okay like this.
On the set-aside: You can just make the set-aside area for c9 be a "second discard pile" next to the normal one. The cards on that pile should also belong to the deck (as set aside cards normally do, e.g. Island, Prince).
That second discard pile might also be used for a completely new mechanic: Some cards can only be used every 2nd shuffle, some cards gain cards for the day after tomorrow etc. (Honestly, I am currently coming up with a Deckbuilding game with multiple discard piles in my mind. ;) )
-
c2 with looking at 3 cards is another card that we tried in the German forums at $3, but then raised the cost to $4 (again, some years ago...). Depending on the deck variance, the card can be stronger than a Lab or just a useless cantrip. Today I'd say it mirrors Advisor. You want exactly the opposite kind of deck with it.
I think I'll use this thread for all of my new ideas. when I'm either confident enough to try a card, or convinced that it doesn't work, I'll remove it from the OP
c9 - Action - 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set a card from your hand aside. Discard it the next time you shuffle your deck.
any thoughts about this one?
Nice idea. It compares best to Vagrant. Vagrant has a lower chance to hit a dead card (because he looks only at one and c9 normally looks at 5 cards). That's why I'd say in terms of getting through the deck, c9 is better. However, it is weakening your current turn because handsize is lowered while Vagrant gives you a dead card which you might use for discard effects/ tfb or stuff.
I think it is okay like this.
On the set-aside: You can just make the set-aside area for c9 be a "second discard pile" next to the normal one. The cards on that pile should also belong to the deck (as set aside cards normally do, e.g. Island, Prince).
That second discard pile might also be used for a completely new mechanic: Some cards can only be used every 2nd shuffle, some cards gain cards for the day after tomorrow etc. (Honestly, I am currently coming up with a Deckbuilding game with multiple discard piles in my mind. ;) )
I have designed a deckbuilding game in which each player builds 4 separate decks with different roles simultaneously. It has not been playtested yet. And it never will be.
-
I have designed a deckbuilding game in which each player builds 4 separate decks with different roles simultaneously. It has not been playtested yet. And it never will be.
So, why did you design it? :P
-
I have designed a deckbuilding game in which each player builds 4 separate decks with different roles simultaneously. It has not been playtested yet. And it never will be.
So, why did you design it? :P
I had the inspiration so I had to. It's kind of like those songs that are supposedly impossible to perform.
-
Well, if you are criticizing me making an impossibly complex deckbuilder game, I think the main idea I described is quite intuitive and easy. The piles are like a timeline where the draw pile is today and the discard piles are the subsequent days.
Back on c9, which lets you skip another card the next time period: It can also be compared to Haven when it is played right before a shuffle. But as a mix of Vagrant and Haven, i think it is nice but not super exciting.
-
Don't remove from the OP, just add a section for ideas that didn't cut it.
meh, why? I come up with ideas constantly, I could just as well list all of those, but they're way too many. you could argue that the ones in this thread are probably not quite as awful, but if anything that means that I should list the ones that I ended up testing and dropped, because they are probably better than the ones I dropped before testing. and I could do that if there is any request for it, but I doubt that there will be.
leaving them in will just make the OP cramped, and I don't really see a reason for it.
-
Don't remove from the OP, just add a section for ideas that didn't cut it.
meh, why? I come up with ideas constantly, I could just as well list all of those, but they're way too many. you could argue that the ones in this thread are probably not quite as awful, but if anything that means that I should list the ones that I ended up testing and dropped, because they are probably better than the ones I dropped before testing. and I could do that if there is any request for it, but I doubt that there will be.
leaving them in will just make the OP cramped, and I don't really see a reason for it.
The reason is mainly because anyone reading the comments won't know what we were talking about if they are no longer in the OP. Other than that there isn't really a reason.
-
Don't remove from the OP, just add a section for ideas that didn't cut it.
meh, why? I come up with ideas constantly, I could just as well list all of those, but they're way too many. you could argue that the ones in this thread are probably not quite as awful, but if anything that means that I should list the ones that I ended up testing and dropped, because they are probably better than the ones I dropped before testing. and I could do that if there is any request for it, but I doubt that there will be.
leaving them in will just make the OP cramped, and I don't really see a reason for it.
But people reading this thread in the future will have an easier time understanding what is being said if the original cards are still in the OP. And if other people try to make similar cards, we will be able to link this thread to list the reasons why it might not work.
AKA: Won't somebody please think of the children?
-
4 new ones. well, one already has a thread, so it's 3 new ones.
c10 - Action - 5$
Dig for a Victory card, putting it on top of your deck. You may put up to three revealed Treasure cards into your hand. Discard the rest.
c11 - Action - 5$
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1$
---
When you buy this, set any number of cards from your hand and all Treasure cards in play aside. Discard them immediately after the next time you shuffle your deck.
c12 - Victory - Reaction - 3$/4$
2 VP
---
When you gain a card costing 0$, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Prayer from the Prayer pile.
c13 - Treasure - 5$
Worth 1$
+1 buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Silver.
(Prayer is +3 cards, +1 action, discard a card, return this to its pile)
i'm kinda getting desperate for cards with +buy, because i don't have a single one yet.
any comments?
-
c10 is a nice concept, though it seems like it would need a lot of playtesting to balance it properly, because its power may vary a lot between trashing and no-trashing (even more than Adventurer or Venture do).
in c11 you should say "set ... aside" instead of "put ... aside". I don't think it is too exciting, Also, why not "on-gain"?
c12 is missing the amount of VP it is supposed to give (even if it is 0 VP).
c13 is a nice idea, though it may make terminal draw/BM too good. Though, possibly not better than Masterpiece. Playtesting will tell.
-
C13 could be very nice in a Feodum deck.
-
in c11 you should say "set ... aside" instead of "put ... aside".
oh yea no idea how that happened
Also, why not "on-gain"?
is there an unspoken rule that effects need to be on-gain unless there is a good reason why they can't? on-buy seems more elegant.
c12 is missing the amount of VP it is supposed to give (even if it is 0 VP).
right, that got lost when i copied it from the OP. it's 2.
-
is there an unspoken rule that effects need to be on-gain unless there is a good reason why they can't? on-buy seems more elegant.
It's the rule Donald X used when creating the relevant cards in Hinterlands. I think his reasoning was that he wanted the on-gain effects to happen a lot.
-
three new ones
c14 - Action - 4$
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. You may play a c14 from them or from your hand. Discard the rest. Trash a card from your hand, gain a card costing up to 1$ more per c14 you have in play.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
c16 - Action - Reaction - 4$
Trash two cards from your hand. Gain a card costing less than both of them combined.
---
When another player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.
comments?
-
c14 - Action - 4$
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. You may play a c14 from them or from your hand. Discard the rest. Trash a card from your hand, gain a card costing up to 1$ more per c14 you have in play.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
c16 - Action - Reaction - 4$
Trash two cards from your hand. Gain a card costing less than both of them combined.
---
When another player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.
comments?
The first one works weirdly.
-Play c14
--Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {c14, estate1, copper1}
--Play revealed c14
---Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
---Play c14 from your hand
----Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----[No more c14 in hand or revealed]
----Discard revealed cards: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----Trash a card from your hand
----Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
---[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
---Trash a card from your hand
---Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
--[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
--Trash a card from your hand
--Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
This is how it's worded, I think. It's weird. People will get confused as to which cards are revealed/on top of deck/have to be discarded.
Second one seems like a quarry variant. I don't know if it's that interesting. You don't get to combo it with "gain up to" or extra buys, but you can use it to buy real gold...
Don't have any opinion on the third.
-
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
I'm not big on this, mainly because I think it's trying to be Trade Route and doesn't really distinguish itself enough. I assume the idea is to accelerate the endgame once it starts, so it's a Copper-with-a-Buy until then and Gold-with-a-Buy afterwards. I was going to suggest changing it to something that triggers on buying a Province, which then makes it look more like Fool's Gold ...
c16 - Action - Reaction - 4$
Trash two cards from your hand. Gain a card costing less than both of them combined.
---
When another player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.
I like this one a bit more - the action is like a hybrid of Forge and Stonemason, and the reaction is a neat attachment that goes with the card. I think it would be a better idea to word the reaction like Horse Traders, otherwise you could wind up drawing your deck rather quickly (especially since this card will encourage quite streamlined decks).
-
c14 - Action - 4$
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. You may play a c14 from them or from your hand. Discard the rest. Trash a card from your hand, gain a card costing up to 1$ more per c14 you have in play.
I think the stack is too crazy for Dominion. If you could find a way to make the card playing last, that might be OK. Like, "+1 Card. You may gain a card costing up to $2 per c14 you have in play. You may play a c14 from your hand." That's almost certainly not balanced, but you get the idea.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
I think it'd be easier to say, "If no Provinces have been gained this game". The effect is usually the same, and ConMan parsed the current wording wrong already. Or I did. One of the two. Also, you don't need the "otherwise" clause.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
Worth $1.
+1 Buy.
If no Provinces have been gained this game, +$2.
c16 - Action - Reaction - 4$
Trash two cards from your hand. Gain a card costing less than both of them combined.
---
When another player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.
The reaction has high potential for looping. As in, you have a few of these and keeping discarding them to re-draw the others. Maybe that's not a big deal. "When another player's card is trashed" is an especially bad place for this to happen though. "Oh, you trashed a card? Hold on. I discard this c16 and draw two cards. Then I discard this one and draw two more cards…"
The Action part seems interesting. You usually don't want to trash a Copper and an Estate, but two Coppers or two Estates is fine. Still, it seems pretty weak when compared to stuff like Steward and Trading Post.
-
The first one works weirdly.
-Play c14
--Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {c14, estate1, copper1}
--Play revealed c14
---Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
---Play c14 from your hand
----Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----[No more c14 in hand or revealed]
----Discard revealed cards: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----Trash a card from your hand
----Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
---[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
---Trash a card from your hand
---Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
--[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
--Trash a card from your hand
--Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
This is how it's worded, I think. It's weird. People will get confused as to which cards are revealed/on top of deck/have to be discarded.
Don't have any opinion on the third.
you got it right (or at least, that's as I wanted it to work). as I said in the op, it's a new attempt at a card that counts itself. play one, it's a terminal upgrade. play two, both are remodels, but you only need one action. play three, and you have three expands. it is complicated though.
Second one seems like a quarry variant. I don't know if it's that interesting. You don't get to combo it with "gain up to" or extra buys, but you can use it to buy real gold...
yea, it's a quarry variant (maybe I should've included the comments from the OP). The differences are
-> the +buy
-> you can also buy treasure cards and duchies/colonies/first province
-> you can't go back to build later in the game
-> it doesn't explode with more buys
I think the stack is too crazy for Dominion. If you could find a way to make the card playing last, that might be OK. Like, "+1 Card. You may gain a card costing up to $2 per c14 you have in play. You may play a c14 from your hand." That's almost certainly not balanced, but you get the idea.
but then you have a 1 / 1-2 / 1-2-3 / 1-2-3-4 growth, not a 1 / 2-2 / 3-3-3 / 4-4-4-4, which kind of ruins the idea. I get your point though.
I think it'd be easier to say, "If no Provinces have been gained this game"
agreed
dunno about the +2$ thing though. I was trying to stay as close to the original cards as possible, and fools gold uses the if .... otherwise ... wording. It's not different, fools gold could also use your wording. I think the fact that it doesn't may on its own be enough of a reason not to do it... what do you think?
The reaction has high potential for looping.
I know. There is an alternative, which is to copy the reaction of holy ground and make it "if another Player's card is trashed, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Prayer... putting it into your hand." I decided against that because it a) takes more words b) takes longer (assuming no loop) and c) just didn't feel natural to me for some reason. I thought the looping was okay, but you're making a good point; it's more likely that it triggers during another Player's turn, and then it's bad if it starts to snowball. I was hoping for a cute interaction with knight attacks though, and that'll take much longer with the Prayer-variant. Hm...
Still, it seems pretty weak when compared to stuff like Steward and Trading Post.
well Trading post is 5$. I did compare it to steward, I thought it was okay because of the reaction. Using that to draw 2 cards is much stronger than using Steward for +2 cards (lab effect / moat effect). And it can do more cool things with expensive cards.
-
c15 - Treasure - 4$
+1 buy
If there are no Provinces missing from the supply, this is worth 3$. Otherwise, it's worth 1$.
I think it'd be easier to say, "If no Provinces have been gained this game". The effect is usually the same, and ConMan parsed the current wording wrong already. Or I did. One of the two. Also, you don't need the "otherwise" clause.
c15 - Treasure - 4$
Worth $1.
+1 Buy.
If no Provinces have been gained this game, +$2.
Oh, blah. You're right, it's actually more like a *reverse* Trading Post. Which means that if you've bought a lot of these, you really don't want anyone gaining Provinces, which means you're going to try to slow down the end game, or switch it to a Duchy/Estate rush. Which is ... :S
-
The first one works weirdly.
-Play c14
--Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {c14, estate1, copper1}
--Play revealed c14
---Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
---Play c14 from your hand
----Reveal 3 top cards from your deck: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----[No more c14 in hand or revealed]
----Discard revealed cards: {estate1, copper1, copper2}
----Trash a card from your hand
----Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
---[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
---Trash a card from your hand
---Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
--[Revealed cards are no longer on top of deck, can't discard them]
--Trash a card from your hand
--Gain card costing up to 3$ more than trashed card
This is how it's worded, I think. It's weird. People will get confused as to which cards are revealed/on top of deck/have to be discarded.
Don't have any opinion on the third.
you got it right (or at least, that's as I wanted it to work). as I said in the op, it's a new attempt at a card that counts itself. play one, it's a terminal upgrade. play two, both are remodels, but you only need one action. play three, and you have three expands. it is complicated though.
It's not the trashing and gaining that is confusing in my mind, it's the revealing and discarding. You are revealing the same cards all the time, because the cards on top of your deck stay the same (unless you play a c14 from them). This is not intuitive.
I would suggest to change it to "Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put a revealed c14 in your hand, discard the other cards. You may play a c14 from your hand. [...]". It's slightly stronger, and works more intuitively.
-
It's not the trashing and gaining that is confusing in my mind, it's the revealing and discarding. You are revealing the same cards all the time, because the cards on top of your deck stay the same
oh, now I get it. I was assuming that you reveal 3 new ones every time, but you're right, there is no reason too.
I would suggest to change it to "Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put a revealed c14 in your hand, discard the other cards. You may play a c14 from your hand. [...]"
yes, that's much better.