Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: majiponi on March 14, 2016, 09:22:15 pm
-
To build another fun expansion, I will add new ideas here.
Old topics:
Nurse
cost 2 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand.
Time Traveller
cost 2 - Event
+1 Buy
Take a Coin token.
Each other player draws and discards a card.
Another one.
Broom
cost 3 - Action - Attack - Reaction
+$1
Each other player gains a Curse.
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, set aside that card on your Broom mat.
-
A non-mandatory cantrip trasher has to cost 5$. Note that mandatory cantrip trashers like Junk Dealer and Upgrade become either risky during the later part of the game (I don't have any junk in my hand so do I risk playing the card)) or even dead cards if you are totally out of junk.
Time Traveller is probably too weak. On average a card is better than a coin so why would I want to get a Coin token (admittedly stronger than an instant coin) and gift my opponents a card? I think the better way to nerf this Event is to restrict it to "once per turn".
Broom is probably OK although I would first try it at 4$. Not that there is a big difference between 3$ and 4$ but as it is an attack-defense Broom could be so strong that it is often/always right to open with two of them. At a price of 4$ you cannot normally do so.
-
I think nurse costs $2 so that everyone can open with two of them and it's not a race to hit $5.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
I think there are reasons in favour of comparing Nurse to Chapel, and reasons against it. Obviously, allowing each player access to Chapel because it's good is something you could apply to Nurse. But i think the reason you listed weights stronger: You will open with two Nurses. In fact, i can imagine loading up on as many Nurses as i can get, simply because they don't harm your deck. Unlike Chapel, where multiples are actively bad usually, Nurses become better in multiples. Note this would still apply if Nurse was mandatory, as getting 2-3 Nurses would allow you to clear out your deck faster than one, and still can trash each other after that.
At the danger of sounding like a bad advertiser, take a look at my Homunculus ("Asper's Cards" thread, no link as i'm on mobile, sorry), which started very similar to Nurse. I gradually weakened it until it took its final form, where it is relatively easy to aquire, but delayed. Note that several other Alchemy cards, like Scrying Pool or Apothecary, and Travellers follow a similar pattern. This is to say, Nurse doesn't need to cost $5, but it certainly needs to be slowed down or made unattractive in multiples.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
I think there are reasons in favour of comparing Nurse to Chapel, and reasons against it. Obviously, allowing each player access to Chapel because it's good is something you could apply to Nurse. But i think the reason you listed weights stronger: You will open with two Nurses. In fact, i can imagine loading up on as many Nurses as i can get, simply because they don't harm your deck. Unlike Chapel, where multiples are actively bad usually, Nurses become better in multiples. Note this would still apply if Nurse was mandatory, as getting 2-3 Nurses would allow you to clear out your deck faster than one, and still can trash each other after that.
At the danger of sounding like a bad advertiser, take a look at my Homunculus ("Asper's Cards" thread, no link as i'm on mobile, sorry), which started very similar to Nurse. I gradually weakened it until it took its final form, where it is relatively easy to aquire, but delayed. Not that several other Alchemy cards, like Scrying Pool or Apothecary, and Travellers follow a similar pattern. This is to say, Nurse doesn't need to cost $5, but it certainly needs to be slowed down or made unattractive in multiples.
A 4$ non-mandatory cantrip trasher wouldn't ruin the game like a 3$ or 2$ would but I think that 5$ is still a better price. Your very own Homunculus is evidence of that:
Homunculus is similar in strength to a non-mandatory cantrip trasher. It is obviously hard to equate its cost into coins due to the Potion trash thingy but one could compare it to Feast. Like Potion Feast costs 4$. During the turns you play/trash them Feast is better as you can buy something during the turn you play it (unless Markt Square and Homunculus are in the Kingdom, then you might open withboth) and Potion is better as you can play a terminal Action with it. I'd say that these relative (dis)advantages roughly balance each other out so the end results, Homunculus and a 5$ card, are comparable.
This is why I would argue that if Homunculus were priced "normally" it would be a 5$ card.
-
Isn't Time Traveler almost strictly worse then candlestick maker?
Candlestick Maker: +1 Buy, +Coin Token, Not Terminal, Stays in your deck. Time Traveler: +1 Buy, +Coin Token, Not Terminal, Benefits Opponents?
-
Isn't Time Traveler almost strictly worse then candlestick maker?
Candlestick Maker: +1 Buy, +Coin Token, Not Terminal, Stays in your deck. Time Traveler: +1 Buy, +Coin Token, Not Terminal, Benefits Opponents?
It is a event.
It still seems week
Maybe if it cost 1coin.
The point is for games with no +buy (or only Ruined Market or something) and your deck hits $12 and you want to save some of that money for later.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
I think there are reasons in favour of comparing Nurse to Chapel, and reasons against it. Obviously, allowing each player access to Chapel because it's good is something you could apply to Nurse. But i think the reason you listed weights stronger: You will open with two Nurses. In fact, i can imagine loading up on as many Nurses as i can get, simply because they don't harm your deck. Unlike Chapel, where multiples are actively bad usually, Nurses become better in multiples. Note this would still apply if Nurse was mandatory, as getting 2-3 Nurses would allow you to clear out your deck faster than one, and still can trash each other after that.
At the danger of sounding like a bad advertiser, take a look at my Homunculus ("Asper's Cards" thread, no link as i'm on mobile, sorry), which started very similar to Nurse. I gradually weakened it until it took its final form, where it is relatively easy to aquire, but delayed. Not that several other Alchemy cards, like Scrying Pool or Apothecary, and Travellers follow a similar pattern. This is to say, Nurse doesn't need to cost $5, but it certainly needs to be slowed down or made unattractive in multiples.
A 4$ non-mandatory cantrip trasher wouldn't ruin the game like a 3$ or 2$ would but I think that 5$ is still a better price. Your very own Homunculus is evidence of that:
Homunculus is similar in strength to a non-mandatory cantrip trasher. It is obviously hard to equate its cost into coins due to the Potion trash thingy but one could compare it to Feast. Like Potion Feast costs 4$. During the turns you play/trash them Feast is better as you can buy something during the turn you play it (unless Markt Square and Homunculus are in the Kingdom, then you might open withboth) and Potion is better as you can play a terminal Action with it. I'd say that these relative (dis)advantages roughly balance each other out so the end results, Homunculus and a 5$ card, are comparable.
This is why I would argue that if Homunculus were priced "normally" it would be a 5$ card.
Yes, i'm not disagreeing with you. My main idea was just to point out that there are other ways to make a card more "expensive" than by costing them higher, which might be able to avoid the "race to hit $5" problem. Travellers, for example. Or a clause like "When you buy this, shuffle your discard pile into your deck." so it always misses the shuffle (it should still cost more). Or some restriction like "You can not buy this while you have no action cards in play" (now that i think of it, this is kind of like Peddler). Or a similar thing with "You may not buy this if you have less than 4 different cards in play". Or costing it at $3+, where you gain a Copper per $1 you overpaid less than, let's say, $3. Or a (regular) Potion cost. Or... There are a lot of ways to do it.
-
I fixed Time Traveller to give opponents shifting benefit. The original idea of benefit was more chance to play cards opponents gained, so this still works.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
I think there are reasons in favour of comparing Nurse to Chapel, and reasons against it. Obviously, allowing each player access to Chapel because it's good is something you could apply to Nurse. But i think the reason you listed weights stronger: You will open with two Nurses. In fact, i can imagine loading up on as many Nurses as i can get, simply because they don't harm your deck. Unlike Chapel, where multiples are actively bad usually, Nurses become better in multiples. Note this would still apply if Nurse was mandatory, as getting 2-3 Nurses would allow you to clear out your deck faster than one, and still can trash each other after that.
At the danger of sounding like a bad advertiser, take a look at my Homunculus ("Asper's Cards" thread, no link as i'm on mobile, sorry), which started very similar to Nurse. I gradually weakened it until it took its final form, where it is relatively easy to aquire, but delayed. Not that several other Alchemy cards, like Scrying Pool or Apothecary, and Travellers follow a similar pattern. This is to say, Nurse doesn't need to cost $5, but it certainly needs to be slowed down or made unattractive in multiples.
A 4$ non-mandatory cantrip trasher wouldn't ruin the game like a 3$ or 2$ would but I think that 5$ is still a better price. Your very own Homunculus is evidence of that:
Homunculus is similar in strength to a non-mandatory cantrip trasher. It is obviously hard to equate its cost into coins due to the Potion trash thingy but one could compare it to Feast. Like Potion Feast costs 4$. During the turns you play/trash them Feast is better as you can buy something during the turn you play it (unless Markt Square and Homunculus are in the Kingdom, then you might open withboth) and Potion is better as you can play a terminal Action with it. I'd say that these relative (dis)advantages roughly balance each other out so the end results, Homunculus and a 5$ card, are comparable.
This is why I would argue that if Homunculus were priced "normally" it would be a 5$ card.
Yes, i'm not disagreeing with you. My main idea was just to point out that there are other ways to make a card more "expensive" than by costing them higher, which might be able to avoid the "race to hit $5" problem. Travellers, for example. Or a clause like "When you buy this, shuffle your discard pile into your deck." so it always misses the shuffle (it should still cost more). Or some restriction like "You can not buy this while you have no action cards in play" (now that i think of it, this is kind of like Peddler). Or a similar thing with "You may not buy this if you have less than 4 different cards in play". Or costing it at $3+, where you gain a Copper per $1 you overpaid less than, let's say, $3. Or a (regular) Potion cost. Or... There are a lot of ways to do it.
Definitely. If somebody can pull this off, like you did with Homunculus, this is cool. One way that comes to mind is to have a terminal 4$ that gains non-supply one-shots. Not all that original, it is just like Marauder-Spoils, but I think that it is a fairly straightforward way to have a quasi 5$ card that everybody can get at roughly the same time.
-
Would you also argue that Junk Dealer and Upgrade should cost 2$ such that everybody could open with them?
This implicit comparison with Chapel is dubious for a simple reason: Chapel is a terminal whereas this is a cantrip. This is also why you rarely want more than one Chapel whereas you frequently want two cantrip trashers.
So besides being totally mispriced Nurse could imply that in a lot of Kingdoms the best opening is two Nurses.
I think there are reasons in favour of comparing Nurse to Chapel, and reasons against it. Obviously, allowing each player access to Chapel because it's good is something you could apply to Nurse. But i think the reason you listed weights stronger: You will open with two Nurses. In fact, i can imagine loading up on as many Nurses as i can get, simply because they don't harm your deck. Unlike Chapel, where multiples are actively bad usually, Nurses become better in multiples. Note this would still apply if Nurse was mandatory, as getting 2-3 Nurses would allow you to clear out your deck faster than one, and still can trash each other after that.
At the danger of sounding like a bad advertiser, take a look at my Homunculus ("Asper's Cards" thread, no link as i'm on mobile, sorry), which started very similar to Nurse. I gradually weakened it until it took its final form, where it is relatively easy to aquire, but delayed. Not that several other Alchemy cards, like Scrying Pool or Apothecary, and Travellers follow a similar pattern. This is to say, Nurse doesn't need to cost $5, but it certainly needs to be slowed down or made unattractive in multiples.
A 4$ non-mandatory cantrip trasher wouldn't ruin the game like a 3$ or 2$ would but I think that 5$ is still a better price. Your very own Homunculus is evidence of that:
Homunculus is similar in strength to a non-mandatory cantrip trasher. It is obviously hard to equate its cost into coins due to the Potion trash thingy but one could compare it to Feast. Like Potion Feast costs 4$. During the turns you play/trash them Feast is better as you can buy something during the turn you play it (unless Markt Square and Homunculus are in the Kingdom, then you might open withboth) and Potion is better as you can play a terminal Action with it. I'd say that these relative (dis)advantages roughly balance each other out so the end results, Homunculus and a 5$ card, are comparable.
This is why I would argue that if Homunculus were priced "normally" it would be a 5$ card.
Yes, i'm not disagreeing with you. My main idea was just to point out that there are other ways to make a card more "expensive" than by costing them higher, which might be able to avoid the "race to hit $5" problem. Travellers, for example. Or a clause like "When you buy this, shuffle your discard pile into your deck." so it always misses the shuffle (it should still cost more). Or some restriction like "You can not buy this while you have no action cards in play" (now that i think of it, this is kind of like Peddler). Or a similar thing with "You may not buy this if you have less than 4 different cards in play". Or costing it at $3+, where you gain a Copper per $1 you overpaid less than, let's say, $3. Or a (regular) Potion cost. Or... There are a lot of ways to do it.
Definitely. If somebody can pull this off, like you did with Homunculus, this is cool. One way that comes to mind is to have a terminal 4$ that gains non-supply one-shots. Not all that original, it is just like Marauder-Spoils, but I think that it is a fairly straightforward way to have a quasi 5$ card that everybody can get at roughly the same time.
Thanks. And sorry MJ, i didn't want to distract from Nun... Another way would be some Dark-Ages-y two-step card with a condition, like Urchin.
-
New idea.
Gold Rush
cost 5 - Treasure
You may choose a Treasure card in your hand. Play it twice.
I wanted Throne Room for Treasure. First, I copied Counterfeit's clause, but this is clearer.
Silver Rush
cost 5 - Treasure - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1Buy
Each other player gains a Silver.
Treasure-Duration card. Maybe too similar to Merchant Ship.
-
Gold Rush(A)
cost 5 - Treasure
You may play a treasure from your hand twice.
This is similar to Magic Mirror (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11863.0), to my knowledge the only decent Action-Treasure card so far.
The wording "This is that card until either leaves play." is IMO a bit better than "play a card twice" but it is not like the latter is unlcear.
While your card is moderately weaker than Magic Mirror I would nonetheless test it at 4$. When you have two or three Golds in your deck such that Gold Rush becomes a worthwile purchase you often hit 6 and thus buy a Gold and when you hit 5 you might rather want an Action Card.
-
Gold Rush
cost 5 - Treasure
You may choose a Treasure from your hand. Play it twice.
This is similar to Magic Mirror (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11863.0), to my knowledge the only decent Action-Treasure card so far.
While your card is moderately weaker than Magic Mirror I would nonetheless test it at 4$. When you have two or three Golds in your deck such that Gold Rush becomes a worthwile purchase you often hit 6 and thus buy a Gold and when you hit 5 you might rather want an Action Card.
I sometimes tried Action-Treasure, but I didn't know Magic-Mirror. This is worth at least $1(Copper copying), usually $2(in order to buy it, you need some Silvers), often $3(Gold copying), sometimes $4(Fool's Gold) or more(Platinum, Bank, etc.). Unlike Counterfeit, this does not need trash. Sometimes overpowering for cost 4. I felt the domination of Big-Money is not fun, so I priced $5.
-
Broom
cost 3 - Action - Attack - Reaction
+$1
Each other player gains a Curse.
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, set aside that card on your Broom mat.
This card seems very unfun. First, it's a curser, and when cursing is good, you want to open Broom/Broom, which leads to awfully sloggy games since the card does nothing for your economy.
If cursing isn't very good due to heavy trashing, you can probably build an engine, and in any engine I want to buy this simply for the reaction which is a super easy way to avoid stalling when greening and takes the whole "dealing with green cards" theme away from the game. Island is closest to this, and for that you still have to play the card, plus it is one-shot.
-
Gold Rush
cost 5 - Treasure
You may choose a Treasure from your hand. Play it twice.
This is similar to Magic Mirror (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11863.0), to my knowledge the only decent Action-Treasure card so far.
While your card is moderately weaker than Magic Mirror I would nonetheless test it at 4$. When you have two or three Golds in your deck such that Gold Rush becomes a worthwile purchase you often hit 6 and thus buy a Gold and when you hit 5 you might rather want an Action Card.
I sometimes tried Action-Treasure, but I didn't know Magic-Mirror. This is worth at least $1(Copper copying), usually $2(in order to buy it, you need some Silvers), often $3(Gold copying), sometimes $4(Fool's Gold) or more(Platinum, Bank, etc.). Unlike Counterfeit, this does not need trash. Sometimes overpowering for cost 4. I felt the domination of Big-Money is not fun, so I priced $5.
Huh? The fact that Counterfeit trashes is an asset and not a liability before the endgame when you trash non-Copper. Gold Rush, a plain Treasure TR, is definitely too weak for 5$. Big Money rarely wins so there is no need to be afraid of a card that makes it stronger.
Its main problem though is that it is too narrow. It makes no sense at all to buy this before you have a few Gold unless there is no decent 4$ and 5$ card. So unlike other Treasure cards you only want this for BM and Colony games (it is also OK in a game with Venture once the Venture pile is empty).
-
Huh? The fact that Counterfeit trashes is an asset and not a liability before the endgame when you trash non-Copper. Gold Rush, a plain Treasure TR, is definitely too weak for 5$. Big Money rarely wins so there is no need to be afraid of a card that makes it stronger.
Its main problem though is that it is too narrow. It makes no sense at all to buy this before you have a few Gold unless there is no decent 4$ and 5$ card. So unlike other Treasure cards you only want this for BM and Colony games (it is also OK in a game with Venture once the Venture pile is empty).
Fmm... I don't think Big-Money is weak (especially in multiplayer games). But I agree this is too solid, narrow, and unattractive. So I added new clause.
Gold Rush
cost 5 - Treasure
You may choose a Treasure from your hand. Play it twice.
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose a Treasure card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.
This can wait for the collision. GR-GR-GR-Gold-Gold enables you buying Colony every turn.
-
Treasure with Herbalist ability sounds good.
-
New one. I am wondering its name.
Magic Lamp
cost 2+ - Action
+2 Cards
Use a Lamp token. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Lamp token.
Fixed.
Broom(B)
cost 4 - Action - Reaction
Set aside a card from your hand.
When you gain a card, you may reveal this. If you do, set aside that card.
New one.
Mirror of Erised
cost 4 - Action
Gain a Curse and a card costing up to $6, putting them on top of your deck.
Of course this name is from Harry Potter.
-
Another. Alt-VP card! (Just a prototype)
Pastoral Land
cost $4 - Treasure - Victory
Worth $0
When you play this, take a Pastoral token. You cannot buy cards in this turn.
Worth 1 vp for every Pastoral token you have.
This needs
1. to avoid repetition of moves
2. to be balanced
Please give me your tips!
-
Another. Alt-VP card! (Just a prototype)
Pastoral Land
cost $4 - Treasure - Victory
Worth $0
When you play this, take a Pastoral token. You cannot buy cards in this turn.
Worth 1 vp for every Pastoral token you have.
This needs
1. to avoid repetition of moves
2. to be balanced
Please give me your tips!
It's a lot like a VP token card, just that you get one VP per Pastoral you have and you lose part of the VP if Pastoral gets trashed. It's much too dominant. Usually, VP cards try to move the game towards its end. Pastoral actually keeps you from ending the game. Getting more of these than your opponents is almost an instant win. I recommend limiting the tokens to 5 per player.
-
New prototype.
Pastoral Land
cost $4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1 vp for every 2 Victory cards on your Tavern mat (round down).
At the start of your Buy phase, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put any number of Victory cards from your hand on your Tavern mat. You can't buy cards in this turn.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
-
Magic Lamp
cost 2+ - Action
+2 Cards
Use a Lamp token. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Lamp token.
This is easily my favorite from this thread. Reminds me of LF's trade token mechanic. I think I'll add it to my cards to print and play with.
It might be better with a base cost of $1, but we'll test and find out.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
I think 6P is a little too much for this one. Possession lets you take an extra turn AND mess with your opponent's deck AND is has unlimited uses per turn. This should cost ~4P-5P.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
I think 6P is a little too much for this one. Possession lets you take an extra turn AND mess with your opponent's deck AND is has unlimited uses per turn. This should cost ~4P-5P.
Twin Princesses also has unlimited uses per turn. It just doesn't let you chain turns by playing Twin Princesses on a Twin Princesses turn. Neither does Possession.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
I think 6P is a little too much for this one. Possession lets you take an extra turn AND mess with your opponent's deck AND is has unlimited uses per turn. This should cost ~4P-5P.
Twin Princesses also has unlimited uses per turn. It just doesn't let you chain turns by playing Twin Princesses on a Twin Princesses turn. Neither does Possession.
It can be stronger in some ways too. If you do play multiples, you can build your deck on each extra turn whereas with Possession, you play all your extra turns with the same deck.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
I think 6P is a little too much for this one. Possession lets you take an extra turn AND mess with your opponent's deck AND is has unlimited uses per turn. This should cost ~4P-5P.
Twin Princesses also has unlimited uses per turn. It just doesn't let you chain turns by playing Twin Princesses on a Twin Princesses turn. Neither does Possession.
Oohh, didn't see that. That explains the high cost. I still think 5P should be enough though, but only playtesting can tell.
-
Another. Stronger Outpost.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Shortest implementation. Originally it costed 8.
I think 6P is a little too much for this one. Possession lets you take an extra turn AND mess with your opponent's deck AND is has unlimited uses per turn. This should cost ~4P-5P.
Twin Princesses also has unlimited uses per turn. It just doesn't let you chain turns by playing Twin Princesses on a Twin Princesses turn. Neither does Possession.
Oohh, didn't see that. That explains the high cost. I still think 5P should be enough though, but only playtesting can tell.
I think a self-Possession should cost MORE than Possession, not less. In the absence of various certain cards, the "mess with your opponent's deck" part of Possession doesn't really exist; on average it will slightly help your opponent by cycling him faster. If you plan on using Possession heavily, your opponent has some control over how good it is for you: buying attacks; greening sooner; etc. With self-Possession, your opponent can't really do anything to control your extra turns (outside of the normal control like playing attacks).
-
But one of the strengths of Poss. is the trashing benefit.
-
Another.
Crusade
cost 5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand trashes a Treasure from his hand (or reveals a hand with no Treasure cards).
It sometimes gives your opponent trashing benefit, but usually Cutpurses.
Mercury
cost 4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may gain a card costing less than that card.
Originally the latter gaining was mandatory. But why do you want Scheme and Copper? Sometimes it forced you to gain unwanted Mercury.
-
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
I still think 5P should be enough though, but only playtesting can tell.
I think a self-Possession should cost MORE than Possession, not less. In the absence of various certain cards, the "mess with your opponent's deck" part of Possession doesn't really exist; on average it will slightly help your opponent by cycling him faster. If you plan on using Possession heavily, your opponent has some control over how good it is for you: buying attacks; greening sooner; etc. With self-Possession, your opponent can't really do anything to control your extra turns (outside of the normal control like playing attacks).
But one of the strengths of Poss. is the trashing benefit.
I do agree TP should cost at least 6P. It cannot be used for evel Pins. However, opponents cannot stop Megaturns unless he buys most of the Provinces before. I tried 5P, too cheap. 7P, nobody bought it unless Engine is very powerful. So I priced 6P, same to Possession.
To tell the truth, I wanted a Possession which is not hated. In Possession games, every player avoids building an engine which can let you buy Provinces. Long, boring game. This boosts up gamespeed. Everyone wonders more which strategy is faster. Fun.
-
Possession is better than this Outpost variant as it is interactive and significantly influences gameplay. In so far as it incentives players to defend via greening earlier your argument is correct but there are other wa,s to defend like junkers and VP token gainers.
To be blunt, people who hate Possession obviously cannot deal with its repercussions.
-
Possession is better than this Outpost variant as it is interactive and significantly influences gameplay. In so far as it incentives players to defend via greening earlier your argument is correct but there are other wa,s to defend like junkers and VP token gainers.
To be blunt, people who hate Possession obviously cannot deal with its repercussions.
Attack cards are not always available. Faster greening is rarely strong (especially in 2-player games).
And Possession is too luck-depending, I think.
"Oh, double-bottom!"
"My opponent discarded my Potion!"
"He discarded my Possession!""
...
Strong player loses easily if he is just unlucky. Without any playing mistake. Often! That's why I dislike Possession. TP is less luck-swingy.
-
Possession is better than this Outpost variant as it is interactive and significantly influences gameplay. In so far as it incentives players to defend via greening earlier your argument is correct but there are other wa,s to defend like junkers and VP token gainers.
To be blunt, people who hate Possession obviously cannot deal with its repercussions.
Attack cards are not always available. Faster greening is rarely strong (especially in 2-player games).
And Possession is too luck-depending, I think.
"Oh, double-bottom!"
"My opponent discarded my Potion!"
"He discarded my Possession!""
...
Strong player loses easily if he is just unlucky. Without any playing mistake. Often! That's why I dislike Possession. TP is less luck-swingy.
So you obviously can't deal with the repercussions. ;D
-
Another.
Crusade
cost 5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand trashes a Treasure from his hand (or reveals a hand with no Treasure cards).
It sometimes gives your opponent trashing benefit, but usually Cutpurses.
Mercury
cost 4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may gain a card costing less than that card.
Originally the latter gaining was mandatory. But why do you want Scheme and Copper? Sometimes it forced you to gain unwanted Mercury.
Crusader seems like it could work. But mercury? On a lot of boards I'd always take the extra 3 and buy this over armory. Maybe reworking as a 5 cost card could do. Like we have trading post and trade, maybe ballroom and ball.
-
New idea.
Carpenter
cost 5 - Action
+$3
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Put it on top and discard the other revealed cards.
I wanted a card which attacks myself, or a Duration card that has a demerit on your next turn.
-
Maybe as a 4 cost? Compare it to Asper's Jeweler which give 3$ and a buy and a extra reaction benefit. I actually had a card like this but with an on gain penalty.
-
Maybe as a 4 cost? Compare it to Asper's Jeweler which give 3$ and a buy and a extra reaction benefit. I actually had a card like this but with an on gain penalty.
This idea is similar to Mandarin and Count. Both earns +$3 using 2 cards in hand. (Gaining Copper is using future cards in hand.) I know Asper's Jeweler, but I think it should cost $5.5, 2P or 3P, not just $5.
-
Maybe as a 4 cost? Compare it to Asper's Jeweler which give 3$ and a buy and a extra reaction benefit. I actually had a card like this but with an on gain penalty.
This idea is similar to Mandarin and Count. Both earns +$3 using 2 cards in hand. (Gaining Copper is using future cards in hand.) I know Asper's Jeweler, but I think it should cost $5.5, 2P or 3P, not just $5.
What about cache? Non-terminal and better penalty.
-
Maybe as a 4 cost? Compare it to Asper's Jeweler which give 3$ and a buy and a extra reaction benefit. I actually had a card like this but with an on gain penalty.
This idea is similar to Mandarin and Count. Both earns +$3 using 2 cards in hand. (Gaining Copper is using future cards in hand.) I know Asper's Jeweler, but I think it should cost $5.5, 2P or 3P, not just $5.
What about cache? Non-terminal and better penalty.
Gaining Copper slows down the cycling. 2 Coppers means you can play your strong cards less often. For each card, 0.2T later after thd next reshuffle (in average). 0.6T later after the 2nd reshuffle. It uses future hand indirectly.
I think Asper noticed the strength of Jeweler and revised it.
(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150208/ha9ilcqw.jpg)
-
Mercury
cost 4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $4.
You may gain a card costing less than that card.
Crusader seems like it could work. But mercury? On a lot of boards I'd always take the extra 3 and buy this over armory. Maybe reworking as a 5 cost card could do. Like we have trading post and trade, maybe ballroom and ball.
Let me see...it should, I agree.
I want a 4-cost Workshop. So I'll try another idea.
Treasure Ship
cost $3 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $3, putting it into your hand.
Mercury(B)
cost $4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.
Maybe it should cost $5.
+$2 if you gain Silver. Better than Ironworks and Armory.
Nothing happens if you gain Garden. Better than Armory. Ironworks is better.
Is it always better than Armory and Ironworks if you gain an Action?
Ironworks let you play another Action.
Armory let you set up your next turn.
Mercury let you play the gained Action immediately if you played Village before.
-
Asper made an updated version of jewler, which is the one I was reffering too. Treasure ship seems like a great card but mercury seems like it would be better as a non terminal 5 cost.
-
Asper made an updated version of jewler, which is the one I was reffering too.
I didn't know update version exists. Where? Earns $3?
It would be better as a non terminal 5 cost.
It is almost always better than Band of Misfits if this is non-terminal. Too good, I think. Terminal Mercury is still one of the strongest 4-cost cards, I agree. I tried $5, P, none of them seemed attractive.
How about this one?
Mercury(C)
cost $4 - Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
Asper made an updated version of jewler, which is the one I was reffering too.
I didn't know update version exists. Where? Earns $3?
It would be better as a non terminal 5 cost.
It is almost always better than Band of Misfits if this is non-terminal. Too good, I think. Terminal Mercury is still one of the strongest 4-cost cards, I agree. I tried $5, P, none of them seemed attractive.
How about this one?
Mercury(C)
cost $4 - Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain a card costing up to $4.
Yeah, thought there might me a good comparison for a 5 non terminal mercury but I was to tired to think of it. Mercury B might work with an if you did clause.
Trash a card from you hand. If you did, gain a card costing up to 4 (3?) coins, putting it into your hand.
Whoops! Looks like Asper switched back to the old version of jeweler. My apologies, didn't catch that. Dang, now I'll have to reprint the card...
-
Cards which are still alive. (Needs more discussion.)
Time Traveller
cost $2 - Event
+1 Buy
Take a Coin token.
Each other player draws and discards a card.
Gold Rush
cost $5 - Treasure
You may choose a Treasure from your hand. Play it twice.
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose a Treasure card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.
Silver Rush
cost $5 - Treasure - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1Buy
Each other player gains a Silver.
Magic Lamp
cost $2+ - Action
+2 Cards
Use a Lamp token. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Lamp token.
Pastoral Land
cost $4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1 vp for every 2 Victory cards on your Tavern mat (round down).
At the start of your Buy phase, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put any number of Victory cards from your hand on your Tavern mat. You can't buy cards in this turn.
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one.
Crusade
cost $5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand trashes a Treasure from his hand (or reveals a hand with no Treasure cards).
Carpenter
cost $5 - Action
+$3
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Put it on top and discard the other revealed cards.
Treasure Ship
cost $3 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $3, putting it into your hand.
Mercury
cost $4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $4.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.
Princess Bergamot
cost 6P - Action - Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
Directly after resolving an Action, you may call this. If you do,
+1 Action
Reveal your discard pile, and put an Action card into your hand from that pile.
At the start of Clean-up this turn, put this on your tavern mat.
8 more Princesses I am writing. It'll be used in games like Knights.
Discarded ideas. (Needs no discussion anymore.)
Nurse
Broom
Mirror of Erised
Another.
Princess Cramcram
cost $6 - Action - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game:
+1 Buy
(This stays in play)
While this is in play, cards cost $2 less on your turns, but not less than $0.
-
Time Traveller:
If you look through older threads, you'll see that your not the first to come up with this. Asper made a version without the sifting, and he said it was balanced, just unfun. The best version I saw was "Deposit" which was Asper's with a once per turn. I'd suggest ditching this and working on your much more unique ideas.
Gold Rush:
6 might work, test it at 6 as well as five. I like it as a card though.
Silver Rush:
Seems a bit weak at first. After reading it over my only suggestion is to make the gaining optional, or to make it an attack.
Magic Lamp:
Change it to "Spend a lamp token" instead of use a lamp token.
Pastoral Land:
Seems Interesting, not much to say.
Twin Princesses:
I think this card is essentially balanced, but I personally don't like it. It's more of an opinion, so I have no objection to it anymore.
Crusade:
Needs a "Reveal's their hand" clause. Seems a bit weak as it will usually just trash coppers, whiff, or occasionally a silver.
Carpenter:
Hilariously weak. If you are going by fan cards, LFN's harbor would be a good comparison. It can give +3 coins as well as a scouting benefit. Gladiator can give +3 and it costs 2 less. Count can give a +3 with a penalty and has WAYYYYY more flexibility.
Treasure Ship/Mercury:
Both very similar cards. A simple $4 gainer that gains a card costing up to 3 in your hand seems good. Fun fact: Donald actually tested a similar car for cornucopia, see the secret history.
-
Time Traveller:
If you look through older threads, you'll see that your not the first to come up with this. Asper made a version without the sifting, and he said it was balanced, just unfun. The best version I saw was "Deposit" which was Asper's with a once per turn. I'd suggest ditching this and working on your much more unique ideas.
Gold Rush:
6 might work, test it at 6 as well as five. I like it as a card though.
Silver Rush:
Seems a bit weak at first. After reading it over my only suggestion is to make the gaining optional, or to make it an attack.
Magic Lamp:
Change it to "Spend a lamp token" instead of use a lamp token.
Pastoral Land:
Seems Interesting, not much to say.
Fmm...I'll discard Time Traveller. I'll find another Event which interacts with coin tokens.
I'm thinking of another idea of Silver Rush.
Silver Rush(C)
cost $5 - Treasure - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: gain a Silver, putting it into your hand.
Very close idea to Merchant Ship. However, SR doesn't spend an Action, it thickens your deck with Silvers (you have less chance of playing SR).
-
I fixed Time Traveller.
Venture Business
cost $2 - Event
+2 Buys
Once per turn: In this turn, when you buy a card, take a coin token.
Instant Merchant Guild. Without limitation, it was too strong.
-
New idea.
Hansel
cost $3 - Action
+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Coppers from your hand.
Discard them.
+1 Card per Copper discarded.
Jack and the Beanstalk
cost $2 - Action
+2 Actions
If you've played 3 or more Jack and the Beanstalk this turn (counting this): +2 Cards.
Weak Lost City. Maybe stronger than Shanty Town.
Peter Pan
cost $3 - Action
+1 Action
+3 Cards
Put 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck.
I'll discard Gold Rush. Crown will be an official card which is Action-Treasure and lets you play Treasure twice.
-
Ice Fairy
cost $9 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy
You may put your deck into your discard pile.
From Toho project.
Marisa
cost $5 - Action - Attack
Each player (including you) reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing an Action. Either he trashes that card or you gain a copy of that card, his choice.
-
Ice Fairy
cost $9 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy
You may put your deck into your discard pile.
From Toho project.
Marisa
cost $5 - Action - Attack
Each player (including you) reveals cards from the top of his deck until revealing an Action. Either he trashes that card or you gain a copy of that card, his choice.
Ice Fairy seems a tad weak compared to Platinum but the extra Buys might make it worthwile.
Marisa is too strong. Most of the time you will gain a number of Action cards equal to the number of players. Exception are Ruins and the other player trashing an unimportant Action card.
-
Marisa sometimes gives you unnecessary Actions, like 3rd Workshop, 2nd Outpost, or so. Opponent can buy Actions that ruins your deck (for example, Begger). That's why I included yourself. But I agree this must be fixed, as in many boards every Kingdom Actions are valuable.
Thief, Jester, Saboteur variant is difficult.
Revised:
Thieves
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If he revealed any Action cards, he choose one:
trash one of them; or you gain a copy of that.
They discard the other revealed cards.
-
I am making another Potion-cost card. Is it worth buying?
Magi(A)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action - Duration
For the rest of this game, when you take a turn whose previous one is not yours, take another.
Magi(B)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action - Duration
For the rest of this game, each other player only draws 3 cards (instead of 5) in the Clean-up phase.
Magi(C)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action
Gain 2 cards.
-
Magi(A)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action - Duration
For the rest of this game, when you take a turn whose previous one is not yours, take another.
Insanely OP. for just (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) you can get double turns for the rest of the game. Insanely broken with Alms, Baker, Borrow, and really good with Wharehouse and Travelling Fair.
Magi(B)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action - Duration
For the rest of this game, each other player only draws 3 cards (instead of 5) in the Clean-up phase.
This one might be reasonable. For roughly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) it's a princed millitia, but without the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and the attack is harsher. If anything I'd worry that this is too degenerate, and once you get one it's harder for everyone else to get one, so just like the top one there's too much shuffle luck.
Magi(C)
cost DOUBLE-POTION - Action
Gain 2 cards.
Insanely OP. You just need (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) and then you can get 2 Provinces for free. With Donate and a little luck you can get:
T1: Potion
T2: Anything
T3: Potion
T4: Donate
T5: MagiC
and then continue to play it. With Alms you can open P/P, then get this, the donate and empty the provinces in 10 turns.
All of these are OP and not that fun. Sorry for the harsh criticism :-\.
-
All of these are OP and not that fun. Sorry for the harsh criticism :-\.
I am HAPPY to hear it overpowered. Alms, Baker ARE brokenly strong in themselves. I won't forget him who played Procession-Mountebank to gain Border Village and Mountebank. I won't forget him who played Treasure Map to gain 4 Gold...
But I'll find another prize for playing 2 Potions.
-
Broom
cost 3 - Action - Attack - Reaction
+$1
Each other player gains a Curse. When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, set aside that card on your Broom mat.
Way undercoated, the cheapest attack that gives a curse (without a downside) is sea hag I could think of, and while sea hag has a better attack Broom is a much better overall card since it gives 1 static coin and lets you keep gained victory cards out of your deck, while being able to defend against Estate, Copper, Curse, Ruin type attacks. I think this could has the strength of a 5 cost.
Time Traveler: I don't play with events too often but this seems fair I guess, you can use any extra coins you may have for coin tokens. However I would remove the downside since this event already costs 2.
Nurse: Broken, How is this not a better Ratcatcher.
-
New idea. Weak or broken?
Unnamed Princess
cost 6P - Duration
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn, gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.
-
New idea. Weak or broken?
Unnamed Princess
cost 6P - Duration
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn, gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.
Broken, in a lot of kingdoms this would be a better hireling. Also you can gain silver...
-
New idea. Weak or broken?
Unnamed Princess
cost 6P - Duration
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn, gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.
Broken, in a lot of kingdoms this would be a better hireling. Also you can gain silver...
But this costs $6 AND Potion, not just $6. I designed this as a variant of Possession. Possession can let you gain another Province. It maybe just skip your left player's bad hand. I tried to make it less swingy. I first tried "gain up to $6". Brokenly strong. $5, still strong. $3, boring. It was usually used just for Silver. So I tries this version.
-
New idea. Weak or broken?
Unnamed Princess
cost 6P - Duration
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn, gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.
Broken, in a lot of kingdoms this would be a better hireling. Also you can gain silver...
But this costs $6 AND Potion, not just $6. I designed this as a variant of Possession. Possession can let you gain another Province. It maybe just skip your left player's bad hand. I tried to make it less swingy. I first tried "gain up to $6". Brokenly strong. $5, still strong. $3, boring. It was usually used just for Silver. So I tries this version.
Ah I thought the p was a random typo, sorry. With the cost of 6 coins and a potion it seems very comparable to prince. It's like a prince except with a few changes, such as you have to use an action point to play action cards with Princess, Princess can target silver and estates, also she has less set-up, more variation, and lets you gain the card.; However, empty supply piles can cripple Princess. I would probably rather have Possession in most cases, and I need to see Princess in game to see how good she is.
-
New idea.
Princess Luna
cost 6P - Victory
4vp
When you gain this, set this aside. For the rest of the game after that, when you buy a Victory card, you may put it on this.
You may put any number of Victory cards. Brokenly strong? or very weak?
-
Shouldn't give VP itself. And sounds like a good idea on a splitpile, because you only need one.
-
This same mechanic of "Islanding" your victory cards as you buy them could also be replicated using an Event that you have to buy before purchasing the victory card:
$2 - Event
+1 Buy
Put the next card you buy on your Tavern Mat.
-
Interesting combo with Distant Lands
-
Interesting combo with Distant Lands
No, Luna just lets you "set aside". So Distant Lands is 0vp if you use this ability.
I am trying different vps, some are alt-vp.
-
Interesting combo with Distant Lands
No, Luna just lets you "set aside". So Distant Lands is 0vp if you use this ability.
I am trying different vps, some are alt-vp.
I think marmeluke is replying to the suggested Event that does put the card on the Tavern mat.
-
Interesting combo with Distant Lands
No, Luna just lets you "set aside". So Distant Lands is 0vp if you use this ability.
I am trying different vps, some are alt-vp.
I think marmeluke is replying to the suggested Event that does put the card on the Tavern mat.
Or, I haven't understood. I see.
My princesses are
strong Outpost
strong Bridge Troll
strong Hireling
and this. The first and the second is really strong. Maybe weakened later. Others have to have attractiveness, which do you like, Province, or Princess? So I want Luna to be worth buying (of course, should not be too strong).
-
Interesting combo with Distant Lands
No, Luna just lets you "set aside". So Distant Lands is 0vp if you use this ability.
I am trying different vps, some are alt-vp.
I think marmeluke is replying to the suggested Event that does put the card on the Tavern mat.
Yes, I was talking about the Event. Which is probably too expensive if comboed with DL -- $7 for 4 VP? Maybe if it worked for all future buys in the turn. Anyways.
-
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another after this one.
Without trashing, this is not too strong. However, with heavy trashing (like Chapel), this will be brokenly strong, since there is only one.
Twin Princesses(B)
cost 6P - Action
Set this aside. If you do, take 2 extra turns after this one.
The secret theme of Princess family is "forever she is with you". This version fits the concept.
-
Twin Princesses
cost 6P - Action - Duration
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take another after this one.
Without trashing, this is not too strong. However, with heavy trashing (like Chapel), this will be brokenly strong, since there is only one.
Does it need the Duration type? Also seems too similar to possession. On another note consistent decks are not only a thing with heavy trashers such as Chapel or Donate.
Twin Princesses(B)
cost 6P - Action
Set this aside. If you do, take 2 extra turns after this one.
The secret theme of Princess family is "forever she is with you". This version fits the concept.
Seems weird since you get faster value than "possession" while being usable once. I would say, that I like it more than the other version since it's more unique, however in most cases I would rather get possession.
-
Old idea. Revised.
Eastern Merchant
cost $4 - Action
+1 Action
+2 Buy
+$2
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
Buying a card in Action phase. Usually non-terminal Woodcutter. After resolving, you have a chance to play the bought card. Similar to Ironworks. Is it worth buying? Any simpler text?
-
Old idea. Revised.
Eastern Merchant
cost $4 - Action
+1 Action
+2 Buy
+$2
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
Buying a card in Action phase. Usually non-terminal Woodcutter. After resolving, you have a chance to play the bought card. Similar to Ironworks. Is it worth buying? Any simpler text?
A non-terminal qausi-Silver Action card is probably already a 4$ so I feel safe in claiming that this is overpowered.
The Black Market like idea is cool though.
-
Old idea. Revised.
Eastern Merchant
cost $4 - Action
+1 Action
+2 Buy
+$2
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
Buying a card in Action phase. Usually non-terminal Woodcutter. After resolving, you have a chance to play the bought card. Similar to Ironworks. Is it worth buying? Any simpler text?
A non-terminal qausi-Silver Action card is probably already a 4$ so I feel safe in claiming that this is overpowered.
The Black Market like idea is cool though.
I am not sure. Non-terminal Silver is just a Silver you can only play in Action phase. Not $4 but $3.
There are some non-terminal Silvers: Festival, Minion, Conspirator, Lighthouse, Fishing Village, Grand Market, and Mystic. $5-cost cards have a reason why they are $5. Festival: Village
Minion: instead draw 4
Mystic: draw 1/2
They cannot be $5 - game breaker.
Eastern Merchant doesn't break. Yes, it is not weak, but not worth $5 (although I will reduce 1 Buy). I gave it +1 Action because without this, it is uninteresting.
-
Old idea. Revised.
Eastern Merchant
cost $4 - Action
+1 Action
+2 Buy
+$2
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
Buying a card in Action phase. Usually non-terminal Woodcutter. After resolving, you have a chance to play the bought card. Similar to Ironworks. Is it worth buying? Any simpler text?
A non-terminal qausi-Silver Action card is probably already a 4$ so I feel safe in claiming that this is overpowered.
The Black Market like idea is cool though.
I am not sure. Non-terminal Silver is just a Silver you can only play in Action phase. Not $4 but $3.
There are some non-terminal Silvers: Festival, Minion, Conspirator, Lighthouse, Fishing Village, Grand Market, and Mystic. $5-cost cards have a reason why they are $5. Festival: Village
Minion: instead draw 4
Mystic: draw 1/2
They cannot be $5 - game breaker.
Eastern Merchant doesn't break. Yes, it is not weak, but not worth $5 (although I will reduce 1 Buy). I gave it +1 Action because without this, it is uninteresting.
Ehm, I argued that pure Action-Silver is a 4$, not a 5$.
Eastern Merchant is significantly more than just an Action-Silver so this hovers somewhere between 4$ and 5$. There are ample of cards that provide from non-terminal coins and an ib-between Buy phase also sometimes matters.
-
New idea. Baron and Peddler variant.
Sleeping Beauty
cost $3 - Action - Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may discard a Victory card not to gain an Estate.
1VP
-
Wait, so you need to discard a VP card or else you gain an estate?
-
Wait, so you need to discard a VP card or else you gain an estate?
Yes. Green grows when you use without green. Use it with Silk Road, Garden, Baron, or Watchtower.
-
I think it should say "You may discard a Victory card. If you didn't, gain an Estate" then.
-
I think it should say "You may discard a Victory card. If you didn't, gain an Estate" then.
Fixed.
Sleeping Beauty
cost $3 - Action - Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may discard a Victory card. If you didn't, gain an Estate.
1VP
Is it fun? Some awesome ways to use?
An Event to do something on opponent's turn.
Direct Trade
cost $1 - Event
Once per turn: +1Buy. Set aside a card from your hand and put your Direct Trade token on it. Ask each other player to swap it for their set-aside card. If agreed, swap them, putting into their new owners' hand. At the start of your next turn, trash the set-aside card and +$1.
Honey Fairy
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
Choose one: take a coin token; remove your two tokens to duplicate a token you have.
Candlestick Maker variant from Heart of Crown. Works well with Adventures or Empires. You can duplicate your +1 Action token, removing your Coin tokens, sometimes removing your debt tokens.
-
Another idea. Just a prototype.
Manna from the Heaven
cost $2 - Action - Duration
For the rest of the game, at the start of your Buy phase, you may gain a Copper into your hand.
(This stays in play.)
Pixy 1
cost $2 Action
+$2
Gain a card. Each other player gains a copy of it.
Pixy 2
cost $2 Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player trashes the top card of their deck and gain the same cost card, their choice.
Pixy 3
cost $2 Action - Attack
+$2
Reveal a card from your hand. Each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand, and if they didn't, they gain a copy of it.
Pixy 4
cost $2 - Action - Attack
Each other player may reveal a Pixy from their hand, and if they didn't, they gain a Copper.
-
An idea stole from Asper. The original was
Message in a bottle
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your right flips their Bottle token over. If it's face up, they draw a card.
When you buy this, put it and a copy of it in the discard pile of the player to your left.
I found a fun variant.
Pixy 5
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Your right player draws a card.
When you buy this, your left gains this instead.
-
Actually, I'd consider pure Action-Silver (that is, an Action card that just gives +1 Action, +2$) to be worth slightly less than Silver, not more. It has the disadvantage that it can be drawn dead, for example.
An idea stole from Asper. The original was
Message in a bottle
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your right flips their Bottle token over. If it's face up, they draw a card.
When you buy this, put it and a copy of it in the discard pile of the player to your left.
I found a fun variant.
Pixy 5
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Your right player draws a card.
When you buy this, your left gains this instead.
That was pacofv's take on the idea. The original idea didn't use the token flipping mechanic. Just for info.
-
Final version.
Pixy
cost $2 Action - Duration
Gain 2 Coppers, setting aside.
At the start of your each Buy phase, put any number of them into your hand.
It is a Begger, Butcher variant. It gives you 2 coin tokens at the price of $2. Unlike other Duration, it waits until you really need. I tried Reserve version, but this is crazy with Miser.
Other two: I conceived on another thread.
Shrewd Manager
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1.
At the start of your next turn, do the others.
Secret Well
cost $3 Action - Reaction
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Discard your hand and draw 5 cards.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Set aside one of them. Discard one of them. Put the other one on top of your deck.
-
Am I right asduming that Secret Well pseudo-trashes the card it sets aside? Because it doesn't ever state that the cards return to your deck. Same goes for itself.
-
Am I right asduming that Secret Well pseudo-trashes the card it sets aside? Because it doesn't ever state that the cards return to your deck. Same goes for itself.
That card is discarded.
Some cards are revised. Next is one of them.
Nightingale
cost $0* - Action
Reveal three cards from your deck. Trash any number of non-Treasure cards. Discard the rest.
You can’t buy this if you have any Treasures in play.
She was Nurse, cantrip trasher, crazy. One day I thought "isn't costless Kingdom card nice?" It must not be so powerful, but has to be useful. I thought "hey, Nurse, do you like Treasures?" She is willing to help you without any Treasures. She doesn't mind Treasures. Trashing 3 cards without decreasing your buy power. Attractive, isn't she?
Maleficent
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player gains a Curse.
When you buy this, put all cards from your hand onto your deck.
She was Broom. Its reaction part is used for another card. I needed a Curser costing $3 or $4 in my expansion. I tried some, but won't work. I tried penalty version, and here she is. Once the penalty was on-gain effect, but one day, my friend bought Messenger.
-
Nightingale should use the Lookout wording and is really too similar to Lookout to be interesting.
Maleficent is an auto-double-opening buy and far too good. Would probably be even too good at 4$ as the on-buy drawback is not that nasty.
-
Nightingale should use the Lookout wording and is really too similar to Lookout to be interesting.
I wrote this as a variant of Survivor or Sentry, but yes, it is similar to Lookout. Is it too similar? This cannot prevent discarding good cards. This can remove three. Non-mandatory.
Maleficent is an auto-double-opening buy and far too good. Would probably be even too good at 4$ as the on-buy drawback is not that nasty.
Well, this is sometimes true, but sometimes not. When you have $5 on T1, you can double-open 90%, $4, 70%, $3, 60%, topdecking 2 cards. I don't think double-opening is a good idea - after T3, you have 4 cards on deck. You cannot play two Maleficents too often.
-
Nightingale should use the Lookout wording and is really too similar to Lookout to be interesting.
I wrote this as a variant of Survivor or Sentry, but yes, it is similar to Lookout. Is it too similar? This cannot prevent discarding good cards. This can remove three. Non-mandatory.
Maleficent is an auto-double-opening buy and far too good. Would probably be even too good at 4$ as the on-buy drawback is not that nasty.
Well, this is sometimes true, but sometimes not. When you have $5 on T1, you can double-open 90%, $4, 70%, $3, 60%, topdecking 2 cards. I don't think double-opening is a good idea - after T3, you have 4 cards on deck. You cannot play two Maleficents too often.
You underestimate how strong junkers are. Without the on-buy drawback this card would be too good for 4$ and too weak for 5$ (only due to Mountebank) but it is far closer to a 5$ than a 4$.
-
Nightingale should use the Lookout wording and is really too similar to Lookout to be interesting.
I wrote this as a variant of Survivor or Sentry, but yes, it is similar to Lookout. Is it too similar? This cannot prevent discarding good cards. This can remove three. Non-mandatory.
Maleficent is an auto-double-opening buy and far too good. Would probably be even too good at 4$ as the on-buy drawback is not that nasty.
Well, this is sometimes true, but sometimes not. When you have $5 on T1, you can double-open 90%, $4, 70%, $3, 60%, topdecking 2 cards. I don't think double-opening is a good idea - after T3, you have 4 cards on deck. You cannot play two Maleficents too often.
You underestimate how strong junkers are. Without the on-buy drawback this card would be too good for 4$ and too weak for 5$ (only due to Mountebank) but it is far closer to a 5$ than a 4$.
I know what you are saying. I, a year ago, would say the same thing. Of course this is strong. Not ignorable in 2 player games. But how about 4 player? All three opponents will buy, and play. So buying another good card is sometimes better. It costs $3 because $4 is too boring. Topdecking 1? Penalty is weak. 2? Maybe works. I am trying another bonus for Maleficent - $2 is too boring, I now think.
-
Another card to discuss. Maleficent was discarded.
Peter Pan (renamed)
cost $3 - Action
+$2
Trash this.
After this turn, put all cards from your deck and discard pile into your hand, and put cards from your hand onto your deck until you have 5 cards in hand.
Chancellor. He was once a mischievous boy. His trick succeeded only once, but that was amazing. Wasn't he nice Feast?
Dwarf Village
cost $4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal one costing $4 or more. Put it back on top, and discard the rest.
Dwarfs call their friends. Farming Village, Sage, Wandering Minstrel's variant. Too strong? Maybe. But they cannot discard Province.
-
I like both cards. Peter Pan looks strong but then again 3 is expensive for a one-shot terminal Silver. Dwarf Village is nothing fancy but good. I'd also try it as: "+2 Actions. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal one costing $4 or more. Put it into your hand, and discard the rest.
-
I'd also try it as: "+2 Actions. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal one costing $4 or more. Put it into your hand, and discard the rest.
I thought that too similar to Sage, but nice.
Another.
Totoro
cost $2 - Action
Return this to its pile.
Gain a Cat-bus from Cat-bus pile.
-
You cannot buy this when a Treasure other than Copper is in play.
Cat-bus
cost $0* - Action
You may reveal Totoro from your hand.
If you didn't, return this to its pile.
In either way, +3 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy.
Overpowered or uninteresting?
Another. Maybe someone wrote before me.
Neverland
cost $6 - Action - Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal your hand.
+$1 per a Victory card in hand.
-
A cantrip trasher, whose idea I've got from another player.
Cursed Broom
cost $3 - Action - Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a card to trash another from your hand.
-
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put it onto your Broom Mat and gain a Curse.
When you ask a Witch to help you, you have to pay something. Sometimes your hand, sometimes your vps.
This card shines with draw-until-x cards, especially with Watchtower. You can still react again when you gain a Curse from this, revealing Watchtower to trash it (even if Cursed Broom loses track of a Curse, you can reveal this to gain another).
Is it uninteresting, or broken? what do you think?