I think the border color is too similar to Treasures. Especially since on the client the color is made lighter, it makes it almost indistinguishable. I think I new color would be best.
I think its exactly because they are so similar to Treasure cards that they need to be visually distinct. Alternatively, since they are cards that can be played in the Buy phase, why not make them dual-type? I can see the normal Treasure color working, but with "Treasure-Supplier" in the footer, similar to how "Action-Attacks" are still just the default Action white. The Treasure type gives it the ability to be played in the Buy phase, and the Supplier type gives it the ability to be played after buying a card. I think this would be the best workaround.
Once a player plays a Supplier, they may buy the purchase(s) as many times as that player has the Buys and resources to afford to do (subject to text on the card limiting such buying).
My concern with making these a subtype of Treasures is that there are already numerous cards that interact with Treasures in a way that doesn't make sense in the context of Suppliers, especially thematically. How do you Counterfeit a Miner? How do you duplicate a Ranch with a Mint? Cards also operate with the presumption that Treasures will generally be giving you something useful for a Buy; Suppliers generally won't (so something like Venture plays differently, and can get messed up by them).
I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I'm also curious about the reasoning behind this:QuoteOnce a player plays a Supplier, they may buy the purchase(s) as many times as that player has the Buys and resources to afford to do (subject to text on the card limiting such buying).
Unless you're playing a slog, it does really provide much incentive for having more than one copy of a Supplier in your deck.
It also raises the question of why the card should be a Supplier rather than an Event. The obvious difference is that your Supplier is not guaranteed to be available to you during every buy phase, so perhaps that needs to be taken into consideration when designing a Supplier.
For example, I don't think Ranch really adds much over Ride to justify having an entirely new card type.
You already mentioned that the value proposition of Suppliers needs to be much better relative to an Event, given that Suppliers could really end up being a junk card in your deck. Of the examples you posted, Miners and Ranch look quite weak.
In fact, I'm pretty sure all your Supplier cards could be implemented as Night-Treasures that simply stated "You may spend $x to..."
None of them really make use of the mechanic of being able to play after buying. The times where that's useful are when you want to get a bought card either into play or into your next hand, or after playing Gamble/Toil and drawing into them.
Well, here is my first attempt at a design. I still think the dual type ought to be necessary to further clarify that it is played in the Buy phase.
(https://imgur.com/MIYHaFe.png)
In my implementation, taking an effect from a Supplier does not use up a buy, as far too often you would just want to include "+1 Buy" for the effect to be worth it.
Caravaneer - Supplier Gathering, $4 cost.
Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply to put 1VP on the Caravaneer pile.
$4: take all the VP on the Caravaneer pile.
I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I think this mechanic is interesting, but I echo this sentiment as well. In fact, I would go for the following approach.
- The Supplier is a subtype of any type of card that can be in play during the Buy phase. The Supplier type has no say in when the card is playable. (so a Night/Duration/Supplier card would be possible if you are bold)
- The purchasing options are available during your buy phase if and only if the card is in play. (so for a Night/Duration/Supplier card, the options are available next turn)
Card idea: What if "return to your phase" was a card all on its own?
(https://i.imgur.com/EeJtCXS.png)
Put "night" on it, so that it can become very exciting in night games. I made it say "return to any phase" so that if there is, say, a Dawn card in the kingdom, you could circumvent the dawn cards weakness. At a cost!
Potential Issues:[li] [/li][/list]
- "return to X phase" costs too much or little?
- "+2 Actions" for 2$ is too good? Since you don't spend an action on Benevolent Goblin, its effectively a +3 Actions for 2$
- In kingdoms without workshops, might it be boring?
So this fits the rules?
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60ba8b7291517b6931b6521a/b277fc618ff8b84c0801ed261817b5e6/Caravaneer.png)QuoteCaravaneer - Action Supplier Gathering, $5 cost.Like Crown, either the Action phase play or Buy phase Supplier play. The Supplier cost varies, and a purchase uses a Buy. The $5 cost or Supplier cost might be off, but here's the premise at least.
If it's your Action phase, +1 Action and Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply to put 1VP here.
Otherwise, for $3 + $1 per card you have in Exile: take all the VP here.
I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I think this mechanic is interesting, but I echo this sentiment as well. In fact, I would go for the following approach.
- The Supplier is a subtype of any type of card that can be in play during the Buy phase. The Supplier type has no say in when the card is playable. (so a Night/Duration/Supplier card would be possible if you are bold)
- The purchasing options are available during your buy phase if and only if the card is in play. (so for a Night/Duration/Supplier card, the options are available next turn)
By requiring them to be dual-type, you are needlessly complicating and adding potentially unwanted interactions to the simplest of these cards (i.e. the ones that just offer something for sale). All of those interactions are still possible where Supplier is its own type (by making it a dual-type card) without forcing the complexity on the cards that don't need it.
By requiring them to be dual-type, you are needlessly complicating and adding potentially unwanted interactions to the simplest of these cards (i.e. the ones that just offer something for sale). All of those interactions are still possible where Supplier is its own type (by making it a dual-type card) without forcing the complexity on the cards that don't need it.
I also agree with the two points laid out by Timinou. Having an entirely new card type with new color and all is far more needlessly complicated than a dual-type. Its the reason why Looters is simply a secondary type instead of an entirely new category of cards. Nights were pretty simple as far as a new type category goes, and yet Nocturne is widely considered the most complicated expansion, partly due to that mechanic. There's no reason why the simplest of the cards you mentioned can't be simply dual-typed treasures, that is a far simpler approach than the rules laid out in the op, and it seems that sentiment is agreed upon unanimously.
This is incidental to the overall contest and discussion, but Miners and Ranch are incredibly weak. Here is a card that almost exactly replicates the ability of Miners, while being strictly stronger than it, yet it is still quite weak:
(https://imgur.com/UBQv1s8.png)
This lets you get 2 silvers for $4, a silver and gold for $7, and 2 golds for $10, without being nearly as restrictive as Mine.
And Ranch could just as well have stated "You may pay $2 to have this card be a cantrip later, or $4 to be a lab". It goes without saying that a one-shot cantrip that costs $2 is worthless, and one-shot lab for $4 is significantly weaker than both encampment and experiment.
For example, I don't think Ranch really adds much over Ride to justify having an entirely new card type.
You already mentioned that the value proposition of Suppliers needs to be much better relative to an Event, given that Suppliers could really end up being a junk card in your deck. Of the examples you posted, Miners and Ranch look quite weak.
I said these were examples, I didn't say they were good examples. I mostly wanted to show people see what the cards looked like, as I felt the explanation might not have done that in the most clear way. I agree that both of those cards are rather weak (although I think Miners could be useful on some boards). I put Ranch out there as a suggestion of how one might turn an Event into a Supplier (but I agree that it is not enough of an improvement).
not a submission
There is no need for a new type of "supplier".
In March 2021 I developed the mechanics of money bags (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20716.0). The idea behind it is that you can play treasure cards (!) for additional instructions at any stage of a turn. This has proven itself in practice.
The advantage is also that the mechanics are so easy to understand (especially by inexperienced players) that you do not need a new card type.
three examples
(https://i.imgur.com/cYxDYGy.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QHli9mx.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iPXZTFd.png)
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I agree with the suggestion of making these dual-type cards, unless there is a compelling reason to have an entirely separate card type. It could allow for some cool (or unintended) interactions with Storyteller, Black Market, Crown, etc.
I think this mechanic is interesting, but I echo this sentiment as well. In fact, I would go for the following approach.
- The Supplier is a subtype of any type of card that can be in play during the Buy phase. The Supplier type has no say in when the card is playable. (so a Night/Duration/Supplier card would be possible if you are bold)
- The purchasing options are available during your buy phase if and only if the card is in play. (so for a Night/Duration/Supplier card, the options are available next turn)
This is another way that Suppliers could be implemented, but I don't see a really good reason for it. I don't understand the problem with a new type of card that is played in a fairly straightforward way. (I put all of the complex rules interactions in the description because the nature of this contest is that those end up being implicated, but the vast majority of the time the cards will simply be played during a player's Buy phase). If the "can-play-it-after-a-buy" element is that confusing/challenging, I would rather drop that then really significantly rework the cards as this suggests.
By requiring them to be dual-type, you are needlessly complicating and adding potentially unwanted interactions to the simplest of these cards (i.e. the ones that just offer something for sale). All of those interactions are still possible where Supplier is its own type (by making it a dual-type card) without forcing the complexity on the cards that don't need it.
I'm not really understanding what is so challenging about the mechanic as I laid it out. If it's really the color's similarity to Treasure, I'll find a different color. That being said, if you want to submit a card with a modified version of the rules, you can feel free to do so, and I'll judge them in that context (but your submission post needs to expressly state this; otherwise, I will presume you are using my rules as set out in the original post).Do what you think is best I guess. We are only giving feedback. You are narrowing down design space quite significantly as Supply cards are always inherently playable through the Buy phase.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60ba8b7291517b6931b6521a/b277fc618ff8b84c0801ed261817b5e6/Caravaneer.png)QuoteCaravaneer - Action Supplier Gathering, $5 cost.Like Crown, either the Action phase play or Buy phase Supplier play. The Supplier cost varies, and a purchase uses a Buy. The $5 cost or Supplier cost might be off, but here's the premise at least.
If it's your Action phase, +1 Action and Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply to put 1VP here.
Otherwise, for $3 + $1 per card you have in Exile: take all the VP here.
Salt Merchant • $3 • Supplier
Choose one
$0: +2 Buys
$1: When you gain a card this turn, trash a copy of it from the Supply.
$3: When you gain a card this turn, trash two copies of it from the Supply.
The thing is, Dominion has four primary types: Action Cards, Treasures, Victory Cards and Curses (the latter of which is only used by one card). Virtually all already existing cards are designed around this principle. Violating this by introducing a new primary type should not be done without a very good reason. You are introducing a type of cards that can be played at the same moments as Treasure Cards: during the Buy phase. The only differentiator is that Supplier cards can be played after buying. Which is totally redundant here!
You got it backwards. These "complicating" interactions are part of Dominion! And by making a card having a new primary type also creates new complications. The card is not playable through Gamble. You can't Throne it, not even with Crown (and no, that is not preferable). Ironworks/Groom don't come with anything. And if you don't want your examples to be Treasures, make them Actions!
Do what you think is best I guess. We are only giving feedback. You are narrowing down design space quite significantly as Supply cards are always inherently playable through the Buy phase.
Speaking of unwanted interactions, the Night Card/Haunted Woods interaction is far worse than anything you mentioned here, yet it has been greenlighted.
By the way, couldn't any of the four examples posted by emtzalex or the card I posted earlier (Reproduce) work as Night cards? Like if you have unspent money during your Buy phase, do you lose it at the end of your Buy phase or at the end of your turn?
I'm trying to play devil's advocate to see if there is a design space worth exploring for single-type Supplier cards, but I think it's quite limited insofar as you could accomplish the same effect with a Night card if you are able to use unspent money during the Night phase.
Card idea: What if "return to your phase" was a card all on its own?
(https://i.imgur.com/EeJtCXS.png)
Put "night" on it, so that it can become very exciting in night games. I made it say "return to any phase" so that if there is, say, a Dawn card in the kingdom, you could circumvent the dawn cards weakness. At a cost!
Potential Issues:[li] [/li][/list]
- "return to X phase" costs too much or little?
- "+2 Actions" for 2$ is too good? Since you don't spend an action on Benevolent Goblin, its effectively a +3 Actions for 2$
- In kingdoms without workshops, might it be boring?
Do what you think is best I guess. We are only giving feedback. You are narrowing down design space quite significantly as Supply cards are always inherently playable through the Buy phase.
How? Every potential card design available under your suggested rule (Action-Supplier; Treasure-Supplier; Night-Duration-Supplier) is also available under my rule, but mine has additional potential designs available (e.g. plain Suppliers; Supplier-Duration; Supplier-Reaction; Supplier-Victory). Your suggestion limits the design space.
The thing is, no matter what type you add, the card will ALWAYS be playable during the buy phase under your rule. This makes impossible to design a terminal Action/Supplier card that forces you to use an action to get the options. Your Ranch example would make for a decent $5 Action/Supplier card if you added "+3 Cards" as an on-play effect. But when it has to be playable during the Buy phase (nonterminally), it becomes hella busted.
For Week 12, I am introducing a new card type that I have experiment with a bit, Suppliers. Suppliers are cards that, once gained and played, offer the player one or more additional options during their Buy phase. Generally, Suppliers will come in a 10 card Kingdom piles in the Supply like any other Kingdom card.
[/li]
[/list]
The deadline for submissions will be 18:00 UTC / 2:00 p.m. Eastern/Forum time on Friday, June 11, 2021. I hope you enjoy designing these. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Anyway, here is my submission.I like this because it follows what I'm sensing is a good way to do a Supplier card, provide multiple buy options that interact with each other. The card is powered up in a balanced way (provided it doesn't become a complete strategy without an appropriate total cost).
(https://i.imgur.com/b5onV9k.png)
I revised my entry to this:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60ba8b7291517b6931b6521a/e470f4c9b1ca6e8717f08942c89fd710/Caravaneer_(1).png)
Pure Supplier seems to fit the contest a bit closer, and removing the choice to Exile or buy the VP effectively cheapens the VP. As does the cost reduction to $4 and price of the VP fixed at $4.
For Week 12, I am introducing a new card type that I have experiment with a bit, Suppliers. Suppliers are cards that, once gained and played, offer the player one or more additional options during their Buy phase. Generally, Suppliers will come in a 10 card Kingdom piles in the Supply like any other Kingdom card.
[/li]
[/list]
The deadline for submissions will be 18:00 UTC / 2:00 p.m. Eastern/Forum time on Friday, June 11, 2021. I hope you enjoy designing these. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Question: If you play a supplier A, and then supplier B, can you after that buy supplier A's effect?
Shrewd Collector - $5
Supplier
+1 Buy
$1: Discard a non-Victory card. If it costs...
$0, trash it to gain a Silver.
$1 to $4, gain a copy of a non-Victory card you have in play.
$5 or more, +$6.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51234831503_bf44585d00_b.jpg)QuoteShrewd Collector - $5
Supplier
+1 Buy
$1: Discard a non-Victory card. If it costs...
$0, trash it.
$1 to $4, gain a copy of it.
$5 or more, +$6.
I went with a design that cares about card cost and does not interact well with Victory cards. Kind of a mashup between a trasher, a gainer, and Baron. The fact that Suppliers take up a card slot that could have been a treasure makes pricing things appropriately strange. I hope I got it right, but this may not be a balanced design. Feedback is welcome.
Submissions are Closed!!!
Submissions are Closed!!!
uh, I didn't see this until I just posted the updated version of Elusive helper: Can I still use it (v4 that is)?
(https://imgur.com/kh2wm0J.png) Quote from: Bribe Bribe -- $5 | Bribe by The Alchemist So, based on your final response about your modification of the rules, I think there may be some continued miscommunication about how these cards work. Absent limiting language (e.g. "once per turn"), the player who plays the Supplier can buy each purchase as many times as they are able to pay the cost and spend a Buy. Thus, as Bribe currently exists, if the first purchase did not cost a Buy, a player who played this would be able to put as many cards from their discard pile onto their deck in any order. The second purchase would also mean that this would give an additional +$1 for each Gold in a player's discard pile, and +$3 for each Platinum (they could also play every Silver for no net effect, unless they followed that up with a Bank or Raid). Thus, I presume you intended the abilities to only be used once per play of the card (otherwise, it is super busted). Even with that modification, it's almost strictly better than Royal Seal, an already pretty solid Treasure at the same price point. Not only can this topdeck the card you just bought, it can topdeck any other card you prefer, and that's only with the first purchase option. (The disadvantage being that if you gained multiple cards, this would only topdeck one). The second option effectively transforms this into the best Treasure card or Action card, as you gain $2 to spend $2. This would include all of the terminal Gold Action cards (Legionary, Sacred Grove, etc.) including Horse Traders, which you could play after getting all of the useful cards out of your hand. This could definitely be an interesting card to play, but as is I think it is too strong. |
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5f5a8e8e7ed38b522f25641a/60ba8b7291517b6931b6521a/e470f4c9b1ca6e8717f08942c89fd710/Caravaneer_(1).png) Quote from: Caravaneer Caravaneer -- $4 | Caravaneer by Aquila This is an interesting take on the mechanic. The most obvious comparison to an official card is Camel Train. This costs $1 more and loses the on-gain bonus, but does not cost an Action and has the added benefit of the Gathering function. I don't think the added cost is that important, as the main difference between $3 and $4 is often the ability to open with two of them, which I do not think one would want to do with either card. The on-Buy loss is more significant, but it is more or less cancelled out by the benefits. The main question for me is whether or not you would want to be buying the purchase on the turn you Exiled the card. While I tend to buy Camel Train to fight early rushes of cards like Tournament, once that fight is done I tend to use it more like duplicate, Exiling the card I am going to buy anyway (hopefully a Platinum or Gold, but sometimes a Bazaar or Venture). Here, players are going to tend to want to use the VP gain later on, which means the Exile-buy combo is off the table. Generally, this is exactly the kind of trade-off that makes for interesting decisions in the game, and I do ultimately like it, but I also think it makes the card a bit weaker than is ideal. |
(https://i.imgur.com/b5onV9k.png) Quote from: Trade Agreement Trade Agreement -- $5 | Trade Agreement by grrgrrgrr An interesting entry. By itself, on play it either functions as Spices or a Goat (but Exiling instead of trashing). Of course, that's only if you want to Buy something that turn. If you drew a hand with Trade Agreement and only Victory cards, you could play the Trade Agreement and Exile 2 of them, a potent third option. It also allows you to buy two Duchies with only $4 more in your hand, meaning the rest of the cards could be, on average, a Copper, and you get a Province worth of VP. While it does put twice as many dead cards in your deck, Trade Agreement's strong ability to Exile cards mitigates that substantially. I think this would become extremely centralizing, forcing the players to contend over Duchies before moving on to Provinces. I do like the idea, but I think it might work better if the second purchase gave, like, VP tokens for buying Victory cards (or something to that effect) that would allow for a wider set of ways to use it. |
(https://i.imgur.com/Pj7k29l.png) Quote from: Elusive Helper Elusive Helper -- $4 | Elusive Helper by fika monster First off, I am not exactly sure why this is a Night card. You are not able to Buy the purchase (or, as you described it, "the event") during your Night phase. Using one of these purchases works just like buying an Event, and just as you cannot buy an Event during your Night phase, you cannot buy a purchase. Since this does not do anything other than offer the purchase, I presume your intention is to allow the purchase to be made during the Night phase. If you could make the buy during the Night phase, the main difference would be to allow players to play other Night cards first. This could be significant for a couple of reasons: first, you could use Night Watchman to reorder the top of your deck then use those cards this turn; you could use Monastery to trash a card with an on-trash bonus and take advantage of that; or you could get around Haunted Woods by playing a Night card, returning to your buy phase, then buying the card you want (down $3, but up whatever you could get through the cards you gained). To be honest, I'm not sure it makes a ton of sense to have this be a Supplier. It could just as easily be a regular Night card that says something like "If you have at least $3, you may spend $3 to..." Whether or not it can be used in the Night phase, Elusive Helper is a supercharged version of the on-buy mechanics of Villa and Cavalry. It could be quite useful when you get stuck with terminal Action cards, either because you drew them dead or drew them during your Buy phase after using Toil or Scepter. In the former case, the card's effect is kind of a super-Lost City, offering additional options (+Buys/Silver gain) and allowing itself to be played when drawn dead. However, I'm not sure those benefits are really worth the -$3 cost. If you contrast the card with a village, your net benefit from this is generally going to be 1 card, and you only "break even" when that card is a Gold, an average that most decks don't achieve for most of the game. In a deck with no other villages and solid terminal drawing (Smithy, Torturer, etc.), it could be useful for that purposes. But generally if you are regularly drawing Action cards dead, this is hardly the most effective way of dealing with that. This contrasts with the on-buy versions of this. As with an Event, the benefit of Villa/Cavalry's on-buy bonus is that they are available to be received without needing a card in your deck to provide them. Here, Elusive Helper is either a dead card or you have to shell out the $3 for the limited effect. (This is somewhat mitigated by the silver-gaining option, as it does function as a virtually +Buy, albeit one that forces you to use that extra buy on a Silver). |
(https://i.imgur.com/WXKVJAh.png) Quote from: Fare Fare -- $5 | Fare by Timinou Another strictly-better-than-Silver-for-$5 Treasure. This is not a problem, as it is a pretty logically price point for such a card: you are missing Gold, but still expecting something meaningfully better than Silver, which is a questionable prospect at $4 (and, in fact, more than half of the official Kingdom Treasures cost $5, 17 out of 33). Since you are missing Gold, you are not giving up that much by only getting $2 (there are certainly Kingdoms where at least some strategies would involve buying a Silver when hitting $5, at least some of the time), so the benefit shouldn't be too powerful (think Royal Seal, Relic, or Idol). I think this fits that happy medium. What I really like bout this card is that it will tend to play one of three ways: either you'll (a) use the $2 to hit a price point ($6 for Gold, $8 for Province, etc.) and forget about the +Buy and Supplier; or (b) use the $2 and +Buy to buy two cards (maybe a Village and a Smithy at $7); or you will use $1 to hit a price point and the other $1 and the Buy to juice your next turn (buying a Gold at $7). Only (b) and (c) are better than Silver, and only (c) is better than Spices (which also has an on-Gain bonus you're foregoing here). It does provide some additional options. If this is the only Treasure you draw (perhaps while greening at the end of the game), you could use it to get two cards on the following turn, an interesting alternative to buying an Estate. This definitely creates some interesting new gameplay options without being overpowered. |
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/6019de42b869588d9701fbff/60be2f0c3699db47c764d357/8fe442d827225358589b1ff9f2ce8cb7/image.png) Quote from: Salt Merchant Salt Merchant -- $3 | Salt Merchant by spineflu Another very interesting entry, I see a couple of pretty significant problems with the card. First, unless you have another source of +Buy (either a second copy of the card or from elsewhere), the second and third options are nearly useless, as you would not be able to gain a card by buying it in order to get the effect. It would only be useful if you gained a card by playing a Night card, and only three of those (Changeling, Devil's Workshop, and Vampire) gain cards from the Supply during your Night phase. The second issue is that trashing from the Supply is of fairly limited value. The obvious analogy here is Salt the Earth, a card which can win you games (and has for me). When you hit a Province and your opponent had to settle for a Duchy, trashing the last Province can easily be the difference between winning an losing (especially when you hit $4 and would otherwise have to settle for an Estate). But key to that use is the Event always being available so that you can purchase it the one time you need it. Other than that, I can see three general uses for this: trying to win the split of a pile when you got the head start, filing the trash for gain-from-trash cards, and triggering on-trash abilities. In the first case, getting ahead in such a split is often going to be made harder by buying this instead of Silver (or the card your trying to pile itself). With the gain-from-trash cards, they each have their own way of filling the trash (although that doesn't make this an entirely bad prospect, as it is trashing cards you're buying anyway). For the on-trash abilities, it would be quite nice with Fortress or Catacombs, but beyond that the use is pretty limited. While this is a really interesting idea, I think its actual use is limited. |
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51236700126_b4450ec0ff_b.jpg) Quote from: Shrewd Collector Shrewd Collector -- $5 | Shrewd Collector by Xen3k This card is really something. Early on it can be a pretty effective trasher of Coppers (and later, Curses). The ability to gain a Silver is an interesting twist on Moneylender's +$3; that is what you would have spent, but it is not nearly as good as all of the things you could otherwise do with +$3 (and you had to spend $1 to get it, making it closer to one of the options with Sacrifice). Later, the second ability can allow for all sorts of plays. The most common (imo) would be to discard a Silver when to get a second copy of an Action card you are trying to rush (hopefully being able to afford another copy or something else). But it also provides some interesting synergies with cards like Baron that collisions to work properly. The third ability means that, as long as you have a Gold in your hand, it is at least a Silver, as you can discard the Gold for a net of +$5. I really appreciate that while this card can work a lot of different ways, on any given turn there are not likely to be that many practical options, so it has the benefit of versatility without the risk of analysis paralysis. I also like that this answers the question of why it should be a card, rather than an Event, and why a player would want to buy more than one. Here, the second copy of Shrewd Collector can be used to get the +$5. |
The pictured version of Shrewd Collector is outdated, btw.
Apologies, I meant to update my post with the feedback received. If not to late could you judge this version?
(https://imgur.com/kh2wm0J.png)
In my implementation, taking an effect from a Supplier does not use up a buy, as far too often you would just want to include "+1 Buy" for the effect to be worth it.
Yes, I'm willing to do that. Do you still want the same rules modification you had before? In your original post you said:
Results
Runners-up:
Caravaneer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20812.msg871196#msg871196) by Aquila
Fare (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20812.msg871240#msg871240) by Timinou
Winner:
Shrewd Collector (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20812.25) by Xen3k
Wow, thanks! Lots of thanks to grrgrrgrr for giving me feedback. Lots of thanks to emtzalex for the thorough judging.
However, I do not think I can't host the next challenge at this time due to irl issues that will prevent me from giving it the appropriate attention. Apologies. I would appreciate it if someone else can set up the next challenge. Not sure how I do this, but I assume @emtzalex decides which runner up gets the 2nd place?
(https://i.imgur.com/2AkfqEch.png) | Matchmaker is a Supplier that allows a player to pay $6 and use a buy to gain two cards, a Victory card that costs up to $5, and a different card costing the same as that Victory card. |
(https://i.imgur.com/PtAUNpvh.png) | Work Camp's one Purchase provides +1 Buy in addition to the three Villagers it gives. That means that a player can buy this Purchase as many times as they can afford to spend the coins, or buy it then buy something else (even if they only have 1 Buy). |
(https://i.imgur.com/gyN5RT3h.png) | Wet Market's second ($5) Purchase self-trashes the card. After that happens, a player cannot buy that Purchase again, or buy the other Purchase. However, the player could first buy the $1 Purchase as many times as they wish, then buy the $5 Purchase (if they still have enough coins) and trash the card. |
(https://i.imgur.com/h8Y3n9Wh.png) | Silversmith is an Action - Supplier card, which is a Peddler variant when played during the Action phase, and provides the same effect as Delve if it is in play during a player's Buy phase. |
(https://i.imgur.com/dHiFihHh.png) | Quote from: Quartermaster Quartermaster -- $2 |
(https://i.imgur.com/JucM1orh.png) | Quote from: Conquistador Conquistador -- $13 |
(https://i.imgur.com/sf8DzUqh.png) | Quote from: Curio Shop Curio Shop -- $5 |
(https://i.imgur.com/K0lGus1h.png) | Quote from: Sextant Sextant |
(https://i.imgur.com/BU4wB9zh.png) | Quote from: Censer Censer |
(https://i.imgur.com/UoHoN0Oh.png) | Quote from: Scroll Scroll |
(https://i.imgur.com/BOFNbjIh.png) | Quote from: Summoner Summoner -- $3 |
(https://i.imgur.com/yHx9GXGh.png) | Quote from: Exchequer Exchequer -- $5 |
(https://i.imgur.com/gyN5RT3h.png) | Quote from: Wet Market Wet Market -- $3 |
(https://i.imgur.com/jLYuX40h.png) | Quote from: Cursed Wanderer Cursed Wanderer -- $4 |
(https://i.imgur.com/kGkmolSh.png) | Quote from: Monkey's Paw Monkey's Paw: |
(https://i.imgur.com/YH8grSNh.png) | Quote from: Dauphin Dauphin -- $4 |
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5Pxp8Wh.png) | Quote from: Dauphinate Dauphinate -- $4* |
(https://i.imgur.com/gIpEDGLh.png) | Quote from: Donkey Trader Donkey Trader -- $4 |
(https://i.imgur.com/k5BPgZlm.png) | Quote from: Donkey Donkey -- $3* |
(https://i.imgur.com/PksFhAWh.png) | Quote from: Tavern Lodging Tavern Lodging -- $3 |
(https://i.imgur.com/KhFcrg1h.png) | Quote from: Pardoner Pardoner -- $5 |
(https://i.imgur.com/F7V0btqh.png) | Quote from: Indulgence Indulgence -- $2 |
(https://i.imgur.com/Dmm8Jx1h.png) | Quote from: Mercante Mercante -- $4 |
(https://i.imgur.com/KIc4zP2h.png) | Quote from: Cassone Cassone -- $2 |
Bank is already the name of an official card:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Bank.jpg)
I'd recommend the name Exchequer.