Seems cool for stuff like Mint, Banish or Count.QuoteTallyEvent
Set aside any number of coppers you have in play. Put them in your hand at the start of your next turn.
Well, I would rather buy Spice Merchant.I disagree with this analysis. Silver is a stop card and you rarely want many of them. Mining a Copper into Silver is only comparable to gaining a Peddler if the Kingdom features no trashing. If there is trashing, getting rid of that Copper is obviously most of the times superior over mining it into Silver.Last minute pre-judgment question:
Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.
Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.
"Once this turn" = once per Collier you've played or once period?
If it means per Collier; then recommend just using Scheme's wording:QuoteThis turn, you may exchange one of your Coppers for a Silver when you discard it from play.
If you choose to gain a Copper, then this is Peddler/Poacher + Gain a Silver. And you have the option to just be a Cantrip "gain a Peddler/Poacher" (exchanging Copper for Silver is basically gaining a Peddler).
In other words, while not technically strictly better than Poacher/Peddler; it's definitely just about strictly better. Should cost.
Unless the "once this turn" was meant to prevent multiples from stacking.
Agreed, but I also agree with GendoIkari that Collier as worded should cost
I disagree with this analysis. Silver is a stop card and you rarely want many of them. Mining a Copper into Silver is only comparable to gaining a Peddler if the Kingdom features no trashing. If there is trashing, getting rid of that Copper is obviously most of the times superior over mining it into Silver.Last minute pre-judgment question:
Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.
Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.
"Once this turn" = once per Collier you've played or once period?
If it means per Collier; then recommend just using Scheme's wording:QuoteThis turn, you may exchange one of your Coppers for a Silver when you discard it from play.
If you choose to gain a Copper, then this is Peddler/Poacher + Gain a Silver. And you have the option to just be a Cantrip "gain a Peddler/Poacher" (exchanging Copper for Silver is basically gaining a Peddler).
In other words, while not technically strictly better than Poacher/Peddler; it's definitely just about strictly better. Should cost
Unless the "once this turn" was meant to prevent multiples from stacking.
Grain
Types: Action
Cost: 3*
If you have a Mill in play, you may exchange this for a Flour.
If you don't, gain 3 Horses.
In games using this, when you play Harvest, gain 2 Grains.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Flour
Types: Action
Cost: 5*
If you have a Baker in play, you may exchange this for a Bread.
If you don't, reveal the top card of your deck. +1 Villager per $1 it costs.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Bread
Types: Victory-Reaction
Cost: 7*
When you discard this, +1 VP. Worth 2VP per Bread you have.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Hey folks, this is my first entry to the Weekly Design Contest and to the forum in generalI like the "pay to upgrade" idea. Pension is a powerful terminal draw, slightly better than Hunting Grounds and often also better than Royal Blacksmith. And in Kingdoms without other splitters, Guest Room and Pension have the net effects of 2 Labs or Village + Smithy. That sucks in comparison, but if there are other villages, you can ignore Guest Room.
So there is the idea that you may upgrade the Guest Room into a Pension by paying for it. This gives you access the this very strong draw, since you don't have to peak 7$ to get it. Also, this combination of cards can provide good deck control on their own, while sometimes you may just want the villagers from Guest Room and keep it.
So what about the art for the cards, might one take images found on google? What about the license or permission to do so?
As I am new, please tell me if I did something wrong. I am willing to learn and improve.
Greetings
You are onto something. The net effects of 2 Titanic Slimes are +2 Cards and +2 Actions whereas the net effects of Titanic Slime are +3 Cards and +1 Action. So from this perspective it is better, a Lab is better than a Village.I am not sure Titanic Slime is better than two Big Slimes.
You need two to get one.
Huh? Non-terminally trashing two cards (Bat) is brilliant.It means that if you have the elements of an engine (a village and a smithy perhaps) in hand you have to play discord first and then recover those elements for little gain.A nonterminal trasher that trashes 2 is on the same power level as Steward and Remake.They are all too good. Discord is a great trasher (sure, Order nerfs it) and while Order does not do anything for you, a double Militia is pretty nasty.
Open Double Peddler, be pretty certain to get a $5 after the first shuffle, get a discard attack and a trasher after the second shuffle. That's too straightforward.
Would you really pay more than $2 for Order if you were buying it straight out?
Discord is possibly worth getting one but when you play it you will be reducing your hand to two cards. Its even worse than chapel in many situations (trash 4 crap cards but then have to regain two of them). I'd rate it as worth $2.5 at absolute best.
You could play Steward or Remake last and only trash the curses you draw into. Do that with Discord and you will probably be worse off. Situationally you might draw 5 curses and Discord becomes awesome, better than Steward or Remake. And you could even gain really good cards from the trash. But generally I think it will be worse than other trashers because its your whole hand or nothing.Sure, like the other "total hand trasher" Count it has a downside (bad for getting rid of junk in the middlegame) and unlike Count it does not feature other options. Then again it does not cost $5 but is a part of a mini Traveller line in which the first card is underpriced (instead of underpowered as it is the case with the long official Traveller lines).
Its actually enough for me to consider never wanting to buy more than one or two Balances in a game.I said that much in my last post, no disagreement here.
If you draw a Discord and an Order along with 2 coppers and an estate at the end of that turn you will have trashed an estate and copper, made others discard (with a repeat on your next turn) and have one to spend. That's not a great turn for drawing both your $3 purchases from previous turns.Huh? In which world is trashing two cards and Militia-ing the other dudes for two turns in a row not good?
A nonterminal trasher that trashes 2 is on the same power level as Steward and Remake.They are all too good. Discord is a great trasher (sure, Order nerfs it) and while Order does not do anything for you, a double Militia is pretty nasty.
Open Double Peddler, be pretty certain to get a $5 after the first shuffle, get a discard attack and a trasher after the second shuffle. That's too straightforward.
Would you really pay more than $2 for Order if you were buying it straight out?
Discord is possibly worth getting one but when you play it you will be reducing your hand to two cards. Its even worse than chapel in many situations (trash 4 crap cards but then have to regain two of them). I'd rate it as worth $2.5 at absolute best.
Still though, wouldn't Seize the Day even atFleet is always for greening at the end of the game whereas Seize the Day is for building up or megaturns or whatever and thus more complex. You can imagine Kingdoms with both landscapes being present and only one of them being bought as neither is strictly better or worse than the other..
I like the design but if the Kingdom enables trashing, it seems like the obvious payload to go for. I would really be careful with non-terminal Actions that yield Coins. Sure, there is a slight trend with the Action Silvers Coven and Patron but I still think that one should be careful with this kind of stuff.I rather think it's about on par with Spices.Seems broken in any engine. Even if you have 2 Coppers in hand it is OKish as a nonterminal Woodcutter and beyond that it is simply too good.Oh, I meant for coppers to hurt it too. I guess I'll make it an action with +1 Action on it.QuoteWisdom ScrollA Poor House variant.
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.
This seems really strong to me - the only thing that it would trigger on in an ordinary game is estates (because you can play out your coppers), if you trash those then this becomes way better than a gold for $1 less. Even without trashing this is almost certainly a gold unless you're able to draw a lot.
Probably a lot less attractive in a game with cursers, though.
(Originally, it was a terminal action. Then I looked at it and thought "that's just poor house with +buy", so I made it a treasure, forgetting that that would allow coppers to not affect it.)
EDIT: Fixed in my OP
Seems broken in any engine. Even if you have 2 Coppers in hand it is OKish as a nonterminal Woodcutter and beyond that it is simply too good.Oh, I meant for coppers to hurt it too. I guess I'll make it an action with +1 Action on it.QuoteWisdom ScrollA Poor House variant.
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.
This seems really strong to me - the only thing that it would trigger on in an ordinary game is estates (because you can play out your coppers), if you trash those then this becomes way better than a gold for $1 less. Even without trashing this is almost certainly a gold unless you're able to draw a lot.
Probably a lot less attractive in a game with cursers, though.
(Originally, it was a terminal action. Then I looked at it and thought "that's just poor house with +buy", so I made it a treasure, forgetting that that would allow coppers to not affect it.)
EDIT: Fixed in my OP
Sure, Courtier is not guaranteed to feature more than one option in a Kingdom. But what Goods lack, Courtier’s Gold gaining, to get some payload while/after thinning or for Remodelers, matters a lot.It is a Courtier variant. And while it is hard to judge whether this is better or worse than Courier, it is definitely not that much better that it is worth $6.
Furthermore, the below-card in a split pile can always be a bit stronger than a card which is immediately available. See Plunder.
Alright, let's make the plunder comparison:
Plunder is a treasure that has the same abilities as a terminal action (Monument) and costsmore than that action.
Your card is a terminal action that, if it were a treasure, would cost. By this comparison, making it cost
makes sense.
Also, I would say it's really not a courtier variant, as courtier has, well, variance. You're not guaranteed to be able to make more than one choice in any given kingdom. And in (albeit very rare, depending on what expansions you're using) others, you might be able to get all four (Dame Josephine or Werewolf).
My submission is the upper half of Black Market to make it less accessible.The cool thing about this is that Snitch maintains the swinginess of Black Market and this one shot gainer looks to me like an idea that just instantly works. Great design!
Snitch
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Look at the top card of the Black Market deck. You may trash this to gain that card on top of your deck; if you don't, put that card on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: 5 Snitches on top of 5 Black Markets; the Black Market deck is set up as usual.
With the errata, rulebook says you CAN look through your discard IF an effect tells you you to get a card from discard.Pearl says, put me at the bottom of your deck. Card text trumps rulebook. Funny thing being that the Errata that you mentioned imply that it is totally fine to go through your discard if you are told to do so and Pearl does this. Not explicitly but there is only so much text you wanna put on a card.
Nah, I disagree. Rulebook says you cannot look through your discard, card implies that you gotta do it ... so you do it. I mean, that's how literally everybody I play Dominion with would do it without any second thought ... as it is not something funky like your example, drawing cards from some weird place once your deck is empty.You argue that the current wording implies that you ignore the "don't look through your deck when you shuffle" rule (and it is a general standard with card games that stuff on cards dominates stuff in the rulebook). I mean, you gotta do it, otherwise you could not do what the card tells you to do.Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.
I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.
Cheating isn't the issue... the issue is how do you actually take the action of putting them on the bottom while shuffling? You aren't allowed to look at the front of your cards while shuffling in general. And even if you add a clause saying "while shuffling, look through your deck and put this on the bottom", you still have the issue of what it would take to carry out those instructions... look through your deck finding all Pearls, setting them aside. Then shuffle the rest of the cards normally, then put the Pearls on the bottom. The different backs in Stash are necessary to make it possible to use the ability; it seems like the same would be needed here.
But of course you are technically right, with differently coloured backs this is a cleaner design rule-wise. And differently coloured backs are cool anyway.
True that card instructions can and almost always do break rules written in rulebooks. But only to the extend that you follow just the instruction you are given; they don't generally allow you to do whatever it takes to do what the card says.
[...]
Pearl would be the same way, the instruction to put it on the bottom doesn't give you permission to do whatever is required to follow that instruction.
Thanks man, I fixed it.I go for the obvious one:
5 Pearl Divers on top, 5 Pearls below. Or print 6 Pearls such that you can use 4/4 in 2P and 6/6 in 3P.
First I bottom-decked this on discard such that Pearl Diver could dig for it several times per shuffle, but that felt too good.
Also, I first had this without the extra Buy. But I think it needs it to become more interesting and without it, it might just be a weaker Gold for $5 which is unattractive if there are other Coin sources.
Not sure whether it needs the discard nerf, the fact that this appears late and misses shuffles without Pearl Diver support might be enough.
Minor quibble: Pearl should havein the corners, rather than the ? symbol, as it produces
You could argue that the current wording implies that you ignore the "don't look through your deck when you shuffle" rule (and it is a general standard with card games that stuff on cards dominates stuff in the rulebook). I mean, you gotta do it, otherwise you could not do what the card tells you to do.Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.
I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.
Cheating isn't the issue... the issue is how do you actually take the action of putting them on the bottom while shuffling? You aren't allowed to look at the front of your cards while shuffling in general. And even if you add a clause saying "while shuffling, look through your deck and put this on the bottom", you still have the issue of what it would take to carry out those instructions... look through your deck finding all Pearls, setting them aside. Then shuffle the rest of the cards normally, then put the Pearls on the bottom. The different backs in Stash are necessary to make it possible to use the ability; it seems like the same would be needed here.
