Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

676

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 31, 2020, 03:12:01 pm »

Contest #100: Fun with Non-Supply Cards

Create a card-shaped thing that interacts with an existing (i.e., official) non-Supply card. It can be any type of card-shaped thing and can interact in any way whatsoever, big or small, with any existing non-Supply card (or more than one). Please name or show the existing non-Supply card and describe the interaction. Feel free to wander – please do not focus too much on the contest criteria.

As long as there is any interaction whatsoever, very little attention will be paid in the judging to the quality or degree of the of interaction – I prefer flexible creativity to adherence to restrictions. While I believe that personal preference is always a substantial factor in judging these contests, I will try to focus on balance, playability and, most of all, fun. Also, just a hint, but certainly not necessary to win, I tend to enjoy cards that honor an overall theme or story.

Good luck to everyone!  Have a happy and safe 2021!

(I almost went with a 2020-themed contest, but didn’t really want to look at 100 cards featuring Ruins, Rats and Curses.)

Just to clarify, does our card have to interact with a non-Supply card directly (such as gaining Spoils or Horses, etc. or Commanding them a-la spineflu's entry) or can our card just combo with some non-Supply card in some way without necessarily guaranteeing that it's in use (like LittleFish's entry does)?

677

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 31, 2020, 11:58:03 am »

Asylum
Reaction
When one of your cards would be trashed, you may discard this to exile it instead.
-----
In games using this, when you end your turn without buying a card, you may trash an action card you have in play to gain a Asylum

Interacts with Madman, as you can save it in exile for when you gain another. Maybe it should be just reveal and not discard, as it could be pretty weak otherwise

This doesn't interact with Madman the way you want it to. Madman is returned to its pile, not trashed.

678

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 30, 2020, 10:41:06 pm »

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

who do we talk to about that? theory?

We could report the post, so a moderator looks at it. I hope that isn't against the rules.

I feel like it probably is. Either way, we shouldn't do it that way.

679

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 30, 2020, 03:14:45 pm »

• Using the last three contest winners, design a card that somehow interacts with some of them
• Design a card that is good on its own and combos with a previous contest winner. OR we can narrow this down by letting participants choose on of the last 5 winners.
• Design a "Knight/Castles" like pile where each card is different. Could be a bit of a nightmare of judging complexity which is why I would only propose it for the big 100. I also think we would give the judge extra time to evaluate cards.

I like these three ideas.

I disagree with splitting this off each contest to a new thread. Having a new thread for each contest makes it just as hard to find previous submissions... now you have to search in multiple threads threads for the card you're trying to find. I find it cleanest just to have this same thread. Also, in the contest of the forum, is very fun to have a historical thread that goes on for a long time. It makes you feel connected to a wider history.

I disagree that making new threads would make it just as hard to find previous submissions. As long as you know which contest the card you're looking for was submitted to (which is not a very tall ask, since a lot of cards were blatantly made with the contest in mind), then you know which thread to look for. Currently, you'd have very little idea which of the >160 pages the card you're looking for is in unless you know which # the contest was, which is a lot harder to remember than specific prompts, for obvious reasons, and still doesn't narrow it down nearly as much as new threads would.

I somewhat agree with making new threads for this reason. But this problem would be fixed (or at least alleviated) by making the Trello easier to find and more up-to-date.

680

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 30, 2020, 03:04:10 pm »

It's probably fine for Nightmare to just say "they gain a Curse (or a Copper if they can't)." If both the Curses and Coppers are out and the game hasn't ended, then that's the fault of the players, not the card.

681

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 30, 2020, 02:42:20 pm »

Updated these two cards:

          

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.

Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.

What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.

Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".

You'd have to specify "cheapest in ," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ( is not less than , nor is less than ).

682

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 30, 2020, 02:16:31 pm »

I think that will be much harder to do with Goons than King's Court. And probably more interesting since you can't just design a slog-inducing card.

I agree, actually. I don't know how I didn't think of that.

- A unique village

What do you mean by a "unique" village? Village variant was the prompt for Contest #38.

683

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 30, 2020, 02:08:36 pm »

This is one of the ideas I had for the next contest, but I still have plenty of ideas left, so I'll suggest it for this contest: Make me skip King's Court. Making the most powerful card in the game somehow skippable seems fitting for contest #100, no?

684

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 30, 2020, 02:00:42 am »

Cool concept!  How many Seasons would there be in each pile?  What would happen if one of the piles runs out?

The rule would be the same for travellers, if a pile is temporary empty, you can't exchange at this time. I still don't know how many Seasons for pile would be better, I think it has to be a number according to the number of players.

Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.

Maybe the same arrow of Travellers is better, as it is a reminder for the same thing . Do you know how to put it in Card Generator?

Giving your card the type "Traveller" automatically adds the arrow to the image. I don't think there is another way to add the arrow.

685

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 29, 2020, 10:52:57 pm »

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.

Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.

They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematic

Maybe they could be States without losing thematically if I add "Owner" to their names.



Or Artifacts if I add "Grant".



As my English is not so good, I don't know if these solutions are suitable or not.

However, I think it would be good if they are not confused with normal Landmarks, so a kind of mark or a new type could also be solutions. Which do you think is better?

I think using Artifacts and the name "Grant" is better.

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.

I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.

It's Border Guard next turn already with a permanent Lantern and the ability of choose between discard or return to deck for each card not put in hand. I think it could help a lot to prepare your next turn. As it puts a card in your hand, it seems ok to me comparing to Night Watchman.

Edit: Does this wording works?

I derped and for some reason thought Border Guard looked at 3 by default (which would probably be a decent , let alone ). It's fine as-is balance-wise. And yes, the new wording works.

686

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 29, 2020, 04:08:02 pm »

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.

I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.

687

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 29, 2020, 12:22:12 pm »

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

688

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest

« on: December 28, 2020, 12:58:14 pm »

The topdecking should either be limited to non-Durations or say "an Action card you would discard from play this turn" to avoid being wonky with Duration cards.

689

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 27, 2020, 09:35:50 pm »

I guess you didn't see this since I got ninja'd by you in my last comment: Burning has not been updated in the OP.

690

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion by Carline

« on: December 27, 2020, 07:48:25 pm »

Just so you know, the Blessing shown next to its Heirloom in the OP still shows the old version. Likewise, Burning has not been updated in the OP at all.

Lastly, I'm apparently blind and didn't see the "up to " in Librarian. Its power-level is probably fine, actually.

691

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 07:18:52 pm »

This card's been mildly playtested. The fact that you have to wait until Clean-up to put it on your Tavern mat means that you won't be able to call it the same turn you play it.

692

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 06:49:12 pm »

The point about the independence of the self balancing is wrong. In 3P, there are on average double the amount of Magis of other players in play so you get on average double the amount of Villagers, i.e. it becomes much more feasible to actually skip Magi as a splitter.
Whether this over- or undercompensates the increase in Coffers tokens that you get when you use the card actively is anything but clear. DXV mentioned that a cantrip that yields Villagers is basically a $4.5 (it is trivial: Peddler is better than Village but engine consistency matters matters more than Coins so you strangely want relatively more of the weaker card; same with the tokens versions) I seriously doubt that that it swings much in either direction.

Or in other words, the built in self balance mechanism very likely works pretty well.

I think you've changed my mind about Magi. There is one more point I want to bring up, however; I agree that for the most part Villagers are more important than Coffers, but there's a point at which getting more Villagers is pointless. Once you have over a dozen Villagers, you're probably not going to need very many more for the rest of the game. The same cannot be said of Coffers. There isn't really such a thing as an excess of Coffers like there is for Villagers.

693

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 03:12:05 pm »

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

I am not nitpicking, I am emphasizing an important element that you ignore: that you get more Villagers on average in a 3P than in a 2P game via others players' Magi and that this makes Magi less attractive (Magi is a splitter dude, not just a Coffers generating thingy!).

That likely only partly compensates what you emphasize, that you get more token if you play Magi in 3P than in 2P. But thise self-balancing make the power of Magi increase concavely and not, as you falsely and with extremy hyperbole claimed, exponetially with player count.

You're still ignoring that the ratio of Coffers to Villagers is also higher, so yes, Villagers are given out more frequently in mutliplayer, but that also means that Coffers are given out even more often. And having an excess of Coffers is more powerful than having an excess of Villagers. There's a reason Coffers are harder to get than Villagers.

If everyone is buying Magi in multiplayer, then everyone will end up just being flooded with Coffers and Villagers.

694

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:58:19 pm »

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

Also, if Magis are giving out so many Villagers that players can just freely spam whatever cards they want, that's going to make for a boring strategy, regardless of whatever other problems we were talking about.

695

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:55:57 pm »

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship? 

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

The likelihood of Pirate Ship hitting increases with the player count. Pirate Ship can actually be pretty decent in 3P and 4P game precisely because of that hitting likelihood (and because more players fight for a fixed number of cards that yield virtual Coins). It is a card which is wrongly evaluated because so many people play 2P games online.

You cannot ignore that Magi gives tokens to the other players. You also cannot ignore that in multiplayer, the village power of Magi becomes less relevant because you get more Villagers via other players' Magi.

The reward for Pirate Ship hitting doesn't increase with the player count, though. With Magi, the reward and likelihood both increase. And as gambit05 has said multiple times, the ratio of Coffers to Villagers changes in multiplayer. In 2P games, you get the exact same number of Coffers as players get Villagers. In 3P games, you get twice as many Coffers as each player gets Villagers, and so on.

696

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:51:22 pm »

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

True and irrelevant as Dominion is not a solitaire game.

Magi scales far better than many official cards. I think that it scales far better than junkers which are far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games (unless there is really good trashing that can deal with double or triple the Curses coming in).

Which is exactly our point. And junkers aren't "far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games." If you're playing a 2P game, both of you having a Witch vs your opponent having a Witch and you not having one is a 5-5 vs 10-0 Curse split. In a 3P game, all players having a Witch vs both opponents having a Witch is a 6.67-6.67-6.67 vs 10-5-5 split. In 2P, getting a Witch avoids 5 Curses and gives them to your opponent, whereas in 3P, getting a Witch only avoids 3.33 Curses and gives 1.67 to each of your opponents. Factor in the fact that the Curse pile runs out faster in 3P than 2P, and the skippability is about equal.

697

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:42:32 pm »

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship? 

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

698

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:40:58 pm »

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

699

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm »

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

700

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest

« on: December 27, 2020, 12:38:03 pm »

Stargazer
$3 - Night - Duration
Reveal a card from your hand or discard pile and put it on top of your deck.
At the start of your next turn: You may reveal a Victory card from your hand to receive the next boon. You may discard a card to gain a Silver. You may trash this to gain a Duchy.

This needs to instruct you to look through your discard pile. As it's currently worded, you only get to look through your discard pile if you decide to topdeck a card from it, so if you look through your discard pile, you have to topdeck a card from it and can no longer do so with a card from your hand instead.