Consider this: Witch has one thing it does to keep you from getting too many Curses: Distributing them to your opponents. This has 3: Distributing Curses, trashing, and a Reaction. Two would be fine to bring the point across.had done: no curser, so no attack (see my last post) but still trashing and reaction.
hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?
About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
This has the problem that the Reaction portion can be stacked indefinitely by revealing the same copy of Counter Magic over and over.good point so new reaction portion:
The wording still is unclear. To mean what you try to express, it should be:
When you would gain a card during another player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to instead discard this and any number of non-Action cards, and then draw as many.
I'm sorry to say, I don't really like it. It seems slow to resolve, and during another player's turn on top of that. It also has a lot of words, and generally speaking, I don't think additional would-gain cards similar to Trader are a great thing. Even Donald has expressed regrets regarding the rules-mess of Trader, whereas he doesn't mind Watchtower. 5$ and a Potion is also really expensive, too expensive for the trashing to be useful, as it will become available only late game, where trashing is usually bad. Also, the attack is arguably worse than Witch. The Copper junking also keeps going and going, which is usually considered poor style, but again, it happens very late, so it might actually be fine for opponents who have started greening. Finally, the card has a lot going on. It trashes, it junks... Considering how late you get this and that it is terminal unless you trash with it (which, as stated, is less easy late-game), you can't even chain it that well, which again isn't that great a fit for a Potion card.
I know you love Potion cards, but I feel this really doesn't want to be one.
. I choosed Coppers instead of curse, because i want a long effect. But you are right, Coppers instead of Curses is only a game of gaining and trashing.
(2019-02-11)
It is a risk although you are a powerful wizard. Have a look to the wizard's face 
thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.
a wording question: is it clear that the reaction part is meant as „instead” of gaining a card or should i add „instead”?
Wasn't clear to me. In the current version, it sounds like the Reaction ability just happens additional to the gaining.
I would rather use "would gain" and "instead".
But you should listen to the advice from some native speakers here
thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.
With that said (I like pirate ship too) even though you can still play with the old cards like thief. Noble brigand is ten times better than thief, you can play it when you buy it, and then it can even give out coppers!of course i play with old cards too; didn't you see my
?
Here is my take to replace Pirate Ship. I hope it is different enough from Privateer.
It also replaces the need for coin tokens and uses the big nice mat for cards instead.
As a duration, it fits nicely into Seaside.
Ommited the second naming of Pirate Ship mat to save at least a few words. It should be clear.
i don't want to replace Pirat Ship; i like it very much
Farmer is meant to replace Harvest.
?
I changed its name because i am planning another card called Exploration.
Just realised there is already an official Project called Exploration. So maybe you want to choose another name
(2019-02-08)Prospecting (2019-01-10)
simple
Simple and can be useful sometimes. I also like the card art 👍
But why "reveal" instead of "look at"? To trigger Patron?
:
It's almost worse then a silver.
It's much worse, actually, because of the nonterminality. There's nothing inherently wrong with designing something worse than Silver; that is what the $2 price bracket is for after all. There are other problems with this, though.
is to choose one alternative. You like both but you get only one. At the beginning of your game you get a terminal silver. Later in game you get +1 Buy.
ready for printing and testing; practise is the best testthanks (non native speaker), have changed, see first post.
This card looks significantly better than Grand Market to me, it's only missing the +1 Buy but in exchange it can be a very potent village with the Villagers and trading 2 Villagers for Coffers is better than the regular + $2 (and this can do different things to that too, it's very flexible). I'm not sure why you lowered the cost?
It should also be +1 Coffers not +1 Coffer.
comment from gedolkari. No one said something against it. Costs are not clear $6 or $7 ? Someone else for $7? Grand Market is a good argument for $7. Will think about it a few hours and change if next posters say nothing against $7
I have in mind that $7 are very high and you can only buy it late. And i don't want to create a potion-card again.
use the wording „reveal”. So it goes back first i think. I am using „revealing” as showing it but it stays on its place.
For Gravedigger: What happens to the card from the top of my deck that I am looking at if I decide to not trash it? Does it get discarded, go back on top of my deck along with a card from my hand, or into my hand and then I place a card onto my deck?
I feel like Lucky Thaler is very weak. On average, playing 6 of them will get you $15. I think it's easier to buy 5 Golds than it is to buy 5 Lucky Thalers, and it's also better for your deck; being 1 less Stop card. But then a player could also make the mathematically wrong decision to buy a Lucky Thaler instead of a Gold, and end up rolling a 6 every time. Doesn't sound fun.If i see that Big Money is quicklier i would buy Gold too. So Lucky Thaler is only a joke-card for young Dominion players, who starts from known games with luck and cubes. Don't see any strategy behind it. Asper's suggestion (see below) is much more better.
[...]
About Lucky Penny [herw: Lucky Thaler now], it's the strictly better Silver for 4$ that Donald tried to avoid for so long, and also I feel it could reveal and discard cards from your deck instead of rolling a die. So I'd probably change it to be something like:QuoteCouncellor, Action, 4$
+2$
Reveal and discard the top 5 cards of your deck. If there are no duplicates, +2$.
[...]
There should be treasures that costalso. Names could be "Lead" or "Quicksilver" It would make sense because Colony goes with Platinum, Province to Gold, Duchy to Silver, Estate to Gold.
yesor
I don't know whether it is compliant to rules, because trashing and gaining are actions.
Trashing (and changing) is one of the main theme of Alchemy i think.
But it is very difficult to create a balanced treasure and i wouldn't buy more than one money changer? Have to think about it.
I am not satisfied with this because money changer is no basic treasure card. I think Potion fulfils this.
So money changer is more an action card but there have to be better variable features but not with so much text.
thanks (non native speaker), have changed, see first post.
This card looks significantly better than Grand Market to me, it's only missing the +1 Buy but in exchange it can be a very potent village with the Villagers and trading 2 Villagers for Coffers is better than the regular + $2 (and this can do different things to that too, it's very flexible). I'm not sure why you lowered the cost?
It should also be +1 Coffers not +1 Coffer.
thanks, doneDay Laborer (2019-02-05)
Nice one.
Small thing: +1 Coffer should be bolded
