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.

226

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 03, 2020, 01:23:05 pm »

Updated submission

Cull - Action - $4
Reveal 4 cards from your deck. Put one copy of each differently named card in your hand, and discard or put each duplicate back in any order.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull is no longer unbounded draw. This makes it so you can put back duplicates ( or discard them). It also draws one of each uniquely named card, then it Sentries the duplicates. In the opening, it's probably going to draw a copper and an estate and discard the other two. Later on, it can start being a little bit of a smithy. In a deck with lots of uniques, you've got a cheap +4 cards.

Be careful playing this in the beginning, it has a higher chance of terminally drawing your unique card you wanted to play. You can only put the card back in the deck if it is a duplicate. Opening Cull/Peasant means that playing Cull T3 has a 4/6 shot of drawing your peasant dead.

227

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 28, 2020, 02:39:09 pm »

Challenge #89: Incentivise diversity Submission - EDIT THIS IS NOW AN OUTDATED SUBMISSION
 

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull has unbounded draw. It can draw a lot if you have a diverse deck. How much are you willing to gamble on having uniques? Get too greedy and you draw nothing. You can usually reveal 2 cards and it's safe. 3 if you've built a deck that has lots of uniques. Then you always have the on gain benefit. You open it on 4/3 you're happy to trash the estate, the the 5/2 is still happy to open and trash that copper since it really gets in the way of having unique cards to draw. A player can choose to reveal their whole deck to (likely) put it in the discard. Some games you buy this card just for the trashing, kind of like a mint.

To clarify, you choose how many cards to reveal before revealing any. Like "I will reveal 3 cards" and then you reveal them all.

I had gotten feedback to allow the player to top-deck the cards you looked at. However; this could slow down the game too much. Someone now has to decide the order of an unbounded number of cards? That would take too long to resolve.

 

228

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 24, 2020, 05:04:04 pm »

Challenge 88 Updated Submission

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. In games using Eager Hound, the player to your right shuffles your deck when you need it shuffled. The intention of Dominion is that shuffling is random. If the other player does psuedo-random such that if they notice that Eager Hound is the 6th card in your deck or something, and they want to shuffle again, that is allowed. Think of this sort of like a lazy way that the player to the right can make the Eager Hounds not placed well, in a subtle way. If you are playing with a master card-manipulator like Ricky Jay, you were probably doomed even without Eager Hound.

Eager Hound - Action - Reaction - $3
+2 Cards
Discard up to 2 cards from the top of your deck
-
Directly after any player finishes resolving an Action card, you may play this from the top of your deck.

You may find your Eager Hounds not behaving so well since your shuffle luck is in the hands (pun intended) of your opponent. They still have the opportunity to help themselves line up, and this card behaves great with a card like Artisan.

229

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 24, 2020, 04:57:15 pm »

This is a great concept.

How about "this may be played from the top of your deck (as it would be from your hand)". It is a nerf as you can't play an otherwise terminal card non terminally, but it is more robust rules wise.

Thank you! I love your idea a lot, but I think the non-terminality is one of the cool parts of this card.

You could make this an Action-Reaction and have the bottom worded as "Directly after any player finishes resolving an Action card, you may play this from the top of your deck." I think that would give you the same benefits and simplifies the wording a bit. (Also I think it should be a Reaction.)

Love it! I'm taking that wording!

@Eager Hound: I think you shouldn't reveal cards when you don't need to. "Look at" works fine.

Thanks for this! I'm actually going to remove look at too (no one gets to see), in order to speed it up and weaken it a little.


Lots of people had great discussion about the shuffle problems, and I thank each of you for your input.

Also "this card shuffles as normally" can't just be written in the rules for different backed cards. You will see the different back and a skilled shuffler can manipulate it. Stash was designed around that concept. It may be fine to just assume it has the effect of Stash when you're costing it without putting it in the card text.

Nice idea, but I'm not sure I get it entirely. If you shuffle a double-sided card "as normal," would you add an FAQ stating, "In games using this, players are instructed to close their eyes or stare at the ceiling while shuffling"? (In my experience, most Dominion players are warm, friendly, honest people who would never cheat intentionally, of course; but it might be difficult not to accidentally notice where a double-sided card was in the shuffle and consciously or unconsciously be influenced.)

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Random splitting isn't really random. If the special-backed card is on top prior to the splitting, then that affects how the player to the right wants to split the deck.

Well yes, but it comes pretty close with a simple procedure.
One could argue that when the double-sided card is on top after shuffling, before splitting, is part of the feature of the card that gives a certain disadvantage as the other player has an additional option.

How do you see shuffling working with this? You say it shuffles as normal, but are you requiring people to shuffle with their eyes closed, or while avoiding looking down? As long as you can see your card backs in the deck while you are shuffling, it's basically impossible to avoid cheating, intentionally or unintentionally.

*Edit* I see now that there was already some discussion around this. But I would disagree that it takes a "skilled manipulator" to take advantage of it... just any person who is shuffling has to decide when to consider the shuffle as being done... if they can see whether the card on top of the deck is Eager Hound or not, it's impossible for them to not allow that to play a role in their decision of whether to shuffle another time or not.

*Edit again* I already experience this when playing in-person with my unsleeved sets, where basic cards are noticeably more worn than kingdom cards. I tend to avoid looking at the cards while shuffling, but it adds an extra difficulty to the process. It would be much worse with a 2-sided card.

The direction I'm going with is to have the player to your right shuffle for you. This shouldn't slow down the game too much since it's the same number of shuffles. If the person to the right wants to shuffle in a "cheaty" way that leads to terrible placement of those cards... that's fine. There's plenty of deck-topping cards that allow you to still use this as a double lab. It just takes more work.

230

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm »

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

Eager Hound - Action - $3
+2 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any and put the rest back in any order.
-
When no Actions are resolving, if this is the top card of your deck, you may play it.

Another in a series of Dogs that do interesting things! It sifts (the dog digs?) to help you set up other Eager Hounds to trigger. This card can even be played during an Opponents turn, your opponent minions you and you get lucky and a dog is on top of your deck.

In reality, those cases don't happen much. You want some help to trigger these dogs. Cartographer, Courtyard, probably some other card that begins with a C to all can help you set this up. If you overload on Eager Hounds to get lucky, well, just know that terminal +2 cards isn't a great card to stuff your deck with.

The bottom line is to prevent it from being played in the middle of actions that have you reveal cards from your deck, which is confusing. So, after an Action is resolved, at the start of your turn, if this card is on top (you will see it because it's double-sided), then you get to play it!

Open to feedback. This originally was a cantrip that allowed you to play Action cards when played (like a village). But this got complicated quick. So I simplified it to a terminal draw. I like the price point, but is the sifting slightly too strong? Should I change it to 1 card sifting instead? Not sure. I could price it 2 without absolutely no self-synergy (no sifting) as well. Not sure what is best.
Should this be a reaction?

231

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 18, 2020, 01:31:14 pm »

I would recommend making Angel one of the existing types for interactions. With a treasure (opening up some fun gaining and trashing interactions) you could clarify it does nothing on play with $0 signs in the top corners.

Thank you, I hadn’t thought of that! A treasure pile with 12 copies would solve most design considerations. (It does not provide the ability to save for later that companions do, as someone could Buy your copies). I find it inelegant to have a playable card that does nothing on play. I appreciate your feedback, but I’m sticking with Companion.

I already have designs for a complementary Devil (a companion that attacks on gain), a Companion that remodels a card when gained or trashed, a Companion that grants an extra turn, and more. It’s a rich design space, and perhaps it seems overly complicated to introduce for just one card. I still think it’s the most elegant way to solve the design issues with Angel that other solutions do not solve.

I’m okay with not allowing those interactions — night cards don’t allow those interactions to expand dominion to create non victory cards that aren’t playable during action or buy phase. I’ve expanded it to create non victory cards that aren’t playable in any phase.

Thank you again for your feedback

232

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 15, 2020, 05:12:45 pm »

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Other cards with on-gain or on-trash abilities aren’t reactions though. Not that they couldn’t have been, but as I understand it, the reason they aren’t is because reactions happen when the card is in a hidden place; usually your hand, but maybe your discard. Though Patron seems to be a weird exception, it’s a reaction even though it is always publicly visible at the time that it is reacting.

Yup. Angel doesn’t function as a Reaction in the same way cultist does not function as a reaction.

Also, I had to increase the pile so in a 4 player game, if the best opening is Angel/Angel/Angel, players 3 and 4 don’t get screwed. And, if you wanted to delay your angel opening and trash a bigger hand later, you have the option to do so since as a Companion, your copies are saved for you.

There’s another solution of making it a Victory card, but adding Vp to this muddled the core idea. A victory card also doesn’t allow the “save for later” that Companion type does.

Knowing those answers, do you still think Companion doesn’t make sense?

Thanks for the feedback! As always I am grateful and upvote helpful  discussion on my cards.

love this concept! However, it may be too powerful at costing 4. The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

Could you cost this 5 and have it have some benefit. Like an action card that can trash a card from your hand for +1$? I just worry costing it 4 is a little too strong .

I've already wondered whether $4 is too high rather than too low. I mean sure, one player could do what you describe, leaving 2 copies in the supply, but if they do, then the opponent can just grab the remaining 2 for half the price, so the analysis there isn't really complete.

And I think this already has enough going on, I wouldn't want to tack an extra ability onto it.

I agree. After posting I realized it would be too much going on. I think 4 is pretty easy to pile out, and I never buy a province at first if they are in the supply. It’s guaranteed it to be worth as much or more than a province for the same price. If you cost it 5, I sometimes buy it over my first province. So I think 5 is more interesting there.

233

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 14, 2020, 06:55:56 pm »

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

This is a really cool idea and it reinforces the Solitaire aspect of Dominion, which is not something that I expected to be this interesting. I Think the only mechanic that may trip up my group is remembering to merge the piles when the Province trigger happens. I like the idea and would be interested to see what other cards you would design to be Companions. Angel itself seem really strong, and probably would not be added to my groups card rotation, but I commend the design of the Companion mechanic.

Thanks for all the feedback. I've decided to remove the province merging aspect of this for simplicity. My original intention was for that rule to allow it to pile out even if strategies differ. I realize now, thanks to everyone's feedback, that it isn't worth dealing with that.

I've updated the original post up above.

234

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 14, 2020, 04:29:04 pm »

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

I am sure you have spend hours and hours for this mechanic and it looks like an interesting approach. I have been working though the set of rules of Companion cards for an hour or so, and I think I got it now more or less. Isn't it a bit too complex to introduce this all at once?

Hm, thank you so much for taking the time to puzzle through it! It’s my intention that this wasn’t so complicated. Any ideas on how to clarify it through better phrasing?

As far as introducing it all at once, this is a mechanic similar to heirlooms. It specifies set up rules. I have other card ideas that use Companion. For angel, I needed to solve two problems:
1. The possible 4 player turn order issue as mentioned above
2. This card has no types. (It’s not even a reaction).
Using the companion card type was the best thing way I was able to address both issues.
I could make this a victory card, but that felt tacked on just to give it a type. To me it would be inelegant.

235

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 14, 2020, 03:57:00 pm »

Marshland - $4+
Victory

Worth 1 VP per copy of this in the trash.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it, to trash a copy of this from the supply per $1 you overpaid.

There are 1.5 times as many copies of this in the supply as for a regular Victory card, i.e. 12 for 2 players and 18 for 3-4 players.

I love this concept! However, it may be too powerful at costing 4. The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

Could you cost this 5 and have it have some benefit. Like an action card that can trash a card from your hand for +1$? I just worry costing it 4 is a little too strong .

236

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm »

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup: I have updated the rules based on feedback after this. Ignore crossed out lines

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• Companion supply piles are separated into separate supply piles for each player. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies they can gain.
• Players can only gain and buy Companions from the Supply if they are in their pile. (trash gainers can be used to gain any Companion from the trash)
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to have exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

237

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Why assume full random kingdoms with fanmade cards?

« on: September 12, 2020, 03:10:23 pm »

It seemed more appropriate to separate this into a different thread, but this is quoted from the weekly card design contest:

...then a substantial number of games will be without any trashing (~1/5 I think), and then the part most important for this challenge is useless. On the other hand, most games will have a trasher of any sort...

There's no reason to assume full random kingdoms when talking about fanmade cards. Why do people do that?

Because the game Dominion itself is designed for full random kingdoms. I could ask a similar question, why assume everyone starts with 10 cards in their deck when discussing fanmade cards?

A card designed without full random kingdoms in mind isn’t a Dominion fan card, it’s a Dominion spin off fan card.

238

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 04, 2020, 11:15:59 pm »

Here's a new entry, now with image. I might revise Renovate later.

Succinct, wonderful event. It even helps reduce 1st player advantage. And it synergizes in a good way where debt is about saving cost for later and coffers are about saving money for later. Really nice work.

239

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 02, 2020, 03:53:54 pm »

I think this is interesting. I'm not a great judge of strength, but it might be too strong in a game with half decent trashing. Particularly with the top-decking.

I'm okay with it being a little strong, since it isn't strong in the sense you buy this instead of other cards. You still get the other cards, and you have to account for trashing this. It's sort of like an Event that comes with a slightly better Confusion, that allows you to still get the event when you recover the confusion from the Trash. It changes the game, in the same way that Delve, Chapel, and Donate all change the game, though probably less than all those.

Edit: My question is, is it better or worse if I make changes to allow it to be gained mid-turn. I am unsure whether that would be more interesting for the combos, or if doing so would make it too strong in a less interesting way? Now that I think about it the solution would be "gain a card that is not an Underling costing up to 4. This costs 0 debt during your Action phrase" which would allow it to still suck for t4b and allow mid turn gains. Not sure if that stronger version is better.

240

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: September 02, 2020, 03:38:23 pm »

New Submission

Trying something entirely different.

Underling - Action - costs 3debt
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a card costing up to $4 to the top of your deck.

You can quickly get a needed 4 cost, at the expense of cursing yourself with a terminal copper. Underling costs debt so it can't auto pile, and also so it can't be Trash For Benefitted very well. It's a bad card in your deck -- that's the penalty for the gain. It also can always be opened with. A Baron needs an underling, don't they? With 3/3 (one copper is not drawn at start of T2) you can hit $7 on turn 2. There's lots of 4-cost cards you want turn 2 bad enough to take in an underling, I assure you.

open to feedback, of course. I threw out last submission because it got no upvotes and comments, so maybe it wasn't as interesting as I thought. Let me know if this also is not interesting.

One idea I am considering: strengthening it to make it not cost debt during Action phase so that you can mid-turn gain it. For example "This costs 1$ and 3 debt during your buy phase, and $3 during your action phase." Another idea is removing debt entirely so it just costs $3 and has a clause about not self-gaining.

241

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 31, 2020, 01:58:47 pm »

EDIT: THIS IS AN OUTDATED SUBMISSION I PICKED A NEW CARD SEE LATER IN THREAD

Distribute - Event - 4debt
Gain a card costing up to $4. Set it aside. If you did, put it in your hand at the start of your next turn. Each other player gains a copy of that card.

My favorite part of messenger is the below the bottom part. So here's a card that does something similar. You gain the card sooner, your opponents gain it later. This costs debt so that you can always open with it, plus the gained card next turn helps you pay your debt back. Sometimes you can distribute a card your opponents don't even want. Towards the end of a player's shuffle, you could distribute them curses.

Here’s one fun idea. On 3/4 or 4/3, Open Distribute for Baron, and then next turn play your Baron to spike up 7!  Baron is probably one of the more powerful combos since people don’t want multiple Barons often.

Open to feedback, of course

242

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 26, 2020, 04:30:19 pm »

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

There's a lot of possible infinite loops that get infinite VPs, most of them almost impossible to happen in a random game. See this topic:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20320.0

If we're being pedantic, it's impossible to get infinite VP because Dominion takes place in finite time. Eventually, the players die. Hopefully before that, they get bored and end the loop. Even more likely, the other player sees that they will lose and forfeit.

 It seems the real issue here is, should there be a strategy that, for any N, allows a player to reach more than N victory points? As Carline indicated, already these strategies exist. But this strategy can exist without any combos. Simply adding Monument to the game means players can reach any victory point they desire. Your opponent may seek to end the game. Or, they see that they will lose and forfeit. Or, they have a strategy to get more points quickly, even though there strategy is bounded in the number of points they can get.

All that being said, I think the smaller text, infinite-loop version of Canary is better. I don't know if the discrepancy of upvotes the two posts get is an indication of other people's thoughts. If you really must avoid infinite loops, you can try this:

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay a face-up Action card you played once this turn that's still in play.

once you replay it, is no longer "played once." All infinite loops with Canary are thus avoided. This then means you can't throne room a card, trash a Canary to then play that card again. Is this nerf worth avoiding the infinite loop? Hard to say.

I have to root for Canary as I had the same idea (although mine [haha] allowed you to discard the Canary instead of trashing it, and it costed less as to not upgrade to gold. I think your version that stays trashed and upgrades to gold is better).

243

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 20, 2020, 06:50:19 pm »

Nice contest idea! I'm usually not that quick to enter my card, but I got inspired real quick this time. My goal was trying to help a poor bottom-of-the-barrel Qvist card and my attention immediately shifted toward Bureaucrat. The poor ol' Bureaucrat. Let's throw a goodie at him:

     

I think it's rather obvious how Paperwork benefits from Bureaucrat's top-decking Silver ability (something which usually sucks). Bureaucrat can also top-deck your opponents' Paperwork. 4 out of your 10 starting cards are now prime candidates for the Attack. Maybe + is too much, but I wanted it to be akin to Baron's Estate thingy. The + is just there to not break the 4/3 and 5/2 opens.

This is GREAT! I love this. Bureaucrat is a favorite card of me and it's sad that it's weak. I think this heirloom improves the card so much. It's making me think about not even submitting this contest.

The concept is great but I do have some ideas to maybe improve it. I personally think that there is no reason for it to give 2vp. Everyone starts off with it, giving it two VP just encourages people to not trash it, which I think is unnecessary and clouds the simple design. 1vp is better. Or, to be more focused on silvers, you could have it give you 1vp per every 4 silvers you have (as an example). Or even something like "this is worth 4vp if you have at least 10 silvers in your deck"

Since this is an heirloom, there's no need to compare it to existing cards like Baron for power. I think because it is relatively swingy (did I get lucky to have a silver or no), that you should weaken it slightly.
a couple of choices:

Choose one: +1$; or reveal the top card of your deck if it is not empty. If it's a silver, +3$

You can be swingier with this you could even do +$4 (although I'm unsure about that), since the gamble is in the player's hands.

If your deck is not empty, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a silver, +$3. Otherwise, +$1

If your deck is not empty, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a silver, +$2. Otherwise, +$1

I've snuck another clause into here: "If your deck is not empty" which addresses these issues:

Paperwork still does some weird things if you draw it turn 2. 5/2 with turn 2 Paperwork is amazing, but 2/5 with turn 2 Paperwork is terrible.

244

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 18, 2020, 11:15:56 pm »

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

This  is strictly better than warehouse

245

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 18, 2020, 09:51:12 am »

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Neat, but probably broken with Patron/Tunnel.

Good eye! I am wondering whether this is worth designing around. Golem (just for tunnel) and rebuild also allow “broken” combos with on discard cards. Granted, cull is cheaper than both cards, though it is terminal (comparing it to rebuild). I feel that it’s fine to allow this combo, but could be designed around “if they are not, put them in your discard pile.”

What do you (or anyone else) think?

246

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 16, 2020, 11:34:55 pm »

Edit: My new submission:

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

I agree that "set aside" solves the main issue. I don't quite understand why it's a problem if it can play cantrips though? But you may have missed that it can only play cards that draw 2 or more cards; so it couldn't play Village, for example. But it could play Laboratory.

I did miss the 2 or more cards for X thing.

247

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 16, 2020, 08:31:14 pm »

Edit: My new submission:

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

248

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 16, 2020, 06:32:08 pm »

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull has unbounded draw. How much are you willing to gamble on having uniques? Get too greedy and you draw nothing. You can usually reveal 2 cards and it's safe. 3 if you've built a deck that has lots of uniques. Then you always have the on gain benefit. You open it on 4/3 you're happy to trash the estate, the the 5/2 is still happy to open and trash that copper since it really gets in the way of having unique cards to draw. A player can choose to reveal their whole deck to (likely) put it in the discard.

To clarify, you choose how many cards to reveal before revealing any. Like "I will reveal 3 cards" and then you reveal them all.

I anticipate some people not liking the gain clause. The way I see it, is some games you buy it just for the trashing, just like in many games you buy mint for the trashing. The best way to use it's trashing, from Cull's perspective, is to draw high and have lots of copper in hand so you can trash them.

249

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 06, 2020, 09:20:46 am »

Contest 83: Bigger is Better Submission

Okay, got a wild one. Two big cards

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

Okay, there's a lot of concepts together here but it's the best way to balance it. The big Graveyard key allows you to gain tons of cards at once. In a two-player game with good trashing, that means you're gaining 14 coppers... wow! So big!. Graveyard Key is a confusion in your deck, that you can pay $1 to get rid of, and/or open the graveyard (gain all non-victory cards from trash). The higher cost of Graveyard Key is keeping it in your deck as a confusion and not-self trashing it until there's enough cards in the trash to be worth it. I needed to make some higher cost for the "gain all cards in the trash" so that's why the Graveyard Key is a self-junker that can also self-trash. I am unsure of the price for it.

But, graveyard key would only be useful if there are good cards in the trash. That's why it comes paired with a card that gives you a reason to put things in the trash. Refine is "big" for the "up to $3 more." Despite the $3 clause, it's actually fairly weak, you can't turn estates into action cards. You can, over two shuffles, turn an estate into a duchy and then turn that duchy into a 5-cost. In the end game, you can't turn golds into province, dang. I would probably buy Remodel over this card most times. It's weak, but I think still interesting and priced appropriately.

I haven't even gotten the chance to talk about the strategic implications of starting with $6 and a coffer have on your deck. It means that there is a higher chance that you can choose a 5/2 or 4/3 opening (It is possible to get stuck with a 5/2 if you have a hand of 5 coppers and a hand of 3estate, 1 copper, 1 Graveyard Key. But other than that one possibility, everyone get's to choose their opening. Yay!). Then there's the -- when do I sacrifice 1$ to trash this card?

I am totally open to feedback on these cards, of course! I'm considering pricing Graveyard Key at $1 so that it can be refined into a Caravan, for example. Or even costing it 2 to be refined into a Den of Sin, Wharf, etc. Graveyard Key does have that helpful Duration type on it. Is Refine, too weak? I'm considering having the same-or-less-cost gain go to hand. (the $3 more can't go to hand because then it's strictly better than mine).

I think that you would rarely use graveyard key, because if you're not the first one to use it you gain the other one from the trash! I don't think that is intended.

That’s not true. You may choose to gain the cards from the trash. You don’t have to.

250

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: August 05, 2020, 09:54:40 pm »

Contest 83: Bigger is Better Submission

Okay, got a wild one. Two big cards

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

Okay, there's a lot of concepts together here but it's the best way to balance it. The big Graveyard key allows you to gain tons of cards at once. In a two-player game with good trashing, that means you're gaining 14 coppers... wow! So big!. Graveyard Key is a confusion in your deck, that you can pay $1 to get rid of, and/or open the graveyard (gain all non-victory cards from trash). The higher cost of Graveyard Key is keeping it in your deck as a confusion and not-self trashing it until there's enough cards in the trash to be worth it. I needed to make some higher cost for the "gain all cards in the trash" so that's why the Graveyard Key is a self-junker that can also self-trash. I am unsure of the price for it.

But, graveyard key would only be useful if there are good cards in the trash. That's why it comes paired with a card that gives you a reason to put things in the trash. Refine is "big" for the "up to $3 more." Despite the $3 clause, it's actually fairly weak, you can't turn estates into action cards. You can, over two shuffles, turn an estate into a duchy and then turn that duchy into a 5-cost. In the end game, you can't turn golds into province, dang. I would probably buy Remodel over this card most times. It's weak, but I think still interesting and priced appropriately.

I am totally open to feedback on these cards, of course! I'm considering pricing Graveyard Key at $1 so that it can be refined into a Caravan, for example. Or even costing it 2 to be refined into a Den of Sin, Wharf, etc. Graveyard Key does have that helpful Duration type on it. Is Refine, too weak? I'm considering having the same-or-less-cost gain go to hand. (the $3 more can't go to hand because then it's strictly better than mine).