Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Meta

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3
26
The time is up!

To be clear, this is NOT the judgement post. This is merely the list. The judgement will come in approximately 12 hours.

Here is a list of all the cards submitted. please tell me if i missed anything. (this was an exercise in trying to compile everything)


Snow queen by Carline



Wintery woods by Spineflu

Quote
Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, the first time each other player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.


Snowball by infangthief
Snowball
$4
Action

+3 Cards
Gain a Snow.
You may play a Snow from your hand.


Eismager/Ice Mage by Meta


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or
+3 Cards and +1 Buy; or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack
------------------------


Ice castle by anordinaryman

Quote
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.


Builder by Segura



Artic Base by X-tra




SnowDrift by Aquila
Quote
Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
-
When you gain this, you may play it.


Frozen crevace by pubby

Winter Retreat by Xen3k




Quote
Winter Retreat
Action - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. If it's a Snow, +1VP and Exile this, otherwise gain 1 Snow.
-
1VP


Abominable snowman by Library adventurer
Quote
Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.




SleighMaker by mahowrath



Quote
Sleighmaker - $4
Action - Reserve

+1 Action. Gain two Snows. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you return a card to its pile, you may call this for +4 cards.

Mountain path by Silverspawn




Snowyy library by commodore chuckles




Artic passage by Faust

Quote
Arctic Passage - $6
Project

At the start of your turn, +2 Buys, +$2.
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Snow.


Hearth by Allion8Me


Quote
Hearth

+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.

$7 - Action


Avalanche by Mochamoko

Quote
Avalanche ⑤ Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of
your turns while this is in play,
+2 Cards and set aside a Snow
from its pile (under this).
-
At the start of Clean-Up, if you
gained a Victory card this turn, or
the Snow pile is empty, discard
this and the set-aside Snow.


Dogsled by Timinou


Quote from: Original


Mountaineer by Somethingsmart



Snowstorm by Xen3K (not techniclly a submission)
<Not an entry>

Quote
Snow Storm - $5
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn, set aside any number of cards from your hand to gain that many Snow. At the start of your Action phase, play the set aside cards in any order.


Frozen throne by No more fun
Frozen Throne
Action - $5
+1 Card
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow.


Ice cutter by Fragasnap

Quote
Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it costs at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Artic castle by Emtzalex






-------
Ok so this has weird formatting issues, but ive been trying to edit this whole list for like 40 minutes, and do not have the energy to fix it right now. Could someone look it over and tell me what went wrong.

You forgot to close the like 5 quotes, which were inside of quotes (like avalanche).
It should be fixed now.
-------

27
Ice Mage
Choose one: Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice; or +3 Cards +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$  Action - Reaction - Attack
The "instead gain" wording typically goes with "would gain," but due to a variety of complications, that wording is abrogated.  If you use the modern "when gain"/"exchange" wording, you aren't required to discard the card to make it function correctly, which is neat.  I have issues with giving out Snow as an Attack, though.

Allthough the english wording may not be perfect, the discarding of Ice Mage if used as a Reaction is intentional. This way, you can't turn the Ice Mages attack into something completely positive, for the player being attacked.

An example: Say player A chooses to use the attack. Player B has an Ice Mage aswell and uses it's reaction.
With the current Version, Player B receives a card costing 5$, a Snow and had to discard his Ice Mage. Meaning using the attack was still a fairly good option.
Using your version, Player B receives two cards costing 5$ and gets to keep their Ice Mage, esentially ruining this attack once other players buy the Ice Mage, as +3 Cards +1 Buy is obv. better than +2$ and every other player gains 2 Cards costing 5$.

I also take issue with your taking issue of using snow as an attack. The Ice Mage is specifically designed as to not encourage using this attack, as it's A only a viable option if other players own few Ice Mages and +3 Cards +1 Buy isn't better, and B has two counter measures built into it. You can (in rare situations) use the Throne Room option, to guarantee +2 Actions (using it on Snow) even in games without any Villages or Cantrips (Allthough the 2019 errata may have "fixed" the throne rooming of snow) and using the Reaction you can gain cards costing 5$ instead of a snow and you can't use the Ice Mage to throne-room itself, in order to prevent others from gaining like 16 Snows in one turn.

Edit: Formatting

28

When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

So if i gain a silver, i may discard EisMagier to instead gain a 5$ cost card?

Yes. And also if you gain a Snow, you may discard the Ice Mage aswell, to gain a 5$ card.

Edit: Typo

29


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or
+3 Cards and +1 Buy; or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack
------------------------

Ver. 4

Fixed typo and wording change according to BBobb.

30
It should say "when you gain" instead of "if you gain"

Thanks, updated it.

31

Quote
Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
Ice Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.

Isn't the opening Ice Cutter, Ice Cutter too overpowered? Because you basically get two Gold, for the cost of 4 Snows. I'd change the cost to 4$, because that way you can't have that opening, and 4$ isn't much more expensive than 3$.

32


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

The big change is that you can no longer use an Ice Mage, to play another Ice Mage twice.
The change was made, because in playtesting, that lead to a huge advantage of the first person to buy two or more ice mages, as the other players would constantly be bombarded with snow.

Edit: Wording

Ver. 3 

33


This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards.  I like this version better. 

I'm not sure about the cost.  I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly.  Feedback welcome!

The current wording is a little unclear on wether you get +1 Action aswell/if you actually have to return the snow to it's pile.
If you don't get +1 Action and have to return it, I think it's pretty well balanced, and can lead to an interessting T3 (especially if one would buy 2 Dogsleds in T1 and T2).

34


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card from your hand twice; +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange that card for a card from the Supply costing exactly $2 more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------
Updated english Wording according to Gubumps suggestion.
German wording remains unchanged.

35
:'(Weekly Design Contest #103: Snow

Hello everyone! You all had some neat ideas for contests, but today i have a bit of hubris,  and it also happens to be snowing in sweden where i live! Henceforth this weeks contest...

Design a Card Or WELP that interacts with 'snow' (ie, this fanmade card)


Quote
TYPE: Action
Cost: 3$
+1 action
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
There are a total of of 30 Snow cards in each game.

Snow is a temporary junk card, that goes away when you play it. You may design any sort of card, sideways card, or WELP that interacts with it. Or, if you want, your own mechanic with it.

My judging criteria for submissions:
1: Is this card Fun? (does it change the game in a fun way? Does it introduce interesting strategies? is it fun to play?)
2: Is this card understandable? (is there grammar or spelling errors? Does it condradict itself? Also, remember to have an english version if you post in another language!)

I hope you all have fun this week. The deadline for card submissions is February 5th, UTC 20/ 8 PM. ill try to have my judging up around February 6th.


Edit 1: fixed some formatting issues with snow as per silverspawns suggestions. i blame my jetlag!

Shouldn't the cost be 3*$ like the spirits and prizes? (As it's also a non-supply card)

36
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 29, 2021, 02:59:16 pm »
I will withdraw my entry, as it doesn't seem to be liked by any people.
Furthermore the potion cost is actually essential, as otherwise you could use remodel to trash a copper and gain a phoenix.
The card being op in it's current state is probably true, that's another reason as to why I'm withdrawing from this contest.
The big symbols are inspired by harem and aren't necessary but make the card unique, which a promo is supposed to be.
The card being played during ones buy phase was not intended, it would be much too op that way.
The cost being 0 and having four types has more interactions with some of my custom cards, that's mainly why I included it.

37
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 29, 2021, 11:54:25 am »
Withdrawn



Translation:
--------------------------------
+4 Cards
Trash a card from your hand and discard a card from your hand.

When you trash trash this, or discard this during your action phase, put it into your hand.

During your buy phase, this card costs 4$.

0*$ P    Action - Treasure - Curse - Victory
--------------------------------

This way Phoenix will always be useful, and is also a trasher.
4$ seems appropriate, as it's basically +2 cards (unless you have another Phoenix), but it may be too good.

38
The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.
It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normal

I know, that's why I changed it.

39
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 29, 2021, 11:27:59 am »
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see the purpose of this card. Other than nerfing cursers, it doesn't do anything. Let's consider a random game, for example, or, instead, the First Game set. It interacts with 3 cards, Mine, Cellar, and Remodel. With Mine, you gain a Silver to your hand. Probably about -4.5 power level, weak. With cellar, it essentially adds +1 Card. This one's is actually pretty powerful. But then again, it is pretty much junk, so if you hadn't had it at all, you would still have the extra card. With Remodel, It is gain an Estate or a Cellar. Extremely weak. So, I don't really see when this card can do much.

This Card is balanced for the way that we play it, which I forgot to consider in the rebalancing.
We never play with random sets (usually each player chooses like 3 cards or someone just chooses all of them, meaning that Phoenix is always at least somewhat useful) and we always play with cellar.

So I may have to change the text to +2 Cards +1 Buy. The price of 3$ may be too low for such a card.

The only other way I see to balance this card is to make it a split pile, I'll have to see what I'm going to do.

40


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

Ver. 2

41
The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.

42


Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 3 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction (- Attack)

-------------------------

The Throne Room is supposed to guarantee that you can have 2 actions (by throne rooming a snow).
The other 2 options are self explanitory.

The reaction part of the card is a direct defence against the ice mage's attack, and is also useful, if you don't have enough actions to get pseudo +2$.

Maybe the card is too cheap, as you have many options, but I'll have to do some playtesting for that.
I've also been considering doing a potion cost (4P) but people on this forum don't seem to like potion costs, so I didn't.

43
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: January 29, 2021, 10:05:12 am »
Withdrawn



Translation:
--------------------------------
+1 Card
+1 Buy

When you trash trash this, or discard this during your action phase, put it into your hand.

During your buy phase, this card costs 3$.

0*$ P    Action - Treasure - Curse - Victory
--------------------------------

This card should still qualify for this contest, as it doesn't require potions to buy (It's actual cost is 3$).

2. Submissions should not require Potions, Platinums, or Colonies

5. You can use mechanics that are specific to certain expansions, as long as your submission does not violate any of the above restrictions.  So for example, the following would be permitted:
  • Duration cards
  • Night cards
  • Heirlooms
  • Mixed piles
  • Split piles

The 0* Cost is important, as to not facilitate infinite Gold with Mine/Expand.
The Potion Cost is important, so you can't gain it, unless it's your buy phase.

The 4 card type combination, is designed, so it can counter mountebank and also be overpowered with Courtier.
That combined with the ability to put it into your hand after discarding makes it optimal with Shepherd, Cellar, Secret chamber, Vault etc. and as a "defence" against Militia etc.

Those qualities should make it unique enough to be considered a Promo.

44
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 25, 2021, 12:12:28 pm »
Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards
The player to your right, has to reveal their hand prior to the Clean-up phase.

At the start of your next turn:
+1$ per Treasure revealed by the player to your right. +X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

Reworded Wandering Beggar, I will not classify it as an Attack, as it doesn't hurt anyone directly. (Duchess and Council Room are also not classified as an attack, even though they can hurt the other players)

45
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 25, 2021, 11:47:28 am »
Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.

(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)

I guess them showing you their hand is the only option then, I'll implement it later.

46
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 25, 2021, 10:59:27 am »
Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

1. There is no accountibility since the card does not require players to reveal their hands (and if it did it would probably need to be an attack).
2. There is no such thing as "unspent $ in their hand". Treasures that have not been played simply did not generate any $. I understand what you are going for, but in terms of rules this is nonsensical.
I fully agree with you here, and thus changed the need to look at their hand.

3. Even if we allowed "common sense" to override the technical issues from the previous point, it is still not well-defined - if I have a Bank and a Copper in hand, how much $ is that?
This didn't occur in the testing rounds, thanks for bringing it up, it is also fixed now.

In order to fix the card, I would suggest turning it into an Attack that punishes players if they have Treasures in their hand at the end of their buy phase.

I will not turn this into an attack, as it doesn't directly affect any players in this new version, but your fix is also flawed, as this would just allow players to play the treasure cards instead, but I did include it along with the old text, to solve both problems (as you maybe intended).

I am also not in love with the 1-to-1 conversion of unspent $ into cash for you. It already feels bad to draw all your money without enough buys, this just punishes people who are already doing badly.

The 1-to-1 conversion didn't seem to be an issue, as no player received more than 4$ per card in testing, (my cards are generally to be seen as cards from prosperity (regarding colonies) so buying a colony is always an option) and not having enough buys is your fault for which you should be punished, as having a +buy card in the game is guaranteed, because of the tradesman.

But now you can simply choose not to play a gold and the next player will only gain +1$ instead of +3$,
so gaining too much using the wandering beggar shouldn't be a problem, even in province games.

47
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 25, 2021, 07:49:27 am »
Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.

48
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 25, 2021, 06:05:56 am »
Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

My recommended wording:
Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+ equal to the unspent the player to your right had on their last turn.
thanks for the improvement, I'll implement it in the translation.


4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=, you could spend twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=, you could spend three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):
Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording
+1 Buy
+
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of for +2 Coffers per paid (rounded down).
You are incorrect, the intention is to only allow increments of 3, in order to prevent the Wandering beggar to be obsolete as soon as other players buy the Tradesman.
But using the tradesman you can limit the Wandering beggar to +2$.

Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

Updated english wording.

49
Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« on: January 24, 2021, 06:47:38 pm »
Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

50
Village of the Dead
+1 Card, +1 Action. If u play this card the first time this turn, you may turn your Journey token over (it starts face up).
If your Journey token is facing up: +1$
Otherwise:+1 Action +1 Buy
Cost: 5   Action
Heirloom: Pumpkin Patch
$1
If your Journey token is facing up: +1$ +1 VP
Turn over your Journey token (it starts face up).
Cost: 4   Treasure Heirloom
Is it your intention that Pumpkin Patch produces $2 in your first shuffle?  I'm not a fan of such a change to the opening.  Is Pumpkin Patch's instruction "If your Journey token is face up: +$1 and +1VP and turn your token face down" or is it "If your Journey token is face up: +$1 and +1VP" and then either way "turn your Journey token over"?  I recommend maintaining consistency with other Journey token cards where turning the token face up is its stronger effect.

Thanks for the feedback, I see what you mean, the problem isn't the Pumpkin batch itself, it's the Village of the dead. I'll change it along with the Pumpkin batch, as the idea is to either facilitate Money or actions/buys, depending on the token. I hadn't considered the change to the opening, that's just a byproduct of this same mistake.

         

Translations:
-------------------------------------
Village of the dead

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you've played a Village of the Dead this turn, you may turn your Journey token over (it starts face up).
If your Journey token is facing down: +1$
Otherwise:+1 Action +1 Buy
(actual wording on the card, due to space constraints)
If your Journey token is facing up: +1 Action +1 Buy
Otherwise +1$

Heirloom: Pumpkin patch
Cost: 5   Action
-------------------------------------
Pumpkin patch

Turn over your Journey token (it starts face up).
If your Journey token is facing up: +1$ +1 VP

Cost: 4   Treasure Heirloom
-------------------------------------

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Page created in 0.492 seconds with 18 queries.