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.

51

Variants and Fan Cards / Redistrict v3.0

« on: January 03, 2014, 09:18:43 am »

And by version 3.0, I mean this is at least the third card called "Redistrict" that I've posted on these forums. It's probably the fifth or so card I've tried under that name. My quest for good one-shot trash-for-benefit is never-ending.

While I was trying to come up with a good top half for a cheap Reaction, I thought of half-a-Remake. "Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it." Seemed like a better fit for a cheap one-shot than a cheap Reaction, and the feedback the other thread is convincing me that a Conscripts-gaining Reaction should be more expensive.

So here's Redistrict:

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the first gained card.

I'd like a $2 terminal in my set and this is potentially a great fit because it can't cost $3 or $4. Originally I had it at $3, but at that price you can turn $2 cards (Estates) into Redistricts and then trash the played Redistrict for a $4 card. You break even on Redistricts and get a card costing $4. So it could be used as a Remodel until the Redistricts run out. Bad news.

Costing $4 isn't quite as bad, but it does allow a player to needlessly run out the pile when trashing $2 cards by trashing the played Redistrict to gain another Redistrict.

So $2 it is! And $2 seems like an OK price for the card, assuming it's not too weak even at that price.

Any crazy broken combos I'm missing? It can still be used to gain itself when $1 cards are available, but I'm fine with that.

52

Variants and Fan Cards / Discussion: The Reaction That "Attacks Back"

« on: December 30, 2013, 10:44:47 pm »

Lots of people have ideas for Reaction cards that "reflect" attacks or harm the attacking player in some way. Most of us here on f.DS know this is a bad idea. It's Pitfall #1 in rinkworks's list of Common Pitfalls of fan card design. Donald X. wrote a short essay about why it doesn't work. It's the oldest non-sticky thread in the Bible of Donald X. subforum. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. The upshot is that if such a Reaction is good enough to be worth buying, it disincentivizes buying Attack cards too much. The Attack cards don't get bought and therefore the Reaction doesn't get bought either. The last paragraph of the essay is this:

So that's the deal. You can't fix the problem by tweaking the cost of Revenge; you still have the bad ratio. The one thing you can do is change the ratio; for example, Revenge could make every opponent lose a point whenever any opponent attacked. Then it's an attack that your opponents have to enable. Which is not necessarily out of the question, but isn't super sexy.

I have seen a couple of fan cards that sort of take this route with the following Reaction: "When another player plays an Attack, you may [discard/trash] this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that Attack card." An interesting idea. I like that it doesn't put the current Attack on hold to launch a counter-attack. Instead it bolsters your own attacking capability during your turn(s). It has some issues, though. You only want so many copies of most Attack cards, and most of the ones you want a ton of (Minion, etc.) will run out and make your Reaction useless.

Switching gears for a moment, I have a card in my set that either digs for an Attack to draw or gains two copies of a one-shot Attack called Conscripts. I'm looking for another way to use Conscripts, and it seems like if there was ever a time to try this "Reaction that attacks", this is it. I'm going to test a Reaction card that you can discard when you're attacked to gain a Conscripts. Here's Conscripts for reference:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. If he did not discard any cards, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

So yeah, a Reaction that gains a Conscripts when you're attacked. I don't know what the top of the Reaction card will look like yet. In part that will depend on the answer to this question: Where should the Conscripts go when it's gained? This question is the reason I'm posting this thread.

• Directly to your hand. This was my initial plan. I'm second-guessing myself because I'm worried it's too much of a disincentive to buying Attacks, especially in multi-player games. In a 3-player game, if you play an Attack and your opponents both have a copy of this Reaction, you're getting a Curse before your next turn. Sure, they're attacking each other too, but not as badly.

• Into your discard pile. This option I worry is too weak. Compared to Beggar and Market Square, gaining a single Conscripts that you won't see until your next shuffle seems lackluster.

• On top of your deck. OK, this may sound weird, but I'm worried that this may be almost as strong as into your hand. Yeah, you're down a card in hand and you have to use a cantrip if you want to draw the Conscripts next turn, but several Attacks (Minion, Urchin, Pillage, Taxman, Axeman) are completely neutralized once you only have 4 cards in your hand. OK, maybe that's not so many Attacks after all. Perhaps this is a good middle ground.

So any opinions? Is this card worth doing? If so, where should the gained Conscripts go? I'll put up a poll.

53

Variants and Fan Cards / Card Workshop: The Copper Junker Attack

« on: December 27, 2013, 04:47:24 pm »

I was thinking of adding a fourth Attack card to my set and it struck me that right now I have a mucker-trasher (Barrister), a trasher-discarder (Axeman), and a discarder-junker (Conscripts). What about a junker-mucker to round it out?

Sea Hag is a published example of such a card. Each other player gains a Curse on his deck. I don't necessarily need another curser, and anyway it's likely that any junker-mucker that gave Curses would look a lot like Sea Hag. So I came up with a Copper junker instead.

Now I know what you're thinking (or what you should be thinking). An Attack that gives out Coppers is a bad idea because the size of the Copper pile scales badly with the number of players. That is true. But we also know that cards that sometimes give out Coppers can be OK. Examples include Mountebank, Noble Brigand, Jester, and Ambassador. So I came up with this attack effect:

Each other player reveals the top card of his deck. If it's not Copper, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.

I don't think it's a strong attack, so the rest of the card should compensate for that. But I have no idea what the rest of the card should be. I don't want it to be just a simple vanilla bonus because two of the other Attacks in the set already just have a flat +$2 (their attack effects and under-line text are really wordy, so that's all there's room for). So what should it be? For reference, the attack effect above takes up three lines of normal-sized text on the card.

54

Variants and Fan Cards / Committee 2.0; or Can I Make This Cost $4?

« on: December 27, 2013, 12:50:08 pm »

I submitted a version of my card, Committee, for the Intrigue contest in order to get some feedback. Here is the version submitted:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. The player to your left names a card. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck and choose one that is not the named card. Trash it or gain a copy of it. Put the untrashed cards back in any order.

I've playtested it since then and it has some issues. People (in the contest) gave feedback that it was too powerful, especially because it can technically gain Provinces. Also the fact that they pretty much have to name Province once you have one in your deck is inelegant. But more than that, it has the issue that there isn't enough direction for the player naming a card. It's an AP-laden choice that often won't be meaningful (because you won't reveal that card).

The pre-contest version of the card had the player name a card after the cards were revealed, which removed these issues. Some forum-goers were confused about whether the named card applied to all copies of that card or just one (it applies to all). That version also didn't allow you to trash a card, but only to gain one. I should have tested a version that had name-after-reveal with the option to trash, but I didn't for some reason. But now I've gone back in that direction and I'm currently playtesting this new, streamlined version:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $4 or $5
+$2. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 differently named cards. If you did, the player to your left chooses one of the revealed cards. Either trash it or gain a copy of it. Discard the untrashed cards.

I say it's streamlined because now both you and the other player get one decision apiece: he chooses one of the two cards and you choose what to do with it. I've been playtesting this version at $4 and so far it's been going really well, although it's predictably powerful. But I'm not yet convinced it's so powerful that it can't cost $4.

On the one hand, it seems to compare well to Moneylender. Very early on, you're probably revealing Estate and Copper, which probably means you'll be trashing a Copper and getting some cycling to boot. It also looks comparable to $5 cards that give you $2 and can gain you a card, like Rogue and Jester (although to be fair, Rogue and Jester can also attack the other players). But there are also some things that mitigate its power.

• It's unreliable. Unless you've drawn your whole deck and then discarded two cards of your choice, its effect is going to be somewhat random.
• It can whiff. If you reveal a card you'd like to gain but can't (Madman, Spoils, Conscripts, any card from an empty pile), then your opponent can safely choose it and you get nothing.
• It cycles past your good cards. I could have the cards go back on your deck rather than be discarded, but that's slower and adds another choice. I'm kind of torn on this one, but I'm really leaning toward keeping it as-is (with the cards discarded).

So I'd like to hear opinions about whether it's worth keeping at $4 or it has to move to $5. I worry a bit that it won't be compelling enough at the $5 price point. It could be lowered to +$1 (at a $4 cost), but I do like having a sizable buffer there so that there's less of a power gap between whiffing, trashing, and gaining. I'd be willing to try that out, though, if people think it's a good idea.

P.S. Yes, this can gain Provinces in a Colony game if you reveal a Colony and a Province. I am OK with this! I think it falls into the "cool combo" category rather than the "insanely broken" category.

55

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Compilation Thread

« on: December 27, 2013, 12:18:02 am »

Guys, I promise I will make this a for-reals thread soon, but for now I am very tired and am having trouble making Prefecture, so please have these four card images.



EDIT: Now that mith is reviving this contest, the least I can do is try to mock up the winning cards using my latest template. Here's Diviner; I will attempt to do the rest soonish.

56

Dominion Articles / Butcher

« on: December 14, 2013, 12:16:58 am »

Arguably the most versatile card in the Remodel family, Butcher is a strong option on most boards. Yet it's a card that's easy to misuse. Following these simple rules will help you get the most out of your Butchers.

1. Optimize your returns. In general, you want to use the fewest tokens possible to get from a card you don't want in your deck to one you do. In general, your Coin tokens will be better spent during your Buy phase to help you hit those high price points early and smooth out your purchase power later. This means that Butcher is a particularly strong choice on boards with $2 cards that you don't mind having several of, like Candlestick Maker. You can convert your starting Estates into these cards and keep the Coin tokens.

Butcher also does a decent job of mitigating cursing attacks in slog games where deck thinning isn't available. In games like these, especially if there are no useful $2 Kingdom cards, turning Curses into Coppers is a very economical use of Butchers. They may both cost $0, but Coppers are vastly superior to Curses and you're much better off pocketing the two Coin tokens than spending 3 or more to convert a Curse into, say, a Silver.

2. Don't trash Coppers. There are excpetions (e.g. a Scrying Pool deck), but most of the time trashing a Copper with Butcher is a losing proposition. You lose $1 of buying power that turn and you have to spend several precious Coin tokens to get any sort of useful card back. Butchering Treasures in general is a bad idea except in the endgame when you're happy to convert Golds to Provinces.

3. Trashing is optional. One very big edge that Butcher has over Remodel is that it's rarely a dead card. Even if Butcher shows up in your hand with no other cards you want to trash, you can still get value from it. Just take your two Coin tokens and opt not to trash a card. This is usually the way to go when you have a hand of only Butcher, Coppers, and Silvers.

4. Save a couple tokens for the endgame. When you're rushing for Victory points, you'll be very glad you have the ability to turn your $5 cards (like other Butchers) into Provinces.

57

Variants and Fan Cards / Feedback Wanted: The Silversmith

« on: December 13, 2013, 04:09:59 pm »

An obvious idea, but I'd like to give it some scrutiny: a Coppersmith for Silver. Is such a card worth making, and how much would it cost?

One of the Dominion Outtakes is:

Vault
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Silver produces an extra $2 this turn.

We don't have any information about why it didn't make it into a set. Was it too strong, too weak, or just not interesting enough? Did it encourage a boring strategy?

At one point rinkworks tested this:

Silversmith
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Silver produces an extra $1 this turn.

He claimed it was pretty strong, but I'm not sure I buy that. The reason Coppersmith is worth buying is that your deck starts with 7 Copper already in it. Silver-that-makes-$3 is stronger than Copper-that-makes-$2, but you have to buy or otherwise gain all those Silvers, which weakens the card.

I'm considering this card:

Silversmith
Types: Action
Cost: $3/$4
Gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

Does that seem crazy? What do you guys think?

58

Variants and Fan Cards / Barrister 2.0; or Do Three Wrongs Make a Right?

« on: December 12, 2013, 12:48:27 am »

Those of you who have been keeping up with the Treasure Chest contest may remember my submission for a Dark Ages card.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of his deck; you may choose a revealed Treasure for him to trash. He discards the rest. You may gain a Treasure from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Claim.

Claim
Types: Treasure
Cost: $0
Worth $1. When you play this, look through your discard pile. You may trash a Claim from your discard pile or hand. If you do, gain a Gold, putting it into your hand.

As I mentioned in that contest, it's a card I'm working on for my fan expansion, Enterprise. I submitted it to get feedback. It got zero votes. Now, I expected that a Thief variant would be unpopular, but zero votes sends a clear message: improve or scrap this card. I really want to keep the mechanic of cards that you can only get from other players' decks, and a Thief variant seemed the natural way to do that. I'd considered a Barrister that could only steal Claims, but that's a really weak Attack.

Simultaneously, I was trying to design a cheap ($4) terminal Spy variant to replace a non-terminal one in the set. I was having a lot of trouble thinking of a card that wasn't too close to Rabble, Fortune Teller, or Oracle. Today, a bolt of lightning (probably inspired by KingZog's Ringmaster Prize submission) struck my brain, and I realized that I could combine the two into a single card that stole only Claims from other players while mucking their decks.

But! But but but! That is but one of the three wrongs that (hopefully) make up this right. You see that Claim up there? That is a wordy mess. Originally you had to collide the Claims in hand in order to gain the Gold, but I realized requiring you to steal the Claim and then line them up was too much. Hence the tortured "look through your discard pile" wording. It hit me today that a better way to make you want more Claims in your deck without having to collide them was by making them Victory cards.

So! So so so! You know how two of the most suggested fan cards are Mini-Harem [Worth $1/Worth 1VP] and Proto-Duke [Worth 1 VP per Proto-Duke in your deck], but they both make lousy Kingdom cards? Combining those two wrongs with the wrong of my failed Barrister, I give you Barrister 2.0!

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, discards the other revealed Actions and Treasures, and puts the rest back on top. Gain all the Domains in the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

Domain
Types: Tresaure – Victory
Cost: $0
Worth $1.
Worth 1 VP for every Domain in your deck.

This post is long enough for now, so I'll just stop there and let you decide. Do three wrongs make a right in this case? Feedback is welcome! Thanks in advance.

59

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #8: Guilds

« on: December 11, 2013, 03:31:45 pm »

The eighth contest is to design a card that would fit well in Guilds.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150. This means no more Victory card submissions will be accepted until and unless a submission that uses fewer than 10 cards wins.


Challenge #8 : Guilds

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Guilds expansion. Such a card should have one or more of the following qualities:

• Produces Coin tokens.
• Has an overpay effect.
• Has a 'name a card' mechanic.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

60

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: December 11, 2013, 03:18:14 pm »

The seventh contest is to design a card that would fit well in Alchemy.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150. This means no more Victory card submissions will be accepted until and unless a submission that uses fewer than 10 cards wins.


Challenge #7 : Alchemy

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Alchemy expansion. Such a card should have one or more of the following qualities:

• Has a Potion in its cost.
• Is good in multiples.
• Cares about Actions.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

61

Variants and Fan Cards / Revised versions of published cards

« on: December 11, 2013, 12:52:29 pm »

Since I mocked these up for my own IRL set, I thought I might as well post them here. Just a few Dominion Time Machine changes.



Chancellor is added as a 27th card in the Base Set.
Statue replaces Harem in Intrigue.

62

Variants and Fan Cards / Card Idea: Laborers

« on: December 02, 2013, 12:03:05 pm »

Laborers
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. +1 Buy. Gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. You may discard a Treasure. If you don't, trash this.

63

Goko Dominion Online / Is a Goko-only promo still in the cards (so to speak)?

« on: November 18, 2013, 03:47:56 pm »

I already posted a thread over on VGG in hopes of getting a response from Donald, but does anybody besides me have any interest in an online-only promo card? Donald said he might do one, but he was waiting until all the existing cards were implemented. Now that that's happened, I wonder if this is still a possibility.

64

Variants and Fan Cards / Feedback Wanted: The Anti-Vault

« on: November 16, 2013, 01:06:20 am »

Well, it's not exactly the anti-Vault. Tell me what you guys think of this in terms of power level, etc. It's a card that discards for coins, then draws. But it's limited to discarding only Victory cards and it's a draw-up-to-7 rather than a straight +X Cards.

Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal then discard any number of Victory cards. +$1 per card discarded. Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.

Is this way too powerful, or does it just need a small penalty? Would it be worth $5 if it drew up to 6 cards in hand instead?

UPDATED VERSION:

Wheelwright
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Discard any number of cards, then draw until you have 7 cards in hand. Each other player may gain a Copper, putting it into his hand.

65

Variants and Fan Cards / Feedback Wanted: The One-Shot Almost-Festival

« on: November 13, 2013, 10:31:45 am »

I'm working on a cheap card that's sort of a self-trashing Festival without the +Buy. The actual card is more complex, but the gist of it is:

Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. +$2. Trash this.

It can cheaply kick-start your early economy. Later on you could use them as inexpensive extra villages to keep your engine going. Is it too good for $2, or not good enough? You decide!

66

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #A: Prize Card

« on: November 08, 2013, 10:55:54 am »

This additional special contest is to design a new Prize card!

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.


Challenge #A: Prize

Design a new Prize card that can be gained via Tournament. Ideally a new Prize card will be sufficiently different from existing Prize cards.

The deadline for this contest is Sunday November 17th, 2013.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

67

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #6: Cornucopia

« on: November 08, 2013, 10:52:46 am »

The sixth contest is to design a card that would fit well in Cornucopia.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Challenge #6 : Cornucopia

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Cornucopia expansion. Such a card could have one or more of the following qualities:

• Encourages you to have a variety of cards (in your deck, hand, etc.).
• Helps you get a variety of cards in your deck.
• Has ridiculous power creep. (kidding!)

There is an additional stipulation! Your card may not use or reference Prize cards. That's Tournament's schtick! Let it keep it.

Submissions are due by the end of Friday November 15th, 2013.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck! No, seriously. I will.

68

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #5: Intrigue

« on: October 03, 2013, 06:21:27 pm »

The fourth contest is to design a card that would fit well in Intrigue.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Challenge #5 : Intrigue

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Intrigue expansion. Such a card could have one or more of the following qualities:

• Gives you choices.
• Is a Victory card (including Victory–Action and Victory–Treasure hybrids).
• Cares about Victory cards.

BUT! Intrigue has a bunch of normal cards, too. When it comes right down to it, cards that give you choices are common everywhere. So for this contest, I encourage you to design a card that isn't too complex and would fit in either the Base Set OR Intrigue, since lots of Intrigue cards would be fine in the Base Set.

I have a special request! I've been meaning to write a little blurb on each of these contests, but I'm lazy, so this it my first attempt. In this blurb, I'd like to talk about Things We Already Have: Intrigue Edition!

I see a lot of fan cards out there that are sort of a variation on Pawn/Steward/etc. Choose one/two from this list of various things that aren't really related. You know the kind of card I mean. We've got a lot of that already. If your card has a Choose-X mechanic, it should be for a good reason. Not just an expensive Pawn that chooses 3 options or gives +2 of everything instead of +1.

Likewise, if you're going to make a hybrid Victory card, it would be ideal if there is a reason it's a Victory card. Don't just take a card, raise the cost, and tack some VP on. Nobles, Harem, and especially Great Hall have filled the niche of "This is a hybrid card for the sake of being a hybrid card." Think Island: a card that's a Victory hybrid because that's the best way to pull off its mechanic.

You're free to ignore this advice, of course. I will not disqualify your mega-Pawn cards. Just some food for thought here.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Friday, October 11, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

69

Game Reports / Graverobbing at its Finest

« on: September 26, 2013, 04:17:55 pm »

I just played a very fun Dark Ages/Intrigue board. Knights and Mining Village made for some good pickings in the trash pile. You want Nobles for your Ironmongers, but your opponent's Tributes can also take advantage of them. Overall it was a lot of fun. In the game I played, Catacombs was the only unbought card, but in retrospect it would have been a great remodeling target for Graverobber.

Here's the log of the game, but I'm mostly posting this in case others want to try playing this board. If you like Graverobber, it's probably worth your time. I'll post the string here and you can paste it into the extension's Kingdom generator when you set up a Casual or Unrated game.

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130926/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1380225999428.txt

Masquerade, Wishing Well, Ironmonger, Mining Village, Bandit Camp, Catacombs, Graverobber, Knights, Tribute, Nobles

70

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #4: Seaside

« on: September 25, 2013, 06:52:51 pm »

The fourth contest is to design a card that would fit well in Seaside.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Challenge #4 : Seaside

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Seaside expansion. Ideally such a card will have one or more of the following qualities:

• Does something on a future turn (Duration cards are included here).
• Interacts with the top of your deck or the tops of your opponent's decks.
• Interacts in some other way with future or past turns (e.g. Embargo or Smugglers).

But don't let these guidelines constrain you! Just design the card you think would fit best into the set.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Monday, September 30, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

71

Mini-Set Design Contest / Tweaking Diviner

« on: September 16, 2013, 12:14:19 pm »

Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

Even before we get to playtesting, there's an issue I have with this card. It's how the card stacks.

Let's say you have 3 of these in play. Even if you only buy 2 cards, that means you're revealing the top 2 cards of your deck six times. That's going to get old fast, and furthermore it's likely to stop doing anything for you after the first few times. Here is my proposed solution:

Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
When you buy a card, look at 2 cards from your deck per Diviner you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

This way you only do the effect once per card you buy, but it still gets more effective when stacked.

Ideally, I'd like to see the effect on this card instead, but it's more of a departure from the original card:

????
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.
When you buy a card, look at 1 card from your deck per ???? you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

Hinterlands could use another cheap village anyway and this way it's easy to stack them. In order to get the effect multiple times, you need a different source of +Buy.

72

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #3: Dark Ages

« on: September 10, 2013, 11:30:06 am »

The third contest is to design a card that would fit well in Dark Ages.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Challenge #3 : Dark Ages

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Dark Ages expansion. Ideally such a card will have one or more of the following qualities:

• Does something when you trash it.
• Trashes itself and/or other cards.
• Upgrades other cards.
- Cares about the trash.
- Uses Ruins.
- Uses Spoils.

The bullet points (•) are the set's major themes, and the hyphens (-) are the set's minor themes.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Monday, September 23, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

73

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #2: Hinterlands

« on: September 02, 2013, 11:11:56 pm »

The second contest is to design a card that would fit well in Hinterlands. I'll just repost all the rules and things here so that people don't have to hunt around for them.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• No more than one Victory card (ideally an Intrigue or Hinterlands card).
• No more than one Treasure card (ideally a Prosperity card).
• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Challenge #2 : Hinterlands

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Hinterlands expansion. Ideally such a card will have one or more of the following qualities:

• Does something when you buy or gain it.
• Does something when you buy or gain another card.
- Lets you deal with having a large deck or increases the size of your deck.
- Cares about Victory cards.

The bullet points (•) are the set's major themes, and the hyphens (-) are the set's minor themes.

I'll talk a bit here about point #3: enables a large deck. You may have noticed that Hinterlands cards aren't geared around having a small, tightly run deck. In fact, the only Hinterlands card that is actually designed to shrink your deck is Spice Merchant. Perhaps it will be easiest to explain this with some examples.

• Hinterlands has a ton of filtering cards which allow you to cycle through your chaff to your good cards: Oasis, Oracle, Jack of all Trades, Cartographer, Embassy, Inn, Margrave, and Stables.
• Many Hinterlands cards improve your deck by allowing you to gain more good cards quickly, rather than removing bad cards: Duchess, Develop, Trader, Haggler, Border Village.
• Cache pushes filtering by increasing the variance of your deck.
• Scheme lets you play your key cards more often even when you're not drawing your entire deck.

You get the idea. Please keep this in mind when designing your Hinterlands cards. It may help them feel more Hinterlands-y.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Monday, September 9, 2013 at 8am CDT.

If you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!

Ballot
Results

74

Dominion General Discussion / Doctor overpay

« on: August 27, 2013, 07:04:53 pm »

Now that we have some time with Guilds under our belt, how do we feel about the Doctor overpay? I've still had the best luck when I opportunistically buy a Doctor for $8 or more, but if memory serves, that wasn't the experience of the majority. Everybody seems to have accepted that you should open with Doctor, perhaps overpaying by $1. Have any of the better players tried doing a big Doctor overpay more than once or twice? Can someone explain to me why it's a bad idea?

75

Mini-Set Design Contest / Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity

« on: August 25, 2013, 11:39:53 pm »

The time for another card design contest is here! This time we are aiming to create our own Treasure Chest set: a set of 13 cards, two for each large published expansion (Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity, Hinterlands, Dark Ages), and one for each small published expansion (Cornucopia, Guilds, Alchemy). I will try to post one contest thread each week for 13 weeks. If we have space in the box (150 cards) left at the end, we may have a 14th contest for designing a new Prize.

Submission Rules

• Submit no more than one card per challenge.
• You are not obligated to submit a card for every challenge.
• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system.  Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.
• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card.  Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.
• Unlike the previous set design contest, the name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.
• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline.  If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.  That is, don't tell me "Oh, can you make that +2 Cards say +3 Cards instead?"  Just resubmit the full card.
• Only submit cards that are your own design.
• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.
• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.
• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

For this Treasure Chest set, you may not submit cards that combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside slot.
• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.
• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity slot.
• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.
• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.
• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.
• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

I will be putting some constraints on the set as a whole.

• No more than one Victory card (ideally an Intrigue or Hinterlands card).
• No more than one Treasure card (ideally a Prosperity card).
• The raw number of cards (including randomizers) must not exceed 150.


Voting Rules

At the end of each submission period, I'll post the cards I've received and accept votes for the best ones. You may vote for as many of the submissions as you like, although you may only vote for any individual card once per ballot.


Challenge #1 : Prosperity

Design a Kingdom card that would fit into the Prosperity expansion. Ideally such a card will have one or more of the following qualities:

• Is a Treasure card.
• Interacts with Treasure cards (either cards with the Treasure type [like Mint], or one or more specific Treasure cards [like Counting House]).
• Costs $6 or more.
- Uses Victory Point tokens.
- Provides a non-Attack interaction.

The bullet points (•) are the set's major themes, and the hyphens (-) are the set's minor themes.

The deadline for this week's challenge is Monday, September 2, 2013 at 8am CDT. At the time I post the submissions for voting, I will endeavor to also post the next challenge, so that each week there will be one contest to submit for and one to vote on.

I'm certain I forgot something, so if you have any questions, please post them here or send me a private message and I will endeavor to answer them in a timely manner. Good luck!