Print

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

[LibraryAdventurer]

Making a fan expansion (or at least calling your bunch of fan cards a fan expansion) seems the thing to do these days for people who like to make fan cards.  So here's my fan expansion, in its current condition.
  Flavor themes: Restoration and Inheritance. This is to come in the story timeline next after Dark Ages.
  Mechanic themes: durations, ruins, and mixed-type victory cards*.  At the bottom of the post, I included a couple of other people's fan cards which I like and would fit the themes. (*Including the Inheritance cards linked at the bottom of the post.)

Test rating: 7 means the card is plenty tested and considered finished (none are there yet), 0 means it hasn't been tested at all (or only slightly as a previous version).

UPDATED 12/1/16 added Pedestal, updated Archaeologist and a few images which hadn't been updated. (and cut Renovate ...already)
UPDATED 9/23/16 updated Mysterious Door (except for the image). will add special ruins here soon.
UPDATED 8/16/16 added Renovate and updated Ancient Temple and Mortar Repair.
UPDATED 4/12/16 added Fountain Gargoyle and Salvage Yard, updated Drawbridge and Ancient Temple.
UPDATED 3/9/16  added Mortar Repair, updated Foundation, and another new Auditor...

New cards since last update:

Pedestal
Cost $3 - Action / Reaction
+$1.
Discard up to 3 action or treasure cards. +1 VP for each card discarded this way.
-
When you discard this from your hand, +$1 during your turn.

Added the "up to 3" limitation. Still need to update the image. Test rating 2/7.

Cards that have changed recently:

Archaeologist
$5 - Action - Preserve
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Gain a ruins, putting it into your hand.
-
When you gain this, you may put your +1 Action, +1 Card, $1, or +1 Buy token on the ruins pile.

This version test rating 2/7. Originally based on Aidan Millow's Archaeologist from the Dark Ages contest. It's had major changes since the previous version.

Rules for the Preserve type: If a card with the Preserve type is in the kingdom, include both the ruins and special ruins in the supply. Whenever you would gain a ruins (except by buying one), you may discard a card to gain a special ruins instead. The ruins and special ruins count as being from the same pile. Whenever a special ruins is gained, trash a normal ruins from the supply. Include 6 special ruins per player. (The special ruins are here.)

Ancient Temple
Cost $5  - Action
+1 Action. Discard a card. Gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.

Test rating 1.5/7. much simplified fifth(?) version.

Mysterious Door
Cost 2  - Action
The player to your left discards the bottom card of his deck. If it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; a treasure card, +; an action card, play this as the revealed action card -it is that card until it leaves play.

Test rating 3/7. The attack was (usually) extremely weak, and the exciting part is getting to play it as more expensive action cards, so I removed the attack. It's simpler now.

Auditor
Cost $4 - Action / Attack
+$2, +1 Buy.
Each other player reveals their hand and discards all curses, ruins, and pure victory cards.

Test rating 3/7. An attack that makes it harder to trash your junk.

Salvage Yard
Cost $1 - Event
Discard any number of cards from your hand. Gain a card from the trash costing up to $2 per card you discarded.

Test rating 2/7. Haven't found a suitable image for it. (May need a new name to fit with an image, maybe 'Recover'.)

Building Materials rule: Mortar Repair has no randomizer, but is added as an 11th kingdom pile whenever Foundation or Building Blocks are in the kingdom. (These have been posted in another thread.)

Mortar Repair
Cost 3  - Action/Material
Reveal your top 2 deck cards. You may discard one. You may trash one. Put any remaining back on your deck. If you trashed one, gain a card costing up to $3. Otherwise, +1 Action, +$1.
-
When this card is trashed, +$1 on your turn.

Test rating 3/7. It's been tested a few times since the other thread, and I like it. (The previous version seemed slightly weak so I made it reveal two cards.)
ThetaSigma12 has begun redoing my card images with better photoshop foo, but I'm including both versions on this one because the wording tweak he made makes a difference.

Building Blocks
Cost $2  - Treasure/Reaction/Material
Worth $1. When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck and discard it or put it back.
-
When you reveal this from your deck, you may put this into your hand. If you do, continue revealing cards as if you hadn't revealed this card.

Test rating 3/7. I like this one. Based on mail-mi's Sorcerer's Apprentice card.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action/Reaction/Material
+1 Action. Reveal your top deck card. Discard it or put it back. +1 Card.
-
When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card during your turn.

Test rating 3/7.

The rest of the current Resurgence cards:

Generous Benefactor
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 action, +$1.
Next turn: +$2, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 after they finish playing treasures in their buy phase if they have no gold, platnum, or attack cards in play.

Test rating 2/7. Working well.

Drawbridge
Cost 3 - Action - Duration
+2 cards. Next turn: You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, +1 card.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card, its player may discard a card. If they don't, you are unaffected by the attack.

Test rating 3/7.  It seemed very strong for $3 as it was, so I made the cost for the attacker smaller for the attack to get through.

Restored Village
Cost 4 - Action - Preserve
+2 Actions. Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-
When you buy this, gain a ruins (or discard a card to gain a special ruins instead).

Test rating 4/7. I decided I like the $4 cost version better so I changed it back. It's powerful often, but sometimes it can be worse than a necropolis. Still, it was too strong for $4, so I thought of an on-buy drawback. The part in parenthesis is included in the rules for Preserve cards. It's just a reminder here.

Trailblazer
Cost 3  - Action
+1 card, +1 action.
During your action phase with this in your hand, you may discard a card. If you do, play this without using an action.
-
When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

Test rating 4/7. (Name and on-gain effect shamelessly stolen from a card by Just a Rube)

Collectables
Cost 4  - Action - Duration
+1 Card, +1 Action. Next turn: Reveal the top card of your deck, if it costs $5 or more, put it into your hand.
 -
While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

Test rating 3/7.

Miner
Cost 4  - Action
+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

Test rating 4/7. Seems to work well.

Vandal
$5 - Action - Attack - Looter
+2 cards. Each other player may reveal a victory card from his hand and put it onto his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a ruins.  You may reveal a victory card from your hand and put it on your deck. If you do, +$2.

Test rating 4/7. Fun fact: This picture of a graffiti Texas A&M logo was taken in Rome, Italy.

Fountain Gargoyle
Cost $5 - Action / Attack / Looter / Duration / Victory
+1 Action.
This turn and next: +$1.
Worth 1VP
-
Until your next turn, when another player gains a victory card, he reveals and puts a pure victory card or a ruins from his discard pile on top of his deck.

Test rating 2/7. I know certain people won't like the looks of this version, but we've played with it and we like it. Fun is what matters not dividing lines or minor details like that. (Now it has five types, But then I wouldn't actually print it or mock it up with the looter type on it.)

Kingdom Restoration
Cost 5  - Action
+1 Action.
You may discard the top card of your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck. +1 Card.
-
During your buy phase, you may pay $1 to return a card from the trash pile to the supply.

Test rating 3/7.

Pioneer
Cost 5 - Action - Duration - Preserve
+3 Cards, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy an Action card, you may set it aside. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn, then trash it.

Test rating 3/7. I changed it to use the wording Lastfootnote suggested, gave it a name, and tested it in a couple games. I got the idea for this card in a dream.

Ancestral Crypt
Cost 5  - Action - Victory
+1 Card. Trash up to two cards from your hand. For each card you trash that costs more than $0, take a coin token.
 -
Worth 1 VP

Test rating 3/7.

Royal Heirloom
Cost 5 - Action - Duration
Reveal deck cards until you reveal an action card, put the action card in your hand and discard the rest. Then choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

Test rating 4/7.

Almost but not quite yet junked cards:

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a ruins, play it again. If it's a treasure, +$2. If it's a victory card, +2 cards. In any case, trash the revealed card.

Test rating 3/7. (will probably cut because of the similarity to Sacrifice.)

Joint Upgrade
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card and discard a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

To be replaced...

Patrician
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 Actions. Each player (including you) reveals cards from their deck until they reveal an action or treasure card costing at least $3. Put yours in your hand and discard the rest; each other player discards theirs and shuffles the other revealed cards back in their deck.

Test rating 2/7. (Originally based on Confessor by RTT.) Thinking of bringing this one back to the main list and just have the attack happen "If this is the first Patrician you played this turn".  An attacking village. The problem is that it can make people shuffle a lot, but if you do the attack without shuffling it makes multiples of the card too nasty. (The name is of course a reference to the ruler of Ankh Morpork. I love Discworld books. ...and now I'll have to change the name  )

<I removed the list of cards that have been junked from the set.>


Other people's cards that I like and would fit with the Resurgence expansion:
(Actually since I get a lot of my ideas from other people's cards, some of the above cards could go in this section. It's the timeless 'how much do I have to change someone else's idea before I call it my own work?' question, but in the matter of fan-made Dominion cards I don't think it matters that much...)

Garderobe by jamespotter (cost 2), (Renamed 'Excavation' for when I use it.)

Tribal Man by Powerman (cost 5), (renamed to Visionary for my use.)

Archaeologist by Aidan Millow (cost 5) (I added this one to my list above),
and
Arsonist by GwinnR (cost 4)

These are from the Dark Ages contest.

  Others of my cards that I consider to be part of Resurgence:
Inheritances: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10663.0
  My cards that I might consider part of Resurgence...:
Inventor: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14613.msg626332#msg626332
Blackmailer: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10840
  My cards that I wouldn't include with the Resurgence expansion:
Illusionist:  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12947.0
Alchoholics mini fan expansion: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13526.0

[luser]

You should also add a following card:

Library adventurer
Cost 5  - Action
Draw until you have 7 cards in hand. You may set aside any
treasure cards drawn this way aside as you draw them;
discard the set aside cards as you finish drawing.

[LastFootnote]

I think most of these are too weak. In general, I think an expansion should focus on some new mechanic, or at least on a mechanic that hasn't been the focus of an expansion before.

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a treasure, +$1. If it's a victory card, +1 card. In any case, trash the revealed card.

This is super-weak, even when trashing bad cards. It's nice that it's flexible, but I don't think that saves it. I suggest you double all the bonuses, like so…

Iron Furnace
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an Action, play it twice. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's a Victory card, +2 Cards. Trash the revealed card.

Potluck
Cost 3  - Action
Reveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

Prison
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+2 cards. Set aside a card from your hand. Put it into your hand next turn.
-
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the other player sets aside the attack card after it resolves and discards it after his next shuffle.

I'm not sure the reaction is strong or interesting enough to be worth doing. But any stronger and you definitely run into the Reaction-that-hurts-the-attacker ratio issue. Technically you get that here too, but it might be weak enough not to matter.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 card, +1 action.
-
This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

I think this is too confusing to be worth doing. That's just my opinion.

Marketting Agent
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 Card.
Put one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile.
Next turn: +$1.
-
While this is in play, any card with your agent token costs $1 more except during your buy phase when it costs $1 less. When this leaves play, remove one of your tokens. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

Terminal +1 Card just seems really bad. You can't use it for a draw engine since it doesn't increase your hand size, yet you still have the issue of maybe drawing stuff dead. I would get rid of it and just change the next-turn effect to +$2 or something.

I think the whole concept isn't worth having 4 to 6 sets of uniquely colored tokens and then calculating each card's cost based on all the tokens. "OK, I play Remodel and trash this Estate, which is worth $3 because one of my red tokens is on Estate. What can I gain? Well, there are blue and green tokens on Caravan. Whose tokens are these? Do you have a Marketting Agent in play? If not, these tokens don't count. Only one of you does, but you actually have two Marketting Agents in play, so your token counts double? Guess I can't gain a Caravan."

Collectables
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 Action.
Start of next turn: You may reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. If you do, gain a copy of it.
-
While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

The top half is incredibly weak, especially considering you can really only gain cards costing up to $2 (or less), because the card you reveal from your hand costs $1 more than it otherwise would. I predict that the bottom half will generate a lot of rules questions. If fact, I don't even think it does what you want it to do. When you Procession a Band of Misfits, you play it twice, trash it (now it's in the trash and worth $5 again), then gain an Action card costing $6. Likewise, if you trash an Estate with Collectables, it's in the trash by the time you gain a card, so it costs $2 again.

I'll try to get to the rest later.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think most of these are too weak. In general, I think an expansion should focus on some new mechanic, or at least on a mechanic that hasn't been the focus of an expansion before.

Personally, I think there's plenty of room for fan expansions that use preexisting mechanics in new ways.

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a treasure, +$1. If it's a victory card, +1 card. In any case, trash the revealed card.

This is super-weak, even when trashing bad cards. It's nice that it's flexible, but I don't think that saves it. I suggest you double all the bonuses, like so…

Iron Furnace
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an Action, play it twice. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's a Victory card, +2 Cards. Trash the revealed card.

I guess I'm not surprised that it seems weak, but a $2 cost that lets people play an action twice seems too strong even though the card is being trashed. I agree with the other changes.

Potluck
Cost 3  - Action
Reveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

I like the idea of using the bottom card. I didn't think of that. I guess I have a hard time judging a card's strength without more playtesting. Hmm, maybe I could just make it cost $2.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 card, +1 action.
-
This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

I think this is too confusing to be worth doing. That's just my opinion.

I still think there must a way to word it better so it's not as confusing. I'll have to think about it more.

Marketting Agent
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 Card.
Put one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile.
Next turn: +$1.
-
While this is in play, any card with your agent token costs $1 more except during your buy phase when it costs $1 less. When this leaves play, remove one of your tokens. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

Terminal +1 Card just seems really bad. You can't use it for a draw engine since it doesn't increase your hand size, yet you still have the issue of maybe drawing stuff dead. I would get rid of it and just change the next-turn effect to +$2 or something.

I think the whole concept isn't worth having 4 to 6 sets of uniquely colored tokens and then calculating each card's cost based on all the tokens. "OK, I play Remodel and trash this Estate, which is worth $3 because one of my red tokens is on Estate. What can I gain? Well, there are blue and green tokens on Caravan. Whose tokens are these? Do you have a Marketting Agent in play? If not, these tokens don't count. Only one of you does, but you actually have two Marketting Agents in play, so your token counts double? Guess I can't gain a Caravan."

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card.  (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

Collectables
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 Action.
Start of next turn: You may reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. If you do, gain a copy of it.
-
While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

The top half is incredibly weak, especially considering you can really only gain cards costing up to $2 (or less), because the card you reveal from your hand costs $1 more than it otherwise would. I predict that the bottom half will generate a lot of rules questions. If fact, I don't even think it does what you want it to do. When you Procession a Band of Misfits, you play it twice, trash it (now it's in the trash and worth $5 again), then gain an Action card costing $6. Likewise, if you trash an Estate with Collectables, it's in the trash by the time you gain a card, so it costs $2 again.

I guess I confused myself with the top half, I was thinking you could reveal a $4 card. oops. Maybe I'll say "You may reveal a card from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing less than it."
Seems like the bottom half can easily be clarified in the card FAQ.

[silverspawn]

In general, I think an expansion should focus on some new mechanic, or at least on a mechanic that hasn't been the focus of an expansion before.

Personally, I think there's plenty of room for fan expansions that use preexisting mechanics in new ways.

mh, I think the reason this approach is frowned upon is that it tends to what people do when they create cards without putting that much effort into them. it's the most obvious way to go: pick some sort of event or choice, add a bunch of options involving curses and ruins, and also make a duration or overpay effect. however, that doesn't mean that it's inherently bad, in fact I do think that there are enough things left to do with the existing mechanics, and that it's possible to create an exciting expansion using old mechanics. so, i wouldn't say that a new expansion has to come up with new a new theme.

what I would say is that it will feel more like a cohesive whole if it does. there is, as far as i know, not a single card in any existing expansion that refers to a card or mechanic that's not in its expansion or in the base set. it would be totally reasonable for baron or scout to work on shelters, or for salvager to do stuff with potion cost cards, but they don't. it could be considered a waste of potential, but it does have practical reasons.

on to the cards

Potluck
Cost 3  - Action
Reveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

i agree with LF here. this is super weak, and bottom card does seem more elegant. usually, a good way to estimate the powerlevel of a card is to compare it to as many different cards as possible. f.e, a very obvious thing to do in any extension is a terminal silver for $3/4 (LF has one(?) of those, too). Just list all terminal silvers that exist in dominion, these would be

moneylender, monument, navigator, cutpurse, militia, scavanger, chancellor, woodcutter, swindler, nomad camp, fortune teller, conspirator, steward, bridge

and look how it holds up here. if it's stronger or weaker than all of them, it probably needs tweaking, because chancellor is pretty awful and swindler pretty op.

if your card is a terminal silver for $5, you can do the same with all terminal silvers for 5$, there are a bunch.

for this specific card, it's not quite as obvious, but it still works, you only have to think a little bit more. the best card to compare it to is ironmonger. both reveal one card, so let's compare the options.

action card: both are a village, but your card is better because you're guaranteed to make use of the +action. contradicting to what LF said, I think this is the one option that is alright.
treasure card: your card is a peddler without +action, and ironmonger is either a peddler, or more common, a lab if it hits copper. huge difference.
victory card: your card is a moat, ironmonger is a double lab. gigantic difference.
useless non-victory card: your card is a moat, ironmonger is a lab

so, as you can see, the card utterly outclassed, and it's easily recognizable if you just pick the right card to compare it to. and, uh, don't make the mistake of thinking ironmonger is allowed to be stronger because it costs 4$ and your card is $3; 3$ and 4$ are almost identical. it's like 6$-----5$---------4$-3$----2$

Vandal
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player must discard an action card or reveal a hand without any actions. If a hand is revealed without any actions, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

the cards to look at here are witch, cultist, ghost ship, and vault. witch and cultist because they both deal out junk, ghost ship because it attacks the current hand, vault because it's a variant of +2$ (and because all of them have +2 cards). it's not as obvious here as it is with the last card though. if it does deal out junk, it's worse than witch and cultist. if it doesn't, it might be worse or better than ghost ship. if it hits ruins, it's about as good as vault without the drawback of helping your opponent.

let's compare some scenarios in 2p

opponent doesn't have an action card: weaker witch/cultest. worth mabye 4,5$
opponent does have a strong action card (f.e. another vandal): very strong attack, worth about $7
opponent has a weak action card in hand like a single village: mediocre attack, maybe 4,5$
opponent discards a ruins: about as good as vault, might hurt him a little bit too. worth about 5,5$

overall this looks pretty decent. it's unique too. the only problem would be the harshness of case #2, i.e. swinginess if you discard your opponents vandal. sea hag can do that too, but it's less likely, and it also sucks anyway.

Mine Scout
Cost 4  - Action
+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put a revealed victory card, curse, or ruins into your hand. Put a revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

okay, i'd mostly look at smithy here. you get the best treasure card out of 4. you get to discard one or two bad cards out of 4, and you get +1$. that isn't clearly better or worse on first glance, so let's take some samples

let's say the cards on your deck are silver, silver, estate, copper. smithy would net +4$ and leave a coper on top of your deck. mine scout would net +3$ and leave a silver on top of your deck.

let's say you have gold, copper, province, estate. smithy is +4$, leave curse on top of the deck. your card is identical

copper, copper, estate, copper: also identical...

mh, so if there are 3 treasure cards, and 2 of them among the first 3 cards, the difference between smithy and your card is 1$ minus the second best treasure card. if that card is a copper, it's identical to smithy, if it's silver or better, it's worse.

if there are 4 treasure cards, you also have to substract the third best treasure card. your card will be better if there are action cards though, because you can put the best ones back, while smithy will just draw them dead. if you reveal a dead card, two action cards and a treasure, you will net +1$ +$ from the treasure, discard the bad action, put the better one on top. smithy will have a random card on top and just +$ from the treasure.

so, in conclusion, your card is slightly worse than smithy in BM strategies but better in slogs. oh, and naturally it's terrible in engines because it can't draw action cards.
yea, hm, dunno what to make of that. but I do hope i gave you some ideas for future evaluation.

I agree with LF on marketting agent. I don't think there is any single card that can justify different tokens.

Royal Authority
Cost 6  - Action
If you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

(you need to tweak the wording so players can't dig for actions even if they have action cards in their hand.)

this is reallly swingy. dig for an action card, play it twice, that's about as good as a golem, a card which is worth at least $7. dig for an action card, play it three times, that's insane. so, if you play something like sheme/R.A, each r.a. is a guaranteed +3 cards, +3 actions, and you can always top deck all of them. it's so good that you probably never want to buy any terminals, so that you can always dig for stuff. also, I don't see any reason for the "isn't an attack" part.

a more reasonable version would look like this:

Choose one: dig for an action card; or choose an action card from your hand, if it's worth 4$ or more, play it two times, otherwise, play it three times.

Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+2 cards. Set aside a card from your hand. Put it into your hand next turn.
-
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the other player sets aside the attack card after it resolves and discards it after his next shuffle.

the top part is heaven effect on moat instead of on a cantrip. since terminal draw is exactly what makes a heaven effect good, it's reasonably strong on its own. it's kinda similar to courtyard, but it seems to be better.

the reaction part is interesting on first glance. your opponent plays a taxman, you put him in jail, but you have to pay the taxes anyway. it's definitely a funny theme. i'm... not sure if this hurts enough to ever make people not want to play attack cards, but i can absolutely see situations where the reaction can be huge. say your opponent plays a rabble/village engine. with just one prison, you can put all of his rabbles in jail, and he has to grind through his entire deck without them, causing him to have maybe 3 or even 4 dead turns. since +3 card + attack is not a rarity, I don't know if there is any way for you to balance the reaction. you could make it work just once, but then it becomes political. you could make the prison just hold one spot for each player, so that if he plays another attack card, his old one is discarded. that might work.

so, uh, I have listened to an entire album while writing this. I'll take a break, maybe I'll comment on some of the other cards later.

[Awaclus]

You can definitely create interesting cards using ideas from official expansions in new ways, but I think that it's not necessarily a good idea to design a whole expansion without a theme — if you have a bunch of cards that aren't really connected in any way, the cards can be very good and interesting, but why call that an expansion?

The official cards are mostly published as expansions, because it's a product that has to make profit and making expansions is more profitable than selling single cards. As a fan card designer, you don't have that restriction, so you can make single cards, or experiment with different formats, and you can choose the most suitable option for each "release". Generally, if you don't have a particular reason to group cards together, you probably shouldn't.

Some reasons to make an expansion that come to mind:
 - Simplicity: It's easier to learn that Alchemy cards have potion costs than learning that a single card has a potion cost ten times.
 - Synergy: Potion cost cards are stronger when more of them are in the kingdom. For full-random players, the expansions don't matter, but some players pick their kingdoms based on the expansions and it matters for them.
 - Common additional cards/mats/other parts: It's efficient to put all of the Potion cards in the same expansion so you don't have to print Potions twice. This is less important for fan cards, but it's still more convenient than "This is my new card and you also need these and these that I posted here six months ago".
 - Flavor: Alchemy has cards that... uh... are somewhat related to alchemy? What is a Familiar doing there ? Anyway, let's say you design 25 horror themed cards. You can do lots of cool thematic tricks when the cards are connected to each other: trash the Undead cards with the Silver Bullet Dipped In Blessed Garlic Oil card or something.

I like the approach of designing individual cards until you have a reason to group some of them together, then designing more cards specifically for that expansion/whatever it is if it feels right.

[LibraryAdventurer]

You can definitely create interesting cards using ideas from official expansions in new ways, but I think that it's not necessarily a good idea to design a whole expansion without a theme — if you have a bunch of cards that aren't really connected in any way, the cards can be very good and interesting, but why call that an expansion?

Um, there are themes, in mechanics and flavor in my expansion which I even pointed out in the OP.

I like the approach of designing individual cards until you have a reason to group some of them together, then designing more cards specifically for that expansion/whatever it is if it feels right.

This is exactly what I did.


PS: How does the familiar not fit in alchemy? The theme of the set is alchemy and magic. University is the card that doesn't fit to me (unless it's referring to Unseen University, a school for wizards).

[LastFootnote]

I guess I'm not surprised that it seems weak, but a $2 cost that lets people play an action twice seems too strong even though the card is being trashed. I agree with the other changes.

Throne Room only costs $4 and it doesn't trash the Action it plays. Trashing the Action is an enormous penalty. If you really think playing another Action twice and then trashing it is too powerful an effect for $2, I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't buy that card for $0 if that's all it did.

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card.  (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

By the wording of your card, if I have three tokens on three different cards, each of those cards costs $3 more. Also, if you play a Marketting Agent with Throne Room or King's Court, you place multiple tokens, but you only remove one when you discard the Marketting Agent. In this way you can accumulate unlimited tokens over the course of the game.

Also, "marketting" doesn't have two 'T's. It's spelled "marketing".

[LibraryAdventurer]

...but a $2 cost that lets people play an action twice seems too strong even though the card is being trashed. I agree with the other changes.

Throne Room only costs $4 and it doesn't trash the Action it plays. Trashing the Action is an enormous penalty. If you really think playing another Action twice and then trashing it is too powerful an effect for $2, I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't buy that card for $0 if that's all it did.

I guess you're right...

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card.  (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

By the wording of your card, if I have three tokens on three different cards, each of those cards costs $3 more. Also, if you play a Marketting Agent with Throne Room or King's Court, you place multiple tokens, but you only remove one when you discard the Marketting Agent. In this way you can accumulate unlimited tokens over the course of the game.

Also, "marketting" doesn't have two 'T's. It's spelled "marketing".

oh. oops.
Still, it's not hard to fix these things:

Marketing Agent
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
Put one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile.
Next turn: +$2.
-
While a marketing agent is in play, your agent token(s) cause cards from that pile to cost $1 more except during your buy phase when they cost $1 less. When this leaves play, remove any token(s) you placed with this Marketing Agent. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

[LastFootnote]

Trailblazer
Cost 4  - Action
+1 card, +1 action. May play this card when you have no actions. If you do, discard a card (before drawing).
-
When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

I had a similar on-gain effect on a Victory card once.

The "[You] may play this card when you have no Actions" effect should be separated from the on-play effect by a line. "You may play this" is not something that happens as a result of playing the card, so it doesn't belong above the line. I don't love the concept in general, but if you use it, you should probably reword it. Something like, "During your Action phase, if you have no Actions remaining, you may discard a card to play this." Then specify in the FAQ that you can't do this in the middle of resolving another card, etc.

Fountain Gargoyle
Cost 4  - Victory - Treasure - Duration - Reaction
Worth $1 this turn and next.
Worth 1VP.
-
When you discard this when it isn't your turn, +$2 on your turn.

So the whole concept of the card is that it has 4 different colors? Eaugh.

If you keep the Reaction, it should read, "When you discard this on another player's turn, you may set it aside. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +$2 and discard this."

Joint Upgrade
Cost 4  - Action
+1 Card. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

I think this is very weak. +1 Card is probably a decent boost for Remodel, but the bonus for other players is much better, seeing as they didn't have to buy or play the card.

Generous Benefactor
Cost 4  - Action - Duration
+1 action, +$1.
Next turn: +$2, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 on their turn.

So it's a Copper this turn and a Grand Market next turn. But it's a Treasury for each other player. Too weak, I think.

Pedestal
Cost 4  - Victory - Treasure
Worth $1.
Worth 1 VP.
When you play this, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a victory card. Put it in your hand or on top of your deck. You may put one other revealed card on top of your deck. Discard the rest.

Could be good. I'm not sure why it's a Treasure rather than a terminal Action that makes $2 or something. I think it'd be more appealing that way. Also, for simplicity's sake, I'd say the Victory card should always go into your hand. The situations in which you'd want to topdeck it are too rare to be worth the extra text and added complexity.

Auditor
Cost 4  - Action - Attack
+1 Card. You may discard any number of cards. +1 card per card discarded. Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then looks through their discard pile and topdecks a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure. If they didn't topdeck a card, they gain a ruins.

I think "Ruins or a card that is not an Action or Treasure" is too complex to be worth it. How about just a Ruins? Also, the other players should reveal their discard piles, or there's no accountability about whether there was a suitable card there.

Gambler
Cost 4  - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals their top two cards and discards a revealed action or treasure costing at least $3. If the total cost of the first two revealed cards is... ...10 or more: +$4,  8-9: +$3,  5-7: +$2,  2-4: +$1,  less than 2: discard a card.

"First two revealed cards" would be, under most circumstances, the two cards that the player to your left reveals? It's not easy to parse. It's a cute concept, but I think it's pretty inelegant. It needs a table with 5 rows, which there may not be room for on a card with that other text.

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. You may discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand. You may discard a treasure. If you did, put this on top of your deck at the start of your clean-up phase.

How about a consolidated version?

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

Metalworkers
Cost 5  - Action
+3 Cards, +1 Buy. Discard or trash a treasure card. If the card you trash or discard is a gold, +1 Action.

Interesting idea. I think I'd simplify it further.

Metalworkers
Cost 5  - Action
+4 Cards, +1 Buy. Discard a Treasure (or reveal a hand with no Treasures). If the discarded card wasn't Copper, +1 Action.

Shrewd Dealer
Cost 5  - Action
+1 Buy. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put all revealed treasure cards in your hand. You may discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

I worry that this makes you want Treasures a bit too much.

Mine Scout
Cost 4  - Action
+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put a revealed victory card, curse, or ruins into your hand. Put a revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

Doesn't seem terribly compelling to me, but probably it's fine power-wise.

Vandal
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player must discard an action card or reveal a hand without any actions. If a hand is revealed without any actions, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

A lot of moving parts. It penalizes players for buying Action cards, which is a bad idea in general. I get that the Ruins junking and penalty for discarding Ruins is supposed to fix that, but I don't think it does. I'd rather discard Ruins than good Actions. Also, the "if any Ruins are discarded" makes the card a bit political with more than 2 players.

Patrician
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 Actions. Each player (including you) reveals cards from their deck until they reveal an action or treasure card costing at least $3. Put yours in your hand and discard the rest; each other player discards theirs and put the other revealed cards on the bottom of their deck. If you've already played at least two Patricians this round, this card does not affect other players.

I don't think I have a great fix for this. I think the card is too harsh in general, especially with how easily spammable it is with terminal draw available. The bottom-decking means less shuffling, but potentially much more AP.

Kingdom Restoration
Cost 5  - Action
+1 Action.
Choose one: Discard two cards from your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck, OR Look through the trash pile and return up to two cards to the supply. Either way, +1 Card.

Cool idea. I'd get rid of the returning cards to the Supply bit. The card is interesting and useful enough without that extra, unrelated ability. You may also want to clarify that it's the top 2 cards of your deck that are discarded, but that's not essential.

Royal Authority
Cost 6  - Action
If you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

Ugh, clunky. I think as much as possible, cards should strive for elegance, and this is the opposite of that. I've criticized other cards of yours for this already, but "You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times" is ridiculously over-complex and difficult to remember. I also don't like the part where you dig for an Action card if you don't have one. I think it should either always dig for an Action or never dig for one, regardless of what's in your hand.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I appreciate the comments/suggestions.

Trailblazer
Cost 4  - Action
+1 card, +1 action. May play this card when you have no actions. If you do, discard a card (before drawing).
-
When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

The "[You] may play this card when you have no Actions" effect should be separated from the on-play effect by a line. "You may play this" is not something that happens as a result of playing the card, so it doesn't belong above the line. I don't love the concept in general, but if you use it, you should probably reword it. Something like, "During your Action phase, if you have no Actions remaining, you may discard a card to play this." Then specify in the FAQ that you can't do this in the middle of resolving another card, etc.

I always thought Dominion should have some special card that lets you play another action after you've used up all your actions for the turn. This is meant to be that card.
I think you're right about the line & rewording.

Fountain Gargoyle
Cost 4  - Victory - Treasure - Duration - Reaction
Worth $1 this turn and next.
Worth 1VP.
-
When you discard this when it isn't your turn, +$2 on your turn.

So the whole concept of the card is that it has 4 different colors? Eaugh.

If you keep the Reaction, it should read, "When you discard this on another player's turn, you may set it aside. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +$2 and discard this."

hehe. yeah I knew all lot of people would probably hate this card concept, but I felt like doing it anyway. I think if it works and it's fun to play with in my games, then it's not for naught.

Joint Upgrade
Cost 4  - Action
+1 Card. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

I think this is very weak. +1 Card is probably a decent boost for Remodel, but the bonus for other players is much better, seeing as they didn't have to buy or play the card.

I wondered about this. Would it help if I say "Each other player may trash a card costing at least $2 from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed." ?

Generous Benefactor
Cost 4  - Action - Duration
+1 action, +$1.
Next turn: +$2, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 on their turn.

So it's a Copper this turn and a Grand Market next turn. But it's a Treasury for each other player. Too weak, I think.

Maybe I should just make this cost $3?

Auditor
Cost 4  - Action - Attack
+1 Card. You may discard any number of cards. +1 card per card discarded. Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then looks through their discard pile and topdecks a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure. If they didn't topdeck a card, they gain a ruins.

I think "Ruins or a card that is not an Action or Treasure" is too complex to be worth it. How about just a Ruins?

I disagree. I want this card to be a mucker more often than a junker, including the first time it's played in a game.

Gambler
Cost 4  - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals their top two cards and discards a revealed action or treasure costing at least $3. If the total cost of the first two revealed cards is... ...10 or more: +$4,  8-9: +$3,  5-7: +$2,  2-4: +$1,  less than 2: discard a card.

"First two revealed cards" would be, under most circumstances, the two cards that the player to your left reveals? It's not easy to parse. It's a cute concept, but I think it's pretty inelegant. It needs a table with 5 rows, which there may not be room for on a card with that other text.

I got it to fit in the card-size and printed it to use. It isn't in neat rows though. And yes, it means the two cards revealed by the player to your left.  ...But this makes me wonder about its interactions with reaction cards. I'll have to give that some thought.
Elegance is good, but not as high priority for me as it is for some others here. to each his own.

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. You may discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand. You may discard a treasure. If you did, put this on top of your deck at the start of your clean-up phase.

How about a consolidated version?

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

Hey that's a good idea.

Metalworkers
Cost 5  - Action
+3 Cards, +1 Buy. Discard or trash a treasure card. If the card you trash or discard is a gold, +1 Action.

Interesting idea. I think I'd simplify it further.

Metalworkers
Cost 5  - Action
+4 Cards, +1 Buy. Discard a Treasure (or reveal a hand with no Treasures). If the discarded card wasn't Copper, +1 Action.

well, I liked that versitility that you could use it to trash coppers also.

Shrewd Dealer
Cost 5  - Action
+1 Buy. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put all revealed treasure cards in your hand. You may discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

I worry that this makes you want Treasures a bit too much.

I'm sure it'd be great in a BM deck. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing, when it would also be good for some engines.

Kingdom Restoration
Cost 5  - Action
+1 Action.
Choose one: Discard two cards from your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck, OR Look through the trash pile and return up to two cards to the supply. Either way, +1 Card.

Cool idea. I'd get rid of the returning cards to the Supply bit. The card is interesting and useful enough without that extra, unrelated ability. You may also want to clarify that it's the top 2 cards of your deck that are discarded, but that's not essential.

The ability to return cards to the supply is part of the card concept. Each option applies the 'kingdom restoration' in a different way, but I think both fit the flavor so I don't think it's unrelated.

Royal Authority
Cost 6  - Action
If you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

Ugh, clunky. I think as much as possible, cards should strive for elegance, and this is the opposite of that. I've criticized other cards of yours for this already, but "You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times" is ridiculously over-complex and difficult to remember. I also don't like the part where you dig for an Action card if you don't have one. I think it should either always dig for an Action or never dig for one, regardless of what's in your hand.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this one. I wanted to make a version of king's court that I'd like, but I don't really like how this turned out. I'll probably do something like what silverspawn suggested, or I might just give up on this idea.

[silverspawn]

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

[LastFootnote]

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

Could you elaborate?

[silverspawn]

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

Could you elaborate?

well, remember the village i once proposed that is also a lab if you have exactly 5 cards in your hand? that turned out to be too strong. this one is a lab if you have 4 cards in your hand, which isn't much harder to do because you can just play a terminal, and it isn't even limited to +2 cards. it's a complete defense against ghost ship, militia, goons, urchin, a really easy combo with discard-for-$, a super strong card im small decks with terminal $, a noticable combo with other sifting, and even if you  aren't doing any of that, it's still really strong. imagine a card that has +2 cards, +2 actions, discard a card. that's probably too strong at 4$, and it's just a part of restored village. and it can topdeck itself.

yea, sometimes it doesn't draw, but that's just such a small drawback. also compare it to shanty town.

there is that:



which is a card WW designed for one of the contest thingies, and there's this thread discussing it, which seems to come to the conclusion that it's a fairly strong, but not op village for 4$. so, the same thing with huge buffs on top is almost certainly not balanced

[silverspawn]

generally, I also really don't like draw-to-x on a village. it's too easy, it will just kill discard attacks. just like discard-for-$, all official cards which do it (JOAT -> 5, Watchtower -> 6, Library -> 7) are terminals

[LibraryAdventurer]

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

I did wonder if it (and the original version) might be too strong. I guess there's no need for it to topdeck itself. I mainly had the topdecking to make up for the fact that it doesn't always draw, but the bit of sifting is good enough.  I think I'll just do this:

Restored Village
Cost 4  - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand.

Very similar to production village, but whatever.  I had forgetten about production village until you just posted it here. I like that it's a good defence against discarding attacks.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I updated the original post in this thread with one new card and improved versions of several of the existing cards.

PS: Anyone know why my spoiler tags in the updated OP aren't working?

[market squire]

New Card since last update:

Royal Heirloom
Cost 6 - Action - Duration
Reveal deck cards until you reveal an action card, put the action card in your hand and discard the rest. Then choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

Test rating 1/6.
This one is to replace Royal Authority. I'm sure someone else has thought of something very similar to this. Has anyone tested a card like this? (duration to play an action this turn and next turn)

See here.

Donald tried something like a Duration Throneroom (Seaside Outtakes), but it was "both confusing and weak."

I did not test it yet, but I will do someday in this version:

Flagship (Action-Duration) Cost $3

You may play an Action from your hand.
When you would discard it from play in this Cleanup phase, set it aside instead.
If you do, play it again at the start of your next turn.

I used Prince's wording because it would be weird with Durations and One-Shots otherwise.

But I like your idea of drawing an extra Action card. Sounds okay for $6.

[GendoIkari]

Wording suggestion on Iron Furnace:

Cost 2  - Action

Trash a card from your hand.

If it was an...
Action card, play it
Ruins, play it again
Treasure card, +$2
Victory card, +2 Cards

[LibraryAdventurer]

Wording suggestion on Iron Furnace:

Cost 2  - Action

Trash a card from your hand.

If it was an...
Action card, play it
Ruins, play it again
Treasure card, +$2
Victory card, +2 Cards

But then you can play an action card after trashing it. That would be bad.

@Market Squire, after looking at the thread you linked, I think I should cost Royal Heirloom at $5 instead of $6. Anyway, it'll need testing.

[LibraryAdventurer]

OP Updated with one new card and a new version of Foundation.

[LastFootnote]

Capitol
Cost 5  - Action
+2 Cards, +2 Actions. Each other player may draw a card. If they do, they discard a card.

Cool idea. Seems like it could work at that price point. I strongly suggest making the bonus for each other player mandatory. It's never going to hurt their current hand, and if it triggers a shuffle they didn't want, boo hoo cry me a river.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.
-
*This card costs $4 when it is not in the supply. When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

Oof, this card is too busy. The under-line text requires three different types of timing, so there really should be 3 dividing lines, which would be awful. How does the discard reaction work with Militia? The player discards Foundation, then draws a card so he no longer has 3 cards in hand, so he probably has to discard again. It's confusing. Anyway, I can't really identify a single compelling concept for the card. It just looks like Ironmonger, Peddler, Tunnel, and Feodum cobbled together. Is there something I'm missing?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.
-
*This card costs $4 when it is not in the supply. When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

Oof, this card is too busy. The under-line text requires three different types of timing, so there really should be 3 dividing lines, which would be awful. How does the discard reaction work with Militia? The player discards Foundation, then draws a card so he no longer has 3 cards in hand, so he probably has to discard again. It's confusing. Anyway, I can't really identify a single compelling concept for the card. It just looks like Ironmonger, Peddler, Tunnel, and Feodum cobbled together. Is there something I'm missing?

The old version was this:

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 card, +1 action.
-
This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

The concept was a card that could be anything for the purposes of trashing & discarding to other cards. It can be remodelled as if it cost $4 (gaining a silver on the side). It can be discarded without losing a card. (In case of Militia, discard this card and one other, then draw one for this card's reaction. That seems like common sense to me.) The original version could be discarded by a baron for $4 because an estate costs less than $4. That was too confusing. I thought the new version was much simpler.
I added the 'Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back,' so that it wouldn't be just a copper on boards with no trashing or sifting. I think it's cool that the new version acts like a peddler if you play it with another foundation on top of your deck.

[Awaclus]

(In case of Militia, discard this card and one other, then draw one for this card's reaction. That seems like common sense to me.)

That's how it would work for Embassy, but for Militia, it's different. If my interpretation is right, there are two possible outcomes depending on how you discard:

1) 5 cards in hand, discard this, 4 cards in hand, +1 card, 5 cards in hand, discard a card, 4 cards in hand, discard a card, 3 cards in hand, Militia stops resolving and you're left with 3 cards in hand.
2) 5 cards in hand, discard something, 4 cards in hand, discard this, 3 cards in hand, Militia stops resolving, +1 card and you're left with 4 cards in hand.

I'm not sure about 2.

[GendoIkari]

It just looks like Ironmonger, Peddler, Tunnel, and Feodum cobbled together. Is there something I'm missing?

Yes... You're missing Spy/Duchess and Lighthouse.

[GendoIkari]

Making it cost $3 normally but $4 when it's in your deck just doesn't seem to add anything of value to the card. $3 and $4 are so close in price anyway... So if you want this card to be better for remodeling, then just make it cost $4. If you want a person to more easily grab multiples with  extra buys, and to double-open, make it cost $3. Changing the cost mid-game is just a extravagant effect that has very little impact on gameplay or card design.

[LibraryAdventurer]

OP updated with a new card and new versions of Restored Village, Vandal, and a clearer and slightly less busy version of Foundation.

EDIT: Also added Cobblestone Road.

EDIT2/PS: Does anyone know how I can hide the part of the OP with the old versions of changed cards?

[LastFootnote]

<haven't thought of a name for this one yet>
Cost 5 - Action - Duration
+3 Cards, +1 Buy.
-
On the turn you play this, you may buy any one action or treasure card for $2 less than it costs. If you do, set it aside at the end of your turn. Next turn: Play the set aside card and trash it at the end of your buy phase.

This seems super-strong, clunky, and confusing. Worst case scenario, you buy a Copper using this ability and get a free +$1 next turn. But probably you can afford to pay $1 for a Silver; a small price to pay for +$2 next turn. I suggest you use a simpler version of the core concept. "While this is in play, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn, then trash it." Even without the cost reduction, you still get the benefit of the effective extra card and Action on your next turn.

Cobblestone Road
Cost 4 - Action
+2 Cards. Discard any number of cards from your hand. +1 Action for each card you discard this way.

Way back in the day, WanderingWinder made a 50-card expansion called Dominion: Conquest. Probably the best card from that set is this card, which he called Medical Tent. Looking through the lens of my experience today, I can say with some certainty that this has to cost $5. Consider: Donald tried [+2 Cards; +1 Action; Discard a card] and found it to be too strong for $4. The other options are all weaker. [+2 Cards] is a bad Moat. [+2 Cards; +2 Actions; Discard 2 cards] is a solid $4 card. [+2 Cards; +3 Actions; Discard 3 cards] and its ilk are progressively weaker as you discard more cards. But the total package provides great flexibility. So although the card doesn't look too appealing at $5, I think that's the only price that makes sense for it. I'm guessing it's way stronger than it looks.

Restored Village
Cost 5 - Action
+2 Actions. Discard up to two cards. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.

Speaking of cards that look unappealing at $5, this one looks pretty sad. Even if it's fine power-wise, I don't think it's very elegant. I think I'd like it way more if you could discard any number of cards.

Vandal
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck. They discard one revealed ruins and all other revealed action cards. If no actions are revealed, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

I think that, regardless of how strong it actually is, this would make me want to play a boring, Action-less deck. If you do keep it, it should have the Looter type.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.
-
When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card on your turn. When this card is trashed, you may gain a silver.

I don't understand "+1 card on your turn". Are you saying the ability only works when it's your turn, in order to avoid Militia rules confusion? If so, it should probably read, "When you discard this during your Action phase, +1 Card." I guess that's OK, but it seems like maybe more trouble than it's worth. There should be a dividing line between the when-discard and when-trash effects, since they happen at different times. Really you should just scrap the when-trash effect. What does it add to the card?

[LibraryAdventurer]

This seems super-strong, clunky, and confusing. Worst case scenario, you buy a Copper using this ability and get a free +$1 next turn. But probably you can afford to pay $1 for a Silver; a small price to pay for +$2 next turn. I suggest you use a simpler version of the core concept. "While this is in play, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn, then trash it." Even without the cost reduction, you still get the benefit of the effective extra card and Action on your next turn.

For some reason, I didn't think of the next turn extra card+extra action advantage. I think I'll use your suggested wording:

<haven't thought of a name for this one yet>
Cost 5 - Action - Duration
+3 Cards, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy an Action card, you may set it aside. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn, then trash it.

Cobblestone Road
Cost 4 - Action
+2 Cards. Discard any number of cards from your hand. +1 Action for each card you discard this way.

Way back in the day, WanderingWinder made a 50-card expansion called Dominion: Conquest. Probably the best card from that set is this card, which he called Medical Tent. Looking through the lens of my experience today, I can say with some certainty that this has to cost $5. Consider: Donald tried [+2 Cards; +1 Action; Discard a card] and found it to be too strong for $4. The other options are all weaker. [+2 Cards] is a bad Moat. [+2 Cards; +2 Actions; Discard 2 cards] is a solid $4 card. [+2 Cards; +3 Actions; Discard 3 cards] and its ilk are progressively weaker as you discard more cards. But the total package provides great flexibility. So although the card doesn't look too appealing at $5, I think that's the only price that makes sense for it. I'm guessing it's way stronger than it looks.

I thought I remembered a mention of someone posting a card very similar to this and was reluctant to put it with my cards, thinking it was really my version of someone else's card. I didn't know it was the exactly the same as someone else's card. Funny in the old thread they were wondering if it should cost $3. The one game I played this in, I tried it at $3. It seemed too strong for $3, but I thought it'd be fine at $4.
What if it was just "+2 Cards. You may discard two cards. If you do, +2 actions."?

Restored Village
Cost 5 - Action
+2 Actions. Discard up to two cards. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.

Speaking of cards that look unappealing at $5, this one looks pretty sad. Even if it's fine power-wise, I don't think it's very elegant. I think I'd like it way more if you could discard any number of cards.

I kindof agree it looks unappealing for $5, but the previous version ("+2 Actions. Discard a card. Draw up to 5.") seemed strong for $4. I wouldn't mind making it any number of cards, but I guess I'd rather make a way for it to be okay at $4.
It seems similar and yet opposite to Cobblestone Road. It's a philosophical paradox. Maybe I could mesh the two cards together. hmm... When you're going to draw up to X, discarding tends to be good, so:

Restored Village
Cost 4 - Action
You may discard a card. If you do, +1 Action. Otherwise, +2 actions. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.

yuk. That'd be frustrating cause you find out when you draw your cards if you made the wrong choice whether to discard or not.

Restored Village
Cost 4 - Action
+2 Actions. You may discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand. If you discarded a card, put a card back on your deck.

(brainstorming here) ehhh... Might work, but looks weird. Maybe I'll try this or maybe I should settle for the $5 version with discard any number.

Vandal
Cost 5  - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck. They discard one revealed ruins and all other revealed action cards. If no actions are revealed, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

I think that, regardless of how strong it actually is, this would make me want to play a boring, Action-less deck.

Nothing ever makes me want to play a boring, actionless deck. I'll see how it works. This card has changed a few times, and it'll likely change again.

Foundation
Cost 3  - Action - Reaction
+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.
-
When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card on your turn. When this card is trashed, you may gain a silver.

I don't understand "+1 card on your turn". Are you saying the ability only works when it's your turn, in order to avoid Militia rules confusion? If so, it should probably read, "When you discard this during your Action phase, +1 Card." I guess that's OK, but it seems like maybe more trouble than it's worth. There should be a dividing line between the when-discard and when-trash effects, since they happen at different times. Really you should just scrap the when-trash effect. What does it add to the card?

arg. I thought the reaction was clearer than the previous version. It's supposed to work after militia, but Awaclus pointed out that it wasn't clear as it was, so I added 'on your turn' to (try to) make it clear that the +1 card was after the attack resolved.
The on trash effect is there because enhanced TfB was part of the card concept. Would it be better to scrap the on-trash, and put the "This costs $4 when not in the supply" part back? I want it to have something like that.
Ideally, this was closer to what I had in mind, but I thought the reaction made it too strong to cost $2, but maybe not:

Foundation
Cost 2* - Action - Reaction
+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.
-
This costs $4 when not in the supply. When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card after you finish discarding.

Also, does this wording for the reaction work?
PS: I don't care about dividing lines as long as the effect is clear.

[silverspawn]

The one game I played this in, I tried it at $3. It seemed too strong for $3, but I thought it'd be fine at $4.

Don't. This is almost never true. You should think about price categories as 2$ - 3/4$ --- 5$ - 5$+. If you decide that a card falls in the second category, then the question is, do you want the option to open with two of them. If so, make it cost 3$, if not, make it cost 4$. It can be a little bit different if the card provides +buy, but generally, I don't think the 3/4 decision can be used for balance effectively.

As for the card, I made this. that's not necessarily helpful to you, but it's relevant. the card does the same, except it makes the choice for you, based the number of unused actions you have. as such it's clearly weaker, and it has the controlling aspect. I didn't get around to testing it yet, but I will soon, and I expect it to be strong at 3/4$.

about restored village: I just don't like draw-to-x on non-terminals, even though it keeps popping up. I also think sifting without hand size reducing is very strong, so I have my doubts about the balance. Then again it's a necropolis in draw engines. Yea, meh.

Foundation looks okay. You did open a thread for this one. And for the rest, I agree with LF.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I recently played a few games with a Resurgence-based kingdom:

1st game (by myself): Foundation3, Pedestal4, Throne Room4, Auditor4, Restored Village4, Barracks5/Conscripts, Pioneer5, Kingdom Restoration5, Archeologist5, Ancestral Crypt6.

2nd game (with others 3p): Vagrant2, Foundation3, Pedestal4, Throne Room4, Auditor4, Restored Village4, Upgrade5, Pioneer5, Kingdom Restoration5, Ancestral Crypt6.

3rd game (with others 3p): Vagrant2, Foundation3, Storeroom3, Pedestal4, Throne Room4, Marauder4, Restored Village4, Pioneer5, Kingdom Restoration5, Ancestral Crypt6.

In the first game, I used my version of Conscripts and then decided I'd probably like LF's current version better. I learned that Archaeologist and Auditor can be confusing when used together (I just added my version of Archaeologist to the OP). I'll probably tweak Archaeologist to try to fix that.
These games had a few times where Restored Village was played with more than 5 cards in hand (when it's worse than a Necropolis), so I think that balances it out for the times when it's very strong. Foundation is really weak on play (obviously), but I think it's reaction makes it worthwhile. It goes well with Pioneer's special ability. Pioneer gets played as just +3 cards, +1 buy about half the time, but it's extra option does come in useful sometimes. Pedestal is a little combersome in play, but not more than Adventure/Venture/Golem are. A mostly like how Kingdom Restoration and Ancestral Crypt work, but I'd like to make Ancestral Crypt cost $5 instead of $6 (maybe by making the 1VP on it conditional). I am finally considering removing the second option from Kingdom Restoration, but then I'd want to rename it and make a new card called Kingdom Restoration that can return cards to the supply from the trash because that's part of the card concept.

[Asper]

For what it's worth, i would like to note that a "draw to X" Village, while defending against discard attacks, is obviously Necropolis in draw engines. If you were hit by a discard attack, Restored Village will leave you with only one of the cards you had before, leaving four up to luck (on the other hand, the one you keep is the best).

I think standard "up to 5" is balanced at $4. Restored Village is a bit stronger, but not enough to be good at $5 and too much to be reasonable at $4, i think.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'm trying to decide on an above-the-line effect for my Collectables card. I think it'd be best if it isn't something that depends on card cost because that would probably give the card too much self-synergy. I want to do this 'half a caravan' effect, but I can't figure out the wording. I have +1 Card then I want players to discard a card for every two Collectables they have in play. Any suggestions?
Also, do you think this should cost $4?

This is the best wording I've thought of so far:

Collectables
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 Card, +1 Action. Next turn: +1 card. Discard a card if this is an odd numbered Collectables in the order you have them in play.
 -
While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I had an idea. Restored Village seemed strong to me, and other people are agreeing that it is too strong for $4 (but too weak for $5) as-is. So, since I really like the current version, what about adding an interesting on-buy drawback?

like this:

Restored Village
Cost 4 - Action
+2 Actions. Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-
When you buy this, gain a ruins for each unused action you have (action, not action card).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Played a couple more resurgence-based games.

Game1: Collectables, Drawbridge, Cobblestone Road, Joint Upgrade, Death Cart, Archaeologist, Royal Heirloom, Ghost Ship, Inheritance, Hoard.

Game2: Collectables, Drawbridge, Cobblestone Road, Joint Upgrade, Counterfeit, Cartographer, Archaeologist, Royal Heirloom, Ghost Ship, Inheritance.

   It's a Death & Inheritance themed kingdom. We often play mostly the same kingdom a couple times in a row (usually with one or two cards switched out) so my playtesters can learn the cards better. I added Counterfeit to the 2nd game because I wanted +Buy. I don't know why I put in Cartographer. It didn't fit any better than Death Cart, and neither of them were bought.
   Collectables + Joint Upgrade (or any TfB for that matter) can be very powerful, but I don't really think collectables is too strong. Part of the problem is that Joint Upgrade is strong and the benefit for other players is rarely used (because of its cost). I think I'll put Joint upgrade back on the 'cards likely to be junked' list. But I would like my expansion to have a remodel variant card.
   LF said Cobblestone Road should cost $5 as-is, but it really doesn't seem overpowered. Anyway if I'm convinced it's too powerful for $4 I'll make the option either discard two cards for +2 Actions or don't discard.
   Drawbridge, Archaeologist, and Royal Heirloom also seem good as-is. I like how they work.
   Inheritance is fun. I just need to replace or change Uncle Thread.

   Here's a modified Death & Inheritance themed kingdom which I'll use sometime later:
Game1: Excavation, Collectables, Drawbridge, Cobblestone Road, Graverobber, Archaeologist, Royal Heirloom, Ghost Ship, Inheritance, Ancestral Crypt.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Hey, I just had an idea to replace my old Vandal card:

Vandal
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player may reveal a victory card from his hand and put it onto his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a ruins.  You may reveal a victory card from your hand and put it on your deck. If you do, +$2.

What do you think?
I'm wondering if it's too weak for $5. Could it be +3 Cards?

[LastFootnote]

Hey, I just had an idea to replace my old Vandal card:

Vandal
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each other player may reveal a victory card from his hand and put it onto his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a ruins.  You may reveal a victory card from your hand and put it on your deck. If you do, +$2.

What do you think?
I'm wondering if it's too weak for $5. Could it be +3 Cards?

Tough to say if it's better at +2 Cards or +3 Cards without testing. Seems potentially scary at +3 Cards.

Wording suggestion:

Vandal
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 cards. Each player (including you) may reveal a Victory card from his hand and put it onto his deck. If you do, +$2. Each other player who doesn't gains a Ruins.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think I figured out a solution to my collectables card. Here's the latest version:

Collectables
Cost 4  - Action - Duration
+1 Card, +1 Action. Next turn: Reveal the top card of your deck, if it costs $3 or less, put it into your hand.
 -
While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

The top part anti-synergizes with itself, but I don't think that's a bad thing when you can Remodel a $4 cost card into a province with two of these in play.

In other news:
- After initial playtesting, the new Vandal seems good with +2 cards on it.
- I'll be working on getting images up for my fan cards so they'll be easier to print and use. EDIT: It could take me a while to figure out photoshop well enough to put up card images...

[dondon151]

I'm not sure if you care about interactions with cost reducers, but consider changing the wording to "if it costs less than this, put it in your hand" for more elegance. It also lets the card draw $3 cost cards on the next turn, which I think is a necessary change because right now this just looks like a weak Caravan with minor interactions with trash for benefit cards.

[GendoIkari]

Drawbridge's wording is strange. First off, by "next turn:" I assume you mean "at the start of your next turn,". Also, why "when You would be affected by another player's attack" instead of "when another player plays an attack"? They should be functionally the same, except that they can't choose to play Minion and Pirate Ship for their non-attack options and then trash them. And it causes ambiguous rules, for example does Witch "affect you" if Curses are empty? Does Militia affect you if you have 3 cards in hand?

[GendoIkari]

Now that inheritance is a thing, you can say "your cards", and not have to specify cards in your hand, deck, and discard. But still, Collectables just looks like a weaker Caravan. And as was pointed out before, the cost increase doesn't work with TFB, because once you trash it, it's not your card anymore, so it reverts back. Also, cost increasers are ambiguous with cost decreasers.M if you have a highway and a collectable in play, does copper cost $1 or $0? Both answers are equally valid.

[LibraryAdventurer]

But still, Collectables just looks like a weaker Caravan. And as was pointed out before, the cost increase doesn't work with TFB, because once you trash it, it's not your card anymore, so it reverts back.

That's just silly. Every time I've played with it the cost increase worked with TfB because we use common sense. It's okay that it's just a weak caravan above the line because the below the line effect is the point of the card.

Also, cost increasers are ambiguous with cost decreasers. if you have a highway and a collectable in play, does copper cost $1 or $0? Both answers are equally valid.

depends on which you played first. If you played the highway first, then it costs $1 (the collectables takes effect after the highway fails to take effect). If you played Collectables first, then it costs $0 (both take effect and cancel each other out).

Drawbridge's reaction is meant to trigger only when you would be affected by an attack. And I don't see the ambiguity. It seems obvious to me that witch doesn't affect you if the curses are empty, same for militia if you already only have three cards in hand.

[GendoIkari]

But still, Collectables just looks like a weaker Caravan. And as was pointed out before, the cost increase doesn't work with TFB, because once you trash it, it's not your card anymore, so it reverts back.

That's just silly. Every time I've played with it the cost increase worked with TfB because we use common sense. It's okay that it's just a weak caravan above the line because the below the line effect is the point of the card.

Cost increase works with TfB if the cost increase were for all cards. But if it's for cards that are in your hand, deck, or discard (or "your cards"), then it simply doesn't work. Common sense may tell you that when you play Procession on Band of Misfits, choosing a $3 action, that you should get a $4 action in return, but you don't. You get a $6 action, because Band of Misfits costs $5 when it's in the trash. The wording on the card has a defined meaning in the rules already, and if your fan card uses the same wording to mean a different rule, then there's an issue. It's like having "+1 card", and then saying that for your card, that doesn't mean "draw a card", it means something else.*

If you want it to work with trash for benefit, but also not help your opponents, then you could say "on your turns, cards not in the supply cost $1 more." This should have the same effect you are intending, with the exception that it changes the way Knights and Rogue work a little.

Also, cost increasers are ambiguous with cost decreasers. if you have a highway and a collectable in play, does copper cost $1 or $0? Both answers are equally valid.

depends on which you played first. If you played the highway first, then it costs $1 (the collectables takes effect after the highway fails to take effect). If you played Collectables first, then it costs $0 (both take effect and cancel each other out).

I think that's a fine ruling, but it is a new rule that doesn't exist in Dominion currently.

Drawbridge's reaction is meant to trigger only when you would be affected by an attack. And I don't see the ambiguity. It seems obvious to me that witch doesn't affect you if the curses are empty, same for militia if you already only have three cards in hand.

What is the reason for only triggering then though? How would the card be different if it triggered when an attack is played? And of course it's obvious to you, you designed the card so you know what you intended. But it's not something that's defined in the rules of Dominion at all; it's a new concept that needs a new rule. Using when an attack is played avoids this issue, makes the card consistent with all other attack-reactions, and still functions the same. The only way in which it functions differently is that your opponents would have the option to trash an attack after playing it even if it doesn't affect you.

*Edit - I'm not meaning to say that what you're doing is quite the same as that, because that would be obviously dumb, and I'm not trying to insult you like that. The situation we're talking about is an obscure thing that lots of people wouldn't play correctly in the first place if they weren't the types of people to either read these forums or carefully think about rules. They're just both examples of having a fan card that requires a rule that contradicts the rule of an official card.

[LibraryAdventurer]

But still, Collectables just looks like a weaker Caravan. And as was pointed out before, the cost increase doesn't work with TFB, because once you trash it, it's not your card anymore, so it reverts back.

That's just silly. Every time I've played with it the cost increase worked with TfB because we use common sense. It's okay that it's just a weak caravan above the line because the below the line effect is the point of the card.

Cost increase works with TfB if the cost increase were for all cards. But if it's for cards that are in your hand, deck, or discard (or "your cards"), then it simply doesn't work. Common sense may tell you that when you play Procession on Band of Misfits, choosing a $3 action, that you should get a $4 action in return, but you don't. You get a $6 action, because Band of Misfits costs $5 when it's in the trash. The wording on the card has a defined meaning in the rules already, and if your fan card uses the same wording to mean a different rule, then there's an issue. It's like having "+1 card", and then saying that for your card, that doesn't mean "draw a card", it means something else.*

If you want it to work with trash for benefit, but also not help your opponents, then you could say "on your turns, cards not in the supply cost $1 more." This should have the same effect you are intending, with the exception that it changes the way Knights and Rogue work a little.

Ok, you've convinced me it needs to change since it contradicts an existing rule. I guess I'll have to make it wordier, "While this is in play, all of your cards cost $1 more and, if trashed, retain the new cost until the card that trashed them is resolved."  Ugly, but it'll have to do until I think of something better.
If I say "All cards not in the supply" that really hurts your trashing attacks (also incl. Swindler). Part of the intended effect is to make trashing attacked played against you weaker and I don't want it to have the opposite effect on your trashing attacks.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I now have images up for most of the cards in OP (using Showdown's template)*, and I added two new cards:

Ancestral Crypt
Cost 5  - Action - Victory
+1 Card. Trash up to two cards from your hand. For each card you trash that costs more than $0, gain a coin token.
 -
Worth 1 VP if you have at least two coin tokens left when the game ends.

This one I created a while back and have played with a few times. I don't know why I didn't post it earlier. It originally cost $6 and had no condition on the VP, but I wanted it to cost less than $6. (I think it was a little weak for a $6 cost anyway.)

Mysterious Door
Cost 3  - Action - Attack
Each other player reveals the bottom card of his deck. You decide if he puts it on top or discards it. Either way, if the player on your left: topdecked an action card, do what it says as if you played it; discarded an action card, +2 actions; revealed a victory card, +2 Cards; revealed a treasure card, +$2.

I'm considering this to replace Potluck. I like Potluck, but it always seems strong for its cost and I wanted it to be cheap.

I'm also considering this change to an older card of mine:

Generous Benefactor
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+$2
Next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 at their buy phase if they have no gold, platnum, or attack cards in play.

*PS: several of the images I used are pictures taken by my dad on his travels.

[dondon151]

Isn't the phrase "Generous Benefactor" redundant?

[TheOthin]

Why look at the bottom card rather than the top?

[pacovf]

I really like (Generous) Benefactor, but it has a timing issue. When exactly do other players receive the extra $?

Why look at the bottom card rather than the top?

That way it's actually helping the other player. Playing a 5$+ card for 3$ is a powerful effect, so that's balancing it. I don't know if the card can work in multiplayer though...

[Asper]

I really like (Generous) Benefactor, but it has a timing issue. When exactly do other players receive the extra $?

I assume it triggers at the start of the players buy phase. Try for a rewording:
"While this is in play, at the start of any other players buy phase, if that player has no Gold, Platinum or attack card in play, he gets +$1"

[GendoIkari]

Isn't the phrase "Generous Benefactor" redundant?

I don't think so. "Benefactor" means someone who gave money. "Generous Benefactor" means someone who gave a LOT of money. Like the phrase "give generously". "Generous" in this case doesn't mean "kind" but it means more "without holding back."

[GendoIkari]

I really like (Generous) Benefactor, but it has a timing issue. When exactly do other players receive the extra $?

I assume it triggers at the start of the players buy phase. Try for a rewording:
"While this is in play, at the start of any other players buy phase, if that player has no Gold, Platinum or attack card in play, he gets +$1"

Neither this nor the original wording will work. You won't have Gold in play at the start of your buy phase normally, you'll play the Gold after that. The only way I can think of is to reduce the cost of cards as long as no Gold is in play. And I wouldn't include a platinum on the list, because this set doesn't have platinum in it.

Also, it looks like it could be balanced without giving anything to the other players. Terminal silver with no extra bonus now, $1 and a buy next turn. I guess the closest comparison is to Merchant Ship, but the $1 instead of $2 next turn is huge. I mean, look at Fishing Village and lighthouse; they only give $1 next turn, they're non-terminal, have other benefits, and cost WAY less than Merchant Ship.

[Asper]

I really like (Generous) Benefactor, but it has a timing issue. When exactly do other players receive the extra $?

I assume it triggers at the start of the players buy phase. Try for a rewording:
"While this is in play, at the start of any other players buy phase, if that player has no Gold, Platinum or attack card in play, he gets +$1"

Neither this nor the original wording will work. You won't have Gold in play at the start of your buy phase normally, you'll play the Gold after that. The only way I can think of is to reduce the cost of cards as long as no Gold is in play. And I wouldn't include a platinum on the list, because this set doesn't have platinum in it.

Argh, i feel pretty stupid now...

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like the drawback that kinda puts an optional restriction on the other players in order to get the +$1, so I want it to be powerful enough to warrant a drawback. (I just didn't like the previous drawback of +$1 without restriction.)

Would the original top half be too powerful with the weaker drawback? like this:

Generous Benefactor
Cost 3  - Action - Duration
+1 action, +$1.
At your buy phase next turn: +$2, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, after they're done playing treasures in their buy phase, each other player gets +$1 if they have no gold, platnum, or attack cards in play.

If so, would it be better if I just remove the +1 Action?

[LibraryAdventurer]

I recently played a crazy fun fortress shananagins game with some Regurgence cards.

Code: [Select]

Haven, Drawbridge, Fishing Village, Fortress, JackOfAllTrades, Noble Brigand, Procession, Pioneer, Cultist, Ancestral Crypt
(Maybe I shouldn't give you the game description. You can pretty much imagine what the game was like just by looking at the kingdom...)
Pioneer introduces a unique use for fortress shananagins with its special ability. Buy a fortress with a pioneer in play and you can play and trash it at the start of your next turn... Buying cultist using pioneer's special ability is pretty cool too.

PS: I had to play an online game with the seven official cards here in order to use the kingdom visualizer and then replace the other three images with the Resurgence card images from the IRL game.  Now I want to reduce the black outside border on the template so they look more like the official card images, but I don't know photoshop well enough to do that.

[Mr Anderson]

What do you think about making Pioneer a looter?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Three new untested cards which might make it into Resurgence:

I got this idea based on a kindof backwards version of Fragasnap's Tanner card. It could use improvements, but I'm not sure what. I didn't want it to have +Action because then it could be very powerful if you have a lot of $2 cost actions, and the idea was more intended to gather coppers and estates. (It still becomes powerful with Fool's Gold or Inheritance in the kingdom.) I also don't want it to be too similar to Scout or Apothecary.

Shoveler
Cost $4  - Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed cards costing $2 or less into your hand and the rest on top of your deck in any order. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, you may gain a card costing up to $2, putting it in your hand.

EDIT2: A simpler and probably all-around better version of Shoveler:

Shoveler
Cost $4  - Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed cards costing $2 or less into your hand and the rest on top of your deck in any order. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, +1 Card.

This, along with Mysterious Door, is intended to replace Potluck in my set, using the 'bottom of deck' mechanic:

Ancient Temple
Cost $5  - Action
Reveal the bottom two cards of your deck. Discard one or both of them. If you discarded both, +3 Cards. Otherwise if the remaining card is an action, play it twice; if it isn't an action, put it in your hand and +$1.

I'm wondering if it might be too strong as is.

This one will be a counterpart to Foundation and will probably replace my Pedestal if it makes the set. The idea was based on mail-mi's Sorcerer's Apprentice card. I removed the trashing option because I wanted it to cost $2 and I have enough trashers in my set.

Building Blocks
Cost $2  - Treasure/Reaction
Worth $1. When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck and discard it or put it back.
-
When you reveal this from your deck, you may put this into your hand. If you do, continue revealing cards as if you hadn't revealed this card.

EDIT1: I just noticed that this makes opponents' trashing attacks more likely to hit.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Is it frowned upon for me to bump this hoping to get some feedback on my new cards in the previous post?

The only one I've tested so far is shoveler and, as expected, it seems powerful in the early game, and gets somewhat weak (but not terrible) later on. I think it's good like that.

[Asper]

I don't think it's really frowned upon unless you abuse it. Either way, people might not have to say anything still.

I feel Ancient Temple is weird. It's a Smithy+, but also a Throne Room, and a +1 Card, +-thingy... It screams "bottom of deck theme", but i don't really see why it has to be the bottom of your deck. No card stays there, no card is placed there, it's not like you create a storage of cards you have allready seen under your deck. Sure, it interacts with cards that do, but that's not much. Also, i have trouble spotting a theme beyond that. What kind of deck do you want it in? What kind of strategy do you want it for? If it's supposed to be a Smithy+ that looks at the bottom of the deck, why not reduce the number of possible outcomes a bit?

I admit, when i try to remove anything that i feel is unnecessary, i end up with something pretty similar to Catacombs.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I don't think it's really frowned upon unless you abuse it. Either way, people might not have to say anything still.

I feel Ancient Temple is weird. It's a Smithy+, but also a Throne Room, and a +1 Card, +-thingy... It screams "bottom of deck theme", but i don't really see why it has to be the bottom of your deck. No card stays there, no card is placed there, it's not like you create a storage of cards you have allready seen under your deck. Sure, it interacts with cards that do, but that's not much. Also, i have trouble spotting a theme beyond that. What kind of deck do you want it in? What kind of strategy do you want it for? If it's supposed to be a Smithy+ that looks at the bottom of the deck, why not reduce the number of possible outcomes a bit?

I admit, when i try to remove anything that i feel is unnecessary, i end up with something pretty similar to Catacombs.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Beyond the 'bottom deck' theme, I need to decide what I want the card to do with the bottom of the deck. I'll have to reconsider & simplify it.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Here's a new version:

Ancient Temple
Cost $5  - Action
Reveal the bottom three cards of your deck. Gain a card costing up to half the total cost of the revealed cards. Discard any revealed cards costing $7 or more. Topdeck or discard one other card and put the rest back on the bottom of your deck.

I decided I wanted it to be a gainer, and it's potentially weak or powerful depending on your deck.
EDIT: This card updated 8/19/15.

Also a new Auditor card:

Auditor
Cost 4  - Action - Attack
+3 Cards. Discard a card and put a card on the top of your deck. Each other player draws two cards and reveals his hand. You choose two cards that they have to put on top of their deck.

Inspired by 'Chamber of Secrets' from the Bad Card Ideas thread. I cut my old Auditor because its attack seemed too complicated to be worthwhile.

[GendoIkari]

Both of these need to mention the order the cards are placed in.

[DragonsDream]

is "topdeck" an official Dominion term? shouldn't that be "put on top of your/their deck"

[tristan]

is "topdeck" an official Dominion term? shouldn't that be "put on top of your/their deck"

Nope, it is not even super-proper Oxford English. And despite actually using the term in my native tongue which is not English when playing card games I'd agree with you that it is spoken and not written English and thus does not in general belong on a fan card ... except when there is a reason to do it, like formatting issues due to a lot of text.

[GendoIkari]

I'd be ok with Dominion having more keywords, even if they're keywords invented for fan cards. I know "dig" has been mentioned in the past as a possible keyword, which is just defined as "dig for {x} means reveal cards from your deck until you reveal {x}. Put {x} in your hand and discard the other revealed cards." Topdeck would be another good one. In fact, I'm going to make a new thread for this.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'm still working on this set. My newer versions of Auditor (one a couple posts previous in this thread and the other in the 2016 Intrigue contest) both had problems with AP, so I'm reworking it again. This version would replace both the current Auditor and Shrewd Dealer.

Auditor
Cost $4 - Action / Attack
+$2, +1 Buy.
Each other player reveals their hand and discards all curses, ruins, and pure victory cards.

Make them discard their junk so they can't trash* or discard-for-benefit from it.
(*unless Hermit of course).
This is at least my 4th try at a card called 'Auditor'. If this doesn't work out, I'm going to consider the name bad luck...

PS: Please don't criticize the usage of the term 'pure victory card'. We've already had that discussion. It'll be in the Resurgence rulebook.

[tristan]

There aren't that many hybrid cards and the attack is not that strong (if there is heavy junking the active player himself is most likely full of junk so he cannot really spam these attacks) so I think it'd be OK if all Victory cards were discarded. Not that the term "pure Victory card" isn't crystal clear, I just think that it might make the attack mildly stronger.

[ThetaSigma12]

Improved version of ancient temple.

EDIT: See Below

[LibraryAdventurer]

Thanks, but I already made an improved version of Ancient Temple, and I dropped the bottom-deck mechanic from the card. The card text below the image is different from what it says on the image. I just haven't gotten around to updating the image yet. I'll try to do it in the next few days.

EDIT: Now, I finally have the OP up to date with images and all cards that are currently in the set.

[ThetaSigma12]

[LibraryAdventurer]

Um, that's the same except a different picture. Why would you do that?

[ThetaSigma12]

I prefer more thematic art. I found a good image and mocked up an improvement. I'd figure I would share it just in case somebody else wanted it.
Other differences include actual coin symbols and Optimus Princeps for card name and types. I'm hoping to do gargoyle and building blocks too. No offense to your art prefrence, but just thinking other people might prefer actual art instead!

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'm a photoshop novice, and it seems like a pain to mess with all the coin symbols, fonts, and stuff when I'm doing it. Besides, I don't care as much about the look of the card. For someone who's better at photoshop (and cares more), go ahead and add them.

About the art I chose: Wherever I could make it work with the card name, I chose photos taken by my dad on his travels for card art. And the photograph for the Trailblazer card was taken by someone else I know.
If people prefer other art, that's fine, I'm just happy to have people print & play with my cards.

[Doom_Shark]

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a treasure, +$1. If it's a victory card, +1 card. In any case, trash the revealed card.

This is super-weak, even when trashing bad cards. It's nice that it's flexible, but I don't think that saves it. I suggest you double all the bonuses, like so…

Iron Furnace
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an Action, play it twice. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's a Victory card, +2 Cards. Trash the revealed card.

The only issue here is that it is now strictly better than tr, as it has the base tr effect and is useful even when you have no actions, even more so if you have a dual-typed action. I think with the doubled bonuses, it should be minimum $5, probably more, or some on-gain penalty.

Side note: I literally haven't read the rest of the thread yet, tjat post just caught my eye. So if this has been addressed alrady, my apologies.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a treasure, +$1. If it's a victory card, +1 card. In any case, trash the revealed card.

This is super-weak, even when trashing bad cards. It's nice that it's flexible, but I don't think that saves it. I suggest you double all the bonuses…

The only issue here is that it is now strictly better than tr, as it has the base tr effect and is useful even when you have no actions, even more so if you have a dual-typed action. I think with the doubled bonuses, it should be minimum $5, probably more, or some on-gain penalty.

Side note: I literally haven't read the rest of the thread yet, that post just caught my eye. So if this has been addressed alrady, my apologies.

That suggestion was from a long time ago now. The current version of Iron Furnace (as in the OP) is

Iron Furnace
Cost 2  - Action
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a ruins, play it again. If it's a treasure, +$2. If it's a victory card, +2 cards. In any case, trash the revealed card.

(besides, his suggestion was never strictly better than TR because the action card would get trashed after being played. -more like procession except without gaining another card.)

[ThetaSigma12]

I'm a photoshop novice, and it seems like a pain to mess with all the coin symbols, fonts, and stuff when I'm doing it. Besides, I don't care as much about the look of the card. For someone who's better at photoshop (and cares more), go ahead and add them.

About the art I chose: Wherever I could make it work with the card name, I chose photos taken by my dad on his travels for card art. And the photograph for the Trailblazer card was taken by someone else I know.
If people prefer other art, that's fine, I'm just happy to have people print & play with my cards.

Thanks!

[ThetaSigma12]

[Nflickner]

Diggin' the new art!!

[ThetaSigma12]

You can find trail on the cliff-side village thread.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Updated the OP with one new card, Renovate, and updates to Ancient Temple and Mortar Repair.

Also updated the Resurgence card sheet for Tabletop Simulator:

(includes a couple non-Resurgance cards of mine and the Canines card by my friend.)

warning/disclaimer: I suck at Photoshop.

[ThetaSigma12]

warning/disclaimer: I suck at Photoshop.

I'd be hapy to teach you or do the whole expansion for you.

[GendoIkari]

Looking through your discard pile to find the most expensive card every buy phase doesn't sound fun. 

Also, should cost .

And also, Donald has talked before about why he thinks terminal +1 card is a bad idea, but of course that's more just an opinion thing.

[GendoIkari]

Fountain Gargoyle has some wording/formatting issues. See Lighthouse; its the exact same above-the-line effect. The "1" should just be in it's own section, without "worth". So it needs 2 total lines.

Oh, there aren't any Looters in this set are there? Not sure it makes sense to refer to Ruins in a set without any Looters. There's only 3 Looters total. Same with Auditor.

*Edit* I see now that several of your cards give out Ruins, but I hadn't found them because I searched on "Looter". All of those need the Looter type, otherwise Ruins wouldn't exist in the game.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Fountain Gargoyle has some wording/formatting issues. See Lighthouse; its the exact same above-the-line effect. The "1" should just be in it's own section, without "worth". So it needs 2 total lines.

Don't care about the line for the VP. Having 2 lines is ugly. Saying 'worth' differentiates 1VP from +1VP (token) without using a line.

Oh, there aren't any Looters in this set are there? Not sure it makes sense to refer to Ruins in a set without any Looters. There's only 3 Looters total. Same with Auditor.
*Edit* I see now that several of your cards give out Ruins, but I hadn't found them because I searched on "Looter". All of those need the Looter type, otherwise Ruins wouldn't exist in the game.

I don't bother with the Looter type because it seems obvious if a card mentions ruins by name, then they're going to be in the game. Other people wanting to use this card are free to add it if they like. For my cards, it's all in the card FAQ (which I also didn't bother to write out).

Looking through your discard pile to find the most expensive card every buy phase doesn't sound fun. 

I don't think it would be much trouble at all. Just leave the most expensive card on top when you discard stuff.

warning/disclaimer: I suck at Photoshop.

I'd be hapy to teach you or do the whole expansion for you.

Either one would be much appreciated, but if you do decide to do them yourself, I prefer if you post them here using the original name, and for the ones with photos by Joel Justiss or Ellen Wiltse, keep the original photo. (You can pick other art for your own versions if you like, just post them in this thread with the original name & art.) Thanks.

[NoMoreFun]

I don't bother with the Looter type because it seems obvious if a card mentions ruins by name, then they're going to be in the game.

Vagrant

[GendoIkari]

I don't bother with the Looter type because it seems obvious if a card mentions ruins by name, then they're going to be in the game.

Vagrant

Yup. Of courses an cards are free to add whatever rules they want, but it should be clear that Dark Ages already has a specific rule for deciding when Ruins are in the Supply or not, and these cards break that rule.

[LibraryAdventurer]

New card type: Preserve cards.
After thinking about it, I decided there was no point in not putting the looter type on my cards that use ruins. Then, after thinking about it some more, I decided, cards like Archaeologist and Excavation don't really seem appropriate to call 'looters'. And I've had ideas floating in my head for a while now for 'special ruins'. So, my cards that give out ruins (like Vandal and Blackmailer) will be 'looters', but certain other cards will use the 'preserve' type instead.

Preserve type rules: If a card with the Preserve type is in the kingdom, include both the ruins and special ruins in the supply. Whenever you would gain a ruins (except by buying one), you may discard a card to gain a special ruins instead. The ruins and special ruins count as being from the same pile. Whenever a special ruins is gained, trash a normal ruins from the supply. Include 6 special ruins per player.

  The special ruins:

Haunted Vault
Cost $2 - Action - Attack - Special Ruins
+$1. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand puts a card from their hand on top of their deck.

Engraved Pathstone
Cost $2 - Action - Special Ruins
Look at the top three cards of your deck. Put one in your hand and discard the rest.

(Yes, I got the idea from Hearthstone.)

Abandoned Dungeon
Cost $2 - Action - Duration - Special Ruins
This turn and next: Discard a card. If you do, +2 cards. Discard another card.

Sacrificial Cenote
Cost $2 - Action - Special Ruins
Trash up to three cards from your hand or from play.
-
Worth -2VP. When you trash this, gain a curse and set it aside till the end of the game.

Places used for human sacrifice are accursed and you can't easily trash a cenote.

Ruined Drawbridge
Cost $2 - Action - Reaction - Special Ruins
+1 Card.
-
When another player plays an attack, you may discard this. If you do, +1 Card, and gain a silver putting it on top of your deck.

Ruined Throne
Cost $3 - Action - Special Ruins
Play any card from your hand. If it costs less than $3, play it again. If it costs at least $3, you may trash it. (If the card is not an action or treasure, its effect is +1 card when played by this.)

Include 6 special ruins per player. There are three copies of each for 24 total.
EDIT: I've pruned them down to six types with four copies of each. Eight or nine types of special ruins seemed a little excessive.
already cut:

Unholy Monument
Cost $2 - Action - Victory - Special Ruins
+$1. +1VP.
-
Worth -2VP.

Pedestal
Cost $3 - Victory - Reaction - Special Ruins
When you discard this other than during clean-up, +$1 on your turn. When you trash this, gain a non-victory card costing up to $4.
-
Worth 1 VP.

Carved Image
Cost $2 - Action - Attack - Special Ruins
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Put the action cards back on your deck in any order, and put the rest in your hand. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, each other player gains a ruins.

Now Archaeologist and Excavation will be a little stronger (both seemed a bit weak before):

Archaeologist
$5 - Action - Duration - Preserve
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Now and next turn: You may discard a card. If you did, or if the ruins pile is empty, gain the effect of the top special ruins, then put it on the bottom of its pile. Otherwise, gain the effect of the top ruins, then put it on the bottom of its pile.

Excavation
$2 - Action - Preserve
+1 Action. If the ruins pile is empty: +$1. Otherwise: +$2. Gain a Ruins, putting the gained card into your hand. You may play an Action card from your hand costing up to $3.

(by jamespotter from the Dark Ages contest. Keep in mind the rule that whenever you would gain a ruins  (except by buying one), you may discard a card to gain a special ruins instead.)

hmmm, and maybe this:

Restored Village
Cost 4 - Action - Preserve
+2 Actions. Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-
When you buy this, gain a ruins.

I wasn't satisfied with the drawback as it was (depending on unused actions). I like this much better (and yes, it does need a drawback).

Pioneer and Ancient Temple will also get the preserve type. Or maybe I'll just make it a ~1/4 chance to include special ruins (with the Preserve rules) whenever any Resurgence cards are in the kingdom.

[ThetaSigma12]

I like the concept, but I can't see myself printing all of those cards out. The nerf to Restored Village is great, I'm glad somebody else agrees draw-to-x village is too good.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like the concept, but I can't see myself printing all of those cards out.

I guess it's easier to print out more cards when you do like I do and don't bother printing artwork with it. Since there's only threefour copies of each*, it isn't much more trouble than printing out a few normal cards.

*I'll probably pick one of them to buff into a normal $3 or 4 cost card, so they'll be eightsix special ruins. That way it'll be the same number of copies for all of them.

The nerf to Restored Village is great, I'm glad somebody else agrees draw-to-x village is too good.

Yeah, after playing with it several times, it's clear that it needs a nerf, and I really don't want it to cost more than $4 (although I briefly considered it). I think this drawback should work well.

[LibraryAdventurer]

*I'll probably pick one of them to buff into a normal $3 or 4 cost card... That way it'll be the same number of copies for all of them.

(I cut them down to six types with four copies each.)

Removing Pedestal from the special ruins (partly because it doesn't work with Archaeologist) with this idea:

Pedestal
Cost $3 - Action - Reaction
+$1.
Discard any number of action or treasure cards from your hand. +1 VP for each card discarded this way.
-
When you discard this from your hand, +$1 on your turn.

A usually weaker, but potentially much stronger monument variant. What do you think?  Seems great if you're overdrawing your deck, but that's pretty rare in my experience and this sure won't help you do it.

[LibraryAdventurer]

played a fun game with resurgence cards this evening:


 
Poet Laereate by Market Squire was also in the kingdom. It was an 11-card kingdom because my Foundation (or Building Blocks) add Mortar Repair as an 11th kingdom card pile. 3 player game.

I put my +action token on bridge. 3rd place player put +action on library, and the 2nd place player passed on Lost Arts. I like my new version of Inventor a lot better than the original, and I might decide to call it part of Resurgence. Overlord was great on this board. Me and the 2nd place player both got 16 points from Orchard. With the final scores being ~70 to 46 to 24, it didn't change the scoring order but it easily could have (if my opponents were better at the game to make a closer match...). Hamlet and Bridge with +action goes very well with Library. Also nice to effectively get a 10-point province because I had 4 groundkeepers in play (actually 3 and one overlord as a groundskeeper).

[ThetaSigma12]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

If it's clear, why does it need to be changed?

[ThetaSigma12]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

If it's clear, why does it need to be changed?

The intention is clear, but it's not ligit wording. Like if instead of having a coin cost in the corner it just had text saying "This costs 2 gold". You know what it means, but it's weird and not official.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

If it's clear, why does it need to be changed?

The intention is clear, but it's not ligit wording. Like if instead of having a coin cost in the corner it just had text saying "This costs 2 gold". You know what it means, but it's weird and not official.

Huh? Card costs are really easy to put in the corner with the template. I don't know what you're referring to.

EDIT: Do you mean when I have coins in the text using stuff like $2 instead of ?

[ConMan]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

If it's clear, why does it need to be changed?

The intention is clear, but it's not ligit wording. Like if instead of having a coin cost in the corner it just had text saying "This costs 2 gold". You know what it means, but it's weird and not official.

Huh? Card costs are really easy to put in the corner with the template. I don't know what you're referring to.

EDIT: Do you mean when I have coins in the text using stuff like $2 instead of ?

What he's trying to say is that while your wording makes sense, it's jarring, similar to how it would feel if someone made a fan card with "This costs 2 coins" written on it instead of the coin symbol.

[GendoIkari]

Okay, I'd really like to redo your set but I keep on getting thwarted by the wording. A lot of your wording is clear English wise, but It's really hard to translate into Dominion lingo.

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to beat you down on this, it would just be nice if the cards used official wording.

If it's clear, why does it need to be changed?

The intention is clear, but it's not ligit wording. Like if instead of having a coin cost in the corner it just had text saying "This costs 2 gold". You know what it means, but it's weird and not official.

Huh? Card costs are really easy to put in the corner with the template. I don't know what you're referring to.

EDIT: Do you mean when I have coins in the text using stuff like $2 instead of ?

What he's trying to say is that while your wording makes sense, it's jarring, similar to how it would feel if someone made a fan card with "This costs 2 coins" written on it instead of the coin symbol.

Right. In another thread a while back, I used an example along the lines of a card that said "draw the top card of your deck. You may play an additional action this turn". Sure it's clear, but it's really bad, and everyone would point out that it should just say
+1 Card
+1 Action

[GendoIkari]

Also, the fact that the cards are actually mocked up in a printable format makes the loose wording even weirder. Like, it would be one thing if these were just general ideas being thrown out as an early concept, but when you're actually going through the effort of putting together printable cards, why not also make sure those cards use the correct wording?

[ThetaSigma12]

Also, the fact that the cards are actually mocked up in a printable format makes the loose wording even weirder. Like, it would be one thing if these were just general ideas being thrown out as an early concept, but when you're actually going through the effort of putting together printable cards, why not also make sure those cards use the correct wording?

This.

A good example of what I mean is the bottom of Generous Benefactor. It's clear what it means in English but in the context of Dominion it's really confusing. I don't really know what even is the right way to word it? Maybe:
"At the start of each other player's buy phase, they may recive +. If they did, they may not play any Gold or Platinum that turn.

[GendoIkari]

I think I said it somewhere else in this thread, but Fountain Gargoyle... "this turn and next". When this turn? When next turn?

[tristan]

I think I said it somewhere else in this thread, but Fountain Gargoyle... "this turn and next". When this turn? When next turn?

Pretending to not get what perfectly unambiguous English means just because one prefers fan cards to feature Dominion lingo is quite pathetic.
I mean, gee, I don't complain that half of ThetaSigma12's cards feature typos or are dubiously changed cards from somebody else. If he is happy with what he does so be it. Same applies for LA. He might not use Dominion lingo but so what, at least he has cool ideas and tests and changes his cards.

[ThetaSigma12]

I think I said it somewhere else in this thread, but Fountain Gargoyle... "this turn and next". When this turn? When next turn?

Pretending to not get what perfectly unambiguous English means just because one prefers fan cards to feature Dominion lingo is quite pathetic.
I mean, gee, I don't complain that half of ThetaSigma12's cards feature typos or are dubiously changed cards from somebody else. If he is happy with what he does so be it. Same applies for LA.

I don't find it pathetic. Wanting to keep things accurate and consistent seems good, why do you have a problem with that? I'm fine with the typo or whatever but sometimes it actually is confusing, such as the bottom of reconstruct, it can be a real hassle.

Also, I try to fix my typos, so wether or not that stat is true, in the end my cards (should) be offially worded. I don't get what you mean by dubiously, but I won't get into my reasons for mockups 2.0 here.

[tristan]

Pot calling the kettle back. I just have to scroll up, stumble upon your first card and tata, three typos in Fortified Bridge.

Not that it matters. LA test and updates his cards. That's far more important than your abundance of typos or his lack of use of Dominion lingo.

[ThetaSigma12]

Pot calling the kettle back. I just have to scroll up, stumble upon your first card and tata, three typos in Fortified Bridge.

Not that it matters. LA test and updates his cards. That's far more important than your abundance of typos or his lack of use of Dominion lingo.

I seem to be missing the typos. Anyways, that's old work. If you're trying to say I used to suck I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[tristan]

There are also quite some typos in your new cards. All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to accuse LA of imprecise wording when one's one texts are full of typos.
This is just trivial cosmetic stuff though.

[ThetaSigma12]

There are also quite some typos in your new cards. All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to accuse LA of imprecise wording when one's one texts are full of typos.

For instance? Anyways, I try too fix them so in the end it's not hypocritical.

People make mistakes, but whether you try to fix them is what counts. But if you have a different quality level, thats fine. Be proud of your work. Just don't be surprised if other people have a different (but not necessarily better) standard and don't like it.

[tristan]

There are also quite some typos in your new cards. All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to accuse LA of imprecise wording when one's one texts are full of typos.

For instance?

If you are too lazy to go over your cards I cannot help you. Buy phase is not cpaitalized in Canal, +x Cards is virtually never capitalized, Garrison should say including and so on.

[ThetaSigma12]

There are also quite some typos in your new cards. All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to accuse LA of imprecise wording when one's one texts are full of typos.

For instance?

If you are too lazy to go over your cards I cannot help you. Buy phase is not cpaitalized in Canal, +x Cards is virtually never capitalized, Garrison should say including and so on.

I'm pretty sure +X Cards is ALWAYS capitalized, I missed Canal thanks, and I'm not sure about Garrison.

Anyways, when you have 38 cards in a set it's easy to screw something up. I try to fix my mistakes and that's what matters.

I'm trying not to get offended but you could discuss this a little more civily.

[ThetaSigma12]

Also, we're getting off topic from the original discussion. My cards have almost nothing to do with LA's.

[tristan]

Kinda strange to get offended. I did after all point out twice that I don't care much about cosmetic stuff like this, whether it's your typos or LA's lack of use of Dominion lingo. Some folks here are really so anal about it that they forget everything else. Like thinking about whether the card idea is good in the first place or not.

And this is where LA shines. He has cool idea, none of his card are already broken from the start, he tests his cards and updates them.

[trivialknot]

I like getting criticism for cards, and would be sad if people held back just because their own cards have typos. 

[ThetaSigma12]

Your language seemed offensive, but your intent may not have been. I apologize if I misunderstanded you.

And as GendoIkari pointed out, if you want to have bad wording it's fine, but when you go to the trouble of mocking something up with unofficial wording it's kinda weird. If you just wanna have a few cards you update and test that's fine, but if you wanna make a mock-up be prepared to have feedback about it.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Also, the fact that the cards are actually mocked up in a printable format makes the loose wording even weirder. Like, it would be one thing if these were just general ideas being thrown out as an early concept, but when you're actually going through the effort of putting together printable cards, why not also make sure those cards use the correct wording?

This.

A good example of what I mean is the bottom of Generous Benefactor. It's clear what it means in English but in the context of Dominion it's really confusing. I don't really know what even is the right way to word it? Maybe:
"At the start of each other player's buy phase, they may recive +. If they did, they may not play any Gold or Platinum that turn.

I used unconventional wording for Generous Benefactor because, as you say, there doesn't seem to be any conventional wording that fits the effect. But I don't see what's wrong with it. Cards in Empires use wording that would've been seen as unconventional before Empires came out. I try to use words that clearly get across the intended effect, and sometimes that wording don't happen to be previously used on an official card. so what?

With Fountain Gargoyle, I just wanted to save a little space. You could easily change it to "Now and at the start of next turn" to match official cards. Although for other reasons, I could see why people might skip out on Fountain Gargoyle. It's a novelty card, but it works and I think it's fun, so it's part of my set.

PS: I've changed Mysterious Door and removed the attack part. I just haven't gotten around to updating the image yet.

[Jack Rudd]

Mysterious Door
Cost 2  - Action - Attack
Each other player discards the bottom card of his deck. If it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; a treasure card, +; an action card, play this as the revealed action card -it is that card until it leaves play.

This should be one particular opponent, not each other player; it's far too strong as written.

Also it has an infinite loop effect if its target's deck and discard pile consist entirely of Mysterious Doors.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Mysterious Door
Cost 2  - Action - Attack
Each other player discards the bottom card of his deck. If it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; a treasure card, +; an action card, play this as the revealed action card -it is that card until it leaves play.

This should be one particular opponent, not each other player; it's far too strong as written.

Also it has an infinite loop effect if its target's deck and discard pile consist entirely of Mysterious Doors.

Oops, I put the text in wrong. It is supposed to be "The player on your left discards the bottom card of his deck."
EDIT: Fixed (but still haven't updated the image.)

[ThetaSigma12]

Renovate seems really iffy. +1 Card on terminals is a bad idea as Donald said. The below the line is really confusing. Does it do that during your whole turn? What if the card in your discard pile costs ? Is it more expensive than ? Also, it's kinda swingy depending on your discards and the reshuffles. The headaches don't seem to be worth it. On the plus side, it's unique.

Ancient Temple is cool. I don't fully get why it lets you play the Action, but I'm sure it's for balancing. Again, it's a little swingy.

Mysterious Door seems really swingy, political, and complicated. It might be worth a shot but I'd suggest symplifying it. I like the whole bottom of your deck theme, it has a lot of potential.

Auditor is by far my favorite. It's simple, strategical, and the attack isn't that annoying.

Salvage Yard gains from the trash, but without any way to trash it may be too often a dead card. Also, the name is a place not an event as you'd expect. Intersting having a gain from the trash Event.

Mortar Repair seems really good, possibly too cheap for . But why does it need the extra type and setup rule? Like to here the backstory.

Building Blocks: I like it.

Foundation: Cool. This is definently an improvement over your more complicated cards.

Iron Furnace: Too simmilar to Sacrifice as you said. I don't see why it needs to specify ruins if it doesn't hand them out, extra words that often don't make a difference.

Generous Benefactor: This seems really weird. First of all, why mention Platinum? It's extra words and will mean nothing in many games. If it's really that bad then why doesn't something like Bank come up? Second, there's no definite timing. You don't stop playing Treasures until you buy something, and then the + might be too late. I assume then you mean like you can take it at the start of your Buy phase and Gold and Platinum have no effect. Still, it's a lot of complexity. Third, why even have the below the line? I get the theme but wouldn't it be better if it was way simpler like a flat + and you buffed the on play effect or druation effect? Long story short, it's really weird and the has to be a better way to impliment it.

Drawbridge: The on-play seems really good. A trashing Smithy? And when I don't want to trash it's a moat? This should probably be . The below the line is cool, but it might be to annoying in multiplayer because of the politics.

Restored Village: Seems like a good variant of the draw-to-x Village. Why does everybody think it's fine bland at ? It's easily a Lost City half of the time if not more.

Trailblazer: It's cool. Not much to say.

Collectables: It's interesting, but the cost increase will quickly get out of hand with TfB because it's a cantrip. I think this will either be no different than Caravan, if not worse. And when it's not it's because of insane comoboes with TfB. I'm pretty sure there's a reason theres no cost increasing in dominion.

Miner is nice. Small caveat: The art doesn't show an actual miner. Mineshaft might be more appropriate for the art.

Vandal: Texas A&M is very medival. Nice card though.

Fountain Gargoyle seems weak. Also, "pure" Victoy card isn't a thing.

Kingdom Restoration: Again, the bottom part is completly unrelated. Why? The top is cool.

Pioneer: I like the card.

Ancestral Crypt: Again with the terminal +1 Card. The VP seems tacked on.

Archaeologist: Nothing.

Royal Heirloom: What happens if I play a Duration? The duration-throne is really overused and this verions isn't selling me on anything.


Most of your cards don't use correct wording. I know you don't think it's necessary, but it just seems kinda lazy. I mean, you could just use a blank card with art and tell people what to do. It may seem like a hassle, but it makes it clearer to new people and old people, and it just seems un-dominiony. You don't need to use Photoshop, GIMP will work and it's free. It takes minutes to get the fonts and templates you need and it's surprisingly easy to pickup.



 

[LibraryAdventurer]

Renovate seems really iffy. +1 Card on terminals is a bad idea as Donald said. The below the line is really confusing. Does it do that during your whole turn? What if the card in your discard pile costs ? Is it more expensive than ? Also, it's kinda swingy depending on your discards and the reshuffles. The headaches don't seem to be worth it. On the plus side, it's unique.

This card is new and experimental. It probably won't stay as-is, and I might just drop it. I wanted a TfB for Resurgence, but it's hard to think of something that's original and good. oh well.
<8> is not more or less expensive than . They don't compare, so debt cards have no effect on the cost of this card.

Ancient Temple is cool. I don't fully get why it lets you play the Action, but I'm sure it's for balancing. Again, it's a little swingy.

I wanted a gainer that lets you play the card you gain right away. It's not just for balancing. It's part of the concept. ...oh. I just realized I haven't updated the OP since my most recent version of the card. The new version is much simpler:

Ancient Temple
cost $5 - Action
+1 Action.
Gain a card costing up to $4, putting it into your hand.

I'm considering adding 'discard a card' if this seems too strong.

Mysterious Door seems really swingy, political, and complicated. It might be worth a shot but I'd suggest symplifying it. I like the whole bottom of your deck theme, it has a lot of potential.

That one's also been simplified. I have the card text updated in the OP, just not in the card image. I removed the attack part completely.

Auditor is by far my favorite. It's simple, strategical, and the attack isn't that annoying.

cool

Salvage Yard gains from the trash, but without any way to trash it may be too often a dead card. Also, the name is a place not an event as you'd expect. Intersting having a gain from the trash Event.

Yeah, I need to think of a better name for that one.

Mortar Repair seems really good, possibly too cheap for . But why does it need the extra type and setup rule? Like to hear the backstory.

I had the idea for the three building materials cards together. Building blocks came first based on someone else's card idea. They all reveal the top card of the deck and give an option what to do with it, and they all have a reaction that can be triggered by their above the line effect. Building Blocks and Foundation are both good ones to have several copies of, and Mortar Repair is a good way to gain them.
Originally, Mortar Repair just revealed one card, but it seemed weak, so I changed it to two cards.

Generous Benefactor: This seems really weird. First of all, why mention Platinum? It's extra words and will mean nothing in many games. If it's really that bad then why doesn't something like Bank come up? Second, there's no definite timing. You don't stop playing Treasures until you buy something, and then the + might be too late. I assume then you mean like you can take it at the start of your Buy phase and Gold and Platinum have no effect. Still, it's a lot of complexity. Third, why even have the below the line? I get the theme but wouldn't it be better if it was way simpler like a flat + and you buffed the on play effect or druation effect? Long story short, it's really weird and the has to be a better way to impliment it.

Well, we've tested it and we like it. and it's thematic. It doesn't seem overly complex to me. Maybe the mention of platinum is excessive. Feel free to drop that if you mock it up.

Drawbridge: The on-play seems really good. A trashing Smithy? And when I don't want to trash it's a moat? This should probably be . The below the line is cool, but it might be to annoying in multiplayer because of the politics.

This one has been tested a lot, and is one of my favorites. I agree it's strong enough to cost $4, but it hasn't been a problem at $3 and there isn't a lot of difference there so I want to leave it at $3.
There is a little bit of politics if P1 plays an attack which affects P2 as usual, but he has to discard a card to decide if it affects P3 who has a drawbridge in play. I'm okay with that though.

Restored Village: Seems like a good variant of the draw-to-x Village. Why does everybody think it's fine bland at ? It's easily a Lost City half of the time if not more.

Exactly. It didn't originally have a drawback, but it definitely needed one.

Collectables: It's interesting, but the cost increase will quickly get out of hand with TfB because it's a cantrip. I think this will either be no different than Caravan, if not worse. And when it's not it's because of insane comboes with TfB. I'm pretty sure there's a reason theres no cost increasing in dominion.

True, it is strictly worse than Caravan if there's no other cards that interact with card cost (like TfB), but it's really fun in games with TfB. It's totally worth it. The last game I played had Collectables along with Apprentice and my Patrician (bottom of the OP and doesn't have a mock-up -I haven't gotten around to renaming it since Empires). good times. Besides TfB, it also can be a defense against most trashing attacks (especially swindler and knights).

Miner is nice. Small caveat: The art doesn't show an actual miner. Mineshaft might be more appropriate for the art.

Vandal: Texas A&M is very medival. Nice card though.

Fan card art is very low priority for me. Except that I like to use photographs taken by my dad on his travels (which Vandal and several others use).

Fountain Gargoyle seems weak. Also, "pure" Victoy card isn't a thing.

I've already had the conversation about the terminology, and I think the meaning is clear. That said, the card does seem a little weak. I'm considering removing the +action and the 1VP and making it cost $3.

Kingdom Restoration: Again, the bottom part is completly unrelated. Why? The top is cool.

The bottom part gives the option to literally restore the kingdom. Feel free to drop it if you mock up the card. I know it's unnessesary but I like it.
I was actually slightly disappointed when I saw Harbinger because it seemed too similar to this card, and this is one of my favorite of my cards.

I also have a simpler version of Archaeologist which I haven't yet put in the OP. I'll wait to post it until I've tested it at least once (but it's a little like Sutler from the new Dark Ages fan card contest).

Most of your cards don't use correct wording. I know you don't think it's necessary, but it just seems kinda lazy.

I only use unconventional wording when either 1) it's clear and much less words than official wording would be (like the term 'pure victory card'), and/or 2) there's no way to do the effect I want by using official wording. I don't see how that's lazy.

Thanks for the comments, and I hope you and others can get some enjoyment from my cards despite the unconventional wording.

[ThetaSigma12]

I mean, on things like Generous Benefactor it's ligit. It's a weird effect so new wording is fine, just might be a tad confusing. But on foundation for instance:
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back.
+1 Card
----
When you discard this other than during your Clean-up phase, you may reveal this for +1 Card during your turn.
It's simpler and completly legit.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I mean, on things like Generous Benefactor it's ligit. It's a weird effect so new wording is fine, just might be a tad confusing. But on foundation for instance:
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back.
+1 Card
----
When you discard this other than during your Clean-up phase, you may reveal this for +1 Card.
It's simpler and completly legit.

Okay. I have the 'on your turn' on Foundation because otherwise it isn't clear how it interacts with a discard attack like Militia.

[ThetaSigma12]

Oops I missed that reading the card.

[navical]

Is Foundation meant to be
"when you discard this and it's your turn, +1 card"
or
"when you discard this, +1 card now if it's your turn or at the start of your next turn otherwise"
because I think you can read both the OP's wording and TS's wording as either.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Is Foundation meant to be
"when you discard this and it's your turn, +1 card"
or
"when you discard this, +1 card now if it's your turn or at the start of your next turn otherwise"
because I think you can read both the OP's wording and TS's wording as either.

The latter. Do you think there's a clearer way of saying that without taking so many words?

[ThetaSigma12]

Well I went for a new word "During". When something would happen "During" your turn, then it happens the soonest time it's on your turn. So If it's your turn now, you draw the card immediately, and otherwise you get it next turn. I don't know about tracking though.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Played an interesting 3p game with a couple Resurgence cards this evening. Kingdom:


(and Shelters) The 10th card was:

Graveyard
$4 - Action - Victory
Choose 1: +1 Card or Put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
You may trash a card from your hand.
-
Worth 1 VP for every 4 action cards in the trash pile. Count any Graveyards in the trash as two actions each.

This was from a very old list of fan made cards that I got from BGG. (Apparently, I never made note of the designer, but it likely isn't someone from fds.)

I won with two Provinces, five Graveyards (worth 5 each), six Nobles, and a Duchy (from Annex). I'm thinking Graveyard will be strong in games with looters, preserve cards, or rats, but somewhat weak otherwise.

PS: Also, I finally got around to updating images in the OP.

[ThetaSigma12]

Played a game with Pedestal, I really think it needs reining in. Limiting it to Action cards is a good start, and maybe only up to 3 then.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Played a game with Pedestal, I really think it needs reining in. Limiting it to Action cards is a good start, and maybe only up to 3 then.

Really?  I've only played 2 or 3 games with it so far, but it has seemed kindof weak (but fine for $3). Maybe we just underestimated it which made us underuse it. I think I'll test it a bit more before changing it though.
thanks for the feedback.

[ThetaSigma12]

Played a game with Pedestal, I really think it needs reining in. Limiting it to Action cards is a good start, and maybe only up to 3 then.

Really?  I've only played 2 or 3 games with it so far, but it has seemed kindof weak (but fine for $3). Maybe we just underestimated it which made us underuse it. I think I'll test it a bit more before changing it though.
thanks for the feedback.

I think it's just to easy to frequently use it for +3 or more VP, and it doesn't really end the game.

[ThetaSigma12]

With a big more thought, I think you should change it just to effect cards costing 2 or more. The main problem is discarding Coppers for VP is too good. Letting you discard Silvers and such should make it fine, although I still want to cap it at 3.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Limiting it to 3 (per play) seems like a good idea. I haven't got around to playtesting it since the previous couple posts (We've had to skip our usual IRL Dominion night a couple times lately because of ...RL). I still plan on testing it more before changing it beyond that, but I'll keep the suggetions in mind.

One reason I hesitate to consider it too strong without testing it more myself, is that using it for +3VP without doing much else on your turn isn't good play (unless maybe if you're way behind trying to catch up). If your opponents are spending their turns building an engine (while maybe getting ~1VP/turn with their own Pedestals), I'm pretty sure they'd beat the player who often uses their turn discarding their hand to a Pedestal.

[LibraryAdventurer]

We played this 3-player game today (with shelters). Was one of the very rare times I went for Feodum, and I partly did it because like to I try things I don't normally do against my Dominion group as a little bit of a handicap. I wasn't sure how viable Feodum would be here, but I ended up winning by three points. Pedestal was well-used this game, and Inventor was helpful for silver gaining. It was fun having to use Necropolis, Scholar, Summon, and Throne Room for splitters to play my Wharfs especially while trying to balance them in my deck with silver gaining for Feodums.
Finally getting some good testing for the Pedestal card. I'm thinking it'll be good with the "discard up to 3 cards" limitation.

I'm planning on adding Inventor to the OP as part of Resurgence, though it originally wasn't meant as part of the set. Scholar is by Fragasnap.

[Aquila]

Finally getting some good testing for the Pedestal card. I'm thinking it'll be good with the "discard up to 3 cards" limitation.

I think it's necessary; as it is, wouldn't it make a golden deck that never pushed the game end with Alchemist?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Finally getting some good testing for the Pedestal card. I'm thinking it'll be good with the "discard up to 3 cards" limitation.

I think it's necessary; as it is, wouldn't it make a golden deck that never pushed the game end with Alchemist?

Yeah, probably.  I'll add the limitation, but not sure when I'll get around to updating the images.