Print

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

[FireChipmunks]

This is a preliminary version of a fan expansion I've been working on. I would appreciate any criticism/advice/comments. This is a rough draft, and I fully admit that many of the cards have problems.

SHRINE ($2) ACTION
+1 Action. Trash a card from you hand. You may trash this immediately.
When you buy this card, you may trash a card from your hand.

The obvious comparison here is to Chapel. This card trashes an estate immediately when you buy it, which means
your first reshuffle will give you a deck that already has only 2 chapels. This also has +1 action, so it can't conflict
with whatever other action you buy. And, when you're done with it, it can trash itself, unlike chapel. The downside is that
after the on-buy effect, its slower than chapel.

ALCOVE ($2) ACTION
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard three cards from your hand to gain +3$.

This is a variation on the secret chamber/vault/oasis line of cards. Its a cantrip, unlike secret chamber, so it can just
replace itself if its not useful. However, you need to be able to discard 3 cards to get the effect. Ideally, you want to
use this to discard an estate and turn it into 1$, like with oasis. You can also turn up to 3 estates/curses into $.
However, if your hand doesn't have a total of 3 "bad" cards, you can't use this. Of course, it's ok to have coppers, so as
long as your hand has 2 coppers and 1 estate/curse, this card is an oasis for 1$ cheaper. Like oasis/chamber/vault, it
becomes easier to use the ability the more cards you have in your hand, so this combos well with drawing cards.

BEGGAR ($2) ACTION
+1 Action. The player to your left chooses an action card from the supply other than a Beggar. Gain a copy of it and place
it in your hand.

The most obvious reaction to this card is that your opponent will just choose to give you a copy of whatever other 2$ card
is in the supply, if there is another 2$ card. If that card is an embargo...then, well, you might be better off without a
beggar. But if the setup has pawn, hamlet, etc in it, then this works sort of like a 2$ version of workshop. Depending on
the setup, your opponent might rather give you 3$ cards, so, you might want to use this if your setup has, for example,
wishing well and village...but not if it has fortune teller and develop. Very setup-dependant card. Keep in mind that the
card does go directly into your hand, so you will always get some sort of action out of this. Only problem is, if there's a
weak terminal, your opponent will just always give you that. So, either don't buy one of these, or stock up on villages so
that you don't mind getting terminals.



CULTIST ($3) ACTION-ATTACK
+1$, +1 Action. Each opponent gains a curse. Each opponent may then discard any number of cards from their hand and draw until they have 5 cards in hand.

My attempt at a 3$ cursing card. 3$ means you can buy two of these in your starting turns...but is that really a good idea?
You're giving your deck coppers in order to give your opponent curses, like IGG, but at the same time, you allow your
opponent to have free cellars, and the ability for them to quickly reach 5 or 6$ is something they might gladly accept.
Sure, they get a curse, but if that means they can turn a 3copper/2estate hand into a 5$ buy, then it could be a benefit,
meanwhile you just have coppers in your deck instead of other opening buys, and its hard for you to catch up.

TUTOR ($3) ACTION
+1 Action. Until the end of your turn, every time you play an action, you may draw a card and then discard a card from your hand.

This is a clear action-chaining card. Will tremendously help a deck with an engine going, and, in other decks, is probably
not worth it. Draw it without another action and its useless. Draw it in a hand with 3 other actions and you've already got
a warehouse. More than that, and you're not only vastly increasing the power of your engine, but also cycling your deck
faster.

HIDDEN VILLAGE ($3) ACTION
+2 Actions, +1$. If there are less than 4 cards in your hand, +2 cards.

Shanty Town variation. When you get the effect, its like a shanty town, but with an extra $. A lot of setups have a way to
get you down to only 4 cards in your hand, so this works with the same cards that stuff like watchtower or jack's drawing
works with. It also works with itself, since if you play 2, then the second one would get you down to 3 cards, and then
you'd draw back up to 5 and have 3 actions and 2$.

INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE ($3) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Choose one: Discard 5 cards from the top of your deck, or each opponent discards 5 cards from the top of their deck.
When you buy this, each opponent may discard a card from their hand, then draw until they have 5 cards.

Slight variation on the basic village. It adds extra cycling power to your deck, so the effect can be sort of like a mini-
chancellor. And when you don't want to cycle anymore, like once you've started greening, you can do it to your opponent
instead, assuming they've started to green as well. It also combos with or counters cards that affect the top of your deck.
None of these benefits are really that powerful, so I am fine with costing this at 3$. It has a small negative on-buy effect
to make it not strictly superior to village.

ARMORY ($3) ACTION-DURATION
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard your hand and draw 5 cards as many cards as you discarded. At the start of your next turn, you may discard your hand and draw 5 cards.

A card that minimizes draw luck. It doesn't really help your hand, but it does give you two hands to choose from. If you
have a deck with a lot of curses, or if there's no trashing, this can help a lot. If your deck is relatively consistent,
then this will end up doing nothing a lot of the time. But, hey, if you don't need it this turn, you can use it again next
turn. An attempt to make a card that encourages a game with less luck. Its cheap, it can't hurt you, and overall, it makes
draw luck matter less.



SPECIALIST ($4) ACTION
+1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one and put it in your hand. You may discard the other 2 cards, or
put them back in any order.

This one is reminiscent of spy, lookout, scout, etc. Its really just a cantrip but it lets you choose from 3 cards to draw
with it. And, if you don't like the other 2 cards, discard them! Or put them back, and reorganize them. If you have another
cantrip, this means you can also choose which of the other 2 cards to draw. And the ability to choose which cards to take
into your hand this turn and which to save for your next is sort of like haven/courtyard/mandarin in terms of helping you
set up your hand.

DUPLICATE ($4) ACTION
+1 Action, + 1 Card. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it has the same name as a card in your hand, add it to your hand.
Otherwise, discard it.

A variation on wishing well with a higher success rate. Of course, when it succeeds, it'll probably be because its drawing
only a copper. Works best when you're designing your deck around a specific card or combo, otherwise its just like an
inconsistent lab. I suppose it also works really well with big money, and could encourage people to just buy treasures...

BANKER ($4) ACTION
Discard a copper from your hand. +2VP.

Gives 1 more VP than a monument, which is actually a lot more powerful. So, to make up for this, it doesn't give you any
money, and it requires you to discard a copper, which means you're left with a 3-card hand to work from. Buy this if you
have an engine going, or if your deck is consistent enough to do well with 3-card hands. Or, try and build a deck around it,
not even attempting to get to provinces.

MISSIONARY ($4) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Choose one: gain a silver and put it in your hand OR Each opponent gains a copper.

Another card that gives you silvers. As Jack has proven, this can be very powerful. (And I even like Bureaucrat!) It doesn't
do anything other than give you a silver, but it doesn't use up an action either. And when you're done wanting silvers, you
can use it to give your opponent coppers instead. Or you could use it for that from the beginning, if you don't want
silvers.

BRAINSTORM ($4) ACTION
+1 Action. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put up to 2 actions among them into your hand, and discard the rest.

Works best in setups with trashing. Chapel away your starting cards and build a deck made up of tournaments, villages,
treasuries, attack cards, and this. Very powerful. But, if there's no trashing, then this may not be very consistent, and
will usually give you just 1 action and 1 card, maybe even no card. If there's no trashing, then you can still use +buys to
get lots of cheap cantrips. So this works in setups that work with conspirator, vineyard, ironworks, etc.

BLACKSMITH ($4) ACTION
Choose one: +3 Cards, or Trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
When you buy this, you only draw 3 cards in your clean-up phase this turn.

A chapel/smithy variant. Its a chapel that only trashes 3 cards, which is a small nerf, and then when you're done with it,
it becomes a smithy. Or, use it as a smithy right away if you've drawn it in a hand with no estates. Because its a
combination of two other cards with very little drawbacks, it has an on-buy effect that makes your next turn pretty weak
(especially if you're buying this in your first two turns) So it gives you a small setback right away, but then it becomes
very strong.

PIONEER ($4) ACTION
+1$, +2 Cards. When you buy this, set aside a Settlement from the Settlement pile. At the end of your clean-up phase, add it to your hand.

SETTLEMENT ($0) ACTION
+1 Action, +1 Card, +1$. Trash this.
This is not in the supply.

Sort of like a one-shot card. The card itself is alright. Not very strong, but not especially weak either. The card draw is
like a moat, and only 1$ isn't very strong. You might not want to buy a lot of these, unless you have spare actions.
However, the on-buy effect is quite strong. Your next turn starts you off with 6 cards and an extra $ to spend, so its like
having a treasury AND a lab played automatically. Use this to boost you up to getting a strong card, to make up for the fact that you bought a slightly-improved moat for 4$.



BARGAIN ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. When you gain buy this, gain any card costing up to 3$. For every unused action you have, the cost of the card gained can be increased by 1$.

A 5-cost silver inspired by border village. At the very least, it gets you a card costing 3$, which, in some set ups, can be
good. But the opportunity cost is a bit high, since you'd usually rather get a good 5$ card than what is essentially two 3$
cards. (A silver + whatever you gain) Have an action left over though, and you can get a 4$ card, which is now a bit better. And, if you're running a deck that somehow has 2 actions left over at the end of each turn, then you can get a 5$ with a free silver attached to it! Is it a good strategy to just stock up on villages, buying no other cards, and hope to consistently be able to get to 5$ with 3+ extra actions left? Maybe. But is all that worth it just to get extra silvers?
Might be better off to only go for this when lots of villages is already a viable strategy.

ASSASSIN ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each opponent with more than three cards in hand must discard a card at random.

Cantrip militia! Except, not really a militia. Giving your opponent a hand of 4 random cards is really more like the minion
attack. Play two and its really powerful. But if you're able to play two every turn, then that means you've used all your 5$
turns to buy these, so your deck might not be capable of producing much money. Plus, if you draw more than 2 of these in a turn, the extra ones are wasted, so you might not want to buy lots of them.

INVESTMENT ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. During your clean up phase, trash a card you have in play.

Its like loan! But its 5$ instead of 3$, and its a silver instead of a copper, and it trashes from play instead of from your
deck. But it basically has the same purpose: trash coppers. It just does it differently. This method of trashing coppers is
more consistent, since you'll usually draw it with a copper, and you don't have to hope it avoids your other treasures. It
can also trash cards other than coppers, so you never know, you might want to use it to get rid of a terminal action that
you no longer need. Only drawback is, it HAS to trash a card you have in play, so once you're out of coppers, you might not be able to play this without trashing another card. Don't worry though, it can trash itself, since it trashes any card you
have in play.

COLLECTOR ($5) ACTION
+1 Action. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 2 cards with the same name. Add both of them to your
hand. Discard the rest of the cards.

A hunting party/laboratory variant. Like with the earlier card that works with matching cards, this will just get your
coppers unless you build your deck around it. So, trash the coppers, and suddenly this becomes very powerful. If you only
buy multiple copies of one action, this could consistently draw them for you. But then you'd also need villages to play both
of them, unless they are cantrips. Use the effect properly, and it can be very strong. Go big money or get lots of silvers,
and this could consistently get your 4$. And, if not, well, the worst that'll happen usually is that it gets you +1 action
and 2 coppers, which is at least a silver.

SACRIFICE ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Discard a card from your hand. If it is a victory card, +1VP. If it is a treasure card, +3$. If it is an action
card, gain an action card that does not cost more than it. If it is a curse, each opponent gains a curse.

The most important things here are the victory card and action card effects. This can duplicate your action cards. Discard a 5$ action and get another copy of it. Potentially very powerful. But if you're discarding the action, that means you can't
play it and have to wait until your next shuffle, so make sure your deck isn't too slow to make use of the actions.
Alternatively, use this to get a free victory point every time you play it. After all, you'll usually have an estate to
discard. And, if you can't do either of those, then you can at least discard a copper to make this equivalent to a silver.
It also counters curses.

ILL-CONCEIVED DEAL ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. When you gain this, each opponent with more than 3 cards in their hand discards down to 3 cards.

A 5$ silver with a militia effect on-gain. Not especially useful in a setup without trashing, like miltia and margrave, but
if you think it could hurt your opponent's hand, then it could be a good buy. Like IGG, you can rush these and get your
opponent stuck at 3-card hands while you keep gaining silver. But that might not always be the best strategy.

EARTHQUAKE ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Discard your hand, +4 Cards. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards his hand and draws 4 cards. You may do this up to two times.

The attack part is the same as minion, but this card sacrifices the +2$ ability in order to give you more control over the
hand you get. Unlike minion, you can't really chain this, but it does give you a strong chance of getting a good hand. If
you have lots of actions you can play to get money, then this can let you play them and then redraw your hand, like minion. But its a lot less consistent, so you might not want to buy lots of these. It can also cycle through a total of 8 cards, so if you're trying to get to a specific card in your deck, use this.

ARISTOCRAT ($5) ACTION
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1$.
When you gain buy this, gain a second copy of it and place both of them on top of your deck.

An addition to the many +1card/+1action/+1$ cards out there. The most obvious comparisons to this are treasury and market and, well, lots of others. For 5$, this one has no special effect, but it makes up for it by giving you two of them when you buy it. A single treasury can come back a dozen times, which is stronger than if you had two of them that didn't come back, but these guys also go on top of your deck when you buy them, giving you a sort of stash-like effect of ensuring you have one turn with a 2$ bonus.

FOREST ($5) VICTORY-REACTION
Worth 3VP. When you gain this, place it on top of your deck.
When an opponent buys a victory card, you may discard this card from your hand to gain another Forest.

This is a duchy, but with the ability to gain more and more copies of itself. The downside is, it goes on your deck when you
buy it, meaning you only have 4 cards in your hand the next turn. But this card has the ability to get you lots of victory
points, depending on what your opponent does. And every time you get another one, it increases your chances of being able to get even more. The problem is, you want to buy these before your opponent starts greening, so you've gotta start greening pretty early for it to be worth it.



FUND ($6) ACTION-DURATION
+1 Action. Choose one: +2$. Next turn, +1$. OR Set this card aside. At the start of your next turn, return it to your hand.

This is a combination of gold and haven/courtyard/mandarin. With +1 action and a total of 3$, its basically a gold. But you
also have the option of putting it away until your next turn. You set it aside, so you draw it as a 6th card too! As we all
know, though, one good turn is better than two average ones, so the fact that this only gives 2$ compares to 3$ isn't
completely made up for by the extra $ the next turn. Buy this instead of gold when you need your deck to be more consistent, and when you think you might reach over 8$ with your hands.



NECROMANCY ($7) ACTION
+1 Action. Choose a card from your discard pile and place it in your hand.

This lets you retrieve any action from your discard pile and put it in your hand, and then use it right away. It can be very
powerful. But I guess thats why it costs 7$. It can also get golds, so it can function as a gold for 1$ more than can also
get actions if necessary. In colony games, it can get platinums, which is very strong. Like counting house and inn, this
doesn't do anything until you have cards in your discard pile, so you can draw it dead sometimes.

[biopower]

If you play a Beggar and the opponent picks the Curse pile, you've effectively wasted a $2 buy on a self-cursing action...

[theory]

OP said "Action card", and maybe we can assume he meant Kingdom card.  I'm not sure any other card explicitly references Kingdom cards, though, and so it's probably better if you just make it any card that costs $2 or more.

Overall, I thought this was a solid expansion without any glaring flaws.

[WrathOfGlod]

I think Hidden Village is way too strong for 3. In general self synergizing cards should be at 4+

[rspeer]

I feel like Pioneer and Settlement should be able to be combined into the same card. What about changing it to this:

Pioneer
+2 Cards
+$1
---------------
When you buy this card, put it in play. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +$1.
Type: Action - Duration

So it becomes a Duration card whose Duration effect only happens once, on buy. All the other times you play it, it will have its usual Action effect, and it will be cleaned up the same way a dead Tactician would be.

[LastFootnote]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to reply to each of these cards individually right now. However, I will say that these cards are better than most of the fan cards I've seen. However, I strongly urge you to read rinkworks's Dominion Fan Card Creation Guide.

Specifically, this part:

(14) Actions that are unnecessarily non-terminal.

The presence or absence of +Actions might be the single most defining characteristic of an Action card. Two versions of the same card, differing only in one having +1 Action and the other not, will likely play wildly different from one another. It's not the differing number of +Cards, for example, that distinguishes Smithy from Laboratory.

There is no firm rule concerning what kinds of Action cards should be terminal and which non-terminal. That decision is largely subjective. However, many fan cards include +1 Action when they might be more interesting without it. Make sure you consider the gameplay ramifications both ways. The right choice will be the one that makes the game's strategy more interesting, not necessarily the one that makes the card more appealing to purchase and use.

Sometimes the lack of +Actions is best. Consider how much less interesting Courtyard would be if it provided +1 Action (assuming its price was adjusted to compensate). The strategic feature of the official version of the card -- being able to save a dead Action card for the next turn -- would be destroyed.

On the other hand, sometimes you need +Actions to make the card work. A terminal version of Minion would be cute but weak; certainly not a card that a whole strategy could be built around.

Again, though, the distinction isn't always clear, and there isn't always one right answer. The important thing is just to consider the matter and make a thoughtful decision.

Out of the 26 Kingdom cards in your set here, only 3 of them are terminal Actions. I get the feeling from these cards that you really like engine decks. That's great. But many of these cards are too strong, and removing their +1 Action may be the easiest solution for some of them.

EDIT: Just for comparison's sake, here are all the official sets along with what proportion of their Action Kingdom cards are terminal.

Base: 17/24 or 71%
Intrigue: 11/23 or 48%
Seaside: 16/26 or 61%
Alchemy: 3/10 or 30%
Prosperity: 12/17 or 71%
Cornucopia: 6/11 or 55%
Hinterlands: 11/20 or 55%

Your set has 3 terminal Actions out of 22 total Kingdom Action cards for a rate of 14%. That's less than half of Alchemy, which has a huge portion of non-terminal cards just because of their unique cost requirement. In general, you should probably shoot toward the 50% mark.

[icesphere]

Interesting cards, nice work!

[Eistee]

I see no poblem with "Action Card", University uses that word as well.

Really nice cards!

[GendoIkari]

Cultists seems insane... I'm pretty sure not buying 2 with your first 2 turns would be almost always a huge mistake. Perhaps if it were at least terminal... even then though. Compare this to Sea Hag. Sea Hag provides no benefit at all to the person who plays it, and it costs $4. I don't think the free Celler is enough of a balance for that. I don't think you can compare it to IGG, because IGG can only give 1 curse for each "copper" you give yourself. Here, you purchase 2 "coppers", and if your opponent doesn't do the same, you give him 10 Curses for those 2 "coppers."

Also, I'm pretty sure Bargain HAS to be changed to "when you buy" instead of "when you gain."

Play Village -> Play Village -> Buy Bargain -> Gain Border Village -> Gain Bargain -> Gain Border Village -> Gain Bargain -> Gain Border Village -> Gain Bargain -> Gain Border Village -> Gain Bargain... you get the idea.

Same with Aristocrat. The current wording allows you to gain the entire pile for 1 buy.

[rinkworks]

This is a terrific set of cards, by and large.  A lot of them are interesting in really subtle ways.  However, I share the reservation that too many of them are non-terminal without really needing to be.  Sure, they make the cards more attractive to purchase and play, but in some cases the cards would be more interesting from a game design standpoint if they were terminal.

SHRINE ($2) ACTION
+1 Action. Trash a card from you hand. You may trash this immediately.
When you buy this card, you may trash a card from your hand.

This is probably one that's better as a non-terminal, though, although it's not hugely important.  I think it would be too weak as a terminal, and there are so few non-terminal trashers that it wouldn't hurt to have one here.  I like its immediacy and optional self-trashing.  Usually I'd rather have a Loan, I think, but that's why this is only $2.

ALCOVE ($2) ACTION
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard three cards from your hand to gain +3$.

Not a fan of this one, although it's probably balanced, and the +1 Card, +1 Action differentiate it from Secret Chamber and Horse Traders.  I think the problem is that it's almost certainly undesirable after the second shuffle, and in the meantime it doesn't offer a very great chance at hitting $5, which is really what you want out of it.  Duchess, considered one of the worst $2 cards, may offer a better chance of that.  Secret Chamber, meanwhile, is worse in the absence of a drawing combo, but it makes up for it (somewhat) by being very good when you've got that.

BEGGAR ($2) ACTION
+1 Action. The player to your left chooses an action card from the supply other than a Beggar. Gain a copy of it and place
it in your hand.

Really interesting.  I like the attempt at adding a new kind of interactive card.  My fear is that it won't work on very many boards, because after all -- how many boards don't have a kingdom card that will harm your deck with too many of them?  I mean, just because Pawn and Hamlet are on the table doesn't mean Coppersmith isn't.  But I hope the idea works better than I think, and/or can be made to work with a few tweaks.

CULTIST ($3) ACTION-ATTACK
+1$, +1 Action. Each opponent gains a curse. Each opponent may then discard any number of cards from their hand and draw until they have 5 cards in hand.

Too strong, as someone else mentioned.  This is one of those cards that really needs to be a terminal.  Non-terminal cursing is brutal.  The Cellar effect doesn't really mitigate it either (except maybe on turns 3-5 for the reasons you state), because it's not supplying the Cellar effect when the curses hurt, which is after they've been shuffled into the victim's deck and wind up in his hand.

As a terminal, maybe it's fine.

TUTOR ($3) ACTION
+1 Action. Until the end of your turn, every time you play an action, you may draw a card and then discard a card from your hand.

Pretty sweet idea.  I suspect it's a must-buy with any kind of action strategy and might need a price boost to $4 just because of how insane it would be when you want it at all.  Might even need to be $5, because in any kind of deck that would benefit from one of these, multiples (easy to accrue with multiple buys) basically guarantees a mega-turn.  I'd be curious to know how it tests.

Here, by the way, both the non-terminality AND the lack of draw are important for making it work.

HIDDEN VILLAGE ($3) ACTION
+2 Actions, +1$. If there are less than 4 cards in your hand, +2 cards.

Too strong in multiples.  Multiple Shanty Towns stop each other from working, which is why that card's +2 Cards bonus on a non-terminal isn't brokenly strong.  Here, however, they just feed on themselves.  It would be fine without the money, as then a pair of these would be no better than a pair of Villages, but they'd be situationally better than Villages if the right combos were present -- namely, some other card (preferrably non-terminal) that decreases hand size.

INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE ($3) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Choose one: Discard 5 cards from the top of your deck, or each opponent discards 5 cards from the top of their deck.
When you buy this, each opponent may discard a card from their hand, then draw until they have 5 cards.

Seems fine to me.  I like the idea of having that on-buy effect to get the cost down to $3.  Without it, a $4 cost is fine (look at how meager Walled Village's bonus is), but it's more interesting to break the Village-with-a-bonus pattern and do something different.   Some engines really work a lot better when the Village component is cheaper than $4, too, so it's nice to have another Village at the $3 cost tier.

ARMORY ($3) ACTION-DURATION
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard your hand and draw 5 cards. At the start of your next turn, you may discard your hand and draw 5 cards.

This is so so so so much better than Navigator, I think.  I'd take off the +1 Card and still bump up the cost to $4.

SPECIALIST ($4) ACTION
+1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one and put it in your hand. You may discard the other 2 cards, or
put them back in any order.

I regularly play with a Village variant that does this except it offers +2 Actions and requires that you discard the other 2 cards.  It's super powerful -- a very desirable $5 card.  Knocking off a +Action would weaken it, sure, but offering the choice of putting the cards back strengthens it again.  So what you have, as written, might very well be good enough for a $5 card.  If not, it might still be too strong for $4.   Keep an eye on this one when you test.


I'll comment on the other cards in a later post.

[dondon151]

I think the problem is that it's almost certainly undesirable after the second shuffle, and in the meantime it doesn't offer a very great chance at hitting $5, which is really what you want out of it.

Hold on, I don't quite follow. You play Alcove, and the +1 Card puts you at 5 cards in hand. Discarding 3 cards for $3 converts 3 cards in your hand to Coppers. Even in the "near-worst" case scenario of drawing all 3 Estates with Alcove, you're guaranteed $5. As far as the action component goes, it's almost strictly better than Horse Traders, since you're discarding the same number of net cards for the same amount of coin, but this one is non-terminal.

[AJD]

I think the problem is that it's almost certainly undesirable after the second shuffle, and in the meantime it doesn't offer a very great chance at hitting $5, which is really what you want out of it.

Hold on, I don't quite follow. You play Alcove, and the +1 Card puts you at 5 cards in hand. Discarding 3 cards for $3 converts 3 cards in your hand to Coppers. Even in the "near-worst" case scenario of drawing all 3 Estates with Alcove, you're guaranteed $5. As far as the action component goes, it's almost strictly better than Horse Traders, since you're discarding the same number of net cards for the same amount of coin, but this one is non-terminal.

What you're calling the near-worst–case scenario is actually the best-case scenario, isn't it? The worst-case scenario is that you'll draw Alcove with nothing but copper (or better), and then you'll have used a $3 buy on a card that may as well not have been in your deck.

[dondon151]

What you're calling the near-worst–case scenario is actually the best-case scenario, isn't it? The worst-case scenario is that you'll draw Alcove with nothing but copper (or better), and then you'll have used a $3 buy on a card that may as well not have been in your deck.

Hence the quotation marks. I intended for that to mean that even if you draw all of the useless cards in your deck at that point, you can still make $5 (as opposed to, like, I don't know - Oasis). But you are definitely correct.

Actually, I suppose Oasis is a fair comparison. Alcove is better than Oasis at getting to $5; it may be a liability when you have few Estates and Coppers in your hand, but if you're just discarding Coppers anyway, then it's generally better than Oasis. In big draw decks with the absence of Copper or Estate trashing, a single Alcove converts Estates to cash, whereas you'd need 3 Oases to do the same. You wouldn't want Oasis in very tight, trim decks anyway.

So, at least in my opinion, it's pretty much strictly better than Oasis, and almost as good as Horse Traders.

[FireChipmunks]

To address the lack of terminal actions, I'll say that this isn't really a "fan expansion" per se. I've designed a lot more cards than this, but there are a lot of other ones that I still had problems with and hadn't finalized. I decided to narrow it down to the 25 I was most happy with, and I posted those. They all turned out to be non-terminal, which I didn't even notice until it was pointed out. I've created terminal cards too, but somehow I left all of those out because I wasn't content with them. That said, I feel most of these cards only work as non-terminals. A lot of them are variations of current terminal actions, designed to be different in that they are non-terminal, or they are variations of cards that are already non-terminal. I'll see which ones I can change. (The 3$ curse-giver, for sure, doesn't need to be terminal) Anyway, this isn't so much an expansion as it is just 25 cards I've made. Feel free to criticize a card for being non-terminal when it doesn't need to be, but I don't mind if a large percent of them are non-terminal, since these cards aren't really organized in a way that I feel a true expansion would be.

@rspeer:
It's true that the Settlement card is a bit unnecessary, and that would be a good way to cut it down to one card. It does change a few things, though, since it delays the Pioneer going into your deck by one turn. And it would also prevent you from throning or courting it. Still, it's a good idea. I'll probably change it unless I can find another way to justify the extra card. (Perhaps the Settlement should have a "cost" of 7, so that it can be trashed for benefit...?)

@GendoIkari:
You are definitely right about the wording on Bargain. It needs to be only on buy. Aristocrat too! I need to be more careful about those in the future. On the subject of Cultist, you could definitely be right. My intention is that allowing your opponent to cellar two turns in a row (if you open with two of these) would let him easily get to 5$ multiple times, while you've gotten copper equivalents, and that could put you behind if he gets good 5$. And if the setup has a good way to deal with curses, he could use the 5$s he got from your cellaring him to catch up and win anyway. But I have no way to know if it would turn out that way, and you're probably right. I'm fine with removing the +1 action here, and then, if necessary, having your opponent discard and draw up to 6.

@rinkworks:
I'll start by saying that I, sadly, have no one to play Dominion with IRL. So I can't playtest any of these at the moment. I have to rely entirely on my own assumptions, which does make certain cards hard to judge. I make cards just for the fun of it, and as an exercise in creativity, but I can't actually do anything with them...

So, let's talk more about the cards you commented on so far:

Shrine - Yeah, the whole point is that its a non-terminal trasher, so that one has to stay. I'm really curious with this one about the effect of trashing an estate immediately. You'd start your next shuffle with 2 estates, 7 coppers, this, and a silver/4-5 cost action. I feel that seems like only a small improvement, but the lack of 1 estate could boost one of your hands from 4$ to 5%, and it gives you a slightly higher chance of your first two buys being in your next 10 cards, and not part of your third shuffle only. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

Alcove - Now that I think about it, I have to agree with dondon151 that this might actually be stronger than I thought, when compared to Horse Traders. Horse Traders gets you down to a 2 card hand, and gets you 3$. And so does Alcove. It draws a card, which horse traders doesn't, and then you discard 3, making it equal to a discard of 2. So, what's the difference? Well, when you have a horse traders, the horse traders itself is the third card you use up, so you only need two estates/coppers/curses to get a benefit from it. With Alcove, your new hand of 5 still needs to have at least 3 estates/coppers/curses. For example, lets look at a hand of Horse Traders, silver, silver, copper, estate, with a market on top of your deck. Play the horse traders and you get 3$ for discarding your estate and copper, giving you a total bonus of 2$. Now, assume the hand is alcove, 2 silvers, copper, esate. You play the alcove and your hand is now 2 silvers, copper, estate, market. There is no combination of 3 cards you can discard that would benefit you. Discard copper/estate/silver and you haven't gotten any more money. Discard estate/copper/market and you've lost its card draw and buy just for a potential 1$ more. But now, look at a hand with 2 estates, 2 coppers, and horse traders/alcove. In that hand, the alcove is superior since you can discard 2 estates and a copper for a total bonus of 2$, and it replenishes itself. Still, it doesn't have the +buy (or the reaction) So...is alcove BETTER than horse traders? Its hard to say. Alcove can be stronger, but it needs you to have 3/5 discardable cards in your hand, whereas horse traders needs you to have 2/4. Also, horse traders isn't exactly a super powerful 4$ card (imo), its a situational card, so I wouldn't really have a problem with a cheaper card being almost as good as it. And its funny that I say all that about how good it can be when you are saying it seems weak. I can see both arguments. It CAN be strong, since its like a cantrip horse traders but cheaper, but I don't think "its strong because its as good as horse traders" makes sense when horse traders is not really that strong. And you're right that after the first few shuffles, it loses a lot of strength, since you won't be drawing it with your estates as often. Really, I see it a lot like oasis in that way. Well, it needs testing...but I can't test it, all I can do is talk about it! (Non-terminal is necessary since the whole point is that its a cantrip.)

Beggar - You know, I hadn't really thought about looking at 4$ cards. Its true that most setups won't have every 2-4$ card be a cantrip, there'll usually be one that is a terminal. In fact, even if your setup had only 5$ cards, you could still end up with counting houses or explorers or etc. Here's an idea: Add a line to the card text, saying "During your clean-up phase, you may trash any card you have in play" That way, if you're given too many terminal actions, you can trash them instead of keeping them. That seems to make the card a lot stronger, but, its actually really weak as it is, so making it a lot stronger might not be a bad thing. That wording would also allow it to trash coppers, so maybe make it just "you may trash any action card you have in play" Still, I think adding a trashing ability like that is the way to go. (Non-terminal is necessary because you need it to play the new action you get. But since you're gaining an action and then playing it, and your opponent will usually give you a terminal, this card isn't really a non-terminal, if you look at it that way.)

Cultist - Yeah...like I said earlier, remove the +1 action and/or make your opponent draw up to 6.

Tutor - Yeah, this one isn't really working at the moment I'd say. My problem with costing it is that in a setup with good action chains, this would be really powerful, but in any other setup, it would be perfectly fine as a 2-cost. So its hard to justify any cost when its true value can vary so much. I guess, you need to look at it like this: If you have this and one other action, then it reads "+1 action, +1 card, discard a card" and its a horribly weak cellar. If you have this and two other actions, it reads "+1 action, +2 cards, discard 2 cards", which makes it like a non-village inn. If you have this and three other actions, it reads "+1 action, +3 cards, discard 3 cards". its a warehouse now. So, in order for it to be EQUAL to a warehouse (which costs 3$), you'd need to have 3 other actions in your hand when you play it. And not just 3 other actions, 3 non-terminal actions, or one village and 3 actions. And even then, its just a warehouse. So you need 4 actions total for this to become worth more than 3$. Of course, for every action you have, that makes it easier to get more actions once you've played this, so its not so much "you need 4 chainable actions in hand for this to be better than warehouse", its "you need 4 chainable actions in your hand or in the top few cards of your deck to make this better than warehouse", which is a bit easier to achieve. But, in a lot of setups, thats still not an easy task, especially when you're also buying tutors. This card's opportunity cost is higher than its actual cost, since getting a few of these means getting less actions, which means this isn't as good. Something to keep in mind, for sure. So, to summarize...without 4 chainable actions, this is strictly worse than warehouse. But, in a setup with easy action chains, this could become very overpowered. A cost of 4 might help, but then it becomes completely useless in setups without action chains. Anyway, when I think about the opportunity cost, buying these means buying less actions you need for it, I feel better about the 3$ cost. Another option I was thinking of is to up it to 5$ and give it +1card. That could work, but I haven't really thought about what issues that would have. (Non-terminal is, again, necessary.)

Hidden Village - Its true that these do synergize with each other, but only in multiples of 2. Draw 2 of them, play the first one, it gives +2 actions and +1$, you're down to 4 cards, and now the second one draws you back up to 5 and you have +3 actions and +2$. If you had had normal villages, you'd be at 5 cards with just the 3 actions. So, you're rewarded for having 2 of these together by being given an extra 2$. If you draw a 3rd at that point, it would take you down to 4 cards for another $, and chances are you don't even needs its action, so having that third one wouldn't be very helpful at all. Basically, you need these in multiples of two. The most important thing to prevent this from being too powerful (in my opinion) is that drawing 2 cards puts you back up to 5, and so you can't use another one right after that. I think its similar to shanty town in that way, actually. 2 shanty towns together means 1 of them doesn't work...but 1 in your hand and 1 on top of your deck still means they both work. So shanty towns can still work together pretty well. And these can too, but only if you draw exactly 2 or 4. Drawing 2 together could happen relatively easily...drawing 4...not so much. You'd need to have 4 of them in the top 7 cards of your deck in order to get a 4-chain of them going, and that is very unlikely. And if you try to draw more of them with other drawing cards, then that just means you can't get their effect. I understand why you'd think its too powerful in multiples, but I'm not really sure I agree. Do you see what I'm saying? I think the combo with itself is good, but not good enough to make you buy these without other cards that reduce handsize...I dunno, though. (Non-terminal necessary since this is a village)

Industrial Village - Yeah, this one seems good to me! And it needs to be non-terminal because its a village!

Armory - Um, you might be right. In a way, I sort of saw this card as being similar to chapel, in that (as donald x has said) chapel completely changes every game its in by turning that game into a game where decks start off without all the junk and can build from there. Similarly, I see this as a card that completely changes the game by minimizing draw luck and therefore promoting strategies that incorporate more uneven hands, since you can reduce the luck with them. And since its a 3$ cantrip, both players have easy access to it and don't have to worry about buying it. Of course, by that logic, I should make it 2$ so that it has chapel's accessibility...but that seems odd, so I don't know about it. It's true that this is very strong, but I see it as more "this is a really good card that both players should buy, but other than that, they can pursue whichever strategy they want" like with chapel and less as "this is really good, so every player will have to focus their strategy around buying it" like mountebank or goons are. I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just sort of saying that I don't feel "too strong" is always a bad thing. Anyway, if we don't look at it that way, I see this as being a good way to change it: While its true that the +1 card could be removed, if you removed the +1 card, that would mean you'd always have a hand of 4 after playing it, and would have to choose to get a hand of 5. That seems a bit off to me, since you'd very often want to discard an average hand of 4 to get an average hand of 5. So, I'd say, keep the +1 action/+1 card, and make the card draw only 4 cards when you use its ability. And with that, I really don't think I'd want to bump it up to 4...I think its fine at 3 that way. And, honestly, I think its fine at 3 without a nerf, if you don't look at "overpowered" as being the same thing as "bad for the game". (as strange as that is to say) Anyway, this one also needs to be non-terminal or else it would be useless.

Specialist - Well, let's look at it this way: (This is how I looked at it when I was designing it) I thought, ok, its too strong as it is, giving you the choice from 3 cards, and then you can discard them! So I changed it and made it say you can only look at the top 2 cards of your deck. So you draw a card and then you can discard one. And I realized that was very similar to spy, but it trades the attack for a bit more choice with your 2 cards. Therefore, that version of it is relatively equal to a spy...And I realize now as I type this that I'm saying that version is equal to another 4$ card, which seems like I'd be saying that that is a good thing...only I really don't think spy is a good card for 4$, so I guess that's why I wanted to make sure it was "better" than spy. So...let's see...do I think removing one card option would make the card balanced? No, not really, I think it would be too weak. Do I agree that its a bit too strong as it is? Well...yes. But I don't think its a 5-cost. (Of course, I could be wrong) My idea right now would be...well, I have a few. A) Force discarding the other 2 cards. Too weak now? B) Force discarding 1 of the other 2 cards. Could make the card stronger in certain cases, but worse in others. Might be enough variance to justify the 4-cost. C) Change it to "Look at the top 4 cards, draw 1, discard the rest", therefore giving you more options, but less control over your next turn. D) Something else. Anyway, this has to be non-terminal since the point is its a cantrip with a choice of which card you draw.

So...that's all I've got. I agree with a lot of your comments, but I also feel the need to defend some of my decisions, and also to let you know what I was thinking, since, just like you can see the flaws of some cards that I can't, I might see attributes to some of them that you're missing. I'd love to discuss more, but I realize after typing all that that I doubt anyone else could possibly care about talking about fan-made cards as much as I do, hah. Anyway, if you have the time, I'd love to figure out some solutions to the problems you've pointed, and to see what you think of the rest of them.

[ftl]

I think you're vastly mis-estimating armory if you think that it's ability to 'even out shuffle luck' is its defining characteristic, with it's current $3 price and ability to draw to 5.

As you wrote it, armory draws you 5 cards in hand when before you had zero. This enables an engine based on cards that disappear from your hand - Fishing Village, Festival, Minion, etc. The relevant comparisons there are Library and Watchtower. It might look like it's worse than Library or Watchtower for this, but it's not! It only draws up to 5, but you get to discard your current hand before doing so, so your engine doesn't terminate when you accumulate your treasures and green in-hand. It's nonterminal unlike Library, so it's actually somewhat like choosing the 'Cards' option on Minion; it gives you one more card, but isn't an attack. So it also has a relevant comparison to Minion, as well as Library and Watchtower. And it has even more bonuses. An Armory engine is like a Minion engine, which has the option of discarding and drawing new hands at the start of every turn!

In my opinion, this is not a powerful card that lets you pursue any strategy you want after it. It's a powerful card which, in particular, fits into a specific type of engine. I think in that case, it would have to be priced at $5, like Library and Minion.

I suspect that what you might want is to make it '+1 card, +1 action. Now and at the start of your next turn: You may discard your hand and draw the same number of cards you just discarded.' That immediately prevents it from being used for card draw, and puts the focus back on manipulating whether you want this hand or a new one, which is what you wanted the card to be about, as I understand.

[FireChipmunks]

Oops. Well, I feel quite embarrassed now. Yeah. I didn't even think of that. The way I intended the card to be is definitely "draw as many cards as you discarded", I thought drawing up to 5 would be simpler wording for that, so I just changed it, and didn't even think of what that would do.

[rinkworks]

I think the problem is that it's almost certainly undesirable after the second shuffle, and in the meantime it doesn't offer a very great chance at hitting $5, which is really what you want out of it.

Hold on, I don't quite follow. You play Alcove, and the +1 Card puts you at 5 cards in hand. Discarding 3 cards for $3 converts 3 cards in your hand to Coppers. Even in the "near-worst" case scenario of drawing all 3 Estates with Alcove, you're guaranteed $5. As far as the action component goes, it's almost strictly better than Horse Traders, since you're discarding the same number of net cards for the same amount of coin, but this one is non-terminal.

Yup, I thought that card through wrong in my head.  It is indeed probably stronger than Horse Traders.

Do I agree that its a bit too strong as it is? Well...yes. But I don't think its a 5-cost. (Of course, I could be wrong) My idea right now would be...well, I have a few. A) Force discarding the other 2 cards. Too weak now? B) Force discarding 1 of the other 2 cards. Could make the card stronger in certain cases, but worse in others. Might be enough variance to justify the 4-cost. C) Change it to "Look at the top 4 cards, draw 1, discard the rest", therefore giving you more options, but less control over your next turn. D) Something else. Anyway, this has to be non-terminal since the point is its a cantrip with a choice of which card you draw.

(A) looks like the best choice to me, based on how my village version plays.  It's actually not that huge a nerf, because power cards are usually less common than weak cards, and if they ARE common enough that you're likely to get 2+ in a single set of 3, then likely you have a high density throughout your deck, in which case cycling isn't a big deal anyway.  But I don't think you need a huge nerf here, just a little one.  Also, withholding the choice of discarding or putting back differentiates it a little more from Cartographer.  (B) seems too nitpicky without substantially altering the card.  (C) is amazing, sort of an Embassy-lite, but all the stronger for being non-terminal.

[Epoch]

Yeah, I think that Alcove is probably "too strong" for a $2.  Of course, "too strong" for a $2 isn't necessarily THAT strong, but:

1.  It's a very good defense against cursing attacks, Ambassadors, Swindlers, or other cards that might give you cards of no value in your deck.

2.  It would synergize very well with Grand Market.

3.  Most importantly, it gets you an almost-completely-reliable $5 (only way it doesn't is if you have more than three "junk cards" worth less than a Copper in your hand -- and at that point, it's hard to complain that you're having a "bad" turn if you get a $3 or $4 buy out of it.

It probably shouldn't be a Cantrip.  +1 Card but not +1 Action?  Or you're forced to discard 3 cards even if you don't want to?  (But even in that case, it's only bad if you do not have 3 junk cards or Coppers in your hand).

[GendoIkari]

Question about the wording on Alcove... it sounds like if you only have 2 cards in hand, you can't discard both and get +3$. The normal way to phrase this would be:

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard three cards from your hand. If you do, +3$.

Or, if you want to make it slightly stronger (I doubt it!)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+3$
Discard three cards from your hand.

Actually, I think the latter version would be insanely powerful at the start, but slightly weaker later in the game, because you might have situations where you would rather NOT take the $3 and discard 3 cards.

[LastFootnote]

Armory - Um, you might be right. In a way, I sort of saw this card as being similar to chapel, in that (as donald x has said) chapel completely changes every game its in by turning that game into a game where decks start off without all the junk and can build from there. Similarly, I see this as a card that completely changes the game by minimizing draw luck and therefore promoting strategies that incorporate more uneven hands, since you can reduce the luck with them. And since its a 3$ cantrip, both players have easy access to it and don't have to worry about buying it. Of course, by that logic, I should make it 2$ so that it has chapel's accessibility...but that seems odd, so I don't know about it. It's true that this is very strong, but I see it as more "this is a really good card that both players should buy, but other than that, they can pursue whichever strategy they want" like with chapel and less as "this is really good, so every player will have to focus their strategy around buying it" like mountebank or goons are. I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just sort of saying that I don't feel "too strong" is always a bad thing. Anyway, if we don't look at it that way, I see this as being a good way to change it: While its true that the +1 card could be removed, if you removed the +1 card, that would mean you'd always have a hand of 4 after playing it, and would have to choose to get a hand of 5. That seems a bit off to me, since you'd very often want to discard an average hand of 4 to get an average hand of 5. So, I'd say, keep the +1 action/+1 card, and make the card draw only 4 cards when you use its ability. And with that, I really don't think I'd want to bump it up to 4...I think its fine at 3 that way. And, honestly, I think its fine at 3 without a nerf, if you don't look at "overpowered" as being the same thing as "bad for the game". (as strange as that is to say) Anyway, this one also needs to be non-terminal or else it would be useless.

A major reason that Chapel is a workable game-changing power card at $2 is that you never want to have more than one of them in your deck. There isn't a race for Chapels because every player who wants one can buy one and then the rest of the stack goes untouched for the rest of the game. A cheap power card that's easily spammable will result in a rush to buy as many as possible at the start of every game, which A) is boring, and B) will result in an uneven distribution of said card in games with 3 or 4 players. Is Armory such a power card? I posit that it is.

First, it defends very well against almost every kind of attack. You've said yourself that it's effective against Curses by minimizing shuffle luck. If your opponent leaves a bad card on top of your deck, then play an Armory, draw the dead card, and discard your hand for a new one. Finally, if you played an Armory on your previous turn, you have the option of discarding your hand to draw a new hand of 5 cards, foiling any discard attacks that were used against you.

More importantly, it helps you play your powerful terminal Actions much, much more often. It's probably better than Scheme in this respect. If you discard your initial hand with Cellar, you get to cycle through 4 cards and play your power Action if you find it. If you do the same thing with Armory, you get to cycle through 11 cards over two turns (first you get the +1 card, and can opt not to discard if it's your power Action, then you have the option of drawing 5 cards, then next turn you can draw 5 more).

Also, multiple Armories stack. If you played Armory 3 times on your last turn, you get to cycle through 4 hands, looking for a good one.

If I were you, I'd get rid of the Duration effect entirely. It's powerful enough for a $3 card for just what it does on your current turn.

[rinkworks]

Feedback on the remainder of the cards:

DUPLICATE ($4) ACTION
+1 Action, + 1 Card. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it has the same name as a card in your hand, add it to your hand.
Otherwise, discard it.

I don't know if I like the strategies this card fosters, but it's probably not worse than what Hunting Party already fosters, which is, paradoxically, also a variety-free deck.  But I don't know that I can envision ahead of time how this card would be best used, so it's tough to offer feedback on.  I do think there is space for some kind of Wishing Well-esque card that can hit more often, though.

Maybe I'd prefer a version that only let you take the card if you DIDN'T have a copy already in your hand.  Because although that might sound an awful lot like a Hunting Party that doesn't let you keep trying, I think the strategy it would promote would be the exact opposite:  actually preferring a diverse deck.

BANKER ($4) ACTION
Discard a copper from your hand. +2VP.

I don't like this one.  +2 VP in tokens is actually rather huge, and since it doesn't consume any limited resources (cards) or any incentive to do so (money), it becomes vulnerable to never-ending-game situations.  If both players manage to trim down to some critical density of Bankers, optimal play is probably never to buy another card again.  First player to try to end the game by running out cheap piles loses, because the other player will be able to play more Bankers while he's doing it.

MISSIONARY ($4) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Choose one: gain a silver and put it in your hand OR Each opponent gains a copper.

I think there is some anti-synergy here.  If Big Money is the optimal strategy, gaining a Silver helps you and giving out Coppers doesn't hurt that much.  So you use this as a Silver-gainer and probably nothing else.  If some sort of engine is the optimal strategy, then the presence of this card probably MAKES Big Money the optimal strategy, because your buying this likely makes Big Money better for your opponent, which in turn makes Big Money better for you, since those Coppers aren't hurting like you wanted them to.  Then your opponent buys one, because, hey, it's probably a good X for BM+X, and that seals the deal all around the table.

BRAINSTORM ($4) ACTION
+1 Action. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put up to 2 actions among them into your hand, and discard the rest.

Sort of a mini-Scrying Pool, or maybe a Scout for actions.  In the right deck, this is a monster, but if you can't reliably pick up 2 action cards a lot of the time, it's not worth having.  I'm not sure that this is the right balance for this idea, but I'm all for cards that promote action-based strategies, and this seems different enough from its kindred to be worth having.

BLACKSMITH ($4) ACTION
Choose one: +3 Cards, or Trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
When you buy this, you only draw 3 cards in your clean-up phase this turn.

Probably balanced, I guess?  It's tough to envision how the effectively the one-time penalty counterbalances the longer term benefit of having a great card for $4.  Compare with Cache and Embassy:  Cache's penalty Coppers stick around in your deck, and Embassy's Silvers linger in your opponent's deck.  In other words, the penalty (at least by default) lingers until the end of the game.

Of course, the one-time penalty here has a more subtle lingering effect:  if you're not buying a better card next turn, that will have a rippling effect on the rest of your game, too.  But it's a subtle thing, not always effective, and easier to account for and maneuver around.

I'm not saying this card won't or can't work, just that I'd want to test this pretty thoroughly before saying for sure.

PIONEER ($4) ACTION
+1$, +2 Cards. When you buy this, set aside a Settlement from the Settlement pile. At the end of your clean-up phase, add it to your hand.

SETTLEMENT ($0) ACTION
+1 Action, +1 Card, +1$. Trash this.
This is not in the supply.

+2 Cards, +$1 is by itself roughly equivalent in power to a Smithy (and better, in fact, as an opener).  So the free Lab+Peddler on the following turn really puts it over the top in a big way, despite that that part is a one-time benefit.   That part is also going to be particularly strong as an opener.  I really think this is unambiguously a $5 card.

BARGAIN ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. When you gain buy this, gain any card costing up to 3$. For every unused action you have, the cost of the card gained can be increased by 1$.

Tricky.  This is another one that's hard for me to think through.  The "unused action" part is what makes it interesting.  Probably if it's balanced, the card is only rarely worth buying unless you can make use of that clause.  But as-is, I wonder if a Bargain rush strategy, picking up Silvers when you buy them, is already competitively fast for Province games.

ASSASSIN ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each opponent with more than three cards in hand must discard a card at random.

This card probably needs more specific instructions on how to choose a card "at random."  I think this is also one of those cards that really needs to be a terminal, too.  An attack like this, even though it can't stack more than twice, is just too brutal to be a cantrip "freebie" at a conventional cost tier.  I'd hate to see my opponents picking these up not because they actually want them but because, hey, dunno what to do with this buy...might as well pick up a card that can't hurt.

INVESTMENT ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. During your clean up phase, trash a card you have in play.

That's pretty cool in a subtle way.  The ability to self-destruct when it outlives its usefulness seals the deal.

COLLECTOR ($5) ACTION
+1 Action. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 2 cards with the same name. Add both of them to your
hand. Discard the rest of the cards.

I like this one, too.  Sounds fun.  You really want trashing to make ideal use of it.  Preferably a lack of cursing, too, or you're liable to pull in two Curses while the better cards miss the shuffle.  But the situationality makes the card.

SACRIFICE ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Discard a card from your hand. If it is a victory card, +1VP. If it is a treasure card, +3$. If it is an action
card, gain an action card that does not cost more than it. If it is a curse, each opponent gains a curse.

I have a feeling this is a trap card.  None of those options feel like good ones.  Skipping the play of an expensive action card just to get another one for the next shuffle feels like a bad idea most of the time, unless you have colliding terminals (which probably hurt you on average, so not a good thing to shoot for on purpose) or something with an inflated cost like Peddler or Border Village (which would likely be difficult to collide with this).  The treasure option turns Sacrifice into an expensive Silver or worse.  The curse option doesn't do anything to help you but probably won't be used anyway, since dishing out curses when Sacrifice is on the board is probably a mistake.  That leaves the VP option, which I'm not very sure about.  Lots of times it'll be worse than Monument, as it will often leave you with only a 3-card hand to play out the rest of your turn, decreasing the chance that Sacrifice's non-terminality will be useful.

I guess my hang-up is that I don't see a lot of synergy between the different choices here.  That doesn't make the card broken, but "What purpose should I buy this for?" is a question I'm not sure I know how to answer.  Contrast with some of the other multi-option cards, like Steward and Governor.  The different choices self-synergize.

Tribute is a good counterexample, and Sacrifice improves upon Tribute's swinginess because you get to choose which card you discard.  But like I say, none of those choices (except maybe situationally the victory card one) are effects you'd want to build a strategy around.

ILL-CONCEIVED DEAL ($5) TREASURE
Worth 2$. When you gain this, each opponent with more than 3 cards in their hand discards down to 3 cards.

This is cool.  I'd love to see some benchmarks on an ICD rush.

EARTHQUAKE ($5) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Discard your hand, +4 Cards. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards his hand and draws 4 cards. You may do this up to two times.

Not a fan.  With Minion on the table, I'd never want this.  Sometimes you won't want to replace your hand.  When you do, the ability to get +$2 instead might have changed your mind.  When you still do, it's only a 50-50 shot that you'd want to replace the replacement.

In the absence of Minion, this would still be a good buy when there are a lot of money-earning non-terminals, like Festival, Bazaar, and so forth, because then you can play part of your initial hand, then cycle and continue playing.  But I just don't see this being different enough from Minion to be worth having.

ARISTOCRAT ($5) ACTION
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1$.
When you gain buy this, gain a second copy of it and place both of them on top of your deck.

I like that.  Very nice Peddler-with-a-bonus.  The pile sure is going to disappear fast.

FOREST ($5) VICTORY-REACTION
Worth 3VP. When you gain this, place it on top of your deck.
When an opponent buys a victory card, you may discard this card from your hand to gain another Forest.

Here's another card that will deplete fast.  I'm not sure I can envision how this will play, except that buying Forests is likely an incentive for your opponent to do the same.  If a Forest rush -- aiming for multiple Forests in hand when your opponent buys another one -- would be self-defeating, leaving you with so much green you can't do anything else -- then that's ideal from a game design perspective, as now the Forest player will have to be judicious about how deep he goes into them.

FUND ($6) ACTION-DURATION
+1 Action. Choose one: +2$. Next turn, +1$. OR Set this card aside. At the start of your next turn, return it to your hand.

I really like the self-Haven mechanic.  It's partly "save this until I can make best use of it" and part "play with a 4-card hand now for a 6-card hand later."   The fact that's optional is all the more interesting.  But I think the primary piece isn't that exciting.  It's basically just a Lighthouse/Merchant Ship cross, so it doesn't cover any new ground, and yet isn't pleasingly simple enough that that doesn't matter.

In a way, the self-Haven piece and the next turn effect anti-synergize in two different ways:  One, this card can be set aside between turns in two different ways, adding a small snag to the bookkeeping; two, the importance of the choice of whether to use it now or postpone using it is muted somewhat by the fact that whether you play it now or later, one way or other you're still going to get some extra money next turn.

I'd rather not see a next turn effect there.  Maybe it should be a Woodcutter bonus you can take whenever you want to, or maybe just a flat Silver.   The cost would be reduced appropriately, of course, but to me that's more interesting than strategically timing the use of a more complicated effect.

Now that I think about it, the Woodcutter option sounds pretty good to me:  a $5 card reading "+1 Action.  Choose one: +1 Buy, +$2; or, set this card aside and return it to your hand at the start of your next turn."  The reason I like this version is that of all the vanilla bonuses, +Buy is the one that can be extremely useful some turns while utterly useless on others.  I'd probably prefer to make the +1 Action only apply when you set it aside, too, as that will add further significance to the decision of when to pull the trigger.

NECROMANCY ($7) ACTION
+1 Action. Choose a card from your discard pile and place it in your hand.

Here's another card which I greatly prefer as a terminal.  I've actually tested the terminal version of this card (initially at a cost of $5, then at $4) and like it.  Without an extra action, you can always grab a treasure card, but you can combo it with Villages to enable you to pull and play actions.  But to give you the extra action for free just seems too easy.  It's not broken, but I'd really recommend dropping the +Action.

Even as a non-terminal, however, I think this is overpriced.  Yes, in the best case you're pulling Platinums and linking your Tournaments up to Provinces and so on.  But lots of times this is a dead card, because you drew it at the top of the shuffle.  Other times you won't have anything good to choose.  And when you do, how often will it significantly improve upon a Gold (or whatever other key card), which you could have bought instead?  It can't even equal a Gold unless you previously bought a Gold to enable it, so that's a weakness too.

Compare with Scheme, another card that lets you strategically replay key cards within a shuffle.  Necromancy is better in some ways (worse in others), but not $3 vs. $7 better.  I really think this needs to be cheaper than the usual cards you'd pull with this, to offset the risk that they won't be in the discard pile when you play it.

-

Anyway, great work.  Although it's unfortunate you don't have anybody local to playtest these cards with, you can still try them out in solitaire games, if you want.  That won't work out as well for the attack cards, but a simple solitaire game can still be really helpful to give you a feel for how the cards will play in practice.

[dondon151]

ILL-CONCEIVED DEAL ($5) TREASURE

This is cool.  I'd love to see some benchmarks on an ICD rush.

I can't imagine an ICD rush being a good idea. Even if one player is continuously pinning the other player down to 3 card hands every turn by buying ICDs, it's still very easy for the other player to buy Silvers with 3 card hands, and ICD is essentially a Silver.

I feel like ICD is probably best when one can buy it with an extra buy, but it costs too much to be easily buyable like that.

[GendoIkari]

Another wording thing I just noticed...

BANKER ($4) ACTION
Discard a copper from your hand. +2VP.

As written, if you have a hand with no Copper, your Banker play still gives you +2VP. Is that what you wanted?

[AJD]

MISSIONARY ($4) ACTION-ATTACK
+1 Action. Choose one: gain a silver and put it in your hand OR Each opponent gains a copper.

I think there is some anti-synergy here.  If Big Money is the optimal strategy, gaining a Silver helps you and giving out Coppers doesn't hurt that much.  So you use this as a Silver-gainer and probably nothing else.  If some sort of engine is the optimal strategy, then the presence of this card probably MAKES Big Money the optimal strategy, because your buying this likely makes Big Money better for your opponent, which in turn makes Big Money better for you, since those Coppers aren't hurting like you wanted them to.  Then your opponent buys one, because, hey, it's probably a good X for BM+X, and that seals the deal all around the table.

It's also worth noting that, as described, $4 seems too cheap for this. It's not strictly better than Explorer, since Explorer gives you a chance of gaining Gold; but Explorer gives you Gold infrequently enough that a card that's essentially a non-terminal Explorer in most situations should probably be at or above the $5 tier as well.

[FireChipmunks]

A major reason that Chapel is a workable game-changing power card at $2 is that you never want to have more than one of them in your deck. There isn't a race for Chapels because every player who wants one can buy one and then the rest of the stack goes untouched for the rest of the game. A cheap power card that's easily spammable will result in a rush to buy as many as possible at the start of every game, which A) is boring, and B) will result in an uneven distribution of said card in games with 3 or 4 players. Is Armory such a power card? I posit that it is.

First, it defends very well against almost every kind of attack. You've said yourself that it's effective against Curses by minimizing shuffle luck. If your opponent leaves a bad card on top of your deck, then play an Armory, draw the dead card, and discard your hand for a new one. Finally, if you played an Armory on your previous turn, you have the option of discarding your hand to draw a new hand of 5 cards, foiling any discard attacks that were used against you.

More importantly, it helps you play your powerful terminal Actions much, much more often. It's probably better than Scheme in this respect. If you discard your initial hand with Cellar, you get to cycle through 4 cards and play your power Action if you find it. If you do the same thing with Armory, you get to cycle through 11 cards over two turns (first you get the +1 card, and can opt not to discard if it's your power Action, then you have the option of drawing 5 cards, then next turn you can draw 5 more).

Also, multiple Armories stack. If you played Armory 3 times on your last turn, you get to cycle through 4 hands, looking for a good one.

If I were you, I'd get rid of the Duration effect entirely. It's powerful enough for a $3 card for just what it does on your current turn.

All of this is true, but none of it is actually what I intended when I came up with the card. The cycling is something I never really thought of. To get what I intended from it, I would have to reword it to something like "Shuffle your hand back into your deck, and draw as many cards as you shuffled back in." That way, it doesn't help you cycle, and it doesn't help you look for specific actions. The next-turn effect should be the same thing, as the purpose of the card is not to defend against discard attacks.

And, the stacking was also not something I thought of. Its true that you could stack them to keep trying for multiple hands. I don't really think that should be possible. I can't really think of a wording at the moment that would prevent that, but I'll see if I can (since I don't want to scrap the idea). That would also prevent it from being a card that people rush to get as many copies as possible of, since drawing multiples in a turn wouldn't help, and it being a duration means you already don't need that many for it to cover more of your turns than a normal action card.

Anyway, as it is now (discard your hand and draw 5 more, cantrip), it could work as a 3$ with no duration...maybe. If you only draw as many as you discard, then its a cellar that draws a card but forces you to discard your entire hand all the time, and I don't think that's worthy of 3$. If you shuffle the cards back into your deck instead of discarding them, and then draw as many as you shuffled...and if the card says "You can only play one copy of this card per turn" or something like that, I think that's still fine as a duration. But I'm not really sure at all. 

I'll reply to rinkworks later!

edit:
Also, as I think about it right now...how about:

Ill-Gotten Deal, 6$, Treasure
Worth 2$. When you buy this, look at your opponent's hand and discard a card from it

Because I agree that rushing them as they currently are would not help you very much. Most decks can do relatively well with 3-card hands every turn, meanwhile you're just buying silvers. This version seems like it would be more specific, in that it would benefit certain setups more than others, depending on if your opponent is relying on certain specific cards, or not. Basically, if your opponent's deck wouldn't be helped by an envoy, then buy this instead of gold, and if their deck doesn't rely on any specific cards, then this isn't as good. I assume 6$ is the right cost for this, though 5$ might still work considering how weak a 5-cost silver is. I didn't write in a "if they have more than 3 cards" clause there, I think the card could use a "only if they have more than 4 cards" clause on it, though if you have 12$ to spend (or 10$), you might as well allow it to discard 2 cards, since you're giving up a province hand to get 2 silvers. Of course, in 3/4 players, you'd want that 4-card limit I guess, but I've never played 3/4-player so I've never even tried to balance any cards around it.