Print

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

[kru5h]

My cards aspire to be the sequel to Intrigue. Lots of choices and duality. I call it Dominion: Conspiracy.

Card images by ThetaSigma12 and myself. Click to enhance.

Rabbits

You play this card and it goes on top of another card, preventing your opponent(s) from gaining cards from that pile until it's gone. It doesn't make players gain a curse, it doesn't even make cards cost more, it just makes the first card of a pile essentially cost two buys (or gains.)

But what if there are no +Buys? This could get quite annoying. Luckily Rabbits has +1 Buy, so there's always a card in the supply to alleviate that. Fight fire with fire, I always say. Of course, Rabbits aren't quite fire. When you fight Rabbits with Rabbits, you get more Rabbits. You didn't remove a Rabbits from the supply, you just moved it to a different supply pile. And now they're in your deck too, essentially functioning as a one-use buy. You can rid them from your deck, but then they just clog the supply board even more. These invasive vermin are everywhere!

You can also put this on the Curse pile and cursing attacks no longer work until that Rabbits is gained. Somebody playing a Jack of All Trades or Trader? Put Rabbits on the Silver pile.

Countess (Formerly: Scepter)


Cooper


Jetty


King Midas


Promotion


Ivory Tower

Why would you discard first? When you have a small hand. If you only have 2 cards, it's much better to discard then draw 5 than to draw 5 then discard back down to 2.

Cipher


Lost Coins


Bon Vivant

Bon Vivant. Full of action and everybody wants to be him. In fact, you can be him. Got too many terminals? When you play this, you can turn some of them into Villages!

Scientist (Formerly: Inventor)


Grand Workshop (Formerly: Kiln)[3rd place in a design contest!]


Cabin

A really tempting way to ruin your deck with Coppers.

Young Smithy


Bull


Camping Grounds

FAQ: Yes, 0 is even.

Concierge


Smorgasbord


Jungle

The above card is very similar to one of hypercube's events, but we both came up with it independently.

Financier


Junk


Bond


Maid


Mask Salesman(Formerly Pupils)[Contest Winner!]


Royal Terrace


Foundry[Contest winner!]


Tailor


Angry Mob

A $2 attacker. Quite vicious if you play 3 of them.

Rook

Probably been done before, but this is my own spin on it.

Toymaker


Tinker


Pulpit(v5)

A pure Reaction card. No Action part!

Path(v4)


General


Warlock(v7)


Commune(v1)


Bookstore(v10)


Campus(v3) Action - Reaction $5


Polis(v1) Action - Duration - $5


The last one is nerfed by virtually having one fewer in your deck. For example, if you had four of these, you would only be playing three of them because they don't activate until you play the next one. One is always in play doing nothing. You have to buy at least two of these to do anything with them.

Forest(v1) Victory - $6



Bonus Cards/Events/Others using extra Mechanics

Jinx Tokens
Whenever you have 6 or more Jinx tokens, you return 6 and gain a Curse.

Witches' Village


Caltrops


Critic


Loot/Cavern

This is fun, but split piles don't fit with the rest of the cards.

Profit

Turn one Buy into one money. Also, Golds are better.

Mulligan(v4)


Land Grab


Collection


Guard Tower


Experimental



Outtake Cards

Path(v8)

This could be interesting, but to make it work the way I want it to, it would need 7 or 8 lines of text. Way too much.

Dark Arts


Risk


Painter

Oops. Not only is this overpowered, but with two cost reducers, you can empty the pile instantly.

Cloister

Too similar to one of Asper's cards.

Bookstore

Too complicated.

Young Smithy(Previous Version)


Grand Workshop (Formerly: Kiln)[Previous Version, which emptied piles too quickly.]


Hound

Of course, you don't have to name one of those types. If you're desperate for an attack or a traveller, you can forgo the bonus and simply dig for that specific card.

Genie (Formerly: Magic Lamp)

Too powerful.

Benefactor

Empties piles too quickly.

Spike Pit (Formerly: Trap)

Replaced by Dark Arts (Event).

Plague/Plague Doctor

Magnifies too quickly.

Shield


Installment


Accomplice


Rearrange

Special thanks to Mali-mi and Commodore Chuckles for helping with this card.

Warlock

Double Cursing. This may be too powerful.

Locksmith

Locksmith unlocks your duration bonuses. Get tomorrow's bonuses today! For example, you can play Wharf and get +2 Cards and +1 Buy. Then you play Locksmith to unlock its additional 2 Cards and Buy this turn. (You discard Wharf at the end of this turn.) Turn Caravans into Labs. Turn Caravan Guard into Peddlers. Turn your Merchant Ships into +. Sometimes you don't want to fast forward your duration cards. For example, you want the attack bonus that Swamp Hag gives, but that's okay, it's nice to have the option. For cards like Champion and Outpost, this won't give you anything, but that's okay too; it doesn't mess anything up either. Sometimes there are no other duration cards in the supply, that's also okay because you can play it on itself.

Shortcut


Wasp (Supply = Same as Curse supply)

Turn extra buys into temporary junk for your opponents.

Parrot

This can be completely broken with the new Way of the Chameleon.

Dagger

Too weak and boring.

Sellout

Donald X copied me again! j/k I liked this card, but Donald's version is slightly more streamlined.

My submission for the +1 Buy contest. Too strong with Goons.


Blockade

I want this card to cost $2, but then it's too powerful in games with attacks. If it costs $3, it's too weak in games without attacks. Interesting double-defense card, though.

Tinker

Apparently trashing a card and putting it back into your hand can lead to infinite trashing with Fortress and Lost Arts/Champion. With Tomb in the set, that's infinite points.

Judge/Courtroom

I invented this before Fleet came out, but now Fleet obsoletes this card.

Pupils/Campus


Magic Coin

Too Powerful.

Settlement

Too similar to one of Asper's cards.

Bells

Was too powerful and way too easy to find Action cards to play. Also it's very similar to a rejected card Donald X. tried already. Oops.

Snakes

Slightly swingy. Not that exciting.

Young Noble

Too weak/boring.

Warriors' Village Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards the top 2 cards of their deck. If they shuffle their deck, they gain a Curse.

This was a fun card, but had two fundamental problems.
1) Was very luck-based. When testing, sometimes one player would end up with 3 times as many curses as another player.
2) Why Village/Attack? You're going to buy Villages anyway, making them attack doesn't give them any extra incentive.

Cell

This card is probably way too powerful. Comparable to Hireling I think, but cheaper.

[AdrianHealey]

I like all of these at first glance.

I might argue there is an argument to be made to be able to remove rabbits all together one way or another.

[kru5h]

*I originally added Inventor here, but now I edited it out and added it to my main post.

[tristan]

Option durations are an interesting idea but the most innovative thing here is of course Rabbits. I would just slightly buff it via giving it +1 Coin.

[kru5h]

Option durations are an interesting idea but the most innovative thing here is of course Rabbits. I would just slightly buff it via giving it +1 Coin.

I've actually been thinking about that for weeks. I've been 50/50 on it going back and forth, but I think I'm finally ready to accept that it needs +$1.

[Asper]

I'm not convinced of Rabbit. The fact I have to spend its own buy on itself if I want to keep my +Buy card makes it basically an Abandoned Mine. The "attack" is mostly a Super-Embargo that makes me gain a Ruins AND spend a buy. Ass it also never ends but even makes itself continue, it seems like it could really drag out a game.

[AdrianHealey]

I'm not convinced of Rabbit. The fact I have to spend its own buy on itself if I want to keep my +Buy card makes it basically an Abandoned Mine. The "attack" is mostly a Super-Embargo that makes me gain a Ruins AND spend a buy. Ass it also never ends but even makes itself continue, it seems like it could really drag out a game.

It's the last part that is the biggest problem. If there was a self-trashing ability, it would be a great idea. Definitely think it can work.

In slogs, it's horrible though. :p

[AdrianHealey]

One solution
Vould be:

----
When you buy this, you may gain or trash it.

[tristan]

The "attack" is mostly a Super-Embargo that makes me gain a Ruins AND spend a buy. Ass it also never ends but even makes itself continue, it seems like it could really drag out a game.

That's definitely a risk. But you only have an incentive to go for Rabbits if players pursue different strategies. In this case you don't view Rabbits as a liability, as quasi-junk, but you are actually happy that you get the Rabbits back from the liberated pile because you wanna use it to ruin your opponent's most valuable pile.
What I would mainly worry about is whether Rabbits totally ruins a pile in alt-VP games (without comfortable extra buys in the Kingdom). One player loads Rabbits upon Provinces while the other loads Rabbits upon Gardens/Vineyard/whatever. Or BM vs engines, one player ruins Gold while the other Rabbit-ifies a crucial engine card like the only Village.

But these are just theoretical considerations; even if the card turns out to be broken it will definitely lead to some interesting games.

[Roadrunner7671]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

[GendoIkari]

The Rabbits mechanic has been suggested and discussed several times before. Not giving an opinion on it really, just letting you know. Welcome!

[GendoIkari]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

Definitely. +4 cards at the start of your next turn is like playing 4 labs at the start of your next turn! Choosing the lab now would almost always be terrible in comparison. Event only +3 cards might be too strong; it's like playing 3 labs next turn. 1 lab now, or 2 labs next turn, might be closer in power. (Which would be +2 cards next turn).

[singletee]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

Definitely. +4 cards at the start of your next turn is like playing 4 labs at the start of your next turn! Choosing the lab now would almost always be terrible in comparison. Event only +3 cards might be too strong; it's like playing 3 labs next turn. 1 lab now, or 2 labs next turn, might be closer in power. (Which would be +2 cards next turn).

+3 Cards next turn is what Haunted Woods has. Haunted Woods costs $5 and has an attack to boot. +2 Cards next turn is just awful; a card with such an effect would never be bought on most boards.

[GendoIkari]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

Definitely. +4 cards at the start of your next turn is like playing 4 labs at the start of your next turn! Choosing the lab now would almost always be terrible in comparison. Event only +3 cards might be too strong; it's like playing 3 labs next turn. 1 lab now, or 2 labs next turn, might be closer in power. (Which would be +2 cards next turn).

+3 Cards next turn is what Haunted Woods has. Haunted Woods costs $5 and has an attack to boot. +2 Cards next turn is just awful; a card with such an effect would never be bought on most boards.

Wharf says hi. But your point about Haunted Woods is fair.

[ThetaSigma12]

"Mulligan" is my favorite.

Mulligan -
If you played no cards this turn, discard your hand and +1 Card per card discarded after the first. Return to your action phase.

Personally, I'd add a once per turn, or an extra drawback. That much sifiting is insane. Also I'd chose a different name "Chase" or "Pursuit" seems kinda thematic as you rush through your deck to get that one hand.  So maybe:

Pursuit -
Once per turn: If you played no cards this turn, discard your hand and +4 Cards. Return to your Action phase.

This seems smoother. I like having the discarding be more like Minion, the extra complexity seems unnecessary. Also, the card was strong enough that only drawing 4 seems good. Thoughts?

[kru5h]

I'm not convinced of Rabbit. The fact I have to spend its own buy on itself if I want to keep my +Buy card makes it basically an Abandoned Mine. The "attack" is mostly a Super-Embargo that makes me gain a Ruins AND spend a buy. Ass it also never ends but even makes itself continue, it seems like it could really drag out a game.

It's the last part that is the biggest problem. If there was a self-trashing ability, it would be a great idea. Definitely think it can work.

In slogs, it's horrible though. :p

With the current wording, you can put it on the curse pile or Ruins pile to prevent people from gaining them and prevent the game from slowing down further.

[kru5h]

Added Bronze:

Bronze - Treasure, $2 (20 supply)

$1

+1 buy
---
When you gain this, you may trash a copper from your hand. If you do, you may gain a Bronze.

This is a useful treasure that upgrades your coppers. Good in games with no other +buys or no other way of trashing coppers.

[tristan]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

Definitely. +4 cards at the start of your next turn is like playing 4 labs at the start of your next turn! Choosing the lab now would almost always be terrible in comparison. Event only +3 cards might be too strong; it's like playing 3 labs next turn. 1 lab now, or 2 labs next turn, might be closer in power. (Which would be +2 cards next turn).

In general you want whatever you get now and not next turn but terminal draw is the only exception to that, i.e. Haunted Woods sans the attack part would be roughly equal in strength to Smithy.

Your analysis ignores what happens at the current turn. Inventor provides a choice is between a Lab now and 4 Cards at the start of your next turn at the cost of the currently played card being dead.
Now I still think that such a card is too good for 6 as it provides a choice between one of the best 5s, a Lab, and something which is similar in strength to Hunting Grounds, a 6.

Your "+2 Cards at the start of your next turn is a DOUBLE LAB !!! next turn and thus super great" would probably be too weak for 2 or in general too weak at any cost. Sure, it might be bought on some boards with decent village support and no drawing at all but the card is still roughly equal in strength to "+2 Cards".
It's like saying that "+2$ next turn" is a DOUBLE PEDDLER !!! next turn while ignoring that it is dead now and probably too weak to be bought at all (it is worse than Duchess which is rarely taken, even for free).

[kru5h]

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+3 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
I think I like this a bit more, but I'm unsure.

Also, Rabbits is awesome.

Definitely. +4 cards at the start of your next turn is like playing 4 labs at the start of your next turn! Choosing the lab now would almost always be terrible in comparison. Event only +3 cards might be too strong; it's like playing 3 labs next turn. 1 lab now, or 2 labs next turn, might be closer in power. (Which would be +2 cards next turn).

In general you want whatever you get now and not next turn but terminal draw is the only exception to that, i.e. Haunted Woods sans the attack part would be roughly equal in strength to Smithy.

What you did is thus a gross misrepresentation. The choice is between a Lab now and 4 Cards at the start of your next turn at the cost of the currently played card being dead.
Now I still think that such a card is too good for 6 as it provides a choice between one of the best 5s, a Lab, and something which is similar in strength to Hunting Grounds, a 6.

Your "+2 Cards at the start of your next turn" would probably be too weak for 2 or in general too weak at any cost. Sure, it might be bought on some boards with decent village support and no drawing at all but the card is still roughly equal in strength to "+2 Cards".

I agree that it is quite powerful for a 6. I would sometimes pay 7 for it, but I don't quite like it at 7 all the time. It feels like a 6.5 card. I would instantly pick it over Hireling. I don't see it as stronger than Goons, though.

[tristan]

You are of course totally right that 6$ Actions are powerhouses and not problematic if they are slightly overpowered. Goons and Hireling are definitely extremly strong for 6$ but probably a tad too weak for 7$.

I'd say it depends on the Kingdom whether you choose Inventor over Hireling. If you hit 6 early and the game will not be a rush Hireling is probably the better choice.
I'd try twitching the duration part to nerf Inventor slightly , e.g. "+3 Cards, +1 Buy" or something like that.

Bronze is not super exciting but seems balanced. You probably will not mass trash your Coppers as the opportunity cost (1 coin less during the current turn) is too high and the marginal benefit of extras Bronzes is decreasing (unless it is a Peddler game or something like that) ... but hey, it is still a cheap source of non-terminal extra buys.

[kru5h]

You are of course totally right that 6$ Actions are powerhouses and not problematic if they are slightly overpowered. Goons and Hireling are definitely extremly strong for 6$ but probably a tad too weak for 7$.

I'd say it depends on the Kingdom whether you choose Inventor over Hireling. If you hit 6 early and the game will not be a rush Hireling is probably the better choice.
I'd try twitching the duration part to nerf Inventor slightly , e.g. "+3 Cards, +1 Buy" or something like that.

I've tried modifying it several times, but nothing clicks for me.

Ideally, it would be choose one:

+2 cards, +1 action now, or +2 cards each turn for your next two turns.

But then there's the tracking issue. Did I already take my two cards last turn or is this the third turn? Archive solves this by setting aside cards, but that would ruin the elegance of this card.

I tried giving other players something cool. "While this is in play, each other player..." but couldn't think of anything original. Each other player draws a card would just be a Council Room copy. I'd still like to do this, though.

+4 cards, discard a card could work, but seems unnatural. Its theme is gaining cards. Discarding one makes it feel against itself.

For now I'm content with it being a powerhouse card and will modify it if I ever think of something creative. I still want to include it in my cards list because the other two option-duration cards are micromanaging (2 actions vs 2 cards or 1 buy vs 1 more money) and I want an option-duration that says that the cards can be powerful too.

[tristan]

I like "+2 cards, +1 action now, or +2 cards each turn for your next two turns."
It is novel and there are some subtle differences between Archive's immediately setting apart and this version of Inventor.

You could also combine your option duration with market squire's semi-permanent durations. In this instance it could be something like "until another player does XYZ, +2 Cards at the start of your next turn."

[kru5h]

How about this:

Inventor - Action Duration, $6

Choose one: +2 Cards, +1 Action now, or
+4 Cards at the beginning of your next turn.
---
While this is in play, you cannot buy an Inventor.

[Destry]

So... what happens if I put my Rabbit on the Curse pile? Does that mean my opponent's Witch no longer gives me Curses? Personally, I think that's a feature, not a bug.

[Destry]

I see what you're trying to do with the variable cost on Rabbits - or if not in the Rabbits pile. Just cost it at and avoid the unneeded complexity.

[AdrianHealey]

Rabbits - Action Card, $1*

+1 Buy
+$1

You may gain a Rabbits from the Rabbits pile.

Put this on a non-empty supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it. (Cards underneath Rabbits cannot be gained while Rabbits is on them.)
---
When you buy this, you may gain or trash this.

I would do it like this.

[ThetaSigma12]

Sorry, I'm not good with photoshop or anything, so I just have text.

If you find a good image PM me and I can make it for you, no prob.

[kru5h]

Sorry, I'm not good with photoshop or anything, so I just have text.

If you find a good image PM me and I can make it for you, no prob.

Thanks! But I'm going to make sure all of my wording is worked out before I do that.

So... what happens if I put my Rabbit on the Curse pile? Does that mean my opponent's Witch no longer gives me Curses? Personally, I think that's a feature, not a bug.

Yes, that's a feature. It also stops people from gaining Silvers with trader and cards like that if its on the Silver pile. I'm going to clarify the wording, though. Right now it says you cannot gain a card from this pile. Witch says each player gains a Curse. Which one wins? I'll probably word it something like, "While this on a non-Rabbits pile, it costs $0 and when a player gains another card from the pile, they instead gain nothing."

[kru5h]

Okay, I've been working on this card for a while, so here it is:

Caltrops - Action Attack Duration, $5
At the beginning of your next turn,
+2 Cards
---
While this is in play, when another player plays a duplicate of a card that they already have in play, they first discard a card.
This can't cause a player to discard more than more than one card per duplicate played.

I like to make hard decisions. Torturer is one of my favorite cards. This card does a lot of things. One thing it does is it makes you make decisions. Do I want to play this card if I have to discard? If so, what do I discard? If not, that's a card I can discard, so what card can I play now? This card also encourages deck variety: If you play no duplicates, it doesn't affect you. It hurts both engines and big money. The better your deck is, the more it hurts you. If the game is a slog, then you will have lots of junk cards to discard anyway and few duplicates to play, so it doesn't over-slog games.

So, how powerful is the attack? Well, first note that multiple copies do not stack. Discarding 2 cards per card played would be ridiculous. I estimate that a good engine will play 6-8 duplicates per turn when drawing your whole deck. That's 6-8 cards to discard. That sounds like a lot! Well, that's out of your whole deck. That's equivalent to having 6-8 Curses or other dead cards in your deck, so it's no more powerful than Witch in a four-player game. But you get to choose which cards to discard rather than simply drawing dead cards, so it's not quite as bad. It doesn't punish you until you start playing several cards, so it at least lets you get your turn started. If you have a hand of five coppers, you end up discarding two of them, so it's no more powerful than Militia in the worst case.

So let's review: It forces tough and meaningful decisions; it isn't oppressively powerful but still very effective; it scales with quality of your deck, affecting better decks more; encourages deck variety; and doesn't worsen slogs (or if it does, not by much.)

[kru5h]

Here's a fun one:

Pupil - Action, $4
If there are any action supply piles that are full, choose one. Play this as if it were the top card of that pile. You can't buy cards from that pile this turn.

A $4 card that plays as any action in the game as long as nobody has bought that card yet. Really strong at the start of the game: You can play it as Prince, Overlord, or whatever on turn 3. Then near the end of the game this card becomes a copy of that one card that nobody buys. It could even be a completely dead card. Since you can't buy the card you play it as, it prevents shenanigans like playing it as a Hunting Grounds on turn 3 to buy the first Hunting Grounds so nobody else can play it as Hunting Grounds. Because of that, you may want to play it as the second best card on the board so that you still have the opportunity to buy the best card on the board. You might even want to buy a card from a pile that you don't need to prevent your opponents from playing their Pupil as that card.

[GendoIkari]

The wording doesn't match your description. The card says it only allows you to choose an empty supply pile. I assume you mean a pile that's never been purchased from? You'd need tokens to track that sort of thing though...

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an action card in the supply with a Pupil token on it. You can't buy cards from that pile this turn.
---------------------------
Setup: Place a Pupil token on each action supply pile. When a card from that a pile is bought, remove the Pupil token.

[kru5h]

The wording doesn't match your description. The card says it only allows you to choose an empty supply pile. I assume you mean a pile that's never been purchased from? You'd need tokens to track that sort of thing though...

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an action card in the supply with a Pupil token on it. You can't buy cards from that pile this turn.
---------------------------
Setup: Place a Pupil token on each action supply pile. When a card from that a pile is bought, remove the Pupil token.

I meant to type "full"! Fixed.

Pupil - Action, $4
If there are any action supply piles that are full, choose one. Play this as if it were the top card of that pile. You can't buy cards from that pile this turn.

[kru5h]

Rabbits - Action Card, $1*

+1 Buy
+$1

You may gain a Rabbits from the Rabbits pile.

Put this on a non-empty supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it. (Cards underneath Rabbits cannot be gained while Rabbits is on them.)
---
When you buy this, you may gain or trash this.

I would do it like this.

I don't really like the trash version. Feel free to test that version and let me know how it goes, but I don't like the extra words I would have to add. In a two player game, I doubt that the Rabbits pile is ever going to empty and completely clog up the board. I imagine only 3 or 4 of them will be in play. In the case where all 10 are bought, it's not as bad as it seems. About 3 will be in the first player's deck, about 3 will be in the other player's deck, and about 4 will be on the board. If people get sick of all the Rabbits, they can simply start placing them on 4 piles that don't matter: Copper, Curse, Estate, and that one pile that nobody bought from this game. In a 3+ player game, it's even less of a problem because more of them are in players' decks. Again, this assumes that all of them are gained. The "you may gain" is optional and at some point most reasonable people will stop taking that option.

I see what you're trying to do with the variable cost on Rabbits - or if not in the Rabbits pile. Just cost it at and avoid the unneeded complexity.

Costing $0 would make it far too easy to empty the pile. It's a card that already let's you gain more Rabbits and gives you +buys to buy more free Rabbits.

[AdrianHealey]

Pupil + prince or pupil + hireling = funny

[kru5h]

Pupil + prince or pupil + hireling = funny

Pupil + Hireling doesn't bother me. It's really really strong, but doesn't break the game.

Pupil + Prince kind of breaks the game, so that annoys me. I'll try to think of a way to improve it. I could always add "A card costing up to $7", but I'd like to avoid that if possible.

[kru5h]

How about this:

Pupil - Action $4
Play this as if it were an action card from a full supply pile costing up to $6. This is that card until it leaves play. You cannot buy that card this turn.

Edit: I might even have to lower it to "costing up to $5", but I'll play around with it for a while. If I do that I would probably lower the card's cost to $3.

Edit2: I'm thinking about this version instead, since it's a lot more balanced:

Pupil - Action $3
Play this as if it were an action card from a full supply pile costing up to $5. This is that card until it leaves play. You cannot buy that card this turn.
---
When you trash this, gain an action card costing up to $5.

This also fits the theme well of a Pupil growing up to be a professional.

Edit3: Rules lawyers, help me out here! If you play Pupil as another card that trashes itself, (Let's say Mining Village), do you still gain the $5 card, or does it not take effect because it's the other card when it's trashed?

Edit4: If the above answer is yes, then if I play it as Procession and then Pupil as Fortress, does it both return to my hand AND gain me a $5 card?

Edit5: How do I make those coin symbols instead of typing $5 each time?

Edit6:

Pupil - Action $3
Play this as if it were an action card from a full supply pile costing up to $5. This is that card until it leaves play. You cannot buy that card this turn.
---
When you trash this, if it was not in play this turn, gain an action card costing up to $5.

Edit7: For simplicity:

Pupil - Action $3
Play this as if it were an action card from a full supply pile costing up to $5. This is that card until it leaves play.
---
When you trash this from your hand, gain an action card costing up to $5.

[Accatitippi]

What about "when you trash this from your hand"?
It might be a tad confusing with Hermit, Lookout and Sentry, but at least it bypasses worse confusion.
GendoIkari made an extension for Chrome and Firefox letting you conveniently put coin values as emoticons, and card links with a single click. I'm on my phone so I'm afraid you'll have to google it.

[kru5h]

What about "when you trash this from your hand"?
It might be a tad confusing with Hermit, Lookout and Sentry, but at least it bypasses worse confusion.

Good call. I just edited that in right when you were typing it. Great minds.

[kru5h]

Snakes Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Curse. Set this, the Curse, and any number of cards from your hand aside.
Return them to your deck at the end of the game.

Kind of a combination of Junk Dealer, Island, and Chapel all in one. The penalty is that you get -1VP at the end of the game (If there are any curses left.) If there are no curses left, this simply lets you clear your deck of all curses (but you still lose the points at the end of the game.) But waiting until all the curses are gone just leaves your deck clogged most of the game.

Also useful in some Gardens/Alt-VP games. You get a streamlined deck at the cost of one VP? Worth it?

Edit: Changed it to "you may" to make it a cantrip in the cases where you don't want to use it.

Snakes Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may set this aside. If you do, gain a Curse; setting this, the Curse, and any number of cards from your hand aside.
Return them to your deck at the end of the game.

[kru5h]

Backup Plan Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
When you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit: Wait. That's a little too strong. I'll remove the cantrip from it.

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
When you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit2: This should cost

Edit3: This should be limited to once per turn.

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
Once per turn, when you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit4: Not sure how this interacts with Enchantress.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like Snakes.
Seems like Backup Plan should be an event.

[kru5h]

I like Snakes.
Seems like Backup Plan should be an event.

I thought about it. But then you'd need some kind of "Backup Plan Token" to place on the set aside card. If you play multiple Backup Plans, that's multiple tokens that would be needed. Also it would be too much like Inheritance. I like that it takes a shuffle and an action to get this into play. It slows it down and keeps it from being too powerful.

[kru5h]

Warriors' Village Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards the top card of their deck.
If they shuffle a new deck, they gain a Curse.

I had to think of an attack that's weak enough that it doesn't completely slow down the game if you play it 10 times per round. This is fast and doesn't slog very quickly at all. If it's too weak, I can always change it to discarding two or three cards, but I think one should be sufficient. You don't want the game to become a slog because then villages are worthless.

Edit: I think I like 2 cards discarded better.

Warriors' Village Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards the top 2 cards of their deck.
If they shuffle a new deck, they gain a Curse.

If anybody playtests this, let me know. I'm looking for it to add about 4 curses to an opponent's deck per game. More than that and it's too sloggy for villages. Less than that and it's not worth the attack.

[AdrianHealey]

Backup Plan Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
When you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit: Wait. That's a little too strong. I'll remove the cantrip from it.

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
When you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit2: This should cost

Edit3: This should be limited to once per turn.

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
Once per turn, when you play an action card, you may follow the instructions of the set aside card instead.

Edit4: Not sure how this interacts with Enchantress.

Use the BOM wording. That solves the enchantress issue.

[kru5h]

Use the BOM wording. That solves the enchantress issue.

Good call. How's this?

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
Once per turn, when you play an action card, you may play it as the set aside card instead.

[AdrianHealey]

Use the BOM wording. That solves the enchantress issue.

Good call. How's this?

Backup Plan Action,
Set this and an action card from the supply costing up to aside.
Once per turn, when you play an action card, you may play it as the set aside card instead.

Which is then overrulee by enchantress, problem solved.

[kru5h]

Dowsing Rod Action,
Name a card type (Action, Attack, etc.) Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 3 cards of the named type. Put 2 cards of the named type into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Simple card. Strictly better than Adventurer and only costs $4. You can get creative with the types to sometimes grab the exact card you want: Attack, Knight, Traveller, Gatherer, etc. Amazingly good in slogs or victory-soaked decks.

I need feedback on this card because it may be too powerful.

Edit: Version 2.

Dowsing Rod Action,
Name a card type (Action, Attack, etc.)
If you named...
"Action", +1 Action;
"Treasure", +1 Buy;
"Victory", +2 Cards.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal one of the named type.
Put it into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Of course, you don't have to name one of those types. If you're desperate for an attack or a traveller, you can forgo the bonus and simply dig for that specific card.

Although, this looks familiar. Is this already a card?

Edit 2:

Dowsing Rod Action,
Name a card type (Action, Attack, etc.)
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal one of the named type.
Put it into your hand and discard the rest.
If you named...
"Action", +1 Action;
"Treasure", +1 Buy;
"Victory", +2 Cards;
"Curse", you may trash a card from your hand.

You don't have to have any curses in your deck to name Curse. If you're absolutely desperate to trash a card in your hand, you'll simply discard your entire deck and trash a card.

[kru5h]

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile

Rare Coin Treasure,

Worth more if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply.

Beaches Victory,
4
Worth 1 more if there are no beaches left in the supply.

[tristan]

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile

Rare Coin Treasure,

Worth more if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply.

Beaches Victory,
4
Worth 1 more if there are no beaches left in the supply.

I like this but both cards seem a tad too strong. You could change the size of the pile or scale it according to the number of players.

[GendoIkari]

Edit5: How do I make those coin symbols instead of typing $5 each time?

Check out the link(s) in my signature. 

[ThetaSigma12]

Par kru5h's request.

Edited to correct a typo.

[kru5h]

Magnificent.

[kru5h]

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile

Rare Coin Treasure,

Worth more if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply.

Beaches Victory,
4
Worth 1 more if there are no beaches left in the supply.

I like this but both cards seem a tad too strong. You could change the size of the pile or scale it according to the number of players.

Good idea.

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile (Supply 12 [6/6 Split for 3+ player game. 4/4 Split for 2 players.)

Rare Coin Treasure,

Worth more if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply.

Beaches Victory,
3
Worth 2 more if there are no beaches left in the supply.

[kru5h]

Ivory Tower Action - Reaction,
Choose one:
+2 Cards; or
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
---
When you discard a card other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal this from your hand to put the discarded card on top of your deck.

Edit: The above feels slightly weak. I upgraded it slightly.

Ivory Tower Action - Reaction,
+2 Cards
You may discard a card.
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
---
When you discard a card other than during a Clean-up phase,
 you may reveal this from your hand to put the discarded card on top of your deck.

[kru5h]

Magic Lamp Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are the named card, put one copy of it into your hand.
Discard the other revealed cards.

Too powerful.

Magic Lamp Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
Put any number of the named card into your hand and discard the rest.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Magic Lamp Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are the named card, put one copy of it into your hand.
Discard the other revealed cards.

I think it'll too often be better than lab.
I'd recommend taking off the +1 card and making it cost 2 or 3, like so:

Magic Lamp
Action,
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are the named card, put one copy of it into your hand.
Discard the other revealed cards.

[kru5h]

Magic Lamp Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are the named card, put one copy of it into your hand.
Discard the other revealed cards.

I think it'll too often be better than lab.

You're probably right.

I'd recommend taking off the +1 card and making it cost 2 or 3, like so:

Magic Lamp
Action,
+1 Action
Name a card.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are the named card, put one copy of it into your hand.
Discard the other revealed cards.

That makes it +1 Card, +1 Action, though. And sometimes no cards.

[kru5h]

Skipper Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the beginning of your next turn,
+1 Card
---
While this is in play, when you play another Skipper
you may take +1 card now instead of next turn.

Smithy variant. Slightly worse than Smithy when you only play one. If you play multiple and you've already drawn enough cards, you can save some of them for next turn.

[kru5h]

Promotion Action,
Trash a card from your hand.
Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to more than it;
or gain a card costing up to , putting it into your hand.

A Workshop/Remodel combination.

[GendoIkari]

Promotion Action,
Trash a card from your hand.
Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to more than it;
or gain a card costing up to , putting it into your hand.

A Workshop/Remodel combination.

I'm not sure about balance, but this is both simple and extremely elegant; and both choices go together really well. I like it!

If it's too weak, you could make the trashing optional for a slight buff.

[popsofctown]

I like most of these a lot.

Warrior's Village triggers lots of extra reshuffles, which increases the physical inconvenience of playing Dominion.  It's a bit too close to the forbidden nonterminal Chancellor for me. 

[kru5h]

I like most of these a lot.

Warrior's Village triggers lots of extra reshuffles, which increases the physical inconvenience of playing Dominion.  It's a bit too close to the forbidden nonterminal Chancellor for me.

I've got to test it. The goal is to add an additional 3-4 reshuffles/curses per game. If it's too much more than that, I'll nerf it to discarding one card instead of two.

[kru5h]

Séance Action,
+2 Actions
Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck.
If it's the named card and/or a Séance, you may put it into your hand.
Otherwise you may trash it.

You "may" put it into your hand in case you simply want to leave a Seance on top of your deck for next turn.

[kru5h]

Rebels Action - Attack,
+
You may gain a Silver.
Each other player sets aside a copper from their hand or the Supply.
They discard down to 3 cards in hand and put the set aside copper into their hand.

Slightly weaker discarding than Militia, but has some additional weak junking to compensate.

[ThetaSigma12]

Séance Action,
+2 Actions
Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck.
If it's the named card and/or a Séance, you may put it into your hand.
Otherwise you may trash it.

You "may" put it into your hand in case you simply want to leave a Seance on top of your deck for next turn.

I tested a card called ghost town:
Ghost Town $2
+2 Actions
Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's the named card, put it into your hand.

It was okay. Maybe on the weaker side, but still good. This should cost about 4 I believe.

[kru5h]

Séance Action,
+2 Actions
Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck.
If it's the named card and/or a Séance, you may put it into your hand.
Otherwise you may trash it.

You "may" put it into your hand in case you simply want to leave a Seance on top of your deck for next turn.

I tested a card called ghost town:
Ghost Town $2
+2 Actions
Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's the named card, put it into your hand.

It was okay. Maybe on the weaker side, but still good. This should cost about 4 I believe.

Oh, okay. Well, I want to be original, so I'll change it. Also, now that I think about it, naming a card 4 times a turn would slow down the game.

Séance Action,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal the top card of your deck.
If it's a Séance, you may put it into your hand.
Otherwise you may trash it.

[kru5h]

I changed Skipper into Locksmith.

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card
You may treat another duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)

Locksmith unlocks your duration bonuses. Get tomorrow's bonuses today! For example, you can play Wharf and get +2 Cards and +1 Buy. Then you play Locksmith to unlock it's additional 2 Cards and Buy this turn. (You discard it at the end of this turn.) Turn Caravans into Labs. Turn Caravan Guards into Peddlers. Turn your Merchant Ships into +. Sometimes you don't want to fast forward your duration cards. For example, you want the attack bonus that Swamp Hag gives, but that's okay, it's nice to have the option. For cards like Champion and Outpost, this won't give you anything, but that's okay too; it doesn't mess anything up either. Sometimes there are no other duration cards in the supply, that's also okay because you can play it on itself. Usually Locksmith is 2 cards now and 1 later, so that's slightly slower than a Smithy, but if you play a second Locksmith you can unlock the first one to get your full three cards. But maybe you don't want all those cards now? That's fine. You have enough this turn, you can save some of them for the next one.

[ThetaSigma12]

Need anymore cards done? If you want to find art usualy a search of "Digital art [card name]" or "[card name] painting" will turn up some good results.

[kru5h]

Sure. I'll message you when I come up with some stuff.

Thanks again!

[GendoIkari]

I changed Skipper into Locksmith.

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card
You may treat a duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)

Locksmith unlocks your duration bonuses. Get tomorrow's bonuses today! For example, you can play Wharf and get +2 Cards and +1 Buy. Then you play Locksmith to unlock it's additional 2 Cards and Buy this turn. (You discard it at the end of this turn.) Turn Caravans into Labs. Turn Caravan Guards into Peddlers. Turn your Merchant Ships into +. Sometimes you don't want to fast forward your duration cards. For example, you want the attack bonus that Swamp Hag gives, but that's okay, it's nice to have the option. For cards like Champion and Outpost, this won't give you anything, but that's okay too; it doesn't mess anything up either. Sometimes there are no other duration cards in the supply, that's also okay because you can play it on itself. Usually Locksmith is 2 cards now and 1 later, so that's slightly slower than a Smithy, but if you play a second Locksmith you can unlock the first one to get your full three cards. But maybe you don't want all those cards now? That's fine. You have enough this turn, you can save some of them for the next one.

One problem is that as worded, you can use Locksmith on itself, making it just a strictly better Smithy. I see from your explanation of the card that that's not intended, but that's how it's worded. Also, the wording just isn't really clear and doesn't describe what you intend it to do. Durations give their bonus "at the start of next turn", so if you play a Merchant Ship and then a Locksmith, I don't really see how "each of your turns is the next turn" matters, because it's already past "the start" of the next turn; now it's in the middle of the next turn.

I think a more accurate wording might just be "execute the start of next turn effects of a Duration you have in play". It's not official Dominion language, but it's pretty clear. With this wording and your wording, it's not clear if you intend for it to be able to be used on a Duration you played last turn as well as one you played this turn. The wording seems to imply you can.

There's also issues with cards like Tactician, Haven, Gear, and Archive... If you use it on Tactician, do you get the bonus? Probably not, because you never discarded a card to it. If you use it on Archive, do you just get 1 of the set aside cards immediately? Thus causing Archive to be discarded a turn sooner than normal?

Finally, assuming you make it not work on itself like you want, then in a board without other Durations (which is a lot of boards), it's just a strictly worse Smithy.

[kru5h]

I changed Skipper into Locksmith.

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card
You may treat a duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)

Locksmith unlocks your duration bonuses. Get tomorrow's bonuses today! For example, you can play Wharf and get +2 Cards and +1 Buy. Then you play Locksmith to unlock it's additional 2 Cards and Buy this turn. (You discard it at the end of this turn.) Turn Caravans into Labs. Turn Caravan Guards into Peddlers. Turn your Merchant Ships into +. Sometimes you don't want to fast forward your duration cards. For example, you want the attack bonus that Swamp Hag gives, but that's okay, it's nice to have the option. For cards like Champion and Outpost, this won't give you anything, but that's okay too; it doesn't mess anything up either. Sometimes there are no other duration cards in the supply, that's also okay because you can play it on itself. Usually Locksmith is 2 cards now and 1 later, so that's slightly slower than a Smithy, but if you play a second Locksmith you can unlock the first one to get your full three cards. But maybe you don't want all those cards now? That's fine. You have enough this turn, you can save some of them for the next one.

One problem is that as worded, you can use Locksmith on itself, making it just a strictly better Smithy. I see from your explanation of the card that that's not intended, but that's how it's worded. Also, the wording just isn't really clear and doesn't describe what you intend it to do. Durations give their bonus "at the start of next turn", so if you play a Merchant Ship and then a Locksmith, I don't really see how "each of your turns is the next turn" matters, because it's already past "the start" of the next turn; now it's in the middle of the next turn.

I think a more accurate wording might just be "execute the start of next turn effects of a Duration you have in play". It's not official Dominion language, but it's pretty clear. With this wording and your wording, it's not clear if you intend for it to be able to be used on a Duration you played last turn as well as one you played this turn. The wording seems to imply you can.

There's also issues with cards like Tactician, Haven, Gear, and Archive... If you use it on Tactician, do you get the bonus? Probably not, because you never discarded a card to it. If you use it on Archive, do you just get 1 of the set aside cards immediately? Thus causing Archive to be discarded a turn sooner than normal?

Finally, assuming you make it not work on itself like you want, then in a board without other Durations (which is a lot of boards), it's just a strictly worse Smithy.

I changed Locksmith from "a duration card you have in play" to "another duration card you have in play".

If you use it on Tactician, you get the bonus if you discarded your hand. Otherwise you don't. You usually wouldn't choose (nor have the opportunity) to Locksmith a Tactician.

For Haven, you set aside a card, then Locksmith it to put it into your hand. This turns Haven into simply +1 Card, +1 Action. You usually wouldn't choose to Locksmith this.

For Archive, it says "each of your turns", so now is the next turn, and your next turn is the turn after that. So you play Archive, get one of the three cards, Locksmith it, get one of the two remaining cards, then at the start of your next turn you get the third one. If you Locksmith it again, you get all three cards this turn.

And if it's the only Duration, it's not strictly worse than Smithy because sometimes you actually want to have extra draw for this turn instead of next turn, especially in cases where you overdraw your deck. But you're right that it's usually (but not strictly) very slightly worse than Smithy. If you play 4 Smithys, you get 12 cards this turn. If you play 4 Locksmiths, you get 11 this turn and 1 next turn. For all future turns that you play 4 Locksmiths, you get 12 cards this turn because you get the extra one at the start of your turn, so yes, that's weaker than Smithy, but you get 1 card fewer the first time you play a chain of Locksmiths and then the normal amount there on out, so that's an extremely minor weakness.

[kru5h]

Okay, I playtested Warriors' Village and I don't like it.

Warriors' Village Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards the top 2 cards of their deck.
If they shuffle a new deck, they gain a Curse.

I was afraid it would be too overpowered if played too much, but I had the opposite problem, it was played very little this game. The Kingdom had only 2-3 terminals and everything else was cantrips, so we only needed 2-3 villages per person. Very few curses were handed (4 total), the problem was that they were far too random. One player got 0 curses, one player got 1 curse, one player got 3. So I'm going to remove this card from my list since it simply adds too much luck factor to the game.

[kru5h]

I changed Skipper into Locksmith.

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card
You may treat a duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)

Locksmith unlocks your duration bonuses. Get tomorrow's bonuses today! For example, you can play Wharf and get +2 Cards and +1 Buy. Then you play Locksmith to unlock it's additional 2 Cards and Buy this turn. (You discard it at the end of this turn.) Turn Caravans into Labs. Turn Caravan Guards into Peddlers. Turn your Merchant Ships into +. Sometimes you don't want to fast forward your duration cards. For example, you want the attack bonus that Swamp Hag gives, but that's okay, it's nice to have the option. For cards like Champion and Outpost, this won't give you anything, but that's okay too; it doesn't mess anything up either. Sometimes there are no other duration cards in the supply, that's also okay because you can play it on itself. Usually Locksmith is 2 cards now and 1 later, so that's slightly slower than a Smithy, but if you play a second Locksmith you can unlock the first one to get your full three cards. But maybe you don't want all those cards now? That's fine. You have enough this turn, you can save some of them for the next one.

One problem is that as worded, you can use Locksmith on itself, making it just a strictly better Smithy. I see from your explanation of the card that that's not intended, but that's how it's worded. Also, the wording just isn't really clear and doesn't describe what you intend it to do. Durations give their bonus "at the start of next turn", so if you play a Merchant Ship and then a Locksmith, I don't really see how "each of your turns is the next turn" matters, because it's already past "the start" of the next turn; now it's in the middle of the next turn.

I think a more accurate wording might just be "execute the start of next turn effects of a Duration you have in play". It's not official Dominion language, but it's pretty clear. With this wording and your wording, it's not clear if you intend for it to be able to be used on a Duration you played last turn as well as one you played this turn. The wording seems to imply you can.

There's also issues with cards like Tactician, Haven, Gear, and Archive... If you use it on Tactician, do you get the bonus? Probably not, because you never discarded a card to it. If you use it on Archive, do you just get 1 of the set aside cards immediately? Thus causing Archive to be discarded a turn sooner than normal?

Finally, assuming you make it not work on itself like you want, then in a board without other Durations (which is a lot of boards), it's just a strictly worse Smithy.

Okay, it is slightly weak.

How about this:

Locksmith Action - Duration,
You may treat another duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)
At the start of your next turn,
+3 Cards

Weaken it more and make it cost 3? Feels a bit strong for a 3.

Edit 2:

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+
You may treat another duration card you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For that card, this is the start of your next turn.)

This is slightly weaker, I think, especially if you only play one. If you play multiple, though, it gives your money a lot of option value. You almost always want more cards now, but with coins, sometimes it's better to save it for next turn.

I'm still thinking on it a bit, though.

Edit 3: I think I like this the best, but only slightly more than edit 2.

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card
You may treat any number of other duration cards you have in play as if each of your turns is the next turn.
(For those cards, this is the start of your next turn.)

That way you can save all of your +1 Cards until you play the last Locksmith, triggering them each one at a time until you feel you have enough cards, saving the rest for next turn. Of course, it still doesn't work on itself, so you're always saving at least one. That's the trade-off.

[kru5h]

I'm thinking of simplifying Rabbits to this:

Rabbits Action, *
+
You may gain a Rabbits from any Supply pile.
Put this on a non-empty Supply pile.
(Players may only gain the top card.)
---
While this is not in the Rabbits Supply pile, it costs .

1) This is a lot less text.
2) This gets rid of the +buy, but still allows you to "buy" Rabbits by gaining them.
3) It lets you gain Rabbits from any pile, so it still counters other Rabbits.
4) You can now put Rabbits back in the Rabbits pile, so this can be used to slowly clean up all the Rabbits in play. Many people wanted an option to trash this card, and this scratches that itch.

Thoughts?

(Original card for comparison)

After thinking about it, I'm going to add a little bit more text.

Rabbits Action, *
+
You may gain a Rabbits from any Supply pile.
Put this on a non-empty Supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it.
(Players may only gain the top card.)
---
While this is not in the Rabbits Supply pile, it costs .

This prevents people from putting it back into the Rabbits pile, but it also prevents stacking multiple copies on the same card.
This still eliminates 2 lines of text and a "+1 Buy" line.

[tristan]

I like the first version more and would actually have an easier time to explain it to other folks than in the case of the abbreviated text.
I also don't think that Rabbits requires a buff.

[kru5h]

I like the first version more and would actually have an easier time to explain it to other folks than in the case of the abbreviated text.
I also don't think that Rabbits requires a buff.

How about this:

Rabbits Action, *
+1 Buy
+
You may gain a Rabbits from the Rabbits pile.
Put this on a non-empty Supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it.
(When a player gains a card beneath Rabbits, they gain nothing.)
---
This costs while on a non-Rabbits Supply pile.

[kru5h]

Dagger Action,
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on the bottom of your deck.
---
When you trash this, gain a card costing up to .

[kru5h]

So, one of Asper's cards gave me an idea. Why not spend actions/buys? Storyteller has you spend money to draw cards, what else can you spend?

Cipher Action,
+3 Cards
Select a card from your hand. Discard it or put it on top of your deck.
You may spend an action to play this card a second time.

Each cipher is like having two copies of it in hand, but it only takes up the space of one card.
In games without Villages, this is still a viable card. In games with villages, it isn't overpowered.

Edit: I had one for spending buys, but it sucked.

[tristan]

I also played around with the concept of spending Actions/Buys.
Cipher looks fine. A cheap Smithy for BM when you green early but that won't make it overpowered.

[Marcory]

I like the first version more and would actually have an easier time to explain it to other folks than in the case of the abbreviated text.
I also don't think that Rabbits requires a buff.

How about this:

Rabbits Action, *
+1 Buy
+
You may gain a Rabbits from the Rabbits pile.
Put this on a non-empty Supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it.
(When a player gains a card beneath Rabbits, they gain nothing.)
---
This costs while on a non-Rabbits Supply pile.

One tiny caveat: It should say, "when a player would gain a card from that pile . . . ."  Otherwise, it's paradoxical--you can't gain both a card and nothing at the same time--(ok, you can, but only trivially). 

And do you really only want Rabbits to have 10 cards in its pile, or should it be 20 like Rats?

[kru5h]

One tiny caveat: It should say, "when a player would gain a card from that pile . . . ."  Otherwise, it's paradoxical--you can't gain both a card and nothing at the same time--(ok, you can, but only trivially). 
And do you really only want Rabbits to have 10 cards in its pile, or should it be 20 like Rats?

Yes, I really want Rabbits to only have a pile of 10. 20 could grind the game to a halt.

This card is so hard to word.

How's this?

Rabbits Action, *
+1 Buy
+
You may gain a Rabbits from the Rabbits pile.
Put this on a non-empty Supply pile that doesn't have a Rabbits on it.
(Players may only gain a card if it's on top.)
---
This costs while on a non-Rabbits Supply pile.

[ThetaSigma12]

I'm on the lookout for better art, I don't like having a photo.

Preferred Art: http://ethicallychallenged.deviantart.com/art/Conspiracy-414138123
Also, I'm pretty sure this could have tracking issues with Counterfeit.

The art's okay, but a little grim.

Ideally I'd have a peice of art with Beaches and Rare Coin. Oh well.

Preffered art, and renamed Researcher: http://homoseptimus.deviantart.com/art/Librarian-355923752

Prefferd art, and renamed Beacon: http://j-humphries.deviantart.com/art/Mountain-Beacon-488383797


The whole concept is a little cliche, not bad just often thought. Probably won't use this so no suggestions for now.

Preffered art, renamed Pursuit: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Chase-302462459
(Mulligan isn't even an event sounding name. It's a stew, yes, but you don't name events after objects)

The art's good enough. It doesn't competley fit but whatever.

No comments, kudos for the great image.

I'd rename it Hunting Dogs, and possibly find new art.

Kinda confusing.

Okay, this was a complete pain in the butt to make. I'm proud of myself for figuring out how to make a template. Thanks guys, I'm here all day.

Preffered art, renamed Chest: http://marcsimonetti.deviantart.com/art/Scouring-the-vault-140248719

Looking for new art.


Srsly what's with all the animals?
Preferred art, renamed Nomads: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/art/Wanderers-386383179


All my comments on the art and names. I might make an alternate version for myself if I want to use them.

[kru5h]

Debit Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Take 3 Coin tokens.
Take 3 Debt tokens.

Kind of like the opposite of Capital. Instead of getting $6 now and 6 debt later, you get 3 debt now and 3 coin tokens for later. If you don't want the debt, you can just immediately pay any of it off with the coin tokens.

If this is too strong, I can always change it to 2 of each token.

Edit: Version 2

Debit Treasure

When you play this, take a Coin token and a Debt token.

[Thanar]

Images on the following cards were listed as "unknown". I've identified them using the Search by Image feature of images.google.com (Click on the little camera and then drag in an image you want to find/identify, then hunt around in the results a bit)


Cell illustration is Prison of Desires by Kleyos


Ivory Tower illustration appears to be related to The Neverending Story III: Escape from Fantasia - https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/27793-the-neverending-story-iii-escape-from-fantasia/images/backdrops?language=en-US


Locksmith illustration is The Locksmith by A Neapolitan follower of Ribera (or just Neapolitan) as the attribution is uncertain.


Sellout illustration is Conscience, Judas by Nikolai Ge


Mulligan illustration is The Black Cauldron Background Concept by Ron Dias


Hounds illustration is The fox and the hound by Citron--Vert


Snakes illustration is White snake by Atenebris

Finally, here is a higher resolution image for Leonardo Da Vinci, if you end up sticking with that image for Inventor.

[ThetaSigma12]

Thanks for doing that! I didn't have time on my hands to use TinEye on them all.

[ThetaSigma12]

Debit Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Take 3 Coin tokens.
Take 3 Debt tokens.

Kind of like the opposite of Capital. Instead of getting $6 now and 6 debt later, you get 3 debt now and 3 coin tokens for later. If you don't want the debt, you can just immediately pay any of it off with the coin tokens.

If this is too strong, I can always change it to 2 of each token.

Edit: Version 2

Debit Treasure

When you play this, take a Coin token and a Debt token.

See Asper's Investor.

[kru5h]

Debit Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Take a Coin token and a Debt token.
---
When you gain this, shuffle your discard pile and put it onto your deck.

This card seems kind of weak and/or boring.

[kru5h]

Thinking of this change.

Sellout Event,
Gain a curse. If you did, choose one:
Gain 2 cards, each costing up to ; or
gain a card costing up to .

Old card:

[GendoIkari]

Thinking of this change.

Sellout Event,
Gain a curse. If you did, choose one:
Gain 2 cards, each costing up to ; or
gain a card costing up to .

Old card:

This feels like it should cost way less. It basically just gives you extra to spend, and only when you happen to want a card costing exactly. If you use it to get a card costing , which is probably more common, then it's just Borrow, except the gain a Curse penalty is way worse (normally) than the -1 card token penalty.

[kru5h]

Thinking of this change.

Sellout Event,
Gain a curse. If you did, choose one:
Gain 2 cards, each costing up to ; or
gain a card costing up to .

Old card:

This feels like it should cost way less. It basically just gives you extra to spend, and only when you happen to want a card costing exactly. If you use it to get a card costing , which is probably more common, then it's just Borrow, except the gain a Curse penalty is way worse (normally) than the -1 card token penalty.

It was originally gain a curse, if you do, +2 coin. That seems a bit strong, though. If you buy provinces, that's still 5 VP for 6 coin. Makes big money faster and ends the game sooner. It might be alright, but it needs testing. I'll try to think of something other than "+2 coin, you can't buy a province." The simple version (+2 coin) might work out fine, but it's on the edge for me.

[kru5h]

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
If you have or less, gain a Curse. If you did, choose one:
+; or gain a card costing up to .

On second thought, I don't like that you can instantly empty two piles (Curse and a 4-cost pile.) I don't want to add a "once per turn" clause because it's already wordy.

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
If you have or less, gain a Curse. If you did, +.

This still combos extremely well with Borrow and makes the game into a very boring Big Money fest, but that should be rare enough that I'm not super concerned. Though, it does still bother me mildly.

[Jack Rudd]

Sellout/Trader and Sellout/Watchtower look strong.

[AdrianHealey]

Could you phrase sellout like this:

'Gain a curse. If it ends up in your discard pile, you may...' to avoid trader/watchtower shenanigans?

[ThetaSigma12]

Could you phrase sellout like this:

'Gain a curse. If it ends up in your discard pile, you may...' to avoid trader/watchtower shenanigans?

Gain a Curse, to...

[Jack Rudd]

Could you phrase sellout like this:

'Gain a curse. If it ends up in your discard pile, you may...' to avoid trader/watchtower shenanigans?

No. The point of the combo with Trader is just that it ends up putting the entire Silver pile in the player's deck by continually buying this Event. The after-the-curse gain is not relevant to it.

[AdrianHealey]

Could you phrase sellout like this:

'Gain a curse. If it ends up in your discard pile, you may...' to avoid trader/watchtower shenanigans?

No. The point of the combo with Trader is just that it ends up putting the entire Silver pile in the player's deck by continually buying this Event. The after-the-curse gain is not relevant to it.

I don't understand your comment.

[AdrianHealey]

Could you phrase sellout like this:

'Gain a curse. If it ends up in your discard pile, you may...' to avoid trader/watchtower shenanigans?

Gain a Curse, to...

With Watchtower, you gain the curse. You just trash it immediately

I think with trader you don't gain, right?

[Jack Rudd]

Ah, I think I was misreading the 0 on Sellout as a cost.

[kru5h]

Ah, I think I was misreading the 0 on Sellout as a cost.

It is a 0 cost.

But the solution is an easy fix. I'll just add that "Once per turn" clause. Watchtower still gives you +2 money for free, but that's no huge deal.

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
Once per turn: If you have or less, gain a Curse. If you did, +.

Edit: It might be fine to remove the "5 or less clause." Like I said, it's really borderline for me.

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
Once per turn: Gain a Curse. If you did, +.

[kru5h]

I'm thinking of Changing Young Noble. Other than the novelty of being a Victory-Duration card, it isn't that interesting. Why is it even a duration? Can't I just have 2 cards now?



(Also, ThetaSigma12, the cost is supposed to be 3, not 4.)

How about this:

Polis Action - Duration - Reaction,
Choose one: +2 Actions; or
at the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, +2 Cards.
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may trash this from play or your hand to gain an attack card.

This card acts as a weak village or something to smooth out your engine. Weak villages and engine smoothing isn't that useful if there are a lot of attacks flying around. In that case, trash these and pivot into attacking.

[loneXolf]

Polis Action - Duration - Reaction,
<sub>Choose one: +2 Actions; or
at the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, +2 Cards.
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may trash this from play or your hand to gain an attack card.


This card acts as a weak village or something to smooth out your engine. Weak villages and engine smoothing isn't that useful if there are a lot of attacks flying around. In that case, trash these and pivot into attacking.</sub>

Both of their strength seems fairish, the victory version being slightly weak however making it cost 3 would probably make it stronger than great hall (which was removed). The reaction version seems like a weaker squire however it could also work.

[ThetaSigma12]

sorry I've been too buys to update your cards but soon I will.

[kru5h]

On second thought, the new version is too similar to Squire, so I'm going to keep it how it is for now.

[kru5h]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

[loneXolf]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Weird card, it's just a slightly weaker king's court with a action that give more actions. also you can put throne roomed terminals back on top of your deck if you run out of actions. However what would happen if you played this with Gear or Archive would the set aside cards be gone for the rest of the game? Yeah I forgot about the Procession ruling in the moment I wrote that, my bad :3.

[kru5h]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Weird card, it's weak with most duration cards. also it's just a slightly weaker king's court with a action that give more actions. also you can put throne roomed terminals back on top of your deck if you run out of actions. However what would happen if you played this with Gear or Archive would the set aside cards be gone for the rest of the game?

It doesn't make duration cards stop working. They still have their effects, it just isn't in play anymore when that happens. Same thing when you Procession a duration card like Gear or Archive.

[tristan]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Probably too strong as it is nearly as good as KC. The only exceptions are not having enough actions (in order to play the card which you put back into your hand for a third time) and KC-KC which is better than Scepter-Scepter.

[kru5h]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Probably too strong as it is nearly as good as KC. The only exceptions are not having enough actions (in order to play the card which you put back into your hand for a third time) and KC-KC which is better than Scepter-Scepter.

How about I weaken it but lower the cost?

Scepter Action,
You may choose a card from your hand. Play it twice.
You may put it onto your deck.

[tristan]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Probably too strong as it is nearly as good as KC. The only exceptions are not having enough actions (in order to play the card which you put back into your hand for a third time) and KC-KC which is better than Scepter-Scepter.

How about I weaken it but lower the cost?

Scepter Action,
You may choose a card from your hand. Play it twice.
You may put it onto your deck.

Similar to LFN's General (which is a bit bland: TR and Scheme combined into one card) but a bit better and more interesting. With a powerhouse Action card like Grand Market around it will probably be pretty strong. but no idea about how strong this is will be in general.

[Chris is me]

Scepter Action,
You may choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Choose one: Put it into your hand; or put it onto your deck.

Stronger than Throne Room, but not quite King's Court.

Probably too strong as it is nearly as good as KC. The only exceptions are not having enough actions (in order to play the card which you put back into your hand for a third time) and KC-KC which is better than Scepter-Scepter.

How about I weaken it but lower the cost?

Scepter Action,
You may choose a card from your hand. Play it twice.
You may put it onto your deck.

I feel like both cards create opportunities to go infinite relatively easily. Taking cards you've played off the table creates memory / tracking issues as well. Seems tricky.

[kru5h]

I like LFN's version better, so I'll just drop this card.

Similar to LFN's General (which is a bit bland: TR and Scheme combined into one card) but a bit better and more interesting.

[kru5h]

Scepter Action,
You may play an Action card from your hand.
Choose one:
Play it again; or gain a copy of it.

[loneXolf]

Scepter Action,
You may play an Action card from your hand.
Choose one:
Play it again; or gain a copy of it.

First comes off as a split of Disciple which in itself is not a bad idea I think. My main problem with disciple is that it's maybe to good in a city quarter/overlord type kingdoms. However this card seems balanced and I like how you play out the target action once before you pick to gain a copy of it or play it again.

[kru5h]

If it ends up being too strong, I can raise the cost and buff the play-again option by mixing it with LFN's General.

Scepter (Alternate Version) Action,
You may play an Action card from your hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it again and when you discard it from play, you may put it on your deck.

[kru5h]

Thinking of this change.

Sellout Event,
Gain a curse. If you did, choose one:
Gain 2 cards, each costing up to ; or
gain a card costing up to .

Old card:

How about this:

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
Once per turn: Gain a curse. If you did, + and put the next card you gain this turn on top of your deck.

If somebody uses this to buy a Province for $6, then they had to gain a curse and put the Province on top of their deck, essentially Sea-Hagging themselves.

[kru5h]

Scepter Action,
You may play an Action card from your hand.
Choose one:
Play it again; or gain a copy of it.

First comes off as a split of Disciple which in itself is not a bad idea I think. My main problem with disciple is that it's maybe to good in a city quarter/overlord type kingdoms. However this card seems balanced and I like how you play out the target action once before you pick to gain a copy of it or play it again.

After thinking about it, playing it once before you choose is actually worse for this card. Imagine the tracking if you play several chained together:

I play a Scepter. Okay, play a card: I play another Scepter. Okay, now I play a third Scepter. And now I play Smithy. Now I choose to play Smithy again. Now I go backwards to the 2nd Scepter and choose to play my third Scepter again. Okay, now I choose to play Village. Now I go back to the second play of my third Scepter and gain a Village. Now I go back to the first Scepter and choose whether to play the second Scepter again or gain a Scepter.

Complicated stuff.

I think I'll change it:

Scepter Action,
Choose one:
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; or
you may play an Action card from your hand and gain a copy of it.

[loneXolf]

Scepter Action,
You may play an Action card from your hand.
Choose one:
Play it again; or gain a copy of it.

First comes off as a split of Disciple which in itself is not a bad idea I think. My main problem with disciple is that it's maybe to good in a city quarter/overlord type kingdoms. However this card seems balanced and I like how you play out the target action once before you pick to gain a copy of it or play it again.

After thinking about it, playing it once before you choose is actually worse for this card. Imagine the tracking if you play several chained together:

I play a Scepter. Okay, play a card: I play another Scepter. Okay, now I play a third Scepter. And now I play Smithy. Now I choose to play Smithy again. Now I go backwards to the 2nd Scepter and choose to play my third Scepter again. Okay, now I choose to play Village. Now I go back to the second play of my third Scepter and gain a Village. Now I go back to the first Scepter and choose whether to play the second Scepter again or gain a Scepter.

Complicated stuff.

I think I'll change it:

Scepter Action,
Choose one:
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; or
you may play an Action card from your hand and gain a copy of it.

Well that does seem like a pain to track but it nerfs the card overall q-q.

[kru5h]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it twice.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

[kru5h]

Maid Action,
Do both in either order:
+5 Cards; discard 5 cards.

Have only two cards left in your hand? Discard them to draw 5. Otherwise, you probably want to draw 5 first.

Edit: I'll probably just edit my Ivory Tower card to say this instead. Far more interesting.

[kru5h]

Guru Reaction,
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to trash a card from your hand.

When you trash a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain a card costing up to .

Inspired by NoMoreFun's Barge. Thanks to LibraryAdventurer for revealing it to me.

[loneXolf]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it twice.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Seems really strong depending on the kingdom and before any kingdom piles are empty. For a example if village is in the kingdom it makes this card +2 Cards +4 Actions/Low costing cantrips make it a lost city and at worst this card is a Explorer without the province effect.

Maid: 4 cost
Do both in either order:
+5 Cards; discard 5 cards.

Hard for me to see how strong this is,  Random suggestion: +4 cards/discard 3 cards might be better idk. I would need to play with this card to see how good it is.

Guru Reaction,
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to trash a card from your hand.

When you trash a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain a card costing up to .

A pure reaction is a nice idea, like maid it's hard to see how strong this card is without playing with it. Random suggestion: (Not sure how good this idea is) When you trash a card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card, gain a guru. to replace it's bottom reaction.

[Jack Rudd]

If you get the price of Crown down to $3, Cobblering a Crown looks pretty interesting.

[kru5h]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it twice.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Seems really strong depending on the kingdom and before any kingdom piles are empty. For a example if village is in the kingdom it makes this card +2 Cards +4 Actions/Low costing cantrips make it a lost city and at worst this card is a Explorer without the province effect.

Maid: 4 cost
Do both in either order:
+5 Cards; discard 5 cards.

Hard for me to see how strong this is,  Random suggestion: +4 cards/discard 3 cards might be better idk. I would need to play with this card to see how good it is.

Guru Reaction,
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to trash a card from your hand.

When you trash a card, you may discard this from your hand to gain a card costing up to .

A pure reaction is a nice idea, like maid it's hard to see how strong this card is without playing with it. Random suggestion: (Not sure how good this idea is) When you trash a card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card, gain a guru. to replace it's bottom reaction.

I'm going to remove Guru. Its first reaction is basically just the same as an action card with +1 Action, trash a card from your hand. I like the original Barge much better.

I'll probably nerf Cobbler to this. Though, it's not so interesting now and can be a dud in many kingdoms.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

I put "less than this" instead of $3 so that you can never Cobbler a Cobbler to empty the entire pile, though it does make it not interact with Bridge/Highway/etc. so well.

[ThetaSigma12]

Looks too much like Ironworks, but better.

[loneXolf]

I'll probably nerf Cobbler to this. Though, it's not so interesting now and can be a dud in many kingdoms.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

I put "less than this" instead of $3 so that you can never Cobbler a Cobbler to empty the entire pile, though it does make it not interact with Bridge/Highway/etc. so well.

I agree to what Theta said about this version is better, however it does seem similar to Ironworks. Also I think this card is a bit better than Ironworks in more kingdoms, since Cobbler works better with silver and 3 or lower cost action cards, while Ironworks needs a good 4 cost target to be "better".  Also I think Cobbler is much more versatile than most other 4 cost card out there.

[kru5h]

Whispers Event,
Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to and a card costing up to ;
Gain 2 cards, each costing up to ; or
Gain 3 cards, each costing up to .

Edit: Changed to $4

Edit: Simplified:

Whispers Event,
Gain a card costing up to and a card costing up to .

[kru5h]

I'll probably nerf Cobbler to this. Though, it's not so interesting now and can be a dud in many kingdoms.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

I put "less than this" instead of $3 so that you can never Cobbler a Cobbler to empty the entire pile, though it does make it not interact with Bridge/Highway/etc. so well.

I agree to what Theta said about this version is better, however it does seem similar to Ironworks. Also I think this card is a bit better than Ironworks in more kingdoms, since Cobbler works better with silver and 3 or lower cost action cards, while Ironworks needs a good 4 cost target to be "better".  Also I think Cobbler is much more versatile than most other 4 cost card out there.

Cobbler Action,
+1 Action
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Kind of like a Herald/Ironworks. Maybe?

[loneXolf]

Cobbler Action,
+1 Action
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Kind of like a Herald/Ironworks. Maybe?

I like this version so far the most out of the 3.

[kru5h]

Cobbler Action,
+1 Action
Gain a card costing up to less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Kind of like a Herald/Ironworks. Maybe?

I like this version so far the most out of the 3.

Eh, I'll just give up on this card for now.

Edit: On second thought, I like the 4-cost version of this card.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

It's more powerful than Ironworks when gaining Silver or Estates, but has fewer options. The choice between Ironworks and this is fairly even and depends heavily on the board. One of the main advantages of Ironworks is that you can always Ironworks an Ironworks. You can't Cobbler a Cobbler, and there isn't always a decent 2 or 3 cost on the board that you want several of. It also doesn't combo with most cost reducers.

[kru5h]

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

This functions similarly to a coin token. Got extra this turn? Buy this and you'll randomly have on one of your future turns. It's obviously weaker than a coin token because you can't choose which turn this shows up on.

[tristan]

Fame Treasure,
Gain a card.
---
If there's a card in the Supply costing more than ,
then this costs .

This is bad. In one of the contests one guy did a cantrip Duchy gainer for 6 if I remember correctly which is OK. In the absence of Silkroad and Duke Duchies are after all more of a sidekick.

But this is a non-terminal Province/Colony gainer and I don't see any situation in which you will not buy Fame instead of Province/Colony.

[AdrianHealey]

Fame Treasure,
Gain a card.
---
If there's a card in the Supply costing more than ,
then this costs .

I think it should be something like this:

Fame-Treasure, $8
+$2
If you trash this, gain a card.
---
If there's a card in the supply blablabla

[kru5h]

Fame Treasure,
Gain a card.
---
If there's a card in the Supply costing more than ,
then this costs .

I think it should be something like this:

Fame-Treasure, $8
+$2
If you trash this, gain a card.
---
If there's a card in the supply blablabla

You picked the worst timing.

I was about to delete Fame and add it to the Really Bad Card Idea thread. Now it's stuck here forever.

That'll teach me to come up with cards at 6am.

[AdrianHealey]

I don't think it's a bad idea.

A $8 silver that you can exchange for a province? Why not?

Maybe make it $9 (and $12), just to be sure.

[tristan]

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

This functions similarly to a coin token. Got extra this turn? Buy this and you'll randomly have on one of your future turns. It's obviously weaker than a coin token because you can't choose which turn this shows up on.

This is very interesting and a potential fix of Asper's Conserve. It is only once per turn, features a better ratio (1:1 instead of 2:1) but as you said, unlike with a Coin token you cannot time when you get the one-shot Peddler.

[kru5h]

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

This functions similarly to a coin token. Got extra this turn? Buy this and you'll randomly have on one of your future turns. It's obviously weaker than a coin token because you can't choose which turn this shows up on.

This is very interesting and a potential fix of Asper's Conserve. It is only once per turn, features a better ratio (1:1 instead of 2:1) but as you said, unlike with a Coin token you cannot time when you get the one-shot Peddler.

Asper's Conserve looks interesting:


I probably would've costed it at $1 + 1 Debt rather than $2.

[loneXolf]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

It's more powerful than Ironworks when gaining Silver or Estates, but has fewer options. The choice between Ironworks and this is fairly even and depends heavily on the board. One of the main advantages of Ironworks is that you can always Ironworks an Ironworks. You can't Cobbler a Cobbler, and there isn't always a decent 2 or 3 cost on the board that you want several of. It also doesn't combo with most cost reducers.

This was my second favorite version, however it seems to do everything better (Maybe the "Victory card +1 card" is better in same cases) than Ironworks except it's unable to get 4 costs. I only see Ironworks being clearly better in games where you want a certain 4 cost card. Also there is this question, In a kingdom with villages and you want a couple of them whats better Ironworks or Cobbler?

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

This functions similarly to a coin token. Got extra this turn? Buy this and you'll randomly have on one of your future turns. It's obviously weaker than a coin token because you can't choose which turn this shows up on.

Seems like a forced buy whenever you have a left over coin during the buy phase, since most decks except maybe a terminal draw big money deck with no action support can support a peddler easily.

[kru5h]

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

This functions similarly to a coin token. Got extra this turn? Buy this and you'll randomly have on one of your future turns. It's obviously weaker than a coin token because you can't choose which turn this shows up on.

Seems like a forced buy whenever you have a left over coin during the buy phase, since most decks except maybe a terminal draw big money deck with no action support can support a peddler easily.

I mean, that's kind of the point. This isn't a card that adds to the strategic depth of the game, it just changes it so that it's different. Think of it less as a card that you choose to buy, and think of it more like Alms. Alms doesn't make you make any decisions, or really change how the game is played much, it's just a small change to freshen things up and benefits all players equally. In games using Lost Coin, extra money isn't such a bad thing and +buy is extremely useful and that's it: Game slightly tweaked this instance.

Edit: Although, now that I think about it, I could make it like this:

Lost Coin Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coin this turn, +1 Buy.

$2 is a little more difficult to acquire and sometimes there's actually a choice to be made. Unsure which version I like better.

Edit 2:

Or this:

Lost Coins Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coins this turn, +1 Buy and gain another Lost Coins.

Now you have to spend $2, but you get two of them for +$1 each.

[loneXolf]

Lost Coins Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
+
Return this to the Supply.
---
The first time you buy a Lost Coins this turn, +1 Buy and gain another Lost Coins.

Now you have to spend $2, but you get two of them for +$1 each.

I like this version the most, However testing this card will quickly let you see how impactful it is.

[kru5h]

I'm still working on this one. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card.
At the start of your Clean-up this turn, the player to your left chooses another card you have in play.
Trash that card.

[AdrianHealey]

I'm still working on this one. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card.
At the start of your Clean-up this turn, the player to your left chooses another card you have in play.
Trash that card.

I prefer the version I suggested, tbh. I am not feeling it for this one.

[loneXolf]

I'm still working on this one. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card.
At the start of your Clean-up this turn, the player to your left chooses another card you have in play.
Trash that card.

Name: Pact of Greed
Effect: When you play this, gain a card. If you do, trash the top 2 cards of your deck. --Line-- If there's a card in the Supply costing more than 8 coins, then this card costs 11.
Cost: 8
Type: Treasure

I don't think your downside is that bad enough considering you can use this card to get a province or more fames losing a engine piece or gold is less than the worth of a province at the stage of the game you want to play this card. Also if you crowned that version you can get crazy value.

[kru5h]

I'm still working on this one. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card.
At the start of your Clean-up this turn, the player to your left chooses another card you have in play.
Trash that card.

Name: Pact of Greed
Effect: When you play this, gain a card. If you do, trash the top 2 cards of your deck. --Line-- If there's a card in the Supply costing more than 8 coins, then this card costs 11.
Cost: 8
Type: Treasure

I don't think your downside is that bad enough considering you can use this card to get a province or more fames losing a engine piece or gold is less than the worth of a province at the stage of the game you want to play this card. Also if you crowned that version you can get crazy value.

I mean, this is basically "Trash the best card you have in play and gain a card costing 2 or 3 more than it." The best card you have in play will usually be a 5-cost engine piece or a gold. Put into that context, paying 8 for such a card seems kind of high. It's an $8 expand. The difference is that you get the play the card before you trash it, but your opponent gets to pick.

In Colony games, this is overpowered, though. I'm thinking of a solution other than just changing the price in Colony games.

[ThetaSigma12]

I mean, it's a cool thought experiment, but in the end it's gonna be horrendously hard to balance. I mean, I can't see this working out in any way.

[loneXolf]

I'm still working on this one. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card.
At the start of your Clean-up this turn, the player to your left chooses another card you have in play.
Trash that card.

Name: Pact of Greed
Effect: When you play this, gain a card. If you do, trash the top 2 cards of your deck. --Line-- If there's a card in the Supply costing more than 8 coins, then this card costs 11.
Cost: 8
Type: Treasure

I don't think your downside is that bad enough considering you can use this card to get a province or more fames losing a engine piece or gold is less than the worth of a province at the stage of the game you want to play this card. Also if you crowned that version you can get crazy value.

I mean, this is basically "Trash the best card you have in play and gain a card costing 2 or 3 more than it." The best card you have in play will usually be a 5-cost engine piece or a gold. Put into that context, paying 8 for such a card seems kind of high. It's an $8 expand. The difference is that you get the play the card before you trash it, but your opponent gets to pick.

In Colony games, this is overpowered, though. I'm thinking of a solution other than just changing the price in Colony games.

However, it's better than expand, since you get to play the gold or engine piece before it gets trashed and it's not an action. Also if you ever have a dead hand with fame you can just play Fame and pass.

[kru5h]

Bell Action,
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile.
You may play an Action card from it.

This is a village variant. The goal of this card was to create a $3 village. Village itself costs $3, but most variants have something additional to make them cost more. This card is better than village when you have a lot of actions in your discard, worse when your discard pile is empty or nearly so. Combos well with cards that discard from your hand because you can use this Bell to wake them from the discard pile again. Near the end of the game, you will be playing most of your deck every turn and reshuffle, so it will be harder to have anything in your discard pile, but your deck will be mostly actions by that point, so you will usually discard an action from your deck to play.

[kru5h]

Citadel Action,
Choose one or all three:
+1 Card and +2 Actions;
+3 Cards and discard a card; and/or
+1 Buy and +.
If you chose all three, trash this.

Edit: Never mind. I don't really like this card.

[loneXolf]

Bell Action,
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile.
You may play a card from it.

Seems too good, I dislike card ideas that "hand pick" cards from the discard pile or deck and add them into your hand, since no card in the base games does this and it just seems like a really powerful effect. This card is pretty much always good, unless it's played right after a reshuffle and can pretty much be anything in your deck but with +1 action so also works well with terminal actions. Also this card can target treasures right? As an extra benefit it discards the top card of your deck covering it's only weakness by giving it a solid chance not to be dead with a empty discard pile, plus obviously this card synergies well with any card with a discard effect.

[kru5h]

Also this card can target treasures right?

Typo. Will fix.

If Harbinger and Settlers/Bustling Village have taught me anything, it's that your discard pile is usually empty.

Edit: The discard from deck does make it a little strong. That wasn't the intention. The intention was to lower the variance of this card a bit. It's really really good when your discard pile is full. It's really really bad when it's empty or has no actions (it's simply +1 action, equivalent to a Ruins.) I'll think about it for a bit and try to make it more well-rounded without buffing it.

[kru5h]

I could make it something like this:

Bell Action,
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
You may play one of the Action cards.
Discard the unplayed cards.

Edit: Seems kinda boring. :/

Edit: This has a tracking issue: Let's say I reveal a Smithy. I play it. I draw three cards while I still have two revealed (I only discard after I play.) Do I draw from the revealed cards or the deck? Probably the deck, but this is confusing. If I play something that also plays other cards (like Throne Room), I could keep the cards revealed for a long time and forget what to do with them.

Bell Action,
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
You may choose an Action card from them.
Discard the rest. Play that Card.

[kru5h]

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+
Each other player draws a card,
then repeats the following until they have 3 cards in hand:
Choose a card from your hand and either discard it or put it onto your deck.

A less mean version of Militia.

Still a bit harsh and a little more wordy than I'd like. I can probably do better.

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+
Each other player draws until they have 9 cards in hand,
puts 3 cards onto their deck, and then discards down to 3 cards in hand.

This is less wordy, but the problem is that if somebody has 5 or fewer cards in their deck/hand/discard, then they are forced into having a hand of 2 or fewer cards.

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+
Each other player draws until they have 9 cards in hand,
sets 3 cards aside, puts 3 cards onto their deck, discards the rest,
then puts the set aside cards into their hand.

Meh. Still not liking this card.

[loneXolf]

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+
Each other player draws until they have 9 cards in hand,
sets 3 cards aside, puts 3 cards onto their deck, discards the rest,
then puts the set aside cards into their hand.

Meh. Still not liking this card.

A good amount of the time this card will just help your opponent. Like really the attack nerf is so huge maybe +2 coins is workable. Also I would add "Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand..." or this card would just be so bad in 3 or 4 player games.

[kru5h]

Trap Action - Attack,
+2 Cards
You may set aside an Action card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Wordy, but simple concept.

[loneXolf]

Trap Action - Attack,
+2 Cards
You may set aside an Action card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Wordy, but simple concept.

Hard to read how strong this is, I would need to see the attack work in game. However, by just looking at the attack it's seems weak early game and against big money type decks with few actions.  Also I see this card being really good with a double terminal split. Nice idea 

[kru5h]

Trap Action - Attack,
+2 Cards
You may set aside an Action card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Wordy, but simple concept.

Hard to read how strong this is, I would need to see the attack work in game. However, by just looking at the attack it's seems weak early game and against big money type decks with few actions.  Also I see this card being really good with a double terminal split. Nice idea 

I feel like it's a bit weak. I could double-buff it to Torturer-level of strength and make it a $5. (+3 cards instead of +2 and Action/Treasure instead of only Action.)

Trap Action - Attack,
+3 Cards
You may set aside an Action or Treasure card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

It becomes interesting when multiple copies of the same card are set aside. Either from the same player or from multiple players. "I'm not giving up all of my Silvers this turn just to avoid a Curse. But 3 Curses if I play any Silver?! Now that's a tough decision."

Edit: I could shorten the wording by allowing any card to be set aside and forcing it to be set aside.

Trap Action - Attack - Duration,
+3 Cards
Set aside a card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Edit 2: Forgot to make it a Duration card. Fixed.

Edit 3: This also works against Inherited Estates now.

[loneXolf]

Edit: I could shorten the wording by allowing any card to be set aside and forcing it to be set aside.

Trap Action - Attack - Duration,
+3 Cards
Set aside a card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Edit 2: Forgot to make it a Duration card. Fixed.

Still hard to get a good read on this card, +3 Cards with a curse effect for 5 does seem really strong, however the attack is fairly situational not sure if it balances it out. I like both versions but my favorite is the 4 cost. 

[kru5h]

Edit: I could shorten the wording by allowing any card to be set aside and forcing it to be set aside.

Trap Action - Attack - Duration,
+3 Cards
Set aside a card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Edit 2: Forgot to make it a Duration card. Fixed.

Still hard to get a good read on this card, +3 Cards with a curse effect for 5 does seem really strong, however the attack is fairly situational not sure if it balances it out. I like both versions but my favorite is the 4 cost.

It's slightly worse than 3 cards because you set one aside for next turn (unless you have colliding terminals.)

The cursing is slightly worse than a Witch because the opponent can choose not to gain the Curse. Game Theory-wise, giving an opponent a choice between two things is always weaker than forcing them to do one of those things because the opponent will choose the weakest of the two.

Also, sometimes it doesn't even attack: Let's say you set aside a Curse because you need every single other card this turn. This will become more common as the number of Curses increase.

Also, once people start having a decent number of Curses in their deck, this card becomes weakened because they are less likely to have the set aside card in their hand.

Like I said, it's very similar in power to Torturer. Maybe slightly stronger, but probably not as strong as Cultist or Mountebank. It will be up to playtesting, though.

[loneXolf]

Edit: I could shorten the wording by allowing any card to be set aside and forcing it to be set aside.

Trap Action - Attack - Duration,
+3 Cards
Set aside a card from your hand.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a copy of that card, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, put that card into your hand.

Edit 2: Forgot to make it a Duration card. Fixed.

Still hard to get a good read on this card, +3 Cards with a curse effect for 5 does seem really strong, however the attack is fairly situational not sure if it balances it out. I like both versions but my favorite is the 4 cost.

It's slightly worse than 3 cards because you set one aside for next turn (unless you have colliding terminals.)

The cursing is slightly worse than a Witch because the opponent can choose not to gain the Curse. Game Theory-wise, giving an opponent a choice between two things is always weaker than forcing them to do one of those things because the opponent will choose the weakest of the two.

Also, sometimes it doesn't even attack: Let's say you set aside a Curse because you need every single other card this turn. This will become more common as the number of Curses increase.

Also, once people start having a decent number of Curses in their deck, this card becomes weakened because they are less likely to have the set aside card in their hand.

Like I said, it's very similar in power to Torturer. Maybe slightly stronger, but probably not as strong as Cultist or Mountebank. It will be up to playtesting, though.

Yeah I didn't say it was overpowered or better than witch. I just can't really get a good idea on how good it will be, since it's pretty much a bit of witch, torturer, swamp hag and haven mixed into one card.

[kru5h]

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
Until your next turn, when another player ends their turn (after drawing),
they discard down to 4 cards in hand.

A cheap/weak Militia. Meh.

I should probably nerf it slightly so that it isn't so similar to Fortune Teller.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
Until your next turn, when another player ends their turn (after drawing),
they discard down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn,
+

You don't want it to say "Now and at the start of your next turn, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand" because that's harder to track with reaction cards.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or put this into your hand.

Okay, I'm kinda liking this version. You want to keep replaying it until you're going to shuffle, you have no spare +actions, or you really need the +$2. All of those can be hard to judge sometimes. It can be a bit annoying if played every single turn for the rest of the game, but I'm working on that part.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Action
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or put this onto your deck.

Kind of weak. You're giving up an average card to your next hand to make everybody else give up the worst of 5 cards in their hand. Definitely against your interests to put this on your deck.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Action
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to put this into your hand.

The +$2 is slightly strong when you get +1 Action.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

[loneXolf]

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

Cute card, the "discard a card to play this again" effect is handy, since it gives you the option to save +2 coins for another turn. Angry Mob looks to be around the same strength level as Fortune Teller, however I don't see this card being Impactful as Swindler, Ambassador, Catapult or Oracle can be at times which is fine.

[AdrianHealey]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

[kru5h]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

It could work, it's just not my style of card. You can do it yourself if you'd like.

[kru5h]

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

Cute card, the "discard a card to play this again" effect is handy, since it gives you the option to save +2 coins for another turn. Angry Mob looks to be around the same strength level as Fortune Teller, however I don't seeing this card being Impactful as Swindler, Ambassador, Catapult or Oracle can be at times which is fine.

I feel like this card could use a tiny buff.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
You may discard a card for +1 Card.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

The first time you play this, the discard/+1 Card is useful. The second time you play it, it's not as useful because you already discarded a card to play this again, but it's still microscopically useful. Enough to offset the fact that you're delaying your +$2 for another turn.

Edit: Or maybe:

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Card
Discard a card.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

[ThetaSigma12]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

Hmm, I actually like this one.

[AdrianHealey]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

Hmm, I actually like this one.

You know what to do, young padawan.

[loneXolf]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

Seems fair, a silver/w effect card that you should buy over province when the province pile is near full, if you can. However this card seems pretty worthless in a colony game unless you plan to rush provinces, even then Platinum is probably a better buy instead of this when the victory piles are full or almost full. Also all of the versions of Fame buffs hero by a lot (I know Fortune is in the game but still)

[ThetaSigma12]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

Seems fair, a silver/w effect card that you should buy over province when the province pile is near full, if you can. However this card seems pretty worthless in a colony game unless you plan to rush provinces, even then Platinum is probably a better buy instead of this when the victory piles are full or almost full. Also all of the versions of Fame buffs hero by a lot (I know Fortune is in the game but still)

Maybe a "You can't gain this during your Action phase" would help avoid Mint/Hero/Bridge and Workshop shennaigans

[navical]

Fame Treasure - $9 (or even $10?)
$2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a province.

I totally think this could work.

Seems fair, a silver/w effect card that you should buy over province when the province pile is near full, if you can. However this card seems pretty worthless in a colony game unless you plan to rush provinces, even then Platinum is probably a better buy instead of this when the victory piles are full or almost full. Also all of the versions of Fame buffs hero by a lot (I know Fortune is in the game but still)

Maybe a "You can't gain this during your Action phase" would help avoid Mint/Hero/Bridge and Workshop shennaigans

I really don't think it's needed. The first two seem strong but they're not unskippable while in the third case, at that point you can just Workshop the Provinces directly too so I'm not seeing the problem.

[mail-mi]

Fame
Treasure - $9*
Worth $2
You may trash this. If you do, gain a victory card.
When you would gain this during your action phase, instead trash this.
This costs $12 if there is a victory card costing more than $8 in the supply.

How does this look?

[kru5h]

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card costing up to per card you have in play.
The player to your left chooses a card you have in play other than this.
Trash that card.

[loneXolf]

Fame Treasure,
When you play this, gain a card costing up to per card you have in play.
The player to your left chooses a card you have in play other than this.
Trash that card.

Looks like a more powerful Horn of Plenty sorta. You need 8 cards in play to make the most of this effect or you would just be trashing a engine piece or gold for the same card or a duchy. This card seems meh, only will be really useful if it's the only way to gain a second province per turn in the kingdom or maybe if you can get a lot of actions into play. This card also requires your deck to run well and at the point of the game why not just buy a province? Also what happens when a duration card gets trashed?

[ThetaSigma12]

Panoply (Treasure) $9
+$2
When you play this, you may trash this, to gain a Province.

This is the the version I might make sometime.

[kru5h]

I made some modifications to my cards.

Bond Treasure - Duration,
When you play this, choose one:
+1 buy and + now; or
+ at the start of your next turn.

This used to cost 5. Wow. that was overpowered.

Sellout Event,
+1 Buy
Once per turn: Gain a curse. If you did, + and you can't buy Victory cards this turn.

This has had several changes. I can't keep track of them anymore. Needless to say, I think this version is the best.

Hounds


I need to change the +2 cards to +1.

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Rare Coin on top, then 6 copies of Beaches.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Rare Coin Treasure,

When you play this, if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply, +.
---
While this is in play, Rare Coins cost less, but not less than .

Beaches Victory,
3
Worth 2 more if there are no Beaches left in the supply.

Rare Coins make other Rare coins cheaper. It didn't used to do that.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain an Estate.

Changed "Victory card, gain a copy of it" to Estate.

Bronze Treasure

+1 Buy
When you gain this or play it, you may trash a Copper from your hand.
If you do, you may gain a Bronze.

Changed cost to 3 (from 2.)

Whispers Event, +
You may overpay for this.
Gain a card costing less than the amount you paid and a card costing up to .

Used to cost 4 to gain a 4 and a 2.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Card
Discard a card.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.

At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

The first line used to be "You may discard a card for +1 Card." But that was slightly weak.

[kru5h]

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing up to .
This is that card until it leaves play.
When you discard this from play, trash it.

Turn a card in the supply into a cheaper, single-use version.

I'm tempted to put this into a split pile so there aren't 10 of them. Using them as $3 Pillages would be quite annoying.

Split Pile: 6 Pupils on top and 6 Campuses on bottom. Use four of each for a two-player game.

Campus Victory,
At the end of the game, treat this as if it were a copy of a Victory card in the supply that you choose.

Usually these will be Duchies. If the game 3-piles, these are Provinces. In a Colony game these are usually cheap Provinces. Sometimes there will be Colonies left at the end of the game. That means that people will desperately rush for these and green very early, but not too early because they need to buy all the Pupils first. In an Alt-VP game, these can be an extra copy of that Alt-VP if there are any left. If there aren't, these can be Provinces. The possibilities are endless.

Campus could probably use some work.

[ThetaSigma12]

Bond: That seems good, I'll change that in the next mock-up.
Sellout: I'm still not interested in it. If you dropped the Curse part then it would be cool:

+1 Buy. Once per turn: If you gained no victory cards this turn, +$2 and you can't buy victory cards this turn.

Hounds: That seems good, and even though +1 Card terminals are usually frowned upon since it drew another Victory card it should be good.
Rare Coin: Maybe just make it cost 4, i liked the simplicity of the pile.
Cobbler: I don't like it. It's either way better than Ironworks, as it can directly play cards costing up to 3, and when the only good cards are 4, it's annoying and just a weaker explorer usually. I think it would be more interesting at 5.
Bronze: I like King Leon's Charcoal Burner better. It seems more interesting and more balanced. (see mini-set mockups 2.0)
Whispers: I don't like the name. One of the most important parts of the card is the name. The effect is nice enough, but it needs the wording

Gain a card costing up to $2 and a card costing less then the amount you paid for this.
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it.

Pupil: It's cool I guess, but a more powerful version would be more interesting:

Pupil (Action-Treasure) $3
If it's your Action phase, play this as if it were an Action other than Pupil in the supply. If it's your buy phase, play it as a Treasure instead. This is that card until it leaves play.
------------
When you discard this from play, trash this.

Even then I'd just make it trash itself to avoid all kind of lose-track shenanigans.
Campus: I like this one.

Reviews of the older cards:

Rabbits: I like the concept, and I can live with the name.
Young Noble: It's cool.
Inventor: With the drawback maybe it can cost $5.
Cell: A permanent haven isn't that interesting. I'd try to spice it up.
Mulligan: I like it. I used a similar idea for a card with a new mechanic I'm working on.
Caltrops: The attack is unique, but the whole card is really weak (sorry i read it wrong but I still agree with the rest). It's a powerful millita-thingy usually, and I imagine it would either lead to un-fun decks or un-fun turns. In other words, the concept is cool but I have a hunch that playing with it would suck.
Snakes: Change the name please dude. I like it, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason Chapel has a limit.
Locksmith: It has an exotic concept, and I think if you really nail the wording it would work out nicely.
Promotion: Too strong. A workshop-to hand could already maybe cost $5, and letting it remodel is too good.
Magic Lamp: Too similar to Wishing Well. A bigger better version is just uninteresting, and I feel like Accomplice is similar too. Maybe if you combined them:

Accomplice $7
+2 Actions
Name a card, then reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Choose one: trash the named cards, or put them into your hand. Discard the rest

what do you think?
Ivory Tower: Other than the name (Beacon? Edifice?) it's by far my favorite. It's unique, cool and seems to work.
Dagger: I guess? It's still a meh card.
Cipher: I think it should cost $4. It's way better than courtyard as-is.
Scepter: It's cool I guess.
Bell: I notice a big top-of-your deck theme. Maybe you should keep Magic Lamp and Accomplice as-is, and make all 3 of these a little synergistic. It would definitely be a cool sub-theme.
Angry Mob: +1 Card on a terminal is frowned upon. I like the card, but maybe too much like Caltrops?

[loneXolf]

I made some modifications to my cards.

Bond Treasure - Duration,
When you play this, choose one:
+1 buy and + now; or
+ at the start of your next turn.

This used to cost 5. Wow. that was overpowered.

Seems like a worst gold for 6 unless you need the +1 buy.

Rare Coin/Beaches Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Rare Coin on top, then 6 copies of Beaches.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Rare Coin Treasure,

When you play this, if there are no Rare Coins left in the supply, +.
---
While this is in play, Rare Coins cost less, but not less than .

Beaches Victory,
3
Worth 2 more if there are no Beaches left in the supply.

Rare Coins make other Rare coins cheaper. It didn't used to do that.

Seems like a weird split pile since the two cards have no synergy, Also is multiple players go for either of these the supply pile of 5 will be gone quickly. And beaches being 5 vp seems a tad too strong to me idk.

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it.
Treasure card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, gain an Estate.

Changed "Victory card, gain a copy of it" to Estate

Static nerf, whatever.

Bronze Treasure

+1 Buy
When you gain this or play it, you may trash a Copper from your hand.
If you do, you may gain a Bronze.

Changed cost to 3 (from 2.)

Seems fair at the cost of 2 to me. idk, this could be a hidden buff to make Remodel work with Bronze better.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Card
Discard a card.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.

At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to play this again.

The first line used to be "You may discard a card for +1 Card." But that was slightly weak.

Static buff seems good.

[loneXolf]

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing up to .
This is that card until it leaves play.
When you discard this from play, trash it.

Turn a card in the supply into a cheaper, single-use version.

I'm tempted to put this into a split pile so there aren't 10 of them. Using them as $3 Pillages would be quite annoying.

Split Pile: 6 Pupils on top and 6 Campuses on bottom. Use four of each for a two-player game.

Campus Victory,
At the end of the game, treat this as if it were a copy of a Victory card in the supply that you choose.

Usually these will be Duchies. If the game 3-piles, these are Provinces. In a Colony game these are usually cheap Provinces. Sometimes there will be Colonies left at the end of the game. That means that people will desperately rush for these and green very early, but not too early because they need to buy all the Pupils first. In an Alt-VP game, these can be an extra copy of that Alt-VP if there are any left. If there aren't, these can be Provinces. The possibilities are endless.

Campus could probably use some work.

Pupil- Seem weird, So I will just list types of cards that I think this card are good with: Gold gainers, "Ex: Bandit", Cards with their own usable once effect, "Ex:Wine Merchant, Mining Village, Feast" Combos, "Treasure Map" Cards that make the most of dead hands, "Ex: Tactician" Also Missing engine pieces.Also does this card just copy Distant Lands for 3? And this card can be hard to track of you copied multiple reserve cards.

Campus - Are you missing the text:"non-empty supply pile" not 100% sure on how the wording works here? This card seems fair, but I see it being so weak in games where both the duchy and province piles are out.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing up to .
This is that card until it leaves play.
When you discard this from play, trash it.

Turn a card in the supply into a cheaper, single-use version.
I'm tempted to put this into a split pile so there aren't 10 of them. Using them as $3 Pillages would be quite annoying.

I like Pupil and I don't think the combo with Pillage will come up often enough to be worth making it a split pile.

Split Pile: 6 Pupils on top and 6 Campuses on bottom. Use four of each for a two-player game.

Campus Victory,
At the end of the game, treat this as if it were a copy of a Victory card in the supply that you choose.

Usually these will be Duchies. If the game 3-piles, these are Provinces. In a Colony game these are usually cheap Provinces. Sometimes there will be Colonies left at the end of the game. That means that people will desperately rush for these and green very early, but not too early because they need to buy all the Pupils first. In an Alt-VP game, these can be an extra copy of that Alt-VP if there are any left. If there aren't, these can be Provinces. The possibilities are endless.

Campus could probably use some work.

Pupil- Seem weird, So I will just list types of cards that I think this card are good with: Gold gainers, "Ex: Bandit", Cards with their own usable once effect, "Ex:Wine Merchant, Mining Village, Feast" Combos, "Treasure Map" Cards that make the most of dead hands, "Ex: Tactician" Also Missing engine pieces. Also does this card just copy Distant Lands for 3? And this card can be hard to track of you copied multiple reserve cards.

Campus - Are you missing the text:"non-empty supply pile" not 100% sure on how the wording works here? This card seems fair, but I see it being so weak in games where both the duchy and province piles are out.

Pupil wouldn't work at all with reserve cards (except Wine Merchant) because "This is that card until it leaves play" It would stop being a Distant Lands (or whatever) when you put it on the tavern mat.

The wording works as-is for campus because if the pile is empty the card isn't in the supply anymore. Band of Misfits is worded in a similar way. I wonder if campus will be overpowered in any game that doesn't end on provinces. It is taking a risk when you buy it betting that the game will end on piles, so that might be okay. It seems pretty rare that both the provinces and duchies will run out.

[loneXolf]

Pupil wouldn't work at all with reserve cards (except Wine Merchant) because "This is that card until it leaves play" It would stop being a Distant Lands (or whatever) when you put it on the tavern mat.

Right I didn't see until this card leaves play text. Also I miss read the Campus text, I must had posted that while I was tired.

[kru5h]

+1 Card terminals are usually frowned upon since it drew another Victory card it should be good.

Why are they frowned upon?

Rare Coin: Maybe just make it cost 4, i liked the simplicity of the pile.

Good idea.

Cobbler: I don't like it. It's either way better than Ironworks, as it can directly play cards costing up to 3, and when the only good cards are 4, it's annoying and just a weaker explorer usually. I think it would be more interesting at 5.

It has to be stronger than Ironworks, since it is limited and situational. It could perhaps be "Put it into your hand." for action cards, though.

Whispers: I don't like the name. One of the most important parts of the card is the name. The effect is nice enough, but it needs the wording

Gain a card costing up to $2 and a card costing less then the amount you paid for this.
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it.

Thanks.

Pupil: It's cool I guess, but a more powerful version would be more interesting:

Pupil (Action-Treasure) $3
If it's your Action phase, play this as if it were an Action other than Pupil in the supply. If it's your buy phase, play it as a Treasure instead. This is that card until it leaves play.
------------
When you discard this from play, trash this.

Even then I'd just make it trash itself to avoid all kind of lose-track shenanigans.
Campus: I like this one.

It's a single use version of one of the most powerful cards in the game (Overlord.) I don't think it needs to be any more powerful.

As for the lose track, it's mostly only affected by Scheme. Oh well.

Inventor: With the drawback maybe it can cost $5.

Would be too powerful for Big Money, which only needs 1-2 of these.

Caltrops: The attack is unique, but the whole card is really weak (sorry i read it wrong but I still agree with the rest). It's a powerful millita-thingy usually, and I imagine it would either lead to un-fun decks or un-fun turns. In other words, the concept is cool but I have a hunch that playing with it would suck.

Yeah, it needs testing.

Snakes: Change the name please dude. I like it, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason Chapel has a limit.

I'm not really worried about naming or art until I work on balance. Chapel has a limit, but this is a one-use card. Donate doesn't have a limit.

Promotion: Too strong. A workshop-to hand could already maybe cost $5, and letting it remodel is too good.

Probably, but I haven't found an elegant way to nerf this card yet. It's similar in strength to Trading post. It can gain a 4 instead of a Silver and only trashes one card instead of 2. Trading post isn't that powerful, so this could actually work out to be fine.

Magic Lamp: Too similar to Wishing Well. A bigger better version is just uninteresting, and I feel like Accomplice is similar too. Maybe if you combined them:

Accomplice $7
+2 Actions
Name a card, then reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Choose one: trash the named cards, or put them into your hand. Discard the rest

what do you think?

Meh.

Cipher: I think it should cost $4. It's way better than courtyard as-is.

It's a bit strong. If there are no Villages, this is weaker than Smithy. If there are Villages, you have to use a second action to net +2 cards. (This card was inspired by Asper's Road, which allows you to play +2 cards as many times as you want.) That's strong, but usually there are better terminals to play. Keep on mind that Courtyard is a 2-cost. I'll keep my mind open for elegant nerfs, though.

[kru5h]

Campus Victory,
When scoring, treat this as if it were the top card of a Supply pile that you choose.
This is that card card until scoring is complete.

Clarified and slightly buffed. Now you can play it as a Silver if you need just one more Silver for your Feodum. It can be one more Action card for your Vineyard. Etc. This could be a King's Castle in a Castle game. Whichever combination gets you the most points.

This may seem weak in a game that isn't going to three-pile, but remember that if you get to Campus in a 2-player game, there are only 4 of them in the Supply. It would be pretty easy to empty that pile and maybe 3-pile the game. It's a risk, though.

[kru5h]

I'll probably just change Promotion to this:

Promotion Action,
Trash a card from your hand.
Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to onto your deck; or
gain a card costing up to more than the trashed card.

A bit boring, though.

[kru5h]

I made some modifications to my cards.

Bond Treasure - Duration,
When you play this, choose one:
+1 buy and + now; or
+ at the start of your next turn.

This used to cost 5. Wow. that was overpowered.

Seems like a worst gold for 6 unless you need the +1 buy.

The option value of this card is huge. If a treasure card were simply +2 now or +2 next turn, that alone could be worth $5. You're playing it at the very end of your turn, exactly when you know how much money you'll need to buy what you want. Don't need the money? Save it for next turn and it's a gold.

+1 Buy +2 coin is worth about $5 by itself (See Charm.)
+3 coin next turn is worth $5 by itself.
Choosing which option you want exactly when you need it? That's nearly perfect option value.

Edit: I did end up buffing it, though:

Bond Treasure - Duration,
When you play this, choose one:
+1 Buy and + now; or
+1 Buy and + at the start of your next turn.

Never mind. I changed it back to 5. I forgot that you can only play it for +3 coin every other turn, which can significantly weaken it.

[Limetime]

Hounds compares too favorably to sage.

[kru5h]

Hounds compares too favorably to sage.

I should probably make it cost 3.

It would still be better than Sage, but I'm fine with that.

[kru5h]

This might be overpowered, but worth a thought:

Hounds Action,
Name a Type (Action, Attack, Etc.)
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal one of that type.
Put it into your hand and discard the rest.
If you named...
Action, +2 Actions
Treasure, +1 Buy and +
Victory, Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.

Essentially it's a slightly better Village when you need a Village.
It's a slightly better Woodcutter when you need coin.
It's decent draw when you need cards.
Extremely versatile. Probably too much.

Edit: Never mind. I don't like this version.

[kru5h]

Fame Treasure,
Gain a card costing up to .
For each in its cost above , take 2 Debt tokens.

[GendoIkari]

Fame Treasure,
Gain a card costing up to .
For each in its cost above , take 2 Debt tokens.

Maybe too much like Capital?

[kru5h]

Plantation Victory,
9
---
You may only buy or gain this during your first two turns.

Do you want to give up one of your first buys and carry around a victory card the rest of the game? Maybe for 9 victory points.
You probably don't want two of these, but the option's always there.

[loneXolf]

Plantation Victory,
9
---
You may only buy or gain this during your first two turns.

Do you want to give up one of your first buys and carry around a victory card the rest of the game? Maybe for 9 victory points.
You probably don't want two of these, but the option's always there.

Weird effect. it might limit new card effects, good in a 5/2 split. Also I don't see someone buying more that 1 often.

[ThetaSigma12]

Plantation Victory,
9
---
You may only buy or gain this during your first two turns.

Do you want to give up one of your first buys and carry around a victory card the rest of the game? Maybe for 9 victory points.
You probably don't want two of these, but the option's always there.

It's been done before (Called Swamp), and it was 6VP. That seems better.

[kru5h]

Plantation Victory,
9
---
You may only buy or gain this during your first two turns.

Do you want to give up one of your first buys and carry around a victory card the rest of the game? Maybe for 9 victory points.
You probably don't want two of these, but the option's always there.

It's been done before (Called Swamp), and it was 6VP. That seems better.

Funny thing is, I almost named this Swamp by pure coincidence.

[GendoIkari]

Plantation Victory,
9
---
You may only buy or gain this during your first two turns.

Do you want to give up one of your first buys and carry around a victory card the rest of the game? Maybe for 9 victory points.
You probably don't want two of these, but the option's always there.

It's been done before (Called Swamp), and it was 6VP. That seems better.

Funny thing is, I almost named this Swamp by pure coincidence.

Swamp was mine.  Here's some discussion on it: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11495.msg400579#msg400579

[kru5h]

Auction Action,
Reveal and set aside the top 5 cards of your deck.
The player to your left distributes 4 debt tokens on the 5 cards any way they choose.
Put any number of the set aside cards into your hand, taking the debt tokens they have on them.
Discard the rest.

This is really weak at the beginning of the game. Suppose you draw 3 Coppers, an Estate, and a Silver. The player to your left just puts 2 debt on the Silver and one on most of the Copper. As your cards get better, you get a better deal. If there's an amazingly good card, it might have a lot of debt on it, allowing you to get the weaker cards for free.

[loneXolf]

Auction Action,
Reveal and set aside the top 5 cards of your deck.
The player to your left distributes 4 debt tokens on the 5 cards any way they choose.
Put any number of the set aside cards into your hand, taking the debt tokens they have on them.
Discard the rest.

This is really weak at the beginning of the game. Suppose you draw 3 Coppers, an Estate, and a Silver. The player to your left just puts 2 debt on the Silver and one on most of the Copper. As your cards get better, you get a better deal. If there's an amazingly good card, it might have a lot of debt on it, allowing you to get the weaker cards for free.

Not a bad card idea, However I think most decks would rather have a higher costed terminal draw card. Too weird of a card to see how powerful it is, since nothing in the game does the same thing like this does.

[kru5h]

Auction Action,
Reveal and set aside the top 5 cards of your deck.
The player to your left distributes 4 debt tokens on the 5 cards any way they choose.
Put any number of the set aside cards into your hand, taking the debt tokens they have on them.
Discard the rest.

This is really weak at the beginning of the game. Suppose you draw 3 Coppers, an Estate, and a Silver. The player to your left just puts 2 debt on the Silver and one on most of the Copper. As your cards get better, you get a better deal. If there's an amazingly good card, it might have a lot of debt on it, allowing you to get the weaker cards for free.

Not a bad card idea, However I think most decks would rather have a higher costed terminal draw card. Too weird of a card to see how powerful it is, since nothing in the game does the same thing like this does.

Closest card is envoy.

[kru5h]

I think I found a way to make Hounds not so similar (and better) than Sage.



Change it to "Either trash it or put it into your hand." and change the cost to 4.

You can name Curse to hunt down Curses and trash them without having to give up any cards in your hand. You can trash your Estates for +1 or +2 cards (I haven't decided yet if I want to change it to 1.)

Edit: Yeah, I need to change it to 1 Card.

Edit 2: Meh. I don't like this change. I have enough trashing cards as it is.

[loneXolf]

I think I found a way to make Hounds not so similar (and better) than Sage.



Change it to "Either trash it or put it into your hand." and change the cost to 4.

You can name Curse to hunt down Curses and trash them without having to give up any cards in your hand. You can trash your Estates for +1 or +2 cards (I haven't decided yet if I want to change it to 1.)

Edit: Yeah, I need to change it to 1 Card.

Review for the 2 cost version: Seems way better than sage for picking up actions, since it cannot pick up dead victory cards and silvers. The treasure option is useful for the +1 buy and when there is trashing, Also the victory option seems weak at +1 card(Would be too strong at +2). However it can be useful in some rare cases.

Review for the 4 cost version: I really like the "Either trash it or put it into your hand" effect. I would nerf the victory option down to +1 card or +1 VP and would slightly buff the treasure option by making it +1 coin, +1 buy so it's better at trashing coppers(Idk might make it too strong).
Random Idea - Make this card force trash the revealed card, however greatly buff benefits to something like this: Action, +2 Cards +1 Action; Treasure, 2+ Coins +1 Buy; Victory, Gain VP Tokens equal to half of the cost of the trashed card in coins, rounded down.

[kru5h]

I think I found a way to make Hounds not so similar (and better) than Sage.



Change it to "Either trash it or put it into your hand." and change the cost to 4.

You can name Curse to hunt down Curses and trash them without having to give up any cards in your hand. You can trash your Estates for +1 or +2 cards (I haven't decided yet if I want to change it to 1.)

Edit: Yeah, I need to change it to 1 Card.

Review for the 2 cost version: Seems way better than sage for picking up actions, since it cannot pick up dead victory cards and silvers. The treasure option is useful for the +1 buy, however it will be sorta weak if there is no trashing for copper, since it turns this card into a mini-Adventurer with +1 buy. Also the victory option seems weak at +1 card(Would be too strong at +2). However it can be useful in some rare cases.

Review for the 4 cost version: I really like the "Either trash it or put it into your hand" effect. I would nerf the victory option down to +1 card or +1 VP and would slightly buff the treasure option by making it +1 coin, +1 buy so it's better at trashing coppers.
Random Idea - Make this card force trash the revealed card, however greatly buff benefits to something like this: Action, +2 Cards +1 Action; Treasure, 2+ Coins +1 Buy; Victory, Gain VP Tokens equal to half of the cost of the trashed card in coins, rounded down.

My current version is the same as the original except it costs 3 and has +1 card instead of 2 for victory. Two-cost is too cheap since it's usually better than Sage.

I don't really like the forced trashing. I feel like Sacrifice from Empires fits that niche.

The 4-cost with +1 card is a decent card, but I just have so many trashers as it is, so I prefer the 3-cost/+1 Card version.

Edit: The +1 coin change is a really good change if I decide to go with the 4-cost version.

[loneXolf]

I think I found a way to make Hounds not so similar (and better) than Sage.



Change it to "Either trash it or put it into your hand." and change the cost to 4.

You can name Curse to hunt down Curses and trash them without having to give up any cards in your hand. You can trash your Estates for +1 or +2 cards (I haven't decided yet if I want to change it to 1.)

Edit: Yeah, I need to change it to 1 Card.

Review for the 2 cost version: Seems way better than sage for picking up actions, since it cannot pick up dead victory cards and silvers. The treasure option is useful for the +1 buy, however it will be sorta weak if there is no trashing for copper, since it turns this card into a mini-Adventurer with +1 buy. Also the victory option seems weak at +1 card(Would be too strong at +2). However it can be useful in some rare cases.

Review for the 4 cost version: I really like the "Either trash it or put it into your hand" effect. I would nerf the victory option down to +1 card or +1 VP and would slightly buff the treasure option by making it +1 coin, +1 buy so it's better at trashing coppers.
Random Idea - Make this card force trash the revealed card, however greatly buff benefits to something like this: Action, +2 Cards +1 Action; Treasure, 2+ Coins +1 Buy; Victory, Gain VP Tokens equal to half of the cost of the trashed card in coins, rounded down.

My current version is the same as the original except it costs 3 and has +1 card instead of 2 for victory. Two-cost is too cheap since it's usually better than Sage.

I don't really like the forced trashing. I feel like Sacrifice from Empires fits that niche.

The 4-cost with +1 card is a decent card, but I just have so many trashers as it is, so I prefer the 3-cost/+1 Card version.

Yeah sacrifice does first came to mind with that idea, however it trashes the top card of your deck of that type instead from your hand which is way stronger, but obviously has way less control on what card you will trash. Anyway, the 3 cost version of Hounds does still sorta feel like a powercreep of sage to me, since it's just plain better at fishing actions while having the other two options for more flexibility, and also having way more control on the card you get most of the time.

[kru5h]

I think I'm going to change Hounds to the 4-cost version. (Trashing option, +1 coin instead of Buy, +1 Card instead of 2.)

To get rid of some of the excess trashing among my cards, I'm going to change Accomplice.



A village that also trashes? So powerful. Instead I'll change it to discard. Feels slightly weak at 5, but too strong for 4. I'll think on it.

Edit: Ooh, I just got a good idea. "If it's an Accomplice or an Attack card, put it into your hand. Otherwise you may discard it."



I need to change this to "At any time during your turns" instead of "At the start of each of your turns." Otherwise it's a bit weak. This will also allow you to do interesting things during discard attacks. Especially Pillage.

Edit: Never mind. I like the 3-cost Hounds and Accomplice the way it is. I will reword Cell, though.

[loneXolf]

To get rid of some of the excess trashing among my cards, I'm going to change Accomplice.



A village that also trashes? So powerful. Instead I'll change it to discard. Feels slightly weak at 5, but too strong for 4. I'll think on it.

Edit: Ooh, I just got a good idea. "If it's an Accomplice or an Attack card, put it into your hand. Otherwise you may discard it."

I think Accomplice would maybe be fine at 4 cost without the trashing effect, since it would look like a weaker Herald but as an village. Also adding the attack card part would fit the flavor of the name, however it sorta already seemed to be pushing it at the cost of 4 without it. I don't know, weird card to balance it's a spin on Herald, however Herald almost always has the risk of being a vanilla cantrip, but villages have pretty decent value on their own.

[loneXolf]

I need to change this to "At any time during your turns" instead of "At the start of each of your turns." Otherwise it's a bit weak. This will also allow you to do interesting things during discard attacks. Especially Pillage.

Do you mean to change it's text to "At anytime"? Because cell will not do anything against attacks if you cannot use it out of your turn.

[kru5h]

I need to change this to "At any time during your turns" instead of "At the start of each of your turns." Otherwise it's a bit weak. This will also allow you to do interesting things during discard attacks. Especially Pillage.

Do you mean to change it's text to "At anytime"? Because cell will not do anything against attacks if you cannot use it out of your turn.

Oh, right. Wasn't thinking.

Now I have to decide which version I like. Is there any way to abuse swapping cards on another player's turn?

It's probably just simpler to keep it as only "your turns" to avoid confusion.

[ThetaSigma12]

Re cell: I'd use the wording "During your turn". It's not official but I've used it on several other fan cards.

A general suggestion: Wait a bit before you post a card. I've made this mistake a lot. Often you think up a card randomly you think is amazing, and then next day you hate it. Waiting and thinking could cut down on the clutter.

[kru5h]

I modified Locksmith to this:

Locksmith Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
You may treat any other duration cards you have in play as if this is
the start of your next turn. (And your other turns are the next such turn.)
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Cards

Also seriously considering this:

Locksmith Action - Duration,
Now and at the start of your next turn,
+3 Cards then discard 2 cards.
You may treat another duration card you have in play as if this is
the start of your next turn. (And your other turns are the next such turn.)

Edit: Hmm. I like the top version.

[kru5h]

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or
+
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player cannot play any other Attack cards this turn.

[loneXolf]

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or
+
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player cannot play any other Attack cards this turn.

+2 Coins is quite strong for a two cost, since there are way better 5 cost non-terminal cards for a 5/2 split than a 4/3 split. Also I see this card being fairly weak in a lot of cards since most of the time you will only play one attack per turn if any.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think the top is good. I don't like the bottom. I'd recommend "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you are not affected by any attacks after this one until you next turn."
Still a good defence against toturer, rabble or familiar stacks, etc.

[Mr Anderson]

I think the top is good. I don't like the bottom. I'd recommend "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you are not affected by any attacks after this one until you next turn."
Still a good defence against toturer, rabble or familiar stacks, etc.

But that would not be any different from Moat. Maybe if you discarded it to gain some benefit. Gaining an Attack card is the first thing that comes to my mind, not saying it would be balanced.

[kru5h]

I just realized that Witness leads to a contradiction. It says you can't play attack cards. Golem and Herald say to play a card. Which one wins?

Here's my updated version.

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or
+
---
When another player plays an Attack card while they have another Attack card in play, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player gets +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

Doesn't really affect Urchin or Pillage.

Strongest against Goons, Cultist, Torturer, and Scrying Pool.

Trying to figure out how to word this for Relic...

Or I could do the opposite. Penalize the first play of an attack card.

The first time another player plays an Attack card this turn, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player gets +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

This might just make people buy more attack cards, though. Since now they can't collide.

[GendoIkari]

I just realized that Witness leads to a contradiction. It says you can't play attack cards. Golem and Herald say to play a card. Which one wins?.

I would have agreed with you a couple weeks ago, in fact I'm usually the first one to point this out when people make "you can't play" cards. But after Donald's comments on a recent rules thread about that issue, it's seems to me that he was fine with the "can't beats can" rule like MTG has. He didn't come right out and make such a rule, but he did say that that's how Black Market and Mission interact, and I take it as a canonical example that "can't" effects aren't automatically bad (though still preferable to avoid them if there's a simple alternate wording). Thread here.

[kru5h]

The question is how this works with Relic:

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or
+
---
When another player plays an Attack card while they have another Attack card in play, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player gets +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

Does the from Relic count as Instructions? Or just the "When you play this" part?

It's also slightly strange for a Treasure to give you +1 Card, +1 Action.

Edit: I looked up a ruling on Enchantress played before Crown, so there's precedent for a treasure giving you +1 Card, +1 Action. It still doesn't answer the question of whether the 2 coin counts as "instructions" or is just part of the card.

Edit: I'm going to argue that the 2 coin from Relic is an "instruction" and that you don't get it. I made this decision because many treasures have worth that is determined by their instructions (Fool's Gold, Philosopher's Stone, Charm, Fortune, Bank.)

[GendoIkari]

The question is how this works with Relic:

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or
+
---
When another player plays an Attack card while they have another Attack card in play, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, that player gets +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

Does the from Relic count as Instructions? Or just the "When you play this" part?

It's also slightly strange for a Treasure to give you +1 Card, +1 Action.

Edit: I looked up a ruling on Enchantress played before Crown, so there's precedent for a treasure giving you +1 Card, +1 Action. It still doesn't answer the question of whether the 2 coin counts as "instructions" or is just part of the card.

Edit: I'm going to argue that the 2 coin from Relic is an "instruction" and that you don't get it. I made this decision because many treasures have worth that is determined by their instructions (Fool's Gold, Philosopher's Stone, Charm, Fortune, Bank.)

Pretty sure you're right. The fact that the $2 is separate from the "when you play this" is simply asthetics to make the treasures look more like actual treasures. The rules for them should be the same as the rules for playing an action that gives money.

[loneXolf]

I just realized that Witness leads to a contradiction. It says you can't play attack cards. Golem and Herald say to play a card. Which one wins?.

I would have agreed with you a couple weeks ago, in fact I'm usually the first one to point this out when people make "you can't play" cards. But after Donald's comments on a recent rules thread about that issue, it's seems to me that he was fine with the "can't beats can" rule like MTG has. He didn't come right out and make such a rule, but he did say that that's how Black Market and Mission interact, and I take it as a canonical example that "can't" effects aren't automatically bad (though still preferable to avoid them if there's a simple alternate wording). Thread here.

In most games the "Can't" effect wins however not sure how it would work in dominion.

[ThetaSigma12]

Hey, sorry for the hiatus, busy celebrating thanksgiving. Here's a few images changed per your request:


This wasn't changed but didn't seem to be added to the OP:

I changed the art on this one so I could use it elsewhere:

Here's a few I changed the art/name based on my preference, in case you wanted them:

[kru5h]

Made some drastic word changes to Campus and Witness. Changed cost of Pupil to 2 so it is more likely to actually empty.

Pupil/Campus Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Pupil on top, then 6 copies of Campus.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing up to .
This is that card until it leaves play.
---
When you discard this from play, trash it.

Campus Victory,
When scoring, choose one:
Count this as if it were a copy of a card from your deck costing less than this;
or count this as a copy of the top card of a Supply pile that you choose.
This is that card card until scoring is complete.

You can now score Campus as any cheaper card in your deck OR the top card from a supply pile. That should give it slightly more utility.

Witness Action - Reaction,
Look at the top card of your deck, then choose one:
+1 Card and +1 Action; or +
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand to change the next Attack played this turn to
+1 Card and +1 Action instead of its instructions.

I drastically shortened the wording here. Note that it only changes the next attack, but you can keep revealing Witness every attack to keep affecting the next one. Only the first attack of a turn hurts you. I changed "Attack card" to "Attack" so that if they Throne room an attack card it avoids confusion. The second attack may not be an attack "card" since the card is already in play, but it's still an attack, so Witness can stop it.

[kru5h]

I should probably change this to a 4-cost. Thoughts?



Edit: I should probably change the wording.

"If this is the first time you played this this turn, you may spend an action to play it again."

That's a lot of "this".

[AdrianHealey]

That shpuld absolutely be 4.

[loneXolf]

I should probably change this to a 4-cost. Thoughts?



Edit: I should probably change the wording.

"If this is the first time you played this this turn, you may spend an action to play it again."

That's a lot of "this".

Yeah this should cost 4 at least since this is pretty much "Mega Courtyard". It's second effect seems pretty strong with villages however without muit-action cards it can even be better than smithy in some cases.

[tristan]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

[AdrianHealey]

With champion it is 'draw your deck' btw

[ThetaSigma12]

With champion it is 'draw your deck' btw

Nope.

[AdrianHealey]

Everytime you play it is 'a second time', because every time you play it is a nw first time

[loneXolf]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

Courtyard is better than smithy in some cases. Cipher on the other hand seems like a much more versatile card than smithy and courtyard(clearly). Few random points 1. First you don't need play it a second time after a village you will only really do this if you don't have a better option for said action. 2. Even if you use all of your actions on this card and then draw dead engine pieces you can put one of them on top of your deck so maybe it won't miss a cycle. This effect is also useful for saving any extra golds/silvers. 3. Combos with tunnel. 4. Obviously you can a bit of value from this card when you have left over actions since it's pretty much two better courtyards in one card.

[ThetaSigma12]

Everytime you play it is 'a second time', because every time you play it is a nw first time

Nope. This refers to the card you played, you can't spend an action to play this a third time.

[AdrianHealey]

That's not how cards work, do they?

You play an entire card as such.

Than the 'you may play this a second time' should be below a _____, I think.

[ThetaSigma12]

Than the 'you may play this a second time' should be below a _____, I think.

Nope (my new favorite word). That's only for effects other than when play, you may only spend an Action to play this card a second time when you play it.

[kru5h]

Everytime you play it is 'a second time', because every time you play it is a nw first time

Nope. This refers to the card you played, you can't spend an action to play this a third time.

Guys, I'm changing the wording anyway.

"If this is the first time you played this this turn, you may spend an Action to play it again."

[ThetaSigma12]

Everytime you play it is 'a second time', because every time you play it is a nw first time

Nope. This refers to the card you played, you can't spend an action to play this a third time.

Guys, I'm changing the wording anyway.

"If this is the first time you played this card this turn, you may spend an Action to play it again."

Ftfy. Anyways, we were going off that wording.

[kru5h]

I just realized that the trashing on this card is way too powerful:


You open Silver/Ivory Tower. Next turn, buy an Ivory Tower.

Whenever you play one, you draw the other one and can trash 5 cards from your hand. Next turn you can do the same.

I should remove the trashing from this card. Putting the good cards that you discard on top of your deck is already good enough (especially when discarding 5 at a time.)

"When you discard a card other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal this from your hand to, put that card onto your deck."

A lot less wordy, too.

[tristan]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

Courtyard is better than smithy in some cases.

Extremely situational. I'd never ever take a free Courtyard over a free Smithy.

1. First you don't need play it a second time after a village you will only really do this if you don't have a better option for said action.

Then Cipher at a price of 4 is inferior to Smithy. 

2. Even if you use all of your actions on this card and then draw dead engine pieces you can put one of them on top of your deck so maybe it won't miss a cycle. This effect is also useful for saving any extra golds/silvers.

That's your only good point: you can topdeck a village if you draw it deck. But you will probably not risk to get any other engine pieces besides a village and Cipher into the mix.

So overall I stick to what I said: this is on average weaker than Smithy but probably still too good for 3.
The problem of the card is its "wobbliness". It draws a huge shitload of card which is BMish but to kickstart it you need a high village density in your deck which is engine-ish. But you cannot play anything else besides the massive draw in your engine so it becomes an incredibly narrow card to use.
Any other terminal draw can be thrown into a mix much easier than this.

[loneXolf]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

Courtyard is better than smithy in some cases.

Extremely situational. I'd never ever take a free Courtyard over a free Smithy.

1. First you don't need play it a second time after a village you will only really do this if you don't have a better option for said action.

Then Cipher at a price of 4 is inferior to Smithy. 

2. Even if you use all of your actions on this card and then draw dead engine pieces you can put one of them on top of your deck so maybe it won't miss a cycle. This effect is also useful for saving any extra golds/silvers.

That's your only good point: you can topdeck a village if you draw it deck. But you will probably not risk to get any other engine pieces besides a village and Cipher into the mix.

So overall I stick to what I said: this is on average weaker than Smithy but probably still too good for 3.
The problem of the card is its "wobbliness". It draws a huge shitload of card which is BMish but to kickstart it you need a high village density in your deck which is engine-ish. But you cannot play anything else besides the massive draw in your engine so it becomes an incredibly narrow card to use.
Any other terminal draw can be thrown into a mix much easier than this.

I still would rather build Cipher/Village in more kingdoms than Smithy/Village, if you disagree with me that's fine.

[ThetaSigma12]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

Courtyard is better than smithy in some cases.

Extremely situational. I'd never ever take a free Courtyard over a free Smithy.

1. First you don't need play it a second time after a village you will only really do this if you don't have a better option for said action.

Then Cipher at a price of 4 is inferior to Smithy. 

2. Even if you use all of your actions on this card and then draw dead engine pieces you can put one of them on top of your deck so maybe it won't miss a cycle. This effect is also useful for saving any extra golds/silvers.

That's your only good point: you can topdeck a village if you draw it deck. But you will probably not risk to get any other engine pieces besides a village and Cipher into the mix.

So overall I stick to what I said: this is on average weaker than Smithy but probably still too good for 3.
The problem of the card is its "wobbliness". It draws a huge shitload of card which is BMish but to kickstart it you need a high village density in your deck which is engine-ish. But you cannot play anything else besides the massive draw in your engine so it becomes an incredibly narrow card to use.
Any other terminal draw can be thrown into a mix much easier than this.

I think it's fine at . Courtyard is a good , and the fact that this can be 2 of them AND overcomes Courtyard's big drawback (top-decking junk) seems to me like it should be fine.

The thing I do worry about is Nicheness as you said, and I would agree that in many games it would be a weaker (No villages, better draw). However I don't think that's a big issue, it's flexible enough that it seems like it could pass.

[tristan]

Village and Smithy is equivalent to 2 Labs.
Village and Cipher is (sometimes) +3 Cards, discard 1 Card, +3 Cards, discard 1 Card. Kind of a super Embassy. But is it really stronger than a Double Lab?

The problem is that you are out of actions after having played it again (assuming that you start your hand with only one village) so whatever engine pieces you draw are dead. But Cipher for 4 is only viable compared to Smithy if you actually do use its 'play again' effect and in order to do that you need an engine.

So technically the problem is that this card converts two Actions in a huge load of cards. It is a pure draw engine with little room to add in some Action cards that provide extra buys or Attacks (admittedly the discarding is an indirect defense against junkers) or whatever.

This design is too narrow for my taste.

Courtyard is better than smithy in some cases.

Extremely situational. I'd never ever take a free Courtyard over a free Smithy.

1. First you don't need play it a second time after a village you will only really do this if you don't have a better option for said action.

Then Cipher at a price of 4 is inferior to Smithy. 

2. Even if you use all of your actions on this card and then draw dead engine pieces you can put one of them on top of your deck so maybe it won't miss a cycle. This effect is also useful for saving any extra golds/silvers.

That's your only good point: you can topdeck a village if you draw it deck. But you will probably not risk to get any other engine pieces besides a village and Cipher into the mix.

So overall I stick to what I said: this is on average weaker than Smithy but probably still too good for 3.
The problem of the card is its "wobbliness". It draws a huge shitload of card which is BMish but to kickstart it you need a high village density in your deck which is engine-ish. But you cannot play anything else besides the massive draw in your engine so it becomes an incredibly narrow card to use.
Any other terminal draw can be thrown into a mix much easier than this.

I still would rather build Cipher/Village in more kingdoms than Smithy/Village, if you disagree with me that's fine.

You could do that and probably lose all games. Cipher is less flexible and on average worse than Smithy.
Your error is probably that you seriously overestimate the advantage of topdecking a card Courtyard style.

[ThetaSigma12]

You could do that and probably lose all games. Cipher is less flexible and on average worse than Smithy.

Whoa whoa whoa, Chipher is more flexible then smithy, that's half the point. It let's you top-deck stuff (you might think that sucks, but it's still flexibility), and it can become 2 copies of itself.

Your error is probably that you seriously overestimate the advantage of topdecking a card Courtyard style.

It may not be that good, but the fact that you can discard instead overcomes half the downsides of courtyard.


All in all, without the "spend an Action" clause it would cost . That seems fair. With the "spend an Action" clause, it seems like a good . It seems fine in engines, as it can
1) Top-deck dead cards
2) Discard green instead of top-decking it
3) Play itself again, so you need a slightly less Cipher-Village ratio.

[kru5h]

I just realized that this is too powerful in a Locksmith/Hireling combo:



If you have 2 or 3 Hirelings out, every time you play a Locksmith, you can unlock the previous Locksmith and all of the Hirelings for several extra cards each turn.

I should limit it to one duration card per play:

"You may treat another Duration card you have in play as if this is the start of your next turn. (Your other turns are the next such turn.)"

Edit: I dunno, though. Maybe this combo is really hard to set up and not worth the trouble.

[tristan]

You could do that and probably lose all games. Cipher is less flexible and on average worse than Smithy.

Whoa whoa whoa, Chipher is more flexible then smithy.

No.

You can use Smithy for BM and in all kind of engines. Cipher on the other hand is strictly worse than Smithy for BM and if you use it in an engine you can most likely only use it as a pure draw engine (if you don't spend an action to trigger Cipher a second time it is again strictly worse than Smithy). The only exception to that is the presence of double villages like Port or Fishing Village, they might enable you to buy other Action cards besides villages and Ciphers.

"Spend an action" is an interesting concept, I use it for a payload card (4$: Spend an Action. If you do: +4$, +1 Buy). But even that comes with an on-gain one-shot village.
That card works because you play it last. Cipher on the other hand is triggered during your turn, when you draw extra cards so that second Action you gotta play really hurt as you very likely draw Actions cards dead. Sure, you can topdeck one but at the end it still boils down to something that can only be really used in a pure draw-engine.

So the card is not very flexible, it is a niche card, something that can only be used for one particular thing. This is not the end of the world but obviously a flexible card that can be used in all kinds of situations is more interesting.

[navical]

You could do that and probably lose all games. Cipher is less flexible and on average worse than Smithy.

Whoa whoa whoa, Chipher is more flexible then smithy.

No.

You can use Smithy for BM and in all kind of engines. Cipher on the other hand is strictly worse than Smithy for BM and if you use it in an engine you can most likely only use it as a pure draw engine (if you don't spend an action to trigger Cipher a second time it is again strictly worse than Smithy). The only exception to that is the presence of double villages like Port or Fishing Village, they might enable you to buy other Action cards besides villages and Ciphers.

"Spend an action" is an interesting concept, I use it for a payload card (4$: Spend an Action. If you do: +4$, +1 Buy). But even that comes with an on-gain one-shot village.
That card works because you play it last. Cipher on the other hand is triggered during your turn, when you draw extra cards so that second Action you gotta play really hurt as you very likely draw Actions cards dead. Sure, you can topdeck one but at the end it still boils down to something that can only be really used in a pure draw-engine.

So the card is not very flexible, it is a niche card, something that can only be used for one particular thing. This is not the end of the world but obviously a flexible card that can be used in all kinds of situations is more interesting.

Cipher is strictly better than Courtyard, and Courtyard-BM beats Smithy-BM.

[ThetaSigma12]

You could do that and probably lose all games. Cipher is less flexible and on average worse than Smithy.

Whoa whoa whoa, Chipher is more flexible then smithy.

No.

You can use Smithy for BM and in all kind of engines. Cipher on the other hand is strictly worse than Smithy for BM and if you use it in an engine you can most likely only use it as a pure draw engine (if you don't spend an action to trigger Cipher a second time it is again strictly worse than Smithy). The only exception to that is the presence of double villages like Port or Fishing Village, they might enable you to buy other Action cards besides villages and Ciphers.

"Spend an action" is an interesting concept, I use it for a payload card (4$: Spend an Action. If you do: +4$, +1 Buy). But even that comes with an on-gain one-shot village.
That card works because you play it last. Cipher on the other hand is triggered during your turn, when you draw extra cards so that second Action you gotta play really hurt as you very likely draw Actions cards dead. Sure, you can topdeck one but at the end it still boils down to something that can only be really used in a pure draw-engine.

So the card is not very flexible, it is a niche card, something that can only be used for one particular thing. This is not the end of the world but obviously a flexible card that can be used in all kinds of situations is more interesting.

Oh, you mean like it's more flexible in decks. I thought you meant the on-play effect of smithy was more flexible.

I would agree smithy fits into more kinds of decks, but i mean, that's beacause it's a vanilla card man. Cipher to some more interesting TD might lead to a better comparison about flexiblity.

[tristan]

Ehm, if a complex card can only be used for particular decks it is not more interesting to play with than a vanilla card.
Take Hunting Party. It is similar to Lab but whereas Lab is pretty straightforward to play there are quite some subtleties involved with playing Hunting Parties well.

About the variable usage of Cipher, I just don't see it. The card is only better than Smithy if you actually spend an action to play it again so it is only better than Smithy in engines. But to play other Action cards in that engine besides a village and Cipher you either need double villages or a massive amount of villages.
So all you'll do is buy villages, Ciphers and Treasures. No room for other Action cards. Yawn.

Spend an Action is a cool concept but it simply doesn't work for terminal draw.

[ThetaSigma12]

I don't agree with your statement that Cipher only works in decks with solely Villages and Treasures (after all smithy and courtyard don't). However as neither of us has any sold playtesting to back up our claims I don't think we can reach a concusion.

[tristan]

I didn't say that Cipher doesn't work but that it is only better than Smithy if you actually use the "spend an Action" option.

Village and Smithy is the equivalent of two Labs, the combo is non-terminal. Village and Cipher triggered on the other is a massive terminal draw (with discarding or final topdecking). You draw a lot but are out of actions ... unless your starting hand featured two villages.

So unless there are double villages like Port, Fishing Village, Bustling Village or your deck has an incredibly high village density you cannot play a triggered Cipher with other Action cards in your deck.

You don't need to playtest this stuff, it is just how the card mechanically works: you need 2 Actions to trigger it.

Of course there can be a Kingdom in which you play village and Cipher without the second option being triggered ... but then the card is weaker than Smithy and we should reconsider the price.
This is after all how this entire discussion started, with balance considerations. The problem is that Cipher in its current form is too good for 3 and too weak for 4. You could change the card, price it in debt or Potion or price it at 4 and add an on-gain bonus.

[kru5h]

I didn't say that Cipher doesn't work but that it is only better than Smithy if you actually use the "spend an Action" option.

Village and Smithy is the equivalent of two Labs, the combo is non-terminal. Village and Cipher triggered on the other is a massive terminal draw (with discarding or final topdecking). You draw a lot but are out of actions ... unless your starting hand featured two villages.

So unless there are double villages like Port, Fishing Village, Bustling Village or your deck has an incredibly high village density you cannot play a triggered Cipher with other Action cards in your deck.

You don't need to playtest this stuff, it is just how the card mechanically works: you need 2 Actions to trigger it.

Of course there can be a Kingdom in which you play village and Cipher without the second option being triggered ... but then the card is weaker than Smithy and we should reconsider the price.
This is after all how this entire discussion started, with balance considerations. The problem is that Cipher in its current form is too good for 3 and too weak for 4. You could change the card, price it in debt or Potion or price it at 4 and add an on-gain bonus.

I view Cipher like Diplomat. Diplomat is only +2 cards if you don't set up its bonus. It still costs 4 whether the set can trigger that bonus or not.

Cipher is similar. It's better than +2 cards, and if you can trigger the bonus (even some of the time), it's quite useful.

With Smithy you want about 1 Village per Smithy, so you're buying Village - Smithy each time. An average cost of 3.5 coin per card.

With Cipher you want about 1.5 Villages per Cipher, so you're alternating between buying Village - Cipher and Village - Village - Cipher. An average of 3.4 coin per card.

If you really want to always combo your Cipher, you'll want Village - Village - Cipher, costing 3.33 coin per card.

A fully optimized Village-Smithy Village-Smithy Village-Smithy play is equivalent to 6 Labs (+12 cards, +1 Action.)

A fully optimized Village-Village-Cipher Village-Village-Cipher is strictly better than 6 Labs (You draw 16 cards, topdeck/discard 4, +1 Action), cheaper per card, uses the same amount of cards, but is slightly harder to setup (the order matters more, but you're going to have more Villages in your deck, so it's not as hard as it seems.)

Both setups equally leave +1 action left for your other cards. Cipher, however, is flexible. In a pinch, you can use fewer of your actions and get fewer cards and still get some value.

It may seem like Cipher only nets you 2 cards each time you play it, but the option to play Cipher again is like having another Cipher in your hand, so there's actually a hidden "third card" when you play it the first time. Plus it lets you topdeck collided terminals.

Overall, I'd say that Cipher isn't any better or worse than Smithy, it just plays differently and is higher variance. In many cases (no trashing/high greening/discarding doesn't matter as much), it's much better. In many cases (no Villages), it's much weaker.

Edit: Fixed some miscalculations.

[kru5h]

I changed Locksmith to a 3-cost. It gives +1 coin next turn instead of +1 Card so that it isn't so similar to Smithy.



It also only unlocks one duration card per play now.

[tristan]

A fully optimized Village-Smithy Village-Smithy Village-Smithy play is equivalent to 6 Labs (+12 cards, +1 Action.)

A fully optimized Village-Village-Cipher Village-Village-Cipher is strictly better than 6 Labs (You draw 16 cards, topdeck/discard 4, +1 Action), cheaper per card, uses the same amount of cards, but is slightly harder to setup (the order matters more, but you're going to have more Villages in your deck, so it's not as hard as it seems.)

Totally agree with you on this. The caveat is that it is incredibly hard to set up. Even with Village and Smithy you wanna "overvillage" precisely because it is hard to make the two cards turn up in a hand of 5.
In the case of Cipher, if the other player notices that you go for that he could just spite-buy villages away from you and in a 3P game you might only end up with 3 villages.

So this is the problem of Cipher, you need a massive village density to make the card really shine and this take time to set up and is also easily thwarted by the other player. It makes a huge difference whether you make "small steps" with one village and one terminal draw ... or whether you need two villages and a massive terminal draw like Cipher in your starting hand.

[kru5h]

I changed Campus again. Pupil costs 3 again.

Pupil/Campus Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Pupil on top, then 6 copies of Campus.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Pupil Action,
Play this as if it were another Action card in the Supply costing up to .
This is that card until it leaves play.
---
When you discard this from play, trash it.

Campus Victory,
When scoring, choose a Victory card from your deck costing less than this.
This is worth double the of that card.

It's a cheap province if 1) You have a Duchy in your deck. 2) All of the Pupils have been bought. So this basically makes the game have 50% more provinces. So this just makes the game longer if everybody is going for provinces, or possibly shorter if you three-pile.

In Alt-VP games, Campus really shines. It's worth a heck of a lot, but since your deck is probably optimized for 4 or 5-cost cards, it can be a little tricky to get.

[kru5h]

I'm thinking of this change to Cobbler. Old version:

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
If the gained card is an...
Action card, play it;
Treasure card, put it into your hand;
Victory card, gain an Estate.

(Quite strong in many cases.)

Potential new version 1:

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing less than this.
You may discard a card.
If you did and the gained card is an...
Action card, play it;
Treasure card, put it into your hand;
Victory card, gain a copy of it.

Potential new version 2:

Cobbler Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a card costing up to .
You may choose one:
Discard a card, to put the gained card onto your deck;
or discard 2 cards, to put it into your hand.

I think I prefer v2.

Edit: I updated v2.

Edit2: I think I've got it.

Cobbler Action,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a card costing up to .
If the gained card is an Action card, you may discard 2 cards, to put it into your hand.

[MattLee]

I've always been a fan of wishing well and I enjoy this even more. I especially like it when there is a card on the table that I want as many copies of as possible or a game that I end up with a lot of silver by the effects of some other card, wishing well really shines then. Its fun and seems well costed.

[ThetaSigma12]

I mean, it's a cool thought experiment, but in the end it's gonna be horrendously hard to balance. I mean, I can't see this working out in any way.

I take that back.

[AdrianHealey]

Told you so.

[kru5h]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs less than...
, +1 Action
, +1 Card
, +
(Do all that apply.)

I wanted a card that does several things:

You can gain a card costing up to $4.
You can gain a Silver. If you do, you get your Action back.
You can gain an Estate. If you do, you get your Card and Action back.
You can gain a Copper. If you do, you get your Card and Action back an immediate +$1.

This basically rewards you for gaining cheaper cards.

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
+1 Action
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.

At the start of your next turn, choose one:
+; or discard a card to put this into your hand.

Fast Track Event,
If this is your first or second turn, gain a Duchy.

You can start the game with a Duchy (or two), but your deck will be considerably behind and a bit clogged.

[ThetaSigma12]

I like Fast Track, but does it need the cost? You have in your starting hand so no matter what you open you can always pay it off. would probably be too harsh, couldn't you just make it ?

[kru5h]

I should also change Dagger.

Dagger Action,
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand.
Shuffle this into your deck.
--
When you trash this, gain a card costing up to .

[josh56]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs less than...
, +1 Action
, +1 Card
, +
(Do all that apply.)

I wanted a card that does several things:

You can gain a card costing up to $4.
You can gain a Silver. If you do, you get your Action back.
You can gain an Estate. If you do, you get your Card and Action back.
You can gain a Copper. If you do, you get your Card and Action back an immediate +$1.

This basically rewards you for gaining cheaper cards.

A cantrip Estate gainer can be useful in Silk Road or Garden games but I think that option will be mostly used if decent 2s are in the Kingdom.
A Peddler that gains a Copper is also only useful in Garden games or late in the game when self-junking doesn't matter anymore.

I think it is overall narrower and thus worse than Ironworks so I'd reprice it at 3.

[kru5h]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs less than...
, +1 Action
, +1 Card
, +
(Do all that apply.)

I wanted a card that does several things:

You can gain a card costing up to $4.
You can gain a Silver. If you do, you get your Action back.
You can gain an Estate. If you do, you get your Card and Action back.
You can gain a Copper. If you do, you get your Card and Action back an immediate +$1.

This basically rewards you for gaining cheaper cards.

A cantrip Estate gainer can be useful in Silk Road or Garden games but I think that option will be mostly used if decent 2s are in the Kingdom.
A Peddler that gains a Copper is also only useful in Garden games or late in the game when self-junking doesn't matter anymore.

I think it is overall narrower and thus worse than Ironworks so I'd reprice it at 3.

3 cost would make it strictly better than Workshop.

If it needs to be slightly stronger, I could do this:

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs or less, +1 Card and +1 Action.
If it costs or less, +1 Buy and +.

Then it can be played 3 ways:

Gain a card up to 4.
+1 Card, +1 Action, gain a card up to 3.
or +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, (Market) but as a penalty you gain a Copper.

[Asper]

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs less than...
, +1 Action
, +1 Card
, +
(Do all that apply.)

I wanted a card that does several things:

You can gain a card costing up to $4.
You can gain a Silver. If you do, you get your Action back.
You can gain an Estate. If you do, you get your Card and Action back.
You can gain a Copper. If you do, you get your Card and Action back an immediate +$1.

This basically rewards you for gaining cheaper cards.

A cantrip Estate gainer can be useful in Silk Road or Garden games but I think that option will be mostly used if decent 2s are in the Kingdom.
A Peddler that gains a Copper is also only useful in Garden games or late in the game when self-junking doesn't matter anymore.

I think it is overall narrower and thus worse than Ironworks so I'd reprice it at 3.

3 cost would make it strictly better than Workshop.

If it needs to be slightly stronger, I could do this:

Cobbler Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it costs or less, +1 Card and +1 Action.
If it costs or less, +1 Buy and +.

Then it can be played 3 ways:

Gain a card up to 4.
+1 Card, +1 Action, gain a card up to 3.
or +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, (Market) but as a penalty you gain a Copper.

I like it. The fact that it costs 4$ itself means that the option to gain a 4$, just without any bonus, will always be available.

[kru5h]

The old Cipher was a bit strong.

Cipher Action,
+ 3 Cards
Choose a card from your hand. Either discard it,
or put it onto your deck.

If this is the first time you played this card this turn,
you may discard a Silver to play this card again.

Or maybe this card doesn't need to be so complicated.

Cipher Action,
+ 3 Cards
Choose a card from your hand. Either discard it,
or put it onto your deck.

Angry Mob still doesn't feel right. Maybe this is more of what I'm going for:

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game, you may discard a card.
When you do, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This stays in play.)

New card idea: Mule. It's like a Hireling, but you have to pay each turn to keep it in play.

Mule Action - Duration,
At the start of each of your turns, if this is still in play, +1 Card.
(This stays in play in some cases.)
---
At the end of each Buy Phase, either pay , or discard this card from play.

You could have 4 of these in play and you get 4 extra cards each turn, but you're losing $4 from each buy phase.

[kru5h]

Collection Event,
Once per turn: You may gain a Copper. If you do, +2 Buys.

[kru5h]

I like Fast Track, but does it need the cost? You have in your starting hand so no matter what you open you can always pay it off. would probably be too harsh, couldn't you just make it ?

Fast Track Event,
If this is your first or second turn, +1 Buy and gain a Duchy.

This still lets you buy other cards. Might be too strong. If it is I can nerf it to Gain an Estate and +1.

[kru5h]

Pyramid Landmark
When scoring, +1 per Coin Token you have, up to 5.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 5 Coin Tokens.

[josh56]

Pyramid Landmark
When scoring, +1 per Coin Token you have, up to 5.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 5 Coin Tokens.

In the absence of cards that provide Coin tokens I am pretty sure that spending all Coin tokens is nearly always better than making VP tokens out of them at the end of the game.

[kru5h]

Pyramid Landmark
When scoring, +1 per Coin Token you have, up to 5.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 5 Coin Tokens.

In the absence of cards that provide Coin tokens I am pretty sure that spending all Coin tokens is nearly always better than making VP tokens out of them at the end of the game.

Probably right.

2VP per token seems like they would never be spent, though. Maybe this is just a bad landmark. If I were willing to salvage it, I would probably make it 2VP per token, but only 3 tokens to start with.

[josh56]

Giving up the VP equivalence of a Province is of course a harsher price to pay for a 5/5 opening (the first version made crazy openings like Prince and a 4 possible!) and might create an actual trade-off. But if other cards that provide Coin tokens are present the strategy is simple: spend all Coin tokens during the opening to get 5/5 (or e.g. 7/3 if Forge is present), later buy a Coin token gaining card, spend some of them but have 3 Coin tokens when the game ends.

[Asper]

Pyramid Landmark
When scoring, +1 per Coin Token you have, up to 5.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 5 Coin Tokens.

In the absence of cards that provide Coin tokens I am pretty sure that spending all Coin tokens is nearly always better than making VP tokens out of them at the end of the game.

Probably right.

2VP per token seems like they would never be spent, though. Maybe this is just a bad landmark. If I were willing to salvage it, I would probably make it 2VP per token, but only 3 tokens to start with.

I like the general idea of the card, but it has the problem that a card like Baker is a VP token cantrip which does nothing to end the game. On the other hand, it gives coin tokens, which help to buy cards. The question is just, at which point are the VP you could buy from a Victory card as good as the coin tokens you spend for it? If you spend 3 coin tokens to go from 5$ to a Province, you basically only made 3 VP and could have bought a Duchy instead, while staying more flexible. This problem is far less present with 2 coin tokens per VP. If you have 5$ and spend three coin tokens, you still made one or even two VP more than if you bought the Duchy. I think that's okay. Also, I think it should be at least 4 coin tokens everybody gets at the start. Otherwise, it will not matter all that often. Or you could have players receive free coin tokens when buying something expensive, like a Province. Just a few thoughts.

[josh56]

Pyramid Landmark
When scoring, +1 per Coin Token you have, up to 5.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 5 Coin Tokens.

In the absence of cards that provide Coin tokens I am pretty sure that spending all Coin tokens is nearly always better than making VP tokens out of them at the end of the game.

Probably right.

2VP per token seems like they would never be spent, though. Maybe this is just a bad landmark. If I were willing to salvage it, I would probably make it 2VP per token, but only 3 tokens to start with.

I like the general idea of the card, but it has the problem that a card like Baker is a VP token cantrip which does nothing to end the game.

Due to the cap at 5 this is not a problem.

[kru5h]

The Gift Edict
Once per turn on their turn, a player may exchange 2 for a Coin Token.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 6.

This makes it so that players can only spend one per turn so that they can't do ridiculous openings.

[josh56]

The Gift Edict
Once per turn on their turn, a player may exchange 2 for a Coin Token.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 6.

This makes it so that players can only spend one per turn so that they can't do ridiculous openings.

This seems like the best implementation of the idea. The 2:1 ratio makes it a tricky decision and the wacky opening possibilities are eliminated. You could still get a Prince and a Nomad Camp though if Baker is also in the Kingdom (and if you draw the topdecked Nomad Camp together with 4 Coppers).

[ThetaSigma12]

The Gift Edict
Once per turn on their turn, a player may exchange 2 for a Coin Token.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 6.

This makes it so that players can only spend one per turn so that they can't do ridiculous openings.

Couldn't this be an Event:

Gift
Once per turn: Spend 2 for + and +1 Buy.
-----------
Setup: Each player starts the game with 6.

[Jack Rudd]

The Gift Edict
Once per turn on their turn, a player may exchange 2 for a Coin Token.
Setup: Each player starts the game with 6.

This makes it so that players can only spend one per turn so that they can't do ridiculous openings.

This seems like the best implementation of the idea. The 2:1 ratio makes it a tricky decision and the wacky opening possibilities are eliminated. You could still get a Prince and a Nomad Camp though if Baker is also in the Kingdom (and if you draw the topdecked Nomad Camp together with 4 Coppers).

Prince isn't necessarily all that as an opener, though, especially not in non-Shelters games. I'd be more worried about being able to open with Forge or Expand.

[kru5h]

Demagogue Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.
You may discard a card.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.

Edit: This is quite wordy.

Anyway. This is a weak attack, so it's cheap. Sometimes you don't even want to discard or put a card on your deck, so it's just a cantrip.

Edit 2: Remove the part about gaining a Copper.
Edit 3: Reduced price from $3 to $2.

[Asper]

One word of caution: You don't usually want cantrips that do nothing for you on boards with discard attacks, as keeping the cantrip in hand always carries the risk that you will draw something worse than you discarded. I don't think it's as bad with topdecking, but it's still bad enough and Demagogue seems so weak that I can't imagine ever using it. Either the board allows for its attack to be so good that the downside on play is worth it, and then it still harms itself more than decks without it. Or there are ways like Library or Lookout to soften its downside on play, but then its attack is not worth it. You never get out with more than you sacrifice here.

[kru5h]

One word of caution: You don't usually want cantrips that do nothing for you on boards with discard attacks, as keeping the cantrip in hand always carries the risk that you will draw something worse than you discarded. I don't think it's as bad with topdecking, but it's still bad enough and Demagogue seems so weak that I can't imagine ever using it. Either the board allows for its attack to be so good that the downside on play is worth it, and then it still harms itself more than decks without it. Or there are ways like Library or Lookout to soften its downside on play, but then its attack is not worth it. You never get out with more than you sacrifice here.

I could combine it with Cipher?

Cipher Action - Attack, ?
+3 Cards
Choose one: Put a card from your hand onto your deck, or discard a card.
Whichever you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.

It seems alright, but there's something about the card I just don't like.


I could make it a Silver variant.

Demagogue Treasure - Attack,

You may put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.
You may discard a card.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.

I think I like that a bit better, but meh.

Maybe this just isn't a good card to make.

Here's something I came up with that has little to do with the above card. It's like a lab, but sits on your Tavern Mat until you discard.

Cooper Action - Reserve,
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
--
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a card.

Then there's this:

Angry Mob Action - Attack - Duration,

Now and at the start of your next turn:
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand, then draws a card.

Wait. I forgot that delayed attacks cause tracking issues when a Moat is revealed.

Demagogue Action - Attack,
Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or +2 Cards.
You may put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.
You may discard a card.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.

Or I could make it an attack Village:

Warriors' Village Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.
You may discard a card.
If you do, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does.

[josh56]

Cooper Action - Reserve,
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
--
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a card.

This is probably only a bit worse than Fugitive and seems like a good 4 to me.
I'd like to point out that Asper's Hunter is a less vanilla-ish and more interesting implementation of a Reserve non-terminal draw that can be called at a cost.

[kru5h]

Caltrops Action - Attack - Duration,
Until your next turn: When another player plays a duplicate of a card they have in play,
they discard the top two cards of their deck; and when another player shuffles their deck, they gain a curse.
At the start of your next turn,
+2 Cards

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose a card from your hand. If you do, discard it or put it onto your deck and
each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does the same thing with a card from their hand.

What do you guys think about the above two card variations?

[ClouduHieh]

I didn’t look at the cards yet. But did anyone make a suggestion like this for rabbits.

Rabbits seems similar to magpie, rats, and port.

I feel like there be like lots of rabbits I mean they breed like crazy. So I feel like there should be similar to that idea like 20 rabbits in the supply pile like rats does or least as many as port has. And assuming you have a good trasher similar to remodel you could keep the rabbits from getting out of hand. Cause you can’t trash a rats with a rats after all. Of course rabbits already slows down the game. So what’s a few more to really change things. At least it would be more thematic. I’m sure anyone in Australia would agree at least on the thematic part of it.

[majiponi]

Caltrops Action - Attack - Duration,
Until your next turn: When another player plays a duplicate of a card they have in play,
they discard the top two cards of their deck; and when another player shuffles their deck, they gain a curse.
At the start of your next turn,
+2 Cards

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose a card from your hand. If you do, discard it or put it onto your deck and
each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does the same thing with a card from their hand.

What do you guys think about the above two card variations?

When do I gain a Curse? Before shuffling? Or after?

What is the same thing? Picking up a choice? I'd prefer writing...

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one. Each player with 5 or more cards in hand...:
discards a card; or puts one from their hand onto their deck.

Of course the function is a little different

[kru5h]

When do I gain a Curse? Before shuffling? Or after?

What is the same thing? Picking up a choice? I'd prefer writing...

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one. Each player with 5 or more cards in hand...:
discards a card; or puts one from their hand onto their deck.

Of course the function is a little different

How about these wordings?

Caltrops Action - Attack - Duration,
Until your next turn: When another player plays a duplicate of a card they have in play,
they first discard the top two cards of their deck; and when another player shuffles their deck, they first gain a curse.
At the start of your next turn,
+2 Cards

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one: Discard a card, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you did do one, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does it too.

[Holunder9]

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose a card from your hand. If you do, discard it or put it onto your deck and
each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does the same thing with a card from their hand.

Technically it needs some wording like Bureaucrat, i.e. "or reveals a hand with no copy of the chosen card.".
The obvious comparison is Urchin as it is the only other cheap cantrip Attack. It feels kind of weird but as it is a fairly situational card, making it often just a mere cantrip, it is probably OK.
Applications that come to mind are discarding a Curse when you cannot trash it during your turn to prevent the opponents from trashing it or sifting through it. Also, topdecking a village when you have already drawn enough of your deck to shut down opponent's engines. Or topdecking a Gold when you have 11+ and no extra Buy. Basically topdecking anything whose marginal play benefit (this turn) is zero or small.

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one. Each player with 5 or more cards in hand...:
discards a card; or puts one from their hand onto their deck.

Of course the function is a little different

As I am pretty sure that this "anti-Lab" (ignoring sifters and other cards that can deal with crap on top of your deck like Lookout this attack is nearly identical to the -1 Card token) cannot cost less than $5 it is more than just a little different.

[majiponi]

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose a card from your hand. If you do, discard it or put it onto your deck and
each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does the same thing with a card from their hand.

Technically it needs some wording like Bureaucrat, i.e. "or reveals a hand with no copy of the chosen card.".
The obvious comparison is Urchin as it is the only other cheap cantrip Attack. It feels kind of weird but as it is a fairly situational card, making it often just a mere cantrip, it is probably OK.
Applications that come to mind are discarding a Curse when you cannot trash it during your turn to prevent the opponents from trashing it or sifting through it. Also, topdecking a village when you have already drawn enough of your deck to shut down opponent's engines. Or topdecking a Gold when you have 11+ and no extra Buy. Basically topdecking anything whose marginal play benefit (this turn) is zero or small.

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one. Each player with 5 or more cards in hand...:
discards a card; or puts one from their hand onto their deck.

Of course the function is a little different

As I am pretty sure that this "anti-Lab" (ignoring sifters and other cards that can deal with crap on top of your deck like Lookout this attack is nearly identical to the -1 Card token) cannot cost less than $5 it is more than just a little different.

I can't see the difference. I discard a Copper, she discards an Estate, isn't it all right? (The same thing is to discard A card, or to put back A card.) And anti-Lab function works only once (maybe 0 times if 3-4 players). I don't see this costs $5 or more.

[kru5h]

I think the problem with Majiponi's version is that you can simply wait until you have fewer than 5 cards in hand to play it. That makes it affect everybody else and not you. So it's equivalent to +1 Card, +1 Action, -1 Card for everybody else.

[Asper]

I think the problem with Majiponi's version is that you can simply wait until you have fewer than 5 cards in hand to play it. That makes it affect everybody else and not you. So it's equivalent to +1 Card, +1 Action, -1 Card for everybody else.

It's still pretty weak and absolutely useless to yourself. Not like it can turn into an actually useful card, like Urchin does.

[kru5h]

I think the problem with Majiponi's version is that you can simply wait until you have fewer than 5 cards in hand to play it. That makes it affect everybody else and not you. So it's equivalent to +1 Card, +1 Action, -1 Card for everybody else.

It's still pretty weak and absolutely useless to yourself. Not like it can turn into an actually useful card, like Urchin does.

Oof, Ouch, Owie. My bones!

I mean, I can buff it slightly by changing the 5 card hand size to 4. That means you can play it twice and do double damage. If you still think it's useless after that, then oh well.

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one: Discard a card, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you did do one, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand does it too.

I usually come up with goals for myself, like "Design a Village/Attack" or "Design Duration/Victory card." Here my goal was a two-cost attack. It's not the best card in the world, but if you have ideas for other two-cost attack cards, I'd love to hear them.

[Kudasai]

I usually come up with goals for myself, like "Design a Village/Attack" or "Design Duration/Victory card." Here my goal was a two-cost attack. It's not the best card in the world, but if you have ideas for other two-cost attack cards, I'd love to hear them.

I think $2 cost cards are tough in general, let alone an Attack card. Kuddos for trying! This is something I made awhile ago. Possibly balanced, but probably slow and painful to resolve.



Big fan of your cards. Looking forward to seeing your new ideas.

[kru5h]

Dagger Action - Treasure,
Trash a card from your hand.
If it's your Action phase, shuffle this into your deck.
If it's your Buy phase, +1 Buy.

Quickly trash a few cards by shuffling this back into your deck. Or do you want to trash a card for +1 Buy. Early game you probably do. Late game? Well, then it's just a worse Trade Route. But it doesn't use an action, so maybe it's better. It also can't be drawn dead. Overall it seems like a cheap card. Maybe 2 cost?

King Midas Action - Attack,
Until your next turn, when another player gains a card costing or more, they gain a Gold instead.
---
At the start of your next turn, trash the top card of your deck and gain a Gold.

Sort of like a Leprechaun. You're punishing yourself to get a Gold. Early game it's golden. Late game you don't want to risk trashing good cards.

[Asper]

I didn't mean to be cruel, sorry. This was mostly a counterpoint to the absurd claim that a self-harming Urchin was so great it had to cost 5. It's useless in the sense that maybe it can e.g. help with cards you want to collide, but apart from that it adds nothing to your own deck. Like any 2-cost cantrip, you are going to pick this up if there is nothing else you can afford, and if that is good enough for you, there you are.

[Holunder9]

I can't see the difference. I discard a Copper, she discards an Estate, isn't it all right? (The same thing is to discard A card, or to put back A card.) And anti-Lab function works only once (maybe 0 times if 3-4 players). I don't see this costs $5 or more.

Sorry, I misread and thought your card said "each other player".

The entire thing is still far too strong for $2 though. The discarding is not the issue but the topdecking. You can topdeck something you don't need this turn anymore and want next turn, like a splitter in a deck-drawing engine, whereas the other players basically get -1 Card. And as kru5h has already pointed out, in an engine with mainly Victory and Action card you are not forced to topdeck anything.

There is a reason the only 'force you to topdeck' attack is trminal.

Oof, Ouch, Owie. My bones!

I mean, I can buff it slightly by changing the 5 card hand size to 4. That means you can play it twice and do double damage. If you still think it's useless after that, then oh well.

There is a reason Urchin is the only cantrip handsize attack: being weak as it only reduces to 4 and not 3.
So this is too good. You just need to match 2 to get a Militia effect spread over 2 cantrips. Just make the vanilla comparison:

2 Angry Mobs = Militia Attack
Village + Miltia = Militia Attack but with Silver as stop card.

[Asper]

I can't see the difference. I discard a Copper, she discards an Estate, isn't it all right? (The same thing is to discard A card, or to put back A card.) And anti-Lab function works only once (maybe 0 times if 3-4 players). I don't see this costs $5 or more.

Sorry, I misread and thought your card said "each other player".

The entire thing is still far too strong for $2 though. The discarding is not the issue but the topdecking. You can topdeck something you don't need this turn anymore and want next turn, like a splitter in a deck-drawing engine, whereas the other players basically get -1 Card. And as kru5h has already pointed out, in an engine with mainly Victory and Action card you are not forced to topdeck anything.

There is a reason the only 'force you to topdeck' attack is trminal.

What a bold statement. 83% of all attacks in Dominion are terminal. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with topdecking specifically. What is true however is that there's a reason why attacks, including Ghost Ship, don't target yourself: Because if they did, they would suck.

So, if you play this with less than 5 cards in hand, you can attack without a downside? You mean, like with a real attack card?

Urchin isn't Militia, and neither is this Ghost Ship.

There is a problem with this card, though: It becomes a lot better to play this if you have been hit by the attack yourself. So, there is barely any reason to be the first player to go for this, except of course what I said before. But IF another player has already decided they want to attack with this, you'd be dumb not to strike back for "free". In general though, I just feel it's a bit bland and lackluster, and slows down the game too much compared to how much fun it is.

[Holunder9]

I can't see the difference. I discard a Copper, she discards an Estate, isn't it all right? (The same thing is to discard A card, or to put back A card.) And anti-Lab function works only once (maybe 0 times if 3-4 players). I don't see this costs $5 or more.

Sorry, I misread and thought your card said "each other player".

The entire thing is still far too strong for $2 though. The discarding is not the issue but the topdecking. You can topdeck something you don't need this turn anymore and want next turn, like a splitter in a deck-drawing engine, whereas the other players basically get -1 Card. And as kru5h has already pointed out, in an engine with mainly Victory and Action card you are not forced to topdeck anything.

There is a reason the only 'force you to topdeck' attack is trminal.

What a bold statement. 83% of all attacks in Dominion are terminal. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with topdecking specifically.

Partly true.
The false part is that my statement is actually the opposite of bold, it is very conservative and risk averse: don't do something crazy design-wise unless you have a very good reason for it.
The true part is that I was indeed not general enough: you should never ever do a cantrip Attack unless it is weak like Urchin or hard to get like Familiar and Angry Mob is neither. Either it is something you simply get when you hit $2 or when you Remodel a Copper or whatever, a cantrip with a little bonus. Or, in lots of engines that draw little green and yellow, i.e. not in the endgame, it is situationally a strong Attack.

Now Relic is also non-terminal and a powerhouse due to that (you basically want it in nearly every deck and even if you hit $6 the first purchase is virtually always superior to getting Gold which is not something you could say for Ghost Ship precisely due its non-terminality) but at least it isn't a cheap cantrip that can be added to a engine at little cost.

The only reason the card could get away with being a cantrip is that it, respectively the "with 5 more cards in hand", doesn't stack.

But I still wouldn't do it. Stick it on a non-terminal and thus avoid all these balance issues.

In general though, I just feel it's a bit bland and lackluster, and slows down the game too much compared to how much fun it is.

All Attacks slow down the game but I can see how somebody would consider Ghost Ship like Attacks particularly slow and unfun.

[Holunder9]

I usually come up with goals for myself, like "Design a Village/Attack" or "Design Duration/Victory card." Here my goal was a two-cost attack. It's not the best card in the world, but if you have ideas for other two-cost attack cards, I'd love to hear them.

I think $2 cost cards are tough in general, let alone an Attack card. Kuddos for trying! This is something I made awhile ago. Possibly balanced, but probably slow and painful to resolve.



Big fan of your cards. Looking forward to seeing your new ideas.

Man, that's a cool card. Will be particularly interesting in multiplayer games where it becomes interactive: when Alice plays only one Slinger she helps Bob as his Slinger becomes a Baker with Charlie being down to 3.
I'd consider making it more expensive though. It is not that tricky to make n Slingers become n-1 Bakers in a thin deck and while the opponents get some sifiting and end up with the best 4 out of 4+n cards this doesn't compensate for such a cheap Peddler variant. Merchant has to add some Silvers to trigger whereas this triggers on itself so I would also test it at $3.

[Asper]

I called your statement bold because it was anything but that. It was a pointless truism. If the vast majority of attack cards are terminal, it says nothing that a sample size of 1(!) of a specific type of attack card is terminal.

[Gazbag]

I don't even know what you guys are talking about, Haunted Castle is so not a terminal.

[kru5h]

There is a problem with this card, though: It becomes a lot better to play this if you have been hit by the attack yourself. So, there is barely any reason to be the first player to go for this, except of course what I said before. But IF another player has already decided they want to attack with this, you'd be dumb not to strike back for "free".

I think you're confusing Majiponi's version of the card with mine. My original card doesn't let you attack "for free" and doesn't let you hit back easily if you've been attacked by it.

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one: Discard a card, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you did do one, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does it too.

[kru5h]

Bon Vivant Action,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, you may get +1 Card and +2 Actions instead of following its instructions.

Bon Vivant. Full of action and everybody wants to be him. In fact, you can be him. Got too many terminals? When you play this, you can turn some of them into Villages!

Blockade Action - Reaction,
Until the start of your next turn, you are unaffected by attacks.
At the start of your next turn, + and +1 Buy.
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

Defends this turn or next turn. Twice as much defense for the cost of one card.

Demagogue Action - Attack,
Gain a Silver.
Each other player gains a Copper.
Each player (including you) may trash a Copper from their hand.

Gain a Silver and trash a Copper. Sure, but it also junks the opponents decks. Copper junking can get annoying if it happens too much, so this lets players trash their Coppers. If you trash a Copper and gain a Copper, it's essentially like being Cutpursed. But it is optional, so it's a bit weaker than Cutpurse.

My new idea is Jinx tokens. This has probably been done before, but the concept is simple: You receive Jinx tokens. If you ever have 6 or more of them, you return 6 to the supply and gain a Curse.

Witch Doctor Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player takes 2 Jinx tokens.

Séance Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may discard a card to return a Jinx token.
Each other player takes a Jinx token.

Caltrops Action - Attack - Duration,
Until your next turn, whenever a player plays a duplicate of a card they have in play, they gain a Jinx token.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.

Narcissist Action - Attack,
+2 Cards
Each other player may discard any number of cards.
Each other player then takes one Jinx token per card in their hand.

Lawyer Action
Choose one: Gain a card costing up to ; or take 3 Jinx tokens and gain a card costing up to .

[Asper]

There is a problem with this card, though: It becomes a lot better to play this if you have been hit by the attack yourself. So, there is barely any reason to be the first player to go for this, except of course what I said before. But IF another player has already decided they want to attack with this, you'd be dumb not to strike back for "free".

I think you're confusing Majiponi's version of the card with mine. My original card doesn't let you attack "for free" and doesn't let you hit back easily if you've been attacked by it.

Angry Mob Action - Attack,
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose one: Discard a card, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.
If you did do one, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand does it too.

Nah, no mistake, I know I have been talking about majiponi's version with some of my feedback. The fact that it's weak goes for the original even more, and it lacks the "free retaliation" aspect.

[kru5h]

I didn't get any feedback so I added these three to my permanent list. The other five that I didn't add can be seen above.

Bon Vivant Action,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, you may get +1 Card and +2 Actions instead of following its instructions.

Bon Vivant. Full of action and everybody wants to be him. In fact, you can be him. Got too many terminals? When you play this, you can turn some of them into Villages!

Blockade Action - Reaction,
Until the start of your next turn, you are unaffected by attacks.
At the start of your next turn, + and +1 Buy.
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

Defends this turn or next turn. Twice as much defense for the cost of one card.

My new idea is Jinx tokens. This has probably been done before, but the concept is simple: You receive Jinx tokens. If you ever have 6 or more of them, you return 6 to the supply and gain a Curse.

Caltrops Action - Attack - Duration,
Until your next turn, whenever a player plays a duplicate of a card they have in play, they gain a Jinx token.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.

I'm working on this card, but I'm unsure of what it should cost or if it's game-breaking. It's also probably been done before.

Judge Action - Reserve,
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

You can still call Judges, so you can take multiple turns, but only one at a time. There probably won't be any provinces left, so this isn't as powerful as it seems. In a slog, you probably don't want to buy these over Duchies, so you don't have to worry about long games going even longer. If multiple players call a Judge, you simply go in turn order starting with the next player, so no player ever takes two turns in a row unless they are the only on with Judges left.

[Kudasai]

I'm not so good with balancing feedback, but I'll provide what general feedback I can. I should say, these are all very exciting and seemingly original cards. Sure balance is important, but if no one wants to even try your cards out, then well it just becomes a moot point.

Dagger - A very nice $2 cost. I'm curious how fast this can trash with perfect draws (every turn?) and how that would compare to the worst draws possible. Are the these two scenarios so far apart that it warrants concern? Probably not as luck will always be a part of Dominion. You probably don't want it every turns anyways to avoid terminal collisions.

King Midas - Another very cool concept, but this one has the potential of being very swingy. The top part seems fine, but the bottom part has the potential to trash Provinces with no real way of playing around it. Maybe make the trashed card come from your hand and cost between $3 and $6 coin? This seems like a Duchy rush kind of card, so losing even one of those would hurt a lot. I also feel this could cost $5 and be fine. Blocking Province buys is a delicate balance and you probably want to make them a little less accessible.

Bon Vivant - Seems a bit powerful. Kind of eliminates a whole subset of Dominion cards that give reliability in your deck. I really like the idea, but would find this much more exciting if the decision were a little harder to make. Like play the Action or take +2 Actions/+3Actions (without the +1 Card). In addition I feel Bon Vivant itself should not give extra Actions. It could probably just be a cantrip and cost $2 with both of those changes.

Caltrops - Wow! Probably my favorite of your new cards and it seems to use your new Jinx token mechanic perfectly. Certainly rewards deck diversity. A lot of interesting decisons have to be made as well. How many Coppers are you willing to play with an opponents Caltrops in play? Maybe a $3 cost works better than that $4 or $5 cost if it comes with a Curse. I also like how the draw for your next turn allows for more differently names cards to show up.

Judge - I can't say much in terms of this being balanced or not, but boy does it seems cool. $6 might be a fair starting point as this seems it will likely just be a Duchy or alt-VP gainer. I really like the oversaturation mechanic. Having 10 of these will likely only result in maybe 4 to 6 of those turns being worthwhile as Judges are put back into your deck after each extra turn.

[kru5h]

Dagger - A very nice $2 cost. I'm curious how fast this can trash with perfect draws (every turn?) and how that would compare to the worst draws possible. Are the these two scenarios so far apart that it warrants concern? Probably not as luck will always be a part of Dominion. You probably don't want it every turns anyways to avoid terminal collisions.

I changed Dagger to this:

Dagger Action - Treasure,
If it's your Action phase, trash a card from your hand.
If it's your Buy phase, +1 Buy.
---
When you discard this from play, you may shuffle it into your deck.

I wanted a 1-cost in my cards so that it combos with Cooper.

King Midas - Another very cool concept, but this one has the potential of being very swingy. The top part seems fine, but the bottom part has the potential to trash Provinces with no real way of playing around it. Maybe make the trashed card come from your hand and cost between $3 and $6 coin? This seems like a Duchy rush kind of card, so losing even one of those would hurt a lot. I also feel this could cost $5 and be fine. Blocking Province buys is a delicate balance and you probably want to make them a little less accessible.

Yeah, too swingy. I'm not going to keep it.

Bon Vivant - Seems a bit powerful. Kind of eliminates a whole subset of Dominion cards that give reliability in your deck. I really like the idea, but would find this much more exciting if the decision were a little harder to make. Like play the Action or take +2 Actions/+3Actions (without the +1 Card). In addition I feel Bon Vivant itself should not give extra Actions. It could probably just be a cantrip and cost $2 with both of those changes.

It's really hard to give interesting options to Villages. Either you need a village or you don't, so either you take the village option or you take something else entirely dependent upon the situation and not any long-term considerations. I think this might be a little strong, but it's not as powerful as it seems: If you overterminal your deck, you will never draw the Bon Vivant you need to get your train going. It basically turns other cards into a 3-cost card, which isn't amazing. I'll keep it how it is for now but think on it some more.

I could do this:

Bon Vivant Action,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, you may get +2 Cards instead of following its instructions.

But that's just really similar to Asper's "Road" at that point. (Although, it can't go infinite.)

Judge - I can't say much in terms of this being balanced or not, but boy does it seems cool. $6 might be a fair starting point as this seems it will likely just be a Duchy or alt-VP gainer. I really like the oversaturation mechanic. Having 10 of these will likely only result in maybe 4 to 6 of those turns being worthwhile as Judges are put back into your deck after each extra turn.

I'm still thinking on Judge. I don't like Tavern mats because my set is supposed to be an Intrigue sequel, but I'll think about it some more. The most annoying thing about this is that the extra turns could be obnoxious, so I'm going to turn it into a split pile. That does two things: Reduces the number of them, and I can pair it with an interesting Victory card so that there's something to go for besides Duchies after the provinces are gone. Something like this:

Judge/Courthouse Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge Action - Reserve,
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse Victory,
6

You get extra turns, but your penalty is that the "Provinces" (Courthouses) cost 10 now.

[majiponi]

Judge/Courthouse
Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)
This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge
Action - Reserve, $6
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse
Victory, $10
6VP

I play a Herald to reveal Judge. Do I play it?

[GendoIkari]

Judge/Courthouse
Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)
This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge
Action - Reserve, $6
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse
Victory, $10
6VP

I play a Herald to reveal Judge. Do I play it?

I think eventually Donald said that there is an implicit "can't overrides can" rule; so you just wouldn't play it.

However, there's no reason to restrict the playing of judges here. There wouldn't be any opportunity to ever call them again, so who cares if you play them?

Also, I don't like that the pile has 8/12 cards; a pile's type defined by it's top/cheaper card, so this pile should be an action-reserve pile; thus getting 10 cards like normal.

Plus, except in a 6 player game; I don't see how Courthouse will ever be available. Players have basically no reason to ever buy more than 1 Judge.

[majiponi]

Judge/Courthouse
Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)
This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge
Action - Reserve, $6
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse
Victory, $10
6VP

I play a Herald to reveal Judge. Do I play it?

I think eventually Donald said that there is an implicit "can't overrides can" rule; so you just wouldn't play it.

However, there's no reason to restrict the playing of judges here. There wouldn't be any opportunity to ever call them again, so who cares if you play them?

Also, I don't like that the pile has 8/12 cards; a pile's type defined by it's top/cheaper card, so this pile should be an action-reserve pile; thus getting 10 cards like normal.

Plus, except in a 6 player game; I don't see how Courthouse will ever be available. Players have basically no reason to ever buy more than 1 Judge.

Herald just says "play it", mandatory. No "may". So I asked.

I don't buy this. Suppose your right player buys the last province, and a single Judge is left. Do you call Judge?

[GendoIkari]

Judge/Courthouse
Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)
This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge
Action - Reserve, $6
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When the game ends, you may call one Judge to take an extra turn after this one in which you cannot play Judges. Resolve multiple Judge calls in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse
Victory, $10
6VP

I play a Herald to reveal Judge. Do I play it?

I think eventually Donald said that there is an implicit "can't overrides can" rule; so you just wouldn't play it.

However, there's no reason to restrict the playing of judges here. There wouldn't be any opportunity to ever call them again, so who cares if you play them?

Also, I don't like that the pile has 8/12 cards; a pile's type defined by it's top/cheaper card, so this pile should be an action-reserve pile; thus getting 10 cards like normal.

Plus, except in a 6 player game; I don't see how Courthouse will ever be available. Players have basically no reason to ever buy more than 1 Judge.

Herald just says "play it", mandatory. No "may". So I asked.

I should have said "can't overrides do" instead. If you are instructed to do something impossible, you don't do it. And it is impossible due to the text saying that it can't be done.

I don't buy this. Suppose your right player buys the last province, and a single Judge is left. Do you call Judge?

Not sure what you mean. You would always call your Judge, because you should still get at least some extra points with an extra turn. But I don't see why there would ever be only a single Judge left; why would a player ever buy more than 1 Judge?

[Asper]

"If this turn isn't an extra turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

[GendoIkari]

"If this turn isn't an extra turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

That technically works, but seems silly to exclude Outpost, Possession, and Mission turns. And moreso... I still haven't heard any explanation for why this restriction is needed at all? Who cares if you can put it on your Tavern Mat during your extra turn. You'll never have a chance to call it. Am I missing something?

[Asper]

"If this turn isn't an extra turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

That technically works, but seems silly to exclude Outpost, Possession, and Mission turns. And moreso... I still haven't heard any explanation for why this restriction is needed at all? Who cares if you can put it on your Tavern Mat during your extra turn. You'll never have a chance to call it. Am I missing something?

I guess with the current wording you could argue that a Judge played during such a turn could be called immediately, as the game is still ending? Perhaps you can change it to be "The first time the game ending condition is fullfilled at the end of a turn..." similar to Mountain Pass.

[GendoIkari]

"If this turn isn't an extra turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

That technically works, but seems silly to exclude Outpost, Possession, and Mission turns. And moreso... I still haven't heard any explanation for why this restriction is needed at all? Who cares if you can put it on your Tavern Mat during your extra turn. You'll never have a chance to call it. Am I missing something?

I guess with the current wording you could argue that a Judge played during such a turn could be called immediately, as the game is still ending? Perhaps you can change it to be "The first time the game ending condition is fullfilled at the end of a turn..." similar to Mountain Pass.

I guess I can see that you could argue that taking the extra turn is akin to drawing as a result of trashing Overgrown Estate, where you can continue to react to that trashing event after having finished your card draw (thus discarding a newly drawn Market Square if you want).

If this is the case, the solution seems to make it more like Distant Lands... not something you ever call, just something that happens:

When the game ends, if you have at least 1 Judge on your Tavern Mat, take an extra turn.

The wording on Embargo should be sufficient to tell us that this things doesn't happen for each Judge on your Tavern Mat, even though you could try to argue that if read completely literally.

In any case, the issue still remains that there's no reason to buy more than 1 Judge; and thus no reason for it to be a split pile.

[kru5h]

Okay. I give up on Judge.

Although, the intent was that you can play multiple judges, you can only play them one at a time, though. Once the game ends again, you can play another judge. The intent was to make it so that you make sure that each person with a judge doesn't get multiple turns in a row and they are evenly distributed, but that's really hard to word.

[GendoIkari]

Okay. I give up on Judge.

Although, the intent was that you can play multiple judges, you can only play them one at a time, though. Once the game ends again, you can play another judge. The intent was to make it so that you make sure that each person with a judge doesn't get multiple turns in a row and they are evenly distributed, but that's really hard to word.

Aaaah, I see. Yeah, I don't think it's right at all to think of "when the game ends" as happening again, after your extra turn. The game already ended; you're doing post-game stuff (that still can affect your score).

[Holunder9]

Okay. I give up on Judge.

Although, the intent was that you can play multiple judges, you can only play them one at a time, though. Once the game ends again, you can play another judge. The intent was to make it so that you make sure that each person with a judge doesn't get multiple turns in a row and they are evenly distributed, but that's really hard to word.

I don't think that Judgeis unsound. It is only good in an engine and if the other folks play money you might not be able to gain all Judges to unlock the green underneath. This is a nice little interactive minigame, you got basic split pile synergy and it will probably be quite interesting to plan for some extra moves.

[kru5h]

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside face-up, you may turn it face-down to take an extra turn after the current player in which you cannot gain Judges. If multiple players react with a Judge, go in turn order, one extra turn at a time, starting with the player to play next. (When the game ends again, you may react with another Judge.)

Got rid of the Tavern mat because I hate them.

Edit: Now I just need to make the wording shorter. Oof.

Edit 2: There's still the problem of what to buy? If all the Provinces are out and you have no +buys, then you're paying 6 for a chance of gaining a Duchy when you should've just bought a Duchy. Should I make this a split pile that has Victory cards underneath?

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside face-up, you may turn it face-down to take an extra turn after the current player in which you can't gain Judges. Extra turns go in turn order, one at a time, starting with the next player.

Edit 3: 55 Words?

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside face-up, you may turn it face-down to take an extra turn after this one in which you can't gain Judges. Go in turn order, starting with the next player.

Edit 4: Is this too short to be clear? Also, I might rename it to be "Lawyer."

Edit 5: There's a minor problem with this in that if a card gains it to the top of your deck (or hand) it doesn't get set aside. I'm just going to ignore that instead of adding any extra wording. Don't gain this with an Armory, Artificer, Develop, Graverobber, or Cobbler.

Lawyer/Courthouse Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Lawyer on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Lawyer Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside face-up, you may turn it face-down to take an extra turn after this one in which you can't gain Lawyers. Go in turn order, starting with the next player.

Courthouse Victory,
4
---
When you gain this, set it aside.

The idea here is it's useful if Duchies are out or if Provinces are out, since it's halfway between, but slightly overpriced as a penalty for being behind.

Lawyer Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside face-up, you may turn it face-down to take an extra turn after this one (in turn order) in which you can't gain Lawyers.

Edited again above. Now that I've shaved off a few words, I can probably fit in some more edge-case wording if needed.

[GendoIkari]

I feel like all of those still have clunky wording; and a confusing rules issue about the idea of the game "ending" again after a Judge turn. Not that I have a helpful suggestion of a better wording to accomplish what you want.

[kru5h]

Maybe it should be limited to one extra turn and not a split pile.

Lawyer Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside, you may discard one Lawyer to take one extra turn after the end of the game (in turn order).

This is less obnoxious, less confusing, and less wordy.

Feels kinda bad to have a card in the supply that only 2 or 3 copies of will be bought, though.

How about this:

Deity Victory,
Worth 6 if gained after the end of the game (otherwise worth 0.)
---
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, each player with any Deities set aside takes one extra turn (in turn order).

Interestingly, this can actually shorten the game in cases where it causes you to ignore the penultimate Province rule.

[LastFootnote]

Cooper Action - Reserve,
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
--
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a card.

This is probably only a bit worse than Fugitive and seems like a good 4 to me.
I'd like to point out that Asper's Hunter is a less vanilla-ish and more interesting implementation of a Reserve non-terminal draw that can be called at a cost.

I would like to disagree with this almost-year-old post. Often simpler is better, as long as it plays in an interesting way. This version of Cooper seems quite interesting to me. You normally can't call too many off your mat on one turn or you won't be able to do much. Combos with draw-to-X.

I think Hunter is a fine card too, but I think I prefer this one.

[Kudasai]

Maybe it should be limited to one extra turn and not a split pile.

Lawyer Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside, you may discard one Lawyer to take one extra turn after the end of the game (in turn order).

This is less obnoxious, less confusing, and less wordy.

Feels kinda bad to have a card in the supply that only 2 or 3 copies of will be bought, though.

Maybe extra Lawyers give you bonuses on your extra, post-game turn? Extra cards, buys, actions, etc? This would also be an amazing opportunity to make the bonuses dependent on how much of something you have in your deck. This is something you normally could not do, but as the game has "ended" you could technically look at your cards. You would however have to reshuffle in order to play your post-game turn. Would also be tricky getting the wording right.

I made a mock-up illustrating how the wording can be implemented. I know you're against Reserve cards, but this would have to use a mat to work correctly (as cards on mats do not automatically get picked up at the end of the game). It also does not address the issue of turn order, but maybe that's best saved for an expanded rules section. Anyways, all bonuses and what triggers the bonuses could be anything. Just used some generic stuff as an example.



If you go the split-pile route, the bottom Victory card could also do some cool stuff at the end of the game, like gaining powerful cards for your last turn. Would make for a cool interaction with the above card.

Well, hopefully I'm not imposing on your creative space here. I just really like the concept you came up with and wanna help in any way. Take and leave any of it!

[kru5h]

Cooper Action - Reserve,
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
--
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a card.

This is probably only a bit worse than Fugitive and seems like a good 4 to me.
I'd like to point out that Asper's Hunter is a less vanilla-ish and more interesting implementation of a Reserve non-terminal draw that can be called at a cost.

I would like to disagree with this almost-year-old post. Often simpler is better, as long as it plays in an interesting way. This version of Cooper seems quite interesting to me. You normally can't call too many off your mat on one turn or you won't be able to do much. Combos with draw-to-X.

I think Hunter is a fine card too, but I think I prefer this one.

It's an alright card (could be reworded to be less confusing), but I hate Tavern mats.  That's really my only problem with it. Maybe slightly boring.

Maybe it should be limited to one extra turn and not a split pile.

Lawyer Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, if you have this set aside, you may discard one Lawyer to take one extra turn after the end of the game (in turn order).

This is less obnoxious, less confusing, and less wordy.

Feels kinda bad to have a card in the supply that only 2 or 3 copies of will be bought, though.

Maybe extra Lawyers give you bonuses on your extra, post-game turn? Extra cards, buys, actions, etc? This would also be an amazing opportunity to make the bonuses dependent on how much of something you have in your deck. This is something you normally could not do, but as the game has "ended" you could technically look at your cards. You would however have to reshuffle in order to play your post-game turn. Would also be tricky getting the wording right.

I made a mock-up illustrating how the wording can be implemented. I know you're against Reserve cards, but this would have to use a mat to work correctly (as cards on mats do not automatically get picked up at the end of the game). It also does not address the issue of turn order, but maybe that's best saved for an expanded rules section. Anyways, all bonuses and what triggers the bonuses could be anything. Just used some generic stuff as an example.



If you go the split-pile route, the bottom Victory card could also do some cool stuff at the end of the game, like gaining powerful cards for your last turn. Would make for a cool interaction with the above card.

Well, hopefully I'm not imposing on your creative space here. I just really like the concept you came up with and wanna help in any way. Take and leave any of it!

You're not imposing at all.

I like the sentiment that it should be a special turn, but wording is such a mess right now. I'm going to go my own way on this one and hopefully it works out. Feel free to make your own variants of my variants.

Judge/Courthouse Reaction - Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, trash all Judges from the Supply and each player with any Judges set aside takes one extra turn (continuing turn order.)

Courthouse Victory,
7

[GendoIkari]

Judge/Courthouse Reaction - Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, trash all Judges from the Supply and each player with any Judges set aside takes one extra turn (continuing turn order.)

Courthouse Victory,
7

This is probably my favorite of the versions. No awkward wording needed to prevent users from gaining infinite turns. Yes, it has the problem that there's not a good reason to buy multiple judges... actually, why does it gain to set-aside land? Why not make it a regular action, that you have to play to set it aside? I think that gives multiple benefits:

1) Eliminates weird stuff when gaining with Armory or using Watchtower reactions.
2) Gives a reason to buy more than 1. Not a big reason, but if you think that the game will end before your next shuffle, it is important to ensure that you actually draw this before the game ends, so you might buy 2 of them to increase your chances.
3) Makes it a more interesting decision whether to buy it or not, and when to buy it. I don't like the idea of just buying one on the turn that you end the game in order to get an extra turn right away.

Also, one thing I disagree with is the randomizer card and rules. For all other multi-type piles, the randomizer matches the top card. So the randomizer should be just "reaction" (or action-reaction if you do it that way). And the pile should contain 10 cards, because it is an action supply pile. There's even a specific precedent of a pile containing a victory card but not being treated as a victory pile, in Knights.

*Edit* In terms of the action-reaction option.. if you're worried about confusion about what happens when you play a Judge during your post-game turn (though I think it should be clear that the game has already ended and won't end again after that turn), then simply add "if the game has not ended, set this aside".

[Asper]

I reaaaally think they should stack. Also, if you intend to always uncover the Courthouse as the game ends, and Judges happen on buy, just make it an Event. This way, everybody can see the instructions at all times:

Process, Event, 6
Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, remove this and add the Courthouse pile to the supply. Players who have Process tokens continue playing, skipping players without tokens, paying a token each on their turns, until no player has any Process tokens.

[kru5h]

Judge/Courthouse Reaction - Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge Reaction,
When you gain this, set it aside.
---
When the game ends, trash all Judges from the Supply and each player with any Judges set aside takes one extra turn (continuing turn order.)

Courthouse Victory,
7

This is probably my favorite of the versions. No awkward wording needed to prevent users from gaining infinite turns. Yes, it has the problem that there's not a good reason to buy multiple judges... actually, why does it gain to set-aside land? Why not make it a regular action, that you have to play to set it aside? I think that gives multiple benefits:

1) Eliminates weird stuff when gaining with Armory or using Watchtower reactions.
2) Gives a reason to buy more than 1. Not a big reason, but if you think that the game will end before your next shuffle, it is important to ensure that you actually draw this before the game ends, so you might buy 2 of them to increase your chances.
3) Makes it a more interesting decision whether to buy it or not, and when to buy it. I don't like the idea of just buying one on the turn that you end the game in order to get an extra turn right away.

Also, one thing I disagree with is the randomizer card and rules. For all other multi-type piles, the randomizer matches the top card. So the randomizer should be just "reaction" (or action-reaction if you do it that way). And the pile should contain 10 cards, because it is an action supply pile. There's even a specific precedent of a pile containing a victory card but not being treated as a victory pile, in Knights.

*Edit* In terms of the action-reaction option.. if you're worried about confusion about what happens when you play a Judge during your post-game turn (though I think it should be clear that the game has already ended and won't end again after that turn), then simply add "if the game has not ended, set this aside".

I agree. I originally wanted a reaction-only because I thought it would be a clever, but it's just awkward.

As far as the Victory-Split, I'm going to keep it how it is, ignoring precedent. Occasionally I play 6-player games (I hate it, but my friends want to do it when we have too many people) and I want 6 of each card in every split pile I do. I once played a 6-player game with Catapult. Everybody was cleaning up their decks except one player who couldn't buy a Catapult when they were out. Imagine a 6-player game with Fortune. There are only 5 of them. Completely unfair. I wish Donald had done 6 of each for split piles from the start.

Judge/Courthouse Action - Reaction - Victory Split Pile (Supply 12)

This pile starts the game with 6 copies of Judge on top, then 6 copies of Courthouse.
For a 2-player game, use only 4 of each card. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Judge Action - Reaction,
Set this aside.
---
When the game ends for the first time, trash all Judges from the Supply and each player with any Judges set aside takes one extra turn, continuing in turn order.

Courthouse Victory,
7
---
You can't buy this unless the game has ended.

I reaaaally think they should stack. Also, if you intend to always uncover the Courthouse as the game ends, and Judges happen on buy, just make it an Event. This way, everybody can see the instructions at all times:

Process, Event, 6
Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, remove this and add the Courthouse pile to the supply. Players who have Process tokens continue playing, skipping players without tokens, paying a token each on their turns, until no player has any Process tokens.

The event idea is good, but I don't really like it for some reason. Can't put my finger on it. I generally try to avoid mats, tokens, and extra cards unless I really love an idea (Like Jinx tokens for Caltrops.)

As far as it stacking, I dislike stacking for the simple reason that I don't want to sit around for 4 turns while somebody else plays the game and tries to catch up. It's far less obnoxious of an ending if there's one special turn. It's also much easier to word.

[Asper]

If they are really not supposed to stack, cards make even less sense. I suggest a "Once per game" event.

Process,Event, 6
Once per game: Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, add the Courthouse pile to the supply and each player with a Process Token takes an extra turn.

It's just so, so much cleaner.

[GendoIkari]

If they are really not supposed to stack, cards make even less sense. I suggest a "Once per game" event.

Process,Event, 6
Once per game: Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, add the Courthouse pile to the supply and each player with a Process Token takes an extra turn.

It's just so, so much cleaner.

It is clean, but I feel like it's too easy/good. Of course you buy this event; everyone does. Trade a turn (or a leftover towards the end of the game into an extra turn at the end to do whatever you want (maybe Provinces are gone, but even without Courthouses you'll get some points). That's why I like the action version, because like Distant Lands, you have to figure out how late you can get away with buying it, and then also have to give up a card/action on a turn to play it.

[Asper]

If they are really not supposed to stack, cards make even less sense. I suggest a "Once per game" event.

Process,Event, 6
Once per game: Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, add the Courthouse pile to the supply and each player with a Process Token takes an extra turn.

It's just so, so much cleaner.

It is clean, but I feel like it's too easy/good. Of course you buy this event; everyone does. Trade a turn (or a leftover towards the end of the game into an extra turn at the end to do whatever you want (maybe Provinces are gone, but even without Courthouses you'll get some points). That's why I like the action version, because like Distant Lands, you have to figure out how late you can get away with buying it, and then also have to give up a card/action on a turn to play it.

I really don't think it's this clear you're going to buy this, and even if it was, I think there are lots of mistakes you can make here. Sure, you get a turn, but you also lose a turn. The turn you get is going to be a turn where your deck has all the good cards you want, but it's also a turn where your deck is full of green. The turn you forego could have been a Lab, a Goons, a Witch, if this happens early. Later on, it could have been a Duchy. Sure, no Duchy to clog your deck, but at least you know you'll have that Duchy. In your extra turn, you might as well stall for all you know.

[GendoIkari]

If they are really not supposed to stack, cards make even less sense. I suggest a "Once per game" event.

Process,Event, 6
Once per game: Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, add the Courthouse pile to the supply and each player with a Process Token takes an extra turn.

It's just so, so much cleaner.

It is clean, but I feel like it's too easy/good. Of course you buy this event; everyone does. Trade a turn (or a leftover towards the end of the game into an extra turn at the end to do whatever you want (maybe Provinces are gone, but even without Courthouses you'll get some points). That's why I like the action version, because like Distant Lands, you have to figure out how late you can get away with buying it, and then also have to give up a card/action on a turn to play it.

I really don't think it's this clear you're going to buy this, and even if it was, I think there are lots of mistakes you can make here. Sure, you get a turn, but you also lose a turn. The turn you get is going to be a turn where your deck has all the good cards you want, but it's also a turn where your deck is full of green. The turn you forego could have been a Lab, a Goons, a Witch, if this happens early. Later on, it could have been a Duchy. Sure, no Duchy to clog your deck, but at least you know you'll have that Duchy. In your extra turn, you might as well stall for all you know.

I think I'm convinced. I mean, you definitely don't buy it early. If it's a decent engine you'll buy it with an extra buy; not as your regular main buy. Where it becomes interesting is when you buy it on the same turn that you end the game. Assuming perfect score tracking, you normally never end the game unless you're winning... but this gives an extra option to end the game while a little behind, and hope that your extra turn is good enough (or better than your opponent's extra turn, if they bought one also).

[Kudasai]

The "Game End" seems to be three phases:
(1) Start of Game End.
(2) Take all cards (minus cards on mats if not specified to take).
(3) Scoring.

Since your current version is set aside and will get pulled at phase (2), should you have to specify the condition as being "At the start of Game End" or "At the start of the end of the game"?

[Holunder9]

Not sure about Process, seems too good.
With money you will likely go for the Gold/Duchy in the endgame but in a well-running engine that doesn't need any components anymore it is a no-brainer. If the engine has the potential to buy more than a Duchy this event only competes with Duchy when you hit $6 in the endgame. So unless Duchies are about to go out before the game ends, Process it is.

It is kinda like all those expensive Adventure events, they are virtually always good. Hireling or Prince on the other hand, when you have to wait a shuffle, draw the card (respectively, in the case of Prince, cards) and spend the Action, are less cwazy.

I think this becomes most clear when you consider an exploding megaturn engine. You get a big finale, buy Process Process get another big finale. Epic stuff!
The card version on the other hand is trickier to execute. Competes with that extra Bridge Troll and requires you to anticipate the end of the game and judge the drawing power of your deck well enough.

[GendoIkari]

The "Game End" seems to be three phases:
(1) Start of Game End.
(2) Take all cards (minus cards on mats if not specified to take).
(3) Scoring.

Since your current version is set aside and will get pulled at phase (2), should you have to specify the condition as being "At the start of Game End" or "At the start of the end of the game"?

I don't think this is correct. I don't think cards are "pulled"; Distant Lands shows us that cards remember where they were when the game ended, and there seems to be a general rule (written or not) that all cards that are yours count as part of your deck for the purposes of Gardens, etc. The fact Island says "returned to your deck" really has no rules meaning at all; given that cards like Haven don't have this same wording, but still work exactly the same.

[Kudasai]

The "Game End" seems to be three phases:
(1) Start of Game End.
(2) Take all cards (minus cards on mats if not specified to take).
(3) Scoring.

Since your current version is set aside and will get pulled at phase (2), should you have to specify the condition as being "At the start of Game End" or "At the start of the end of the game"?

I don't think this is correct. I don't think cards are "pulled"; Distant Lands shows us that cards remember where they were when the game ended, and there seems to be a general rule (written or not) that all cards that are yours count as part of your deck for the purposes of Gardens, etc. The fact Island says "returned to your deck" really has no rules meaning at all; given that cards like Haven don't have this same wording, but still work exactly the same.

It's a bit of an unknown rule, but cards on mats do not automatically go into your deck at the end of the game. They are still your cards, but for some reason they stay on the mat. Distant Lands is a good case of this. It's on your mat at the end of the game and checks there for 4VP. If it was automatically pulled it would be worth 0VP. Mostly a moot point though.

Really what I'm arguing is that set aside cards (like Judge) definitely get pulled and when the game ends where will Judge be? Maybe still set aside? Maybe pulled? As there is no precident for this I guess it's up to Kru5h, but I think treating the End Game as a phase like Clean-up would go a long way in clearing up any future misunderstanding.

*EDIT* I see your point though and am in no way disagreeing with it. It's a weird, sometimes seemingly incomplete part of the game. I guess it only ever matters if something is expected to be somewhere (i.e. on your Tavern mat, or set aside) that it matters.

*EDIT_02* Here is the actual text from the manual. "Take all of your cards - from your hand, deck, discard pile, play area, and even set aside cards - and sort them for putting them back in their piles. Count up your points." This is a bit off topic, but if a Victory card somehow got onto your Tavern mat and didn't check on itself to be there, would the points still be counted?

[kru5h]

I thought the precedent was that "When" happens before anything else happens.

"When another player plays an attack card" happens before the attack.

"When you trash this" happens before you trash it.

[silvern]

I thought the precedent was that "When" happens before anything else happens.

"When another player plays an attack card" happens before the attack.

"When you trash this" happens before you trash it.

I don't think this reading would work with, e.g., fortress and tomb.
Fortunately, Dominion does have a phrasing for "before" things--"when you would....", for example, on Trader.

[kru5h]

If they are really not supposed to stack, cards make even less sense. I suggest a "Once per game" event.

Process,Event, 6
Once per game: Take a Process Token.
---
When the game ends, add the Courthouse pile to the supply and each player with a Process Token takes an extra turn.

It's just so, so much cleaner.

Instead of a token, it would be even cleaner to make it a State.

Process, Event,
Once per game: Take Objection.

Objection, State
When the game would end, add the Courthouse pile to the Supply and each player with Objection instead takes an extra turn, continuing turn order.

[GendoIkari]

I thought the precedent was that "When" happens before anything else happens.

"When another player plays an attack card" happens before the attack.

"When you trash this" happens before you trash it.

No, "when" happens after the event. Fortress is in the trash pile at the time that you return it to your hand. Cards like Moat have a "first", which changes that rule. So "when x happens, do y"... x has already happened before you do y. "When x happens, first do y"... you do y when x has started to happen, but hasn't finished happening yet.

*Edit* Inn is a simple example of how we know this. Inn's when-gain has Inn already in the discard pile when you look through it.

[GendoIkari]

*EDIT_02* Here is the actual text from the manual. "Take all of your cards - from your hand, deck, discard pile, play area, and even set aside cards - and sort them for putting them back in their piles. Count up your points." This is a bit off topic, but if a Victory card somehow got onto your Tavern mat and didn't check on itself to be there, would the points still be counted?

I don't think that text is meant to exclude the Tavern Mat. Distant Lands can still score 4[$vp] because it only cares if it is on your mat "at the end of the game". Not "when counting up points. Also, it's not clear wording anyway, it just says "take all of your cards", without a definition of what it means to "take" them. The point clearly seems to be to gather them up so that you can count all of them as your score, but you have to make a logical assumption.

[kru5h]

Flank Action - Reaction,
+2 Cards
---
When you play an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand. If you do, each other player is unaffected by the Attack.

An anti-Moat that turns itself into a Lab. You're trading the attack for basically +1 Action. Sometimes your attacks do nothing anyway, so this is a way to capitalize on that.

Edit: Probably too strong with Minion or Goons.

[faust]

Flank Action - Reaction,
+2 Cards
---
When you play an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand. If you do, each other player is unaffected by the Attack.

An anti-Moat that turns itself into a Lab. You're trading the attack for basically +1 Action. Sometimes your attacks do nothing anyway, so this is a way to capitalize on that.

Edit: Probably too strong with Minion or Goons.

Timing is weird here. Trigger is "when you play an Attack", but you are instructed to play this first (i.e. before the other player has actually seen that Attack of yours), so there seems to be an accountability issue. Why not just

Flank Action,
+2 Cards
You may play an Attack from your hand.
While this is in play, when you play an Attack, each other player is unaffected by it.

Blocking all future Attack also makes it not as good with Minion/Goons.

[Holunder9]

Flank Action - Reaction,
+2 Cards
---
When you play an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand. If you do, each other player is unaffected by the Attack.

An anti-Moat that turns itself into a Lab. You're trading the attack for basically +1 Action. Sometimes your attacks do nothing anyway, so this is a way to capitalize on that.

Edit: Probably too strong with Minion or Goons.

Timing is weird here. Trigger is "when you play an Attack", but you are instructed to play this first (i.e. before the other player has actually seen that Attack of yours), so there seems to be an accountability issue.

There is no accountability issue as the actual timing is: play attack Attack card, Reaction window opens, Reactions can be played, Attack card is executed:

- A plays Mountebank. Reaction window opens. B reveals Moat. A executes Mountebank which, due to Moat, is now only a terminal Silver.
- A plays Mountebank. Reaction window opens. A reveals Flank and plays it. A executes Mountebank which, due to Flank, is now only a terminal Silver.

[Kudasai]

*EDIT_02* Here is the actual text from the manual. "Take all of your cards - from your hand, deck, discard pile, play area, and even set aside cards - and sort them for putting them back in their piles. Count up your points." This is a bit off topic, but if a Victory card somehow got onto your Tavern mat and didn't check on itself to be there, would the points still be counted?

I don't think that text is meant to exclude the Tavern Mat. Distant Lands can still score 4[$vp] because it only cares if it is on your mat "at the end of the game". Not "when counting up points. Also, it's not clear wording anyway, it just says "take all of your cards", without a definition of what it means to "take" them. The point clearly seems to be to gather them up so that you can count all of them as your score, but you have to make a logical assumption.

Any guesses why Island and Native Village specifically say to "return them to your deck at the end of the game"? 1st edition cards had this on the card itself, but now it can only be found in the expanded rules. The inclusion of this text leads me to believe that cards on mats don't automatically get returned to your deck for counting points.

Anyways, it really has no bearing on Kru5h's Judge card or really most of the official cards. I'm more curious in terms of potential design space for future, fan-made cards. Thanks for your input!

[kru5h]

Tailor Action,
+1 Action
Choose two: Trash a card from your hand; Gain a Silver; or +1 Card.
The choices must be different.
Each other player may do the one you didn't choose.

Possible variant:

Tailor Action,
Choose two: Trash a card from your hand; Gain a card costing up to ; or +2 Card.
The choices must be different.
Each other player may do the one you didn't choose.

Edit: I think I'm gonna go with this variant.

Tailor Action,
Choose two: +2 Card; trash up to 2 cards from your hand; or gain a card costing up to .
The choices must be different.
Each other player may do the one you didn't choose.

[Holunder9]

Tailor Action,
+1 Action
Choose two: Trash a card from your hand; Gain a Silver; or +1 Card.
The choices must be different.
Each other player may do the one you didn't choose.

Cantrip trashing, even with the drawing happening afterwards, seems far better than gaining a Silver.
Nonetheless, the opponents get an option and in a likely mirror a Silver isn't so bad; you need some economy after all.
So this could justify a price below $5.

[Asper]

All cards you own count for your score and stuff like Gardens etc. . Cards like Island originally said to return them to be nice to the player, spelling out something they didn't need to spell out. But it's like this, by telling out something you didn't need to, if it's lacking, people will think, why isn't it spelled out here, apparently this is different? Lesson learned: Don't spell out things that go by themselves.

[Kudasai]

All cards you own count for your score and stuff like Gardens etc. . Cards like Island originally said to return them to be nice to the player, spelling out something they didn't need to spell out. But it's like this, by telling out something you didn't need to, if it's lacking, people will think, why isn't it spelled out here, apparently this is different? Lesson learned: Don't spell out things that go by themselves.

Yeah, I've come to terms with this. Gazbag made a good point about Inherited Ratcatchers still counting for points even if they are on your Tavern mat when the game ends. I guess that was the evidence I needed, being as the rules tell a different story.

I'm assuming it's just a product of the rules detailing the "End Game" (1st edition Base and Intrigue) came out long before the first mats (1st edition Seaside). The solution when Seaside came out was then, as you said, to tell the player to do something they probably already assumed they should do anyways, take their cards from their mat and score them. Now (2nd edition Seaside) even that has been put back into obscurity in the expanded rules. I just thought the 2nd edition rules would have cleared this up.

Anyways, it's not such a big deal. I just thought maybe I had stumbled onto some untapped design space and wanted to share. Sorry folks!

[GendoIkari]

All cards you own count for your score and stuff like Gardens etc. . Cards like Island originally said to return them to be nice to the player, spelling out something they didn't need to spell out. But it's like this, by telling out something you didn't need to, if it's lacking, people will think, why isn't it spelled out here, apparently this is different? Lesson learned: Don't spell out things that go by themselves.

Yeah, I've come to terms with this. Gazbag made a good point about Inherited Ratcatchers still counting for points even if they are on your Tavern mat when the game ends. I guess that was the evidence I needed, being as the rules tell a different story.

I'm assuming it's just a product of the rules detailing the "End Game" (1st edition Base and Intrigue) came out long before the first mats (1st edition Seaside). The solution when Seaside came out was then, as you said, to tell the player to do something they probably already assumed they should do anyways, take their cards from their mat and score them. Now (2nd edition Seaside) even that has been put back into obscurity in the expanded rules. I just thought the 2nd edition rules would have cleared this up.

Anyways, it's not such a big deal. I just thought maybe I had stumbled onto some untapped design space and wanted to share. Sorry folks!

I just noticed that second edition Island and Native village do away with the "return to the deck at the end of the game" clause, which makes me super happy. I've always been bothered by that text. Sure, if it hadn't been there to begin with, there would have been a few people asking "do cards on the Island Mat count for scoring?" But while the text prevented those particular questions, it lead to many other questions such as "do cards set aside by Haven count for scoring? Island says cards return the cards to the deck, but Haven doesn't."

[kru5h]

Tinker Action - Duration,
+2 Cards
+
At the start of your next turn, you may discard a card, to put this into your hand.

Mildly interesting. Could possible be abused. Not sure. Feels a bit strong, but feels too weak without the +. Feels balanced but awkward if it were +1 card, +.

Edit: I think I like this variant:

Tinker Action - Duration,
+3 Cards
At the start of your next turn, you may discard 2 cards, to put this into your hand.

[Holunder9]

Tinker Action - Duration,
+3 Cards
At the start of your next turn, you may discard 2 cards, to put this into your hand.

The most interesting and novel element is that it is the only $5 Smithy variant which is not a Smithy with a bonus but also with a liability: if you don't discard 2 cards Tinker is worse than Smithy due to the usual Duration card issues.
So it might be a bit too weak, at least as ordinary engine piece. In money it is probably pretty brilliant.

[kru5h]

Tinker Action - Duration,
+3 Cards
At the start of your next turn, you may discard 2 cards, to put this into your hand.

The most interesting and novel element is that it is the only $5 Smithy variant which is not a Smithy with a bonus but also with a liability: if you don't discard 2 cards Tinker is worse than Smithy due to the usual Duration card issues.
So it might be a bit too weak, at least as ordinary engine piece. In money it is probably pretty brilliant.

Tinker Action - Duration - Reaction,
+3 Cards
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, you may discard 2 cards, to put this into your hand.
---
When you discard a card (including during Clean-up), you may discard this from play.

Edit: That doesn't work if you don't have any cards left in hand to discard during Clean-up. Second attempt:

Tinker Action - Duration,
+3 Cards
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, you may discard 2 cards, to put this into your hand.
---
At the start of Clean-up, you may discard this from play.

[kru5h]

What do you guys think about modifying Rabbits?



I would remove the + and make it always cost . This would make the card much simpler.

Edit: Posted side-by-side.

[kru5h]

I added images for ALL of my fan cards. Click page 1 of this thread to see the new art and wording.

Please let me know if you find any errors.

[Asper]

Rabbits is a cute name.

But the card (in its previous and current shape) seems like something that's not only pretty pointless to ever go for, it also seems just not fun. By solving all the issues it has, you get to Embargo, or Tax. I guess you could do an Event that costs 0 and puts buy Tokens (Buffers!!!) on supply piles, so you have to spend a buy more on those cards, or rather, take the token. But that also doesn't seem fun. Here's a version that doesn't assume Buy Tokens to be generally introduced:

Toll, Event, 0
Once per turn, choose one:
Put a Toll Token on an Action supply pile that doesn't have one;
Take a Toll Token from an Action supply pile;
+1 Buy, lose any number of Toll Tokens, +1Buy each.
(Cards with Toll Tokens on them cannot be bought)

[kru5h]

I changed Scepter. Not sure if it's overpowered now.


New Hotness on left<<  >>Old version on right.

[kru5h]

I've seen this idea done before, but this is my take on it:


If you don't limit the cost to , people can get a Province. If you limit the total cost to , you can play a single Highway and gain a Province. It just makes sense to have both constraints.

[GendoIkari]

I've seen this idea done before, but this is my take on it:


If you don't limit the cost to , people can get a Province. If you limit the total cost to , you can play a single Highway and gain a Province. It just makes sense to have both constraints.

I remember some discussion about this idea before. There's some rules uncertainty about how the 2 cards are chosen. For example, if there are no cards costing or less (it could happen); are you allowed to gain a card costing to start? (And then fail to gain a second card). Or do you have to start by choosing 2 cards that combined fill the constraints given, and then gain them both?

Or more straightforward... are you allowed to gain the top 2 Ruins with this?

[Holunder9]

You might have missed that the cards says "with a combined cost of UP TO 8" which is why there are no rule ambiguities (you could construct a hypertheoretical case in which the Curses and Coppers are out and the card becomes unclear but it is practically irrelevant; I never played a game of Dominion in which the Copper pile was even nearing depletion). So if the first card you gain cost 5 the second one can cost up to 3.

Ruins are obviously possible as both cost individually up to 5 and together up to 8.

I like the card, it is probably one of the strongest engine enablers. If the Kingdom allows for engine play there have to be good 4s respectively goods 5s and 2s/3s. In a money Kingdom it will probably suck but Duchy+Silver might be a thing.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like this one. On first look, I think it's one of the best fan-made throne room variants I've seen.

[GendoIkari]

You might have missed that the cards says "with a combined cost of UP TO 8" which is why there are no rule ambiguities (you could construct a hypertheoretical case in which the Curses and Coppers are out and the card becomes unclear but it is practically irrelevant; I never played a game of Dominion in which the Copper pile was even nearing depletion). So if the first card you gain cost 5 the second one can cost up to 3.

Ruins are obviously possible as both cost individually up to 5 and together up to 8.

I like the card, it is probably one of the strongest engine enablers. If the Kingdom allows for engine play there have to be good 4s respectively goods 5s and 2s/3s. In a money Kingdom it will probably suck but Duchy+Silver might be a thing.

No, I specified that I was talking about a situation when there are no cards costing or less. Yes, it's super rare; but that just means that it's a rules ambiguity that will practically never happen, instead of a rules ambiguity that will rarely happen. It's still the exact same rules ambiguity.

The reason Ruins is ambiguous is because to gain 2 of them means you would have to first gain one card, then gain the second card. It is not clear from "gain 2 cards" if that's how it would work; as opposed to choosing 2 cards and gaining them both.

Edit before posting: Found this super old thread where I think Donald actually answers that question: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5990.msg161157#msg161157

Basically, as with Embargo, "gain 2 cards" implies 2 separate gain events that should happen one after the other. So yes, you should indeed be able to gain 2 separate Ruins (or Knights, if you have cost reduction). But that still has the other uncertainty... do you have to consider your second gain's cost when choosing the first gain? Can you choose a card for your first gain if everything in the Supply costs or more? If not, you need to "look ahead" to actually make both choices together before gaining either one.

[Holunder9]

You might have missed that the cards says "with a combined cost of UP TO 8" which is why there are no rule ambiguities (you could construct a hypertheoretical case in which the Curses and Coppers are out and the card becomes unclear but it is practically irrelevant; I never played a game of Dominion in which the Copper pile was even nearing depletion). So if the first card you gain cost 5 the second one can cost up to 3.

Ruins are obviously possible as both cost individually up to 5 and together up to 8.

I like the card, it is probably one of the strongest engine enablers. If the Kingdom allows for engine play there have to be good 4s respectively goods 5s and 2s/3s. In a money Kingdom it will probably suck but Duchy+Silver might be a thing.

No, I specified that I was talking about a situation when there are no cards costing or less. Yes, it's super rare; but that just means that it's a rules ambiguity that will practically never happen, instead of a rules ambiguity that will rarely happen. It's still the exact same rules ambiguity.

Coppers could run out in a Gardens/Beggar game and Silver does rarely run out in Feodum games but both never ever run out together. So if what you worry about practically never happens it is irrelevant (unless you wanna stare at a Dominion card like at a piece in a museum instead of playing with it). If Dominion should ever feature cards with cost increase, the inverse of something like Bridge, or if somebody uses fan cards with this idea as well as this fan card, this could become an issue though.
And if that worrisome case should occur in the far future, in a galaxay far away, the few scattered folks who actually play with this card and have no access to FAQs could just do what every boardgamer does if rule ambiguities occur in the games they play: talk and come up with a rule of how to handle that particular case. Something simply and intuitive like, as gaining occurs sequentially, you then gain no second card
If a game tells you to do X but you cannot do X the only options are don't do what you cannot do or do what a computer does and freeze. Most folks are interested in the game progressing so I declare the second option to be ludicrous.

In this galaxy I'd rather worry about how strong this card is and perhaps playtest it alongside Artisan.

[Asper]

"Name two differently named cards in the supply each costing up to 5 with a combined cost of up to 8. If you do, gain both in either order."

[Asper]

I changed Scepter. Not sure if it's overpowered now.


New Hotness on left<<  >>Old version on right.

I actually like the old one better, although perhaps it could really be "play it once, gain a copy" vs "play it twice".

[GendoIkari]

So if what you worry about practically never happens it is irrelevant

Part of this is probably the programmer in me. In programming, it's literally not an option to just ignore a situation because it won't ever happen. The compiler will fail with a message "not all code paths return a value" if I don't include some "catch all" code path.

I just think that for a card to be solid in wording, it needs to make sense given all logically possible Dominion game states; not only the ones that are common to actually see.

[Asper]

So if what you worry about practically never happens it is irrelevant

Part of this is probably the programmer in me. In programming, it's literally not an option to just ignore a situation because it won't ever happen. The compiler will fail with a message "not all code paths return a value" if I don't include some "catch all" code path.

I just think that for a card to be solid in wording, it needs to make sense given all logically possible Dominion game states; not only the ones that are common to actually see.

I agree. There's a difference between a rare game state making a card "broken" and a rare game state leading to undefined rules. Neither is desirable, but where the first is just an exceptional game outcome, the second actually breaks the game. Yes, you can house rule games if the real rules suck. The thing to do here is not to rely on other people fixing your sucky rules for you.

[GendoIkari]

So if what you worry about practically never happens it is irrelevant

Part of this is probably the programmer in me. In programming, it's literally not an option to just ignore a situation because it won't ever happen. The compiler will fail with a message "not all code paths return a value" if I don't include some "catch all" code path.

I just think that for a card to be solid in wording, it needs to make sense given all logically possible Dominion game states; not only the ones that are common to actually see.

I agree. There's a difference between a rare game state making a card "broken" and a rare game state leading to undefined rules. Neither is desirable, but where the first is just an exceptional game outcome, the second actually breaks the game. Yes, you can house rule games if the real rules suck. The thing to do here is not to rely on other people fixing your sucky rules for you.

Yeah. Like if the card somehow allowed you to instantly gain the entire Province pile in the rare situation that there are no cards costing or less, I'd be ok with that. Some people might complain "in this rare situation, the card is way overpowered and broken", but in that rare situation, the game is over at the end of that same turn no matter what.

[kru5h]

I guess I will just change Kiln to this:


A lot more boring, but workable.

[GendoIkari]

I guess I will just change Kiln to this:


A lot more boring, but workable.

I think this is neat. It does require a second of thought to overcome the initial confusion of "but it cost , so how can it cost ?".. but maybe that's just me.

[Holunder9]

So if what you worry about practically never happens it is irrelevant

Part of this is probably the programmer in me. In programming, it's literally not an option to just ignore a situation because it won't ever happen. The compiler will fail with a message "not all code paths return a value" if I don't include some "catch all" code path.

I just think that for a card to be solid in wording, it needs to make sense given all logically possible Dominion game states; not only the ones that are common to actually see.

Professionial biases are totally understandable and as there also exists a digital version of Dominion it makes some sense to make rules watertight.
But a more pragmatic perspective for a fan card still in progress that will at best be printed by a few folks is to not care about a case which nobody (if anybody has ever played a game in which the Copper and Silver piles have been emptied, please speak up) has ever witnessed in a game of Dominion. Please note that I am not against good and precise wording and caring about edge cases that can occur. But Coppers and Silvers being out isn't something that happens in an actual game.

Balance issues are in my opinion more important for a card in flux and as kru5h has decided to change the card those rule musings are moot now.

I guess I will just change Kiln to this:


A lot more boring, but workable.

Such a nerf (I guess so; then again if there is nothing decent below $4 the previous version would have implied that you have to "junk" yourself with Silver when you want to gain a $5) is probably necessary. Two cheap cards is still a pretty decent option and probably as good or even better than Artisan's hand-gaining.

[kru5h]

This card is probably too powerful and annoying to keep track of if you have several in play.

Cell


Also, I need to rename Scepter since there's an official card with that name now.

[kru5h]

No name, Project
At the start of Clean-up each turn, you may put a card from your hand onto your deck.

No name, Project
Once per turn, you may gain a Copper to your hand.

No name, Project
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal an Attack card from your hand to be unaffected.

No name, Project
Whenever you play an Attack, you may get +1 Action. If you do, other players are unaffected by it.

[kru5h]

I've been gone a while.  Here's some stuff.

First, a remake of an old card.

Tinker


Second. A "new" mechanic. I use scare quotes because it's probably been done before.
Behold, Payment cards. They do something right now, but you can pay money (once) during your buy phase to do something more.

Settlement


Cloister


Shield


Magic Coin


Installment


There are more things you can do with this mechanic. Maybe an attack card that you pay to attack. Maybe some Traveller cards that you have to pay to exchange.

[Gubump]

Shield doesn't need (and in fact, shouldn't have) the dividing line.

Aside from Shield being extremely weak in the absence of Attacks, I like the rest of your payment cards.

[kru5h]

Aside from Shield being extremely weak in the absence of Attacks, I like the rest of your payment cards.

Keep in mind that its ability doesn't cost a buy. That makes its ability strictly better than Expedition. Then you get the same ability the next turn again.

[kru5h]

Jungle


The above card is very similar to one of hypercube's cards, but we both came up with it independently.

Also, I just found out that my "Settlement" card is similar to one of Asper's cards. Again, independently.

[Kudasai]

Installment is really cool, but as worded it enables unlimited Buys and doubles your overall Coin value. I don't believe this is how you intend the card to function as this would be like Fortune but on steroids.

[kru5h]

Installment is really cool, but as worded it enables unlimited Buys and doubles your overall Coin value. I don't believe this is how you intend the card to function as this would be like Fortune but on steroids.

I'm not sure what you mean. It plainly states to gain a card, meaning only one. How can you get infinite buys?

[Gubump]

Installment is really cool, but as worded it enables unlimited Buys and doubles your overall Coin value. I don't believe this is how you intend the card to function as this would be like Fortune but on steroids.

I'm not sure what you mean. It plainly states to gain a card, meaning only one. How can you get infinite buys?

As the payment cards are worded, you can use Installment's effect any number of times, which allows infinite pseudo-buys. It should say "Once this turn, during your Buy phase..."

[Kudasai]

An "At the start of your next Buy phase" wording works too I believe.

[kru5h]

Since it's confusing, I'll clarify the text on them.

In the mean time, here's a card that's possibly boring. No new mechanics, but possibly interesting?

Benefactor

[Commodore Chuckles]

In the mean time, here's a card that's possibly boring. No new mechanics, but possibly interesting?

Benefactor

On first glance, it looks interesting enough. It's similar to Embargo: Embargo prevents opponents from gaining something they need more than you do, while this gives you something you need more than they do. I imagine thinking of clever uses for it could be fun. You could simply have a different strategy than they do, of course, but you could also gain a whole bunch of powerful cards at once and then immediately end the game, or use it to empty piles, or distribute a Cemetery, which will possibly let you trash more junk than them and will also let you trash the Cemetery itself while they're stuck with it.

[kru5h]

I'm not sure if I have these prices right.
Old Smithy


Edit: Here's a second one. My Internet is sucking right now, so I can't upload images.

Secret, $3 Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Once this turn's Buy phase, you may pay $1. If you don't, each other player gains a Secret.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Old Smithy

Just curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

[kru5h]

Old Smithy

Just curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

[Gazbag]

Old Smithy

Just curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

[scolapasta]

ust curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

The precedent for this would be Encampment / Scheme.

In both cases, the card is set aside. They can't be schemed because they are not discarded from play.

(while I agree start of clean up is before discarding, I don't think it would be different if it said at the end of cleanup. If you didn't return it, it would just remain set aside forever).

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

I think this alternative could work, but think the setting aside is more future proof. (if ever there are cards that do things at start of cleanup)

One thing that seems ambiguous with the current wording: can you play $2 to keep multiple Old Smithies or do you have to pay for each? (I assume the desired effect is the latter)

[Gazbag]

ust curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

The precedent for this would be Encampment / Scheme.

In both cases, the card is set aside. They can't be schemed because they are not discarded from play.

(while I agree start of clean up is before discarding, I don't think it would be different if it said at the end of cleanup. If you didn't return it, it would just remain set aside forever).

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

I think this alternative could work, but think the setting aside is more future proof. (if ever there are cards that do things at start of cleanup)

One thing that seems ambiguous with the current wording: can you play $2 to keep multiple Old Smithies or do you have to pay for each? (I assume the desired effect is the latter)

I'm pretty sure that if the Scheme loophole works then the card just doesn't work because you can always choose to discard it, Scheme topdecking it when you discard it doesn't really make a difference.
Encampment is set aside to help track that it gave +Actions and to "prevent recursion" and to make Plunder get covered up later so it's easier to buy. Experiment doesn't set aside as there's nothing to really track (and apparently recursion is fine now?), it's also the more recent card so I would tend to use that as the reference point. Old Smithy stays in play until cleanup anyway so these aren't issues for it. I don't see how it makes a difference with other start of cleanup things, currently the setting aside is just an unnecessary step. I'm interpreting the wording as meaning it's set aside at the start of cleanup and then immediately returned as "during your Buy phase" isn't a set point for this to trigger.

[scolapasta]

ust curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

The precedent for this would be Encampment / Scheme.

In both cases, the card is set aside. They can't be schemed because they are not discarded from play.

(while I agree start of clean up is before discarding, I don't think it would be different if it said at the end of cleanup. If you didn't return it, it would just remain set aside forever).

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

I think this alternative could work, but think the setting aside is more future proof. (if ever there are cards that do things at start of cleanup)

One thing that seems ambiguous with the current wording: can you play $2 to keep multiple Old Smithies or do you have to pay for each? (I assume the desired effect is the latter)

I'm pretty sure that if the Scheme loophole works then the card just doesn't work because you can always choose to discard it, Scheme topdecking it when you discard it doesn't really make a difference.
Encampment is set aside to help track that it gave +Actions and to "prevent recursion" and to make Plunder get covered up later so it's easier to buy. Experiment doesn't set aside as there's nothing to really track (and apparently recursion is fine now?), it's also the more recent card so I would tend to use that as the reference point. Old Smithy stays in play until cleanup anyway so these aren't issues for it. I don't see how it makes a difference with other start of cleanup things, currently the setting aside is just an unnecessary step. I'm interpreting the wording as meaning it's set aside at the start of cleanup and then immediately returned as "during your Buy phase" isn't a set point for this to trigger.

Good point about when the setting aside actually happens. As currently written, I would think it would happen after your buy phase ends, but before clean up begins (or before night, in games with night phase).

Re: my point about future "At start of your clean up phase" cards: imagine a card* with a clause "at the start of your clean up phase, +$1 next turn per 5 cards you have in play (round down)."  It would make a difference if already set aside or in play. This is likely a minimal edge case that doesn't require over complicating the card, so I agree with you the simpler wording is better. I just like to think about edge case.

(*) not saying this is a good card, just an example of a how it could make a difference.

Similarly, if you had a night card that card about cards in play.

If it's important for some reason to keep this at paying $ during buy phase, it should probably specify, "at the start of your buy phase".

[kru5h]

Out of all those cards, I'm only keeping these 3.

Cloister


Shield


Installment


Old Smithy seemed cool at the time, but having to pay each turn to keep it just feels bad. Most of the other cards work better with debt than as "payment" cards. Debt is just simpler but has already been done to death. Enjoy these 3. I'll start working on my next cards.

Also, I rejected this card shortly after making it.

Jetty


When do you have spare actions to gain a card? When you already have plenty of actions.
When do you have plenty of actions to spare? When you no longer need villages.
This card is mostly useless.

Edit: I changed an old card of mine, Ivory Tower. It DOES work during Clean-up phase now. Is that broken? We'll see.

Ivory Tower


Edit 2: Uploaded the wrong Cloister card. Fixed.

[Gubump]

It really annoys me that Shield has the paying effect after a separating line even though neither of the other payment cards do. None of them should.

[kru5h]

It really annoys me that Shield has the paying effect after a separating line even though neither of the other payment cards do. None of them should.

I agree with you, but I tried it without the line and it looks like a wall of text. There's no logical reason for it, but makes the card look better.

[Gubump]

It really annoys me that Shield has the paying effect after a separating line even though neither of the other payment cards do. None of them should.

I agree with you, but I tried it without the line and it looks like a wall of text. There's no logical reason for it, but makes the card look better.

I tried it out in the image generator I normally use (linked in my sig, using the Shard's GitHub version) and it looks much better without the line, IMO (also, we have official cards like Prince and Possession. Shield is nothing). It's also just confusing to have it be inconsistent.

[kru5h]

I'll remove +1 Action if it's too strong here.

Cabin


A really tempting way to ruin your deck with Coppers.

[kru5h]

I fixed Jetty.

Jetty


Not sure if it's elegant or boring.

Not sure if it needs buffed or needs nerfed.

Edit: Also, I finally made this into a card.

Guard Tower

[Commodore Chuckles]

When do you have spare actions to gain a card? When you already have plenty of actions.

Or if it's the only Action card in your hand, which will happen a lot in the beginning. It doesn't look all that useless to me. Maybe if it let you gain any card costing up to $4 instead...

[Gazbag]

When do you have spare actions to gain a card? When you already have plenty of actions.

Or if it's the only Action card in your hand, which will happen a lot in the beginning. It doesn't look all that useless to me. Maybe if it let you gain any card costing up to $4 instead...

Yeah I didn't really follow Kru5h's logic here, a village for $4 is already a useful enough card to get bought in most games and having a choice to gain a copy of itself instead seems like a much bigger upside compared to things like Walled Village or even Mining Village.

[kru5h]

Okay, guys, you convinced me. I'll revert to the old Jetty. It does kinda have some charm to it.

Also, I need help with something.

I submitted this card to the no-vanilla++ design contest:

Bookstore v3


but I kinda like this card better:

King Midas


Should I switch cards?

Edit: Fixed wording.

[Gubump]

King Midas

Using "instead" here has confusing ramifications. I think it should say "...when another player plays an Attack card, they trash it and gain a Gold instead of following its instructions." King Midas should also definitely be an Attack itself. And there being multiple King Midases (since he's a Kingdom card) is kinda weird lore-wise. I would suggest the name "Cursed King."

I personally don't like blind trashing (that's why Lookout is currently my least favorite card in the game), but the fact that it gives you a Gold in exchange more than makes up for it. I like it more than Bookstore, personally.

[segura]

Jetty looks fine. Easy to test it directly in a Kingdom with Artisan and Lab.

[kru5h]

I know stuff like this has been done before, but the most recent expansion makes the wording a lot easier.

Plague, Reaction $0 (Supply = Same as Curse Supply)
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), gain a Plague.

Plague Doctor, Action-Attack, $5
Gain a Silver to your hand.
Each other player reveals their hand and gains a Plague.

[segura]

I know stuff like this has been done before, but the most recent expansion makes the wording a lot easier.

Plague, Reaction $0 (Supply = Same as Curse Supply)
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), gain a Plague.

Plague Doctor, Action-Attack, $5
Gain a Silver to your hand.
Each other player reveals their hand and gains a Plague.

I like it but it is kind of the opposite of Mountebank, i.e. it is a junk amplifier instead of moderator.

[kru5h]

Some updates.

Shield


King Midas


Plague/Plague Doctor

[kru5h]

This is all I could think of today. Still working on them a bit, but here's what I got so far.

Cats, Action $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
If it costs $1 or more, put this into your hand.

(Really good at getting rid of those pesky Rats.)

Enhance, Action $3
Reveal a non-Victory card from your hand.
Discard it. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

(Like a weaker Remodel, but you get to keep your card.)

[stechafle]

This is all I could think of today. Still working on them a bit, but here's what I got so far.

Cats, Action $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
If it costs $1 or more, put this into your hand.

(Really good at getting rid of those pesky Rats.)

Enhance, Action $3
Reveal a non-Victory card from your hand.
Discard it. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

(Like a weaker Remodel, but you get to keep your card.)

I like the variable number of cards Cats can trash. However, you can get an infinite loop trashing Fortress which would be bad if Tomb were present.

I think Enhance should be able to discard Estates. Otherwise it is not useful in the early game.

[kru5h]

Cats, Action $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
If it costs $1 or more, put this into your hand.

I like the variable number of cards Cats can trash. However, you can get an infinite loop trashing Fortress which would be bad if Tomb were present.

That's a doubly good point because that affects one of my other cards, Tinker:

Tinker


It doesn't give +1 Action, but with Lost Arts or Champion, you can get infinite loops/points.

[kru5h]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

[mail-mi]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

[Commodore Chuckles]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

What do you do if your discard pile is empty (or your deck or hand for that matter)? Can you choose which place not to put either of the two cards in?

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

Yes, I like this a lot better. Much simpler and gets rid of rules confusions.

[kru5h]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

That's good, but I'd change the order so that you can put the original card back on your deck if you so choose. (That way you never end up worse off than you started.)

+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.
Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

[mail-mi]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

That's good, but I'd change the order so that you can put the original card back on your deck if you so choose. (That way you never end up worse off than you started.)

+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.
Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

That makes it a little stronger too because you have to put 1 of 6 back on your deck, instead of 1 of 5. Still seems pretty weak though

[kru5h]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

That's good, but I'd change the order so that you can put the original card back on your deck if you so choose. (That way you never end up worse off than you started.)

+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.
Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

That makes it a little stronger too because you have to put 1 of 6 back on your deck, instead of 1 of 5. Still seems pretty weak though

We could add +1 card to it. Then it could cost $3 or $4.
Would be a bit boring, though.

[kru5h]

No new card today. I went through some of my old cards and decided to make a few changes. Tell me what you think.

Angry Mob<<<Old|New>>>

This card used to be a mess. Now it's much simpler and has some cool wording. Play one of them and discard and it's an Urchin. Play two and discard and it's a Militia. Play three of them and discard each time and you've basically Legionary'd your opponents. Not bad for a 2-cost. But you do have to play 3 of them and you do have to discard thrice, so it isn't easy to pull off every time.

Scepter

Changed cost to 6. Not sure how I thought his could ever be a 5-cost.

Ivory Tower

Changed wording so that it's clearer and no longer works during Clean-up.

Locksmith

Old version was +1 card +1 action now, +$1 next turn, which makes it comparable to Caravan Guard (A weak card.) I buffed it to this to make it more like Caravan, but not be strictly better.

[Commodore Chuckles]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

That's good, but I'd change the order so that you can put the original card back on your deck if you so choose. (That way you never end up worse off than you started.)

+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.
Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

That makes it a little stronger too because you have to put 1 of 6 back on your deck, instead of 1 of 5. Still seems pretty weak though

We could add +1 card to it. Then it could cost $3 or $4.
Would be a bit boring, though.

Actually, I think adding +1 card would make it balanced at $2. Without that, it's so weak I don't know if I would ever buy it. I also don't think it would be all that boring. It would be a $2 cantrip with a weak but amusing bonus.

[kru5h]

I had this card idea, but it's probably too slow to resolve with all the decisions you have to make.

Rearrange, Action $2
+1 Action
Look through your discard pile and at the top card of your deck.
Set aside a card each from your hand, the top of your deck, and your discard pile.
Put one each into your hand, on the top of your deck, and your discard pile.

Edit: Forgot the +1 Action.

You could just make the rearranging forced:
Rearrange
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.

That's good, but I'd change the order so that you can put the original card back on your deck if you so choose. (That way you never end up worse off than you started.)

+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look through your discard pile. Put a card from it into your hand.
Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

That makes it a little stronger too because you have to put 1 of 6 back on your deck, instead of 1 of 5. Still seems pretty weak though

We could add +1 card to it. Then it could cost $3 or $4.
Would be a bit boring, though.

Actually, I think adding +1 card would make it balanced at $2. Without that, it's so weak I don't know if I would ever buy it. I also don't think it would be all that boring. It would be a $2 cantrip with a weak but amusing bonus.

Are you sure? If your discard pile is empty, you're basically just drawing two cards and putting one onto your deck. That makes it a Secret Passage/Fugitive variant, both of which cost $4. If your discard pile has something useful in it, it's even more powerful.

Edit:

Rearrange

Special thanks to Mail-mi and Commodore Chuckles.

Edit2: Removed "Attack" from the type.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Are you sure? If your discard pile is empty, you're basically just drawing two cards and putting one onto your deck. That makes it a Secret Passage/Fugitive variant, both of which cost $4. If your discard pile has something useful in it, it's even more powerful.

Drawing a card and putting one on your deck is City Gate, which is $3. And City Gate is actually better than that because it's guaranteed to happen every turn.

Secret Passage and Fugitive are both much stronger. Secret Passage gives you numerous options, while Fugitive lets you discard junk.

It is certainly much better if you happen to have something in your discard pile, making it overall comparable to Harbinger. So I guess $3 is a good price. Though for what it's worth, I think Harbinger should have been $2.

[popsofctown]

This looks like a 2$.  Similar to Harbinger's secret true cost.

[kru5h]

Harbinger is a good point, because this card is very, very close to being strictly better than Harbinger, forcing this to cost $4 (or I can just change the card. Which I'll probably do.)
The only downsides this has over Harbinger is that the discard pile to hand is forced instead of optional and you have to discard a card from your deck (Which can be bad late game.)

Edit: I'm not arguing that I want it to cost $4, just that logically it has to. If Harbinger didn't exist, I'd price this at $2 or $3.

Edit2:

How's this?

[kru5h]

I changed King Midas so that it doesn't trash other players' Attack cards.

King Midas


I still feel that this could use a slight tweak, but I've already got so many words on the card.

[kru5h]

I made a new card and a new event.



Simple enough payload. If you get it at the start of your turn, you get to play it without using an Action.



You can end the game early if you're in a significant lead. Careful, though. The opponents still get one final turn.

[kru5h]

I made a Project. It's actually more like an Event, but since it's a once-per-game affair, it would need a token to indicate that you've used it once already. Instead, I made it a Project.



Do you want a free Province or Colony? Probably a bad idea. A free card at the beginning of the game is probably better. Or is it?

[segura]

I am pretty sure that it rarely if ever (some funky Kingdom with Salt of the Earth or whatever) makes sense to save the gift to green quicker later.

[kru5h]

I am pretty sure that it rarely if ever (some funky Kingdom with Salt of the Earth or whatever) makes sense to save the gift to green quicker later.

This might be a little bit better:



You gain the card whenever you want, but you draw 4 cards every hand for the rest of the game. I don't know what the optimal choice is now, but it's certainly a more interesting one.

Edit: Oops, this has a conflict with Outpost. Do you draw 4 cards or 3? Here's my fix:

[kru5h]

I liked the above card, and then Way of the Chameleon was revealed. Now this can give you +3 cards at the start of your turn, allowing you to get another Parrot, allowing you to play it, allowing you to essentially chain these together to draw your whole deck without using a single Action.

I changed it to this:



I've also changed one of my old cards, Bull, by adding +1 Buy to it. Not a significant change, but makes it playable now.



Edit: Changed wording of Bookstore.

[kru5h]

Looks like I don't need this card as a fan card anymore...

Sellout

[kru5h]

I changed one of my old cards again.

Old:


New:


Why would you want to Wasp your opponent when they can just Wasp you back twice as much? Well, if your deck can handle the junk better than they can, that's a good option. Or maybe it's just near the end of the game and you can slightly gum up their deck by spending just one or two extra buys.

Edit: I forgot to mention, this card has 50 copies, but you only include as as many as there are Curses.

[kru5h]

This seems a bit strong.



The point of playing the treasures instead of putting them into your hand is a mild nerf. That way you can't remodel the Gold into a Province or other such things. It's a mild nerf, but it needed something, I think.

[mail-mi]

This seems a bit strong.



The point of playing the treasures instead of putting them into your hand is a mild nerf. That way you can't remodel the Gold into a Province or other such things. It's a mild nerf, but it needed something, I think.

Feels strictly better than Explorer.

[kru5h]

Okay, hopefully I finally got these right:

Financier:

Compares favorably to Animal Fair, but not better, not worse. Animal fair can always be bought with an Action card, this can't.

Wasp:

Forgot to change the cost to 2. If it were $0, you could empty the pile quickly and spam your opponents with these. May need to bump the cost up to 3 or 4, depending on playtests.

King Midas:

I don't know why I didn't just simplify this card in the first place. I was trying to be too clever for my own good.

[kru5h]

New card. It's halfway between a Smithy and a Hunting Grounds. Nothing too exciting.



FAQ: Yes, 0 is even.

[Minotaur]

Presumably, you could Locksmith a second time, and you get another card from Hireling, Crypt or Archive gives you another card, Wharf doesn't care, etc.  In the last case, maybe you're trying to prevent a reshuffle but you had to Throne it for an action...

[Minotaur]

Possible split pile?

China Shop
Action
Cost: $2

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash this for +$1 and +1 Action

[kru5h]

Way of the Lion.

You may discard an Action card, to play a non-Command Action card from the Supply, leaving it there.

Basically you use up 2 Action cards to play any 1 Action card from the Supply, leaving it there.

Edit: Image Removed and replaced with text.

[Minotaur]

BTW, Bull could be shortened to "If it's your Action phase, +$1".  It's always additional, and there isn't an if/else block that would make it not stack.  It might be more clear with more words to someone who's not used to strict logic, but it's how stuff is generally worded and a rule sheet would exist.

[kru5h]

BTW, Bull could be shortened to "If it's your Action phase, +$1".  It's always additional, and there isn't an if/else block that would make it not stack.  It might be more clear with more words to someone who's not used to strict logic, but it's how stuff is generally worded and a rule sheet would exist.

I'm fine with how it is. I don't want to go back and redo it again.

Besides, there have been many cases of overexplaining things in Dominion. "After Drawing", "Immediately", "This stays in play."

[kru5h]

I've been away for a long time designing my own game. It's nearly done (a year or two left), so now my creativity is going back to Dominion.

A lot of my old cards need slight tweaks or re-costing. I'll get to that later.

For now, here're two cards that I'm working on that I want feedback on.

Unnamed 1, Action, Cost
+3 Cards
You may spend an unused Action, for +2 Cards.

Feels very slightly weak. +1 Buy would make it too much like Barge.

Unnamed 2, Action, Cost
+2 Cards
+3 Actions
-
When you Buy this, each other player may gain a card costing up to .

Not sure if I want it to say "Gain a cheaper card" because cost reducers make it weird.

Unnamed 3, Action, Cost
+1 Card
+1 Action
If the next card you play costs less than this, you may play it twice.

[kru5h]

Concierge


Witches' Village


Whenever you have 6 or more Jinx tokens, you return 6 of them and gain a Curse.

[kru5h]

Concierge seemed too strong. This version seems strong still, but you can't Concierge a Concierge for triple play like you can a King's Court.

Concierge (v2)


Cloister (v5)

Should this cost 3 or 4?

Young Smithy (v1)

[kru5h]

A bit wordy, but worth it, I think.

Spike Pit (formerly Trap)

Whenever you have 6 or more Jinx tokens, you return 6 of them and gain a Curse.

[kru5h]

Concierge (v4)

[kru5h]

Some Events I've been working on. Hopefully more to come.

Risk


Mulligan


Land Grab


Dark Arts

[kru5h]

Profit

Turn one Buy into one money. Also, Golds are better.

[kru5h]

Greed

Really good with Capitalism.

Redistribution

If it's your very first turn, you get to rearrange your starting deck however you please. If it's not your first turn, this isn't strictly better or worse than Scouting Party.

[kru5h]

Banker

[kru5h]

fika monster, are you alright with me using your mechanic in my cards?



I attributed you on the card text at the bottom.

EDIT: Nvm. It probably makes attack cards too weak and things like Desperation too strong. It needs a nerf but there's no more room on the card.

[exfret]

fika monster, are you alright with me using your mechanic in my cards?



I attributed you on the card text at the bottom.

EDIT: Nvm. It probably makes attack cards too weak and things like Desperation too strong. It needs a nerf but there's no more room on the card.

EDIT: After thinking about it, I think "unused Action" might just be better actually, since it's less wordy and I see you have other cards like this. I'd still recommend not specifying "Action, not Action card" since you can't really "spend" Action cards anyways, so it should be clear.

I like this card, but the wording is really weird. Just say "if you have at least one Action, you may spend it for +2 Cards" without using the word "unused" or "Action, not Action card"... it should be clear what it means and I think this sort of wording just adds confusion.

I also don't understand the bottom line text. Is above line not enough?

[exfret]

Also, in addition to the above post, I think jinx tokens are extremely weak. I mean, they're 1/6th of a curse, and while curses are strong that is a really low proportion. I think they should be every other or *maybe* every third. But even then I don't see the advantage to just giving the curse outright.

[kru5h]

New card idea that I need to workshop a bit:

Royal Parade, Action
You may play an Action card costing less than this from your hand twice.
You may play an Action card costing less than that card from your hand twice.
And so on...

[kru5h]

Volcano Victory,
3
-
You can't gain or buy this if any Supply piles are empty.

You want to buy these quickly before they are locked out from the game, but buying too many too quickly will slow down your deck.

[czzzz]

...jinx tokens are extremely weak. I mean, they're 1/6th of a curse, and while curses are strong that is a really low proportion.

I had a similar impression. What if, when you reach the trigger threshold, you gained two Coppers and a Curse? Then maybe it would be more of a threat? This way, even when the Curse pile runs out, it would still hurt.

...I think they should be every other or *maybe* every third. But even then I don't see the advantage to just giving the curse outright.

I like every third, personally. I think it would be fun to have a minigame of balancing cards that Jinx yourself (but are cheaper or stronger than penalty-free cards) with cards that manage your Jinx (but again, might be weaker, more expensive, or have another tradeoff).

[kru5h]

...jinx tokens are extremely weak. I mean, they're 1/6th of a curse, and while curses are strong that is a really low proportion.

I had a similar impression. What if, when you reach the trigger threshold, you gained two Coppers and a Curse? Then maybe it would be more of a threat? This way, even when the Curse pile runs out, it would still hurt.

...I think they should be every other or *maybe* every third. But even then I don't see the advantage to just giving the curse outright.

I like every third, personally. I think it would be fun to have a minigame of balancing cards that Jinx yourself (but are cheaper or stronger than penalty-free cards) with cards that manage your Jinx (but again, might be weaker, more expensive, or have another tradeoff).

It stays at 6 Jinx tokens per Curse because it's all relative.

If you want a Curse every other time you play a card, simply give out 3 Jinx tokens per card played.

If you want a Curse every 3rd time you play a card, simply give out 2 Jinx tokens per card played.

That's the whole point of the tokens. They can be customized in strength.

[segura]

Volcano Victory,
3
-
You can't gain or buy this if any Supply piles are empty.

You want to buy these quickly before they are locked out from the game, but buying too many too quickly will slow down your deck.

This looks like a boring vanilla version of Gardens.

[kru5h]

Volcano Victory,
3
-
You can't gain or buy this if any Supply piles are empty.

You want to buy these quickly before they are locked out from the game, but buying too many too quickly will slow down your deck.

This looks like a boring vanilla version of Gardens.

Point taken.

Here's a new one I've been working on:

Maid, Action
Reveal the top card of your deck.
If it's a Curse, trash it. Otherwise, put it into your hand.
If it's an...
Action card, +1 Action
Treasure card, +1 Buy
Victory card, +1 Card

Probably Been Done Before Action,
+
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.

Painter Action,
Gain a card costing up to .
If it's an Action or Treasure card that doesn't cost , you may play it.

*Edit: Added 2 cards.

[kru5h]

Probably Been Done Before Action,
+
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.

I playtested the above card and it was quite fun despite how simple it was! If it hasn't been done before, I'll add it to my list of cards.

[segura]

It is just Elder without the restriction.

[kru5h]

Changed 2 of my old cards:

Scientist(New, stronger version)


Scientist (Formerly: Inventor)[Previous Version, a bit weak]


Young Smithy(New version, less likely to be a dud)


Young Smithy(Previous Version)



Also removed some old cards and clarified the wording on Cooper.

Let me know if you think Scientist is too strong now.

Edit: I forgot that I also changed Grand Workshop. Previously, it gained 2 copies of the exact same card, but that emptied piles too quickly. This is the new version.

Grand Workshop (Formerly: Kiln)

[segura]

I don’t get Scientist. It is so automatic, you will just get it when possible. There is no trade-off or subtlety or ambiguity involved, the card is simply always good.

[kru5h]

It's supposed to be like Grand Market, but the opposite. Grand market is hard to get your first few turns, but becomes easier once you have one. This is supposed to be easy to get at first, but become very difficult to obtain, since you'll have Scientists in play all of the time and you can't buy new ones. The "decision" comes from whether you want to pass on playing a copy of the card so that you can buy another one. Though, I understand that that's not the greatest or toughest decision.

[segura]

Ignoring edge cases, you always want to play a DoublePeddler. Sure, perhaps you already hit $6 and don’t want a Province yet so you don’t play Scientist to get another one but gee, that is really borderline.
Other DoublePeddlers like Grand Market, Conspirator and Vassal are interesting because they need serious investment to work whereas Scientist does not. You just get one when you can.

[kru5h]

Okay, you convinced me that it's overpowered. I reverted it back to its original version.


Scientist (Formerly: Inventor)

[kru5h]

I can't enter my own Trait contest, so here's the Trait I would submit if I were a contestant:

Experimental

[segura]

Looks like the Prince Hired some experimental dudes.

[kru5h]

I've been working on making my own board game for the last 7 years (Not a deckbuilder.) I've decided to take a break and make some Dominion cards this week. Here's what I've got. Let me know of any mistakes.

Rook

(Probably been done before, but this is my own spin on it.)

Toymaker

(Maybe too powerful for $4.)

Tinker


Pulpit(v5)

Might as well just make a pure reaction card with no action part.


Old Versions:

Tinker

(Kind of boring?)

Pulpit

(Too similar to Altar?)

[kru5h]

Asper's Village

This is not my original work. This is a "fix" to Asper's Outskirts/Road so that it doesn't go infinite with Champion.
Find his cards here: https://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

Royal Necklace

Been done before?

I also came up with the following card idea:

Unnamed Card, Action - Command, $6
You may set aside a non-Command Action card from your hand. If you do, play it twice, leaving it there, then return it to your hand.

The idea was that you could play a card two and a half times instead of either two or three times. You play it twice, then you have to spend an Action to play it a third time, so that it's weaker than King's Court. The problem, I realized, was that it's completely useless in a game without +Actions. It's just a very expensive Throne Room in that case.

[Ethan]

How about making it able to play Treasure? Then it combines a weaker King's Court and a weaker King's Cache.
And there should be a non-Duration clause.

[kru5h]

How about making it able to play Treasure? Then it combines a weaker King's Court and a weaker King's Cache.
And there should be a non-Duration clause.

The problem with playing Treasures is that it wouldn't require an Action to play a Treasure. So instead of it becoming a weaker King's Cache, it actually becomes stronger, because now you can double-play Spoils without moving them back to the Supply.

[segura]

How about making it able to play Treasure? Then it combines a weaker King's Court and a weaker King's Cache.
And there should be a non-Duration clause.

The problem with playing Treasures is that it wouldn't require an Action to play a Treasure. So instead of it becoming a weaker King's Cache, it actually becomes stronger, because now you can double-play Spoils without moving them back to the Supply.

I am not a fan of adding the ability to also play Treasures.; that is messy for several reasons and likely makes the card too good.
But if the card remains an Action (and does not become an Action-Treasure like Crown) you do very well have to spend an Action to KC the Treasure, just like with Specialist. So it is not clear what is better, the wasted Action or the KCing of the Treasure.

[Ethan]

How about making it able to play Treasure? Then it combines a weaker King's Court and a weaker King's Cache.
And there should be a non-Duration clause.

The problem with playing Treasures is that it wouldn't require an Action to play a Treasure. So instead of it becoming a weaker King's Cache, it actually becomes stronger, because now you can double-play Spoils without moving them back to the Supply.

You need to use an Action on playing this card, so I think it's weaker, unless edge situations like Spoils.

[kru5h]

How about making it able to play Treasure? Then it combines a weaker King's Court and a weaker King's Cache.
And there should be a non-Duration clause.

The problem with playing Treasures is that it wouldn't require an Action to play a Treasure. So instead of it becoming a weaker King's Cache, it actually becomes stronger, because now you can double-play Spoils without moving them back to the Supply.

You need to use an Action on playing this card, so I think it's weaker, unless edge situations like Spoils.

You are correct. I forgot about the Action used to play it.

[kru5h]

General


Should this cost 6 or 7?

[LibraryAdventurer]

General


Should this cost 6 or 7?

I think it'd be fine at 6.
I have a very similar fan card I use sometimes, but it costs 4 and has a drawback to make up for the cheap cost. It's strong but not super strong.

[kru5h]

General


Should this cost 6 or 7?

I think it'd be fine at 6.
I have a very similar fan card I use sometimes, but it costs 4 and has a drawback to make up for the cheap cost. It's strong but not super strong.

Cool. What's the card?

Also, I agree with 6 now. This card is weaker than Captain, which costs 6.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Cursed Heirloom
$4 - Action-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: Choose one: +$1, or Play an Action card from your hand twice and take 2 hex tokens.
-
When you discard this from play, if the Curse pile isn't empty and you have 4 or more hex tokens, return one and gain a Curse.

Hex token rules:
Hex tokens are -1 VP at the end of the game. Whenever you would trash a card costing $2 or less, you may instead discard it to lose a hex token.  (Originally, they were the same as Violet CLM's Mutineers, but they seemed to easy to get rid of. So I changed them to make them a little harder to get rid of.)

[BryGuy]

Cursed Heirloom
$4 - Action-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: Choose one: +$1, or Play an Action card from your hand twice and take 2 hex tokens.
-
When you discard this from play, if the Curse pile isn't empty and you have 4 or more hex tokens, return one and gain a Curse.

Hex token rules:
Hex tokens are -1 VP at the end of the game. Whenever you would trash a card costing $2 or less, you may instead discard it to lose a hex token.  (Originally, they were the same as Violet CLM's Mutineers, but they seemed to easy to get rid of. So I changed them to make them a little harder to get rid of.)

If Hex token are negative point and not in your deck, why would you trade them (one for one) for junk in your deck?

I plan to use kru5h's Jinx tokens and unless a Landmark states otherwise, they will be -1/6 Victory. I also plan to use Luck tokens and unless a Landmark states otherwise, they will be 1/6 Victory.

[segura]

It is mandatory and not optional.

[kru5h]

Warlock(v6)


This could lead to a fun little mini-game where you try to guess how important the cards they revealed really are and whether it's worth forgoing the Curse to make them discard.

[segura]

This is strictly better than Witch.

[kru5h]

Warlock(v7)


Now with less blurry art.

[kru5h]

Commune(v1)


"That's just a cheaper Border Village!"

Yup.

[kru5h]

Bookstore(v10)

I hope I finally got this card right.

[kru5h]

Trek(v1)

This one feels slightly off. Maybe slightly weaker than Outpost, but at the same cost. Ideas?

Tour(v1)

A single-shot extra turn. Sets aside instead of trash so that it can't be gained from the trash.

[kru5h]

Some stuff I've been working on between working on changes to my own game.

Townlet(v2) Action - Reaction, $4

+1 Card
+2 Actions
-
When you get +Cards and/or +Actions, you may reveal this from your hand to switch them for this turn instead.

Campus(v3) Action - Reaction $5

Discard a card. Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.
-
When you discard a card, other than in Clean-up, you may reveal this from your hand to trash it.

Polis(v1) Action - Duration - $5

The next time you play a Polis: +2 Cards, +2 Actions, and +1 Buy.

The last one is nerfed by virtually having one fewer in your deck. For example, if you had four of these, you would only be playing three of them because they don't activate until you play the next one. One is always in play doing nothing. You have to buy at least two of these to do anything with them.

Edit: Bonus image incoming.

Forest(v1) Victory - $6


Worth 5 VP, but you don't count your first Forest.

Another Edit: Fixed Campus. Thanks, segura!

[segura]

Campus has issues with TfB. I encoutered this when I tried "when trash, Exile instead" some time ago.

[czzzz]

Campus has issues with TfB. I encoutered this when I tried "when trash, Exile instead" some time ago.

And "Exile/discard the card from the trash" is bad because you have to find it and fish it out, which we try to avoid.
Would "Exile/gain a copy from the Supply" after it's trashed be best? Sad that it wouldn't do anything when the pile runs out, but the equivalent effect on your deck?

[segura]

I disagree. Hermit is not particularly bothersome and Exiling or gaining after trashing also suffers from TfB interactions: Salavger on Province, gain or Exile a Province, got enough Coins and Biy for a second Province, i.e. Salvager became a Province gainer.

[kru5h]

A fixed version of an old card.

Caltrops(v3) Action - Duration - Attack, $5



Edit: Oops! I forgot to take into account that more of 1 of these could be in play. Imagine having to discard 4 cards every time you played a duplicate!

[kru5h]

New Cards. (And one redo.)

Farm Hound(v2)


Farm Hound(v1)

Inspired by Gubump's Granary.

Artist


Young Smithy (v5)

[Gubump]

I don't know how much you care since it's a removed card, but Artist is strictly better than Feast.

[kru5h]

I don't know how much you care since it's a removed card, but Artist is strictly better than Feast.

Good catch. I hadn't played Feast in so long that I misremembered it as .

Oh well, I'm not going to fix the card. I'm just going to discard it. Not worth salvaging when Altar exists.

[kru5h]

Trek(v3)


Did I finally create a card that does cost increase without problems or being overly wordy? You decide.

[StrangerSon712]

Trek looks weaker than Outpost overall, especially considering the interaction with workshops. Outpost is pretty good though so being weaker is ok, I think it's balanced. I don't think the "cannot be reduced in price" is necessary.

[kru5h]

Trek looks weaker than Outpost overall, especially considering the interaction with workshops. Outpost is pretty good though so being weaker is ok, I think it's balanced. I don't think the "cannot be reduced in price" is necessary.

Unfortunately, the "cannot be reduced in price" is necessary.

Suppose something costs and you had 4 Highways in play. Does this now cost or still since prices cannot go below ? The order you resolve them in gives you different results, so we need something that either clarifies or stops cost reduction. Stopping cost reduction is far fewer words.

[StrangerSon712]

I don't think it's necessary, since the timing is clear. First, before anything else, things cost 2 more, so it costs $5. Then, things are reduced 4 times, so it costs $1. It doesn't have any of the issues of cost increasing that potentially happens in the middle of your turn.