Print

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

[herw]

backsides:



basic cards:



legacy:













travellers:



backsides:

i have tested several times at meinSpiel and compared with german ASS-cards




basic cards:



Add these two basic cards to an Alchemy-game. Choose a few Alchemy kingdom cards.



Nobody needs it, but ...


Individual cards:

Normal Kingdom Cards



Abandoned Village (2019-01-10)
a simple attack card to villager's and coffer's mat. (under examination)




Prospecting (2019-02-07)
simple




Shoemaker (2019-02-06)
simple but useful




Barter (2018-11-12)
changes your deck




Lucky Thaler (2019-02-05)
for luck and fun




Striking (2019-02-08)




Tradeswoman (2018-12-08)
A simple card which helps Big Money strategy.




Moneyer (2019-02-06)




Day Laborer (2019-02-05)



Antimony (2019-02-05)
Alchemy needs treasures and cards with potion in costs!



Extraction (2020-01-12)
an attractive Victory-card-trasher



Money Changer



Village Square (2020-02-15)
simple and useful



Warlock (2018-12-08)
a simple Alchemy-card. Thanks to Asper for discussion and tips.




Forrest Village (2019-02-19)




Market Town




Bewitched Town (2019-01-11)
I like to create ALCHEMY-cards. Combining with RENAISSANCE-idea of coffers and villagers it is a little bit more simple.




Counter Magic (2019-02-11)
If you are a wizard you need always a counter magic




Adept (2020-01-11)  is useful, to get potion often to your hand.




Dark Path (2020-01-28), a very interesting travellers line. You have to accept: negative victory points, but much money. The trick is the last card of the line.

[herw]

Bewitched Town (2019-01-11)

from Weekly Design Contest 13 Thread

[ClouduHieh]

Heya herw I also like alchemy cards. I have a thread with my alchemy cards, you should check it out it might give ya some inspiration.

[herw]

Heya herw I also like alchemy cards. I have a thread with my alchemy cards, you should check it out it might give ya some inspiration.

yes i know the thread. I have made five other Alchemy-cards and i am testing them. I will translate to english and publish here, if they are good enough.
ciao herw

[ClouduHieh]

Cool can’t wait to see them in english

And I’ve added a new one to it which you may not have seen called dragons hoard.

[herw]

a simple Alchemy-card., hope you like it. Thanks to Asper for discussion and tips.

[herw]

Abandoned Village (2019-01-10)
an attack to villager's and coffer's mat.

[faust]

Abandoned Village (2019-01-10)
an attack to villager's and coffer's mat.

Don't you just always get this? It never hurts as it is at least a cantrip. Seems a bit mindless. In general I belive Attacks should not be cantrips unless you have a really good reason for it.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Yeah, this will just end up as an unfun arms race. At the very least, you shouldn't have an attack whose attack part so thoroughly cancels out its on-play part.

[herw]

Yeah, this will just end up as an unfun arms race. At the very least, you shouldn't have an attack whose attack part so thoroughly cancels out its on-play part.

hm - yes that's a problem. The idea was to have an attack card with very low costs and it's a little bit better than a cantrip.
On the other side villagers and coffers are very powerful if you have other cards which add villagers or coffers to your mat. So you think there shouldn't be a bonus +1 villager for the player?
But if there are no other cards which adds villagers or coffers? To be sure, that there are + villagers- and + coffers-cards there should be one.

Have to think about it.

[herw]

Barter (2018-11-12)
I like to change the deck and keep it small.

[herw]

[majiponi]

See "Secret History" of Bandit Camp. Gaining Treasures is not so good, even if you gain into your hand.

[herw]

See "Secret History" of Bandit Camp. Gaining Treasures is not so good, even if you gain into your hand.

i have read it, but you can draw potions too (to your hand!). So i hink this is a good idea.

[faust]

See "Secret History" of Bandit Camp. Gaining Treasures is not so good, even if you gain into your hand.

i have read it, but you can draw potions too (to your hand!). So i hink this is a good idea.

If you have Market Town, you already have a Potion. The instances where you'd want a second are very limited.

[herw]

See "Secret History" of Bandit Camp. Gaining Treasures is not so good, even if you gain into your hand.

i have read it, but you can draw potions too (to your hand!). So i hink this is a good idea.

If you have Market Town, you already have a Potion. The instances where you'd want a second are very limited.

If you have only one potion and your deck is growing you need more potions. Remember that Donald recommend three Alchemy-cards in Dominion with Alchemy. So it's sometimes more useful to gain a potion. And there are still some more treasures up to 4.
And there are several cards to change potion into gold. I think, Donald secrets keep sometimes something secret

[Asper]

I dunno, gaining a Silver to your hand makes this behave like a Grand Market that exchanged its Buy for an Action the turn you play it... That's pretty huge. Of course your deck gets filled with Silvers, but you're complaining on a rather high level there, I think. Even in a Silver-flooded deck, this still helps you pick up copies of itself. My main gripe would be that Silver gaining and +Actions aren't exactly going smoothly together. Perhaps you could say this balances the card, but I think that if your concept was to have a Village with a good, but village-unfriendlysecond bonus, you might want to focus on that and drop the potion. But that's just me.

[herw]

Please correct the text, because i am a non native speaker.

[GendoIkari]

Please correct the text, because i am a non native speaker.

Wording stuff:

+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Copper.
You may trash a card from your hand, for +1 Card and +1 Action.
________________________________________________________
When you draw a card during another player's turn, you may discard this and any number of other cards from your hand, then draw that many.


I removed the non-action part, is there a reason to limit it to discarding "non-action cards"? You will almost never want to discard action cards anyway; so it would almost always be used the same way anyway without that extra wording. It only really makes a difference in games with Ruins. I also removed the "have to draw" part, because I think that causes confusion about when that applies... if your opponent plays Vault, and you discard 2 cards, you then have to draw a card. But you also could have chosen not to discard 2 cards, so does "have to draw" apply here?

But I think that reaction wording actually has issues... you discard all the cards at the same time, and you don't have to reveal Counter Magic if it's not the one you put on top of your discard. So for accountability, you would need some really awkward wording... "when you draw a card on another player's turn, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, discard any number of cards, then draw that many, then +1 card."

I don't understand the point of the reaction as a whole though, I think you should just leave it off. It is very rare that you draw a card during another player's turn; so this will do nothing in the vast majority of games. There's only a very small handful of cards that make this happen. And even when it does happen, I think you would rather have this card in your hand for its main ability than you would want to discard it for a Cellar effect.

*Edit* I think there are only a total of 7 cards in Dominion that could cause this reaction to be used... Council Room, Legionary, Lost City, Governor, Margrave, Minion, and Soothsayer.

For the main effect... as a general rule, pure Copper junking like this is bad, because there are a huge number of Copper cards, and that number also differs per game, based on both player count, and whether or not players have chosen to combine treasures from 2 base sets (which the rules say you can do, and should do for higher player-counts). It seems like this should just give Curses instead... I'm not even sure if that would be stronger or weaker, due to the fact that Curses will run out.

The card is also super powerful. Of course Potion-costing cards generally are... but this is way over powered. Look at how strong Masquerade is, just due to having +2 cards, trash a card. This is +3 cards, +1 action, trash a card. That's insane. AND it is a junking attack on top of that. Compare this to Familiar... +1 card, +1 action, junk opponents. This is Familiar, with an extra +2 cards and trashing on top!

[herw]

arrgghh, i ment „gain a card”, my fault.



thanks for wording, ideas and comment, will wait until there are some other comments.

[LittleFish]

why is Aktion spelled like that on warlock?

[Gubump]

arrgghh, i ment „gain a card”, my fault.



thanks for wording, ideas and comment, will wait until there are some other comments.

Several comments:
1. It should be each other player, not any.
2. Wording for the bottom: "When you gain a card during another player's turn, you may reveal this to discard it and any number of non-Action cards from your hand, then draw an equal number of cards."
3. I agree with GendoIkari that it's far too strong for $3P, and for all the same reasons. I'd go so far as to say it should cost the same as Possession, $6P.

[herw]

thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.

[herw]

why is Aktion spelled like that on warlock?

Because i am german and i am using my own template. Sometimes i forget to translate - have changed the type. thanks

[LittleFish]

why is Aktion spelled like that on warlock?

Because i am german and i am using my own template. Sometimes i forget to translate - have changed the type. thanks

You could have left it like that. It looks sort of magic-like

[herw]

Basic Cards for Alchemy:



an old idea and a long time discussed in German Dominion Forum

It is a risc to create a new basic card especially with potion in cost. The principality needs only a silver and a potion to buy, a duchy more. But you have to have a potion on hand, which means you have to buy one and you don't get it often if you only buy one. So i decided to give more victory points.
But Bewitched Town ...



...helps a lot.

A county with same victory points is like a province and a counter part so it is logic to give the same 6 victory points. If you lag with provinces especially at the end of the game, you have the chance to get 6 victory points without decreasing the province pile.
It is a good decision to have 3 treasure difference to principals as usual (dutch vs province).

So it is a good idea to add these basic cards to an Alchemy game without removing duchies and provinces.
I think you should choose a few Alchemy kingdom cards too.

[LittleFish]

Basic Cards for Alchemy:



an old idea and a long time discussed in German Dominion Forum

It is a risc to create a new basic card especially with potion in cost. The principality needs only a silver and a potion to buy, a duchy more. But you have to have a potion on hand, which means you have to buy one and you don't get it often if you only buy one. So i decided to give more victory points.
But Bewitched Town ...



...helps a lot.

A county with same victory points is like a province and a counter part so it is logic to give the same 6 victory points. If you lag with provinces especially at the end of the game, you have the chance to get 6 victory points without decreasing the province pile.
It is a good decision to have 3 treasure difference to principals as usual (dutch vs province).

So it is a good idea to add these basic cards to an Alchemy game without removing duchies and provinces.
I think you should choose a few Alchemy kingdom cards too.

There should be treasures that cost also. Names could be "Lead" or "Quicksilver" It would make sense because Colony goes with Platinum, Province to Gold, Duchy to Silver, Estate to Gold.

[herw]

[...]
There should be treasures that cost also. Names could be "Lead" or "Quicksilver" It would make sense because Colony goes with Platinum, Province to Gold, Duchy to Silver, Estate to Gold.

yes

or

I don't know whether it is compliant to rules, because trashing and gaining are actions.
Trashing (and changing) is one of the main theme of Alchemy i think.
But it is very difficult to create a balanced treasure and i wouldn't buy more than one money changer? Have to think about it.

I am not satisfied with this because money changer is no basic treasure card. I think Potion fulfils this.
So money changer is more an action card but there have to be better variable features but not with so much text.

[herw]

Antimony

[Shard of Honor]

Antimony

I feel like there should be a limit to it's scaling.
Alchemy simply has too much Potion costing chainable cards. Imagine deck full of Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist and Familiar.

Maybe different named card in play with in its cost?

[herw]

Antimony

I feel like there should be a limit to it's scaling.
Alchemy simply has too much Potion costing chainable cards. Imagine deck full of Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist and Familiar.

Maybe different named card in play with in its cost?

yes, but in case Antimony is the only card with potion in its cost? So then there has to be a little bonus f.i. +1 buy? Then it is a woodcutter as treasure played.

[Shard of Honor]

Antimony

I feel like there should be a limit to it's scaling.
Alchemy simply has too much Potion costing chainable cards. Imagine deck full of Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist and Familiar.

Maybe different named card in play with in its cost?

yes, but in case Antimony is the only card with potion in its cost? So then there has to be a little bonus f.i. +1 buy? Then it is a woodcutter as treasure played.

I like that version more 
Not sure though in strength comparison with Philosopher's Stone, especially in Alchemy heavy games...

[herw]

Antimony

I feel like there should be a limit to it's scaling.
Alchemy simply has too much Potion costing chainable cards. Imagine deck full of Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist and Familiar.

Maybe different named card in play with in its cost?

yes, but in case Antimony is the only card with potion in its cost? So then there has to be a little bonus f.i. +1 buy? Then it is a woodcutter as treasure played.

I like that version more 
Not sure though in strength comparison with Philosopher's Stone, especially in Alchemy heavy games...

We can discuss endless about it. I will print this version with my new basic victory cards and others. So i will see.
Thanks for your tipps.

BTW why aren't you active in German Dominion Forum (non native speaker?).

[Asper]

It reminds me a lot of the version of Fool's Gold that Donald described in his secret history of Hinterlands. For the original version, I felt it was okay, if perhaps a bit boring. Making it count only differently named cards will make it basically useless in most games it's in.

[Shard of Honor]

BTW why aren't you active in German Dominion Forum (non native speaker?).

Decided one forum is enough for me to start and english is more universal. But sometimes, I'm also reading in the german forum.

Thanks for your tipps.

Glad I could help a little. But my remarks are just my personal opinion lacking real experience in designing cards.

[herw]

BTW why aren't you active in German Dominion Forum (non native speaker?).

Decided one forum is enough for me to start and english is more universal. But sometimes, I'm also reading in the german forum.

Thanks for your tipps.

Glad I could help a little. But my remarks are just my personal opinion lacking real experience in designing cards.

i will try both versions.

[herw]

Tradeswoman helps Big Money strategy:

[herw]

Day Labourer



very flexible

[herw]

For those, who missed luck sadly



only one throw but there is the crown ... 

[LittleFish]

Day Labourer



very flexible

There should be a specific number fo villagers to exchange for coffers.

[herw]

Day Labourer



very flexible

There should be a specific number fo villagers to exchange for coffers.

1 coffer per 1 villager:
If you have f.i. 3 villagers, your choice:
1 villager to 1 coffer, 2 villagers to 2 Coffers or 3 Villagers to 3 coffers.
This should be in my Dominion manual
I don't like too much text. I think it is clear.

[herw]

It reminds me a lot of the version of Fool's Gold that Donald described in his secret history of Hinterlands. For the original version, I felt it was okay, if perhaps a bit boring. Making it count only differently named cards will make it basically useless in most games it's in.

yes, i choosed the older version



perhaps i should  limit to +$2 or +$3?

[Asper]

Wording suggestions:

Antimony: "+ 1$ per card you have in play that has P in its cost."
Day Laborer: +1 Card and +3 Villagers should both be capitalized. "At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this, to spend any number of your Villagers for +1 Coffer each."
The word "Silver" on Tradeswoman should also be capitalized.

About Lucky Penny, it's the strictly better Silver for 4$ that Donald tried to avoid for so long, and also I feel it could reveal and discard cards from your deck instead of rolling a die. So I'd probably change it to be something like:

Councellor, Action, 4$
+2$
Reveal and discard the top 5 cards of your deck. If there are no duplicates, +2$.

[herw]

[...]
About Lucky Penny, it's the strictly better Silver for 4$ that Donald tried to avoid for so long, and also I feel it could reveal and discard cards from your deck instead of rolling a die. So I'd probably change it to be something like:

Councellor, Action, 4$
+2$
Reveal and discard the top 5 cards of your deck. If there are no duplicates, +2$.

rolling a dice:  so the probability is 1/6 per lucky penny you play to get +$3. It is only luck. And yes revealing and discarding is in the sense of a DOMINION-routine. The probability of revealing, discarding and getting no duplicates (Councillor) changes and increases to the end game (interesting). But 5 cards and no duplicates? The probabiilty is low in the endgame too. Rolling a dice has constant probability.
BTW Lucky Penny is more a joke when playing with my grandson. Perhaps i am using a „normal” serious version of Councillor and the other for lucky days . I like the golden penny at the picture.

Thanks for wording suggestions, will change the text. When translating from German to English i am using always British English
There are several job titles: Councillor, Councilor, Counsellor, Counselor

[Asper]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that in an engine, the chance is higher than 1/6. At least speaking from my testing experience with Sawmill (my thread). I guess it makes a big difference that Sawmill gains cards, though. Anyhow I have managed to get 6 with that card, too.
Edit: Also it should be noted that the discarding speeds up your deck cycling, meaning you will see your new cards sooner (or miss them, I guess). But generally speaking, that's good for you.

[herw]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that in an engine, the chance is higher than 1/6. [...]

I mean the chance, that you play lucky penny and throw the cube. This is a chance of 1/6 to get $5 instead of $2.
I think you meant the chance when revealing 5 different cards in an engine? Hm i don't have much experiences with engines. F.i. a simple engine have mostly three different action cards (+ cards, +2 actions, +$), mostly not much treasure. If there are some different cantrips, ok seems to be a good chance.
I think i will test both versions and will report.

Indeed are revealing and discarding a nice additional feature although you get only $2. Yes, the more i think about it the more i like it.
I think i call it Lucky Thaler (german: Glücksthaler). I like the old (german) spelling Thaler.

[Shard of Honor]

Day Labourer

Exchanging Villagers to Coffers is a cool idea, that I haven't seen before!

But wouldn't you always call this and exchange at least one villager to keep the card in your deck for the next shuffle?
I don't see the point of leaving it on your tavern mat.

[GendoIkari]

Day Labourer



very flexible

There should be a specific number fo villagers to exchange for coffers.

1 coffer per 1 villager:
If you have f.i. 3 villagers, your choice:
1 villager to 1 coffer, 2 villagers to 2 Coffers or 3 Villagers to 3 coffers.
This should be in my Dominion manual
I don't like too much text. I think it is clear.

I had assumed it was 1 for 1, but I couldn't tell from the wording if you could choose to exchange any number of them, or if you had to turn all of your villagers into coffers.

I think Asper's wording is clearer/better.

It's a neat card, though it could lead to some analysis paralysis. I'm not sure it's strong enough for . A common use case would be to treat it like +1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Coffers; except you don't get the Coffers until after this buy phase. If you could call it at the start of your buy phase, instead of at the end, then it would be stronger, but probably not too strong for .

[Shard of Honor]

I think Asper's wording is clearer/better.

Me too.

It's a neat card, though it could lead to some analysis paralysis. I'm not sure it's strong enough for . A common use case would be to treat it like +1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Coffers; except you don't get the Coffers until after this buy phase. If you could call it at the start of your buy phase, instead of at the end, then it would be stronger, but probably not too strong for .

But it does say at the start of your buy phase?

Depending on your current hand, it can also act as a village. But it might still be okay at .

[GendoIkari]

I think Asper's wording is clearer/better.

Me too.

It's a neat card, though it could lead to some analysis paralysis. I'm not sure it's strong enough for . A common use case would be to treat it like +1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Coffers; except you don't get the Coffers until after this buy phase. If you could call it at the start of your buy phase, instead of at the end, then it would be stronger, but probably not too strong for .

But it does say at the start of your buy phase?

Depending on your current hand, it can also act as a village. But it might still be okay at .

Weird, I read it twice to be sure when posting this, and still saw “end of your buy phase” somehow.

So yeah, it’s rare that you wouldn’t call this the same turn you play it, but seems neat.

[herw]

Lucky Penny is Lucky Thaler now and costs $5



Asper's Curator is a very nice alternative and i think he will publish it too.

[herw]

Antimony (2019-02-05)
new wording (thanks Asper)

[herw]

Day Laborer (2019-02-05)



new wording (thanks to Asper) and lower cost.

[Shard of Honor]

Day Laborer (2019-02-05)

Nice one.
Small thing: +1 Coffer should be bolded

[herw]

Day Laborer (2019-02-05)

Nice one.
Small thing: +1 Coffer should be bolded

thanks, done

[Gazbag]

This card looks significantly better than Grand Market to me, it's only missing the +1 Buy but in exchange it can be a very potent village with the Villagers  and trading 2 Villagers for Coffers is better than the regular + $2 (and this can do different things to that too, it's very flexible). I'm not sure why you lowered the cost?

It should also be +1 Coffers not +1 Coffer.

[herw]

This card looks significantly better than Grand Market to me, it's only missing the +1 Buy but in exchange it can be a very potent village with the Villagers  and trading 2 Villagers for Coffers is better than the regular + $2 (and this can do different things to that too, it's very flexible). I'm not sure why you lowered the cost?

It should also be +1 Coffers not +1 Coffer.

thanks (non native speaker), have changed, see first post.
comment from gedolkari. No one said something against it. Costs are not clear $6 or $7 ? Someone else for $7? Grand Market is a good argument for $7. Will think about it a few hours and change if next posters say nothing against $7
I have in mind that $7 are very high and you can only buy it late. And i don't want to create a potion-card again.

[herw]

[...]
There should be treasures that cost also. Names could be "Lead" or "Quicksilver" It would make sense because Colony goes with Platinum, Province to Gold, Duchy to Silver, Estate to Gold.

yes

or

I don't know whether it is compliant to rules, because trashing and gaining are actions.
Trashing (and changing) is one of the main theme of Alchemy i think.
But it is very difficult to create a balanced treasure and i wouldn't buy more than one money changer? Have to think about it.

I am not satisfied with this because money changer is no basic treasure card. I think Potion fulfils this.
So money changer is more an action card but there have to be better variable features but not with so much text.

I have changed it to an action-card:



It is not a card which you want (need) still in endgame, so you can trash it (self-trasher).

[GendoIkari]

I feel like Lucky Thaler is very weak. On average, playing 6 of them will get you $15. I think it's easier to buy 5 Golds than it is to buy 5 Lucky Thalers, and it's also better for your deck; being 1 less Stop card. But then a player could also make the mathematically wrong decision to buy a Lucky Thaler instead of a Gold, and end up rolling a 6 every time. Doesn't sound fun.

[herw]

I feel like Lucky Thaler is very weak. On average, playing 6 of them will get you $15. I think it's easier to buy 5 Golds than it is to buy 5 Lucky Thalers, and it's also better for your deck; being 1 less Stop card. But then a player could also make the mathematically wrong decision to buy a Lucky Thaler instead of a Gold, and end up rolling a 6 every time. Doesn't sound fun.

If i see that Big Money is quicklier i would buy Gold too. So Lucky Thaler is only a joke-card for young Dominion players, who starts from known games with luck and cubes. Don't see any strategy behind it. Asper's suggestion (see below) is much more better.
But did you ever play Dominion with 8 years young children?

[...]
About Lucky Penny [herw: Lucky Thaler now], it's the strictly better Silver for 4$ that Donald tried to avoid for so long, and also I feel it could reveal and discard cards from your deck instead of rolling a die. So I'd probably change it to be something like:

Councellor, Action, 4$
+2$
Reveal and discard the top 5 cards of your deck. If there are no duplicates, +2$.

I don't  want to copy his suggestion. It is Asper's idea.

[GendoIkari]

I feel like Lucky Thaler is very weak. On average, playing 6 of them will get you $15. I think it's easier to buy 5 Golds than it is to buy 5 Lucky Thalers, and it's also better for your deck; being 1 less Stop card. But then a player could also make the mathematically wrong decision to buy a Lucky Thaler instead of a Gold, and end up rolling a 6 every time. Doesn't sound fun.

If i see that Big Money is quicklier i would buy Gold too. So Lucky Thaler is only a joke-card for young Dominion players, who starts from known games with luck and cubes. Don't see any strategy behind it. Asper's suggestion (see below) is much more better.
But did you ever play Dominion with 8 years young children?

Ah, I missed the previous post mentioning that it was really just for fun and/or for kids.

[herw]

This card looks significantly better than Grand Market to me, it's only missing the +1 Buy but in exchange it can be a very potent village with the Villagers  and trading 2 Villagers for Coffers is better than the regular + $2 (and this can do different things to that too, it's very flexible). I'm not sure why you lowered the cost?

It should also be +1 Coffers not +1 Coffer.

thanks (non native speaker), have changed, see first post.
comment from gedolkari. No one said something against it. Costs are not clear $6 or $7 ? Someone else for $7? Grand Market is a good argument for $7. Will think about it a few hours and change if next posters say nothing against $7
I have in mind that $7 are very high and you can only buy it late. And i don't want to create a potion-card again.

ready for printing and testing; practise is the best test



It is not necessary, to design it as reserve card.

[herw]

Moneyer (2019-02-06)

[herw]

Shoemaker (2019-02-06)

[Commodore Chuckles]

Shoemaker (2019-02-06)

This is very weak, first of all. I wouldn't cost it higher than $2. And even then, it's a terminal Silver with a marginal bonus, making it on par with Duchess, the worst $2 in the game. It's rarely good to get a terminal Silver just for the +$2, making this like Herbalist in that it's something you only get grudgingly for the +Buy.

Second, it's confusing. So you get the $ if you play it as an Action, but not if as a Treasure? The Action-Treasure dual type already causes headaches on its own. I really don't think something like this is worth that.

[LittleFish]

It's almost worse then a silver.

[Commodore Chuckles]

It's almost worse then a silver.

It's much worse, actually, because of the nonterminality. There's nothing inherently wrong with designing something worse than Silver; that is what the $2 price bracket is for after all. There are other problems with this, though.

[herw]

It's almost worse then a silver.

It's much worse, actually, because of the nonterminality. There's nothing inherently wrong with designing something worse than Silver; that is what the $2 price bracket is for after all. There are other problems with this, though.

Shoemaker has a very long history in German Forum since February 2017: http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=176
There was a very controversial discussion. The intended dilemma is to choose one alternative. You like both but you get only one. At the beginning of your game you get a terminal silver. Later in game you get +1 Buy.

Generally i like problematic cards. The kingdom is random selection. You have to plan your game. How do you plan with such a card? I don't think about Dominion with perfect selections. Sometimes there is a village but you don't want to buy it because it is useless. So „it is like it is”.

[segura]

I think it would be OK at $2 and would argue that it is better than Herbalist or Duchess due to the non-terminal Buy option.

[segura]

Moneyer (2019-02-06)

Feels weird as there is no official terminal with +1 Card. I think this is a $5, the extra card and the Coffers instead of Coins doesn't make it that much better than Salvager. I'd probably get rid of the +1 Card and simply do a Coffers version of Salvager for $5.

[herw]

Exploration (2019-01-10)
simple

[Shard of Honor]

Exploration (2019-01-10)
simple

Simple and can be useful sometimes. I also like the card art 👍
But why "reveal" instead of "look at"? To trigger Patron?

[herw]

Prospecting (2019-01-10)
simple

Simple and can be useful sometimes. I also like the card art 👍
But why "reveal" instead of "look at"? To trigger Patron?

yes thanks, forgot Patron



I changed its name because i am planning another card called Exploration.

[Shard of Honor]

I changed its name because i am planning another card called Exploration.

Just realised there is already an official Project called Exploration. So maybe you want to choose another name 

[herw]

I changed its name because i am planning another card called Exploration.

Just realised there is already an official Project called Exploration. So maybe you want to choose another name 

thanks for note; will rename to striking (geol.)

(2019-02-08)

It has same cost as laboratory (+2 Cards +1 Action) so there is a small bonus for each other.

[LittleFish]

Prospecting (2019-01-10)
simple

Simple and can be useful sometimes. I also like the card art 👍
But why "reveal" instead of "look at"? To trigger Patron?

yes thanks, forgot Patron



I changed its name because i am planning another card called Exploration.

this is also better because now your opponents don't see the cards.

[herw]

thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.

a wording question: is it clear that the reaction part is meant as „instead” of gaining a card or should i add „instead”?

[Shard of Honor]

thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.

a wording question: is it clear that the reaction part is meant as „instead” of gaining a card or should i add „instead”?

Wasn't clear to me. In the current version, it sounds like the Reaction ability just happens additional to the gaining.
I would rather use "would gain" and "instead".
But you should listen to the advice from some native speakers here 

[herw]

thanks for helping. I think costs of 5P are enough.

a wording question: is it clear that the reaction part is meant as „instead” of gaining a card or should i add „instead”?

Wasn't clear to me. In the current version, it sounds like the Reaction ability just happens additional to the gaining.
I would rather use "would gain" and "instead".
But you should listen to the advice from some native speakers here 

thanks

[Asper]

The wording still is unclear. To mean what you try to express, it should be:

When you would gain a card during another player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to instead discard this and any number of non-Action cards, and then draw as many.

I'm sorry to say, I don't really like it. It seems slow to resolve, and during another player's turn on top of that. It also has a lot of words, and generally speaking, I don't think additional would-gain cards similar to Trader are a great thing. Even Donald has expressed regrets regarding the rules-mess of Trader, whereas he doesn't mind Watchtower. 5$ and a Potion is also really expensive, too expensive for the trashing to be useful, as it will become available only late game, where trashing is usually bad. Also, the attack is arguably worse than Witch. The Copper junking also keeps going and going, which is usually considered poor style, but again, it happens very late, so it might actually be fine for opponents who have started greening. Finally, the card has a lot going on. It trashes, it junks... Considering how late you get this and that it is terminal unless you trash with it (which, as stated, is less easy late-game), you can't even chain it that well, which again isn't that great a fit for a Potion card.

I know you love Potion cards, but I feel this really doesn't  want to be one.

[herw]

The wording still is unclear. To mean what you try to express, it should be:

When you would gain a card during another player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to instead discard this and any number of non-Action cards, and then draw as many.

I'm sorry to say, I don't really like it. It seems slow to resolve, and during another player's turn on top of that. It also has a lot of words, and generally speaking, I don't think additional would-gain cards similar to Trader are a great thing. Even Donald has expressed regrets regarding the rules-mess of Trader, whereas he doesn't mind Watchtower. 5$ and a Potion is also really expensive, too expensive for the trashing to be useful, as it will become available only late game, where trashing is usually bad. Also, the attack is arguably worse than Witch. The Copper junking also keeps going and going, which is usually considered poor style, but again, it happens very late, so it might actually be fine for opponents who have started greening. Finally, the card has a lot going on. It trashes, it junks... Considering how late you get this and that it is terminal unless you trash with it (which, as stated, is less easy late-game), you can't even chain it that well, which again isn't that great a fit for a Potion card.

I know you love Potion cards, but I feel this really doesn't  want to be one.

Yes, fully agree. Characteristic of bad card design are too many words, complex wording and complex rule, wrong costs . I choosed Coppers instead of curse, because i want a long effect. But you are right, Coppers instead of Curses is only a game of gaining and trashing.

The main ideas are a powerful wizard and a picture in my head of two equipollent wizards who are fighting against. So it is wished that all players will have one. So it should be still powerful, although when the curse pile is empty, for both parts attack and reaction.
The reaction part could be a Moat, but that's not what i have in mind.
So what about nearly the same assignment for the counterpart? Nearly same text for a zippy game? With Villagers it is possible:

(2019-02-11)

And there is an interesting new aspect in the endgame: You can play it but perhaps you don't want to trash a card so it is only like a normal witch. But with an empty curse pile the counterpart is more powerful for each other player. So it is your choice to perform magic or not! It is a risk although you are a powerful wizard. Have a look to the wizard's face 

[Asper]

This has the problem that the Reaction portion can be stacked indefinitely by revealing the same copy of Counter Magic over and over.

[Asper]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

[herw]

This has the problem that the Reaction portion can be stacked indefinitely by revealing the same copy of Counter Magic over and over.

good point so new reaction portion:
„... you may discard this from your hand ...”
so only one reaction no stacking with same card.
Another idea of this card is that with an empty curse pile it is still a powerful card and attractive to play from both sides.

[herw]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

[Asper]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

[herw]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:

[Asper]

Consider this: Witch has one thing it does to keep you from getting too many Curses: Distributing them to your opponents. This has 3: Distributing Curses, trashing, and a Reaction. Two would be fine to bring the point across.

[herw]

Consider this: Witch has one thing it does to keep you from getting too many Curses: Distributing them to your opponents. This has 3: Distributing Curses, trashing, and a Reaction. Two would be fine to bring the point across.

had done: no curser, so no attack (see my last post) but still trashing and reaction.

[herw]

For those who don't like potion costs

[GendoIkari]

For those who don't like potion costs

Another way of wording this that might be better is to give + as a resource when you play it. I've seen that idea done on other fan cards. One big problem with it is that it might be the only Potion-costing card in the game; in which case it needs to be good enough by itself.

[herw]

For those who don't like potion costs

Another way of wording this that might be better is to give + as a resource when you play it. I've seen that idea done on other fan cards.

that was me (Bewitched Town)
The trick is, that you can buy more than one potion-costs-card without potion in your hand this turn.

One big problem with it is that it might be the only Potion-costing card in the game; in which case it needs to be good enough by itself.

yes and therefore it costs only 2 treasures + potion. So you can buy itself for only 2 treasures and you get +1 action + 1 Buy extra.
If you want more i can change to +2 actions +1 card +1 Buy for 3 treasures and potion. So you would get a cheap vilage +1 Buy when buying with Forrest Village. Maybe this would be too strong.

There is an alternative:



but i think this is too strong too. Maybe only +2 Actions +1 Card +

[Asper]

Suggestion:

All cards cost Potion less this turn, but not less than no Potion.

[segura]

but i think this is too strong too. Maybe only +2 Actions +1 Card +

I don't think so. The only reason to do + is clarity / less wordiness.

Even if you get a deck with extra Buys and can thus use the price reduction of Forest Village to purchase some new villages for $2 (instead of the "normal" price of $3) the opportunity cost (buy Potion, have one extra stop card in your deck, can only buy one village per shuffle) to get there is pretty huge.
I seriously doubt that Forest Village will be better than any $4 village (even Mining Village) in any Kingdom (if Workshop variants are around it is a no-brainer).

[herw]

Suggestion:

All cards cost Potion less this turn, but not less than no Potion.

many thanks for correct and simple wording - you have to remember, that i created victory cards with potion in cost.
So: All non victory-cards cost Potion less this turn, but not less than no Potion.

[herw]

but i think this is too strong too. Maybe only +2 Actions +1 Card +

I don't think so. The only reason to do + is clarity / less wordiness.

my favourite version has an extra buy so, + is not the same.

Even if you get a deck with extra Buys and can thus use the price reduction of Forest Village to purchase some new villages for $2 (instead of the "normal" price of $3) the opportunity cost (buy Potion, have one extra stop card in your deck, can only buy one village per shuffle) to get there is pretty huge.
I seriously doubt that Forest Village will be better than any $4 village (even Mining Village) in any Kingdom (if Workshop variants are around it is a no-brainer).

You imply only one card with potion in cost. I think it is not fair because if you choose cards with potion-costs you should coose three (see Donald's comment to Alchemy).
I think Alchemy is a small unfinished set and i try to expand. So i am not thinking about only one card. If you would play Prosperity only with Colony and no Platin it would be not useful.
I think there should be more openness to Potion.

(sorry for wrong English - i am a non native speaker).

[segura]

but i think this is too strong too. Maybe only +2 Actions +1 Card +

I don't think so. The only reason to do + is clarity / less wordiness.

my favourite version has an extra buy so, + is not the same.

I commented on the drawing version. Do you seriously worry about a village that does not draw and costs P being overpowered? That version would arguably be too weak for $2, let alone $2+P (did you never misplay a Villa game because you got too many Villas and too little draw power?)

You imply only one card with potion in cost. I think it is not fair because if you choose cards with potion-costs you should coose three (see Donald's comment to Alchemy).

No. All Potion cards are designed such that you want to get multiples, such that even if there is only one Potion card in the Kingdom the opportunity cost of going for Potion is often acceptable.
Designing a card with Potion costs such that it is only decent if there are other Potion cards in the Kingdom is IMO plain bad; it makes the card depend too much on the Kingdom-selection meta. Unless you want that card to be only good for your specific "at least 3 Potion cards" games but then you might want to add a disclaimer to your Potion cards that they should only be used in Kingdoms with at least 3 other Potion cards.

[Asper]

I'm afraid that I'll have to say some things you might not want to hear now, herw.

The first is that suggestion you always refer to. It's a half sentence in the Alchemy rules. The full sentence reads like this:

You can play Dominion using any number of Kingdom cards from Alchemy, but we especiallyrecommend playing with 3 - 5 Alchemy cards at once

It says right there that this is not something you have to do. In fact, most people don't do it. It is a hotfix Donald X included to make sure that in case the card he put together under a lot of time pressure by the publisher would still work fine. We all know that to buy a Potion card you need to get a Potion. What a lot of people are unaware of is that this means that, if you only ever want one Potion cost card, you would end up with a 50% dead card quota from getting it and Potion. That's awful. To remidy this, Donald X made sure that all Alchemy cards are cards you want to get multiples of, even if there was only one of them in the kingdom.

The suggestion in the rule book is a safety net. Assuming that this was something you could count on, treating it as a fundament of your designs, puts too much strain on it. As a result, you constantly underestimate the opportunity cost of Potion cards. You rely on the value on the official Potion cards, hoping that they would make yours worthwile; but frankly, several of the official Potion cards are horrible, and you are adding further weak cards. As a result, the net grows thinner and thinner, with the result that even if you'd set the game up to always have three Potion cards in the kingdom, now they are more likely to be three weak Potion cards.

As a general thing that I learned over the course of several years: Don't try to make cards with the main goal to fix something. Don't make a card to boost Scout, or harm Rebuild (those are things that I actually tried in the past). And don't make cards to boost Potions. Because if you focus on making cards Potion costs or to boost Potion cost more than you care about making good cards, you will start attaching Potion costs to cards that don't need or want them. You will be missing out on good card ideas by shoehorning them into something that doesn't work with it. In the end, the cards will end up generally worse because of this.

I have stated this before: Potion cards are very tricky to do right. Look at Alchemy, and how many cards of it are bad. Even Donald screwed up several of them. If you are a relatively inexperienced card designer, Potion cards are one of the worst places to start with. But if you must make a Potion card, at least try to apply the same constraints that Donald applied. Make cards attractive in multiples. Make them work well in kingdoms without other Potion cards. Perhaps you can learn from Donald's mistakes and make the cards not too slow. But don't lean on a safety net. Thats not what it's for and it can't carry that weight.

[King Leon]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:

Drawing two cards is a big problem, because you could draw your entire deck, if you have enough Counter Magic cards and maybe even hit a reshuffle to play the same Reaction cards again. You should give the + cards at the start of the next turn.

[Asper]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:

Drawing two cards is a big problem, because you could draw your entire deck, if you have enough Counter Magic cards and maybe even hit a reshuffle to play the same Reaction cards again. You should give the + cards at the start of the next turn.

They would basically be Laboratories then. It's not my main issue, though. My main issue is that with a sufficiently thin deck, you can gain infinite Villagers with this. As a matter of fact, this would be the case even if the card only drew one card.

[herw]

I will see, which ideas Donald will have, when he tries to create a second version of Alchemy; if he will ever do. In the meantime i am experimenting with  my suggestions.

[herw]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:

Drawing two cards is a big problem, because you could draw your entire deck, if you have enough Counter Magic cards and maybe even hit a reshuffle to play the same Reaction cards again. You should give the + cards at the start of the next turn.

They would basically be Laboratories then. It's not my main issue, though. My main issue is that with a sufficiently thin deck, you can gain infinite Villagers with this. As a matter of fact, this would be the case even if the card only drew one card.

ah, yes - i see the problem with +x cards +x villagers in reaction part. Would it help, to say (reaction part)
„When another player plays an Attack you may set this aside for +2 cards and +1 villager. Discard this at the end of the turn.”
So you can only react with Counter Magic once per turn?

[King Leon]

About the main concept, an Attack that is also its defense: Any cursing attack is its own defense. Witch only can deal out a fixed number of Curses each game. A good way to keep them from going in your deck is just distributing them yourself. So every Witch IS her own counter spell. I know I'm raining on your parade a lot here right now, but I kinda feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Sorry.

Maybe there are other non cursing Attack-cards in play?
Your idea is, that the first part shouldn't be an attack but something other action or separate both to two different cards; only Attack-card and the other only action-reaction card?

Well, I'm not saying I have a great idea to fix it. I'm just saying that if one or more Cursers are in the kingdom, you usually want one. Even if it's mostly to keep the number of Curses given to you at bay. So a card that Curses and defends against Cursers doesn' t create considerations that are all that different from a card that just Curses. Either way you need one to both defend your deck and attack the opponents'.

hm - thinking about two cards, or maybe same but non-cursor:

Drawing two cards is a big problem, because you could draw your entire deck, if you have enough Counter Magic cards and maybe even hit a reshuffle to play the same Reaction cards again. You should give the + cards at the start of the next turn.

They would basically be Laboratories then. It's not my main issue, though. My main issue is that with a sufficiently thin deck, you can gain infinite Villagers with this. As a matter of fact, this would be the case even if the card only drew one card.

ah, yes - i see the problem with +x cards +x villagers in reaction part. Would it help, to say (reaction part)
„When another player plays an Attack you may set this aside for +2 cards and +1 villager. Discard this at the end of the turn.”
So you can only react with Counter Magic once per turn?

What about:
Type Action – Duration – Reaction
+1 Villager
At the start of your next turn:
+2 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand for +1 Card.


This counters Sea Hag, Militia and some other attacks successfully.

[segura]

I will see, which ideas Donald will have, when he tries to create a second version of Alchemy; if he will ever do. In the meantime i am experimenting with  my suggestions.

I like this version and the Villagers buff is definitely good enough to make the card viable given that +1 Card +2 Villagers is most likely a $5.

[herw]

Mythical Creatures, a Traveller's line

first an overview. There is a new mecahnism. The last Card (Dryads) is a Traveller too. When playing it you have to exchange it atonce to another Traveller with lower costs, which means you jump back. You get the other Traveller to your hand. So you can play it in your actual turn too. The trick is to choose the right Traveller depending on actual situation. If there is another Traveler's line you can change to it too.
Another new thing is that you can choose from the lowest Traveller (Puck) to Wood Gnome or Mountain Troll.

You find a very long discussion here. First it was planed as an Alchemist's line (Puck: Gain a potion) but then i had the idea with mechanism of the Dryads. So here are the Mythical Creatures.



So here is the line:

[King Leon]

Franfeluche neefs more support, but Puck, Wood Gnome and Mountain Troll are all terminal. I also don't know if you really want to exchange Melusine to Dryads.

[Asper]

Wait, herw, wasn't Dryads' exchange clause on play when you revealed it in the German forum? I think it read:

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Exchange this for a Traveller costing less, putting it in your hand.

Needless to say, this is terribly weak in comparison.

[herw]

Wait, herw, wasn't Dryads' exchange clause on play when you revealed it in the German forum? I think it read:

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Exchange this for a Traveller costing less, putting it in your hand.

Needless to say, this is terribly weak in comparison.

arggh, yes forgot to translate and lost it. I have to change Melusine too.
Sorry for the chaos. 


have changed in last post too.

[Asper]

I see you made Franfeluche's VP conditional. I don't think it needs that. Sure it's strictly better than Monument once in your deck, but it's harder to get than Monument, too.

Same for Wood Gnome and Smithy.

I wrote this in the German forums already, but Melusine is too strong imo. If your plan is to make exchanging Dryads for a different previous Travellor a decision based on the situation, then I think this takes away that decision to some extend. Especially as you can exchange Melusine for Dryads ech time to get more out of it next turn.

[herw]

Franfeluche neefs more support, but Puck, Wood Gnome and Mountain Troll are all terminal. I also don't know if you really want to exchange Melusine to Dryads.

Please look at the mechanism of Dryads (sorry for the chaos of quick translation). The idea is to combine Dryads with a tricky exchange:
f.i. when you play Dryads and exchange to Wood Gnome you get overall +1 Card +1 Action +2 (+1) Cards. Or when you play Dryads and exchange to Melusine you get a card with +1 Card +1 Action +2 Coffers and you can exchange at the end of your turn again to Dryads and so on.

[LittleFish]

Did Melusine just change? didn't it used to be  a cantrip?

[herw]

Did Melusine just change? didn't it used to be  a cantrip?

If it would be a cantrip too and you play Dryads, exchange at once to Melusine, you would get overall +2 Cards +2 Actions +2 Coffers (!). So Melusine gives you only +2 Coffers but in combination with Dryads it is powerful enough: +1 Card +1 Action +2 Coffers.
But look to other combinations of Dryads + Traveller.

[LittleFish]

Whats the gold backside for?

[Asper]

Just 2 Coffers is too weak again. That's worse than Butcher. I think it would be okay at +1 Card, +1 Action, +2$.

+1 Action, +2 Coffers would also be kinda weak, I think.

[herw]

[herw]

For alchemists and others



edit: a better solution is in future post

[segura]

I like this, but mainly for the Attack (which could be too strong). Virtual Potion is an often seen but bad idea due to Alchemist and Apothecary.

[herw]

I like this, but mainly for the Attack (which could be too strong). Virtual Potion is an often seen but bad idea due to Alchemist and Apothecary.

hm - original potion is then virtual too?
Although reagent is not a basic card it is real as potion card is. Both are treasure cards.
I agree that i have to think about strength of „+1 copper”. So you think that reagent has to low costs.
What about „every other player gains a copper to his hand?

[segura]

I like this, but mainly for the Attack (which could be too strong). Virtual Potion is an often seen but bad idea due to Alchemist and Apothecary.

hm - original potion is then virtual too?
Although reagent is not a basic card it is real as potion card is. Both are treasure cards.

You don‘t seem to realize that Reagent does not interact with Apothecary and Alchemist. Which was my only point and which is the main reason to not do virtual Potion, i.e. any card that produces P without being P.

[herw]

I like this, but mainly for the Attack (which could be too strong). Virtual Potion is an often seen but bad idea due to Alchemist and Apothecary.

hm - original potion is then virtual too?
Although reagent is not a basic card it is real as potion card is. Both are treasure cards.

You don‘t seem to realize that Reagent does not interact with Apothecary and Alchemist. Which was my only point and which is the main reason to not do virtual Potion, i.e. any card that produces P without being P.

ah - yes you are right. It is the similar problem (joke!) if you don't buy silver but a merchant .
Main criticism against Alchemy from Dominion-fans is, that the „valuta” potion is necessary for buying most alchemy-cards. Apothecary and Alchemist need a potion card for working right or worth its cost.

If i would be Donald and want to create cards with virtual potion i would change Apothecary's and Alchemist's instructions like „ ... Put the Coppers, Potions and cards with virtual potions into your hand. ...”  (much too strong) and „ ... When you discard this from play, you may put this on top of your deck if you have a Potion or virtual potion in play.”
But that is annoying.
As there are other vanila-potion-cards in my mind like Forrest Village or Bewitched Town there has to be a simple solution.
1st: give some potion-coin. But do you really like any potion-coins? And they should be there only for one turn without changing the idea.
2nd: a rule addition: „If you play a card with +Potion it is like a „potion in play” ”, which is right for Alchemist. But Apothecary? : A card with vanilla +Potion is a potion card? not nice.

So you need a potion card in your deck.

There are two possibilities:

1st: add in Reagent's instruction: „Choose one: $2 or $P or gain a treasure with costs up to $4. ... ”. So it is more attractive to buy a reagant than a potion-card. Such a card has to cost $6 - hm - isn't it better to buy Gold? Perhaps cost of $5 + 1 debt?  or $4 + 2 debts? (!!)
2nd: As Reagant is (as you mentioned) too strong, then you can set its cost to $1+$P. So you have a potion in your deck.

I like both.They are simple and ensure that you can have a potion card in your deck quickly. 1st is more common with games without any other alchemy cards (means here with potion in cost). But remember: Donald suggests three Alchemy-cars minimum.



any better suggestions?

ceterum censeo: Donald has to think about alchemy-mechanism again so that all dominion player will like it. May the potion with him

[segura]

I don't like the new version, it is all over the place with weird Debt costs and Treasure hand gaining (be careful with that, Sculptor is the obvious benchmark of a non-terminal Silver hand-gainer).
Why don't you stick with the old one and either ignore the virtual Potion issue or simply do a Silver for $5 that junks Coppers?

[herw]

I don't like the new version, it is all over the place with weird Debt costs and Treasure hand gaining (be careful with that, Sculptor is the obvious benchmark of a non-terminal Silver hand-gainer).
Why don't you stick with the old one and either ignore the virtual Potion issue or simply do a Silver for $5 that junks Coppers?

First i have to say that i like the idea of alchemy on principle. I think Donald had a fine idea but wasn't really lucky about it. If you read his secret history you get this impression because he mentioned that the cards of Alchemy had several cards which he has „stolen” for other expansions.
So with Reagent i want to create a card which gives a more powerful start into buying cards with potion-costs.

You wrote that you like the idea of Reagent but there was an issue with Apothecary and Alchemist because they work only fine if there is a potion in your deck.
So with the instruction „gain a treasure card with cost up to $4” i can solve the problem not to buy a potion. You can gain (!) a potion (treasure with cost $4) if you want and Reagent is attractive attack too.
Now about the cost. As Reagent is powerful, the cost have to be $5 or $6 eventually more (?). Sculptor has cost of $5 but only the instruction, to gain a card up to $4. Reagent is more a potion-gainer in opposite to Sculptor because Reagent should be part of an Alchemy-kingdom and it gains to your hand (!) too. So you can use the potion-card at once.
So $6 would be right. But the idea is to start into alchemy cards quickly. So with costs of $4+2debts you can buy Reagent in your first two turns.
On the other side spending coppers slows the game. But alchemy has nice possibilites: Apothecary and Philosophers stone (!) work with them well or if you don't like a large deck, there are two trashers in it (Apprentice and Transmute or from other expansions).
So i want to expand the idea of Alchemy which you don't see in other expansions.
Virtual potions accelerates the game with alchemy especially when you use these fine (tested) basic victory cards (game ends when County supply pile is empty too):



You have to see all these alchemy-cards with an eye on my other alchemy cards:

   

[herw]

Dark Path, an intersting travellers line: negative victory points but much money. The last card is the trick.



PS 2020-02-02: changed the name Breath to Atman

[GendoIkari]

Why have Breath worth VP? Is it just a consolation if you get it so late that you never draw it? As a whole, I feel like the VP penalty on these cards won't do very much. It will only matter when you press your luck once too often and the game ends before you thought it would. Most of the time you should have a pretty good feel for whether you are going to draw the card again this game or not. If you think you are; you keep Loophole. Otherwise you exchange Loophole.

Also, having Curse type on Dark Path is confusing. It makes it so that all the existing cards that refer to "Curse" now are ambiguous as to whether they mean the name or the type. Not sure if you intended to have that type on the other treasures also.

[spineflu]

Also, having Curse type on Dark Path is confusing. It makes it so that all the existing cards that refer to "Curse" now are ambiguous as to whether they mean the name or the type. Not sure if you intended to have that type on the other treasures also.

iirc, this was herw's entry in WDC51 (Curses) and they replaced the stock curses.

[herw]

Also, having Curse type on Dark Path is confusing. It makes it so that all the existing cards that refer to "Curse" now are ambiguous as to whether they mean the name or the type. Not sure if you intended to have that type on the other treasures also.

iirc, this was herw's entry in WDC51 (Curses) and they replaced the stock curses.

my intention is, to have additional curses. So don't remove the original curses. I have tested in several games and it is a good decision.
Donald has created only one curse as card and type but didn't mentioned more about the color.
As there are negative victory points i decide, that the banner color only depends on this: negative victory points, because you remember them when counting at the end of the game.
The type curse is given only for the starter card dark path. If the other cards would be curses too, there would be unnecessary problems with choosing them.
So there is only the alternative whether you get a normal curse card or dark path.
Best is that the gainer decides which he gets (if you don't like, you can choose the more aggressive variant). If the normal curse pile is empty you have to gain dark path.

Indeed is the arc of suspense the doubts, whether you reach the end of line or not. But you get much money in the meantime.
We have tested in several games and it is no problem to play a strategy with more than one line beside other strategy.

You can test it by yourself very easy because the text is minimal and can add some blanko cards with this text.

[herw]