Print

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

[spineflu]

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

[D782802859]

A gold gaining Project - Bursary:

Bursary - Project - $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a Gold.

So rather than use a $6 to buy a Gold, why not a Bursary, that will let you invest (trash) you Silvers, for greater future returns (Gold)?

When not drawing your deck, it effectively makes Golds cost $5, $3 for the Silver, then $2 for the opportunity cost of trashing the silver. Though once you can draw your deck and draw the newly acquired Gold, that formula changes.

And it clearly combos with Silver gainers.

If it needs a buff, I could have it gain the gold to your hand?

Note: A bursary is "the treasury of an institution, especially a religious one.", so I like that I managed to get the religious mechanic of trashing here.

This should gain to hand, otherwise it's way too slow and inconsistent.

[Carline]

A gold gaining Project - Bursary:

Bursary - Project - $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a Gold.

So rather than use a $6 to buy a Gold, why not a Bursary, that will let you invest (trash) you Silvers, for greater future returns (Gold)?

When not drawing your deck, it effectively makes Golds cost $5, $3 for the Silver, then $2 for the opportunity cost of trashing the silver. Though once you can draw your deck and draw the newly acquired Gold, that formula changes.

And it clearly combos with Silver gainers.

If it needs a buff, I could have it gain the gold to your hand?

Note: A bursary is "the treasury of an institution, especially a religious one.", so I like that I managed to get the religious mechanic of trashing here.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0

DXV in The Secret History of Dominion: Renaissance:

"Projects, I have outtakes there too. (...)
- Buy phase, may trash hand Silver for hand Gold. Makes the game too much about the boring cards."

[mandioca15]

Reverend (Action, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For the rest of this turn, when you trash a card, gain a Gold.


A Priest variant that gains Gold when you trash further cards, instead of virtual money. Not sure if this is too strong for $5.

[GendoIkari]

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be , then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

[segura]

Mine is not really a $5, it would be relatively weak at $4 so it is hardly a benchmark for anything. It is like Adventurer, just because it costs $6 doesn’t mean that it is better (more often it is worse) than any other terminal that draws 2.

[Carline]

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be , then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

You need two plays of Taxman to go from Copper to Gold and only one play of Goblin. Since you may use both abilities of Goblin at the same play, it seems to me really a bit too strong at .

[segura]

Taxman gains to top and attacks. That is kinda non-trivial. Also, Taxman is weak. Which is unsurprising, it is the only Mine variant and Mine is weak as well.

[lompeluiten]

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

[Carline]

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

[spineflu]

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be , then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

You need two plays of Taxman to go from Copper to Gold and only one play of Goblin. Since you may use both abilities of Goblin at the same play, it seems to me really a bit too strong at .

yeah thats a good call; i'll change the 2nd clause to be "if you didnt"

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +2 Actions.

EDIT: updated downthread

[NoMoreFun]

Forecast
Event - $3
+1 Buy
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Spoils.

[Carline]

Forecast
Event - $3
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Spoils.

Sometimes a vanishing Gold would be better than Gold, if you want it only to kickstart your engine in an action based strategy.

[faust]

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

[grep]

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

Basically an amalgam of Quest and Animal Fair. Trashing from play rather than from hand makes it both more accessible and more costly

[LibraryAdventurer]

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

[LordBaphomet]

Sow/Reap update: no longer a split pile, reap is now a card outside of the supply. Additionally, the cards have been vastly simplified.

[segura]

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

Indeed. Bandit Camp is the obvious benchmark and even those one-shot Golds sometimes hurt you so perma-Gold gaining seems far worse.

[Carline]

My entry:

RAISER • • Night
If you have more Actions than Treasures in play, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

Treasure gainers are not always good. Many times they are skippable if you are playing an engine.

So, I tried to make a card which would be good whatever strategy you are playing. If you are playing some kind of BM with none or few action support, you probably have more Treasures in play than Actions (or equal), then you gain a Gold. If you are playing an action based strategy, you gain two Villagers to help with the reliability of your deck. Maybe while you are building your engine and your deck is not yet too action dense you would want to gain a Gold to boost your payload. After that, you go for Villagers. This way, this card would be interesting during all game, which doesn’t happen with many of treasure gainers.

Raiser gives you more of what you have and want to raise: money or working hands for actions.

It’s non-terminal, so it’s strong. On the other hand, it’s a stop card that doesn’t draw, so you have to be careful to not overspam it through your deck. That said, it seems to me to be fine at .

Feedbacks are always welcome!

Changing the wording, to make it clear that it's referring to action cards in play, the same way cards like Peddler do.

RAISER • • Night
If you have in play more Actions cards than Treasures, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

I'm editing my original post to add this change.

EDITED: I change the wording again, see post ahead.

[segura]

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

[D782802859]

Kinda like governor but not really. You pick independently for yourself and everyone else, so you can choose the weakest option for others, but it's weaker for you in general.

[Carline]

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

Thank you for your feedback.

As I saw in Dominion cards, every time you are referring to action cards, you need to include the word "cards' to make it clear that you are not talking about remaining rights to do actions.

So, I thougt to write:

(1) "If you have more Actions cards than Treasures in play..."

However, I was in doubt if with this wording it was clear that the "in play' is referring to the action cards or only to the treasures. So, I thought to write:

(2) "If you have more Actions cards in play than Treasures in play..."

I didn't like the repetition of "in play' in this version, so I came with:

(3) "if you have in play more Action cards than Treasures..."

Please help me with this, what is the better wording to make clear the idea without being ambiguous? As I said, english is not my native language.

[D782802859]

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

Thank you for your feedback.

As I saw in Dominion cards, every time you are referring to action cards, you need to include the word "cards' to make it clear that you are not talking about remaining rights to do actions.

So, I thougt to write:

(1) "If you have more Actions cards than Treasures in play..."

However, I was in doubt if with this wording it was clear that the "in play' is referring to the action cards or only to the treasures. So, I thought to write:

(2) "If you have more Actions cards in play than Treasures in play..."

I didn't like the repetition of "in play' in this version, so I came with:

(3) "if you have in play more Action cards than Treasures..."

Please help me with this, what is the better wording to make clear the idea without being ambiguous? As I said, english is not my native language.

I think the best wording here is "If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards."

[Carline]

I think the best wording here is "If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards."

Thank you! So, I'm changing to this wording:

RAISER • • Night
If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

[Carline]

Sow/Reap update: no longer a split pile, reap is now a card outside of the supply. Additionally, the cards have been vastly simplified.

The way it is, if you align three Sows, you gain three Reaps (one for each Sow in play, due to the effect of each copie). So, next turn you have more in hand and gain three Golds. Is this the effect you intended?