Print

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

[Carline]

DOMINION: VENUS, a fan set by Carline

UPDATE: Now I'm using this thread to post the cards I create and I think are interesting, so don't see this set as an expansion in the same sense of official ones, which are smaller, more cohesive and focused in their characteristic mechanics. Maybe I split this set later in small sets. By now, this a work in progress and I'll be very happy with any feedbacks which help me to improve my cards. Thank you!

ORIGINAL TEXT:

For some time, I’ve been participating of the Weekly Design Contest of fan cards. Many thanks to the friends in this Forum who always help me there to improve my cards.

Now I’ll try to compile these cards with some new others and make my own first expansion set.

So here is Dominion: Venus, a fan expansion all with female characters, celebrating women power.

In terms of mechanics, as I don’t have the limitations of an official expansion which has to be published IRL and be able to be played without resources of other expansions, I put a bit of almost everything which Dominion has: Durations, Nights, Reserves, Horses, Exile, Events, Projects, Ways, Landmarks, Overpay, Debt, Tokens, etc.

I also tried some new things like Novice double-face cards, Events which attacks, Ways which play Attacks and Landmarks for each player.

I’ll be very happy with any suggestions you could give me to improve this set. In special, I’m not sure if I chose the best cost for each card.

Any feedbacks will be very welcome. Thank you very much!


  Updated: February, 11, 2021

  Kingdom Cards

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 
Split Pile 5/5

     


  Guildmaster and Novices Set

  (Novices are double-face cards: Young Saboteur/Young Sorceress, Young Smith/Young Trickster)



     

     


  Spell and Spell Cards

               

  Four Seasons Set



               


  Mats

     

     

     


  Heirlooms

     

     


  Events

                                                  


  Ways

               


Way of the Beast and Beasts set

     

  Beasts (Double face cards)

  Gargoyle/Sphynx

            

  Medusa/Quimera

                      

  She-Wolf/Harpy

              

BEASTS SETUP If Way of the Beast is in the game, set aside two of the the Beasts cards (faces which start up when the respective card is in the game: Gargoyle, Medusa and She-Wolf).

  Projects

                         
 

  Land Grant and its Landmarks Set



                                        

[segura]

Joy and Footbridge are overpowered.

3/4, you buy Joy thrice and buy a Silver, your deck after the first shuffle consist of 7 Coppers and 1 Silver.

You hit 16, buy Footbridge 8 times and then are able to buy 9 Provinces.

Ways that refer to another card are needlessly complicated, just put the text of the other card directly on the Way.

[Carline]

Ways that refer to another card are needlessly complicated, just put the text of the other card directly on the Way.

Thank you! I did this way to make possible to use Reactions against the Attacks. I don't know for sure, but I think otherwise it wouldn't be possible.

Anyway, Way of the Mouse already plays other card.

[Carline]

Joy and Footbridge are overpowered.

3/4, you buy Joy thrice and buy a Silver, your deck after the first shuffle consist of 7 Coppers and 1 Silver.

You hit 16, buy Footbridge 8 times and then are able to buy 9 Provinces.

Removed the +Buy from Joy, nerferd Footbridge and made it doesn't apply to Victories. Hope these changes fix them.

[gambit05]

Quite a lot of cards. It will take a while to go through all of them. So, here are just some general comments and a view first remarks on the first couple of cards. I hope you don't mind when I primarily make some suggestions on the wording first. No need to make any changes at this point.

One thing that the majority of people here ignore: What about giving the source/name of the artists? Also, you could easily name the creator of the cards (i.e. you). What about an icon?

Since you want this to be a set, did you looked at the balance/ratios of various standard card functions, e.g. how many cards give + Buy, how many can trash, how many are Village variants etc.?

My first impression (~ the first 10 cards): They look balanced and it seems to be an interesting mix of simple and novel concepts.

Here are some minor comments (mostly about wording/formatting) about the first couple of cards:

Maid
I would arrange the different options in text format, see e.g. Pawn or Squire.

Taverner
Lowercase (small letter): mat.

You have 3 $2-cost cards and all can produce + Buy; this might be a bit inflationary.

Horse Lady
Exile, i.e. "E" in Capital letter; also for other cards with this phrase.

Money Trick
$1 (w/o “+”), then “+1 Buy”
Directly after you finish…; see Royal Carriage
I think this has to be a Reaction?
"…revealing it." No space before full stop; Exile.
At a first glance this seems to be too weak.

Secret Place
Interesting concept.
Could be worded as "+7 Cards".
At the end of this turn, instead of drawing…

Blessing
Trash (1st time only)

Blessed Gems
…you’ve trashed…

Emissary
How can it be checked that the passed cards are all copies of the same card?
What happens, for example in a 4-player game, when you have only 2 Coppers? Can the player pass them?

[gambit05]

After having a look to the second set of your cards, I have to say (so far): Well done! Overall, most of the cards look nice and interesting.

Guildmaster
Nice concept.
Maybe a bit clearer: “Flip one Novice card over”. Play both…
Setup: …text…: not in italic.
Novice cards: (This…Supply.); i.e. parentheses.
Young Trickster: Different order, i.e. +1 Buy +1 Coffer; see Candlestick Maker.

Hidden Pond
I like it.
“…per differently…” or “…for each differently…” (not sure).
Hidden Pond mat.

Sacred Hall
This looks too powerful for a cantrip and with that cost.

Underworld Gate
Trash…
When you do something with the discard pile, you need the phrase “look through your discard pile”, i.e. in this context I would word it:
“Choose one: Look through your discard pile and trash a card from it or from your hand; or gain…”
3rd line: “…per differently…” or “for each differently”
Looks too powerful at first glance. Keep for examples the Zombies, trashed Ruins, or the presence of other Trashers in mind.

Buffon
Looks interesting.
Choose one: Gain…
What happens when the player to the left reveals a Buffon (or another Command card) and the player plays it twice?

Golden Spoils
In most cases, e.g. when I can build a considerably strong engine with other sources for +Buy, I would just get one Golden Spoils, i.e. a Gold for $5 without any penalty.

Gravedigger
“or trash…”
I have long thought about the cost when you asked about it in the Weekly Design Contest. Tentatively, I would say $4, but I am still not sure.
However, maybe my thought process can help you for deciding which cost is the best:

I compared Gravedigger with Graverobber, Rogue and Lurker (first option) and with Night Watchman, Warehouse, Guide and Embassy (second option) especially with respect to their abilities, but also for terminality, costs and choice availability.
I came to the conclusion that Gravedigger’s strength is its non-terminality combined with 2 complementing options. This allows a relatively easy combo of a double-Gravedigger that is always available:
The first Gravedigger trashes a valuable card in play ($5 is guaranteed because of self-trashing) for sifting, cycling and optimizing the next turn. The second copy trashes a junk card from hand (Estates, Copper etc.) to recover the valuable trashed card. The outcome can be compared with Night Watchman, which has a deck inspection range of 5 cards, whereas the double-Gravedigger combo allows a range of 10 cards and can/have to trash a junk card in the process. However, it is also possible that this combo fails, making a single Gravedigger much worse, and a double-Night Watchman would also increase the inspection range. The question is how much is this difference worth in terms of card costs?

Of course, this is only the baseline for Gravedigger. There are scenarios were even a single Gravedigger can perform better, e.g. when combined with Gold-gainers, Lurker, Fortress, but none of them seem to be exceptionally strong.

Anyway, this looks like a very interesting card to me.

Hands of Gold
“If you don’t…”
Again, interesting card.

[Carline]

gambit 05, thank you very much, I'm so happy with your attention to me! I appreciate very, very much  your comments. I will read them carefully to answer to them and make the changes in cards.

[spineflu]

I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.

[Carline]

I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.

Oh, I really didn't know it. I even didn't know before you pointed that there are two different words in English, one with "y" and one with "i". it's ok to use "Gipsy"? Of course, what I meant to refer is the nomad people which culture I respect so much, without any negative connotations.

Edited: changed to "Circus Camp" by suggestion of gambit05.

[gambit05]

I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.

Oh, really didn't know it. I even didn't know that there are two different words in English, one with "y" and one with "i". it's ok to use "Gipsy"?

No, different spelling, same meaning.

Most "gypsies" belong to the Roma (or Romani). See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

But you if you want to avoid any specific tribe naming, you can just name the card "Circus Camp" or something like that. Seems to fit to the art somehow.

[Carline]

I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.

Oh, really didn't know it. I even didn't know that there are two different words in English, one with "y" and one with "i". it's ok to use "Gipsy"?

No, different spelling, same meaning.

Most "gypsies" belong to the Roma (or Romani). See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

But you if you want to avoid any specific tribe naming, you can just name the card "Circus Camp" or something like that. Seems to fit to the art somehow.

Yes, changed to "Circus Camp", thank you!

[gambit05]

Here my comments on the last set of "Portrait" cards. Please keep in mind, that this is mostly about wording. With so many cards at once, I think it is easier to try to gradually improve them rather than go into deep thinking about each and every card.

Immolater
Wording: “Discard…”

Magic Library
Some wording suggestions: “…, after resolving it,…” or “…, after they finished playing it,…”.
Have you considered the consequences of Black Cat?

Marketplace
“Choose one: +1 Action; or +1 Buy, or +$1.
Each Marketplace after the first one can give (among other options) +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, i.e. a Peddler. The first one can give (among others) +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$2, i.e. a Grand Market.
Overall, this seems to be a bit too strong with all its flexibility. If so, it seems to be difficult to change the cost. Maybe, as a start to nerf the card, skip the second +1 Buy.

Shipmaster
Wording: “…at the start…”
Can get complicated when Duration cards are targeted.

Tavern Nights
Wording: “and any Treasure cards…”
Calling regular (i.e. non-Reserve) Treasure cards may be a bit odd for some people (I don’t mind much). However, when you call a card, if not otherwise stated, it goes to the playing area. I guess, the Treasures then shouldn’t produce $. Is that the intention? If so, you could just discard them from the Tavern mat (see Wine Merchant) for $1 each. On the other hand, if your intention is that they also produce their own $ in the turn they are called, I think you need a different wording, probably avoiding “call” in this context.

Wishing Fountain
Looks okay.

Tale-Teller
This looks a bit expensive for what it does.

Distant Island
Exile (2x).
Do you need “If you did”?

Paladin
No need to reveal the cards (although the wording is shorter), i.e.: “Look at the top 3 cards of…”
Looks otherwise okay.

Amazon
Looks okay.

Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.

The number of cards providing +Buy seems okay (on the upper end), but that all $2 cost cards have it is a bit unfortunate.
I didn't looked at the number of cards with other categories a set should have (Smithies, trashing, Workshop etc.), but I haven't encountered anything suspiciously wrong.

[segura]

Sorry about the Ways, I was wrong and totally missed that the Attack type is relevant!

Circus Camp looks too good. It is Village+Fugitive with the discarding happening before the drawing. That downside is unlikely to compensate for the cheaper price (Fugitive is a $4.5 ) and the Village effect.

Hidden Pond is lovely, especially as you avoided the pitfall of triggering the effect on play ... and the on-trash is a neat Feodum-esque feature (kill a green card to increase the VPs of the other greens).

Sacred Hall is a cantrip VP token thingy in all deck drawing engines. That happens to frequently to justify violating such a fundamental rule.

Shipmaster is brilliant, a Lost City variant that is very likely quite balanced.
Amazon does not excite me, but $6 for a slightly better Lost City (if there are Thrones or Remodelers) is OK.

I love the combine-cards idea of Guildmaster! Easily the most innovative mechanism I have seen in some time.

Cursed Land looks like a more narrow use Desperation, but the lack of a "once per turn" restriction might make it different enough.

Touch of Life is likely too good with Copper. You open X/Touch of Life (or just Touch of Life) and all those Coppers got converted into Peddlers.
This needs a non-Copper restriction or, perhaps more interesting, a Coin cost. Converting Silvers/Golds into Double/Triple Peddlers is extremly good (I play with a $5 Project which was an official outtake that gives you the option of treating Silvers as Peddlers).

Land Grant is a great concept. I'd seriously consider a Coin price though, otherwise it is a free gift for whoever ends the turn with an extra Buy. Sure, Annex has the same problem but it is only 3VPs. Those Landmarks are usually worth more.


I like this set, the quality of the cards is quite high and the female theme is great.

[scolapasta]

For the attack Ways, it just seems a little overkill to have 3 cards that do the "same", the only difference being which card is set aside / played. What if it was just one Way, and for the set aside part, it says "set aside one of x,y, or z" or give them a type and have it set aside one of those type (then maybe you can even have some other cards that interact with that type?)

[D782802859]

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Wishing Fountain seems really bad at 5 next to Laboratory, the trashing seems like it isn't enough to justify the price tag.

Calmness has a confusing wording, I'm not really sure what it does.

Burnish is too good with in the early game, particularly the opening. Maybe it should cost $2.

Season's Grace is pretty terrible next to sinister plot which is also +1 Card every other turn but a lot cheaper and more flexible.

Emissary could also use a clearer wording.

[Carline]

Joy and Footbridge are overpowered.

3/4, you buy Joy thrice and buy a Silver, your deck after the first shuffle consist of 7 Coppers and 1 Silver.

You hit 16, buy Footbridge 8 times and then are able to buy 9 Provinces.

Removed the +Buy from Joy, nerferd Footbridge and made it doesn't apply to Victories. Hope these changes fix them.

Changed Joy again to cost . It only costs you a buy, so you can do something useful even with very bad hands like "2 Curses , 3 Estates" or "King's Court, Moneylender, 3 Victories".

[Carline]

Sorry about the Ways, I was wrong and totally missed that the Attack type is relevant!

Circus Camp looks too good. It is Village+Fugitive with the discarding happening before the drawing. That downside is unlikely to compensate for the cheaper price (Fugitive is a $4.5 ) and the Village effect.

Hidden Pond is lovely, especially as you avoided the pitfall of triggering the effect on play ... and the on-trash is a neat Feodum-esque feature (kill a green card to increase the VPs of the other greens).

Sacred Hall is a cantrip VP token thingy in all deck drawing engines. That happens to frequently to justify violating such a fundamental rule.

Shipmaster is brilliant, a Lost City variant that is very likely quite balanced.
Amazon does not excite me, but $6 for a slightly better Lost City (if there are Thrones or Remodelers) is OK.

I love the combine-cards idea of Guildmaster! Easily the most innovative mechanism I have seen in some time.

Cursed Land looks like a more narrow use Desperation, but the lack of a "once per turn" restriction might make it different enough.

Touch of Life is likely too good with Copper. You open X/Touch of Life (or just Touch of Life) and all those Coppers got converted into Peddlers.
This needs a non-Copper restriction or, perhaps more interesting, a Coin cost. Converting Silvers/Golds into Double/Triple Peddlers is extremly good (I play with a $5 Project which was an official outtake that gives you the option of treating Silvers as Peddlers).

Land Grant is a great concept. I'd seriously consider a Coin price though, otherwise it is a free gift for whoever ends the turn with an extra Buy. Sure, Annex has the same problem but it is only 3VPs. Those Landmarks are usually worth more.

I like this set, the quality of the cards is quite high and the female theme is great.

Thank you very much! I will see about Circus Camp, Sacred Hall and Touch of life.

[Carline]

Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.

Feedbacks are welcome, as always.

     

[Carline]

You have 3 $2-cost cards and all can produce + Buy; this might be a bit inflationary.

The number of cards providing +Buy seems okay (on the upper end), but that all $2 cost cards have it is a bit unfortunate.

Yes, so I'm adding a cost without + buy.

[silverspawn]

Comments on a few problematic ones (these are not representative, I think a lot of the ones I'm not commenting on are fine).



With 10$, you can get 6 cards costing 5$. Is this intended? Seems a bit much.



This is basically just way of the squirrel -- not sure the concept is worth the mat. Why not just draw more cards for next turn?



This is pretty busted. It's a support card, so it can't break the game, but it's almost Refuge + village. I think this would be more reasonable at 5$.

[gambit05]

Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.

Feedbacks are welcome, as always.

     

You have 3 $2-cost cards and all can produce + Buy; this might be a bit inflationary.

The number of cards providing +Buy seems okay (on the upper end), but that all $2 cost cards have it is a bit unfortunate.

Yes, so I'm adding a cost without + buy.

They all look solid and interesting enough and they shift the ratios away from too many non-terminals, and from only having $2 cost cards giving +Buy. Your set looks really promising.

[Carline]

Comments on a few problematic ones (these are not representative, I think a lot of the ones I'm not commenting on are fine).



With 10$, you can get 6 cards costing 5$. Is this intended? Seems a bit much.



This is basically just way of the squirrel -- not sure the concept is worth the mat. Why not just draw more cards for next turn?



This is pretty busted. It's a support card, so it can't break the game, but it's almost Refuge + village. I think this would be more reasonable at 5$.

Thank you, I will see about Circus Camp end Footbridge.

About Secret Place: It's not only 2 cards for your next turn. When you draw 7 cards and put 7 on the mat, you decide from all cards in your hand which ones will be the 7 for next turn and which ones you will keep in hand for this turn. You could choose if you sacrify present turn to get a better next turn, sacrify next turn to boost the present turn or divide your best resources between both.

[silverspawn]

Ah, I hadn't read it carefully enough. That's actually a pretty cool effect.

[Carline]

With 10$, you can get 6 cards costing 5$. Is this intended? Seems a bit much.

With , if you pay to reduce cards cost by , you will have only of rest and could buy only 2 cost cards. The difference from regular buying is only the +Buy.

To buy 6 cost cards you have to spend $18.



Edit: Anyway, I changed it to the following version, so you can get only 3 cost reductions and 3 extra buys per turn.

[spineflu]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

[Carline]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

[spineflu]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time.

[Carline]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time.

i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!

[silverspawn]

Nvm, I missed the "at most 2$" cause. Idk why I misread 2 out of 3 cards there, they're not that complicated. I think both versions are fine, but the second one may be an improvement anyway.

[Carline]

For the attack Ways, it just seems a little overkill to have 3 cards that do the "same", the only difference being which card is set aside / played. What if it was just one Way, and for the set aside part, it says "set aside one of x,y, or z" or give them a type and have it set aside one of those type (then maybe you can even have some other cards that interact with that type?)

Thank you very much! I'm changing them according to your suggestion.

[Carline]

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Wishing Fountain seems really bad at 5 next to Laboratory, the trashing seems like it isn't enough to justify the price tag.

Calmness has a confusing wording, I'm not really sure what it does.

Burnish is too good with in the early game, particularly the opening. Maybe it should cost $2.

Season's Grace is pretty terrible next to sinister plot which is also +1 Card every other turn but a lot cheaper and more flexible.

Emissary could also use a clearer wording.

Thank you very much! I will review these cards and try to fix the issues.

[Carline]

Circus Camp looks too good. It is Village+Fugitive with the discarding happening before the drawing. That downside is unlikely to compensate for the cheaper price (Fugitive is a $4.5 ) and the Village effect.

This is pretty busted. It's a support card, so it can't break the game, but it's almost Refuge + village. I think this would be more reasonable at 5$.

Yes, you're right. So I changed it to cost and added a choice. If you discard a card, you get Lost City or a kind of Acting Troupe (which also has a thematic connection with Circus Camp).

[Carline]

Sacred Hall
This looks too powerful for a cantrip and with that cost.

Sacred Hall is a cantrip VP token thingy in all deck drawing engines. That happens to frequently to justify violating such a fundamental rule.

Changed it to remove the "+1 Card". This way, I think it can cost .

[Gubump]

Choices don't need to be separated into rows.

+2 Cards, trash a card from hand is too strong for even if it's limited to Coppers, IMO. This should probably cost , possibly even because of the gain-a-Copper-to-hand option.

There's a typo: It should say "instead of drawing your next hand." That said, I would prefer this wording:

+7 Cards
Discard all cards on your Secret Place mat, then put 7 cards from your hand onto your Secret Place mat.

And the mat can say "During Clean-up, if there are any cards here, put them into your hand instead of drawing your next hand."

This allows infinite generation of + without contributing in any way to ending the game, which is a problem.

The first choice should be capitalized: "Trash a card from your hand or discard pile," and the choices don't need to be separated into rows. The problem with having bonuses that care about cards in the trash is that there isn't really much incentive to trash good cards (read: any cards other than Ruins, Curses, Estates, and Curses) with this. Doing so benefits your opponents just as much as you. If not more, since you don't even get the benefit right away.

I actually think this is good enough to cost , or at least definitely too strong for . Let's compare this to Walled Village (a promo card which costs ):
If you don't use both of Walled Village's actions, then you get to topdeck Walled Village so you can get another chance to use it next turn. However, "using both of Walled Village's actions" is determined by the number of cards you have in play, so Walled Village's left-over actions can still get wasted. +1 Villager, however, gives you the +1 Action on-command and cannot be wasted, and you could even naturally draw the same copy of Workers two turns in a row to get two un-wastable actions. Thus Workers is actually extremely close to strictly better than Walled Village (there are edge cases involving Throne Room variants and Ways), and should therefore cost more.

I think this should be worded "you may discard a card to choose one: +2 Cards; or +2 Actions." This both looks nicer and takes up less space.

Choices don't need to be separated into rows.

"Discard any number..." should have the first word in the sentence capitalized. Being able to trash four cards AND get + is incredibly strong, way too strong for . This may even be strong enough to cost .

I assume that "this turn" refers to the opponent's current turn, so you could react with another Magic Library if another opponent plays an Attack card? Either way, I don't think the "you can't play another Magic Library this turn" part of the reaction is necessary. Also, the proper wording (both in Dominion wording and correct grammar) would be "after another player finishes playing an Attack card, you may..." rather than "after resolve it."

Choices should be separated by semicolons, not commas. And this following comment applies to Small Village as well: Is it intentional that Throne Rooming a Marketplace/Small Village results in the bonus effect triggering both times?     

This should say "at the start of your next turn," not in. It should also be limited to non-Durations for tracking purposes (it would be confusing to play a Wharf with this).     

I assume this means to set aside all of the Treasures you have in play. If I'm correct, then it should say "all" instead of "any," and if I'm wrong, then it should say "any number of Treasures you have in play."     

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any case where the overpay effect is effectively different from simply "This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile)," which is much shorter, so you should use the latter wording.

This is too strong for just . Playing the Horse it gains immediately would make it effectively +2 Cards and +2 Actions, which is already a very strong IMO, and Amazon is strictly better than that because you don't need to play the Horse immediately AND it has an overpay effect.

Split Pile 5/5

     

Fruits is too strong to cost just , IMO. I'd say that it wouldn't work at any price if it didn't have the Villager option (too strong for but too weak for ), but the Villager option makes it strong enough to cost .

     

Blessing is not just better than Feast, but it completely outclasses it, at the same price. And like Great Hall, Feast was removed for being boring, not weak. Blessing is almost certainly strong enough to cost .

     

Emissary doesn't have any wording to ensure honesty for two reasons: It doesn't ask the player to prove they don't have enough of what they chose to pass to pass one to each opponent, and passed cards aren't public information, so it doesn't even ask the player to prove that they're passing copies of the same card. It also has the problem of not really functioning properly as an Attack card, as all Attack cards tell opponents to do something, whereas this doesn't. Another big problem it has is that it scales way too much with player count, and is too strong no matter what; with two players, it's a Woodcutter and an Ambassador at once (although it only returns one card instead of up to two), which is clearly WAAAAAYYYYY too strong for just a mere . With three players, it becomes an Ambassador that gives +1 Buy and a whopping ! I would just recommend scrapping this one, in all honesty.

I think this accelerates games way too much. A hand becomes gain a then buy a , a hand becomes gain a and buy a , etc. And unlike Donate, which is also broken, Burnish can almost always be accessed (and wouldn't do anything in the situations where it can't, anyway).     

Pythoness is a weird name for an event, considering that most Events are actually events, not people. Strange naming choice aside, this is way too strong compared to Pursue to just cost more than it. +1 Buy is nothing next to being able to have a potential 9-card hand.

This is basically just swingier, worse Donate. It's harder to afford due to needing to actually have its full cost when you buy it, and doesn't give you any choice in what to trash.

          

          

Medusa should say "Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse." That said, what's the point of having the set aside cards instead of just having their text on their respective Ways?

                                        

County is way too strong. It can easily be worth upwards of 15 just by playing normally in most Kingdoms. It's especially broken since some of these are strictly worse than existing Landmarks.

[LittleFish]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time.

i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!

Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for , it could be used as "Gain Three estates"

Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.

Feedbacks are welcome, as always.

     

Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.

[Gubump]

     

Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.

Now that you've pointed that out, it has to, actually. Cards are discarded all at once, so you need to be required to reveal the Action cards in order to prove that they're all Action cards. The card you're thinking of is Shepherd, btw.

[Carline]

This is basically just swingier, worse Donate. It's harder to afford due to needing to actually have its full cost when you buy it, and doesn't give you any choice in what to trash.

Thank you very much, Gubump! Very good comments, I will take them into account to improve the cards.

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

[Carline]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time.

i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!

Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for , it could be used as "Gain Three estates"

Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.

An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.

Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.

Feedbacks are welcome, as always.

     

Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.

Thank you very much, LittleFish, I will see about these points.

[LittleFish]

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

And as an (unneeded) edge case, Poor House

[Carline]

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

And as an (unneeded) edge case, Poor House

Yes, but you may manage to buy your Poor Houses only after trash your Coppers. The same for cost cards.

[Carline]

Pythoness is a weird name for an event, considering that most Events are actually events, not people. Strange naming choice aside, this is way too strong compared to Pursue to just cost more than it. +1 Buy is nothing next to being able to have a potential 9-card hand.

The "event" I had in mind was "a consult with the Pythoness", but you're right, as the name was only "Pythoness" it is not so good. I will change to "Divination". About card funcionalities and cost comparing to Pursue, I will see about. 

[LibraryAdventurer]

Wanderer looks too strong for $2 because of the trashing option.

Seems like you could easily end up with tons of Horses in your deck with Horse Lady if there are any other Horse gainers. Not sure the best way to change it, or if you don't mind if people get tons of horses in the deck (and exile mat).

Secret Place looks like a recipe for analysis paralysis and too fiddly for what it does. Maybe just say "...Draw 2 cards. Set aside 2 cards from your hand and put them in your hand at the start of next turn." (in addition to the usual 5 cards.) I don't think it needs a mat.
Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.

I agree with Gubump about Blessing, Emissary, Tale-Teller, and Birth of Venus.

I looked at the first dozen cards so far. The rest of the ones I looked at so far look good, though a few of them seem on the uninteresting side.

[Gubump]

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost instead of . In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.

[Gubump]

Secret Place looks like a recipe for analysis paralysis and too fiddly for what it does. Maybe just say "...Draw 2 cards. Set aside 2 cards from your hand and put them in your hand at the start of next turn." (in addition to the usual 5 cards.) I don't think it needs a mat.

That's literally just Gear but always needing to set aside 2.

Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.

I'm pretty sure that's the point.

[Carline]

Wanderer looks too strong for $2 because of the trashing option.

Seems like you could easily end up with tons of Horses in your deck with Horse Lady if there are any other Horse gainers. Not sure the best way to change it, or if you don't mind if people get tons of horses in the deck (and exile mat).

Secret Place looks like a recipe for analysis paralysis and too fiddly for what it does. Maybe just say "...Draw 2 cards. Set aside 2 cards from your hand and put them in your hand at the start of next turn." (in addition to the usual 5 cards.) I don't think it needs a mat.
Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.

I agree with Gubump about Blessing, Emissary, Tale-Teller, and Birth of Venus.

I looked at the first dozen cards so far. The rest of the ones I looked at so far look good, though a few of them seem on the uninteresting side.

Thank very much, LibaryAdventurer! I wiil see about these points.

[Carline]

Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.

I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Otherwise, you would have 14 cards on the mat.

[Gubump]

          

          

Medusa should say "Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse." That said, what's the point of having the set aside cards instead of just having their text on their respective Ways?

I'm an idiot. I just realized why they have set aside cards; it's so they aren't unblockable attacks.

[Carline]

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost instead of . In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.

Thank you for clarifying. it would be good at $5, a cost that is easier to afford?

[Carline]

Pythoness is a weird name for an event, considering that most Events are actually events, not people. Strange naming choice aside, this is way too strong compared to Pursue to just cost more than it. +1 Buy is nothing next to being able to have a potential 9-card hand.

The "event" I had in mind was "a consult with the Pythoness", but you're right, as the name was only "Pythoness" it is not so good. I will change to "Divination". About card funcionalities and cost comparing to Pursue, I will see about.

Changed it to reveal 3 cards and cost . I hope this makes it more well balanced.

[Gubump]

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost instead of . In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.

Thank you for clarifying. it would be good at $5, a cost that is easier to afford?

I would honestly just scrap it. It's too similar to Donate for my tastes.

[Carline]

Emissary
How can it be checked that the passed cards are all copies of the same card?
What happens, for example in a 4-player game, when you have only 2 Coppers? Can the player pass them?

Emissary could also use a clearer wording.

     

Emissary doesn't have any wording to ensure honesty for two reasons: It doesn't ask the player to prove they don't have enough of what they chose to pass to pass one to each opponent, and passed cards aren't public information, so it doesn't even ask the player to prove that they're passing copies of the same card. It also has the problem of not really functioning properly as an Attack card, as all Attack cards tell opponents to do something, whereas this doesn't. Another big problem it has is that it scales way too much with player count, and is too strong no matter what; with two players, it's a Woodcutter and an Ambassador at once (although it only returns one card instead of up to two), which is clearly WAAAAAYYYYY too strong for just a mere . With three players, it becomes an Ambassador that gives +1 Buy and a whopping ! I would just recommend scrapping this one, in all honesty.

The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.



Edit: removed Attack type.

[Carline]

+2 Cards, trash a card from hand is too strong for even if it's limited to Coppers, IMO. This should probably cost , possibly even because of the gain-a-Copper-to-hand option.

Wanderer looks too strong for $2 because of the trashing option.

Changed to +1 Action, +. I hope this way I can keep at .

[Gubump]

The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.



Edit: removed Attack type.

It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent + is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net + per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.

[Carline]

The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.



Edit: removed Attack type.

It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent + is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net + per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.

You're completely right about these issues and it shows I'm still so far away from the best implementation of the idea. What I'm trying is a trashing junker that is also good for your turn but at the price to make better opponent's next turn.  This idea looks intersting to me and maybe could actually be intersting if I could find a well balanced way to do it. I tried to use pass mechanic, but the challenge with it is that you have to pass the same card to each opponent. i think if I give up this pass part and use something near Ambassador mechanic (return/they gain or trash/they gain) maybe I could find a good balance. Thank you again, I appreciate very much your help to me.

[Timinou]

The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.



Edit: removed Attack type.

It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent + is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net + per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.

It's tricky to come up with an appropriate cost for all player counts.

I think this card loses its value quite quickly in games at higher player counts, especially given that plenty of other cards in the set give you +1 Buy.  In a 4-player game, you won't be able to play it more than 1-2 times unless you quickly gain more Coppers.  It might work if everyone is buying and playing Emissaries, and I suppose you could try to use your extra buys to fill your deck with Coppers and also combo this with Wanderer, but I'm not sure if that would be an effective strategy.  This would definitely need to be playtested.

I think the cost might be fine for a 3-player game as there would be more balance between the ability to trigger the Ambassador-effect and the payoff.

For a two-player game, I think the cost should be 3.  It's pseudo-trashing/junking ability is weaker than Ambassador's, and can only give you +2.  While you could argue that this is an improved version of Woodcutter and so should cost more, it becomes distinctly worse than Woodcutter once your Coppers run out.

This also becomes harder to play if you have a game with Heirlooms.  Carline, was that part of the intent in originally having an Heirloom for Emissary?

[Carline]

The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.



Edit: removed Attack type.

It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent + is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net + per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.

It's tricky to come up with an appropriate cost for all player counts.

I think this card loses its value quite quickly in games at higher player counts, especially given that plenty of other cards in the set give you +1 Buy.  In a 4-player game, you won't be able to play it more than 1-2 times unless you quickly gain more Coppers.  It might work if everyone is buying and playing Emissaries, and I suppose you could try to use your extra buys to fill your deck with Coppers and also combo this with Wanderer, but I'm not sure if that would be an effective strategy.  This would definitely need to be playtested.

I think the cost might be fine for a 3-player game as there would be more balance between the ability to trigger the Ambassador-effect and the payoff.

For a two-player game, I think the cost should be 3.  It's pseudo-trashing/junking ability is weaker than Ambassador's, and can only give you +2.  While you could argue that this is an improved version of Woodcutter and so should cost more, it becomes distinctly worse than Woodcutter once your Coppers run out.

This also becomes harder to play if you have a game with Heirlooms.  Carline, was that part of the intent in originally having an Heirloom for Emissary?

Thank you very much, Timinou! i'm trying a new version (below), according to what I said in the previous post.

The Heirloom was intended to help sometimes to align in next hand the Emissary with the junk. It can be useful by itself sometimes, topdecking  a dead action, for example. So, in this new version, I think I could keep it.

Wording question: it's better to use "If you did,..." or "If you do,..."?


     

[Carline]

...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?

Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.

I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time.

i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!

Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for , it could be used as "Gain Three estates"

In general, if you buy Footbridge more than once, you can trade one of your extra Buys for a free Estate, regardless of what you buy with the other Buys you have.

With any extra Buy source you can buy 2 Estates paying and two Buys, so it's only a Estate more spending a Buy more, which doesn't seems to me to be so strong.

The most radical movement with Footbridge in terms of pile-out Estates is: Pay and a Buy, gain 4 Estates ($1,5 for each VP, not so much different from buying Duchy, which is $1,66.. per VP). If you do it in your last turn, it could be a intersting way to gain some points and end the game. Note that you have to spend your regular Buy or a Buy from other source to do it. If it wouldn't be your last turn, these 4 VP you bought at could clog your deck a lot. 

[Carline]

Money Trick
$1 (w/o “+”), then “+1 Buy”
Directly after you finish…; see Royal Carriage
I think this has to be a Reaction?
"…revealing it." No space before full stop; Exile.
At a first glance this seems to be too weak.

Yes, it has to be a Reaction, changed. I also made the wording fixes, thank you.

Changed Exile option to +, which makes it better, but in general, I don't think it's too weak. Discard it after an Action is the same as play a Peddler and you can discard it after a terminal. You can even manage to draw it again this turn. It also rewards you if already drew your deck, you can discard a Money Trick and draw the same copy, gaining + (exiling it),

The Exile feature is needed to avoid loops. I think is better for this option, it makes the Money Trick exiled be almost equivalent to a Stockpile.   

The +Buy feature is to make you want to play it sometimes instead of discarding.

[gambit05]

Money Trick
$1 (w/o “+”), then “+1 Buy”
Directly after you finish…; see Royal Carriage
I think this has to be a Reaction?
"…revealing it." No space before full stop; Exile.
At a first glance this seems to be too weak.

Yes, it has to be a Reaction, changed. I also made the wording fixes, thank you.

Changed Exile option to +, which makes it better, but in general, I don't think it's too weak. Discard it after an Action is the same as play a Peddler and you can discard it after a terminal. You can even manage to draw it again this turn. It also rewards you if already drew your deck, you can discard it and draw the same copy, gaining + to exile it.

The Exile feature is needed to avoid loops. I think is better for this option, it makes the Money Trick exiled be almost equivalent to a Stockpile.   

The +Buy feature is to make you want to play it sometimes instead of discarding.

Nice. I see your expansion is making progress.
One nit pick: According to Tunnel Edit: Fool's Gold, you should swap the colors. Yellow on top, blue below. Also fits better with the texts parts, i.e.  Treasure (top) is played with yellow background, Reaction text below with blue background.

[Carline]

Split Pile 5/5

     

Fruits is too strong to cost just , IMO. I'd say that it wouldn't work at any price if it didn't have the Villager option (too strong for but too weak for ), but the Villager option makes it strong enough to cost .

Changed Fruits to the version below. Maybe now it's ok at .

[Carline]

This is basically just swingier, worse Donate. It's harder to afford due to needing to actually have its full cost when you buy it, and doesn't give you any choice in what to trash.

By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.

I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost instead of . In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.

Thank you for clarifying. it would be good at $5, a cost that is easier to afford?

I would honestly just scrap it. It's too similar to Donate for my tastes.

Changed it to debt cost. Also make it Exiling instead of trashing, which is better for the Estates and eventual cost cards. This feature also make it more different from Donate.

[Carline]

Blessing
Trash (1st time only)

Blessed Gems
…you’ve trashed…

     

Blessing is not just better than Feast, but it completely outclasses it, at the same price. And like Great Hall, Feast was removed for being boring, not weak. Blessing is almost certainly strong enough to cost .

You're right. Changed it to and made it a vanishing Chapel.

     

[Carline]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.



Edit:updated to:

[Carline]

Added this card, from present Weekly Contest.

[Carline]

I actually think this is good enough to cost , or at least definitely too strong for . Let's compare this to Walled Village (a promo card which costs ):
If you don't use both of Walled Village's actions, then you get to topdeck Walled Village so you can get another chance to use it next turn. However, "using both of Walled Village's actions" is determined by the number of cards you have in play, so Walled Village's left-over actions can still get wasted. +1 Villager, however, gives you the +1 Action on-command and cannot be wasted, and you could even naturally draw the same copy of Workers two turns in a row to get two un-wastable actions. Thus Workers is actually extremely close to strictly better than Walled Village (there are edge cases involving Throne Room variants and Ways), and should therefore cost more.

You're right about this. However, if it would cost , I think it could be a bit unintersting to buy if there are cheaper Villages.

So, I changed the + Card to + . This way I think it can cost .

[gambit05]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

[Carline]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.

Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?

[LittleFish]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.

Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?

the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action , you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.

[Carline]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.

Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?

the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action , you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.

I think the + Buy is needed to buy the next action with debt, as you spent your regular Buy to buy Lending. 

[LittleFish]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.

Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?

the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action , you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.

I think the + Buy is needed to buy the next action with debt, as you spent your regular Buy to buy Lending.

I didn't look close enough at the new card-shaped thing. You can't buy something with the debt though, so on the first turn, you wouldn't be able to use this

[GendoIkari]

Note that I haven't read the other replies yet; so don't know if some of this has already been covered.

As a whole set, I feel like there's too many different things. It combines a lot of things from Nocturne as well as Menagerie, but also some Guilds and Renaissance mechanics. Between Overpay, Heirlooms,  Night, Ways, Horses, Villagers, Coffers, VP Tokens, Exile, Events, Split Piles, Reserves, Debt, Projects, Hexes, Landmarks, Pile Tokens, and Durations (to be fair it seems Durations are now a core mechanic)... it just seems like way too many mechanics to fit into one set. Looks like 35 separate Kingdom Piles? That's a lot.

Most of the specific cards seem neat and fine. Seems like a lot of them provide difficult choices about how many to buy, etc.

Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.

Money Trick seems a bit complicated in the reaction wording. I wonder if the "if it's a Money Trick" part is even needed.... was that added just to prevent an infinite loop with discarding a Money Trick into an empty deck? Either way this might be as strong as Peddler/Poacher; which would make it too cheap.

Amazon - I'm not sure if "gain a Horse to your Hand" is significantly different enough from "+2 cards"... of course when combined with things like Horse Lady, it is, and maybe that was the intent. I'm also not sure about Overpay on a card... the official Overpay cards don't exceed . At , you likely aren't going to be using the Overpay very often at all; though it is a nice bonus when you hit .

Fruit Mix wording; Donald is planning to update Treasures to not longer use "When you play this", and you don't have that on Fruits either. And instead of "worth", it should just be "+"l; like an action would be. I believe treasures like Bank will be updated to do that as well.

Bride Wait might be the Feast we should have had all along.

Calmness is a bit weird; it's obvious what the +1 Card Token does, but "whenever you want" is weird timing. It's also rare that you are going to hold onto it very long; so maybe instead during cleanup draw 1 extra card for your next turn.

Birth of Venus might be too similar to Donate.

Way of the Mermaid is strictly better than Pig; not that there are necessarily rules about avoiding strictly better ways, but it makes sense to try and do so.

Way of the Sphinx is probably too good (and strictly better than Pig); Wishing Well already exists as a card, this just makes any action you want into a Wishing Well.

I don't understand Harpy, Medusa, and She-Wolf... why have a separate card? Why not just have the text on the Way? It would be like if Way of the Sphinx said "Play a Wishing Well, leaving it there". *EDIT* Ah, I see from the other comments how it's different because you are playing an Attack Card; which allows for reactions.

Phoenix might be too strong with some one-shots like Pillage.

Land Grant is very cool; I like it a lot. Don't have an opinion about the balance of the Landmarks, and the cost might be too high, but it's a great idea.

Lots of cards I didn't mention; for the most part even though I can understand them easily, I can't tell if they are balanced for their cost. Which is a good thing I think; just means they need playtesting to determine if they're good.

[Carline]

Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.

I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".

I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.

Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?

the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action , you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.

I think the + Buy is needed to buy the next action with debt, as you spent your regular Buy to buy Lending.

I didn't look close enough at the new card-shaped thing. You can't buy something with the debt though, so on the first turn, you wouldn't be able to use this

Yes, I didn't consider this, thank you. I think this new version would work.

[gambit05]

Yes, I didn't consider this, thank you. I think this new version would work.

I haven't followed or read the discussion that lead to this version, but this is confusing. It is not clear for what you pay, i.e. for buying a card is missing.
I also don't think that the combination of a $0 cost Event with +1 Buy and without "Once per turn" works well under certain circumstances, e.g. with cost reduction (e.g. 2 x Bridge), you can empty all piles that cost $2 or less. On the other side of the cost spectrum, is your intention that also very expensive Action cards (King's Court, Prince etc.) can be bought?

[Carline]

I also don't think that the combination of a $0 cost Event with +1 Buy and without "Once per turn" works well under certain circumstances, e.g. with cost reduction (e.g. 2 x Bridge), you can empty all piles that cost $2 or less.

It doesn't give you extra Buys, only replaces the Buy you spent to buy it.

]I haven't followed or read the discussion that lead to this version, but this is confusing. It is not clear for what you pay, i.e. for buying a card is missing.

Yes, I will fix the wording.

On the other side of the cost spectrum, is your intention that also very expensive Action cards (King's Court, Prince etc.) can be bought?

I think it's Ok to buy expensive actions with it, you will pay for them anyway and with additional cost. With Transport, you can get any of these actions in turn 2, paying and . And topdecked.

Edited: Fixed the wording. i hope now it's ok.

[gambit05]

I also don't think that the combination of a $0 cost Event with +1 Buy and without "Once per turn" works well under certain circumstances, e.g. with cost reduction (e.g. 2 x Bridge), you can empty all piles that cost $2 or less.

It doesn't give you extra Buys, only replaces the Buy you spent to buy it.

]I haven't followed or read the discussion that lead to this version, but this is confusing. It is not clear for what you pay, i.e. for buying a card is missing.

Yes, I will fix the wording.

On the other side of the cost spectrum, is your intention that also very expensive Action cards (King's Court, Prince etc.) can be bought?

I think it's Ok to buy expensive actions with it, you will pay for them anyway and with additional cost. With Transport, you can get any of these actions in turn 2, paying and . And topdecked.

Edited: Fixed the wording. i hope now it's ok.

I think you are correct about the "endless" buying power. It looks confusing, but it seems to work the way you've intended.
There is something about the wording I still don't like, but right now I can't get a grip on it. I have to think about it in more depths. Just one little detail: "Treasures" with an uppercase T.

Edit: When I wrote the text above, I stumbled a bit about the "you may pay their cost in $", as this on its own suggests that you just do what you usually do, i.e. paying $ with $. Of course the full sentence says otherwise, but my brain first read it this way and was confused. Maybe slightly better: ...you may, instead of paying their $ cost, take the same amount of Debt plus 1 Debt.

[Carline]

Thank you very much GendoIkari, I appreciated very much your comments.

Note that I haven't read the other replies yet; so don't know if some of this has already been covered.

As a whole set, I feel like there's too many different things. It combines a lot of things from Nocturne as well as Menagerie, but also some Guilds and Renaissance mechanics. Between Overpay, Heirlooms,  Night, Ways, Horses, Villagers, Coffers, VP Tokens, Exile, Events, Split Piles, Reserves, Debt, Projects, Hexes, Landmarks, Pile Tokens, and Durations (to be fair it seems Durations are now a core mechanic)... it just seems like way too many mechanics to fit into one set. Looks like 35 separate Kingdom Piles? That's a lot.

Yeah, as I said in original post, It has a bit of almost everything in terms of Mechanics. Of course, it doesn't fit the conditions of an official expansion in this aspect, but I think it's ok for a fan expansion to be unified only by theme. Same for quantity of cards, although maybe some could leave the set if playtests show they are not good enough.

Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.

I could avoid this effect of trash a Cooper from the Supply by changing order of options. However, I want to keep this possibilty for the few cases you may would want it like with Forager, Treasurer, Priest, Tomb and Sewers or, in the case of this set, Underworld Gate, Gravedigger and the Heirloom Blessed Gems (maybe this effect could be too strong with Tomb, but something similar happens with Lurker and Tomb).

Money Trick seems a bit complicated in the reaction wording. I wonder if the "if it's a Money Trick" part is even needed.... was that added just to prevent an infinite loop with discarding a Money Trick into an empty deck? Either way this might be as strong as Peddler/Poacher; which would make it too cheap.

Yes, I added the Exile part to prevent loops.

It has some downsides comparing to Peddler. With an initial hand without actions it's only a Pouch. And for each one you discard to obtain Peddler effect you have to play an action before. It's not so easy to chain as Peddler. I don't know for sure about the cost, maybe have to see tests, but seems ok to me at first.

Amazon - I'm not sure if "gain a Horse to your Hand" is significantly different enough from "+2 cards"... of course when combined with things like Horse Lady, it is, and maybe that was the intent. I'm also not sure about Overpay on a  card... the official Overpay cards don't exceed . At , you likely aren't going to be using the Overpay very often at all; though it is a nice bonus when you hit .

One other difference is that you may not need to use the Horse this turn. When I thought about the overpay, I was thinking exactly in having a god option when hit (or even if it's early to start greening).

Fruit Mix wording; Donald is planning to update Treasures to not longer use "When you play this", and you don't have that on Fruits either. And instead of "worth", it should just be "+"l; like an action would be. I believe treasures like Bank will be updated to do that as well.

Yes, I will change wording, it would be better.

Calmness is a bit weird; it's obvious what the +1 Card Token does, but "whenever you want" is weird timing. It's also rare that you are going to hold onto it very long; so maybe instead during cleanup draw 1 extra card for your next turn.

If I have a card whenever I want, probably I would see my hand before take it and would save this option for a situation where is more needed, like a hand without a card to start an engine or a hand with $7 when already start greening.

That's the idea, but maybe it's not the best way to implement it or wording the instructions.

Birth of Venus might be too similar to Donate.

I wiil see what more I can do about it.

Phoenix might be too strong with some one-shots like Pillage.

You're right. And also with Lurker. So, I added "from your hand', which prevents both issues.



About the Ways, I'm changing a few things, so I will answer after that. Thank you again for feedbacks.
 

[Carline]

New versions of three cards. All of them care about what is in the trash. It could lead to instersting interactions between them.

          

[gambit05]

New versions of three cards. All of them care about what is in the trash. It could lead to instersting interactions between them.

          

Gravedigger
This seems to simpler than the previous versions of Gravedigger. If it is trashing a Copper it doesn’t stay in play, right?
What is the idea behind the option to gain a cheaper (emphasis on cheaper) card from the trash? Is it to help accumulating cards of value in the trash or to keep the number of valuable cards in the trash low? After the initial Estates are gone, the best deal seems to be to have some Silvers in the deck (edge cases excluded). The Silvers can be played and then converted via trashing to +$3 for the next turn. Do you have a Silver gainer in your set?

Sacred Hall
I think, “If you did” is not necessary, because it is self-explanatory that when you haven’t trashed that you don’t have a cost.
…in the trash (below line): “T” in lowercase (see for example Forager).
The VP value may fluctuate significantly in dependency of the presence of different Victory cards in a Kingdom, especially cheap ones, but I think it is okay. Bishop looks stronger as it can trash anything. If Sacred Hall needs to be a bit stronger, you could let it trash anything, but only give VP tokens for trashed Victory cards: “You may trash a card from your hand. If it’s a Victory card, …”.

Underworld Gate
Could be swingy with cards like Ruins and Shelters in the game. On the other hand, self-trashing when a Victory card is gained counteracts to some extent. Could be interesting.

[gambit05]

About the Ways, I'm changing a few things, so I will answer after that. Thank you again for feedbacks.

This is just about the wording:

...choose one: Put it into your discard pile; or get +$1.
Looks interesting and versatile.

[Carline]

New versions of three cards. All of them care about what is in the trash. It could lead to instersting interactions between them.

          

Gravedigger
This seems to simpler than the previous versions of Gravedigger. If it is trashing a Copper it doesn’t stay in play, right?
What is the idea behind the option to gain a cheaper (emphasis on cheaper) card from the trash? Is it to help accumulating cards of value in the trash or to keep the number of valuable cards in the trash low? After the initial Estates are gone, the best deal seems to be to have some Silvers in the deck (edge cases excluded). The Silvers can be played and then converted via trashing to +$3 for the next turn. Do you have a Silver gainer in your set?

Yes, I tried to make it simpler. Yes, the idea is to not stay in play when trashs a Copper. The idea of gaining a cheaper card is to make thash a more expensive card to be the only way to gain a card from the trash, so you have another motivation to trash cards in play. I changed the bonus to a Salvager next turn, which seems more effective and more easy to  to understand than previous sifting version. I don't have a Silver gaining in the set, it's a good suggestion.

Edit: I thought about this one shot Silver gainer. It also would be a cheap card to gain from trash with Gravedigger.

Sacred Hall
I think, “If you did” is not necessary, because it is self-explanatory that when you haven’t trashed that you don’t have a cost.
…in the trash (below line): “T” in lowercase (see for example Forager).
The VP value may fluctuate significantly in dependency of the presence of different Victory cards in a Kingdom, especially cheap ones, but I think it is okay. Bishop looks stronger as it can trash anything. If Sacred Hall needs to be a bit stronger, you could let it trash anything, but only give VP tokens for trashed Victory cards: “You may trash a card from your hand. If it’s a Victory card, …”.

Thank you for wording corrections, updated.

I also think it's ok the flutuation with Victories cards in Kingdom, something similar happens to Silk Road and Trade Route. The Action part is a more limited version of Bishop, but it also has the Victory part, so I think it's ok at . And the Action part does exactly what the Victory part needs.

Underworld Gate
Could be swingy with cards like Ruins and Shelters in the game. On the other hand, self-trashing when a Victory card is gained counteracts to some extent. Could be interesting.

I put the gaining conditioning to trash a new card to have an incentive to do it and to it be better for you than to your opponent. However, it also helps them, which I think counterbalance the bonus and reduce impact of eventual swingness. I think Ruins are inherently swingy (think about when Ruined Market is the only source of +Buy), but is more probable that the first of each goes to different players. About Shelters, you probably will trash them in first turns, when the cards gained are cheap.

I like very much your comments, they always help me a lot, thank you!

[gambit05]

Edit: I thought about this one shot Silver gainer. It also would be a cheap card to gain from trash with Gravedigger.

It fills some gaps in your set, but it looks a bit boring. I am not sure about the cost/balancing, but how about this:

Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from your hand.

Alternatively:

Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from you have in play.

Another thing: With so many cards and so many updates, it is not easy to figure out, which cards in your original post are actualized and if so, when. For example, I think I suggested to swap colors for Money Trick (yellow/blue; see Fool's Gold). Could you just give the date of the latest update below each card? That would be very helpful.
 

[Carline]

Edit: I thought about this one shot Silver gainer. It also would be a cheap card to gain from trash with Gravedigger.

It fills some gaps in your set, but it looks a bit boring. I am not sure about the cost/balancing, but how about this:

Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from your hand.

Alternatively:

Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from you have in play.

Another thing: With so many cards and so many updates, it is not easy to figure out, which cards in your original post are actualized and if so, when. For example, I think I suggested to swap colors for Money Trick (yellow/blue; see Fool's Gold). Could you just give the date of the latest update below each card? That would be very helpful.

Thank you very much! I like your suggestions for Tiara. Updated to this, making gaining optional, so you can use it to trash Silvers withou gaining, if you want:




I updated all cards in the last three days, except the Ways and exactly Money Trick (the reason I didn't update it to change its colors yet is that it needs more work, since card Generator puts  a very large $ symbol and I have to edit on Corel).

For many of the cards, I just fixed the wording, following your suggestions. For others, I changed the card according to your comments and from other people.

I'll be very happy if you would comment the new versions. The ones below are the cards for which I changed something besides wording or art from original version.

For Buffoon I only added "non-Command" and for Shipmaster I only added "non-Duration". The rest have more significative changes from original.

For Secret Place, half of instructions are now in the mat. About the Ways, I'm working on changes.


                                                                                                              
                                            

     


And I added three new cards:

               



No one commented about these cards funcionalities, so I presume they are OK as cheap support cards:

                    


For these two landscapes I also didn't have feedbacks up to now:

     

[LittleFish]

No one commented about these cards funcionalities, so I presume they are OK as cheap support cards:

                    


For these two landscapes I also didn't have feedbacks up to now:

     

Maid looks fine, but I'm not good at balancing small things, so I'm probably not one to judge. Same with small village and minstrel. 

For Taverner, 2 buys may be too much, but I think that 1 buy would make the card too expensive. Maybe move the cost to 3 and give an additional vanilla bonus on play/on call?


 Valkyries seeks okay


Tie to the ground could be renamed "restrain" to be less of a mouthful. Also, it should be "discards an Action card or reveals a hand without actions"

Alert seems a little weak for a 4 cost project.

[Carline]

No one commented about these cards funcionalities, so I presume they are OK as cheap support cards:

                    


For these two landscapes I also didn't have feedbacks up to now:

     

Maid looks fine, but I'm not good at balancing small things, so I'm probably not one to judge. Same with small village and minstrel. 

For Taverner, 2 buys may be too much, but I think that 1 buy would make the card too expensive. Maybe move the cost to 3 and give an additional vanilla bonus on play/on call?


 Valkyries seeks okay


Tie to the ground could be renamed "restrain" to be less of a mouthful. Also, it should be "discards an Action card or reveals a hand without actions"

Alert seems a little weak for a 4 cost project.

I think the 2 Buys of Taverner are OK comparing to Squire, which also gives 2 buys and has other options. Taverner only can postpone these 2 buys to some future turn (at the price of not being played again until you use these buys).

I'll see about the landscapes.

Thank you!

Edited: Changed name to "Restrain" and fixed wording.



About Alert, I don't know, I think maybe it's OK. it is like play a Sentry without the trashing part. Comparing to other $4 Projects: Silos is Cellar limited to Coppers, Fair a Market Square.

[Carline]

I think I have to change something more. This way, you can always choose to trash a non-existent Silver from play and play your Silvers after that.

Edit: Changed to the version below. The on gain bonus make it a obvious buy than Silver? No, because are two stop cards instead of one. So, you have to want what it gives you at the cost of the slot in your hand (duplicate a played Silver or trash a played Silver).

[gambit05]

Wanderer
The double optional combination of Copper gaining/trashing looks a bit odd. A player can in principle gain a Copper to hand and then trash it immediately. Is there a reason to do it this way instead of “Choose one:…”? If yes, what about swapping the two parts (You may trash… You may gain…)?

Secret Place
For sure an interesting mechanic, but difficult to say how that will play out.
Wording (mat): drawing…

Workers
(I first thought the order has to be: +1 Action, +$1, +1 Villager (standard Vanilla first), but when I looked to the official cards, I realized that there is an apparent inconsistency between those from Guilds and those from Renaissance, e.g. Candlestick Maker has +1 Coffers after +1 Buy; but for Ducat it is the opposite. This could be on purpose to emphasize with +1 Coffers first that Ducat is a Treasure. Well on the other hand, Patron has +1 Villager before +$2. It's the newer expansion; so it's likely correct on Workers as it is. (I am a bit confused about this).

Emissary/Coin of Honor
Coin of Honor: “When you play this” is not necessary on Treasures anymore: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0 (see 1st line under "Cosmetic changes").
 What is the idea of the self-trashing option for +$1?

Faithful Knight
…tokens…

Buffon
Wording …(or shows they can’t). Even better is: …(or reveals they can’t). See e.g. Taxman, Villain, Raider.

Circus Camp
Might be a bit strong. I have a similar card that I will probably never show on the Forum. It gets the +2 Cards if a card costing $2 or more is discarded (it doesn’t have the +1 Buy), though perhaps my card is a bit weak.

Golden Spoils
Alternative wording (the effect might be a bit different in some cases): “If you have a Golden Spoils in play, +$2 and…

Immolater
This one can be really powerful under some circumstances.

Magic Library
Do you need the restriction to react only with one Magic Library? What is the idea behind it?

Marketplace
…or +$1. (full stop at the end).

Amazon
The cost is probably okay, but for the most expensive card of the set, it looks a bit boring.

Fruits/Fruit Mix
Maybe: “If this is worth at least $4, +2 Buys”.
“(counting this)” instead of (including this). See Bank.

Lending
Treasures
Wording suggestion: …this turn, instead of paying their cost in $, you may take…
If you already have Debt, does this card allow buying cards for Debt, i.e. does it override the “no buy when in Debt” rule?

Calmness
…token on their decks. ("deck"; singular not plural).

Divination
At the end of this turn,…
Seems to be very expensive for what it does.

Birth of Venus
Looks like a Donate variant. Is it worth to have it in the set?

Season’s Grace
…turn your Journey token over... […] …face up, +2 Cards. See Ranger.
 
Touch of Life
When and how often does this happen after you bought the Project? If only once per game, it might be better if it is an Event.

Nurse
Set one of them aside.
…at the end of this turn. (“after drawing” not needed). See The River’s Gift.

Jugate
How about: …with a total cost of $7.
I cannot figure out when I would do this, maybe near the end to gain a Duchy and an Estate for $6. Is there any other application for this I don’t see? With a cost reducer maybe (which are quite rare)?
Can “Jugate” considered to be an Event (I am talking about the name)?

Minstrel
I don’t think you need "(if any)". Since you reveal the cards, if you don’t have enough Action cards, you just can’t do it. For example: If you reveal only 1 Action card, you put it into your hand. That’s it. No Action card left, the other two cards are discarded.

Valkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.

Tie to Ground
…card (or reveals they can’t). See e.g. Taxman, Villain, Raider.

Alert
No need to reveal the cards.
“…look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any number of them and put the rest back [on top]* in any order. (~ wording of Sentry).
*I don’t think “on top” is really required. See Night Watchman.
Not the best name for a Project. Also some of the Events have names that do not sound like events.

I wonder whether you use some mechanics (something that happens at the end of this turn; gaining Horses), because you think they are required for a better interaction of the cards of the set, or whether it rather reflects a preference of what you like. It seems that you also have quite a lot of Treasure interaction. I don’t say any of these are bad, it is just an observation and I am curious about it.

[Carline]

Wanderer
The double optional combination of Copper gaining/trashing looks a bit odd. A player can in principle gain a Copper to hand and then trash it immediately. Is there a reason to do it this way instead of “Choose one:…”? If yes, what about swapping the two parts (You may trash… You may gain…)?

I answered this question to GendoIkari, see below. It's for edge cases, but if it looks a bit strange, maybe I should swap options.

Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.

I could avoid this effect of trash a Cooper from the Supply by changing order of options. However, I want to keep this possibilty for the few cases you may would want it like with Forager, Treasurer, Priest, Tomb and Sewers or, in the case of this set, Underworld Gate, Gravedigger and the Heirloom Blessed Gems (maybe this effect could be too strong with Tomb, but something similar happens with Lurker and Tomb).

Emissary/Coin of Honor
Coin of Honor: “When you play this” is not necessary on Treasures anymore: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0 (see 1st line under "Cosmetic changes").
 What is the idea of the self-trashing option for +$1?

The self-trashing is to get rid of Emissary when you don't want it anymore, shomething we would like to see in Moneylender or Ambassador.

Circus Camp
Might be a bit strong. I have a similar card that I will probably never show on the Forum. It gets the +2 Cards if a card costing $2 or more is discarded (it doesn’t have the +1 Buy), though perhaps my card is a bit weak.

it started as a , without the +buy. Both segura and silverspawn comments were that it was too strong, comparing it to Fugitive. So I changed it to and added the +Buy that was originally in Emissary. I think maybe it's OK this way, it's Worker's Village plus Cellar in one card. As you discard before draw any card, you have to do it from a smaller set of cards, which I think could counterbalance its power.

Magic Library
Do you need the restriction to react only with one Magic Library? What is the idea behind it?

Without this restriction, you could draw a Magic Library when you play the Magic Library, react with this new Magic Library, draw a new one and at the end play all your Magic Libraries reacting to just one attack. This clause was the way I found to avoid this. 

Immolater
This one can be really powerful under some circumstances.

Amazon
The cost is probably okay, but for the most expensive card of the set, it looks a bit boring.

I think you're right about both. Maybe I change some things to make Immolater the most expensive card of the set.

Divination
At the end of this turn,…
Seems to be very expensive for what it does.

It was cheaper, I change due to comments comparing it to Pursue.

Birth of Venus
Looks like a Donate variant. Is it worth to have it in the set?

I want a kind of reset buttom. I think this version plays different from Donate, you don't have free choice, you save the cards you have in play plus one card, so you have to manage to do it the best way. Thematically, this is the card which refers to set name, which is something I also like.

Touch of Life
When and how often does this happen after you bought the Project? If only once per game, it might be better if it is an Event.

Yes, maybe it would better be an event, like Inheritance.

Jugate
How about: …with a total cost of $7.
I cannot figure out when I would do this, maybe near the end to gain a Duchy and an Estate for $6. Is there any other application for this I don’t see? With a cost reducer maybe (which are quite rare)?
Can “Jugate” considered to be an Event (I am talking about the name)?

Besides the end game situation, which was intended and could be decisive, you could gain a and a Actions or a and a when you normally would buy a Gold. If I'm building an engine, there would be many situations I would prefer, for instance, a Village and a Smith than a Gold. In overall effect, It gives you + and +1 Buy, limited to this situation. About names, see below.

Minstrel
I don’t think you need "(if any)". Since you reveal the cards, if you don’t have enough Action cards, you just can’t do it. For example: If you reveal only 1 Action card, you put it into your hand. That’s it. No Action card left, the other two cards are discarded.

I know, i put this information just to make it clear. Somethink like the "(instead of your discard pile)" parentheses in Nights gained to hand. Maybe it's really not needed.

Valkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.

I think when you suffer a handsize Attack like Militia, Ghost Ship or Catapult, it's better to have a hand with Horse plus two cards than Valkyries plus two cards. The former gives you more chance to have a good turn. Anyway, the reaction is optional.

Alert
No need to reveal the cards.
“…look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any number of them and put the rest back [on top]* in any order. (~ wording of Sentry).
*I don’t think “on top” is really required. See Night Watchman.
Not the best name for a Project. Also some of the Events have names that do not sound like events.

Please tell which names you don't think are OK. I don't know all the subtleties of English language. I know many names for events are deverbal words, but maybe I thought there's more freedom to derive verbs from names. For Projects, I don't know by seeing existing ones what is the criterion for names.

I wonder whether you use some mechanics (something that happens at the end of this turn; gaining Horses), because you think they are required for a better interaction of the cards of the set, or whether it rather reflects a preference of what you like. It seems that you also have quite a lot of Treasure interaction. I don’t say any of these are bad, it is just an observation and I am curious about it.

I put three cards that deal with Horses to have more interactions between them and justify more the presence of Horse pile when play IRL (for the opposite reason, I'm changing the only card in set that gave hexes in previous version). There's a lot of Nights, but all have a reason to be a Night. Yes, I was doing the cards with mechanics I like, maybe without a more systematic vision. I should deepen this analysis now.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! 

[silverspawn]

Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?

[Carline]

Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?

No, I didn't answer it before. For most of them, I write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art". Sometimes I use "painting".

Talking about this:

One thing that the majority of people here ignore: What about giving the source/name of the artists?

I'm intending to credit these wonderful artists in cards text. I didn't do it yet because it's hard sometimes, the source often also doesn't mention the artist. I'll do it as soon as I can. Even if it' is for non-commercial and very limited use, they deserve the mention.

A curiosity. For the split pile, I didn't find an image for Fruit Mix which matches the image I intended to use for Fruits. So, I cartoonized a photo using an image editing software.

          

[silverspawn]

Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?

No, I didn't answer it before. For most of them, I write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art". Sometimes I use "painting".

I expected something else because that's similar to what I do, and I find it difficult to get good results. Maybe 'fantasy' is the keyword I'm missing.

How much time per card does this take, roughly?

[Carline]

Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?

No, I didn't answer it before. For most of them, I write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art". Sometimes I use "painting".

I expected something else because that's similar to what I do, and I find it difficult to get good results. Maybe 'fantasy' is the keyword I'm missing.

How much time per card does this take, roughly?

Yes, I think "fantasy" helps, as  the most of the art relating to the universe of medieval games are classified as "fantasy art".

The time varies a lot. Sometimes I find a good image in first search, sometimes it takes more than half a hour and a lot of synonyms search. The secret is persistence. Maybe I spend more time than English speakers, because I also have to do additional searchs to find synoyms and compensate my poor vocabulary. 

When I find an image which aesthetic is close to what I want, but somehow it doesn't fits card space or still isn't the ideal image, I search for related images. 

[gambit05]

Wanderer
The double optional combination of Copper gaining/trashing looks a bit odd. A player can in principle gain a Copper to hand and then trash it immediately. Is there a reason to do it this way instead of “Choose one:…”? If yes, what about swapping the two parts (You may trash… You may gain…)?

I answered this question to GendoIkari, see below. It's for edge cases, but if it looks a bit strange, maybe I should swap options.

Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.

I could avoid this effect of trash a Cooper from the Supply by changing order of options. However, I want to keep this possibilty for the few cases you may would want it like with Forager, Treasurer, Priest, Tomb and Sewers or, in the case of this set, Underworld Gate, Gravedigger and the Heirloom Blessed Gems (maybe this effect could be too strong with Tomb, but something similar happens with Lurker and Tomb).

Well, it is a $2 cost card. It doesn't have to cover edge cases.

Emissary/Coin of Honor
Coin of Honor: “When you play this” is not necessary on Treasures anymore: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0 (see 1st line under "Cosmetic changes").
 What is the idea of the self-trashing option for +$1?

The self-trashing is to get rid of Emissary when you don't want it anymore, shomething we would like to see in Moneylender or Ambassador.

There is a reason that some strong cards have a drawback. To make a card interesting does not necessarily mean that you give it all possible strength.

Divination
At the end of this turn,…
Seems to be very expensive for what it does.

It was cheaper, I change due to comments comparing it to Pursue.

Don't forget you have to invest $4 for a one time event that is not too strong, even if you are lucky and name 2 or 3 of the card you want, which for strong card, is not expected. Just ask yourself under which conditions you would spend $4 for a single event.

Birth of Venus
Looks like a Donate variant. Is it worth to have it in the set?

I want a kind of reset buttom. I think this version plays different from Donate, you don't have free choice, you save the cards you have in play plus one card, so you have to manage to do it the best way. Thematically, this is the card which refers to set name, which something I also like.

Understandable.

Valkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.

I think when you suffer a handsize Attack like Militia, Ghost Ship or Catapult, it's better to have a hand with Horse plus two cards than Valkyries plus two cards. The former gives you more chance to have a good turn. Anyway, the reaction is optional.

How many hand size Attacks does your set have? Aside of that, maybe make the Reaction a bit stronger, for example set it aside and put it back to hand like Horse Trade does, let it cost $4. Just an idea.

Alert
No need to reveal the cards.
“…look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any number of them and put the rest back [on top]* in any order. (~ wording of Sentry).
*I don’t think “on top” is really required. See Night Watchman.
Not the best name for a Project. Also some of the Events have names that do not sound like events.

Please tell which names you don't think are OK. I don't know all the subtleties of English language. I know many names for events are deverbal words, but maybe I thought there's more freedom to derive verbs from names. For Projects, I don't know by seeing existing ones what is the criterion for names.

You can name them like you want. I just thought finding a proper name would be nice. I don't know the subtleties of English either. I can only tell you how I try to find names for Event and Projects. So, my rule of thumb is simple: When something occurs it is an Event. When something can be build, it is a Project. Please keep in mind that several official Events/Projects don't fit to this, but at least if you use it this way, it will be probably appropriate. If you like, I can later look to the names and will tell you what I think about them.

I wonder whether you use some mechanics (something that happens at the end of this turn; gaining Horses), because you think they are required for a better interaction of the cards of the set, or whether it rather reflects a preference of what you like. It seems that you also have quite a lot of Treasure interaction. I don’t say any of these are bad, it is just an observation and I am curious about it.

I put three cards that deal with Horses to have more interactions between them and justify more the presence of Horse pile when play IRL (for the opposite reason, I'm changing the only card in set that gave hexes in previous version). There's a lot of Nights, but all have a reason to be a Night. Yes, I was doing the cards with mechanics I like, maybe without a more systematic vision. I should deepen this analysis now.

Don't worry. I was just curious. Nights and Horses are nice mechanics. I consider Night almost as a standard mechanic like Duration. Good that you removed a single card giving Hexes. That would be too much preparation in real life just for one card in the whole set.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

You are welcome!

[gambit05]

One thing that the majority of people here ignore: What about giving the source/name of the artists?

I'm intending to credit these wonderful artists in cards text. I didn't do it yet because it's hard sometimes, the source often also doesn't mention the artist. I'll do it as soon as I can. Even if it' is for non-commercial and very limited use, they deserve the mention.

Good! Have you tried Google searches for the images? There are also other free web based tools that search for sources of images around. Sometimes, when you really can't find the artist, you could give the source (website).

[Carline]

Valkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.

I think when you suffer a handsize Attack like Militia, Ghost Ship or Catapult, it's better to have a hand with Horse plus two cards than Valkyries plus two cards. The former gives you more chance to have a good turn. Anyway, the reaction is optional.

How many hand size Attacks does your set have? Aside of that, maybe make the Reaction a bit stronger, for example set it aside and put it back to hand like Horse Trade does, let it cost $4. Just an idea.

There's one handsize attack in the Ways set. Added "or topdeck" to reaction. I think it makes it a bit better and the card can still costs .



Added this card with discard Attack and two other things that would be good to have more on set, a Curser and Action money (I don't mind to have too many cards on set by now, I will playtest to see which of them works well).



Didn't have a Throne Room variant, so I made this. It's ok at $2?



Removed self trashing from Emissary and changed the Heirloom.

          

[gambit05]

Nightmare
This looks a bit weak when compared to other $5 cost Cursers. Maybe, add a +1 Buy to it, and remove it from Circus Camp, which seems to be strong enough without it.

Mirror
Looks okay at a first glance.


I just had a look at your Attack Ways.

Format/Wording:
Set aside…
In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).
Harpy: …with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card. See Soldier.
Medusa: …may discards (singular) a Curse. If they don’t, they gain… See Mountebank.

Concept:
The attacks (especially Harpy) can be really unfunny when Necropolis is in the game. Just imagine, the player who plays Necropolis first hits an opponent with 5 Coppers in their hand. How about restricting the Attacks, e.g.:
“If you have at least one other (Action) card in play, each other player…”

[silverspawn]

Weak junkers are good. But I think Emissary has no good reason to be voluntary.

[Carline]

Weak junkers are good. But I think Emissary has no good reason to be voluntary.

I made it voluntary to avoid mandatory trashing when played by something like Ghost, Golem, Piazza or Citadel.

I think I nerfed it a bit much and it can give you . You gain and your opponents gain next turn for you to do a kind of Ambassador attack (limited to one card you get rid of).

     

[silverspawn]

Official cards don't have 'you may' if there's no reason, see this comment. Of course, you don't have to adhere to every design principle of official cards, but some people want to.

I think the card is pretty strong now.

[Carline]

For the attack Ways, it just seems a little overkill to have 3 cards that do the "same", the only difference being which card is set aside / played. What if it was just one Way, and for the set aside part, it says "set aside one of x,y, or z" or give them a type and have it set aside one of those type (then maybe you can even have some other cards that interact with that type?)

Way of the Mermaid is strictly better than Pig; not that there are necessarily rules about avoiding strictly better ways, but it makes sense to try and do so.
Way of the Sphinx is probably too good (and strictly better than Pig); Wishing Well already exists as a card, this just makes any action you want into a Wishing Well.

I just had a look at your Attack Ways.

Format/Wording:
Set aside…
In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).
Harpy: …with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card. See Soldier.
Medusa: …may discards (singular) a Curse. If they don’t, they gain… See Mountebank.

Concept:
The attacks (especially Harpy) can be really unfunny when Necropolis is in the game. Just imagine, the player who plays Necropolis first hits an opponent with 5 Coppers in their hand. How about restricting the Attacks, e.g.:
“If you have at least one other (Action) card in play, each other player…”

Updated the Ways. Following the suggestion of Scolapasta, I made just one card (Way of the Beast) play all the attacks (adding by myself that makes it at random).

Added to the Way of the Beast the clause suggested by gambit05 to avoid play it by Necropolis in first turns. This clause also avoid an overdose of attacks.

With this clause and  the random play, there's less risk in their effect  be too strong. So, I added the attack part attack of an existent card to each Beast, except Sphynx:

- Gargoyle does Spy attack.
- Harpy does Militia attacck.
- Medusa does Witch attack.
- Quimera does Swindler attack.
- She-Wolf does Rabble attack (instead of Werewolf attack to avoid add Hexes to the set and don't have two random picks at the same play)

Sphynx attack is made to fit Sphynx tradition of "solve the riddle or I eat you".

About non-Attack Ways, I changed Way of the Mermaid to not be strictly better than Way of the Pig, as GendoIkari pointed. Though, in terms of game playing, it happens sometimes with Way of the Mouse, i agree it's more elegant if a Way doesn't be strictly better than other by default. Also added Way of the Birdwoman
 

  Ways

               


Way of the Beast and Beasts set

     

                                  

[LastFootnote]

Horse Lady shouldn't have a dividing line.

I'm pretty sure Way of the Birdwoman was tried during testing and didn't make the cut.

Way of the Centaur is too weak. It should be "Gain 2 Horses." That was tested and was fine, but it died for flavor reasons.

[Carline]

Horse Lady shouldn't have a dividing line.

I'm pretty sure Way of the Birdwoman was tried during testing and didn't make the cut.

Way of the Centaur is too weak. It should be "Gain 2 Horses." That was tested and was fine, but it died for flavor reasons.

Thank you Lastfootnote!

Horse Lady previous version had a "While this is in play". I forgot to remove the dividing line when I changed it. Updated.

Yes, I read now about the Way which gives Horses in Secret History. Due to te same flavor question, I think the best version for the Way of the Centaur would be "Gain 1 Horse and 1 Villager". Updated to it.

Way of the Birdwoman seems intersting to me. Do you remember why it didn't make the cut?


     

[segura]

Centaur looks like a better Pig now.

[Carline]

Centaur looks like a better Pig now.

it's not strictly better, as the card drew by Pig goes to your hand.

[segura]

I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.

[gambit05]

Some wording:

Way of the Centaur: +1 Villager. Gain a Horse.

Gargoyle: ...card of their deck...
Should be gender neutral. If you want to be funny you could write ...of her deck...

I like the new Way of the Beast idea to put them all together. I especially like the Set up sentence. I always wanted to shuffle beasts face down...
More serious: Do the players know the next Beast, i.e. is the top one face up? From the wording I assume no, but it may be worth to think about this as a set up.

[Carline]

I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.

In terms of game playing, I don't think it's a big problem, as it plays differently. All of these cards can be played by Way of the Mouse and are not only better than Way of the Pig, but strictly better than it (in many cases, so much better):

Harbinger, Merchant, Village, Pawn, Wishing Well, Haven, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Menagerie, Scheme, Vagrant, Market Square, Sage, Urchin, Caravan Guard, Patrician, Settlers, Chariot Race, Pixie, Secret Cave, Border Guard.

I think it's possible in the case of the Ways and already done by an official card (Way of the Mouse) because of the recomendation of not using more than one Way per game. They will never be seen togheter, so there's no risk of the weaker be useless.

Edit: I also don't think Way of the Centaur is too much strong. You spend a card and an Action now to have a card and an Action in the future. If you save the action for the future, it's terminal.

[Carline]

Gargoyle: ...card of their deck...

Should be gender neutral. If you want to be funny you could write ...of her deck...

I did ctrl-c ctrl-v in Spy text at Wiki and I didn't notice it. Of course, I don't want the cards of this set to use male pronoms. For my taste, I would use "her", but I think it's better be neutral. I will change it. Thank you!

I like the new Way of the Beast idea to put them all together. I especially like the Set up sentence. I always wanted to shuffle beasts face down...
More serious: Do the players know the next Beast, i.e. is the top one face up? From the wording I assume no, but it may be worth to think about this as a set up.

I used the same rule used for Hexes. I think I will keep the next Beast unrevealed, because if it's Medusa and Curses are gone no one would want to play it.

In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).

So I think I can remove it from Novices also, right?

[LastFootnote]

Way of the Birdwoman seems intersting to me. Do you remember why it didn't make the cut?

I don't, sorry!

[gambit05]

Gargoyle: ...card of their deck...

Should be gender neutral. If you want to be funny you could write ...of her deck...

I did ctrl-c ctrl-v in Spy text at Wiki and I didn't notice it. Of course, I don't want the cards of this set to use male pronoms. For my taste, I would use "her", but I think it's better be neutral. I will change it. Thank you!

If you are looking how official cards word certain things, better look for cards from newer expansions and 2nd Editions. Wordings change over time, mostly to avoid edge cases, make the instructions clearer or simpler etc... In the case of "they" vs. "he", it changed sometimes around Adventures or so I think. Since Spy was removed from the Base game, 2nd Edition, it didn't got any changes.

I like the new Way of the Beast idea to put them all together. I especially like the Set up sentence. I always wanted to shuffle beasts face down...
More serious: Do the players know the next Beast, i.e. is the top one face up? From the wording I assume no, but it may be worth to think about this as a set up.

I used the same rule used for Hexes. I think I will keep the next Beast unrevealed, because if it's Medusa and Curses are gone no one would want to play it.[/quotes]

That is a good point. However, it doesn't has to be a bad thing when the Beasts are tamed a bit later in the game. A player could always try to uncover the next Beast if they really want.

In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).

So I think I can remove it from Novices also, right?

I would say yes. There are no equivalent official cards, but since the Novices do not form a pile, I would label them as I've mentioned above. Maybe LastFootnote is so kind to tell us what he thinks about. He is the expert!

Edit: I forget one thing, wording on Way of the Beast. It should be something like: "If you have another Action card* in play,..." or "If you have at least one other Action card in play,...".

I am not 100% sure whether the first version is unambiguous, but I would say it is clear what it means.

*Some official cards just use Action (without "card"), but I prefer to include "card".

[segura]

I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.

In terms of game playing, I don't think it's a big problem, as it plays differently. All of these cards can be played by Way of the Mouse and are not only better than Way of the Pig, but strictly better than it (in many cases, so much better):

Harbinger, Merchant, Village, Pawn, Wishing Well, Haven, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Menagerie, Scheme, Vagrant, Market Square, Sage, Urchin, Caravan Guard, Patrician, Settlers, Chariot Race, Pixie, Secret Cave, Border Guard.

I think it's possible in the case of the Ways and already done by an official card (Way of the Mouse) because of the recomendation of not using more than one Way per game. They will never be seen togheter, so there's no risk of the weaker be useless.

Edit: I also don't think Way of the Centaur is too much strong. You spend a card and an Action now to have a card and an Action in the future. If you save the action for the future, it's terminal.

You are right that it is not a huge difference and Ways are less sensitive to power differences than Kingdom cards anyway. I nonetheless think that the card is too similar to Pig. I think it would be smarter to do stuff with only Villagers or Horses; that differentiates it more from official Ways.

[gambit05]

I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.

In terms of game playing, I don't think it's a big problem, as it plays differently. All of these cards can be played by Way of the Mouse and are not only better than Way of the Pig, but strictly better than it (in many cases, so much better):

Harbinger, Merchant, Village, Pawn, Wishing Well, Haven, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Menagerie, Scheme, Vagrant, Market Square, Sage, Urchin, Caravan Guard, Patrician, Settlers, Chariot Race, Pixie, Secret Cave, Border Guard.

I think it's possible in the case of the Ways and already done by an official card (Way of the Mouse) because of the recomendation of not using more than one Way per game. They will never be seen togheter, so there's no risk of the weaker be useless.

Edit: I also don't think Way of the Centaur is too much strong. You spend a card and an Action now to have a card and an Action in the future. If you save the action for the future, it's terminal.

You are right that it is not a huge difference and Ways are less sensitive to power differences than Kingdom cards anyway. I nonetheless think that the card is too similar to Pig. I think it would be smarter to do stuff with only Villagers or Horses; that differentiates it more from official Ways.

Flavour-wise, a Way of the Centaur giving a Villager and a Horse looks perfect.

[segura]

You are absolutely right, I totally missed the theme!

[scolapasta]

Re: Beasts

1) it seems too similar to Hexes; though I guess it is different than a way that just said "Each other player receives the next Hex" since it can be blocked.

2) since they are not hexes; the "play, leaving it there" is awkward, since I assume you're then supposed to discard it somewhere? Or move it to the bottom of the pile? As written, I'd read this as you don't know the beast until the first time it's used, but then it's that beast for the rest of the game.
3) if someone gets to a point where they have a whole bunch of actions (or villagers) and action cards, can they just devastate other players on a turn? I wonder if some limit of once per turn would be good?

[Carline]

Re: Beasts

1) it seems too similar to Hexes; though I guess it is different than a way that just said "Each other player receives the next Hex" since it can be blocked.

2) since they are not hexes; the "play, leaving it there" is awkward, since I assume you're then supposed to discard it somewhere? Or move it to the bottom of the pile? As written, I'd read this as you don't know the beast until the first time it's used, but then it's that beast for the rest of the game.
3) if someone gets to a point where they have a whole bunch of actions (or villagers) and action cards, can they just devastate other players on a turn? I wonder if some limit of once per turn would be good?

Thank you Scolapasta!

I make it now more different from Hexes adding gambit05 idea of revealing the active Beast. To make it possible, I changed Medusa to give Coppers when Curses are gone.

Added a kind of Idol clause to make Beasts be played every other time. I think this way it makes hard to do a big devastation with them.

Stated their rules, so I think there's no need to they be in the cards.


Way of the Beast and Beasts set

     

                                  

BEASTS SETUP AND RULES - If Way of the Beast is in the game, shuffle all the Beasts face down and flip the top Beast face up. - “Play the next Beast” is to play the top Beast without put it in play area, set it aside and flip the next Beast of the pile face up. - When all the Beasts are set aside, restart the process.

As the set didn't have a protection, I added this:

[Timinou]

Just to clarify, when you play a Beast, would it be considered to be "in play"?
Also, if I understand correctly, previous Action cards don't need to be played as Ways for the purposes of determining which effect gets triggered by Way of the Beast, right?

I think there needs to be some text somewhere to clarify that the Beasts stay in the supply and don't come into your deck when you play them. 

Way of the Beast should say "If you have an odd number of Actions cards...".

For Gargoyle, I would recommend switching "his" for "their".

My sense is that this is still quite powerful.

Edit: Clarified question

[Carline]

Just to clarify, when you play a Beast, would it be considered to be "in play"?
Also, if I understand correctly, previous Action cards don't need to be played as Ways for the purposes of determining which effect gets triggered by Way of the Beast, right?

I think there needs to be some text somewhere to clarify that the Beasts stay in the supply and don't come into your deck when you play them. 

Way of the Beast should say "If you have an odd number of Actions cards...".

For Gargoyle, I would recommend switching "his" for "their".

My sense is that this is still quite powerful.

Edit: Clarified question

Thank you Timinou!

Fixed the two texts.

I put in the post above the setup and rules for Beasts:

BEASTS SETUP AND RULES - If Way of the Beast is in the game, shuffle all the Beasts face down and flip the top Beast face up. - “Play the next Beast” is to play the top Beast without put it in play area, set it aside and flip the next Beast of the pile face up. - When all the Beasts are set aside, restart the process.

[scolapasta]

I guess I'm still not as convinced on Beasts being random and not very different from Hexes. (i.e. if the random aspect were important, you could have Way of the Beast say "This turn, this is also an Attack. Each other player receives the next Hex.", so they can be still be reacted to)

That said, I like the idea of the beasts, so would suggest keeping the individual beasts and just have the Way set one aside and then play the set aside one, leaving it there (so more like Way of the Mouse). In this way (pun!), you could also make the specific beasts' attacks either non-stackable or fairly weak (as you wouldn't be able to attack multiple ways (pun again!) and get rid of the even / odd clause.

[Timinou]

Carline, I went through the Action cards now that they have gone through some revisions.  I didn't read through the entire thread, so apologies if this regurgitates or contradicts any feedback you already received from others.  I don't consider myself an expert player, so please keep that in mind when reviewing my comments.

Maid: I think this is quite strong for $2 cost card.  I would consider changing it to $3 or removing one of the choices. 

Mirror: I like your Throne Room variant.  I'm not sure if it should cost $2 or $3.  I think in most cases you would choose to trash Mirror, unless you are using it to trash Ruins (which makes this better than Throne Room in this scenario). 

Faithful Knight: I think there's a "." after the +1VP that doesn't need to be there.

Gravedigger:  Salvager and Graverobber had a baby!  It's beautiful, but I think the wording could be simplified a bit.  I don't think it's necessary to have "If the trashed card costs $1 or more" (you can refer to how it is worded in Salvager).

Nurse: There is a stray "it" after "card" in the third sentence.  Nurse is vulnerable to hand size attacks unlike Duration cards like Gear, Church, and Cargo Ship.  It's not necessarily a flaw, but I'm just curious if that was intentional.

Sacred Hall: This is an interesting one.  I can see this being the type of card that creates a race to buy as many as possible, because once you have enough of them, you can safely trash Provinces and Colonies to net additional VP.

Underworld Gate: I think it's a good choice to only allow you to gain cards if you trash a card that isn't already in the trash.  Otherwise, I think this would run the risk of being too centralizing, as you could potentially have enough unique cards in the trash to grab Provinces or Colonies with this.

Warriors:  It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4. 

Wishing Fountain: I think this should cost $3 like Wishing Well, or you should consider tweaking it to be able to reveal more than 2 cards to find matches.  You'd have to be quite lucky to have both cards be the same; in most cases you will probably only gain 1 card to your hand.

Blessing: I feel like the net result of this is that you pay $5 now to gain a card costing up to $6 directly to your hand in the future.  The option to trash in nice and there is some synergy with Blessed Gems if play both in the same turn, but it still seems a bit weak overall.

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester). 

Circus Camp: I think it may be overpriced; it's effectively a slightly better Village.

Golden Spoils: I like how you've combined Spoils with Fool's Gold.  Shouldn't the top corners should say $? instead of $2?, since they can be worth either $2 or $4?

Immolater: I'm not sure about the cost here.  It's essentially a Chapel that gives you some coin.  It could be quite strong early in the game, but will become much weaker over the course of the game, especially in games without cursers or junkers.

Magic Library: What is the rationale behind the wording for the reaction "After another player finishes playing an Attack card...", as opposed to the more standard "When another player plays an Attack card"?

Shipmaster:  If I understand the card correctly, is this essentially like a Scheme except that it gives you one additional action this turn and +1 Card the next?

Paladin: I think this is a bit weak for $6.  It's slightly better than Destrier because of the sifting, but Destrier has a variable cost and is usually expensive at $6.

Guildmaster and Novices
I think this is a very creative and innovative mechanism!  I would love to see you explore this design space more. 
Young Saboteur: Typo ("trashes" not "trashs")

I haven't carefully reviewed the Events, Projects, and Ways (other than Way of the Beast) yet, but will try to do so when I have a chance.

Overall, I think the set looks quite good.  I haven't really paid much attention to how all the cards work together, since there are quite a lot of them.  There are some very intriguing concepts like the Secret Place mat and Hidden Pond mat. 




 

[Carline]

Maid: I think this is quite strong for $2 cost card.  I would consider changing it to $3 or removing one of the choices.

 



I think it's OK. It's the female version of Pawn. Both give you two vanilla bonus (different for Pawn, same for Maid). All the things Maid could do are similar or weaker than what a cost card does - 2 Cards (Moat), 2 Actions (Necropolis), 2 Buys (less than a Squire), (less than a Duchess).

Mirror: I like your Throne Room variant.  I'm not sure if it should cost $2 or $3.  I think in most cases you would choose to trash Mirror, unless you are using it to trash Ruins (which makes this better than Throne Room in this scenario). 

I think it's also good to trash actions you won't use anymore, like Moneylender. I think it's OK at .

Faithful Knight: I think there's a "." after the +1VP that doesn't need to be there.

This "." is the way I found to make Card Generator put bold font in the "+1" before Victory symbol. In previous version, I deleted the "." in Photoshop. This last time I forgot it. Fixed.

Gravedigger:  Salvager and Graverobber had a baby!  It's beautiful, but I think the wording could be simplified a bit.  I don't think it's necessary to have "If the trashed card costs $1 or more" (you can refer to how it is worded in Salvager).

I put this clause for it doesn't stay unnecessarily next turn when you trash Coppers with it.

Nurse: There is a stray "it" after "card" in the third sentence.  Nurse is vulnerable to hand size attacks unlike Duration cards like Gear, Church, and Cargo Ship.  It's not necessarily a flaw, but I'm just curious if that was intentional.

When I made Nurse I had in mind Save and Doctor. I put the reveal top 3 from Doctor and a card at end of turn like Save. Like save, it is not immune to discard attacks. It's intended. I didn't want it to stay two turns each time to do its effect. That "it" came when I copied text from Save. Fixed.

Warriors:  It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.

I initially thought to put it at , but it's stackable and could give you a lot of +buys, so I think maybe it' OK at . I don't know for sure.

Wishing Fountain: I think this should cost $3 like Wishing Well, or you should consider tweaking it to be able to reveal more than 2 cards to find matches.  You'd have to be quite lucky to have both cards be the same; in most cases you will probably only gain 1 card to your hand.

Did you see it cares about card types and not card names?

Blessing: I feel like the net result of this is that you pay $5 now to gain a card costing up to $6 directly to your hand in the future.  The option to trash in nice and there is some synergy with Blessed Gems if play both in the same turn, but it still seems a bit weak overall.

I don't think this version is weak, it's vanishing Chapel plus a kind of Feast.

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Circus Camp: I think it may be overpriced; it's effectively a slightly better Village.

Other people think it's almost too strong, so i think maybe it's OK.

Golden Spoils: I like how you've combined Spoils with Fool's Gold.  Shouldn't the top corners should say $? instead of $2?, since they can be worth either $2 or $4?

Yes, changed.

Immolater: I'm not sure about the cost here.  It's essentially a Chapel that gives you some coin.  It could be quite strong early in the game, but will become much weaker over the course of the game, especially in games without cursers or junkers.

I think maybe it's a card which cost is hard to evaluate. Some comments are that it should cost more, even .

Magic Library: What is the rationale behind the wording for the reaction "After another player finishes playing an Attack card...", as opposed to the more standard "When another player plays an Attack card"?

It changes the moment you do the Reaction. if you suffer a discard attack, first you would discard, after you would react and have 5 cards again.

Shipmaster:  If I understand the card correctly, is this essentially like a Scheme except that it gives you one additional action this turn and +1 Card the next?

Global effect is like play Village + Caravan + Scheme.

Paladin: I think this is a bit weak for $6.  It's slightly better than Destrier because of the sifting, but Destrier has a variable cost and is usually expensive at $6.

The comparison has to be not with Destrier, but with Laboratory, which has a fixed cost of to do the same of Destrier. Comparing to Laboratory, Paladin is OK at .

Guildmaster and Novices
I think this is a very creative and innovative mechanism!  I would love to see you explore this design space more. 
Young Saboteur: Typo ("trashes" not "trashs")

               

Thank you. Fixed text. Also removed "this is not in the Supply" from Novices. I think it's not needed, as they are permanently set aside.

I haven't carefully reviewed the Events, Projects, and Ways (other than Way of the Beast) yet, but will try to do so when I have a chance.

I'll be very happy to see your comments.

Overall, I think the set looks quite good.  I haven't really paid much attention to how all the cards work together, since there are quite a lot of them.  There are some very intriguing concepts like the Secret Place mat and Hidden Pond mat. 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TIMINOU!

[Gubump]

Magic Library: What is the rationale behind the wording for the reaction "After another player finishes playing an Attack card...", as opposed to the more standard "When another player plays an Attack card"?

The wording Magic Library has makes it trigger after the Attack takes effect, whereas the standard wording would make it trigger before. Magic Library's wording makes it a better defense against e.g. Militia-class attacks.

Paladin: I think this is a bit weak for $6.  It's slightly better than Destrier because of the sifting, but Destrier has a variable cost and is usually expensive at $6.

I think you're underestimating it. It's strictly better than a Laboratory (Laboratory is just draw 2, Paladin is draw best 2 out of 3), so it has to cost at least . And best 2 out of 3 is actually quite a bit better than random 2 out of 2. Laboratory is already a high-tier . Laboratory's not a top-tier or unbalanced by any means, but if anything, Paladin is actually too good, imho.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Here's my response to Carline's most recent comments:

I think it's OK. It's the female version of Pawn. Both give you two vanilla bonus (different for Pawn, same for Maid). All the things Maid could do are similar or weaker than what a cost card does - 2 Cards (Moat), 2 Actions (Necropolis), 2 Buys (less than a Squire), (less than a Duchess).

I think Timinou is right, actually. Remember that the versatility is a BIG deal. Let's analyze the options that Pawn has:
+1 Card, +1 Action: Useless cantrip. Can't actually exist by itself, so I'll call it a effect.
+1 Card, +1 Buy: +1 Card and +1 Buy aren't all that much better combined than by themselves. And that's because the strength of +Cards and +Buys are very highly dependent on what else the card does; more so than other vanilla effects. I'd probably call this a effect; it would be reasonable for an Attack card to give out a card with this effect.
+1 Card, +: +Cards are generally better than +, so this is between +2 Cards and +. Probably a effect.
+1 Action, +1 Buy: See my comment on +1 Card, +1 Buy. Another effect.
+1 Buy, +: Strictly worse than even a terminal Candlestick Maker, and strictly worse than Herbalist, which is already a bottom-tier -cost. Probably a effect.
As you can see, most of the effects that Pawn can give are junk-level bad, and the rest are Scout-level. Maid, on the other hand, has some effects that would be reasonable to pay for without the versatility. I'd say the Maid's strictly-better-than-+2 Cards-ness is superior to Moat's, and that Maid should probably cost . Likewise, Maid's strictly-better-than-+-ness is superior to Duchess's. In fact, I'd argue that Duchess is actually worse than a pure +, as your opponents didn't have to spend a buy and then later a card slot and an action to get the self-spy effect. Giving an effect to every player is generally worse than not getting it at all for this reason.

I put this clause for it doesn't stay unnecessarily next turn when you trash Coppers with it.

It doesn't need that clause to avoid staying out unnecessarily. The official rule for Durations is that "a Duration is not discarded from play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn on which it does something," and getting + doesn't count as "doing something." Same reason Research doesn't stay in play when you trash a Copper with it (putting zero set aside cards into your hand doesn't count as "doing something").

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

Warriors:  It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.

I initially thought to put it at , but it's stackable and could give you a lot of +buys, so I think maybe it' OK at . I don't know for sure.

You play Dominion very differently from how I do if you don't think that getting upwards of 4 Buys is needlessly excessive most of the time. The excessive amount of +Buys you can get usually doesn't make up for the fact that it's more expensive than Village and doesn't draw. Because of cards like Villa and Cavalry, the fact that the conversion is mandatory can even be detrimental in some instances.

[Carline]

EDIT: Ninja'd. Here's my response to Carline's most recent comments:

I think it's OK. It's the female version of Pawn. Both give you two vanilla bonus (different for Pawn, same for Maid). All the things Maid could do are similar or weaker than what a cost card does - 2 Cards (Moat), 2 Actions (Necropolis), 2 Buys (less than a Squire), (less than a Duchess).

I think Timinou is right, actually. Remember that the versatility is a BIG deal. Let's analyze the options that Pawn has:
+1 Card, +1 Action: Useless cantrip. Can't actually exist by itself, so I'll call it a effect.
+1 Card, +1 Buy: +1 Card and +1 Buy aren't all that much better combined than by themselves. And that's because the strength of +Cards and +Buys are very highly dependent on what else the card does; more so than other vanilla effects. I'd probably call this a effect; it would be reasonable for an Attack card to give out a card with this effect.
+1 Card, +: +Cards are generally better than +, so this is between +2 Cards and +. Probably a effect.
+1 Action, +1 Buy: See my comment on +1 Card, +1 Buy. Another effect.
+1 Buy, +: Strictly worse than even a terminal Candlestick Maker, and strictly worse than Herbalist, which is already a bottom-tier -cost. Probably a effect.
As you can see, most of the effects that Pawn can give are junk-level bad, and the rest are Scout-level. Maid, on the other hand, has some effects that would be reasonable to pay for without the versatility. I'd say the Maid's strictly-better-than-+2 Cards-ness is superior to Moat's, and that Maid should probably cost . Likewise, Maid's strictly-better-than-+-ness is superior to Duchess's. In fact, I'd argue that Duchess is actually worse than a pure +, as your opponents didn't have to spend a buy and then later a card slot and an action to get the self-spy effect. Giving an effect to every player is generally worse than not getting it at all for this reason.

Yes, you're both right. Changed. Thematically, happy to make make more valued the Maid's job.

I put this clause for it doesn't stay unnecessarily next turn when you trash Coppers with it.

It doesn't need that clause to avoid staying out unnecessarily. The official rule for Durations is that "a Duration is not discarded from play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn on which it does something," and getting + doesn't count as "doing something." Same reason Research doesn't stay in play when you trash a Copper with it (putting zero set aside cards into your hand doesn't count as "doing something").

Changed. so much better without that text.

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

Warriors:  It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.

I initially thought to put it at , but it's stackable and could give you a lot of +buys, so I think maybe it' OK at . I don't know for sure.

You play Dominion very differently from how I do if you don't think that getting upwards of 4 Buys is needlessly excessive most of the time. The excessive amount of +Buys you can get usually doesn't make up for the fact that it's more expensive than Village and doesn't draw. Because of cards like Villa and Cavalry, the fact that the conversion is mandatory can even be detrimental in some instances.

I'm very far from being any kind of reference as a player. That's why I like so much the feedbacks all of you give to me.

As I said, I was not sure about it and you both helped confirming that is better. Also made conversion non-mandatory.



THANK YOU VERY MUCH GUBUMP!

[LittleFish]

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?

[Gubump]

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

Okay, your + token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be short if you didn't play the Buffoon.

I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?

You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.

EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1 due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.

[Carline]

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

Okay, your + token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be short if you didn't play the Buffoon.

I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?

You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.

EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1 due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.

I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?


EDIT: Does this wording works?

[Gubump]

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

Okay, your + token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be short if you didn't play the Buffoon.

I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?

You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.

EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1 due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.

I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?


EDIT: Does this wording works?

"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.

[Carline]

"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.

What about this wording?

[LittleFish]

Changed "show" to "reveals".

The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?

In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?

Okay, your + token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be short if you didn't play the Buffoon.

I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?

You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.

EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1 due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.

I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?


EDIT: Does this wording works?

"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.

Maybe "non-Command nor Victory" card?

[Carline]

Maybe "non-Command nor Victory" card?

Thank you, LittleFish. I reworded it again to this. Do you think it's OK?

[Gubump]

That's a much better wording.

[Carline]

Updated these cards:

               


I want more terminal draw, so added this. Better use is to set aside Estates and use as Den of Sin, while keeping them away from shuffle. I don't know, comparing to Research and Smith, if it's better at $3 or $4. 




Updated this Event:




Changed Touch of Life into an Event:




Added this event:




Merged Divination and Alert in one Project:




Added this Way from last Weekly Contest, changing theme and making it not staying until next turn.




Changed the beasts to use Novices mechanics of double face cards. Added a discard of a useful card, so it would not be so good with Necropolis and not so easy to play many of them in a turn.

Way of the Beast and Beasts set

     

  Beasts (Double face cards)

  Gargoyle/Sphynx

            

  Medusa/Quimera

                      

  She-Wolf/Harpy

          

BEASTS SETUP If Way of the Beast is in the game, set aside the Beats with Gargoyle, Medusa and She-Wolf face up.

[gambit05]

I have a few comments on your new cards.

Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"?

Way of the Werecat
Wording: …at the end of this turn (after drawing). See Way of the Squirrel, River’s Gift.

Way of the Beasts
I like the idea that you extend the Novice idea of the double-faced cards. This emphasizes your new concept in your set. However, there might be a problem. Gargoyle is too weak compared to the alternatives and would be likely rarely played and thus, Sphinx would be rarely seen.

[Carline]

I have a few comments on your new cards.

Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"

It was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.

Way of the Werecat
Wording: …at the end of this turn (after drawing). See Way of the Squirrel, River’s Gift.

I used the wording of Save, but the one you said is better.

Way of the Beasts
I like the idea that you extend the Novice idea of the double-faced cards. This emphasizes your new concept in your set. However, there might be a problem. Gargoyle is too weak compared to the alternatives and would be likely rarely played and thus, Sphinx would be rarely seen.

It does Spy in your deck too. You think it's weak even with it?.

[gambit05]

I have a few comments on your new cards.

Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"

It was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.

Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.

Way of the Werecat
Wording: …at the end of this turn (after drawing). See Way of the Squirrel, River’s Gift.

I used the wording of Save, but the one you said is better.

I wasn't aware of the wording of Save. Still, as you said the alternative looks better.
 

Way of the Beasts
I like the idea that you extend the Novice idea of the double-faced cards. This emphasizes your new concept in your set. However, there might be a problem. Gargoyle is too weak compared to the alternatives and would be likely rarely played and thus, Sphinx would be rarely seen.

It does Spy in your deck too. You think it's weak even with it?.

Yes. I would rather junk my opponents or mess with the top 3 cards of their deck instead of just one in the majority of the cases. Only when you can combine the Spy effect of Gargoyle with another card in your hand that strongly benefits from knowing, which card is on top, this becomes relevant. If I remember correctly, you have a few cards that do that, but without looking back to all your cards, I can't say how many you have in your set and how strong their effects are.

[Timinou]

Wishing Fountain: I think this should cost $3 like Wishing Well, or you should consider tweaking it to be able to reveal more than 2 cards to find matches.  You'd have to be quite lucky to have both cards be the same; in most cases you will probably only gain 1 card to your hand.

Did you see it cares about card types and not card names?

Oops...I missed that.  Card type is definitely easier than card name.

Blessing: I feel like the net result of this is that you pay $5 now to gain a card costing up to $6 directly to your hand in the future.  The option to trash in nice and there is some synergy with Blessed Gems if play both in the same turn, but it still seems a bit weak overall.

I don't think this version is weak, it's vanishing Chapel plus a kind of Feast.

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the cost and power level are fine.  It's better than Feast because a Wish gives you the flexibility to gain a card that will be most useful to you when you play it.

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose.  I'm still concerned about the power level.  One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster.  In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks.  In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate.  If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much. 

Also, how would this work with Ruins?  I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.         

[Carline]

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose.  I'm still concerned about the power level.  One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster.  In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks.  In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate.  If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much. 

Also, how would this work with Ruins?  I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.         

Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc). Buffoon will fail sometimes, but I think would be rare these cases when you best move with it is the sub-optimal Copper junking. Even in this cases, I think it's more intersting that your opponent have to see this possibilty than if occurs at random.

Buffoon would do good things for you most of the time, but it has the kind of swingness of Swindler. In a few edge cases, they can go against you. Just don't play your Swindler if your opponent has Peddlers and Pedllers pile is empty.

With Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.

[Timinou]

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose.  I'm still concerned about the power level.  One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster.  In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks.  In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate.  If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much. 

Also, how would this work with Ruins?  I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.         

Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).

Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile).  Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case. 

With Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.

Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.

Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack? 

[LittleFish]

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

[imgwidth=150]https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074[/img]

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose.  I'm still concerned about the power level.  One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster.  In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks.  In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate.  If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much. 

Also, how would this work with Ruins?  I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.         

Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).

Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile).  Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case. 

With Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.

Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.

Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack?

Also if someone reveals a moat

[Carline]

Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards.  I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester.  I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).

[imgwidth=150]https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074[/img]

If they choose a good card, you gain it. If  they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose.  I'm still concerned about the power level.  One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster.  In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks.  In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate.  If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much. 

Also, how would this work with Ruins?  I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.         

Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).

Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile).  Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case. 

With Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.

Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.

Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack?

Also if someone reveals a moat

Comparing to Jester attack part:

- If the revealed card is an Action, Treasure or Night, Buffoon is so much better than Jester: If you want to gain a copy, it’s the same; if it’s bad and you want to junk, you junk with an additional Copper; and you have the extra option of play it twice. If its pile is empty, Jester attack fails, Buffoon can play it twice.

- If the revealed card is a Curse, Buffoon junks with a Copper more. If Curse pile is out, Jester attack fails, Buffoon may give a Copper.

- If the revealed card is an Estate, with Buffoon you junk with a Copper more. You also may gain it in the endgame, if you want. If Estates pile is out, Buffoon may give Copper. If Curse pile is out, Jester attack fails.

- If the revealed card is a good Victory, Buffon may gain it, which is better than gives a Curse. If their pile is out, Buffoon may give Copper. If Curse pile is out, Jester attack fails.

When the revealed card is bad, Jester junks with a copy, but also discards it from the top of deck, which could help your opponent (the opposite when it's a good card).

When Jester attack fails, it’s less than a Woodcutter. The worst case of Buffoon, when happens, is Ambassador attack without trashing, not so good, but not a total fail.

I think the better options Buffoon has over Jester in most of the cases, in special the play twice option and additional junking, counterbalance the + of Jester.

[Carline]

I have a few comments on your new cards.

Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"

It was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.

Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.

Changed it to include a discard. Now Coppers, instead of Peddlers, would be endgame Poachers.

[LittleFish]

I have a few comments on your new cards.

Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"

It was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.

Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.

Changed it to include a discard. Now Coppers, instead of Peddlers, would be endgame Poachers.

What happens with Night cards?

Edit: Won't this work to play treasures in the action phase without using anything up, while also drawing an extra card? Sort of like backwards capitalism?

[Gubump]

I think Looters are rare enough for it to be reasonable to just allow Ruins to be an edge case that makes Buffoon weak. Especially since they're only in one expansion.

Also, someone in the Dominion Discord pointed this out about another playing-Victories-as-Actions fan card posted there, which also applies to Touch of Life: I think it's too broken to allow Provinces to be played since they can then be gained with Pilgrimage, Changeling, or Kiln.

[Carline]

Also, someone in the Dominion Discord pointed this out about another playing-Victories-as-Actions fan card posted there, which also applies to Touch of Life: I think it's too broken to allow Provinces to be played since they can then be gained with Pilgrimage, Changeling, or Kiln.

Yes, it's a problem, thank you. I'll see how to fix it.

[Carline]

I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?

[LittleFish]

I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?

Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card

[Carline]

I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?

Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card

It instructs you to play the card.

[LittleFish]

I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?

Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card

It instructs you to play the card.

Sorry, missed that

[segura]

Pretty sure that this is still too good. You don't need to trash at all, all your Coppers are Peddlers. And Silvers become the card which shall not exist in an unconditional form.

[LittleFish]

Pretty sure that this is still too good. You don't need to trash at all, all your Coppers are Peddlers. And Silvers become the card which shall not exist in an unconditional form.

but only for one turn, not the entire game. Maybe as a it will be hard enough to reach that the power level is okay.

[segura]

As it is nonterminal and not a cantrip it is definitely worse than the Project. And of course you still have to draw into Touch of Life to Peddler-ify all your yellow.
But that is the issue, all you need is some draw or sifting power. That is too simple, you usually gotta work harder. You need Buys to get a lot of Peddlers and the three DoublePeddlers require much more deckbuilding effort than Touch of Life.

[segura]

Suppose you open Warehouse/Silver. You get lucky after the first shuffle, hit $6, buy Touch of Life and a second Warehouse. You already got a deck at T5 which nearly draws itself!

[Carline]

Suppose you open Warehouse/Silver. You get lucky after the first shuffle, hit $6, buy Touch of Life and a second Warehouse. You already got a deck at T5 which nearly draws itself!

One option to nerf it is make it gives +1 Action but doesn't play the set aside card. Effect would work only after the second copy of that card. I don't know for sure if it fix the issues.

[segura]

The issue is that converting all Coppers into Peddlers and Silvers into DoublePeddlers is too good/easy no matter how you implement it.

[gambit05]

How about the two possibilities: They are 1) optional, i.e. choose one: "either or" or 2) they are "only...".

For example Copper:
1) Either they give +1 Card and +1 Action; or they give $1; with an individual choice for each Copper (Action or Treasure).

2) They only give +1 Card and +1 Action; no $1.

[Carline]

Due to feedbacks in Discord, I updated these cards. Many thanks to those who helped me there, in special nasmith99, alion8me, Shael and TheFunfighter, who made, each, a lot of important comments. The fixes for the issues they pointed are mine, so maybe some cards could still not be in the ideal version. I'm revising some other cards.


                                             

        

[Gubump]

I think Librarian compares too favorably to Wharf, which is already a broken . All you need to get +3 Cards now and next turn (which is twice as strong as Wharf's +2 Cards now and next turn) is set aside a card that costs , which is a very small drawback for what you get out of it. And it only gets stronger from there. I think it would be more balanced if you had to trash the set aside card.

[Carline]

Shael pointed that was a bit strange Warriors doesn't be an Attack and I agree. So, I moved its functons to Sisterhood and made Warriors an Attack.

Edit: Changed to Warrioresses to no confuse with officail card Warrior.

Edit2: Changed to a kind of saboteur attack, according to suggestion of alion8me (thank you!)

Edit 3: I thought Saboteur attack would be too cruel, so I changed it to Exile.

     

[Gubump]

Just so you know, the Blessing shown next to its Heirloom in the OP still shows the old version. Likewise, Burning has not been updated in the OP at all.

Lastly, I'm apparently blind and didn't see the "up to " in Librarian. Its power-level is probably fine, actually.

[Carline]

Just so you know, the Blessing shown next to its Heirloom in the OP still shows the old version.

Fixed. Thank you!

[Carline]

Changed Nurse to . Is it OK now?




Changed Bride Wait to Debt cost, to it not favor 4/3 openings over 3/4.




I removed Underworld Gate until find better solution for it.

[Gubump]

I guess you didn't see this since I got ninja'd by you in my last comment: Burning has not been updated in the OP.

[Timinou]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric? 

[Gubump]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

[LastFootnote]

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

[Carline]

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.   

[Timinou]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.

Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.

[LittleFish]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.

Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.

They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematic

[Gubump]

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.

I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.

[Carline]

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.

I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.

It's Border Guard next turn already with a permanent Lantern and the ability of choose between discard or return to deck for each card not put in hand. I think it could help a lot to prepare your next turn. As it puts a card in your hand, it seems ok to me comparing to Night Watchman.

Edit: Does this wording works?

[Carline]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.

Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.

They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematic

Maybe they could be States without losing thematically if I add "Owner" to their names.



Or Artifacts if I add "Grant".



As my English is not so good, I don't know if these solutions are suitable or not.

However, I think it would be good if they are not confused with normal Landmarks, so a kind of mark or a new type could also be solutions. Which do you think is better?

[Gubump]

Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?

It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.

Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.

Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.

They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematic

Maybe they could be States without losing thematically if I add "Owner" to their names.



Or Artifacts if I add "Grant".



As my English is not so good, I don't know if these solutions are suitable or not.

However, I think it would be good if they are not confused with normal Landmarks, so a kind of mark or a new type could also be solutions. Which do you think is better?

I think using Artifacts and the name "Grant" is better.

I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.

EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.

Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.

Thank you!

I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?

Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?

Sisterhood was a , but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.

I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.

It's Border Guard next turn already with a permanent Lantern and the ability of choose between discard or return to deck for each card not put in hand. I think it could help a lot to prepare your next turn. As it puts a card in your hand, it seems ok to me comparing to Night Watchman.

Edit: Does this wording works?

I derped and for some reason thought Border Guard looked at 3 by default (which would probably be a decent , let alone ). It's fine as-is balance-wise. And yes, the new wording works.

[Carline]

I made a new serie, a cyclic line with mandatory exchanging.



               

Feedbacks would be very welcome!

[Timinou]

Cool concept!  How many Seasons would there be in each pile?  What would happen if one of the piles runs out?

[LittleFish]

I made a new serie, a cyclic line with mandatory exchanging.



               

Feedbacks would be very welcome!

Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.

[Carline]

Cool concept!  How many Seasons would there be in each pile?  What would happen if one of the piles runs out?

The rule would be the same for travellers, if a pile is temporary empty, you can't exchange at this time. I still don't know how many Seasons for pile would be better, I think it has to be a number according to the number of players.

Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.

Maybe the same arrow of Travellers is better, as it is a reminder for the same thing . Do you know how to put it in Card Generator?

[Gubump]

Cool concept!  How many Seasons would there be in each pile?  What would happen if one of the piles runs out?

The rule would be the same for travellers, if a pile is temporary empty, you can't exchange at this time. I still don't know how many Seasons for pile would be better, I think it has to be a number according to the number of players.

Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.

Maybe the same arrow of Travellers is better, as it is a reminder for the same thing . Do you know how to put it in Card Generator?

Giving your card the type "Traveller" automatically adds the arrow to the image. I don't think there is another way to add the arrow.

[Carline]

Added Traveller type, made all Seasons cantrips and changed Four Seasons to .




               

[Carline]

Updated these two cards:

            

[segura]

Added Traveller type, made all Seasons cantrips and changed Four Seasons to .




               

I like this a lot as I a am a sucker for cards that want to be matched with others. I also think it is wise to nerf the Laboratory-Season aka Spring as this is potentially the most explosive of the vanila bunch.

[LittleFish]

Updated these two cards:

          

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

[Carline]

Updated these two cards:

          

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.

Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.

What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.

Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".

[Gubump]

Updated these two cards:

          

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.

Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.

What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.

Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".

You'd have to specify "cheapest in ," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ( is not less than , nor is less than ).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Updated these two cards:

     

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.

Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.

What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.

Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".

You'd have to specify "cheapest in ," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ( is not less than , nor is less than ).

You could just say zero cost since it'd be extremely rare for both the Curses and Coppers to run out.

[Gubump]

It's probably fine for Nightmare to just say "they gain a Curse (or a Copper if they can't)." If both the Curses and Coppers are out and the game hasn't ended, then that's the fault of the players, not the card.

[LastFootnote]

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

That's not really the concern with "political" attacks. The politics issue is "picking who to hose", as Donald X. puts it. For Nightmare, that only happens when there aren't quite enough Curses to go around and you have to pick who gets them. Personally I'd be willing to live with that, but your mileage may vary.

[Carline]

Added Traveller type, made all Seasons cantrips and changed Four Seasons to .




               

I like this a lot as I a am a sucker for cards that want to be matched with others. I also think it is wise to nerf the Laboratory-Season aka Spring as this is potentially the most explosive of the vanila bunch.

Yes, you're right. Nerfed Spring. I think they are more well balanced now.

[Carline]

Updated these two cards:

     

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.

Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.

What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.

Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".

You'd have to specify "cheapest in ," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ( is not less than , nor is less than ).

You could just say zero cost since it'd be extremely rare for both the Curses and Coppers to run out.

It's probably fine for Nightmare to just say "they gain a Curse (or a Copper if they can't)." If both the Curses and Coppers are out and the game hasn't ended, then that's the fault of the players, not the card.

Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game

That's not really the concern with "political" attacks. The politics issue is "picking who to hose", as Donald X. puts it. For Nightmare, that only happens when there aren't quite enough Curses to go around and you have to pick who gets them. Personally I'd be willing to live with that, but your mileage may vary.

As it is, maybe sometimes you may want to give other card, even when Curse pile is not empty. 

                       

[notevenodd]

Nightmare would be used in endgames to deplete piles, is that an intended usage?

- Deplete 3 piles faster!
- If there are two provinces left and you lead, give the penultimate province to your opponent, and buy the last one. Checkmate!

[Carline]

Nightmare would be used in endgames to deplete piles, is that an intended usage?

- Deplete 3 piles faster!
- If there are two provinces left and you lead, give the penultimate province to your opponent, and buy the last one. Checkmate!

Welcome to the Forum!

The main intention was to give other cards when Curse pile is empty.  You pointed other instersting uses for it in endgame. Thank you!

[notevenodd]

Welcome to the Forum!

Thank you! Yes, I just joined here because I enjoy Dominion a lot and I really love seeing fan cards. Happy New Year!
I wanted to say the Venus expansion looks awesome. It has a lot of very interesting cards, seems very well put together, and the chosen artwork looks fabulous. I definitely want to play it !!!

[Carline]

Welcome to the Forum!

Thank you! Yes, I just joined here because I enjoy Dominion a lot and I really love seeing fan cards. Happy New Year!
I wanted to say the Venus expansion looks awesome. It has a lot of very interesting cards, seems very well put together, and the chosen artwork looks fabulous. I definitely want to play it !!!

Thank you very much! I'm happy you like it.

[Carline]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

[LittleFish]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

[Carline]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.

[Gubump]

Minor nitpick: "Card" shouldn't be capitalized.

[LittleFish]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.

If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in play

[Carline]

Minor nitpick: "Card" shouldn't be capitalized.

Yes, fixed.

[Carline]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.

If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in play

Yes, but you could reach Buy phase with 7, 9, 12 or any other number of actions played.

[LittleFish]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.

If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in play

Yes, but you can reach Buy phase with 7, 9, 12 or any other number of actions played.

I meant that towards my first question of "Why would anyone play it as an action while they could play it as a treasure"

[Carline]

Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.

Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards

The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.

If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in play

Yes, but you can reach Buy phase with 7, 9, 12 or any other number of actions played.

I meant that towards my first question of "Why would anyone play it as an action while they could play it as a treasure"

You would play it in Action phase to reach the exact number of Actions played you want and still play other Actions after that. Sometimes you would reach Buy phase with more Actions played than the cost of any available card. In this situation, there's no point to play it in Buy phase and you would better play it in Action phase. Also you may want to play it in Action phase due to the tricks gainers in Action phase can do when interact with other cards, like gain an action card, draw it and play it in the same turn. It costs less than Horn of Plenty because you have to play it in the exact place in playing order which corresponds to the cost of the desired card.

[Gubump]

The name and the art don't really make sense together, IMHO. Based on the art, I'd suggest calling it "Noblewoman," or something similar.

Speaking of art, where do you find your art, Carline? Did you draw your art for all these cards yourself?

[Carline]

The name and the art don't really make sense together, IMHO. Based on the art, I'd suggest calling it "Noblewoman," or something similar.

Speaking of art, where do you find your art, Carline? Did you draw your art for all these cards yourself?

I want to name the expensive objects she uses and own, not the woman. Like other Treasures of the set (Tiara, Goldens Spoils), the woman is there but the name is the name of the Treasure. I though "riches" could be used this way. Which word would be better?

I search for images in the Web. What I normally do is write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art".

When I would finish working in cards funcionalities and stop from changing I will add the informations about artists or image source. It would be better if I did it from the beggining, but now I have to spend some time to compile these informations.

Edit: Changed name to "Jewelry".

[Gubump]

The name and the art don't really make sense together, IMHO. Based on the art, I'd suggest calling it "Noblewoman," or something similar.

Speaking of art, where do you find your art, Carline? Did you draw your art for all these cards yourself?

I want to name the expensive objects she uses and own, not the woman. Like other treasures of the set (Tiara, Goldens Spoils), the woman is there but the name is the name of the treasure.

Ah, that makes sense. Jewelry is a much better name, IMO.

[Carline]

I applied more zoom to the image to focus more in the jewelry.

[Timinou]

Does Jewelry itself count if it is played as an Action? 

Unlike Horn of Plenty, you could play it with Throne Room or King's Court.  Just wondering if you considered that when determining the cost.

[segura]

HoP can be crowned.

[Gubump]

Does Jewelry itself count if it is played as an Action?

There's no such concept as "playing a card as an Action." It's an Action regardless of when you play it. It always counts itself.

Unlike Horn of Plenty, you could play it with Throne Room or King's Court.  Just wondering if you considered that when determining the cost.

She took the pricing advise from me and Something_Smart. I don't know if SS took its Thronability into account, but I didn't think about that.

HoP can be crowned.

HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)

[Timinou]

Does Jewelry itself count if it is played as an Action?

There's no such concept as "playing a card as an Action." It's an Action regardless of when you play it. It always counts itself.

OK, so even if Jewelry is played in the Buy phase as a Treasure, it would still count towards the number of Action cards in play due to having both card types, right?

Unlike Horn of Plenty, you could play it with Throne Room or King's Court.  Just wondering if you considered that when determining the cost.

She took the pricing advise from me and Something_Smart. I don't know if SS took its Thronability into account, but I didn't think about that.

HoP can be crowned.

HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)

Ghost and Mastermind wouldn't be particularly strong though, since you would play it at the start of the turn.  But I agree with your point in general. 

[segura]

HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)

Sure, but the card is bonkers not mainly due to number of TR variants. It is stronger and cheaper than HoP in most engines. Unlike with HoP you don't have to work for it.

[Gubump]

HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)

Sure, but the card is bonkers not mainly due to number of TR variants. It is stronger and cheaper than HoP in most engines. Unlike with HoP you don't have to work for it.

Also unlike HoP, however, play order matters more for Jewelry. Jewelry gains a card with an exact cost. You've convinced me that it should probably cost more, though. I think it could get away with costing .

[segura]

Well, to be fair, for early build-up, i.e. getting $4s and $5s, HoP is likely stronger.

[Carline]

What if I remove the Treasure type and keep it only as an Action?

[spineflu]

What if I remove the Treasure type and keep it only as an Action?

I'd also get rid of the "exactly" at that point/change it to "up to"; too hard to line up otherwise.

[Carline]

What if I remove the Treasure type and keep it only as an Action?

I'd also get rid of the "exactly" at that point/change it to "up to"; too hard to line up otherwise.

I'm afraid it could be too strong with "up to". Sometimes is easy to play a lot of actions per turn.

Anyway, the main feature I'm trying to implement is this kind of Leprechaun condition, the challenge being playing the card at the right place in order.

[Carline]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

[LittleFish]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

Why not just say "... per Action card in play (excluding this)..."?

[gambit05]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:

If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.

[Carline]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:

If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.

Yes, I've already put in Discord a version exactly like you said:




But I think I prefer this version which could gain both, Actions or Treasures, in both phases. Both versions avoid the questions concerning to gain Victories.

[gambit05]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:

If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.

Yes, I've already put in Discord a version exactly like you said:




But I think I prefer this version which could gain both, Actions or Treasures, in both phases. Both versions avoid the questions concerning to gain Victories.

Did you got any feedback? For me the top version looks very interesting and makes more sense why this is an Action-Treasure card. I mean it doesn't have to be exactly like this, but it is a good starting point in my opinion.

Anyway, it totally depends on what your intention is with this card.

[Carline]

This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at ?

I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:

If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.

Yes, I've already put in Discord a version exactly like you said:




But I think I prefer this version which could gain both, Actions or Treasures, in both phases. Both versions avoid the questions concerning to gain Victories.

Did you got any feedback? For me the top version looks very interesting and makes more sense why this is an Action-Treasure card. I mean it doesn't have to be exactly like this, but it is a good starting point in my opinion.

Anyway, it totally depends on what your intention is with this card.

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure, as the condition is different in each phase even when the gained card could be the same. I don't know for sure which version I like more.

crlundy suggested to use "non-Victory". I think it may be a good idea to make bottom version a bit more elegant.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. Other feature I want to be present is to be able to gain Actions in Action phase.

[gambit05]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

[Carline]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.

So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions. If the Kingdom doesn't allow to play many Actions, I think also players wouldn't have too much interest in gaining many Actions, so these Kingdoms wouldn't be so good for its Action gaining anyway.

[gambit05]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.

So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions.

I think this looks quite good. The Treasure part is a bit odd, since Jewelry is flexible when it is played during the Buy phase, but on the other hand, it looks elegant as it has the equivalent wording of the Action phase.

[Carline]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.

So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions.

I think this looks quite good. The Treasure part is a bit odd, since Jewelry is flexible when it is played during the Buy phase, but on the other hand, it looks elegant as it has the equivalent wording of the Action phase.

In a few edge cases, like Bank or Scepter, or maybe Capitalism or Gamble, the feature about exact order playing in Buy phase could make some difference. Also with Fruit Mix from this set.

[spineflu]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.

So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions. If the Kingdom doesn't allow to play many Actions, I think also players wouldn't have too much interest in gaining many Actions, so these Kingdoms wouldn't be so good for its Action gaining anyway.

Could you maybe make one of those "Otherwise, " rather than specifying Action/Buy phase, just in case we ever get like, a new phase you can play actions or treasures in, or to make it play better in games with this and alion8me's "Lunar Ritual" or whatever?

[Carline]

The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.

My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place  in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.

Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.

Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.

I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.

So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions. If the Kingdom doesn't allow to play many Actions, I think also players wouldn't have too much interest in gaining many Actions, so these Kingdoms wouldn't be so good for its Action gaining anyway.

Could you maybe make one of those "Otherwise, " rather than specifying Action/Buy phase, just in case we ever get like, a new phase you can play actions or treasures in, or to make it play better in games with this and alion8me's "Lunar Ritual" or whatever?

Yes, I see now that Werewolf has the same "otherwise", probably for the same reason of possible future cards. Updated.

[Carline]

I always wanted Secret Place more to prepare a future turn than act as a pseudo-trasher (in this function it isn't so different from Exile). This version is too strong as pseudo-trasher, specially in first turns.

     


So I think in this version. You still can try to use it as pseudo-trasher, but I think it is more trickier to do now.

     


EDIT: Now I see that the problem with all versions so far, including the above, is that you don't have a reason to put good cards there. So, I'm trying a new approach:


     

[Carline]

I want to have an old woman and a child in set, so here they are:

     

[Aquila]

Here's a look through the first post without remembering what others have already said. They're nearly all mechanically sound by now, so I'll try to focus on interest level:

Healer - it's an optional trash with a buy, straight away desirable for engines. The reaction can be a further trash if you happen to have a nice discard pile or top card of deck to trash. Do you have an attack in the set that this reacts well against? Buffoon, maybe Nightmare, Young Saboteur and Sorceress, Way of the Medusa and most of the other beasts, so plenty.
Very desirable purchase, maybe it's a $3.

Mirror - one shot throne you can choose to save by trashing the target instead. Simple and effective, and interesting with it.

Small Village - the first play is of course most desirable for a village, but from there having the +buy lets these be very collectable. Each effect neutralises the other in a way, possibly for better or worse. I think better? I've tried a pure +2 Actions +buy at $2 and it's a bit clunky, you'd like the draw here.
So whilst only mildly interesting, it's there as a village doing what it needs to do. There are 10 possible villages/splitters here (nearly a quarter of the kingdom cards), 3 of which also give +buys (Maid, Sisterhood, Marketplace). It's one of the ways I would call this less of an expansion and more a collection of cards you have made and like.

Taverner - 2 buys on demand. Can't say it's exciting me much. Other +buy sources here can be very similar but do more for you, like Maid and Sisterhood.

Wanderer - similar to Healer in being $1 and optional trash. The copper to hand is fine to spike to $5, and it has rare other combos; here I'm only seeing Tavern Nights as a combo.
You'll get it for $2, decently interesting as a non-terminal trasher with an extra niche.

Horse Lady - it's a slow start, but becomes an almost lab once you can reliably play a horse later in the turn. Multiples of these support each other, but because they're stop cards shuffle randomness can work against them.
It's probably balanced, or maybe it's a $2. The latent power might make this interesting, or it's annoyingly swingy.

Maid - Steward without the trashing (so way less powerful) and +Actions and buys instead. It might be uninteresting to make the decision sometimes; do you go with $ to get $8, or go with Actions and Cards to see if you can do more? Steward is always a terminal engine piece so the decision is narrower, simpler and more straightforward. And Pawn cannot be a Village so it's simpler too.
So I think I prefer Small Village to this in the Village +buy front so far.

Minstrel - sifter/inspector that likes high Action density. Probably more desirable than Border Guard, although it can fail to draw. It's simple, safe, and useful, as several of the cards here are.

There's the first installment.

[Carline]

Here's a look through the first post without remembering what others have already said. They're nearly all mechanically sound by now, so I'll try to focus on interest level:

Thank you very much Aquila! It's very good to have a review from the interest point of view.

I know this set is still far away from have even some basic features that make an expansion. So far, I had given attention more to individual cards and to fix their flaws than to see how they play together and how balanced is the presence of each game resource. Now I have to work more in these systemic factors. By now, cards are unified mainly by theme. It’s a work in progress, and It’s very good to have your feedback and from all the others in this Forum to point the features which should be improved. From the point I posted the set, with this help from more skilled people, the cards get so much better and I learned a lot.

[Timinou]

I always wanted Secret Place more to prepare a future turn than act as a pseudo-trasher (in this function it isn't so different from Exile). This version is too strong as pseudo-trasher, specially in first turns.

     


So I think in this version. You still can try to use it as pseudo-trasher, but I think it is more trickier to do now.

     


EDIT: Now I see that the problem with all versions so far, including the above, is that you don't have a reason to put good cards there. So, I'm trying a new approach:


     

The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.

[Carline]

The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.

What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.

[Timinou]

The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.

What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.

It might not be your intention with Secret Place, but it's just something I think you could consider in order to have some more interaction between the different concepts in your expansion.   The first time you posted the Season cards, I thought to myself that it would be fun to play with the original Secret Place.

[LastFootnote]

I strongly suggest simplifying Healer. That text is almost unreadably tiny and the effect will be hard to remember. Honestly, lots of attacks put bad cards into your discard pile anyway, either by giving you junk, making you discard cards, or just incidentally flipping past cards looking for good stuff to trash. And of course sometimes you'll just have cards in your discard pile.

Donald X. has a rule these days for all new cards that text has to fit with the large font. I'm not saying all fan cards have to do so as well, but I think it's a good goal to shoot for. To that end, here's my suggested version of Healer (with different art since I couldn't quickly find the art you used):



EDIT: Whoops! I missed the "r" on "another".

[Aquila]

This is cleaner and simpler. The trash is no longer optional but you can also trash this itself to the reaction if you're done with it. Because of losing the option to trash I feel it's closer to $2 cost as well. Good suggestions.

Carrying on a bit further:

Money Trick - it can quite easily become a Peddler with its reaction, but drawing another Money Trick with it means losing a Peddler or +buy from the deck, although with a + $3 bonus. So it has 3 functions (buy, Peddler, Gold) that each call for slightly different deck building strategies to optimise.
So it is interesting, if balanced at $3. It feels maybe $4 range.

Morning - Moat that becomes a lab if the only card in play. It can be rather swingy mid to late game unless you collect lots of them to become your deck's draw; $2 to $5 strength is big. Openings are also an issue here, buying a lab on a $3 turn is a convincing deal lots of the time.
Probably the right price but not that interesting.

Nurse - like Night Watchman, it sorts the top of the deck to prepare the next hand, exchanging a deeper look for drawing an extra card. It's also like a slightly better half-Den of Sin.
I find it quite interesting as I find Night Watchman quite interesting, but seeing that there are 2 very similar official cards, the interest is dampened a bit. Similarity to official cards may not bother you.

Sisterhood - double Necropolis that can also become a +buy source. Useful package if the kingdom can make up for the lack of draw. Between this and Small Village...Small Village evens out the resources you get, so it's probably the preference in most engines for consistency?
Seeing this makes me like Small Village a little bit more.

There's 4 more.

[Carline]

I strongly suggest simplifying Healer. That text is almost unreadably tiny and the effect will be hard to remember. Honestly, lots of attacks put bad cards into your discard pile anyway, either by giving you junk, making you discard cards, or just incidentally flipping past cards looking for good stuff to trash. And of course sometimes you'll just have cards in your discard pile.

Donald X. has a rule these days for all new cards that text has to fit with the large font. I'm not saying all fan cards have to do so as well, but I think it's a good goal to shoot for. To that end, here's my suggested version of Healer (with different art since I couldn't quickly find the art you used):



EDIT: Whoops! I missed the "r" on "another".

Sooooo much better, thank you very much! I like your wise solution to don't have to say "look at your discard pile". Updated.

I also like the picture you used. I had already seem it when I was doind searchs for this card, but it seems to be already in a card game.




Edit: I made previous version going back to hand to be better in multiplayer game, but, yes, is better to lose this resource and optionality of trashing to make the card simpler and cleaner.

[Carline]

The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.

What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.

It might not be your intention with Secret Place, but it's just something I think you could consider in order to have some more interaction between the different concepts in your expansion.   The first time you posted the Season cards, I thought to myself that it would be fun to play with the original Secret Place.

All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.

Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons. (edit: it doesn't interact)

          

Which version do you think is better, "gaining" one or "duplicate" one?

[LittleFish]

All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.

Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons. 

I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.

[Carline]

All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.

Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons. 

I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.

Yes, you're right. If I write "from its pile" could it have some undiserable interaction with existent non-supply cards?

Anyway, even not interacting with Seasons, which version is better?

[Carline]

Could this version of Morning still cost ?

[LittleFish]

All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.

Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons. 

I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.

Yes, you're right. If I write "from its pile" could it have some undiserable interaction with existent non-supply cards?

Anyway, even not interacting with Seasons, which version is better?

If you write "from it's pile" it could duplicate many cards that normally are a trouble to get (Wishes)

[Timinou]

The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.

What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.

It might not be your intention with Secret Place, but it's just something I think you could consider in order to have some more interaction between the different concepts in your expansion.   The first time you posted the Season cards, I thought to myself that it would be fun to play with the original Secret Place.

All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.

Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons. (edit: it doesn't interact)

          

Which version do you think is better, "gaining" one or "duplicate" one?

The duplicate version seems stronger since it allows you to gain copies onto your Secret Place mat, which would be more useful for preparing a future turn where you may want multiple copies of the same card.  On some boards, the gaining version might be quite weak if there aren't enough unique cards that you would want to put onto your mat. 

[LastFootnote]

On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.

EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.

[Aquila]

Could this version of Morning still cost ?

Here the ideal in an engine is picking up 2 of them to play each turn, starting with the lab play each time. You get the same total as smithy and caravan. It's good to do most of the time, and again opening with them both is often strong.
Is it interesting? Maybe, if this 'get 2 and no more' strategy isn't scripted too often.


Tiara - silver gainer that like Feodum can be a bundle of 3 at once, if you trash this on first play; or it's a Treasure single silver gainer that empties the pile quite quickly if you trash a silver. So it likes the Silver strategies, Tower and maybe Gardens, or generically improving money density in the deck.
Useful in several situations in different ways, it's interesting.

Valkyries - the on play is simple and a bit better than Sleigh. When it reacts, it gets a Horse for immediate use; it's a good way to do 'you may discard this for draw', a reaction I've seen tried a lot of times.
So yeah, a horse gainer that uses horses well, it's quite interesting.

Workers - very simple, it's like fishing village where you choose when to use the extra Action in exchange for the Duration aspect. You have a lot of Villages here that can't draw, but it's good that this one doesn't so the Villager can more often be carried over.
Only a little bit interesting, and maybe it's a $2 in strength.

Amazon - another non-drawing Village initially, but it simulates draw in cool ways. The next gain to hand bit is very nifty with gainers, and you will likely have the Actions to use whatever you gain straight away. Without gainers, you can still gain the Amazon's own Horses to hand.
One of my favourites here so far.

Emissary/Coin of Honour - Emissary is a bit like Priest with a Copper handout in place of the extra $, so probably worth $4. The attack is quite gentle compared to early official ones, a good thing in my mind. Sometimes it's even a gift and not a hindrance; though thinking this as a trasher might be a mistake if opponents use this as well. That might take the interest away a bit.
Coin of Honour... doesn't have any particular interaction with Emissary? Useful in itself though, reversing draws to save them for later turns; niche and not particularly affecting game balance.
So Coin could pair up with something it interacts with a bit more, and maybe Emissary doesn't quite do enough for you if its trashing is neutralised by opposing Coppers.

Faithful Knight - the single +Card makes sense with the Villager option, but it might be better changed to something else. The way it can give VP without encouraging furtherance towards game end can mean games go on for ages, but then if it's close changing some VP to Coffers to buy a Province might get you ahead.
That's an immediate decision; so now I'm thinking if this needs to give Coffers and Villagers at all, and not just +Actions and +$ instead. It seems much simpler, and saves on potential Coffers hoarding too.
So all your VP tokens get 3 possible functions. That's maybe interesting, or too complicated (or maybe high skill) or narrow to be worth the VP loss that often. Hard to tell.

Or I'm too tired. I'll stop there for now.

[Carline]

Thank you Aquila! I'm reading carefully all your comments and thinking a lot about them and changes I could do. 

[Carline]

Proportionally, there's a lack of money from Actions and terminals in my fan set, so I think about these:

               

Could Madame cost ?

[Carline]

On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.

EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.

Thanks for your help, LastFootnote.

About Money Trick:

Mechanics – I started this with the idea of a card that you would better react with than play. So I think about a card which produces money when discarded and I think play actions could be an interesting trigger, they would be a kind of Peddlers not played which you can use even after terminals and even can use more than once per turn if you manage to do it. To it have some use on play, I made it a Treasure with + Buy, so sometimes you may want to play it for the +Buy. The Exile part came when I saw it could lead to an infinite loop if you already draw your deck when use it. Finally, I add a bonus when Exiling.

Theme – As it produce a money that, from play area point of view, comes from nothing, it reminds me coin tricks magicians do. This card preexists to this set and previous version was named Coin Trick. I didn’t find a good picture of a woman doing a coin trick, so I changed to “Money Trick”, which seems to me to be a name magicians do use to tricks with money. I don’t know, maybe there’s a better name.

Cost – Many comments were that it maybe would cost , so I think I will change it to this cost.

Art – One problem with the art of this card is, as it is a Treasure, Card Generator puts a big coin symbol, so there’s not much space for text. Now I made this version in Corel, with text in bigger font. I also fixed the colors order.

I’ll be very happy if you show me a simpler solution or wording for this idea.

[segura]

Path is probably too good. Kusasai had the very same card but with 8D as cost some time ago.

[Carline]

Path is probably too good. Kusasai had the very same card but with 8D as cost some time ago.

Yes, thank you for the information, I found it:



Yes, the idea is almost the same, as it doesn't affect debt cost. How would be the best cost to pay cash for it, as in Path?

Anyway, I think they are too similar, so it's better to try to find a different way for my cost reducer.

[Carline]

Faithful Knight -
That's an immediate decision; so now I'm thinking if this needs to give Coffers and Villagers at all, and not just +Actions and +$ instead. It seems much simpler, and saves on potential Coffers hoarding too.

Yes, I don't know how I didn't see this until you pointed. There's no sense in convert into tokens as you would always use the tokens in that moment. Updated.

[Carline]

I made a version of Madame which could be more interesting.




Made a new Flame Keeper: (edit-updated again)




And moved its functions to Maneuver:

[LastFootnote]

On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.

EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.

Thanks for your help, LastFootnote.

About Money Trick:

Mechanics – I started this with the idea of a card that you would better react with than play. So I think about a card which produces money when discarded and I think play actions could be an interesting trigger, they would be a kind of Peddlers not played which you can use even after terminals and even can use more than once per turn if you manage to do it. To it have some use on play, I made it a Treasure with + Buy, so sometimes you may want to play it for the +Buy. The Exile part came when I saw it could lead to an infinite loop if you already draw your deck when use it. Finally, I add a bonus when Exiling.

Theme – As it produce a money that, from play area point of view, comes from nothing, it reminds me coin tricks magicians do. This card preexists to this set and previous version was named Coin Trick. I didn’t find a good picture of a woman doing a coin trick, so I changed to “Money Trick”, which seems to me to be a name magicians do use to tricks with money. I don’t know, maybe there’s a better name.

Cost – Many comments were that it maybe would cost , so I think I will change it to this cost.

Art – One problem with the art of this card is, as it is a Treasure, Card Generator puts a big coin symbol, so there’s not much space for text. Now I made this version in Corel, with text in bigger font. I also fixed the colors order.

I’ll be very happy if you show me a simpler solution or wording for this idea.

Unfortunately, I would urge you to abandon the premise of "money from nothing" altogether. In a long turn, it's difficult to track how many coins your Money Tricks made, especially if you can use each one multiple times. In general this concept of "invisible money" is one Donald X. avoids these days. I believe he'd redo Mining Village if he could, shifting the trashing decision to the start of your Buy phase. That's the other thing: if invisible money is created in the buy phase, that's way less bad, since you're about to spend it. But Money Trick creates all this invisible money throughout your turn. It seems like it's just asking for trouble.

I was hoping there was some way to keep the card's core concept without the invisible money, but since the concept is invisible money, I'm not sure what to suggest.

[Carline]

On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.

EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.

Thanks for your help, LastFootnote.

About Money Trick:

Mechanics – I started this with the idea of a card that you would better react with than play. So I think about a card which produces money when discarded and I think play actions could be an interesting trigger, they would be a kind of Peddlers not played which you can use even after terminals and even can use more than once per turn if you manage to do it. To it have some use on play, I made it a Treasure with + Buy, so sometimes you may want to play it for the +Buy. The Exile part came when I saw it could lead to an infinite loop if you already draw your deck when use it. Finally, I add a bonus when Exiling.

Theme – As it produce a money that, from play area point of view, comes from nothing, it reminds me coin tricks magicians do. This card preexists to this set and previous version was named Coin Trick. I didn’t find a good picture of a woman doing a coin trick, so I changed to “Money Trick”, which seems to me to be a name magicians do use to tricks with money. I don’t know, maybe there’s a better name.

Cost – Many comments were that it maybe would cost , so I think I will change it to this cost.

Art – One problem with the art of this card is, as it is a Treasure, Card Generator puts a big coin symbol, so there’s not much space for text. Now I made this version in Corel, with text in bigger font. I also fixed the colors order.

I’ll be very happy if you show me a simpler solution or wording for this idea.

Unfortunately, I would urge you to abandon the premise of "money from nothing" altogether. In a long turn, it's difficult to track how many coins your Money Tricks made, especially if you can use each one multiple times. In general this concept of "invisible money" is one Donald X. avoids these days. I believe he'd redo Mining Village if he could, shifting the trashing decision to the start of your Buy phase. That's the other thing: if invisible money is created in the buy phase, that's way less bad, since you're about to spend it. But Money Trick creates all this invisible money throughout your turn. It seems like it's just asking for trouble.

I was hoping there was some way to keep the card's core concept without the invisible money, but since the concept is invisible money, I'm not sure what to suggest.

Maybe I could set it aside when reacts, so it would act as a mark. This way it also won't need exile part.
 

[gambit05]

One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, draw a card, revealed. If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.

[Carline]

One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, draw a card, revealed. If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.

It seems interesting. I think there's no need of the last "if" clause, as you can react with the Money trick you draw.

[gambit05]

One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, draw a card, revealed. If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.

It seems interesting. I think there's no need of the last "if" clause, as you can react with the Money trick you draw.

It depends what you want. I kept it as close to your original version as possible. However, giving less Coffers would be much better and simpler:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, +1 Card.

[Carline]

One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, draw a card, revealed. If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.

It seems interesting. I think there's no need of the last "if" clause, as you can react with the Money trick you draw.

It depends what you want. I kept it as close to your original version as possible. However, giving less Coffers would be much better and simpler:

Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction +1 Coffers +1 Buy -----------------------    When any player plays a Money Trick,    you may play this from your hand. If you do, +1 Card.

What about this version?

[gambit05]

I like it! I think it should cost $3.

[Aquila]

What about this version?

When it reacts outside of turn it's Mouse-Baker, a strong effect; and with a lean deck it can be redrawn to produce 2 Coffers per turn. When it reacts in turn, the draw will be more useful with a multi-type Action, but a chain of Money Tricks will be effective for big money strategies, like several Markets (except the first doesn't draw) but more flexible with its Coffers.
So I feel $4 is probably right, and it is much simpler. Is it interesting? Fun maybe, but strategically too useful too often?


Flame Keeper - Conspirator triggering with small hand size that can be discard-for-benefit to get there. The discard-for-benefit mode is weaker than Mill from a 5-card hand, but in exchange for this and the 1VP it gets to be stronger than it afterward. So it feels balanced.
Interesting? It rewards small hands, which calls for specific building since payload from Treasures with it will be little. And now (some of) those non-drawing Villages are more justified, since they combo nicely with this. Definitely a good one!

Nymphs - cheap payload that rewards a lot of investment into it. Two played is $1 more and 1 Buy less than two Woodcutters, so generally better, especially if further Nymphs give further Buys. At $3 cost they're easy to collect, but maybe balanced for the work needed to make them pay off.
It's quite interesting in being virtual $ easy to add to the deck but needing support to work. But it may not be worth it that often.

Four Seasons - they progressively build up in power and have high potential, Summer especially, but what they give you is quite random depending on what season is drawn when. You can't rely on Winter as a Village, so for the most part it's all about Spring and Summer, and they're the reason you'd invest in the set. So the ideal most of the time is having a perfect cycle of all 4 seasons to play a Spring and Summer last each turn, or if you get 2 of each even better; and then Fall and Winter become a Village and some Buys, so handy.
In terms of interest: there's no denying the thematic appeal, but I think for mechanics and strategy the way shuffle randomness can affect their play order could be an unappealing setback. Players could get a little more flexibility over how they get them as well, and I'm thinking turn the Four Seasons card into an Event.

Gravedigger - Salvage something in play start of next turn, with the option of gaining a cheaper card from the trash. So in terms of uses it's often all about the $ payload or being a slow Copper trasher that makes up the economy loss. Temporary-use cards or when-trash triggers are other niches.
So you'll use it, it's decently interesting, but maybe it can be $3.

Guildmaster - so it rotates around being: +2 Cards give Curses and they may trash from hand; +2 Cards they cheapen card in hand and draw replacement; +1 Buy +1 Coffers give Curses and they may trash from hand; or +1 Buy +1 Coffers they cheapen card in hand and draw replacement. They should each sit fine on a $4 card. Players themselves decide how the effects change around, whether the bonus they get or the Attack of choice; that interaction should be interesting. Switching away from +2 Cards is quite a drastic change, as that affects how often the Attack can be launched as well as general engine play, so players may choose to keep Young Smith face up and flip the Attack each time; the Attacks are similar in trashing from hand and gaining Curses, but trashing to Young Sorceress can give fewer options to Young Saboteur's forced trash, so heavy use of Guildmaster in this way could really hurt. At $4 cost it won't be too hard to collect several as a deck strategy.
Overall, it is creative and interesting with it, but maybe unpleasant to play against. See if the pair of Attacks can be made to hurt a little less, and maybe make Young Trickster just + $2 to be more symmetrical to Smith and a closer power level (from an expansion perspective, there are a lot of cheap +buys already).

Hidden Pond - Each gain most likely lets it be worth 1 more, at least up to 3VP by setting aside Copper, Estate, Hidden Pond. You could get a fair bit more with Heirlooms. After 3, they're worth the same as a Duchy, and one could keep gaining these and setting a Hidden Pond in hand aside for 3 free VP. After collecting a good number of Ponds, eating your deck may become worth it. Trashing them will only yield more VP if you have 2 more Ponds than different cards on the mat, and a different card in hand to put on the mat. Unless you can get them back from the trash (*looks at Gravedigger* - Gold gaining and trashing could work).
Is it interesting? The 3VP case is easy to reach and provides some thinning with it, so it's always relevant. As a heavy alt VP strategy, it's greatly tamed by the on-gain being the way to increase their value, and regaining from the trash will need to be available to make them really shine. But this can imply not putting more than one Pond on the mat and holding more of them in the deck to make them score more. So it should be nice to play.

And that will do for this time. 

[Timinou]

I like the idea of changing the Seasons card to an Event.

[BBobb]

If I have no other text, it means that that is how you should word it. Otherwise, its more of my personal preference. Bolded things are the things that I would change from the card text. Though I didn't bold the vanilla bonuses, they should still be bolded on the cards.
 

Faithful Knight: I would say that the wording for the exchanging should probably be something else. Currently, if you read it out loud, it sounds very awkward. I would phrase it as "Remove any number of tokens. For each token removed choose one: +1 Action; or +". I'm not sure if you need to say that you may choose the same one multiple times since it says for each removed.


Small Village: Maybe someone else already said this, but if you Throne this, then you get the +1 Card twice. Is this what you intended or did you mean, "If this is the first time you played a Small Village this turn" instead? Also, via the wording of Crossroads, I think that you should replace the colon with a comma and make the +1 Card on the same line as the text.


Flame Keeper:
+
You may Discard any number of cards. If you hand has at most If you have at most 2 cards in your hand, (remove line break from this) +1 Card and +1 Action
See Chapel for first change. For second, see Madman. For third, see Conspirator.

Horse Lady:
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
Exile The next time you play a Horse this turn, Exile it. Horse you play this turn.
See Kiln for changes.

Minstrel:
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put an Action card into your hand (if any), topdeck put an Action card onto your deck, and discard the rest.
See any card that puts cards back onto your deck e.g. Courtyard, Mandarin.


Morning: This one isn't technically wrong, but I would probably word it differently. The "once per turn" text looks slightly weird. I would say "At the start of cleanup, if you have at least 2 Mornings in play, you may put one of them onto your deck." Hopefully this wording will only allow for one to go onto the deck, though I'm not sure. At minimum, though, I would use "at least" instead of "more than" just because Dominion cards use at least.


Nurse: I would make it "at the end of this turn". See River's Gift, Way of the Squirrel. Though some Dominion cards use "at the end of turn", I think it sounds and looks kind of ugly. Feel free to keep the wording as is, though, since it is technically correct. Also, just wondering, why didn't you make this a Duration? It seems like a better fit for a Duration instead of as "at the end of turn".


Nymphs:
+
If you have more than 1 at least 2 Nymphs in play, (remove line break) +1 Buy, +
See Conspirator for changes.

EDIT: Thanks to Gubump, I realized that this wouldn't work the same way. Ignore this part about Sisterhood.
Sisterhood: This is just personal preference (though it might not be), but I would make it "any of your unused Actions" instead of "each".
EDIT: Thanks to Gubump, I realized that this wouldn't work the same way. Ignore this part about Sisterhood.


Tiara: Is it intentional that you have to trash a Silver if possible? Though you could always play the Silver after, there are some edge cases where you can't (e.g. Storyteller plays Silver, drawing a Tiara and 2 other things).


Valkyries:
Gain 2 Horses.
Put one of them onto your deck.
______________________________________________
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this or topdeck put this from your hand onto your deck . If you did, to gain a Horse to your hand.
For topdecking, see e.g. Courtyard, Mandarin etc.
For the second change, see Fool's Gold.


Four Seasons:
Gain a Season of your choice.
See Exorcist


Gravedigger:
Set aside a non-Duration card you have in play. You may gain a cheaper card from the trash.
At the start of your next turn, trash the set aside card. (remove line break) + per it costs; + if it costs If it costs , +. Otherwise, + per it costs
See Rogue, Menagerie


Guildmaster:
Flip one Novice card over. Play both faced up Novice cards in any order, leaving them there.
______________________________________________________________________________
Setup: Set aside the Novice cards with Young Saboteur and Young Smith face up.
See Necromancer


Hidden Pond:
Worth 1 per differently named card on your Hidden Pond mat.
____________________________________________________
When you gain or trash this, you may put a card from your hand onto you Hidden Pond mat.
See Island


Immolator:
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. + per trashed card trashed.
See Opulent Castle, Shepherd


Secret Place:
Put a card costing up to that you don't have on your Secret Place Mat onto it.
There are no real cards I can base this wording off of, but it seems more natural.


Warrioresses:
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.Until then the start of your next turn, the first time each other player plays a non-duration Action card on their turn, they first Exile it. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.
For the change of where the "at the start of your next turn" is, see Swamp Hag.
For the second one, I put first in there just so people would know e.g. Play Workshop, Exile it, gain Workshop, can I discard the Workshop I just played.


Tale-Teller:
Pay any amount of . For each paid, draw an extra card for your next turn for each paid.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Overpay stuff
See Storyteller for the wording.


Circus Camp:
+2 Actions
You may discard a card . If you do, for +2 Cards.
See Baron


Crusader:
+3 Cards
You may discard any number of Actions cards, revealing them revealed, for + each.
Though you can use revealing them (e.g. Shepherd), the newer wording is just revealed (e.g. Hostelry, Silos)


Golden Spoils:
+1 Buy
If this is the first time you played Golden Spoils played this turn, + and you may gain a Golden Spoils
Otherwise, + and return this to the Supply.
This is how things are usually worded (e.g. Crossroads). Though unlikely to matter, it could (Bob plays a Witch, his opponent Billy, gains a Curse, reacting with Sheepdog. He plays Sheepdog with Way of the Mouse, whose card is Black Market. With Black Market, Billy plays a Crown, which plays a Golden Spoils twice from Billy's hand. Now, if Bob plays a Golden Spoils, it won't be the "first played this turn") edge cases


Magic Library:
Discard up to 2 cards. Draw until you have 5 cards in your hand.
__________________________________________________________
Stuff about other people playing attacks
Probably just a typo on your side.


Maneuver:
Choose one: (remove line break) +3 Cards; (remove line break) +.
First error is just a typo. When you have multiple choices, you don't separate them with lines (see Steward)


Marketplace:
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: (remove line break) +1 Action; +1 Buy,; or +
Same thing as the last card (see Steward)


Nightmare:
+
Each other player discards a card from their hand. After that, They gain a card from the Supply you choose to their hand.
Discarding from hand is implied (See Soldier). Gaining from the Supply is implied (See any gainer)


Tavern Nights:
Above line stuff
__________________________________
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this . If you did, to discard any number of Treasures from your Tavern mat for each.
This is just general stuff again (see things like Coin of the Realm, and many other cards)


Fruits:
Choose one: (remove line break) +; or +1 Coffers
Again, no line break when there is a choose one and have a semicolon between choices (see Steward)


Young Saboteur:
Each other player trashes a card from their hand, gains a cheaper card, and draws a card. Each player who didn't gain a cheaper card gains a Curse.
This is just a simple fix (probably a mistype).


Secret Place Mat:
At the end of your turn, instead of drawing your next hand, you may put the cards from here into your hand.
Again, probably a mistype.


Coin of Honor:
Put Topdeck up to 2 cards from your hand [/b]onto your deck[/b] for + each.
Again, the same topdecking wording problem (see Mandarin, Courtyard)


Blessed Gems:

+ for each per card you've trashed this turn.
I'm not sure this is necessary, but I think its better.


Joy:
Choose one: Trash a card from your hand; or put a card from your hand onto your deck.
I know this makes it a lot wordier, but I think its is necessary. If not, you at least need to change the topdecking wording.


Lending:
+1 Buy. If you don't have no Treasures in play……
I didn't put the rest of the card since I'm too lazy. See Alms for changes.


Bride Wait: Though there's nothing wrong with it, I would probably make it non-victory. Otherwise, buying Duchies for and having them hopefully miss the shuffle? Probably too powerful.


Calmness:
Draw an extra card for your next hand
Each other player puts their -1 Card Token on their decks.
Just a small change (see Relic, Raid)


Restrain:
Once per turn: +2 Buys
Each other player discards an Action card (or reveals a hand with no Actions)


Birth of Venus:
Draw your deck Put all cards from your deck into your hand. Discard a card. Trash your hand.
Just following wording from Donate. If you want to draw discard pile too, you can see Donate.


Way of the Birdwoman:
Gain a card costing less than this.
Sorry. I'm pedantic. There is an extra space between card and costing.


Way of the Mermaid:
+1 Action
Look at the two bottom two You may put one of them on top.
See any cards that look at cards from the top of your deck (e.g. Lookout)


Gargoyle:
Each player (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck, discards any number of them that you choose, and puts the rest back in any order.
Just some simple typo fixes.


EDIT: Thanks to Gubump (again), I've realized that this was the old wording for Rabble. Ignore this part about She-Wolf.
She-Wolf:
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of their deck, discards the revealed Actions and Treasures, and puts the rest back in any order they choose.
See Rabble
EDIT: Thanks to Gubump (again), I've realized that this was the old wording for Rabble. Ignore this part about She-Wolf.


Season's Grace:
At the start of your turn, flip over turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face up, +2 Cards
Unless there is some reason for you to say draw 2 cards, I'd make it +2 Cards. For the first part, see Pilgrimage, Ranger, Giant


Great Cathedral: Is it intentional that if you only have Treasures cards on your mat that you can just keep them there with no penalty (choose 2nd option, fail to do it).


Barony: each differently named
Just probably a typo.


Domain When scoring, 3 for per set you have of Province - Duchy - Estate
See Palace


Phew, done. That took almost an hour and a half.

[Gubump]

Sisterhood: This is just personal preference (though it might not be), but I would make it "any of your unused Actions" instead of "each".

That has a different function from what Carline intends. "Each" and the intended function of Sisterhood only allow all-or-nothing. "Any" would not be all-or-nothing. This matters because of Diadem and cards that return to your Action phase, like Villa and Cavalry.

Also, 2nd edition Rabble does not say "revealed" Actions and Treasures:

[BBobb]

Sisterhood: This is just personal preference (though it might not be), but I would make it "any of your unused Actions" instead of "each".

That has a different function from what Carline intends. "Each" and the intended function of Sisterhood only allow all-or-nothing. "Any" would not be all-or-nothing. This matters because of Diadem and cards that return to your Action phase, like Villa and Cavalry.

You're right. I'll edit my post.

Also, 2nd edition Rabble does not say "revealed" Actions and Treasures:

Again, you're right. I'll change that in my post too. I was looking at the wiki's list of cards, which for some reason still has the revealed part from 1st ed (though I am going to change it right now). (first ed is better than second according to my brother, because he thinks the best card in the game is THIEF (I'm not joking about this))

[Something_Smart]

My thoughts:

Healer - seems pretty good, I like the interaction with junking and discarding attacks.
Mirror - possibly confusing to track if you play a Mirror on another Mirror, balance-wise probably a little weak but not too bad as it's only a $2.
Small Village - seems pretty weak, the first one's a cheap village though I suppose, and probably not worth getting more than one of unless it's the only village or the only +buy.
Taverner - pretty reasonable. Given things like Pearl Diver exist the lower bound for $2 cantrips is essentially nothing.
Wanderer - compares poorly to Loan, which is already a pretty bad trasher. I doubt I would go for this in the absence of good Estate trashing like Hermit or Jack.
Flame Keeper - I like this better than the last time I saw it in the discord. It's pretty powerful now, and quite interesting.
Horse Lady - Tracking's a little weird; does the Horse get exiled before its effect takes place? It must, but that's not super clear; I might word it like Kiln ("the next time you play a Horse this turn, first exile it). Balance-wise this looks really strong to spam, probably a bit too strong compared to other Lab-'s for less than $5 (Advisor, Wishing Well, Caravan).
Maid - seems a bit weak but the flexibility might make up for that.
Minstrel - "Topdeck" isn't an official keyword; you should say "put an Action card on top of your deck (if any)". It looks very good, like a Border Guard but with a lower risk of skipping important things.
Morning - I feel like there's probably a simpler way to word this, though I can't think of one off the top of my head. I like the effect, a lot actually; it's not clear whether going for these is right, though it does seem like the right number to get is almost always 0 or 2.
Nurse - Feels kinda weak compared to Cargo Ship. Maybe the topdecking and sifting makes up for it though.
Nymphs - Seems like quite an annoying way to get +buy, but I guess if your engine needs +buy, this will do. Probably on the level of Herbalist in terms of how desperate for +buy I need to be to get it-- and I need to have a good enough engine to reliably play two of them.
Sisterhood - seems pretty fine. DXV doesn't like stuff that can really go crazy with +buys, and this is on the edge of that, but you do need to put in a significant amount of work to get a ton of buys out of this.
Tiara - A way to add payload in a pinch, I guess. I don't see myself trashing a Silver with this often. Like most Silver gainers, probably only useful in money or in a really strong engine.
Valkyries - See "topdeck" comment from before. Seems very weak in the absence of an attack, and even then, it's probably not worth it without a way to reliably make sure you can have it in your hand.
Workers - Villagers are good. Seems pretty strong.
Amazon - Looks kinda nuts. It's a bit slow to get started, but once you have a bunch of these they're all Lost Cities, plus they can enable gain-and-play stuff super easily.
Emissary - A Priest that junks instead of its other hard-to-use bonus? Seems very good.
Faithful Knight - looks quite underwhelming. Neither "+1 Card, +1 Villager" nor "+1 Card, +1 Coffers" would be worth $4 (I doubt I'd buy that second one at any price), and the flexibility in treating your tokens as one or the other is canceled out by only being able to do so when you play a Faithful Knight.
Four Seasons - interesting concept. Looks pretty strong; eventually you get a ton of these, and then they become consistent. Might be a nightmare to track irl; I don't know. But the idea's neat.
Gravedigger - Seems pretty slow, and I'm probably not feeding it anything besides Coppers. The +$2 is nice but as a duration it's going to miss a lot of shuffles (which is a big deal for trashers) so probably not super good.
Guildmaster - Interesting idea. Young Saboteur seems like it will help your opponent most of the time, so I imagine I'm just flipping back and forth between Smith and Trickster. I would definitely recommend making Saboteur stronger. Smith/Trickster dichotomy seems fine.
Hidden Pond - this seems uh quite powerful. It's probably almost trivial to get it to 3 VP-- Copper, Estate, Hidden Pond. At that point, you can just start grabbing them and setting aside whatever, particularly if you have a gainer. If your opponent doesn't stop you, you can probably outscore Provinces fairly easily.
Immolator - looks insanely strong. In terms of tempo, it's maybe a little slower than Masquerade, but it can't draw stuff dead... and it trashes twice as fast.
Jewelry - seems very hard to use effectively. At best, it can gain you one $5 action per turn, if you get lucky and draw it early enough. In rare cases, you might both want Golds from this and be able to get them.
Money Trick - looks like a Market-Baker for cheap if there's any other dual-type engine part on the board. If it wasn't meant to trigger off of your own plays, you should reword it "when any other player plays a card with 2 or more types on their turn, ..."
Sacred Hall - has a similar dynamic to other cards that care about the trash (like Forager and Necromancer). If you take the time to pump up the value of this, both players can benefit from it equally. It seems like a very bad Estate trasher, but with a strong enough engine, I might take it anyway. But I'm almost never going to be trashing other victory cards with this (unless I'm doing some kind of golden deck).
Secret Place - interesting. Extraordinarily slow, but you get to stack your deck to make up for that. It's probably too slow, given that you probably need to put at least 3 cards on there to make sure your turn where you draw them isn't awful, and probably at least one of them needs to not actually cost $5 which makes this less attractive as a $5 gainer.
Warrioresses - this is an exiling attack that's even less threatening than Gatekeeper. Though its vanilla bonuses are a little better than Gatekeeper's, I still think it's extraordinarily weak. Usually the first action card someone is playing on their turn is one that they want a lot of anyway and won't mind gaining another copy of.
Wishing Fountain - Seems quite good-- get a bunch of these, name Treasure and Victory to thin, and then have a bunch of mostly-labs in your deck.
Tale-Teller - I like this. It's really hard to tell how good it is; my first intuition was that it was weak, but now I'm thinking it might be amazing. I might want to test this out, especially with a Silver gainer; if your deck is full of Silvers and Golds, this seems incredibly powerful. Regardless, it's a very cool card.

To be continued.

[Something_Smart]

Blessing - feels a bit weak. + VP is generally not a great benefit early-game (sure, it's better than nothing, but it doesn't help your deck at all). The ability to swap it for a Wish when you're done trashing is useful but slow given that you have to spend a terminal action and don't see the Wish until next shuffle.
Buffoon - seems generally incredibly strong. Almost every action card that's worth having in your deck is strong to play twice for $5. Having to have actions left lest your opponent reveal a terminal is a downside, but probably not that good of one. I don't see myself using the gain option or the junking option often, either.
Circus Camp - seems strong, probably not overpowered, but a Fugitive-Village hybrid is pretty nice a lot of the time.
Crusader - probably a bit weak, the discarding seems more like a consolation prize for dudding than anything. You can use it to turn engine parts into payload like Storeroom but it's a lot less flexible than Storeroom is.
Dangerous Ground - I think this is crazy. As long as you play an even number it's just a consequence-free Hunting Grounds, and even if you do have to take Curses occasionally, your draw is probably strong enough to make up for it.
Golden Spoils - seems like pretty good payload. You get one, it gains you another, and then you keep just the two (gaining one and returning one each turn) and they're effectively Golds with +buy.
Hands of Gold - I don't see the Gold option coming up much. Probably not bad to pick up one of these for the consistency. Having this as the only village would be a major headache; without tons of cantrips you basically have to pitch a turn to activate the first one.
Librarian - it's a weaker Wharf that requires an Estate to activate, mostly. Maybe you use it on Silvers occasionally. Seems like a decent source of duration draw for extra consistency, probably not good as primary draw. Overall probably not that strong.
Madame - We talked about this one a bit in the Discord. This version looks okay, if not very interesting.
Magic Library - seems overpriced at $5. The sifting is nice, but unimpressive. The reaction is also nice, but not that impressive except against discard attacks, plus you have to have it in your hand for it to matter.
Maneuver - seems pretty fine. Not something I'd exactly be thrilled to draw with, but not the worst $5 Smithy variant.
Marketplace - probably not super great. If this is the only village then you're basically buying a Village for $5. If it isn't, then you'd probably be better off just getting a village if you need one or some other kind of payload card if you don't.
Nightmare - a curser with a very mild extra effect (discard one card is not that bad most of the time) whose gimmick is that you can junk them with other cards or use it to empty piles. Probably not very strong; terminal silver for $5 kinda sucks.
Shipmaster - seems very good. It's effectively a Lost City that provides consistency too.
Tavern Nights - the Miser combo has arrived! I'm honestly probably never discarding any treasures with this (except on like the last turn). Just using it as Copper thinning. The Coin of the Realm interaction is also funny.
Distant Island - cards with two dividing lines should probably be avoided if at all possible, since they don't look very good and they're often too complicated. Discard from exile bonus is probably not one I'm making use of very often, but I guess it's nice as a faster Island.
Paladin - very good. Probably on par with Hunting Party.
Fruits/Fruit Mix - Fruits is a Silver+ for $4 so I guess you take it whenever you would take Silver with $4. Otherwise I probably wouldn't. On the kind of board where Fruit Mix is uncovered (moneyish), you probably don't want it.

Joy - seems decent. Extraordinarily sad with no +buy.
Lending - very niche. There are very few action cards that are worth taking on 5 extra debt (I can't imagine you ever use this on less than a $5). Maybe if you have an incredible dud (like $1-2).
Burnish - again, seems pointless without +buy (barring Black Market/Storyteller). With +buy, maybe a slight incentive to keep my Coppers, nothing major.
Footbridge - seems incredibly good, not really centralizing though.
Bride Wait - I like this one. I don't particularly see why it costs debt rather than $, but it seems good either way.
Calmness - probably only gonna be bought on weak boards where consistency is a big issue. I think it's decent, though.
Burning - mostly just an expensive Bonfire, I think. Maybe you can use it to get Provinces as well.
Restrain - annoying for both players if it's the only source of +buy. The attack can be debilitating early, but it's kinda debilitating for both players. Potentially brutal when combined with discard attacks or hand inspection (like Cutpurse).
Cursed Land - a more narrow version of Desperation. I think Desperation makes this redundant.
Doubling Power - fine, I guess, if you happen to want the cards that it gives you. Seems not terribly different from Ball, except that it can gain $5's.
Birth of Venus - a more annoying Donate. Seems more luck-based than Donate, too, because if your opening cards don't collide then it will be hard to keep the cards you want.

Way of the Birdwoman - kinda weak, but not awful.
Way of the Centaur - seems like a stronger variant of Way of the Pig, which is already very strong.
Way of the Mermaid - seems pretty weak. Kinda like Way of the Mule, you probably only play it in a collision.
Way of the Werecat - weaker variant of Way of the Pig, but can help with consistency. Decent with gainers.
Way of the Beast - Gargoyle and Sphynx seem like slow attacks of the type that DXV has generally tried to avoid. Sphynx is probably too strong to be on a Way. Medusa is also too strong to be on a Way, Quimera is lol. She-Wolf and Harpy are probably okay.

Veil of Protection - very good attack defense, potentially makes some interesting decisions if you want to buy something but also want to be protected. Maybe this would be better as an Event?
Phoenix - seems incredibly good with any enabler.
Divination - balance-wise it's probably okay, but this seems so slow and annoying to resolve.
Season's Grace - probably a bit weak, but worth getting on boards where drawing is hard. More draw than Sinister Plot, but a lot less flexibility.
Great Cathedral - this seems kind of insane in how easy it is to make a golden deck with it. Can you not just like buy it turn 1, exile all your Estates, buy two Golds and maybe an action card or two, and then start buying Provinces?
Land Grant - this is a super cool idea. It doesn't seem terribly balanced, but it doesn't have to be, because the skill is mostly in knowing when to buy this rather than in knowing which landmark to pick (I feel like usually there will be one or two obvious choices). Of the landmarks themselves, only Yards seems to be clearly stronger than the rest.

[Carline]

Thank you very much Something_Smart, Aquila and BBobb! I apreciated so muych your help. I'm reading carefully to all comments and I will do the changes needed to fix the issues, weakness and wording mistakes you pointed. 

[BBobb]

Thank you very much Something_Smart, Aquila and BBobb! I apreciated so muych your help. I'm reading carefully to all comments and I will do the changes needed to fix the issues, weakness and wording mistakes you pointed. 

No problem! I will give you my analysis of the cards some time in the next week.

[Carline]

Merged Path and Madame into one card (Path) and added other terminal money, a Harvest variant (better than it I hope).

     

And 3 cards to have more non attack players interactions: A Wishing Well with a kind of reverse Gladiator bet, a Throne Command with a bit of the kindness of a Duchess and a Black Market gainer with Advisor condition.

          

[LittleFish]

Merged Path and Madame into one card (Path) and added other terminal money, a Harvest variant (better than it I hope).

     

And 3 cards to have more non attack players interactions: A Wishing Well with a kind of reverse Gladiator bet, a Throne Command with a bit of the kindness of a Duchess and a Black Market gainer with Advisor condition.

          

Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues

[Carline]

Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues

I think with the wording you suggested you could reveal the same copy many times until you draw your deck.

Added "Reveal your hand" to avoid trust issue. Thank you. 

[Gubump]

Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues

I think with the wording you suggested you could reveal the same copy many times until you draw your deck.

The text is only followed once. Same reason Mountebank doesn't let opponents just discard any number of Curses for draw-to-X purposes, and Vault doesn't let opponents do the "discard 2 cards to draw one" thing multiple times, etc.

Why would "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for +1 Card" be followed any number of times when it only allows it once?

Generally, cards don't reveal multiple cards when there's no reason to. For example, Gladiator only has your opponent reveal one card even though it could have them reveal their hand, because it only cares about that one card. Likewise, there's no reason for Gambler to reveal your whole hand when it only cares about one card in it. It would also be less wordy to only reveal one card:

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. You may reveal a copy from your hand for +1 Card.

This is only 21 words (counting the +1 Card as one word) versus your wording's 26 words.

[Carline]

Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues

I think with the wording you suggested you could reveal the same copy many times until you draw your deck.

The text is only followed once. Same reason Mountebank doesn't let opponents just discard any number of Curses for draw-to-X purposes, and Vault doesn't let opponents do the "discard 2 cards to draw one" thing multiple times, etc.

Why would "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for +1 Card" be followed any number of times when it only allows it once?

Generally, cards don't reveal multiple cards when there's no reason to. For example, Gladiator only has your opponent reveal one card even though it could have them reveal their hand, because it only cares about that one card. Likewise, there's no reason for Gambler to reveal your whole hand when it only cares about one card in it. It would also be less wordy to only reveal one card:

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. You may reveal a copy from your hand for +1 Card.

This is only 21 words (counting the +1 Card as one word) versus your wording's 26 words.

Of course the wording you both are suggesting is better. Yesterday I posted this card on Discord exactly with this text. I don't know why, after that, when I posted here, I thought it could lead to reveal a card more than once, so I changed it. Maybe it's because I remembered reading something in the forum about the possibility of an infinite loop revealing Secret Chamber undefinitely (and the same with Moat for a useless loop), but now I see that in their case, if it happens, it's because they are Reactions and reveal themselves.

[segura]

Heiress is too good. Double BoM/Overlord without any cost restriction is extremely powerful and not compensated by the Exiling. A TR that first drew a card would be very strong at $5 and this TR draws a virtual card that is whatever you wish it to be.

[Carline]

Heiress is too good. Double BoM/Overlord without any cost restriction is extremely powerful and not compensated by the Exiling. A TR that first drew a card would be very strong at $5 and this TR draws a virtual card that is whatever you wish it to be.

It would be more well balanced if they gain the card instead of Exile?

[segura]

The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.

[Carline]

The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.

Would this version work?

[Timinou]

The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.

Would this version work?

It should say costing less than this, so that you cannot play a Mountebank twice if you played Highway before Heiress.  I don’t think giving your opponents a copy of the card adequately compensates for the fact that this is still way better than Band of Misfits at the same cost.  For example, you could play a card like Moneylender twice and if your opponents already have one in their deck it is actually to your benefit if they gain another copy.

[Carline]

The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.

Would this version work?

It should say costing less than this, so that you cannot play a Mountebank twice if you played Highway before Heiress.  I don’t think giving your opponents a copy of the card adequately compensates for the fact that this is still way better than Band of Misfits at the same cost.  For example, you could play a card like Moneylender twice and if your opponents already have one in their deck it is actually to your benefit if they gain another copy.

What if gain is optional?

[Timinou]

It still looks too strong compared to Band of Misfits (and even Captain). 

Like segura pointed out, a Throne Room variant that is pretty much always guaranteed to work and that is also an emulator is very powerful.

[BBobb]

What if gain is optional?

The problem with the card is, that getting too choose any card to play twice without requiring to have it in your hand (like Throne Room needs) is too powerful. For example, Pearl Diver is one of the weakest cost cards, so giving it to your opponents is a tiny cost. On the other hand, when you play it with Heiress, Heiress becomes a Lost City (with a tiny upside).

[silverspawn]

I think it's actually fine. Band of Mifits plays a card once. This plays it twice & each other player gains a copy. That means the difference is, you play a card from the supply, and each other player gains a copy of it. Is this good? In general, probably not. I rather have another Ironmonger than get the ~+2 card, +1 Action bonus in my turn. There are many situations where it is good after all, like the card being a cantrip, or the card not being something you want to have too often, but so what? Why can't we have strong 5$s?

Would you buy this almost every game? Probably. Also true for Captain.

[Timinou]

I don't see why the current version should cost less than Captain. 

Maybe if your opponents gained a copy of the card directly to their hand or were allowed to play it once from the Supply at the start of their own turn (although tracking might be problematic), it might be fine...still not sure though.

I guess in some sense giving your opponents that card could potentially limit Heiress' ability, since that pile is more likely to run out faster and then you wouldn't be able to play it again with Heiress....but depending on what the board looks like, it might not matter too much. 

[segura]

Piles running out faster actually makes Heiress stronger as the value of the gained card for the opponent decreases (they can play it less often if the game is shorter).

[Carline]

[BBobb]

For formatting, I would put the "twice" after "than this" (sounds better) and would also put a "if they did" before the "They may discard" part, (otherwise, someone will probably ask "to gain what to hand?" Also, for the card's actual on-play ability, I think that its somewhat balanced for 2 and 3 players. But, for example, with 6 players, 6 plays of Heiress by any player can end the game. I can only imagine a game of 6 player where everyone opens / and buys and Heiress. The game will probably be over very quickly.

[BBobb]

For the new cards, here are my wording changes:

Path:
"If this is first Path you played this turn"
"when you buy a card, copies of it card with that name cost less this turn"
For the first one, see Crossroads. For the second, see Ambassador (and others)

Fertility (BTW, I think this is what Harvest should've been):
"differently named revealed card revealed"
See Harvest

Gambler:
"The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. Reveal your hand. If it has at least a copy of the revealed card You may reveal a copy of it for +1 Card.
Though I don't think any card uses this mechanic, see cards that need a single copy of something in hand.
EDIT: Wording was already changed

Heiress:
Already gave my thoughts on wording in my last post.

Bootleg:
"The player to your left chooses one of them"
EDIT: I would also make it like Black Market (create a Bootleg deck)
See Envoy

[Gubump]

Gambler:
"The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. Reveal your hand. If it has at least a copy of the revealed card You may reveal a copy of it for +1 Card.

Carline's most recent version of Gambler has that wording, but specifies "from your hand," as it should.

[BBobb]

Gambler:
"The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. Reveal your hand. If it has at least a copy of the revealed card You may reveal a copy of it for +1 Card.

Carline's most recent version of Gambler has that wording, but specifies "from your hand," as it should.

You are right. Thanks. I'll edit my post

[Carline]

New additions:

          
          

Edited: Added Spellbook.

[segura]

Samurai is likely too good. It is Lab plus Peddler and having an (integrated) Peddler seems better than the one-shot Villager for the opponents.
I like Rebel but the Attack looks too powerful, unless you intend that the card should more or less totally shut down engine play.

[Gubump]

Spellbook's bottom-most section (the self-cost increasing) should say "during your turns." See Peddler, Destrier, and Fisherman. Janus' bottom section would be better worded as "during your turns, if your Journey token is face down, this costs less."

Wording aside, there's a big issue with cost increasing effects like Spellbook: What happens if I play 4 Bridges and have one Spellbook in play? Do the 4 Bridges try to lower its cost to -, instead reducing its cost to , and then Spellbook raises its cost to ? Or does Spellbook raise its cost to first and then the Bridges reduce its price to ?

[Carline]

Samurai is likely too good. It is Lab plus Peddler and having an (integrated) Peddler seems better than the one-shot Villager for the opponents.

Yes, changed to Villager or Coffers, their choice. I hope now it's enough drawback.

     

I like Rebel but the Attack looks too powerful, unless you intend that the card should more or less totally shut down engine play.

Previous version was compulsory Chameleon only to first Action. I'll go back to it.



Thank you!

[Carline]

Spellbook's bottom-most section (the self-cost increasing) should say "during your turns." See Peddler, Destrier, and Fisherman. Janus' bottom section would be better worded as "during your turns, if your Journey token is face down, this costs less."

Wording aside, there's a big issue with cost increasing effects like Spellbook: What happens if I play 4 Bridges and have one Spellbook in play? Do the 4 Bridges try to lower its cost to -, instead reducing its cost to , and then Spellbook raises its cost to ? Or does Spellbook raise its cost to first and then the Bridges reduce its price to ?

About cost reducer issue, as we talk on Discord, maybe there's no problem, we only have to add positive and negative modifiers in any order and round to zero if result is negative.

Something_Smart there: "That's FAQ material. It seems intuitive that you would do all cost calculation before rounding up to 0, which means the order doesn't matter".

Added, "during your turns" to both cards. Changed Spellbook image, I think this one has more movement.

Thank you!

     

[Carline]

New cards:

                                   

[LibraryAdventurer]

The discarding option of Resistance makes it too easy to keep it on your mat and use it again IMO. I don't think it needs that. Being a cantrip, it's easy to get it back on your mat anyway.

Native is a Peddler+ which is clearly a $5. -Oops, not exactly a Peddler+ since it needs to find an action you don't have a copy of in play, so it needs variety. Still, it could probably cost $4.
A Hoyden is a Cellar with +1 Card and an additional option for +actions. Seems like a strong $4 to me.
I don't understand why Gladiatrix limits the cost of the card you trash.

I like Swineherd.
Is Jane Doe a kingdom card that only costs a buy? Interesting. I think I like it. It seems strong for a free card, but it's probably fine since it's a one-shot.

[segura]

The discarding option of Resistance makes it too easy to keep it on your mat and use it again IMO. I don't think it needs that. Being a cantrip, it's easy to get it back on your mat anyway.

I'd go further. Cantrip Reserve Moats are an old idea and they do pretty much shut down Attack play entirely. In multiplayer they might be viable.
But the two extras this has over a pure cantrip Reserve Moat push it over the top.

Native is an interesting Peddler variant. I'd also test it at $4.

Gladiatrix is likely too strong. I like it as a Conspirator/Vassal/DoublePeddler variant but the trashing option makes it too good/versatile. Arguably it needs a secondary option, without it the power level might be around or below that of Vassal, but a weaker one.

[Gubump]

I'll also expand on what the others were saying about Resistance: One big problem with Reserve-Moats is how much worse they are in multiplayer. It doesn't matter if you can Reserve-Moat when the player to your left Militias if one of your other opponents also has a Militia.

If you're playing a 4P game, and all of your opponents have Militias, then blocking their Attacks is actually worse than just accepting the Attack, because you either have the same handsize at the end but don't have your Resistance on your mat anymore, or have just 2 cards in hand instead of 3.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'll also expand on what the others were saying about Resistance: One big problem with Reserve-Moats is how much worse they are in multiplayer. It doesn't matter if you can Reserve-Moat when the player to your left Militias if one of your other opponents also has a Militia.

If you're playing a 4P game, and all of your opponents have Militias, then blocking their Attacks is actually worse than just accepting the Attack, because you either have the same handsize at the end but don't have your Resistance on your mat anymore, or have just 2 cards in hand instead of 3.

You could still do a Reserve-Moat by saying "You may call this to set it aside. If you do, you are unaffected by attacks until your next turn."

[Carline]

New ones:

               

[Gubump]

New ones:

               

Typos/grammar errors in Expectancy: It should say "the player to your left sets aside a card from another Supply pile." "Pick one of them randomly and gain it" would be better worded as "gain a random one of them," IMO.

Lanterns could be worded more simply: "You may shuffle your discard pile into your deck. Do this 3 times: Look at the bottom card of your deck and either discard it or put it on top. Then, +3 Cards." That said, I think it would be more reasonable power-wise if it let you look at the 3 bottom cards at once instead of one at a time.

[Carline]

Nem cards and new version of Lanterns.

                         

[BBobb]

Just some wording changes:

Expulsion:
+2 Cards
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discard an Treasure Action or an Action card Treasure (or reveals they can't)
See Fear.

Lanterns:
Look through your discard pile. You may shuffle any number of cards of from it with into your deck. Look at the top card of your deck. You may dDiscard it it put it back.
+3 cCards
For the first part, it just sounds better. For the second, see Inn. For the third, see Zombie Spy. For the fourth, see any card that gives +Cards.

Swamp:
Though this isn't necessary, I would change this to an on-gain ability. Donald X. is moving away from on-buy and moving towards on-gain. Also, I wouldn't make it a victory card since it gives negative points. I wouldn't call it a curse either, so I dunno what to call it.

[Carline]

Some more:

               

[BBobb]

For Ghost Pirate, is this supposed to be the one who plays the card who chooses, or the one who is getting attacked? If it is the one who is getting attacked, you need a (or reveals they can't).

[Gubump]

For Ghost Pirate, is this supposed to be the one who plays the card who chooses, or the one who is getting attacked? If it is the one who is getting attacked, you need a (or reveals they can't).

It's just "discards a card" if they don't gain a copy. The only way they couldn't do that is if they have no cards in hand, which they don't need to reveal.

[BBobb]

For Ghost Pirate, is this supposed to be the one who plays the card who chooses, or the one who is getting attacked? If it is the one who is getting attacked, you need a (or reveals they can't).

It's just "discards a card" if they don't gain a copy. The only way they couldn't do that is if they have no cards in hand, which they don't need to reveal.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.

[Carline]

An Outpost variant and new Event

     

[Carline]

Spell and cards that give it.

               

[spineflu]

how big's the spell pile

[Carline]

how big's the spell pile

I'm still trying to find the best amount. How many do you think are good?

[spineflu]

how big's the spell pile

I'm still trying to find the best amount. How many do you think are good?

i mean, start with same scaling as curses? or just do "same as any other victory pile"?

[BBobb]

The problem with Pandora's box is that often you can just gain a $5 card while junking your opponents with estates or Coppers. I would not have your opponents be forced to gain a card.

For Spellbound, for tracking issues, I would make it "trash a card you have in play that you would discard during Clean-Up this turn" to get rid of those problems.

[Carline]

The problem with Pandora's box is that often you can just gain a $5 card while junking your opponents with estates or Coppers. I would not have your opponents be forced to gain a card.

For Spellbound, for tracking issues, I would make it "trash a card you have in play that you would discard during Clean-Up this turn" to get rid of those problems.

The idea of Pandora's Box includes this additional $1 to junk when you buy a $5.

[BBobb]

The problem with Pandora's box is that often you can just gain a $5 card while junking your opponents with estates or Coppers. I would not have your opponents be forced to gain a card.

For Spellbound, for tracking issues, I would make it "trash a card you have in play that you would discard during Clean-Up this turn" to get rid of those problems.

The idea of Pandora's Box includes this additional $1 to junk when you buy a $5.

Yes, but a lot of the time when you are buying a $5 card, you are paying $6, especially later in the game.

[segura]

I like Spellbound a lot. But it could very well be too good. Ignoring the trashing and self junking, a nonterminal that yields 2 VPs could be too good. You smartly put in a limit, i.e. you cannot build a Golden Deck due to the trashing.
So yeah, brilliant card but you also gotta plantest the hell out of it to make sure that it is not broken.

[faust]

I've meant to go through this for while, but it seems a big task to go through all the cards, so I'll just comment bit by bit, in the order from the starting post. Note that I haven't read previous comments, so there may be things in here that have been discussed before.

Jane Doe - "trash a card from your hand" is by far the most useful option on this, the rest is very situational. I would try to reduce the number of options. +1 buy seems superfluous on a card that you'll mostly get if you already have extra buys. Gaining a Horse also hardly ever seems worth getting this for. The when-trash seems a bit out of place on this card; it makes more sense on a card that isn't already a 1-shot.

Healer - the Reaction is clever in that it decently counters both discard and junking attacks. I feel like the on-play effect is too strong though. Compare Trade Route, which costs more, is weaker, and does not have a Reaction. Not sure what the best fix would be. I think removing the trash on play and, to make up for it, allowing Healer to also trigger upon other healers being played would be a decently interesting nerf.

Mirror - this is a neat card. I worry that it can get a bit confusing at times - as written, if I Mirror a Mirror, then I only need to trash one Mirror and no other card.. is that intentional? It might be better to use a wording that requires a card trash, like "you may trash the played card. If you didn't, trash this."

Monk - seems fine. One worry is it might be too strong with emulators; maybe make the +VP conditional on having Exiled the Monk (Way of the Mouse/Monk is crazy). There are also ways to make this go inifinite, if you have a way of continually gaining Monks (e.g. from the trash) to discard your Exiled Monks, but that seems like more of a feature than a bug.

Resistance - this one has a bit too much going on for my liking. I don't see why it has the thing where you can put it back on the mat instantly, I think that should just be scrapped. I am not in love with the double dividing line, but I can kind of see why it has extra buys. It might be a solution to just put the buy as an extra on-play effect and get rid of the when-gain.

5 at a times seems good, yes? I'll be back Don't go posting new cards that mess up my order in the mean time!

[faust]

Alright, I'll go through some more. The cards are all fairly high quality, which is it fun to come back to this!

Small Village - Solid design. I don't have any complaints.

Taverner - this is basically strictly better than a vanilla "+1 card, +1 action, +2 buys", which is arguably better than Market Square. I like the idea of +buys on demand, but I feel for the concept to work out it has to be a bit harder to actually get these to the Tavern mat, or to call them. Maybe you only get to call them when you buy a Treasure? Something like that would be good to nerf it and make it more interesting.

Wanderer - I don't understand the theming; what does a Wanderer have to do with Coppers? Anyways, this is decent if unexciting. I would maybe up the price to $3 just to not make it too good in 5/2 openings.

Flame Keeper - This is cool, but I think it needs to cost $4. It is just too powerful as a double opener. Makes it very easy to reach double $5 hands in the second shuffle, and cycles. Compare Mill and Conspirator, both of which are similar to this in different ways, and both also cost $4.

Gambler - This kind of feels like it should be an Attack, but then again it's hardly that. An issue is that if you play multiple Gambler, you may force one player and one player alone to reveal their entire hand in order to block you. It's also another card that really wants to cost $4, given how easy it is to activate in the early game. Finally, it's slow; there is a meaningful decision for the opponent every time you play this, and this slows the game down too much since it's also a cantrip. I would rather go the Tribute route and just have cards flipped from the top of your opponent's deck. This makes it a bit stronger though, so it should then really cost $4 (and might even be too good at that price point).

[faust]

Back for another batch!

Horse Lady - this seems good. It can eventually produce as much draw as a Lab, but everything is quite delayed and you have to line it up correctly. I am not 100% sure that the instructions work - it is clear what is intended, but it#s not clear to me that the moving from Horse happens after the moving from Horse Lady.

Hoyden - this is too strong. As a non-handsize-decreasing sifter, it's about on par with Forum. Forum is better as you get to draw first, but this makes up for it by also giving Actions. Since it's on a level with Forum, the cost should be like a $4.5, which isn't feasible. So it needs to be weakened so it can cost $4. i think a sensible nerf would be to make the discard a hard 3 instead of "up to 3"; that way, at least sometimes you'll be forced to discard good cards.

Maid - fine I suppose? It's not super exciting, but then, not every card needs to be.

Minstrel - an effective way to look for Actions. It seems solid.

Morning - It's weird that you can buy a Morning... This is pretty cool and I think balanced. I am starting to feel like you have a whole lot of Lab variants in your expansion though, if you want this to work as an expansion you'll probably need to cut down on those.

[Carline]

Alright, I'll go through some more. The cards are all fairly high quality, which is it fun to come back to this!

Small Village - Solid design. I don't have any complaints.

Taverner - this is basically strictly better than a vanilla "+1 card, +1 action, +2 buys", which is arguably better than Market Square. I like the idea of +buys on demand, but I feel for the concept to work out it has to be a bit harder to actually get these to the Tavern mat, or to call them. Maybe you only get to call them when you buy a Treasure? Something like that would be good to nerf it and make it more interesting.

Wanderer - I don't understand the theming; what does a Wanderer have to do with Coppers? Anyways, this is decent if unexciting. I would maybe up the price to $3 just to not make it too good in 5/2 openings.

Flame Keeper - This is cool, but I think it needs to cost $4. It is just too powerful as a double opener. Makes it very easy to reach double $5 hands in the second shuffle, and cycles. Compare Mill and Conspirator, both of which are similar to this in different ways, and both also cost $4.

Gambler - This kind of feels like it should be an Attack, but then again it's hardly that. An issue is that if you play multiple Gambler, you may force one player and one player alone to reveal their entire hand in order to block you. It's also another card that really wants to cost $4, given how easy it is to activate in the early game. Finally, it's slow; there is a meaningful decision for the opponent every time you play this, and this slows the game down too much since it's also a cantrip. I would rather go the Tribute route and just have cards flipped from the top of your opponent's deck. This makes it a bit stronger though, so it should then really cost $4 (and might even be too good at that price point).

Thank you very much Faust!

I will see about all your suggestions. By now, two answers:

I put the +2 buys on gain in Resistance to it not be a dead card when Kingdom doesn't have an attack, so you may want it to buy it to use as Travelling Fair. As you and others pointed, this card can be improved in the other features, so I'm reviewing it.

When I think about Wanderer theme, I think about these wanderers who sometimes have a few money and spent it and when don't have money at all get a temporary job only to produce the necessary for going on wandering.

[Carline]

Enchantments are a Landscape with a rule valid for all game. I think about them as a way to implement an idea of a card Shael posted in Discord asking if it could be a Reaction.

Some possibilities:

[faust]

Native - I like it. It's good that it can't play other Natives, as this would turn it too much into Venture. It has very powerful combos with Tunnel and Patron, that is something to look out for but it's probably fine.

Nurse - decent mix of Ghost Town/Night Watchman bonus. I think for simplicity I would just do set 1 aside, discard 1, topdeck 1.

Nymphs - very neat payload. Probably balanced? The +Buy might be too much.

Sisterhood - this is pretty weak but like any +Buy, it has its use cases.

Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?

Valkyries - the reaction on this is the reaction that really should have been on Horse Traders... this one is fine but it's fairly complex for a card the will never be really exciting.

Workers - I'm not the biggest fan of Villager spamming. The card is probably balanced but I'd prefer not to play with it.

Spellbook - given that you now have Spells in this set, it's very odd that this doesn't use them, especially considering they actually work much like VP tokens. It's a slightly more interesting Great Hall which is decent.

Amazon - two of these are like 2 Villages I suppose, though weaker. The problem I see is that without gainers, this is pretty weak and can cost $3, whereas with gainers it becomes an absolute powerhouse. It could give just one action and allow you to play the next gained card instead, to make it more interesting when you only get the next card during your buy phase.

Bootleg - I think not doing a Black Market-style setup rule for this will just confuse people - how do you randomize? If it's supposed to be really random, then you should have the same chance of getting each card on every play, so if you use a randomizer deck, you will have to shuffle it after each play of this... which doesn't seem feasible. It's also pretty swingy; if at one point you reveal 3 awesome cards then that's just a huge benefit. Black Market has this issue to some extent but at least you still need to be able to pay for what you get, so you won't just get a King's Court on shuffle 2.

Yay for 10 in a row! I should get back to working now though...

[Carline]

Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?

Thank you again!

Tiara is a Silver manager. You may gain one Silver at each play if you want. You may gain two Silvers at a play trashing Tiara. Or you may trash a Silver at each play without gaining one, if you want to get rid of Silvers. When you trashed all the Silvers you want to trash, you may autotrash Tiara.

Playing options with it:

- Gain 2 Silvers and trash Tiara.

- Gain 2 Silvers and trash a Silver you have in play. Final result, 1 Silver gained.

- Don't gain two Silvers and trash a Silver in play.

- Don't gain two Silvers and trash Tiara.

In any of this cases, you can play your Silvers before or after play Tiara, according with what you want it to do.

[faust]

Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?

Thank you again!

Tiara is a Silver manager. You may gain one Silver at each play if you want. You may gain two Silvers at a play trashing Tiara. Or you may trash a Silver at each play without gaining one, if you want to get rid of Silvers. When you trashed all the Silvers you want to trash, you may autotrash Tiara.

I am still confused about why you need that much Silver managing. In a normal game you get like, 2-3 Silvers? Sure there might come a point where I don't want them in my deck anymore, but it's not like I'll buy Tiara, which mind you comes with another of those things I don't really want, just to very slowly get rid of them.

So I don't think it works when you want to get rid of Silver. It's only realistic use is mass Silver gaining a la Masterpiece. In which case, 95% of the time, I'll just use this as a one-shot for 3 Silvers. (the other 5% are games with Conquest) A Treasure that does nothing except net-gain one Silver isn't worth keeping around in pretty much any deck.

EDIT: Reacting to your edit! I guess my issue is that the only realistically usable option from the ones you listed is Gain 2 Silvers, trash Tiara.

[Timinou]

I think it's fine to have one-shot cards that you may only buy once a game.

IMO, Tiara might be more useful if it gave you two Silvers when gained (it could cost $4 instead of $3), because then I could see this being used more often to open games where you really want to hit $5 or $6 after the first shuffle.

[Carline]

Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?

Thank you again!



Tiara is a Silver manager. You may gain one Silver at each play if you want. You may gain two Silvers at a play trashing Tiara. Or you may trash a Silver at each play without gaining one, if you want to get rid of Silvers. When you trashed all the Silvers you want to trash, you may autotrash Tiara.

I am still confused about why you need that much Silver managing. In a normal game you get like, 2-3 Silvers? Sure there might come a point where I don't want them in my deck anymore, but it's not like I'll buy Tiara, which mind you comes with another of those things I don't really want, just to very slowly get rid of them.

So I don't think it works when you want to get rid of Silver. It's only realistic use is mass Silver gaining a la Masterpiece. In which case, 95% of the time, I'll just use this as a one-shot for 3 Silvers. (the other 5% are games with Conquest) A Treasure that does nothing except net-gain one Silver isn't worth keeping around in pretty much any deck.

EDIT: Reacting to your edit! I guess my issue is that the only realistically usable option from the ones you listed is Gain 2 Silvers, trash Tiara.

I think it's fine to have one-shot cards that you may only buy once a game.

IMO, Tiara might be more useful if it gave you two Silvers when gained (it could cost $4 instead of $3), because then I could this being used more often to open games where you really want to hit $5 or $6 after the first shuffle.

Thank you both. I think I can do it making it be a Silver itself and costing $4.

[faust]

We're about to hit a rough patch! The next five are all cards I have some sort of issue with.

Dame - This has the potential to generate a lot of draw just from a single card. It's going to be extremely strong with other Horse gainers. On its own, it is probably fine. I would maybe get rid of the "while in play" and just add something like "the next time you play a Horse this turn, +1 card".

Duplication - this card bothers me. I think the main reason is that the thing it is named for - Duplication - isn't its primary use. That would be the trashing. If you look at the trashing sid,e this is much like a worse Temple - you get it to thin your deck, and then later on you may get additional copies for some +VP. Trashing a card to gain 2 copies of it isn't an effect that you want all that often, since it means you won't be able to play that card. And in the situations where that is good, it drains piles too easily.

Emissary - I have doubts about Copper junking. It feels like this leads to an endless attacking slog. Ambassador wars at least end at some point because you return more than you receive. With this, if both of you play an Emissary each turn, then you'll end up where you started in terms of junk, and with more players it's even worse. And it goes on for a long time. I also don't get how the Heirloom connects to Emissary. It's an okay Heirloom, but I don't see the need for it.

Expectancy - Not sure about this. It seems like a good strategy for the opponent is to spam you with extra Expectancies - they cost $4, so you won't get any benefit, and are terminal so they'll clog up your deck. Occasionally a Curse will be worth it, if you know that the opponent doesn't have the +Buy to make use of extra cash. This will be terrible with Potions. Finally, it can be extremely swingy: If the opponent picks Duchy, then either you get a free +3 VP, or you junk yourself for a Camel Train effect. It seems that this would make games unfun.

Expulsion - Definitely too strong. Imagine how easy it is to set up a pin with this+Rabble. It would probably be fine if it only targets players with a full 5-card hand.

[Carline]

The discarding option of Resistance makes it too easy to keep it on your mat and use it again IMO. I don't think it needs that. Being a cantrip, it's easy to get it back on your mat anyway.

I'd go further. Cantrip Reserve Moats are an old idea and they do pretty much shut down Attack play entirely. In multiplayer they might be viable.
But the two extras this has over a pure cantrip Reserve Moat push it over the top.

I'll also expand on what the others were saying about Resistance: One big problem with Reserve-Moats is how much worse they are in multiplayer. It doesn't matter if you can Reserve-Moat when the player to your left Militias if one of your other opponents also has a Militia.

If you're playing a 4P game, and all of your opponents have Militias, then blocking their Attacks is actually worse than just accepting the Attack, because you either have the same handsize at the end but don't have your Resistance on your mat anymore, or have just 2 cards in hand instead of 3.

Resistance - this one has a bit too much going on for my liking. I don't see why it has the thing where you can put it back on the mat instantly, I think that should just be scrapped. I am not in love with the double dividing line, but I can kind of see why it has extra buys. It might be a solution to just put the buy as an extra on-play effect and get rid of the when-gain.

You all are right. Thank you! Create a calling defense is not easy. There are at least three challenges:

- Make it scale well with any number of players;

- Make it good to block attacks but not invencible;

- Make it useful when kingdom doesn't have Attacks.

I created this mat version to try to fullfill these conditions.

     

[Carline]

New cards:

               

[faust]

You all are right. Thank you! Create a calling defense is not easy. There are at least three challenges:

- Make it scale well with any number of players;

- Make it good to block attacks but not invencible;

- Make it useful when kingdom doesn't have Attacks.

I created this mat version to try to fullfill these conditions.

     

I don't think this a step in the right direction. For one, I very much doubt that this version will be useful without attacks. More generally, it's hard to even understand what's going on; you have sacrificed simplicity for some perceived versatility.

I don't think the scaling with player count was ever all that much of an issue. It might be weaker with more player, but then again, lots of cards are. By just being able to block a single attack, I don't think it would shut them down completely, so that was never an issue to begin with. And it's fine if a card isn't useful in every situation; Guardian is certainly less useful without attacks than the previous version of Resistance.

[Carline]

Swamp:
Though this isn't necessary, I would change this to an on-gain ability. Donald X. is moving away from on-buy and moving towards on-gain. Also, I wouldn't make it a victory card since it gives negative points. I wouldn't call it a curse either, so I dunno what to call it.

This in only on buy for you don't gain a Province if you gain it other ways, like forging a Silver and a Potion, remodeling a $5, etc. Maybe these two cases I cited as example are not so broken, but I didn't want to wondering about the many possible situations it would be broken with bonus on gaining.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it can be a Victory. I didn't see anything in the rules which say that Victories can't give negative VPs. Overgrown Estate is a Victory and gives 0 VPs. In a similar way, some Landmarks give negative VPs.

[Carline]

New card:

[segura]

Privilege is too good. The condition is really not that hard to achieve, all you need is draw or discard Attacks which the majority of Kingdoms do have. The only neat thing about it is that it is a bad opener (unless there is Urchin).

[mutated]

I love the simplicity of this. What if your Laboratory also trashed a card, kind of like Junk Dealer (another 5-cost), but you could pass it to the next player strategically if you were going to end the game or had only Provinces in hand.

My only concern is that it feels too powerful for a 5-cost card, which is a shame given its simplicity. This is an amazing card to pick up in a 5/2 opening, and is still really good through the end of the game. One comparison here is Cathedral, which is a very strong project where the benefits of strong trashing usually outweigh the drawbacks. Cathedral is cheaper, of course, but you can also avoid playing Nomad or can pass it to your opponent late in a turn if you want, where Cathedral is mandatory at the start of your turn.

I wonder if a version that costs more, or had some additional restriction that made it more likely to move to the next player, would be more balanced. Not sure! This screams "test it in some random kingdoms" to me. Nothing inherently wrong with a strong 5-cost card.

[GendoIkari]

Privilege is too good. The condition is really not that hard to achieve, all you need is draw or discard Attacks which the majority of Kingdoms do have. The only neat thing about it is that it is a bad opener (unless there is Urchin).

I'm not sure; you don't just need draw; you need to be able to draw up to 7 cards, while having an action left, while also potentially starting your hand with an extra dead card that makes it harder to get that necessary draw. Playing a Laboratory and then a Nomad isn't good enough... you need 2 Labs and a Nomad, or a Village, then Smithy, then Nomad, etc. It might be too swingy; given that the difference between drawing into Nomad vs starting your hand with Nomad is pretty big. But I don't think it sounds very easy to activate; just like Treasures, adding it to your deck will hurt your engine.

[segura]

Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.

An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.

[Gubump]

Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.

An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.

If you have 6 cards in hand, then when you play Privilege, you'll have 5 cards in hand, which is the same number of cards as your opponents, not more. I do agree that it's too good for , though. However, I also think it's too weak for .

[segura]

Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.

An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.

If you have 6 cards in hand, then when you play Privilege, you'll have 5 cards in hand, which is the same number of cards as your opponents, not more.

True that, my mistake. I still think that it is a bit too straightforward as engine payload.

[GendoIkari]

Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.

An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.

I meant Privilege instead of Nomad.

[Timinou]

Privilege seems quite good in games where you are able to start your turn with at least 7 cards in hand (e.g. games with Way of the Squirrel (assuming no handsize attacks), Den of Sin, Enchantress, Haunted Woods, Wharf, etc).  If it weren't for that, I would agree with GendoIkari that having too many of them in your deck would hurt you.

[faust]

I'm back! I will insert cards that were added since my last round of comments.

Blind Bet - this says "random card", but that needs to be further specified I feel like. What if they previously revealed their hand or you played a Blind Bet before, are they then allowed/required to shuffle their hand? Other than that - this probably needs Command type and restrict to non-Command cards for playing in order to prevent infinite loops. I also feel like getting Woodcutter as the fallback option is a bit too strong; maybe cut the +1 Buy, otherwise frequently enough you'll play this as just a Woodcutter and ignore all the fancy stuff.

Clown - like a cheap Jester, but with opponents choosing? It not a bad concept, but the unconditional discard from hand can lead to nasty pins in Victory-heavy games (Shepherd?). The worst thing is that when I get an all-Victory hand, not only is it dead but I might also be forced to eventually discard a Province, which is just awful. It also has a bit of a political edge to it. I don't think I would enjoy playing this version, especially in multiplayer.

Faithful Knight - I feel like this had a previous, simpler version that I quite liked. [Side note: it might be a good idea to keep a changelog of your cards available somewhere - I noticed that you changed some things snce the last time I checked this out, and it's hard to follow discussion if this happens unannounced.] Ah i see it now, it exchanged for other tokens. You removed that option saying that you'd always immediately spend these tokens; I disagree. Especially if there are other sources of VP, you might just have a single Faithful Knight and want to hoard up. The current version of this is quite weak in comparison. The "more than 10" condition is awkward and unnecessary; it's a terminal VP gainer like Monument, and Monument doesn't cause any "neverending game" issues in practice.

Fairy - I like it. It might cause piles to run too fast, to the point where using this to Duchy-rush is viable; that would need to be checked in playtesting.

Four Seasons - Theme is never super strong in Dominion I suppose, but it still irritates me that you can "own" a Season. It's unclear to me how many Seasons there are; that seems very important. This is a specialised gainer that you will keep around, so in order to make it viable there need to be a decent amount of Seasons. It also allows for weird strategies where you "block off" one Season in order to prevent your opponent's exchanges; their viability also depends on this. The seasons themselves could be a bit more thematically match I feel like: fall should be the $ generator (because Harvest), and then +actions also feel more appropriate in Summer. Winter for buys and Spring for cards is reasonable.
Overall, this is probably a decent set, but it will be tough to find the balance in numbers that makes them neither overpowered nor too niche.

Ghost Pirate - I assume that the choice is the opponent's. I am saddened that this does not fall in line with preexisting flavor - Pirates/Thieves to steal treasure and Ghostly things to topdeck stuff. I think power-level wise, this is fine, and the attack takes a bit of setup to really hit hard, so that is also nice.

Gladiatrix - I have a lot to say about flavor these days. I don't think it's great to use female versions of existing cards, it's confusing and kind of rubs me the wrong way. In general I don't feel that card names should be gendered. I like the gambling aspect of this; in a way it is like a super-Tournament that is easier to blcok. And of course in the opening is's basically Priest. It#s pretty strong, but it can be awful if your opponent blocks you in the late game.

Gravedigger - This card does a bit too much for me. It's hard to wrap your head around. i think it can get rid of the Copper trashing benefit, that is not its main focus and it's pretty slow when used that way anyways. That should also allow you to put normal-sized text on it. I am not sure how well the trash-gaining works, it seems like you need to trash ever more expensive cards in order to reclaim what you trashed before, that's not viable. I feel like most of the time, the trash-gaining won't be relevant and this will basically be a Salvager variant. Which is fine, but then you maybe don't need that part either.

Guildmaster - I thought this was a cool concept when I saw it first in the design contest. It's good that this will always be terminal, because Young Saboteur spamming could get pretty annoying. All the options feel mostly balanced.

Heiress - again, it feels like this could simply be called "Heir". I don't understand the on-play effect; this does not seem to give any +Actions to begin with? I am not sure that "being played by another Action" is a well defined concept anyways; it I play Black Market for a Scepter that plays Heiress, was Heiress then "played by another Action"? I think this is certainly way too good at running piles, it can just empty its own pile and then probably one more on a single play. Maybe the on-play was meant to limit that?

[Gubump]

You changed the name, but forgot to change the text. It still refers to Spellbooks being in play instead of the new name.

This should just be a Command and be limited to non-Command cards. There's no reason to make it more confusing than it has to be, or to make it un-Thronable. Also, it should say "gain a copy of it" and if you insist on keeping it a non-Command, "when this is played by another Action."

Why did you choose to word this confusingly instead of just applying cost reduction? Since it doesn't apply until after you've bought cards, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that this wording is needlessly confusing. And you used to have it worded simply by applying cost reduction, so it looks to me like you just changed it to make it more confusing for no reason.

[faust]

Hidden Pond - I think this one is really cool. They can potentially be worth a lot of points, but it takes effort. It's hard to decide whether to get these early to remove some junk, or later for scoring. Overall it's a card that seems like it will be challenging and rewarding to use correctly.

Immolator - Trash 2 is always going to be strong. It might well eclipse Remake in terms of power level, it would probably be the best $4 cost if released. If you wanted to tone it down, consider giving $ for each card that was not trashed; then it can be a trasher early and a source of some economy down the line.

Jewelry - this seems a bit overpowered to me compared to other Workshop variants. It could even gain a $5 on the second shuffle with a lucky draw - and it is nonterminal, so you can couple it with draw. It might not quite be good enough at $5, but I feel like it's too good for $4. Also, I don#t think the self-trashing thing is needed, I would cut that for simplicity.

Money Trick - it feels a bit too easy to activate, at least on most boards. Then it's basically super-Market. The concept it neat, but I'd try to find another trigger. Also the +1 card can probably just be an on-play ability in general.

Night Ranger - i may be missing something, but it seems to me like this is way too good? Playing to of them is like playing 2 Labs, only better - and they cost $4. Plus you can gain it to your hand. I think this needs to be significantly nerfed, "return to you Action phase" is such a good effect by itself already.

[Carline]

Due to the release of Allies expansion, I have to change the name of all these cards of my fan cards set. Any suggestions?



I think this probably happens with many fan cards creators when an official expansion is released. Did it happen to you?

[LastFootnote]

Oh yes. Plenty.

[Gubump]

Due to the release of Allies expansion, I have to change the name of all these cards of my fan cards set. Any suggestions?



I think this probably happens with many fan cards creators when an official expansion is released. Did it happen to you?

Emissary => Delegate
Guildmaster => Trainer or Instructor
Stronghold => Bastion

[DunnoItAll]

Due to the release of Allies expansion, I have to change the name of all these cards of my fan cards set. Any suggestions?



I think this probably happens with many fan cards creators when an official expansion is released. Did it happen to you?

Voyage => Trek, Roam, Trundle

[Sag73]

No entiendo la carta Valquiria.

¿Que caballo hay que coger? ¿Donde está esa carta?
Supongo que deb ser una carta que no está en las versiones en español.

[BBobb]

No entiendo la carta Valquiria.

¿Que caballo hay que coger? ¿Donde está esa carta?
Supongo que deb ser una carta que no está en las versiones en español.

Caballos son unas cartas en el decimotercero expansión de Dominion, Menagerie (no sé el nombre en español). Este es un enlace a la carta: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Horse. Lo siento si mi español no es perfecto, lo estoy aprendiendo.

[Sag73]

No entiendo la carta Valquiria.

¿Que caballo hay que coger? ¿Donde está esa carta?
Supongo que deb ser una carta que no está en las versiones en español.

Caballos son unas cartas en el decimotercero expansión de Dominion, Menagerie (no sé el nombre en español). Este es un enlace a la carta: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Horse. Lo siento si mi español no es perfecto, lo estoy aprendiendo.

Gracias. Se te entiende perfectamente. Efectivamente esa expansión no ha salido en español. Ya son varias que por desgracia no están traducidas.

Muchas gracias por la respuesta.

[BryGuy]

Wow, just wow. these cards are amazing for the most part.

I'm making a set with primarily interactive cards and i really like Bootleg, Privilege, Janus, Councillor, Shenanigans, Spell, Bewitch, Wichcraft, and Spellbound.

You should consider changing the names of:
 Tiara, since it is already used, maybe "Silver Queen"?
 Nomad, since it is too close to Nomads.
 Voyage, since it is already used, maybe "Maiden Voyage"?
 Lanterns, since there is a artifact, maybe "Lantern Light"?

The art is simply amazing. Is there a reason it is not credited on the cards? I also see you don't credit yourself for your amazing work or worry about versioning. When i plan to print i will definitely add "Carline" as creator.

I like Hand of Gold, but i may switch the rewards and rename as "Balancing Hand".

Janus might be better stated "You may flip your Journey token. If you do, +2 Actions, otherwise +1 Card. If your and right player's Journey token is the same status, +2 Cards. | During your turn, if your Journey token is down, this costs 1 less."

Lanterns might be better stated "Shuffle any quantity of discard pile cars into your deck. Review the top deck card and either discard of replace. +3 Cards."

Here are what i have copied for potential future use.
Bootleg
Privilege
Janus
Councillor
Shenanigans
Fruits
Fruit Mix
Tiara
Small Village
Voyage
Dangerous Ground
Fertility
Lanterns
Samurai
Archeologist
Magic Archive
Night Ranger
Tale Teller
Hand of Gold
Blessing
Blessed Gems
Horse Lady
Morning
Swamp
Guild Master & 4 Novices
Spell
Bewitch
Wichcraft
Spellbound
Four Seasons
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Coin of Honor
Divination
Acreage
Barony
Bishopric
Country
Domain
Grange
Yards