Print

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

[fika monster]

 Weekly Design Contest #103: Snow

Hello everyone! You all had some neat ideas for contests, but today i have a bit of hubris,  and it also happens to be snowing in sweden where i live! Henceforth this weeks contest...

Design a Card Or WELP that interacts with 'snow' (ie, this fanmade card)

TYPE: Action
Cost: 3$
+1 action
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

There are a total of of 30 Snow cards in each game.

Snow is a temporary junk card, that goes away when you play it. You may design any sort of card, sideways card, or WELP that interacts with it. Or, if you want, your own mechanic with it.

My judging criteria for submissions:
1: Is this card Fun? (does it change the game in a fun way? Does it introduce interesting strategies? is it fun to play?)
2: Is this card understandable? (is there grammar or spelling errors? Does it condradict itself? Also, remember to have an english version if you post in another language!)

I hope you all have fun this week. The deadline for card submissions is February 5th, UTC 20/ 8 PM. ill try to have my judging up around February 6th.


Edit 1: fixed some formatting issues with snow as per silverspawns suggestions. i blame my jetlag!

[Carline]

Updated to:



Updated to:



UPDATED TO:

[spineflu]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, the first time each other player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

Edit2:
Added art (me, spraypaint on steel sheet) and changed it so it only cares about the first time - meaning you can still stack them, but the amount of snow per other players' turn(s) is only the same as the number of WWs you have in play.
Edit:
Modified to care about the wording of the card played, not whether or not someone actually got actions from it, so now

X plays Snowy Village
X plays Village

does give a Snow for the second card; this also makes it so there's no question around using Way of the Ox or a cantrip with a +1 Action token - we care about the card's actual text, not whether they gained 2 actions.

[LittleFish]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?

[BBobb]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.

EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.

[spineflu]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.

EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.

no, because the further +Actions are ignored (due to the first Snowy Village)
edit: yes, they get a snow in that situation. it cares about playing the card that gives the +2 Actions, not whether or not they got them.

[Meta]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 3 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction (- Attack)

-------------------------

The Throne Room is supposed to guarantee that you can have 2 actions (by throne rooming a snow).
The other 2 options are self explanitory.

The reaction part of the card is a direct defence against the ice mage's attack, and is also useful, if you don't have enough actions to get pseudo +2$.

Maybe the card is too cheap, as you have many options, but I'll have to do some playtesting for that.
I've also been considering doing a potion cost (4P) but people on this forum don't seem to like potion costs, so I didn't.

[BBobb]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 3 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction (- Attack)

The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

[Meta]

The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.

[Meta]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

Ver. 2

[BBobb]

The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.

It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normal

[LittleFish]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.

EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.

no, because the further +Actions are ignored (due to the first Snowy Village)

But the card still gives actions, it's just ignored

[Meta]

The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.

It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normal

I know, that's why I changed it.

[spineflu]

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".

Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.

EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.

no, because the further +Actions are ignored (due to the first Snowy Village)

But the card still gives actions, it's just ignored

Right, but they did not get the +2 Actions; so they don't gain a Snow.

EDIT: Yknow what, that's way unintuitive. yeah they get a Snow for doing that. Lemme see if i can't bang out a wording that better describes the situation.

[BBobb]

The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.

It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.

It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normal

I know, that's why I changed it.

Sorry, when I started typing my post you hadn't posted the new version of your card, so I hadn't seen the change.

[segura]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

[anordinaryman]

This submission has been updated in a subsequent post. This is not the current version
Changes were made (1) to clarify trashing happens after playing (2) to draw cards before gaining when you trash an Action or Night (or new non-Treasure playable type in the future)

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.

This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).

Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.

open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.

[infangthief]

Snowball
$4
Action

+3 Cards
Gain a Snow.
You may play a Snow from your hand.

[segura]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

[Gubump]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

Ver. 2

1. You can just say Snow, you don't have to say "Snow Cards."
2. The current version of Trader has done away with the "gain this thing instead of the other thing" effect and uses exchanging instead because that has less confusing interactions with other cards.

I'd recommend this wording:

Choose one: Play an Action card from your hand twice; +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or + and each other player gains 2 Snows.
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange that card for a card from the Supply costing exactly $2 more than it.

[Gubump]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.

[X-tra]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

[scolapasta]

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.

This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).

Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.

open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.

Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)

One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)

[silverspawn]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

[segura]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.

Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.

[Gubump]

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.

This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).

Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.

open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.

Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)

One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)

The "otherwise" refers to it being a non-Treasure, it doesn't care whether you successfully trashed the played card.
I agree that it needs to be more specific about whether the trashing is before or after resolving the played card.

[segura]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

[Gubump]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.

Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.

I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)

[anordinaryman]

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

[...]
At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
[...]

Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)

One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)

Yeah I just realized Vampire was a bad example. Snow Castle loses track, so the Vampire is not trashed. Good catch. This actually makes Snow Castle pretty good to use on Vampires (gain a free $5!). The draw back is you can't play any Treasures if you want to take advantage of this. I should have used an example like Devil's Workshop.

I didn't intend for the otherwise to be ambiguous, the otherwise was meant for non-Action card. The gaining happens regardless on if you actually trashed a card. If I wanted it to be conditional on successful trashing I would have used either "Trash a card to ..." or "Trash a card. If you did,..." clauses.

Thank you so much for your feedback.

This is my stab at improving the wording:

Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

I believe this is unambiguous. The "It" is always satisfied from the previous sentence, the card you played, regardless of whether you were able to trash it or not.

I no longer use the "the next time" in order to very specifically say "After" to clarify that. Thanks to Gubump for that input.

[X-tra]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.

[Gubump]

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

[...]
At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
[...]

Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)

One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)

Yeah I just realized Vampire was a bad example. Snow Castle loses track, so the Vampire is not trashed. Good catch. This actually makes Snow Castle pretty good to use on Vampires (gain a free $5!). The draw back is you can't play any Treasures if you want to take advantage of this. I should have used an example like Devil's Workshop.

I didn't intend for the otherwise to be ambiguous, the otherwise was meant for non-Action card. The gaining happens regardless on if you actually trashed a card. If I wanted it to be conditional on successful trashing I would have used either "Trash a card to ..." or "Trash a card. If you did,..." clauses.

Thank you so much for your feedback.

This is my stab at improving the wording:

Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

I believe this is unambiguous. The "It" is always satisfied from the previous sentence, the card you played, regardless of whether you were able to trash it or not.

So based on the first paragraph (about Ice Castle losing track), I gather that it trashes the played card after resolving it. That's still unclear from this wording, IMO. It also has the same tracking issue with Durations that 1st edition Procession had.

[anordinaryman]

ah dang I didn't edit my comment in time. The new wording is this:

Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow

This does mean that playing a Golem next means you first play both the revealed actions, and only then do you trash the golem. It's confusing by in the same way that kings court - procession -kings court  etc is confusing.

Thanks for your help!

[segura]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.

Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.

I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)

I did think about Summon but the wording seemed artificial and less compact. "Play" is clearly defined in the rulebook, you put it into your play area and (normally) discard it in Cleanup.

[segura]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.

I agree. Paddock is perhaps the most radical example of how bad the draw delay of Horses can be. The card becomes superpowerful from a net effects analysis (Lab plus Double Peddler) once a pile is empty, but you often cannot exploit it (long enough) due to the delay.
Arctic Base is more or less the other way around.

[anordinaryman]

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.

Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.

I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)

I did think about Summon but the wording seemed artificial and less compact. "Play" is clearly defined in the rulebook, you put it into your play area and (normally) discard it in Cleanup.

For a fan card submission a long time ago, that won a contest, I did "Gain and then play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

[segura]

For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

[fika monster]

Reading all the submissions is fun so far. keep it up!

Im refraining from asking any specific questions or giving feedback at this stage though, since that feels a bit "iffy".

But still, im having fun seeing peoples ideas!

[Gubump]

Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Stop Moving only prevents cards from being moved, it doesn't prevent you from following its instructions. So Watchtower would topdeck the card, and then Stop Moving would prevent it from being moved to in play, but you'd still follow its instructions.

[Gubump]

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

The main issue isn't really clarity, but misread-proofing. All of the official cards that instruct you to play a card from the Supply also instruct you to leave it there, which makes it very easy to misread Builder as saying that when it actually doesn't (I did, until I read your clarification in your OP). I like Builder either way, personally.

[silverspawn]

I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.

Spiking is good, but this card doesn't really help you that much with that. You can't control how Snow's and Bases mix up. If you play 3 Bases and draw 3 Snows, you haven't spiked at all.

I suspect Harbinger is stronger. But btw, I'm not saying this is *too* weak, anyway, so it's not that important.

[Timinou]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

[scolapasta]

For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.

There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).

Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.

Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).

[Gubump]

For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.

There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).

Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.

Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).

As worded, you keep the card you play with it, but you never gain that played card.

[segura]

For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.

There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).

Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.

Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).

The card is not gained. Just like an Exiled or passed or exchanged card is not gained yet still becomes yours.
This is not a radical idea but just a slight modification of emulators that is, at least IMO, the most compact and rule-issue-preventing way to implement the idea.

[alion8me]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

[segura]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

[infangthief]

I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.

Spiking is good, but this card doesn't really help you that much with that. You can't control how Snow's and Bases mix up. If you play 3 Bases and draw 3 Snows, you haven't spiked at all.

Not sure quite what counts as spiking, but compared to a cantrip Arctic Base certainly increases the irregularity of how good the draw is. And the first Arctic Base you play will not draw any Snows (at least, none that were gained via Arctic Base!).
If you want to increase the irregularity still further, you could increase the draw by one and gain an extra snow - I've been considering such things for my Snowball entry, which is along similar lines.

[silverspawn]

Not sure quite what counts as spiking, but compared to a cantrip Arctic Base certainly increases the irregularity of how good the draw is. And the first Arctic Base you play will not draw any Snows (at least, none that were gained via Arctic Base!).
If you want to increase the irregularity still further, you could increase the draw by one and gain an extra snow - I've been considering such things for my Snowball entry, which is along similar lines.

Yes, it does increase variance and thus spikes somewhat, but it spikes much less than something like tactician.

(I typed a post suggesting +3 Cards, gain 2 snow earlier, the same thing you just suggested, but then decided that would be too strong and the card is better as-is, being (I think) on the weak side.)

[Aquila]

Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
-
When you gain this, you may play it.

What kind of crazy thing is this, opening $4/3 guaranteeing a $5 on turn 2? Well next turn terminal silver is not great to carry in the deck afterward. It's all about the trash attack, so coming in early (as is needed for trashing) shapes the game away from the usual trash meta. You can try to anticipate when an opponent will trash and catch them out.
Or at least that's my thinking. Tell me it's too swingy, or it needs something to guarantee trashing is in the game.

[scolapasta]

For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.

I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.

Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.

The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.

There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).

Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.

Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).

The card is not gained. Just like an Exiled or passed or exchanged card is not gained yet still becomes yours.
This is not a radical idea but just a slight modification of emulators that is, at least IMO, the most compact and rule-issue-preventing way to implement the idea.

Your initial post (emphasis mine) said:

I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".

So I assumed the intention was that it was gained. So yeah, if intent is not gained, it seems to work as it written.

But I still maintain that not gaining (especially in this circumstance) is weird. I can understand it (mostly) for exchange and pass, but I never liked it for exile either. I would imagine Donald specifically decided to not do it for Summon, though that was a long while back so he might feel differently now.

[anordinaryman]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

Games where the only village is Sacrifice I want this over Caravan and Advisor. Games where draw is not too hard, but I want to have lots of cards (Discard for Benefit: Artisan, Artificer, etc. Or Gardens. Or Forge). Games where the only +Buy is salvager so I need something to sacrifice and this prints free snows for me. Tournament games where I badly need to win the first prize, no way I can afford to play Advisor and This gets me my extra card now, rather than waiting for next turn like Caravan.

I don't think these are wild edge cases. I think this card would still have some use as a cantrip snow gainer since many decks can profit over trashing those snows. Making it a lab gives it even more utility. I still think the 3 cost point makes some sense.

[alion8me]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.

Arctic Base is nicer as a consistency tool than Caravan is because Caravan only does something for you on half of the turns you buy it at most, whereas this can do something every turn. It's not net draw, of course, but the reason you're buying this is to make the chance that you are able to draw your smithy + village or whatever it is together more likely. For Advisor, Arctic Base doesn't fail in the way Advisor can when your deck has a lot of junk. Obviously Arctic Base will also occasionally get trash for benefit synergies as well.

Having said that - I don't believe this is particularly strong for $4 either, and Caravan/Advisor are probably stronger cards in general. But it also wouldn't look out of place at that price to me.

(I realize anordinaryman just responded in a similar vein, but I had finished typing this up before I had realized they posted and I think this is different enough to be worth posting anyways)

[Gubump]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.

Arctic Base is nicer as a consistency tool than Caravan is because Caravan only does something for you on half of the turns you buy it at most, whereas this can do something every turn. It's not net draw, of course, but the reason you're buying this is to make the chance that you are able to draw your smithy + village or whatever it is together more likely. For Advisor, Arctic Base doesn't fail in the way Advisor can when your deck has a lot of junk. Obviously Arctic Base will also occasionally get trash for benefit synergies as well.

Having said that - I don't believe this is particularly strong for $4 either, and Caravan/Advisor are probably stronger cards in general. But it also wouldn't look out of place at that price to me.

(I realize anordinaryman just responded in a similar vein, but I had finished typing this up before I had realized they posted and I think this is different enough to be worth posting anyways)

I do think it's kind of funny that segura said "would you prefer this over Caravan or Advisor" when both of those cost MORE. You generally prefer more expensive cards over cheaper cards, that's why they're more expensive...

EDIT: Note to self: When there are nested quotes within a comment, actually read all of them before responding.

[alion8me]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.

Arctic Base is nicer as a consistency tool than Caravan is because Caravan only does something for you on half of the turns you buy it at most, whereas this can do something every turn. It's not net draw, of course, but the reason you're buying this is to make the chance that you are able to draw your smithy + village or whatever it is together more likely. For Advisor, Arctic Base doesn't fail in the way Advisor can when your deck has a lot of junk. Obviously Arctic Base will also occasionally get trash for benefit synergies as well.

Having said that - I don't believe this is particularly strong for $4 either, and Caravan/Advisor are probably stronger cards in general. But it also wouldn't look out of place at that price to me.

(I realize anordinaryman just responded in a similar vein, but I had finished typing this up before I had realized they posted and I think this is different enough to be worth posting anyways)

I do think it's kind of funny that segura said "would you prefer this over Caravan or Advisor" when both of those cost MORE. You generally prefer more expensive cards over cheaper cards, that's why they're more expensive...

I think the reason segura said that is because of my original claim "I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even."

[pubby]

[BBobb]

Though not obviously, I feel like this is a little similar to Masquerade. It draws three cards, and puts a snow onto your deck. This is essentially +3 Cards, take your -1 Card Token, or somewhat similar to +2 Cards. It then trashes a card from hand, which is very similar to Masquerade. Though it is slightly more powerful (+3 Card, -1 Card token is more powerful than +2 Cards), it can also be argued that its slightly weaker (no passing cards. I would say passing cards is more of a positive than a negative), so I think it probably could cost .

[Xen3k]

Winter Retreat
Action - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. If it's a Snow, +1VP and Exile this, otherwise gain 1 Snow.
-
1VP

Similar to the much simpler Arctic Base and others posted previously, but with more going on. It is a Lab VP card that can net you an extra VP if it connects with a Snow. The catch is that it is a very useful card that will Exile itself if you do that. If you avoid playing a Snow off of it you will accumulate more Snow to bog down your deck. I think the price is right due to the potential VP it provides, but I am not sure about the number of VP tokens it should give or the number of Snow it should give. Feedback is appreciated.

[segura]

Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.

Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.

I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.

The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it.  It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.   

I like Arctic Base.

I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?

Games where the only village is Sacrifice I want this over Caravan and Advisor. Games where draw is not too hard, but I want to have lots of cards (Discard for Benefit: Artisan, Artificer, etc. Or Gardens. Or Forge). Games where the only +Buy is salvager so I need something to sacrifice and this prints free snows for me. Tournament games where I badly need to win the first prize, no way I can afford to play Advisor and This gets me my extra card now, rather than waiting for next turn like Caravan.

I don't think these are wild edge cases. I think this card would still have some use as a cantrip snow gainer since many decks can profit over trashing those snows. Making it a lab gives it even more utility. I still think the 3 cost point makes some sense.

Discard for benefit doesn’t profit in any way from junk in your deck. It is rather the other way around, discard for benefit wants a lean deck that overdraws.
Are Silver gainers that brilliant with Forge or Exorcist? Not in my experience. You don’t mind to convert a few Silvers into Imps but you certainly don’t want a cantrip that gain Silvers (Silver is the most similar card to Snow in these TfB situations and as there are lots of Silver gainers, we have benchmarks).
I think I would rather run Caravan with Tournament. Duration draw is pretty neat to increase consistency and matching chances for Tournament.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.

[Gubump]

Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.

I think this compares too poorly to Militia. Gaining a Snow onto your deck is very similar to only having a 4-card hand next turn, which means that this is similar to a Militia whose attack is both weaker and delayed.

[segura]

I don’t think that you can easily compare discard Attacks with „draw one less“ type of Attacks like Minion or Relic. Compared to Relic the card looks OK: better as Snow can stack and as it is cheaper, weaker as it is terminal.

[Gubump]

I don’t think that you can easily compare discard Attacks with „draw one less“ type of Attacks like Minion or Relic. Compared to Relic the card looks OK: better as Snow can stack and as it is cheaper, weaker as it is terminal.

You're right, I was making the wrong kind of comparison. It's fine as-is.

[Mahowrath]

Sleighmaker - $4
Action - Reserve

+1 Action. Gain two Snows. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you return a card to its pile, you may call this for +4 cards.

Somewhere between Cavalry and Caravan; a delayed non-terminal draw with Watchtower synergy.

[silverspawn]

Though not obviously, I feel like this is a little similar to Masquerade. It draws three cards, and puts a snow onto your deck. This is essentially +3 Cards, take your -1 Card Token, or somewhat similar to +2 Cards. It then trashes a card from hand, which is very similar to Masquerade. Though it is slightly more powerful (+3 Card, -1 Card token is more powerful than +2 Cards), it can also be argued that its slightly weaker (no passing cards. I would say passing cards is more of a positive than a negative), so I think it probably could cost .

It certainly 'could cost 3$' since virtually every card that costs 4$ could cost 3$, but Masquerade would be one of the strongest (maybe the strongest?) 4$'s in the game if it cost 4$. This card is extremely strong at 3$ or 4$.

[silverspawn]

It kills me that 'mountain pass' is already taken, but alas

[silverspawn]

By the way, the Snow card should have 'Action' capitalized in the text box, the (This is not in the Supply.) should be in italics (this should be done automatically), and it should have the Action type.

[fika monster]

By the way, the Snow card should have 'Action' capitalized in the text box, the (This is not in the Supply.) should be in italics (this should be done automatically), and it should have the Action type.

ooops. ill fix that

[Commodore Chuckles]

[Timinou]

It kills me that 'mountain pass' is already taken, but alas

Cool concept!  It seems like it would be fun to play with.

I’m vacillating between this being a bit too strong or a bit too weak.  You could always play this like a quasi-Library without having to gain any junk, which is OK for $5.  On the other hand, if you choose to discard to draw more cards, the immediate benefit is good but I feel like you’ll wind up trudging through a lot of Snow in the long run.  This reminds me a bit of Rats, where you could easily misplay it.  That said, in multiplayer games, the Snow pile could run out pretty quickly and this could become a beast.

[silverspawn]

Cool concept!  It seems like it would be fun to play with.

I’m vacillating between this being a bit too strong or a bit too weak.  You could always play this like a quasi-Library without having to gain any junk, which is OK for $5.  On the other hand, if you choose to discard to draw more cards, the immediate benefit is good but I feel like you’ll wind up trudging through a lot of Snow in the long run.  This reminds me a bit of Rats, where you could easily misplay it.  That said, in multiplayer games, the Snow pile could run out pretty quickly and this could become a beast.

Thanks

One thing to note is that the card also mitigates how much harm the snow does to you because Snow is close to a cantrip if you draw it together with mountain path.

[spineflu]

how's this interact with Scrying Pool? does SP let you dodge the rule on this, or?

[Meta]

Weekly Design Contest #103: Snow

Hello everyone! You all had some neat ideas for contests, but today i have a bit of hubris,  and it also happens to be snowing in sweden where i live! Henceforth this weeks contest...

Design a Card Or WELP that interacts with 'snow' (ie, this fanmade card)

TYPE: Action
Cost: 3$
+1 action
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

There are a total of of 30 Snow cards in each game.

Snow is a temporary junk card, that goes away when you play it. You may design any sort of card, sideways card, or WELP that interacts with it. Or, if you want, your own mechanic with it.

My judging criteria for submissions:
1: Is this card Fun? (does it change the game in a fun way? Does it introduce interesting strategies? is it fun to play?)
2: Is this card understandable? (is there grammar or spelling errors? Does it condradict itself? Also, remember to have an english version if you post in another language!)

I hope you all have fun this week. The deadline for card submissions is February 5th, UTC 20/ 8 PM. ill try to have my judging up around February 6th.


Edit 1: fixed some formatting issues with snow as per silverspawns suggestions. i blame my jetlag!

Shouldn't the cost be 3*$ like the spirits and prizes? (As it's also a non-supply card)

[anordinaryman]

Updated Submission

Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.

Two changes:
1. Clarify wording that the trashing happens after you play a card. Of course the Stop Moving rule means that if this card moved itself somewhere after playing (snow, for example), you don't get to put the card in the trash, but you still get the benefit  (in this case, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $4).
2. Slightly weaken it to +2 cards first before gaining. The symmetry with +$2 is nice, but the important change is this weakens the card in the case that you have already drawn your full deck. You'll need to have extra draw to put the new card in your hand. This also prevents someone from emptying the pile with a single Fortress and Ice Castle in hand. Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle and a snows, then drawing 2 cards and playing a Fortress, allowing you to repeat this, flooding everyone's deck with snows. Now, since the draw happens first, you have a 33% chance for each repeat of the pattern (the fortress has to draw the Ice Castle instead of the Snow), and the turn you fail to repeat you have at least one top-decked snow. So, it's not super strong. Nevermind: this isn't possible because you need to play Ice Castles before your fortress, which means you have to have a Fortress in hand already per time you want to loop. So this loop doesn't really work.


I admit that "gain a card costing up to $1 more" is slightly ambiguous now that I have shifted that clause later. I believe a reasonable reader will correctly assume that the "$1 more" refers to the trashed card. And I think that's a perfect thing to clarify in a simple rulebook. Dominion convention would say to add a clause like "per card drawn" if I wanted it that way, so I think the canonical reading of this is $1 more than the card trashed.

[Gubump]

Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle

Just being pedantic here, but wouldn't you need a 2nd Fortress? You'd need to play the Fortress AFTER the Ice Castle to trash it, not before.

[Meta]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card from your hand twice; +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange that card for a card from the Supply costing exactly $2 more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------
Updated english Wording according to Gubumps suggestion.
German wording remains unchanged.

[Commodore Chuckles]

how's this interact with Scrying Pool? does SP let you dodge the rule on this, or?

Yes, SP lets you go beyond the bounds, as do other cards that don't count as "drawing", like Wishing Well. I don't think this breaks the card as there aren't too many of these.

Come to think of it, though, this means it should say "when you have 8 or more". I'll update the OP.

[anordinaryman]

Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle

Just being pedantic here, but wouldn't you need a 2nd Fortress? You'd need to play the Fortress AFTER the Ice Castle to trash it, not before.

You're right!
I totally got it wrong here and misplayed my own card. You need to play an Ice Castle before a Fortress, making this loop not possible in the same sense, you have to already have an extra fortress in discard/deck per time you want to repeat the loop.

[Carline]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.

There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:



- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.

- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect. 

[emtzalex]

Here is what I came up with:



Arctic Castle - $4
Action - Victory - Arctic
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).
---------------
Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).
---------------
When you buy this, you may discard an Action card to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile. If you discarded Snow, +1VP.


The card comes with a Snow Gear pile, full of items useful for your Arctic expansion. There is one copy of each card in the pile, which can be gained either through Arctic Castle's on-buy mechanism or Winter Vendor, if anyone gains and uses it. There are 16 cards in the pile:



Snow Gear Pile:

Elegant Muff - $2*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$1
You may put up to 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Brandy - $3*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$2
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Shovels - $3*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Action
Do the following any number of times: discard a card from your hand; if it was a Snow, draw a card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Winter Vendor - $3*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player (starting with you) may discard any number of Treasure cards from hand to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile worth up to $1 per card discarded.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Brazier - $4*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$2
You may return up to 2 Snow cards from your hand to their pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Sled - $4*
Action -  Snow Gear
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until revealing one that isn’t Snow. Put all of those revealed cards into your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snowman - $4*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player may choose to reveal a hand with at least 3 Snows in it for +3 Coffers.
(This is not in the Supply.)

St. Bernard - $4*
Action -  Reaction - Snow Gear
+2 Cards
---------------
When another player plays a Snow, you may first reveal this and a Snow from your hand; if you do, play this.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Golem - P$4*
Action - Snow Gear
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal more non-Snow Action cards (other than Golems) than Snows. Discard the Golems and non-Action cards, then play the non-Snow Action cards in any order. Place half the Snows (rounded up) onto your deck, and discard the rest.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Four-Poster Bed - $5*
Treasure - Night - Snow Gear
$2
If it's your Night phase, reveal and set aside a Victory card and an Action card costing less than it from your hand, and put both into your hand at end of turn (after drawing).
(This is not in the Supply.)

Golden Goose - $5*
Action - Reaction - Snow Gear
Gain a Gold.
---------------
When you gain a Snow, if it isn't your turn, you may play this from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Ice Magician's Cloak - $5*
Action - Snow Gear
For the rest of your turn when you play a Snow, get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow House - $5*
Action -  Snow Gear
+$5
-$1 per 5 cards in the Snow pile (rounded down).
(This is not in the Supply.)

Lead Glass Windows - $6*
Action - Duration - Snow Gear
While this is in play, when you play Snow, add 1VP to this. At the beginning of each of your turns, remove 1% from this. When you buy a Victory card, take the VP from this and discard this from play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Regal Cloak - $7*
Action - Treasure - Snow Gear
+2 Actions
For the rest of the turn, when you gain a Snow, +1 Villager.
$3
(This is not in the Supply.)

[faust]

Arctic Passage - $6
Project

At the start of your turn, +2 Buys, +$2.
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Snow.

Not sure yet what the numbers should be on this one. Initially it cost $4, but that is too swingy in the opening.

Version history:
v0.1: Cost $4, gives +1 buy, +$3
v0.2: Cost $6, gives +1 buy, +$3
v0.3: Cost $6, gives +2 buys, +$2

[Carline]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.

There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:



- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.

- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.

Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.

UPDATE:



Feedbacks are always welcome!

[spineflu]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.

There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:



- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.

- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.

Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.

UPDATE:



Feedbacks are always welcome!

is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't

[LittleFish]

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"

EDIT: Missed the "only one in the pile" phrase at the top

[spineflu]

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"

I thought there was only one of these in the pile though

[LittleFish]

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"

I thought there was only one of these in the pile though

I must have missed that

[emtzalex]

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"

I thought there was only one of these in the pile though

That is right, there is only one of each of these, like the Prizes from Tournament. That's also why Snow Golem does not need to check for other Snow Golems.

[Carline]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.

There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:



- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.

- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.

Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.

UPDATE:



Feedbacks are always welcome!

is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't

I was in doubt about this rule. I don't like so much a postponed effect without a marker. Discard is to make it draw only one card.

[alion8me]

Hearth

+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.

$7 - Action

edit: Changed "Snow" to "Snows" after Bbobb pointed out that it should be written that way.

[BBobb]

Hearth

+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snow.

$7 - Action

Small pedantic thing. It should say "gain 3 Snows"

[BBobb]

This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.

Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!

You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.

There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:



- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.

- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.

Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.

UPDATE:



Feedbacks are always welcome!

is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't

I was in doubt about this rule. I don't like so much a postponed effect without a marker. Discard is to make it draw only one card.

If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could have
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.
EDIT: Added still thanks to Faust.

[faust]

If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could have
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is in play, each other player gains a Snow.

This opens a whole can of worms with other start of turn effects.
Say you Princed a Herald. You play Snow Queen on one turn and discard it for the effect. At the start of the next turn, you play Herald into Snow Queen. Now, "this" is in play.
You can get rid of this issue by stating "if this is still in play". It's still a bit cumbersome, but it would work.

[MochaMoko]

Avalanche ⑤ Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of
your turns while this is in play,
+2 Cards and set aside a Snow
from its pile (under this).
-
At the start of Clean-Up, if you
gained a Victory card this turn, or
the Snow pile is empty, discard
this and the set-aside Snow.

It's a Wharf! It's a Hireling! No, it's an Avalanche!
Seeing as Snow is like a -Card token akin to Debt being a -Coin token, this is sort of like Capital in that you get very very good draw until some time when you have to pay it all back (Okay you're getting 2 draw every turn and you only have to pay 1 draw eventually, whatever).
If you've got it all planned out with a single turn of greening, or maybe you have some clever way of winning the game without gaining green cards, you can go wild. The world is your snowball, as long as the Snow pile still exists! There is so much Snow that this shouldn't be a problem too often. But you do not want to get buried by this card.
Also, just to clarify, the Snow under the Avalanche is yours. That Vineyard can be worth a lot of points. Tread carefully.

[Timinou]

This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards.  I like this version better. 

I'm not sure about the cost.  I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly.  Feedback welcome!

EDIT: Revised the text so that you don't gain +Actions.  We have precedents with one-shot Labs, so I'm more comfortable with the balance of the updated version.

[Meta]

This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards.  I like this version better. 

I'm not sure about the cost.  I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly.  Feedback welcome!

The current wording is a little unclear on wether you get +1 Action aswell/if you actually have to return the snow to it's pile.
If you don't get +1 Action and have to return it, I think it's pretty well balanced, and can lead to an interessting T3 (especially if one would buy 2 Dogsleds in T1 and T2).

[Timinou]

This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards.  I like this version better. 

I'm not sure about the cost.  I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly.  Feedback welcome!

The current wording is a little unclear on wether you get +1 Action aswell/if you actually have to return the snow to it's pile.
If you don't get +1 Action and have to return it, I think it's pretty well balanced, and can lead to an interessting T3 (especially if one would buy 2 Dogsleds in T1 and T2).

You play Snow, so you get the +1 Action from it and return it to its pile.

If you're able to find more than one Snow, then you will effectively gain more than one Action.  We don't have one-shot Villages as far as I recall, so this is where I'm not too sure about the cost. 

EDIT: If the effect is too strong/swingy, it might be better to change the text to say something like: "While this is in play, when you play a Snow, draw 2 cards".

[silverspawn]

It's elegant, but I worry that it would just be very coin-flippy. It either collides with snow or it doesn't, and if it does it's extremely strong.

[Timinou]

It's elegant, but I worry that it would just be very coin-flippy. It either collides with snow or it doesn't, and if it does it's extremely strong.

Yeah, I agree.  I've modified it so that it's still possible to chain Snows (similar to Sheepdogs), but you don't gain +Actions.

[BBobb]

If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could have
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is in play, each other player gains a Snow.

This opens a whole can of worms with other start of turn effects.
Say you Princed a Herald. You play Snow Queen on one turn and discard it for the effect. At the start of the next turn, you play Herald into Snow Queen. Now, "this" is in play.
You can get rid of this issue by stating "if this is still in play". It's still a bit cumbersome, but it would work.

You are right. I'll change my post.

[silverspawn]

I think it's an improvement, but wouldn't it be simpler to just give +2 Cards when you play a snow and not allow you to play a snow from your hand? It's identical for the first Snow.

[Timinou]

Here is what I came up with:



Arctic Castle - $4
Action - Victory - Arctic
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).
---------------
Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).
---------------
When you buy this, you may discard an Action card to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile. If you discarded Snow, +1VP.

Since Arctic Castle doesn't have the Attack type, it can't be blocked.  As such, I think this almost forces players into buying Arctic Castles if their opponents do.  Is that the intent?

I'm assuming that like Prizes, when you are instructed to gain a Snow Gear, you can look through the pile and choose the one you want. 
In any case, the power level varies so much between the different Snow Gear, that it really favors players that are able to buy an Arctic Castle with an Action card in hand first.  I would consider changing the way Arctic Castle gains Snow Gear, so the "cost" for gaining different Snow Gear scales with their power level.

It's quite cool to see so many unique Snow Gear cards, but my concern would be that with so many for players to take into consideration, it could slow down the game a bit.

Just some thoughts on the individual Snow Gear cards:
Snow Shovels - This could potentially loop.  For example, if you draw your whole deck and have a Snow in hand, you can discard a Snow, and then draw it, and do this an infinite number of times. This doesn't achieve anything of significance, but if it bothers you, the card could instruct players to set the Snow aside before drawing a card, and then discard the set aside Snow during clean-up.

Brazier - This looks weak.  It's only beneficial if you draw Snow in your hand without any leftover Actions, and in most cases if you're going for alt-VP with Arctic Castle, you don't want to return them.  I don't think it should cost more than Brandy, which itself is strictly better than Silver.

Snowman - I think the "choose to" is redundant, and it could just say "Each player may reveal a hand with at least 3 Snows in it for +3 Coffers".  This seems a bit weak, because you may not have 3 Snows in hand when you play this, and one of your opponents might be super lucky and have 3 Snows in hand.  I wonder if should be a terminal draw card instead of a cantrip in order to increase your chances of getting +3 Coffers. 

St. Bernard - This also seems weak relative to some of the cheaper Snow Gear since it requires you to have two specific cards in the same hand for the Reaction to trigger.

Snow Golem - I'm not sure I understand why Snow Golem has a Potion cost.  You can't gain Snow Gear other than through Arctic Castle and Winter Vendor, right?  Speaking of which, can you even gain Snow Golem with Winter Vendor?

Four-Poster Bed - This is significantly weaker than the other $5-cost Snow Gear.  While saving an Action card for a future turn can be useful, this makes it quite difficult to do so (you would almost always need to start greening before this becomes useful).  There are official Events that let you do this, and this seems very expensive relative to those.

Lead Glass Windows - When you remove a VP token from this at the start of your turn, it goes back to the supply, right?  Or do you keep it?

Regal Cloak - I don't think it's clear from the way it is worded that the top half only applies if played during your Action phase.  For example, if you play it as a Treasure and then buy Arctic Castle, I don't think your intention is that you would still gain Villagers. 


 

[Timinou]

I think it's an improvement, but wouldn't it be simpler to just give +2 Cards when you play a snow and not allow you to play a snow from your hand? It's identical for the first Snow.

I would have to make Dogsled non-terminal in order to allow a player to then play a Snow from their hand after playing Dogsled.  I could take it in that direction, but I like that the vanilla bonus is similar to other canine-themed cards like Faithful Hound and Sheepdog.

EDIT: I could also make Dogsled a Reaction card to reach the same effect.  I'll mull it over but I'm not too enthused about having more than one dividing line and additional text. 

[Something_Smart]

[Timinou]

Mountaineers want to be Tortured.

[segura]

I think those Mountaineer dudes are nasty capitalists.

[Something_Smart]

They're also really hard workers; look at how much they like to Toil.

[Commodore Chuckles]

$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold

[BBobb]

$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold

I agree with this. Also, the Snows aren't as bad with this, since they essentially are one-shot coppers if you have this in your hand. So, yeah, probably too powerful.

[anordinaryman]

$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold

Not to mention it junks opponents on gain with 2 Snows. I understand that  this card turns snows into coppers that disappear essentially. But that's only if you line them up. In reality the 2 snows are junk on gain, and on gain attacking is very strong as opposed to on-play attack. Just look at how terrible of a card IGG is on play and then look at its price point. On the other hand, Snows are a lot better than curses.

I think due to this junking, the card could be +$5 at a cost of $4 or $5, or lower the junking to a single snow and raise the price up to 6 or 7. Consider lower the junking to a single snow also.

This is a really cool card. It's a lot like Poor House, which is a fun card.

[Xen3k]

<Not an entry>

Snow Storm - $5
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn, set aside any number of cards from your hand to gain that many Snow. At the start of your Action phase, play the set aside cards in any order.

I am really liking the concept of Snow and what it can add to a design. So, just for fun, I made this design. I am not submitting this officially because I have no idea just how busted this is. I just thought it was a really cool concept and wanted to share it.

Edit: Updated to try and make it less broken, for fun.

Old Version

[Timinou]

If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?

In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card).  Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play. 

[Xen3k]

If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?

In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card).  Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.

You would not get a Snow, unless the logic for rounding in Dominion is different than I assume. I did have a  version that handed out a Snow for every card set aside, but was unsure if that would be too harsh. This is basically a Night phase at the start of your turn with all your Actions acting as Night cards. I did not want multiples of these doubling up, but I think maybe they do, so that is another design flaw. Overall I really could not gauge the power level of the card, so went with something else.

[Timinou]

If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?

In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card).  Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.

You would not get a Snow, unless the logic for rounding in Dominion is different than I assume.

Oh, you're right.  I just had another brain fart (I've been having them all week).

I did have a  version that handed out a Snow for every card set aside, but was unsure if that would be too harsh. This is basically a Night phase at the start of your turn with all your Actions acting as Night cards. I did not want multiples of these doubling up, but I think maybe they do, so that is another design flaw. Overall I really could not gauge the power level of the card, so went with something else.

I think that since players can choose how many to set aside, they can still control how much they self-junk.  I think a good deck can handle a little bit of Snow, especially since you can clear it away pretty easily.

[Xen3k]

If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?

In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card).  Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.

You would not get a Snow, unless the logic for rounding in Dominion is different than I assume.

Oh, you're right.  I just had another brain fart (I've been having them all week).

I did have a  version that handed out a Snow for every card set aside, but was unsure if that would be too harsh. This is basically a Night phase at the start of your turn with all your Actions acting as Night cards. I did not want multiples of these doubling up, but I think maybe they do, so that is another design flaw. Overall I really could not gauge the power level of the card, so went with something else.

I think that since players can choose how many to set aside, they can still control how much they self-junk.  I think a good deck can handle a little bit of Snow, especially since you can clear it away pretty easily.

Good points. I went ahead and updated the post, for fun of course. I also bumped up the price, just in case it is still broken, and made the wording explicit so double Snow Storm is not beneficial.

[Gubump]

<Not an entry>

1. The start of your turn IS the start of your Action phase, so having an at-the-start-of-turn effect immediately followed by an at-the-start-of-your-Action-phase effect is just confusing.
2. This is incredibly weak. I have an old, playtested Fan Card that was

+1 Card
Set aside any number of Action cards. Play the set aside cards in any order.
- Action

And it was incredibly weak. As in, worse than Harvest or even Stash weak. This is much worse, because not only is it dead the turn you draw it instead of working immediately, but it also floods you with junk. The only advantage Snow Storm has over that already terrible card is that it can't be drawn dead.

EDIT: Realized that last part isn't true, it also has the advantage that it doesn't take an Action to play the set aside cards. Still weak for , though.

Also, accidental pun:

cool concept

[NoMoreFun]

Frozen Throne
Action - $5
+1 Card
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow.

[Xen3k]

<Not an entry>

1. The start of your turn IS the start of your Action phase, so having an at-the-start-of-turn effect immediately followed by an at-the-start-of-your-Action-phase effect is just confusing.
2. This is incredibly weak. I have an old, playtested Fan Card that was

+1 Card
Set aside any number of Action cards. Play the set aside cards in any order.
- Action

And it was incredibly weak. As in, worse than Harvest or even Stash weak. This is much worse, because not only is it dead the turn you draw it instead of working immediately, but it also floods you with junk. The only advantage Snow Storm has over that already terrible card is that it can't be drawn dead.

EDIT: Realized that last part isn't true, it also has the advantage that it doesn't take an Action to play the set aside cards. Still weak for , though.

Yeah, I could not gauge the power of it. Also, I was hoping there would be a step before the Action phase, because using the old wording one Snow Storm would resolve, and then the next, but it would basically be that playtest card you had. Glad I went with the other card.

Also, accidental pun:

cool concept

lol, definitely accidental.

[alion8me]

Hearth

+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snow.

$7 - Action

Small pedantic thing. It should say "gain 3 Snows"

Thank you for noticing that - it's fixed now.

[emtzalex]

$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold

Not to mention it junks opponents on gain with 2 Snows. I understand that  this card turns snows into coppers that disappear essentially. But that's only if you line them up. In reality the 2 snows are junk on gain, and on gain attacking is very strong as opposed to on-play attack. Just look at how terrible of a card IGG is on play and then look at its price point. On the other hand, Snows are a lot better than curses.

I think due to this junking, the card could be +$5 at a cost of $4 or $5, or lower the junking to a single snow and raise the price up to 6 or 7. Consider lower the junking to a single snow also.

This is a really cool card. It's a lot like Poor House, which is a fun card.

This is even more powerful with Cathedral, which pushes the base value of the card up to $4, and can use the Snow as junk to trash. On a $3 / $4 open you could open with Cathedral and Mountaineer, and after the first shuffle you would only need to draw Mountaineer with two copper/snow in order to buy a Gold. There is also a decent chance of getting a second Mountaineer, which leads to a non-negligible possibility of getting a Province after your second shuffle while dumping 4 junk cards on your opponent.

I agree that it is cool, but dangerous if it can be bought so early.

[Something_Smart]

Thanks for all the feedback on my card. I don't really consider it a junker, the same way Messenger gaining a Curse is not a junker; it applies to all players equally, so it just slows the game down.

It's a terminal gold if used for big money, yes, but so is Smithy on average if your money density is better than $1/card (which it had better be if you're playing money). I don't expect that Mountaineer money will beat a decently-constructed engine. I can test this if people are skeptical.

[segura]

That analysis is too superficial as the Snows hurt the player who bought this card less than the other players. A terminal Gold at $5 is too weak but at $4 it is likely too strong (mainly due to opening issues, in the midgame it is less of an issue) ... and this is more than a terminal Gold.

[Carline]

UPDATE:



Feedbacks are always welcome!

is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't

I was in doubt about this rule. I don't like so much a postponed effect without a marker. Discard is to make it draw only one card.

If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could have
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.
EDIT: Added still thanks to Faust.

Thank you both!

Updated to suggested wording.

UPDATE:

[faust]

Thanks for all the feedback on my card. I don't really consider it a junker, the same way Messenger gaining a Curse is not a junker; it applies to all players equally, so it just slows the game down.

It's a terminal gold if used for big money, yes, but so is Smithy on average if your money density is better than $1/card (which it had better be if you're playing money). I don't expect that Mountaineer money will beat a decently-constructed engine. I can test this if people are skeptical.

I don't think the main worry about your card is that it's too good in Big Money; people are just using that example as an easy baseline. Mountaineer is clearly way more busted in an engine, if you have any decent trashing or sifting.

[Fragasnap]

Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it costs at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Ice Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.

[BBobb]

Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Ice Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.

I would say "if it costs" instead of "if it cost" just to be consistent with official cards.

[spineflu]

wot Chameleon loves this

[Meta]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

The big change is that you can no longer use an Ice Mage, to play another Ice Mage twice.
The change was made, because in playtesting, that lead to a huge advantage of the first person to buy two or more ice mages, as the other players would constantly be bombarded with snow.

Edit: Wording

Ver. 3 

[Meta]

Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Ice Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.

Isn't the opening Ice Cutter, Ice Cutter too overpowered? Because you basically get two Gold, for the cost of 4 Snows. I'd change the cost to 4$, because that way you can't have that opening, and 4$ isn't much more expensive than 3$.

[emtzalex]

Thanks for all the feedback on my card. I don't really consider it a junker, the same way Messenger gaining a Curse is not a junker; it applies to all players equally, so it just slows the game down.

It's a terminal gold if used for big money, yes, but so is Smithy on average if your money density is better than $1/card (which it had better be if you're playing money). I don't expect that Mountaineer money will beat a decently-constructed engine. I can test this if people are skeptical.

I don't think the main worry about your card is that it's too good in Big Money; people are just using that example as an easy baseline. Mountaineer is clearly way more busted in an engine, if you have any decent trashing or sifting.

The reason Mountaineer is so powerful is that so many of the cards/mechanisms in the game operate under the presumption that the fewer cards you have in your hand, the less money you will have to buy things. To balance this out, they either pay you for the reduction (Storeroom, Vault, Mill, Oasis) or allow you to increase the money density of your deck (trashers, remodlers, exilers). Mountaineer flips that assumption on its head, turning the absence of cards in your hand into money, which lets you double-dip when combined with the above-mentioned effects.

That's not a bad thing, per se. I am far from the first to observe that the unique way different cards combine is one of the best parts about Dominion, if not the best. And indeed, Poor House has a similar mechanic, but it starts at a much lower baseline, which is huge in this game (especially for a terminal card). As currently designed, Mountaineer combines so easily with so many existing cards to hit key price points that usually take much longer to get.

Just a couple more examples. With 1 Oasis, you only need $1 from the three remaining cards (or the one you draw) for a Gold, and only need $3 (from three of four) for a Province. With 2 Oases, you only need 1 out of four cards to be a copper to buy a Province.  If you draw Mountaineer with two Mills, you are guaranteed a Colony regardless of what other cards are around.

I really like the card, but IMO either the cost or the base payment (or both) needs to be changed.

[BBobb]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

-------------------------

The big change is that you can no longer use an Ice Mage, to play another Ice Mage twice.
The change was made, because in playtesting, that lead to a huge advantage of the first person to buy two or more ice mages, as the other players would constantly be bombarded with snow.

Edit: Wording

Ver. 3

It should say "when you gain" instead of "if you gain"

[Meta]

It should say "when you gain" instead of "if you gain"

Thanks, updated it.

[BBobb]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

Also some other wording changes:
Choose one:
Play an aAction card (except for Ice Mage) other than Ice Mage form from you hand twice,; or +3 Cards and +1 Buy,; or + and each other player gains 2 Snows.
-------
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain exchange it for a card that costs costing exactly more than it.

For the Action being capitalized, see Throne Room. For the "other than Ice Mage", see Golem. For the semi-colons, see any card with choices e.g. Steward. For the "and" between vanilla bonuses inside choices, see Spice Merchant. For the removal of the from hand in the reaction, see Sleigh. For Exchange part, see Trader. For the "that costs" to "costing", see any Remodeler e.g. Remodel, Remake.

[Meta]

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or
+3 Cards and +1 Buy; or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack
------------------------

Ver. 4

Fixed typo and wording change according to BBobb.

[fika monster]

When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

So if i gain a silver, i may discard EisMagier to instead gain a 5$ cost card?

[Meta]

When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

So if i gain a silver, i may discard EisMagier to instead gain a 5$ cost card?

Yes. And also if you gain a Snow, you may discard the Ice Mage aswell, to gain a 5$ card.

Edit: Typo

[Fragasnap]

Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Isn't the opening Ice Cutter, Ice Cutter too overpowered? Because you basically get two Gold, for the cost of 4 Snows. I'd change the cost to 4$, because that way you can't have that opening, and 4$ isn't much more expensive than 3$.

Double Ice Cutter doesn't sound great for the number of cards you lose persistently: Even Soothsayer and Bandit get in the way of your money density in a really meaningful way, and they only cost 1 card per shuffle rather than Ice Cutter's ~2.6 cards.  You would have to have good engine cards at $5, at which point managing Ice Cutter and its Snow sounds interesting enough to be worth the card being strong.  I want players to be able to open with Ice Cutter and a $4-cost, especially because a lot of good trash-for-benefits like Remodel, Salvager, and Remake cost $4.  Then players will more often have Snows and trash-for-benefits with them.

If it is all too much, would it be worthwhile to disallow Ice Cutter from gaining Victory cards to make it worse in the end-game?  Does that not really address any problem it might present with being a strong early-game Workshop variant?

Builder
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
Play a non-Command Action or Treasure card from the Supply costing up to $5. Gain 2 Snows.

I think it is worth making players "Gain and then set aside" the card for clarity.
Back before Command cards were invented, Overlord and cards like it were discussed as gaining and playing the card in question, which was never eliminated for being too strong, but always for running the piles too fast.  I imagine Builder will have big problems piling out multiplayer games, but maybe the Snow gaining will throttle it well enough.

Avalanche $5 Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your turns while this is in play, +2 Cards and set aside a Snow from its pile (under this).At the start of Clean-Up, if you gained a Victory card this turn, or the Snow pile is empty, discard this and the set-aside Snow.

It's a thematically cute idea, but I don't think it works very well due to big scaling issues in multiplayer.  There are always 30 Snows, regardless of player count, which means its self-discard will be more or less relevant based on the number of players.  It is likely much too costly when you can't megaturn, especially because in the worst-case it is +2 Cards and gain a Snow (if you're gaining a Victory card on the turn you play it).

Hearth
+4 Cards, +1 Buy.Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.
$7 - Action

Losing 3 cards in a shuffle seems a paltry drawback to a Council Room that doesn't give other players a Laboratory every time you play it.

Mountaineer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$7. -$1 per card in your hand. (You can't go below $0.)When you gian this, each player gains 2 Snows.

It's fun to put +$7 on a card.  It's cute that it turns Snow into Coppers.  It's a big problem that Throne Room + Mountaineer gets you a Province.  Even from a basic hand Mountaineer nets you +$3.  With good sifting like Cellar or Warehouse, getting to a Mountaineer with a Silver in hand is $8.  Further, Snow hurts less if you have Mountaineers (because reducing your hand is not as bad), so once one players starts buying Mountaineers, the best thing to do is to follow, exacerbating the problem.
Mountaineer as written could easily cost $6.

Arctic Castle - $4, Action - Victory - Arctic
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).When you buy this, you may discard an Action card to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile. If you discarded Snow, +1VP.

This could be totally fine, but has run afoul of a high amount of complexity that makes it very difficult to read and evaluate as a judge.  I highly recommend simplifying through eliminating the Snow Gear cards.  I also have a remark to make about distributing Snow.

Ice Mage
Choose one: Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice; or +3 Cards +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

The "instead gain" wording typically goes with "would gain," but due to a variety of complications, that wording is abrogated.  If you use the modern "when gain"/"exchange" wording, you aren't required to discard the card to make it function correctly, which is neat.  I have issues with giving out Snow as an Attack, though.

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

Snow Queen
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: $4
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. Each other player gains a Snow. At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.While this is in play, when another player plays a Snow, you may draw a card. If you did, discard this.

Abominable Snowman - $4 - Action - Attack
+$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards. Until then, when another player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

With that in mind, Carline's Snow Queen, emtzalex's Arctic Castle, LibraryAdventurer's Abominable Snowman, Meta's Ice Mage, and spineflu's Wintery Woods run afoul of this.  Wintery Woods and Ice Mage even multiply the number of Snows being given.  This is doubly bad if the card in question help the player handle the Snow like Ice Mage, Snow Queen, and Arctic Castle, as it pushes players to buy the card if anyone buys one.
I've played with Cursers that can resupply the Curse pile: While being buried under junk forever is an interesting experience in one game, it is not an experience that needs much repeating.  These cards may make the experience too common.  Of course, Snow is easier to handle than Curses, so my read may be off, but I am wary just the same.

Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.

Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of your next turn, +$2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.When you gain this, you may play it.

anordinaryman's Ice Castle, Aquila's Snowdrift, and Something_Smart's Mountaineer brush against this, but are reasonable by only triggering on-gain/on-trash of cards, significantly limiting the ability to bury other players in Snow.

[spineflu]

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

Snow Queen
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: $4
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. Each other player gains a Snow. At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.While this is in play, when another player plays a Snow, you may draw a card. If you did, discard this.

Abominable Snowman - $4 - Action - Attack
+$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards. Until then, when another player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

With that in mind, Carline's Snow Queen, emtzalex's Arctic Castle, LibraryAdventurer's Abominable Snowman, Meta's Ice Mage, and spineflu's Wintery Woods run afoul of this.  Wintery Woods and Ice Mage even multiply the number of Snows being given.  This is doubly bad if the card in question help the player handle the Snow like Ice Mage, Snow Queen, and Arctic Castle, as it pushes players to buy the card if anyone buys one.
I've played with Cursers that can resupply the Curse pile: While being buried under junk forever is an interesting experience in one game, it is not an experience that needs much repeating.  These cards may make the experience too common.  Of course, Snow is easier to handle than Curses, so my read may be off, but I am wary just the same.

i want to defend my design a little bit on that - the "attack" on Wintery Woods should push the game more towards a either

• cantrip+single terminal style of play, or
• a throne/villager/alternative village style of play, or
• worst case, money;

It's still going to slog at about the same level as Haunted Woods, working out to (several) handsize attack(s) that you hit yourself with over the course of a shuffle, rather than a potential full-on missed turn like a drawn-deck-during-greening HW.

I guess in general, if you're getting buried in snow in a WW game, i feel like that's on you as the player, rather than the card - no-one is making you buy or play those villages but you.

edit: I changed the wording so that it doesn't stack as hard though

[Meta]

Ice Mage
Choose one: Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice; or +3 Cards +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$  Action - Reaction - Attack

The "instead gain" wording typically goes with "would gain," but due to a variety of complications, that wording is abrogated.  If you use the modern "when gain"/"exchange" wording, you aren't required to discard the card to make it function correctly, which is neat.  I have issues with giving out Snow as an Attack, though.

Allthough the english wording may not be perfect, the discarding of Ice Mage if used as a Reaction is intentional. This way, you can't turn the Ice Mages attack into something completely positive, for the player being attacked.

An example: Say player A chooses to use the attack. Player B has an Ice Mage aswell and uses it's reaction.
With the current Version, Player B receives a card costing 5$, a Snow and had to discard his Ice Mage. Meaning using the attack was still a fairly good option.
Using your version, Player B receives two cards costing 5$ and gets to keep their Ice Mage, esentially ruining this attack once other players buy the Ice Mage, as +3 Cards +1 Buy is obv. better than +2$ and every other player gains 2 Cards costing 5$.

I also take issue with your taking issue of using snow as an attack. The Ice Mage is specifically designed as to not encourage using this attack, as it's A only a viable option if other players own few Ice Mages and +3 Cards +1 Buy isn't better, and B has two counter measures built into it. You can (in rare situations) use the Throne Room option, to guarantee +2 Actions (using it on Snow) even in games without any Villages or Cantrips (Allthough the 2019 errata may have "fixed" the throne rooming of snow) and using the Reaction you can gain cards costing 5$ instead of a snow and you can't use the Ice Mage to throne-room itself, in order to prevent others from gaining like 16 Snows in one turn.

Edit: Formatting

[emtzalex]

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. I made a few modifications to the design:



Arctic Castle - $4
Action - Victory - Arctic
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).
-----
Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).
-----
When you buy this, you may gain the top card from the Snow Gear pile.

The on-buy effect now gives the top card from the Snow Gear pile automatically, without the discard requirement. The pile is ordered with the cheapest card on top, then in alphabetical order. I have reworked some of the cards based on previous suggestions, and added a few.

There are now 2 Winter Vendors that are the cheapest card, making them the first to go with the on buy effect. I also modified them so the discard-for-buy effect has a $1 discount.  In addition to allowing players go access the Snow Pile cards without having to buy Arctic Castle, by discarding before their turn (and likely before the player with Arctic Castle plays the terminal action) they can potentially receive fewer Snows from Arctic Castle's action.

To go with the discarding I also added a couple of draw-to-card Actions, Winter Cabin and Groundskeepers' Cabin. While these would (I believe) be relatively weak in a regular game, they synergize well with both the Winter Vendor's discard-for-buy effect and Snow's hand-emptying effect. They're not so good if you are trying to keep Snow in your deck, so I could balance things out for a player not pursuing Arctic Castle.

Here is the Snow Gear pile, in order:


Snow Gear Pile:

Winter Vendor - $1* ~~TWO COPIES~~
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player (starting with you) may discard any number of Treasure cards from hand to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile worth up to $1 plus $1 per card discarded.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Daytaler - $2*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Snow, put it into your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Elegant Muff - $2*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$1
You may put up to 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Shoes - $2*
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Brandy - $3*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$2
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Shovels - $3*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Action
Do the following any number of times: discard a card from your hand; if it was a Snow, draw a card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Winter Cabin - $3*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Action
Draw until you have five cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Brazier - $4*
Treasure - Snow Gear
$2
Look through your discard pile. You may return up to 2 Snow cards from your discard pile or hand to their pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Groundskeepers' Cabin - $3*
Action - Snow Gear
+1 Action
+$1
Draw until you have five cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Sled - $4*
Action -  Snow Gear
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until revealing one that isn’t Snow. Put all of those revealed cards into your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snowman - $4*
Action - Reserve - Snow Gear
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern map along with up to 3 Snows from your hand.
-----
When another player gains a Snow during your turn, discard this from your Tavern mat along with half the Snows (rounded down) on the Tavern mat.
(This is not in the Supply.)

St. Bernard - $4*
Action -  Reaction - Snow Gear
+2 Cards
---------------
When another player plays a Snow, you may first reveal this and a Snow from your hand; if you do, play this.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Four-Poster Bed - $5*
Treasure - Night - Snow Gear
$2
If it's your Night phase, reveal and set aside a Victory card and an Action card costing less than it from your hand, and put both into your hand at end of turn (after drawing).
(This is not in the Supply.)

Golden Goose - $5*
Action - Reaction - Snow Gear
Gain a Gold.
---------------
When you gain a Snow, if it isn't your turn, you may play this from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Ice Magician's Cloak - $5*
Action - Snow Gear
For the rest of your turn when you play a Snow, get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Lead Glass Windows - $5*
Action - Duration - Snow Gear
While this is in play, when you play Snow, add 1VP to this. At the beginning of each of your turns, return 1VP from this. When you buy a Victory card, take the VP from this and discard this from play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow Golem - $5*
Action - Snow Gear
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal more non-Snow Action cards (other than Golems) than Snows. Discard the Golems and non-Action cards, then play the non-Snow Action cards in any order. Place half the Snows (rounded up) onto your deck, and discard the rest.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Snow House - $5*
Action -  Snow Gear
+$5
-$1 per 5 cards in the Snow pile (rounded down).
(This is not in the Supply.)

Foxfire - $6*
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn +1 Card.
-----
While this is in play, when you gain an Arctic Castle, +2VP.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Regal Cloak - $7*
Action - Treasure - Snow Gear
+2 Actions
For the rest of the turn, when you gain a Snow, +1 Villager.
$3
(This is not in the Supply.)

[fika monster]

24 hours till the deadline

[fika monster]

what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?

[LibraryAdventurer]

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.

[faust]

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.

I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning. This sort of attitude is not healthy. Any constructive criticism should be encouraged here. Rather than assuming the Fragasnap is acting in bad faith, I prefer to go to the more charitable (and frankly, more likely) interpretation - that they did not have that thought or got around to posting it until now. I think the goal for all of us here is to create good cards, and it doesn't matter all that much who wins in the end. fika monster won the last contest after adopting a suggestion that I put forth, and that made me feel just as good as if I had won a contest. Fragasnap is doing a lot of good work for this community by regularly posting their thoughts on current submissions.

[LibraryAdventurer]

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.

I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning...

This is not what I was thinking. I do appreciate Fragasnap's feedback in general. I just found it in bad taste that he said "Using snow to attack is a bad idea" near the end of a contest where we're supposed to use a custom junk card and the most obvious thing to use a junk card for is attacking.

EDIT: And I agree with the gist of what he said: That having junk cards that replenish themselves and never run out is a bad idea. But I don't think that necessarily applies to this particular junk card because it's not nearly as bad as other junk cards with how it disappears after you play it and gives you back the action you used. So it makes it a challenge to design an attack that works with this unique junk card.

[fika monster]

On Attacking with Snow:
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile.  It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do.  The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow.  Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.

I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.

I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning. This sort of attitude is not healthy. Any constructive criticism should be encouraged here. Rather than assuming the Fragasnap is acting in bad faith, I prefer to go to the more charitable (and frankly, more likely) interpretation - that they did not have that thought or got around to posting it until now. I think the goal for all of us here is to create good cards, and it doesn't matter all that much who wins in the end. fika monster won the last contest after adopting a suggestion that I put forth, and that made me feel just as good as if I had won a contest. Fragasnap is doing a lot of good work for this community by regularly posting their thoughts on current submissions.

I think both of them were acting in good faith, and were just a bit vague/clumsy with how they worded things. It happens.

[Timinou]

what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?

My interpretation is that Arctic Castle is always worth at least 2VP, but can score more if you have at least 9 Snow cards.

Basically, you score the either whichever of the following amounts is greater: (a) 2VP or (b) 1VP for every 3 Snow cards you have.

[faust]

what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?

My interpretation is that Arctic Castle is always worth at least 2VP, but can score more if you have at least 9 Snow cards.

Basically, you score the either whichever of the following amounts is greater: (a) 2VP or (b) 1VP for every 3 Snow cards you have.

Probably best to switch the two options around to avoid confusion.

Also, if that is the interpretation then it will score 0 VP with 6-8 Snow (as then, neither is "the greater").

EDIT: The better phrasing is "Worth 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down), but not less than 2 VP."

[emtzalex]

what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?

It's a scaling Victory card like Feodum or Vineyard (whose language I used), but with a floor of 2 VP. I wanted the floor so players who do not go for a strategy of collecting Snow aren't left with the choice of either conceding the entire pile to those playing for Snow or taking a nearly useless card. But the scaling value is available to every player, not just the one with the most Snow.

Looking at Feodum (which scales to "Silvers"), I recognize that I could have said "Snows" instead of "Snow cards." I wish I had caught that sooner since I have been trying to tighten the wording on this, without much success. Unfortunately my old laptop with the card info saved on it got a little smashed so I probably will not be able to change that before the deadline.

[emtzalex]

what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?

My interpretation is that Arctic Castle is always worth at least 2VP, but can score more if you have at least 9 Snow cards.

Basically, you score the either whichever of the following amounts is greater: (a) 2VP or (b) 1VP for every 3 Snow cards you have.

Probably best to switch the two options around to avoid confusion.

Also, if that is the interpretation then it will score 0 VP with 6-8 Snow (as then, neither is "the greater").

EDIT: The better phrasing is "Worth 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down), but not less than 2 VP."

Yes, that is what was intended. Thanks for these suggestions on wording. The other thought I had was to borrow from the game's "Choose one" syntax (which I think does a pretty good job of separating list items, even when some of those items have many words) and have it say:

Worth the greater of: 1VP per 3 Snows you have (rounded down); or 2VP.

[spheremonk]

if that is the interpretation then it will score 0 VP with 6-8 Snow (as then, neither is "the greater").

EDIT: The better phrasing is "Worth 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down), but not less than 2 VP."

While I like the language you suggest and think it is the best option, your reading of “the greater of” is novel and interesting. While a computer might adopt the rather technical interpretation you have in the case of 6-8 Snows, that’s not what the phrase means out there in the world. Certainly, I understand that if we input those words into an AI bot, it might yield zero, or, far more likely than zero, “undefined,” since the result is actually a null set, which is not the same as zero. 

In any event, this is a standard phrase used in games, laws and commercial contracts, that is not interpreted in the manner you suggest. When the two numbers are equal, the interpretation is generally that you use that number. For example, software licenses (the ones we click on without reading) generally contain a limitation on liability that reads something like: "Our liability will be limited to the greater of $500 or the amount you paid for the software." If you paid $499, the liability is limited to $500. If you paid $501, it is limited to $501. Nobody interprets this language to mean that if you paid exactly $500, liability is limited to $0 (rather than $500).

I don’t mean to argue, only to help anyone who encounters this phrase in the future understand the common English meaning.

[Meta]

The time is up!

To be clear, this is NOT the judgement post. This is merely the list. The judgement will come in approximately 12 hours.

Here is a list of all the cards submitted. please tell me if i missed anything. (this was an exercise in trying to compile everything)

Snow queen by Carline

Wintery woods by Spineflu

Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, the first time each other player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.

Snowball by infangthief

Snowball
$4
Action

+3 Cards
Gain a Snow.
You may play a Snow from your hand.

Eismager/Ice Mage by Meta

Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage

Choose one:
Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or
+3 Cards and +1 Buy; or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

7$  Action - Reaction - Attack
------------------------

Ice castle by anordinaryman

Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.

Builder by Segura

Artic Base by X-tra

SnowDrift by Aquila

Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
-
When you gain this, you may play it.

Frozen crevace by pubby

Winter Retreat by Xen3k

Winter Retreat
Action - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. If it's a Snow, +1VP and Exile this, otherwise gain 1 Snow.
-
1VP

Abominable snowman by Library adventurer

Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.

SleighMaker by mahowrath

Sleighmaker - $4
Action - Reserve

+1 Action. Gain two Snows. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you return a card to its pile, you may call this for +4 cards.

Mountain path by Silverspawn

Snowyy library by commodore chuckles

Artic passage by Faust

Arctic Passage - $6
Project

At the start of your turn, +2 Buys, +$2.
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Snow.

Hearth by Allion8Me

Hearth

+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.

$7 - Action

Avalanche by Mochamoko

Avalanche ⑤ Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of
your turns while this is in play,
+2 Cards and set aside a Snow
from its pile (under this).
-
At the start of Clean-Up, if you
gained a Victory card this turn, or
the Snow pile is empty, discard
this and the set-aside Snow.

Dogsled by Timinou

Mountaineer by Somethingsmart

Snowstorm by Xen3K (not techniclly a submission)

<Not an entry>

Snow Storm - $5
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn, set aside any number of cards from your hand to gain that many Snow. At the start of your Action phase, play the set aside cards in any order.

Frozen throne by No more fun

Frozen Throne
Action - $5
+1 Card
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow.

Ice cutter by Fragasnap

Ice Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it costs at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.

Artic castle by Emtzalex






-------

Ok so this has weird formatting issues, but ive been trying to edit this whole list for like 40 minutes, and do not have the energy to fix it right now. Could someone look it over and tell me what went wrong.

You forgot to close the like 5 quotes, which were inside of quotes (like avalanche).
It should be fixed now.
-------

[silverspawn]

Tip for future time saving: don't do quotes in summary posts. Instead, right click on the image, Copy image location, and place that in [img] tags. Takes a few more seconds but doesn't require fixing, so it should stay within a few minutes total.

You know, for when you win the next contest 

[fika monster]

Results

Hello everyone! I've tried to give this Judging business my best effort. Credit to Gubump for the Judge format here.

Snow Queen -- Carline	[/img]	A snow attacker. I think its fine, but it just doesnt interest me much.
Wintery woods -- Spineflu		A haunted woods variant. i mostly like its attack, but i feel like in a lot of kingdoms it just wouldn't come up a lot. If there is no source of +2 actions, bam, it just doesnt attack! I might also be reading it wrong, but it doesnt attack cards like bustling village or snowy village, since those cards says +3 or +4 actions. i want to emphasize that i like its attack, i just think its too narrow.
Snowball -- infangthief	Snowball $4 Action +3 Cards Gain a Snow. You may play a Snow from your hand	A simple lab variant. The fact that you first draw, then gain the snow and THEN play a snow from your hand means that you can't spam these easilly. This is still a really good 4$, but it feels like an appropiate price. good job.
Eismager/Ice Mage -- Meta		Translation: ------------------------- Ice Mage Choose one: Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows. ------ When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it. 7$  Action - Reaction - Attack ------------------------	This one Feels kinda cluttered. All of the choices are pretty dang good, but i dont feel like they interact meaningfully enought to warrant all the options and the complexity that comes with it. I do like its reaction: It means that you want to gain snow in some situations. But overall, i just don't like this card that much.
Ice castle -- anordinaryman		A nifty Sacrafice variant. It's pretty cool how it let's you turn snows into horses, but only if you have the spare actions. Its Copper trashing is good enough even if you don't have village support.
Builder -- Segura		An overlord variant. The fact that it lets you play tresure cards is pretty cool: I imagine that it loves Capital boards. It's snow drawback feels about right, since its flexibility is amazing.
Artic base -- X-tra		Another Lab variant. I like this one as well, but i just like snowball more. sorry!
Snow Drift -- Aquila	Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost. At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow. - When you gain this, you may play it.	Its pretty neat attack, but suffers from the same problem as winter woods, in that it's attack might just not come up in a lot of games. Otherwise it's about the right strength.
Frozen Crevace -- pubby		A Sorta smithy trasher. Pretty neat. Drawing 3 cards AND trashing a card from hand is really strong, so gaining a snow unto deck is an appropriate drawback. It interacts meaningfully With quite alot of cards like sacrafice that might really want junk cards. Good job.
Winter Retreat -- Xen3k		Winter retreat is sorta like if Imp and Island had a baby: And since imp is a good card, its approprieatly priced 5 and you gain a snow unless you played a snow, but if that's what you did, this card is just net neutral lab (though it exiles). It works well in a kingdom without other snow cards, and it works well with other snow cards as well. The VP and the alt vp is also perfect in my opinion. Good job.
Abominable snowman -- Library adventurer	Abominable Snowman $4 - Action - Attack +$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.	Its sea hag but with snow! I think its fine attack. The vanilla benefit is about right, and its attack is weaker than sea hags, but works throughout the whole game since the snow cards will pretty much always be returned. Overall, this seems a lot more fun to play with then seahag.
SleighMaker -- Mahowrath		A cool card. It lets you turn a future snow into a super lab, which seems really fun! The fact that you get 2 snows when you play it means that you will still get a lot of junk with this, which is what makes it balanced. So if you play this, and then a snow, AND draw a snow, thats a net +1 card size overall in a sense, the same as a lab, but with a lot more setup. Good job making a reserve lab!
Mountain path -- Silverspawn		This is a neat Library variant that i like a lot. With it you can get rid of a terrible hand, but at the cost of getting snowcards. If your next hand is the mountain path with the snows, thats no problem as you can just play the snows first. But you still have to balance how many cards you want to discard, since you really dont want to be discarding estate one shuffle just to draw the snow cards dead. Great card.
Snowy Library -- commodore chuckles		On a similar note, Snowy library is also a library variant, but i dont like this one as much. Its draws a huge amount of cards (+4 cards if its the only action played, which compares to hunting grounds),  and while its draw back cool in how its unique, and it is bad in some decks, like scrying pools or other kingdoms with great draw, i think think most of the time the drawback is neglible, and i would be happy to just play it with big money. The snow use is ok, but i think given how good the draw is, is a neglible drawback. i want to note that i still like it.
Artic passage -- Faust		A really simple project. I really like this one: +buy is a amazing resource to have in any deck, and the +2 money is also really good and it pays itself in 3 turns, All of this is balanced by how you gain a snow whenever you buy a card, which is a cool drawback. On one hand, you can buy a province with just 3 golds or 2 silvers in hand, which is great! but you get 2 dead cards for the price of one. that is a neat problem for both money decks and engines. A thing to note: Originally This project gave you +1buy and +3Money: If it was still that way, i wouldnt like it as much, as then it would be too good. Changing it to +2buy and +2Money makes certain decks explode (like potion games with no buys), but since buying cards gives you Snow, you feel the sting a lot more.  One concern i do have is that its too good with some events that lets you gain cards instead, but that is somewhat minor
Hearth -- Allion8Me		I like this one a lot. +4 cards is really good! but getting 3 snows is really bad, especially if you keep drawing them dead so you can't return them. This means that in almost all kingdoms, getting Hearths is a good but risky move. I do think that the +buy is a little too good, even for a card that costs 7 money or 3 snows, but that may just be me.
Avalanche -- Mochamoko		Ok first off: the painting you used here is really dope! ok, with that out of the way, i like the concept here a lot: its a hireling variant that is good a lot faster and costs 5$ so you get it more often, but you could make your deck a total train wreck when you actually start scoring. I think i would grab this a lot of the time. At first glance i thought it was nuts: but at a second glance i see that its actually somewhat balanced, in that if you have 10 of these in play, sure, you draw 20 extra cards each turn! but if you have them in play for 3 turns, that means that next turn you will get 30 snows in your next shuffle, which is pretty bad. I still think this is too good, but im not sure what to do about it. regardless, i like it a lot.[/sub].
Dogsled -- Timinou		This one is a neat 2 cost card, that COULD be a hunting grounds if you line it up with a snow, but quickly runs out. Gaining 2 snows when gaining Dogsled feels about right. It may be more apropriate as a 3$ card, but i like it more as a 2$ card
Mountaineer -- Somethingsmart		This is pretty nifty: its a Poor House variant, but for every card in your hand. I think its too good however: If you play this with 4 other cards in hand, its basically a terminal gold, and that feels too good at its current price point. i also think its snow drawback is too weak, as the snow actually makes it stronger if you draw them all together. I would either make its +$ benefit a bit weaker (+6$ makes it on par with terminal silvers), or perhaps change its snow interaction: maybe you get a snow when you play it, or you also get -1$ for each snow you returned this turn.

---

Throne room -- No more fun

Frozen Throne Action - $5 +1 Card You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow.

A throne room variant. The +1 card is a big deal here, as normally when you draw 2 Throne rooms with, say, 3 coppers, you cant do anything. But with Frozen Throne, you could F-Throne the F-Throne, which nets you +3 cards, which could be the difference between a dead turn and a megaturn. The snow interaction here is also pretty neat: if you play a Snow with the Frozen Throne, it becomes a village. And you are essentially guaranteed that you will have Snows, as really, you want to play your GOOD action cards with Frozen Throne. Good job here.

[/center]

---

Ice cutter -- Fragasnap

A workshop variant. It's pretty dang good: you could always use Ice cutter to gain Gold, which is amazing for a 3$ card, even if you gain 2 snows. Its comparable to leprechain in that way: a cheap gold gainer that can make your deck worse. Its a lot more flexible than that of course. I also like the fact that you want to play a snow before this.

[/center]

---

Artic castle -- Emtzalex

I think this card has a nifty concept. But i still dont really like it. One part is just that, there is so many snow gears card, and some of them just feel a bit pointless? I dont have the expertise or energy to analyse all of it. I would like this more if the snowgear pile was more limited. I also don't really like the attack part: There is already a lot of things going on here with Artic castle, and i dont think it adds to much. i do like the Alt VP here: Making snows a source of vp is neat.

[/center]

---

Runners-up:
(4th place) Snowball by Infangthief
(3rd place) Arctic passage by Faust
(2nd place) Sleighmaker by Mahowrath

Winner: Mountain path by Silverspawn

There was a lot of great cards here! In the end i decided do choose what cards seemed like i would enjoy playing the most, while at the same time making strategic tradeoffs. I think Mountain path By silverspawns fits the bill best here, but on a different day i might have picked any of the finalists. I hope my judgment was okay! It was really hard deciding here.

-
On an unrelated note: it took 2 hours for me to learn how to write this post. Thats a lot of time not spent judging, and i think there should be some thread with some formatts like Gubump had, but blank, so that future judges can more easily create there judgement posts.

[silverspawn]

Thanks :-)

Fwiw I agree with your judging in that I like all three runner-ups.

I've long planned to have an Equipment-based contest, but now that we have an extra contest for Fan Card Mechanics, I've decide on another theme.

[Mahowrath]

Thanks for running the contest!
Quite a variety of entries; turns out snow's pretty malleable