Print

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

[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.
-------