Print

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

[D782802859]

Weekly Design Contest #106: Business In The Front, Party In The Back
Design a card with only vanilla bonuses above the dividing line but with anything you wish below it.
Examples of official cards that fulfill this include Highway, Nomad Camp, Haggler, Moat, Spices, Nobles, and Cemetery.
It must have some below line text, so nothing that's full on vanilla.
Vanilla bonuses are +Cards, +Actions, +Buys, +$, +Coffers, +Villagers, +Victory Tokens, and static Victory Points.

[emtzalex]

Examples of official cards that fulfill this include . . . Nobles . . .

Does this mean that the "Choose one:" mechanic used in Nobles counts as a vanilla bonus if all of the choices are vanilla? Would that also apply to Durations mechanics? Things dependent on a Journey token?

Or did you mean for the 2VP to be considered the "above the line" portion of Nobles?

[Gubump]

I assume Reserve cards are off the table because of the "put this on your Tavern mat" in the top half?

[Timinou]

Would this qualify?



I still need to think about the balance.  It's a bit sad in Kingdoms without additional gains so I might also tweak it to account for that.

[BBobb]

I would assume that it does considering he said Cemetery is also allowed.

[Gubump]

My previous entry needed to avoid infinite loops but couldn't do so cleanly or clearly enough, so here's a much simpler entry.


Note that since it says "a Lair," if you draw another Lair with the Reaction, you can't React with the second Lair because you already revealed "a Lair."

[spineflu]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

[pubby]

edit: nerfed

[LibraryAdventurer]

<Panner>

I like it, but I think it needs to cost $5 unless you put a limit on what action you can gain.


My entry:

Bridge Builder
$6 - Action
+3 Cards.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

(I have submitted this to a contest before a while back, but since then, I've played with it several times and have confirmed that it plays well IMO.)

[Gubump]

Even with LibraryAdventurer's suggestion of making this cost , I definitely don't think you should be able to get free King's Courts or Goonses (how would you pluralize Goons, since each copy is a Goons?) with this.

Also, nitpick: +Buys come before +.

[pubby]

It's not really free Goons/KC because those decks don't want lots of (if any) treasures in them. But I think you and LibraryAdventurer are right: the card is too strong.

I posted an updated version that only gives $1 and no +Buy. Thinking about it, having +Buy is too crazy at ending the game on 3 piles. One can stack the effect and spend their buys on Coppers and gain a bazillion actions on their last turn. Without +Buy, it's much more reasonable to play with. And by only giving $1, I hope it's balanced enough to cost $4.

[Commodore Chuckles]

[emtzalex]

FANATICS - $4
ACTION
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
------------------
While this is in play, you can't buy cards.

A stupid powerful village/double-lab, but with a huge drawback. The strength/effectiveness of this card is definitely dependent on what other cards/Events are in the Kingdom. To that end, I randomized 10 Kingdoms, and 9 of them had at least some fairly useful gaining and/or remodling, enough to make the card playable, and about half had some very strong options.

[Timinou]

It's not really free Goons/KC because those decks don't want lots of (if any) treasures in them. But I think you and LibraryAdventurer are right: the card is too strong.

I posted an updated version that only gives $1 and no +Buy. Thinking about it, having +Buy is too crazy at ending the game on 3 piles. One can stack the effect and spend their buys on Coppers and gain a bazillion actions on their last turn. Without +Buy, it's much more reasonable to play with. And by only giving $1, I hope it's balanced enough to cost $4.

I think removing the +Buy is a sufficient nerf.  Giving $2 instead of $1 isn't a huge benefit without additional support, and gives the card a bit more versatility as a terminal Silver. 

[NoMoreFun]

Sensei
Action - $5
+3 Cards
____
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, you may get +3 Cards instead of following its instructions

[Mahowrath]

Cloakroom - $1
Action

+1 Buy
+$1
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, Exile a card from your hand, and gain a Copper

[fika monster]

Look! In the kingdom! It's a wood cutter! It's innovation! no, it's Quick Deal!



Ie, it gives you the powerful benefit of being able to play a card you get NOW, but with the cost of exiling itself. Similar to Stockpile, if you can somehow get back your Quickdeal, you could get a lot of extra coin that way as well.

Edit 1: A wording change to make it more understandable (tnx emtzalex)


Edit2: Gubump and some others pointed out autopile potential of this card. I think i decided that i dont want it to autopile itself, so im adding command type to this.



Edit3: wording changes


Edit4: further wording changes, to make it clearer

[faust]

edit: nerfed

Bridge Builder
$6 - Action
+3 Cards.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

Sensei
Action - $5
+3 Cards
____
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, you may get +3 Cards instead of following its instructions

It is worth noting that Donald X. has recently moved away from "while in play" effects. I think any of the above would probably be phrased with the current "for the rest of this turn" wording (which of course isn't applicable for this contest). I think it would be could if the judge weighed in on what their view of such "while in play" effects  is.

FANATICS - $4
ACTION
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
------------------
While this is in play, you can't buy cards.

This one is a bit of a special case, where the "while in play" is more justified I think.

[X-tra]

Oof, already so many good entries. This is going to be a tough one. Still, I'll attempt something:



Too good compared to Sheepdog? Too decent of a trasher? Perhaps. I like the idea of it, though.

A funny "anti-Curser" though, lol.


Edit: Updated the wording to be clearer.

[spineflu]

Oof, already so many good entries. This is going to be a tough one. Still, I'll attempt something:



Too good compared to Sheepdog? Too decent of a trasher? Perhaps. I like the idea of it, though.

A funny "anti-Curser" though, lol.

do you get the +2 Cards when you play it also?

[X-tra]

do you get the +2 Cards when you play it also?

Yes. In fact, you must draw 2 cards before you reveal your hand for the trashing.

[faust]

Burglar - $2
Night/Reaction

+1 Buy
+$2
+1 Coffers
-
When you gain a Victory card, you may play this from your hand.

[Timinou]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

[spineflu]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.
edit: not graverobber, that'll put it on your deck. bad news.

[Timinou]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.

How would this interact with Graverobber?  I still don’t fully understand the Stop Moving rule.

[mandioca15]

Brazier (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
---
While this is in play, when you finish playing an Action and it's still in play,
you may trash it for +1VP.

Turn your Action cards into VP tokens once you're done with them. You can even self-immolate if you want. Of course, you need extra actions if you want to trash other Action cards...

[spineflu]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.

How would this interact with Graverobber?  I still don’t fully understand the Stop Moving rule.

actually looks like Graverobber would put it on your deck, not on the tavern mat; so Graverobber wouldn't work. Tested with Sculptor (gain to hand) + Nomad Camp (gain to topdeck) on dominion dot games - it gained to hand.

[scolapasta]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.

How would this interact with Graverobber?  I still don’t fully understand the Stop Moving rule.

actually looks like Graverobber would put it on your deck, not on the tavern mat; so Graverobber wouldn't work. Tested with Sculptor (gain to hand) + Nomad Camp (gain to topdeck) on dominion dot games - it gained to hand.

Right. My understanding has always been that if Card A gains Card B, then Card A's gain instruction takes precedence over Card B's.

For example: from the wiki for Graverobber:

If the card would be gained into your hand, such as Guardian, Ghost Town, Night Watchman, or Den of Sin, it is gained onto your deck instead.

What about changing the wording to be "When you gain this, you may put it on your Tavern mat."

In this way, it would happen after the gain, wherever it went to. (similar to Watchtower)

Note, with this phasing, it can alos be made optional to give it another use - late in a game the +Buy may actually be more useful to you than the doubling. So you could gain this to your hand with Armory, for example, to buy the last two Provinces.

[silverspawn]

(I'm going on the assumption that giving negative feedback is more okay for cards that everyone else likes.) This seems quite similar to Cavalry since both cards are Moat effect on-play and on-gain. The difference is that this card delays the on-gain effect whereas Cavalry has that instantly but delays the on-play effect -- which seems to me like the more interesting way to do it.

[emtzalex]

My current submission: a sort of "Stockpile/innovation" variant.



Ie, it gives you the powerful benefit of being able to play a card you get NOW, but with the cost of exiling itself. Similar to Stockpile, if you can somehow get back your Quickdeal, you could get a lot of extra coin that way as well.

A couple of things: "Exile" should be capitalized (see Sanctuary). Also, "you may Exile this to set it aside. If you do, play it." is confusing in this context. When I first read it I thought "it" referred to Quickdeal, which got Exiled, then set aside, then played. I think default reading of "it" is the thing you are currently talking about, in this case "this" or Quickdeal.  I would suggest "...when you gain a card, you may Exile this to set that card aside. If you do, play it."

The "it"s seem to be multiplying. I can work through what you're doing, but as the card's wording is now I think it would trash copies of Wooden Spikes, not the card you gained. You might try "...to reveal your hand and trash all revealed copies of that card."

You also might consider taking out the "you may first" language, which I don't think is necessary for the card to work (see Falconer), and without it can be used to trash cards you gain to your hand, either from a Torturer attack or using Sleigh.

Brazier (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
---
While this is in play, when you finish playing an Action and it's still in play,
you may trash it for +1VP.

Turn your Action cards into VP tokens once you're done with them. You can even self-immolate if you want. Of course, you need extra actions if you want to trash other Action cards...

Here, again, I think the "it's" is hard to understand from the card's text. I know from your comments that "it" refers to the Action card just played, but because you earlier talked about Brazier being in play, one might think that "it" is Brazier. You might try "While this is in play, directly after you finish playing an Action card, if that Action card is still in play, you may trash that Action card for +1VP." (See Royal Carriage).

[Gubump]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.

How would this interact with Graverobber?  I still don’t fully understand the Stop Moving rule.

actually looks like Graverobber would put it on your deck, not on the tavern mat; so Graverobber wouldn't work. Tested with Sculptor (gain to hand) + Nomad Camp (gain to topdeck) on dominion dot games - it gained to hand.

Right. My understanding has always been that if Card A gains Card B, then Card A's gain instruction takes precedence over Card B's.

For example: from the wiki for Graverobber:

If the card would be gained into your hand, such as Guardian, Ghost Town, Night Watchman, or Den of Sin, it is gained onto your deck instead.

What about changing the wording to be "When you gain this, you may put it on your Tavern mat."

In this way, it would happen after the gain, wherever it went to. (similar to Watchtower)

Note, with this phasing, it can alos be made optional to give it another use - late in a game the +Buy may actually be more useful to you than the doubling. So you could gain this to your hand with Armory, for example, to buy the last two Provinces.

One thing I'd like to point out: All of those official cards, including Nomad Camp, say "this is gained to [location] (instead of your discard pile)." You can't do X instead of Y if Y never happens. Whereas Profits just says "this is gained to your Tavern mat," period. I could see the argument that it's because of the "instead of your discard pile" that Sculptor and Graverobber override gain locations.

[emtzalex]

My current submission: a sort of "Stockpile/innovation" variant.



Ie, it gives you the powerful benefit of being able to play a card you get NOW, but with the cost of exiling itself. Similar to Stockpile, if you can somehow get back your Quickdeal, you could get a lot of extra coin that way as well.

This has some interesting possibilities. With Ferry (or Princess or two Highways) and one of these in play, you could pile the rest of them, buying one, Exiling the one you have in play, playing the one you just bought, and using the $2 and +Buy to buy another one and repeat the process. When you bought the last one you could discard most of them from Exile (or maybe even all of them; I know you can play a reaction card even when the thing you are reacting to was what caused you to draw that card; I don't know if the discard-from-Exile response works the same way). Alternatively, with Vineyard or Tower, you could leave them in Exile and they would be stored away and potential worth a fair amount of VP. You could also do this to end the game if you were ahead and there were already two empty piles.

[X-tra]

The "it"s seem to be multiplying. I can work through what you're doing, but as the card's wording is now I think it would trash copies of Wooden Spikes, not the card you gained. You might try "...to reveal your hand and trash all revealed copies of that card."

You also might consider taking out the "you may first" language, which I don't think is necessary for the card to work (see Falconer), and without it can be used to trash cards you gain to your hand, either from a Torturer attack or using Sleigh.

Too right. The wording could be clearer, and I'll definitely jump on any occasion to make it so. So with that:

• Removed the "first", even though this means you can draw into the Curse you just gained to trash it now.
• Changed a "it" into "the gained card" (so if you trashed it via Watchtower, you didn't gain the card, and the Reaction doesn't allow you to trash anymore).
• Placed the "from it" right next to "your hand", to make it more obvious that said "it" refers to the aforementioned "hand".
• Finally, added a "then", to make it more obvious that you draw before trashing.

Thank you for your suggestions!

[spineflu]

took Gubump's "this means no reserves, right?" as an additional design challenge and came up with:

Profits • $5 • Treasure - Reserve
+1 Buy
-
This is gained to your Tavern mat.

During your Buy phase, if you have 3 or fewer Treasures in play and you have not doubled your $ yet this turn, you may call this to double your $.

One shot miniature fortune that becomes a junk card in your deck after use. There is no way to return it to the tavern mat without first returning it to the supply (that I've thought of, anyhow).
Kind of a throwback to the first string of WDC contests, getting creative about how to get things to the tavern mat.

Has some synergies with peddlers/markets/etc; really likes Spoils. Antisynergies with a purely money strategy due to the 3 or fewer treasures rule, but still not terrible - can turn a copper and a gold into province-tier coin.

I believe you could trash this and then gain it from the trash with Lurker. (EDIT: Actually, no that only works with Actions.)

This junks your deck after you call it, but unlike other Reserve cards you get to put this directly on your Tavern mat so overall it’s quite strong I think.

yeah like graverobber and rogue could also gain it from the trash too, but there's no way to get this directly from hand or deck to the tavern mat.

How would this interact with Graverobber?  I still don’t fully understand the Stop Moving rule.

actually looks like Graverobber would put it on your deck, not on the tavern mat; so Graverobber wouldn't work. Tested with Sculptor (gain to hand) + Nomad Camp (gain to topdeck) on dominion dot games - it gained to hand.

Right. My understanding has always been that if Card A gains Card B, then Card A's gain instruction takes precedence over Card B's.

For example: from the wiki for Graverobber:

If the card would be gained into your hand, such as Guardian, Ghost Town, Night Watchman, or Den of Sin, it is gained onto your deck instead.

What about changing the wording to be "When you gain this, you may put it on your Tavern mat."

In this way, it would happen after the gain, wherever it went to. (similar to Watchtower)

Note, with this phasing, it can alos be made optional to give it another use - late in a game the +Buy may actually be more useful to you than the doubling. So you could gain this to your hand with Armory, for example, to buy the last two Provinces.

One thing I'd like to point out: All of those official cards, including Nomad Camp, say "this is gained to [location] (instead of your discard pile)." You can't do X instead of Y if Y never happens. Whereas Profits just says "this is gained to your Tavern mat," period. I could see the argument that it's because of the "instead of your discard pile" that Sculptor and Graverobber override gain locations.

I mean, I'm fine with there being fewer "useful" ways to gain it. Doubling your money is already pretty exploitable, there doesn't need to be ways to do it over and over with this.

[spheremonk]

[Xen3k]

Horse Racers - $6*
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
-
During your turn, if you have no Coppers or Horse Racers in play, this costs $2 less. Otherwise, when you buy this, gain a Horse.

A Lab variant with a variable cost. The Horse gain only happens if you buy Horse Racers and you have either Copper or Horse Racers in play, so you are not getting the discount. Some concerns I have are the strong interaction with Workshop and their variants. The hope is that it would be mitigated by losing the discount if you play Horse Racers. I could just resolve this by limiting the below line to only be in effect during the buy phase, but I wanted to see what people thought of this version. Another lesser concern is the strong interaction with remodelers, but I kind of like that. Feedback is appreciated as always.

[Commodore Chuckles]

(I'm going on the assumption that giving negative feedback is more okay for cards that everyone else likes.) This seems quite similar to Cavalry since both cards are Moat effect on-play and on-gain. The difference is that this card delays the on-gain effect whereas Cavalry has that instantly but delays the on-play effect -- which seems to me like the more interesting way to do it.

Thank you for the critique. I don't agree with you, though. I think this will play very differently from Cavalry, because setting up your next turn is very different from giving your current turn a boost. Also, Cavalry is a delayed Smithy on-play, not a delayed Moat.

[Gubump]

(I'm going on the assumption that giving negative feedback is more okay for cards that everyone else likes.) This seems quite similar to Cavalry since both cards are Moat effect on-play and on-gain. The difference is that this card delays the on-gain effect whereas Cavalry has that instantly but delays the on-play effect -- which seems to me like the more interesting way to do it.

Thank you for the critique. I don't agree with you, though. I think this will play very differently from Cavalry, because setting up your next turn is very different from giving your current turn a boost. Also, Cavalry is a delayed Smithy on-play, not a delayed Moat.

Since they don't take a card slot from your hand, neither Moat nor Cavalry are Moats on-gain, they're Smithies. Cavalry gives +2 handsize on gain, same as a Smithy on-play. Likewise, Eager Hound gives a delayed +2 handsize on gain.

[LibraryAdventurer]

This should be a giant dog.

My vote is for Eager hound because it's a doggie.
(Take note for when I eventually get to judge one of these contests.)

[Mahowrath]

(I'm going on the assumption that giving negative feedback is more okay for cards that everyone else likes.) This seems quite similar to Cavalry since both cards are Moat effect on-play and on-gain. The difference is that this card delays the on-gain effect whereas Cavalry has that instantly but delays the on-play effect -- which seems to me like the more interesting way to do it.

Thank you for the critique. I don't agree with you, though. I think this will play very differently from Cavalry, because setting up your next turn is very different from giving your current turn a boost. Also, Cavalry is a delayed Smithy on-play, not a delayed Moat.

It's funny, my mind immediately went to Lackeys with a delayed 2 cards on buy rather than 2 Actions. The difference in mechanic that delivers the bonus helps it feel fresh though.

[BBobb]

Here is my second attempt at a card:




It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token).

EDIT: Removed the capitalization from token, added spaces between some lines, and added a name thanks to Gubump.

[spheremonk]

This should be a giant dog.

Wait. What? You mean like this?

[fika monster]

Burglar - $2
Night/Reaction

+1 Buy
+$2
+1 Coffers
-
When you gain a Victory card, you may play this from your hand.

Workshops love this. I also like this a lot: It makes gaining estates a lot more viable. I imagine this is nuts in a shepherd/groom kingdom. I like the creative use of Night/reaction.

[fika monster]

when is the deadline?

[D782802859]

when is the deadline?

Wednesday, March 3rd.

[LibraryAdventurer]

This should be a giant dog.

Wait. What? You mean like this?

NOoooo, please, no
(where's the puking emoji?)

[spineflu]

This should be a giant dog.

Wait. What? You mean like this?

NOoooo, please, no
(where's the puking emoji?)

honestly a snoop dogg guest appearance in dominion wouldn't surprise me at all. He's showing up on martha stewart, trailer park boys, essentially just doing sidequests. Still, I'm surprised the snoop dogg card doesn't involve green.

[Mahowrath]

You have to react with "Did somebody say..."

[Gubump]

You have to react with "Did somebody say..."

I don't get it.

[Mahowrath]

You have to react with "Did somebody say..."

I don't get it.

He recently did a rap for a brand with that catchphrase. He says it himself halfway through. (Warning: advertising)


Replace the brand name with "Draw 3", and that's what I'd say reacting with this every game.

[Aquila]

Magnate - Victory, $4 cost.
2VP
-
When you gain this, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $4. When you trash this during your turn, cards cost $2 less for the turn.

[scolapasta]

Current version (with its notes):




Original version:


I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:

Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!

[mathdude]

Borrowed Land
Action
$3
When another player gains a victory card, you may trash this from your hand to gain a cheaper Victory card than the gained card.

So it's a 3-cost estate at face value.  But in a basic kingdom, it would turn into a Duchy when someone buys a Province, assuming you have it in hand when they do that.  In kingdoms with alt-VP cards, I don't think it gains too much more power (maybe something like Harem or Nobles, if someone else is still buying those mid/late game and you're ready to start gaining Duchies?  But if someone is buying Provinces, you will likely prefer Duchy over Harem or Nobles anyway since it would be late enough in the game for the extra +1VP to be worth it).

The only concern I currently have is when Colonies are in play.  Then this 3-cost could turn into a Province.  At that point, it's a must-buy, IMO (though it's a question of when you rush them... you want enough that you win the split, but not so many so early that you stunt your growth - timing the buys would be critical).

Now after typing all this reasoning, I'm wondering whether it should cost $4 instead of $3.  It's a minor difference, since it's not a card you buy with opening hands (so the $3/$4 difference of buying 1 or 2 to start the game is irrelevant), so it's probably still okay at $3?

[scolapasta]

I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:

Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!

A few additional thoughts:

• If you have two Retrievers in hand where you could set one aside, then another, resulting in the original trashing / discarding result. It's not that problematic (though could combo with draw to X cards), but it still feels weird. So I am considering just changing those clauses to "put in the trash" and "put in your discard pile" (A variation on the wording from Fortress - "When you trash this, put it into your hand."
• I'm considering removing "would", even if it means allowing a strong combo


So the result of both these changes would be:

Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash.

When you trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I don't think I can make the first change, without the 2nd, because that also seems weird, as you would then neither discard or trash. Whereas the above wording does still discard or trash, it just changes the destination of that action.

This does now empower something like Remodel-Retriever, but I think the better, more understandable wording is worth it (plus you'd still have to get them in the same hand). But I'd love to hear some opinions on it.

Thoughts?

[spineflu]

I hope it's ok that I continue to enter recycled cards from previous contents, usually improved to a better version (at least I hope!):

For this contest, here's Retriever v0.5:

Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to trash it instead.

When you would trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to discard it instead.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I've tried my hand at a few "blue dogs", but this one was always my favorite. v0.4 only revealed the retriever instead of setting aside, allowing you to trash all the cards you might discard (or vice versa) in a turn. It was wisely pointed out that luck could play a huge factor if, for example, I drew my Retriever with Cellar, and you did not.

So, it's nerfed to set aside and only "retrieve" (or "bury") one card. Luck can still happen, but now it won't have as big an impact. And hopefully this card is still an interesting card to buy.

I do like that it works both as a reaction on attacks, but can also react to things you do on your turn. And it uses "would" so you can't abuse cards like Remodel.

One rules related question: does anyone remember where Donald ended up on Milita (and possibly other multiple card) discards, whether they happened one at a time or as a batch? That could clearly impact Retriever:

• if you discard one at a time, it, you could discard a copper, set this aside, and then be down to 3 cards, and get this back at the start of your turn)
• if you discard in batch, it gets confusing to me if it could still work that way or if you'd have to still discard the other card.

But I think it is the former.

Feedback always encouraged!

A few additional thoughts:

• If you have two Retrievers in hand where you could set one aside, then another, resulting in the original trashing / discarding result. It's not that problematic (though could combo with draw to X cards), but it still feels weird. So I am considering just changing those clauses to "put in the trash" and "put in your discard pile" (A variation on the wording from Fortress - "When you trash this, put it into your hand."
• I'm considering removing "would", even if it means allowing a strong combo


So the result of both these changes would be:

Retriever - Action-Reaction - $5
+2 Cards
-
When you discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash.

When you trash one of your cards, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile.

If you do set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

I don't think I can make the first change, without the 2nd, because that also seems weird, as you would then neither discard or trash. Whereas the above wording does still discard or trash, it just changes the destination of that action.

This does now empower something like Remodel-Retriever, but I think the better, more understandable wording is worth it (plus you'd still have to get them in the same hand). But I'd love to hear some opinions on it.

Thoughts?

Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?

Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during clean up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash or your discard pile.

If you do, at the start of your next turn return this to your hand

It gets that text size up a little bigger and also enables some weird stuff where things go to the place they're supposed to (that I haven't been able to think of a use for yet but I'm sure one exists - maybe for handsize attack dodging?)

[silverspawn]

[LibraryAdventurer]

<Tavern>

The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

[scolapasta]

Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?

Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during clean up, you may set this aside to put it in the trash or your discard pile.

If you do, at the start of your next turn return this to your hand

It gets that text size up a little bigger and also enables some weird stuff where things go to the place they're supposed to (that I haven't been able to think of a use for yet but I'm sure one exists - maybe for handsize attack dodging?)

I had considered that, but didn't like that weirdness. Plus it changes some interactions, namely with Lurker (hence the "one of your cards") and Improve.

BUT, your post made me reconsider (thanks!) and:
• I can live with the specific interactions as it buffs one, but nerfs the other (the Lurker interaction was more of a concern when all you had to do was reveal Retriever)
• by adding some parenthesis, I have a 6 line version that doesn't have the weirdness (I also had to change "return" to "put"

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded). If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand.

[Mahowrath]

<Tavern>

The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.

Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5

I'm guessing this should be $2 as per the image; is it too late to edit the original message to save confusion going forwards?

[scolapasta]

Retriever • Action - Reaction • $5

I'm guessing this should be $2 as per the image; is it too late to edit the original message to save confusion going forwards?

Whoops! Done. (I'll also be updating my original post with the latest version later this evening)

[LibraryAdventurer]

<Tavern>

The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.

Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.

[fika monster]

<Tavern>

The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.

Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.

What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2

[faust]

<Tavern>

The idea is good, but there's no way this needs to cost $6. It might even be balanced at $3 or $4 IMO.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time evaluating it. My first reaction was that it's broken at $6 with 2 cards per green on gain; as when you're greening, this alternative to buying a Duchy frequently guarantees drawing deck next turn, for the mere cost of $1 more and 1VP less. That said, it's difficult to exploit: if you were to relying on this as your draw, you'd still need to build to the cash and buys in deck and have enough greens in hand ready for when you gain your first, and they could run out before you finish piling Provinces.

I'm sure it could exist at $3 or $4, but it would be game-warping.

Expedition costs $3 and gives +2 cards for your next turn without any requirement for your hand contents and without putting a nearly-junk card in your deck. In order to get more than +2 Cards with Tavern, you'd have to have more than one victory card in your hand. I really don't think it'd be worth keeping your starting Estates just to make this draw more sometimes.

Expedition serves another purpose. The card is way too strong at $3 or $4 because of its late-game power. Once you've bought 1-2 Provinces, Tavern makes sure that your engine continues firing. This extreme consistency boost would make it an automatic pickup in the late-game at $3 or $4.

What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2

This is backwards. Tavern is at its most powerful in the late game, so making it cheaper there doesn't really address any issues. Plus it would be 2 dividing lines and too much text.

[fika monster]

What if it costs less per empty pile? so its base cost is 6, but when 1 pile is empty, its 4, when its 2 it costs 2

This is backwards. Tavern is at its most powerful in the late game, so making it cheaper there doesn't really address any issues. Plus it would be 2 dividing lines and too much text.

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?

[faust]

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?

This could work I suppose, but I figure it would be less interesting. Tavern already puts junk in your deck, so it has an effective -1 card; with your proposal you'd need at least 2 green cards make it do anything productive. I honestly don't think any "fix" is needed here.

[silverspawn]

what if it gave +1 card instead and cost 3-4?

The card started as exactly that, but like faust, I thought that the powerful-but-expensive version was more exciting, so I made it +2 Cards and cost 6$.

[anordinaryman]

Can I make a wording suggestion, because seven lines of text below the line is A Lot?
[. . .]

I had considered that, but didn't like that weirdness. Plus it changes some interactions, namely with Lurker (hence the "one of your cards") and Improve.

BUT, your post made me reconsider (thanks!) and:
• I can live with the specific interactions as it buffs one, but nerfs the other (the Lurker interaction was more of a concern when all you had to do was reveal Retriever)
• by adding some parenthesis, I have a 6 line version that doesn't have the weirdness (I also had to change "return" to "put"

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may set this aside to put it on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded). If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand.

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

[scolapasta]

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

I hear you and your versions do reduce the text to what should be an ideal max. So I'm debating the "discard" version:

I had considered it before, but I was worried that might make it too weak. Do you think it would be worth a buy vs, for example, Moat?

Additionally, I liked the idea that retriever would go and "retrieve" or "bury" a card for you, then come back to you. Felt more thematic. I'm realizing now that that's already covered by Faithful Hound anyway, so yeah, maybe it doesn't need it.

I'm guessing the real test would be playtesting these different versions, but still I'd like this polished as best we can for the contest.

[anordinaryman]

To me it's a ton of text, and the the trash-to-discard and discard-to-trash are the most interesting parts. The "If you did, at the start of your next turn, put this to your hand" seems unnecessary and kind of superfluous. You could make it more elegant by either discarding the card or have it play itself, which would change the cost.

I'm proposing something like these two options:

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $2
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may discard this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Retriever - Action - Reaction - $4?? (maybe $3)
+2 Cards
-
When you trash or discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may play this to put that card on your discard pile (if trashed) or in the trash (if discarded).

Other Changes:
* I have also used "this" vs "that" to make it less ambiguous.
* I was worried about infinitely looping but I realize in the proposal 1 it doesn't break the game, it just means that if you discard a Retriever you get to trigger it's bottom ability without having to discard another card. It does let you infinite loop, but it's the same infinite loop that a player may reveal a moat infinite times to a Witch -- it does nothing but waste time.

Other Ideas:
* Keep the play version but tweak the on-play benefit. +2$, a sifter, draw-to-x, or a trasher all would work.

I hear you and your versions do reduce the text to what should be an ideal max. So I'm debating the "discard" version:

I had considered it before, but I was worried that might make it too weak. Do you think it would be worth a buy vs, for example, Moat?

Additionally, I liked the idea that retriever would go and "retrieve" or "bury" a card for you, then come back to you. Felt more thematic. I'm realizing now that that's already covered by Faithful Hound anyway, so yeah, maybe it doesn't need it.

I'm guessing the real test would be playtesting these different versions, but still I'd like this polished as best we can for the contest.

Well, the discard-version of Retriever doesn't do anything special unless there's discard and weak-trashing, or there's trash for benefit. Many kingdoms don't have those, so, yeah, it could be identical (or in the case of attacks) strictly-worse than moat. The ones that do have those -- that benefit isn't always worth discarding a card from your hand for. There's also the fact that Retriever can only-fire once per turn no matter. Then there's the fact that moat doesn't get lost from your hand. So, for those reasons, it can be potentially weak. Upon closer analysis it seems like strengthening it is best, so I recommend the play version; however, this makes it VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good. That's okay, because chapel is also VERY strong in the Kingdoms where it is good (pretty much all Kingdoms) -- it just means you can't price it at $5. Should be accessible at $3 and $4 for those reasons. It doesn't have to be +2 Cards, it could be a gainer even (keeps the theme of Retrieving cards, and also self-synergizes with trash for benefits that like Retriever)

If you want to keep the discard version, then I strongly believe the stuff above the line should be able to trigger the stuff below the line. That way the power doesn't vary so wildly in Kingdoms. If the top half is "+2 cards, you may discard two cards for +1$" or "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one in your hand and trash or discard the other," then every kingdom can make use of its bottom half.

[BBobb]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

[faust]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.

[gambit05]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

I think the cost of $5 is okay. For an efficient engine, I would rather buy Hunting Grounds for $6 than this card.

Token shouldn't be capitalized.
From an aesthetic point of view, I would introduce spaces above and below the line.

A suggestion for a name: Trapper.

[Timinou]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.

I'm leaning on the too powerful side, although I agree with you that one would have to see how it plays IRL.  While the -1 Card token can hinder consistency in some engines, it's less of an issue if you have Draw-to-X cards in your deck. 

[emtzalex]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

What I find most interesting about this card is it's potential as an alternative defense to handsize attacks like Militia. Since this draws dead (absent a village), the -1 Card token is frequently going to come off the deck during Clean-up, meaning you will have a 4 card hand. If you then have to discard down to a number, you are already one card in that direction, and the reduced hand size is mitigate by having a powerful drawing card.

[alion8me]

Here is my second attempt at a card:


It's a smithy, except it gets you one extra card this turn and one fewer card next turn. Playing multiple of them per turn is probably the best way to go (only 1 -1 card token)

Hey, could someone pls give me feedback on my card?

I feel like it's too powerful compared to other $5 Smithy variants, especially since you only get the debuff once and all other plays are Hunting Grounds. But I might be mistaken; the fact that this always reduces your starting handsize is a significant problem for consistency. I'd need to see how this plays.

I'm leaning on the too powerful side, although I agree with you that one would have to see how it plays IRL.  While the -1 Card token can hinder consistency in some engines, it's less of an issue if you have Draw-to-X cards in your deck. 

Some simulations comparing the card to smithy and hunting grounds.





Of course, there are ways to play around the downside this card gives compared to vanilla smithy. But this simulation indicates that the card is probably actually on the weaker end of $5 terminal draw.

[Gubump]

It's been 8 days, so the judging's a bit late.

[D782802859]

Yes, sorry for losing track of time for a bit. Submissions are closed, and I'll make sure judging is out by tomorrow.
Current entries (if your entry is not listed here, make sure I am aware of it)
scolapasta's Retriever
silverspawn's Tavern
mathdude's Borrowed Land
Aquila's Magnate
BBobb's Trapper
Xen3k's Horse Racers
spheremonk's Dignitaries
mandioca15's Brazier
faust's Burglar
Timinou's Homestead
X-tra's Wooden Spikes
fika monster's Quick Deal
Mahowrath's Cloakroom
NoMoreFun's Sensei
emtzalex's Fanatics
Commodore Chuckles's Eager Hound
pubby's Panner
spineflu's Profits
Gubump's Harbor
LibraryAdventurer's Bridge Builder

[LibraryAdventurer]

Yes, sorry for losing track of time for a bit. Submissions are closed, and I'll make sure judging is out by tomorrow.
Current entries (if your entry is not listed here, make sure I am aware of it)

You missed my Bridge Builder.

[D782802859]

Yes, sorry for losing track of time for a bit. Submissions are closed, and I'll make sure judging is out by tomorrow.
Current entries (if your entry is not listed here, make sure I am aware of it)

You missed my Bridge Builder.

Thanks for letting me know! I've updated the list.

[D782802859]

Judging
scolapasta's Retriever

As a 2-cost +2 cards with a reaction, this is in good company. Plus, it has added upside of giving itself back to you next turn! It turns discarding into deck thinning, and it counters trashing attacks. It seems a bit too narrow to be worth buying a lot of the time.
silverspawn's Tavern

This is extremely overcosted. I quite like the idea, a dead card with duration draw on-gain, but 6 is much too expensive for what it is. 4 or even 3 would be a better price.
mathdude's Borrowed Land

Not a bad concept, but another undertuned one. The issue is that, barring alt-vp cards which are uncommon, it only does anything when your opponent gains a province or colony since duchies just give an estate. It' just not buyable most of the time.
Aquila's Magnate

Magnate - Victory, $4 cost.
2VP
-
When you gain this, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $4. When you trash this during your turn, cards cost $2 less for the turn.

Quite like this. It gives you a potential big turn, but with some difficulties and a reason to buy it otherwise.
BBobb's Trapper

Hunting Grounds with a downside. Great card. A -1 Card Token is a big downside that comes with a big upside, since you start with a smaller hand, allowing you to easier dud, but it's often worth it.
Xen3k's Horse Racer

A cheaper lab, but only later into the game since you need to have non-copper buying power first. It reminds me of Grand Market, and that's certainly a good thing. It not cost reducing when you have a bunch already is a good thing too.
spheremonk's Dignitary

An interactive terminal draw card, which is a double lab with some help from the other player. The design here's nice, although it may be a bit strong once provinces start being consistently gained.
mandioca15's Brazier

Brazier (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
---
While this is in play, when you finish playing an Action and it's still in play,
you may trash it for +1VP.

This seems like a nice skill testing card. It can be a win condition or just get rid of things you don't need.
faust's Burglar

On its own, this is a much worse Candlestick Maker. However, once you start greening, it gets a lot better. The weak early, strong late tradeoff is quite good, and likely makes for some very interesting decision-making.
Timinou's Homestead

I'm not a huge fan of how feast or famine this is. Unlike other cost reducers, it does absolutely nothing without extra buys or gains and requires quite a lot of setup to do much.
X-tra's Wooden Spikes

A neat little trasher, and another tricky one. It can ax a whole lot of coppers at once, but this isn't without downside, mainly losing your buy for the turn.
fika monster's Quick Deal

A riff on Innovation as an action. A nice way to accelerate some cards, and it works on non-actions. I do feel "action or treasure" should be specified.
Mahowrath's Cloakroom

I’ll admit, I’m not quite sure the purpose of this. It thins you, but it gives you just as much junk back.
NoMoreFun's Sensei

Turn your spare action cards into +cards. Some cool decisions to be made, since you can grab random 2s and 3s to make Smithies.
emtzalex's Fanatics

This may be a bit too much of a downside. It’s akin to Mission, but that being an event instead of a full pile and not taking up deck space is significant.
Commodore Chuckles's Eager Hound

Nothing too complicated, just a nice 2-cost card. A bit like Den of Sin, but a Moat and duration draw are very different while in the deck.
pubby's Panner

This seems very interesting decision-wise. You get a strong card for cheap, but also mildly junk yourself.
spineflu's Profits

I quite appreciate the creative use of the reserve mat within the rules. A one-shot fortune you can save also seems like it would play quite well.
Gubump's Harbor

Border Village, but on a Smithy. Of course, this isn’t to say it would play out the same. Villages are quite different than smithies.
LibraryAdventurer's Bridge Builder

Bridge Builder
$6 - Action
+3 Cards.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

Another simple, but nice card. Bridge gives the buys part of a cost reduction megaturn, Highway gives the actions, this gives the cards.

Honorable Mentions:
Burglar
Trapper
Dignitary
Wooden Spikes
Eager Hound
Harbor
Winner:
Panner, by pubby.
Hard choice, but well done to all of you this week!

[pubby]

Cool, I won! Thanks for judging, D782802859. I really enjoyed this week's theme.

[silverspawn]

This is extremely overcosted. I quite like the idea, a dead card with duration draw on-gain, but 6 is much too expensive for what it is. 4 or even 3 would be a better price.

This is not that important, but it does strike me as an odd verdict, especially since the powerlevel was already discussed. If it were obviously overpriced, wouldn't I know that? I mean, I thought about what it should cost, so what did you find that I missed?

+1 VP is comparable to +1 Card. (Monument suggests it may worth less, at least later in the game.) If Tavern draws 2, it should be better than Duchy. This happens if you have 1 Victory card in hand. If you have 2, it should be comparable to a Province. And the ceiling is much higher.

[D782802859]

This is extremely overcosted. I quite like the idea, a dead card with duration draw on-gain, but 6 is much too expensive for what it is. 4 or even 3 would be a better price.

This is not that important, but it does strike me as an odd verdict, especially since the powerlevel was already discussed. If it were obviously overpriced, wouldn't I know that? I mean, I thought about what it should cost, so what did you find that I missed?

+1 VP is comparable to +1 Card. (Monument suggests it may worth less, at least later in the game.) If Tavern draws 2, it should be better than Duchy. This happens if you have 1 Victory card in hand. If you have 2, it should be comparable to a Province. And the ceiling is much higher.

One-shot draw isn't comparable to actual in-deck draw. If you want this for vp, usually you'd rather just have a Duchy.

[Holger]

This is extremely overcosted. I quite like the idea, a dead card with duration draw on-gain, but 6 is much too expensive for what it is. 4 or even 3 would be a better price.

This is not that important, but it does strike me as an odd verdict, especially since the powerlevel was already discussed. If it were obviously overpriced, wouldn't I know that? I mean, I thought about what it should cost, so what did you find that I missed?

+1 VP is comparable to +1 Card. (Monument suggests it may worth less, at least later in the game.) If Tavern draws 2, it should be better than Duchy. This happens if you have 1 Victory card in hand. If you have 2, it should be comparable to a Province. And the ceiling is much higher.

One-shot draw isn't comparable to actual in-deck draw. If you want this for vp, usually you'd rather just have a Duchy.

When you miss $8 (or $16)  in the end game, you'll usually have at least one and often several green cards in hand. In this case I'd strongly prefer Tavern over Duchy, as it drastically increases the chance to gain another Province next turn, at the cost of only 1 VP now.