Print

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

[mxdata]

Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.

I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.

On a more general note, I don't think the card needs to be this complicated. The whole restricting when you can use Villagers thing is clunky and not really needed if you give extra penalties for having more Villagers, like so:

+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.

Also, as for the wording, if you do want to keep the intended indefinite-staying-out, maybe something like "leave this in play until your next turn"?  That would make it clear that it's not permanent.  It would have the same effect since it would check at the end of the next turn again to see if there are still villagers, so the staying-out could be renewed indefinitely, until you get to a turn where you have no villagers left, at which time it would get discarded

[Lackar]

Jetty (Action, $4)

+2 Cards
+2 Actions

Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.

This can kill one player easily.

play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that

Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.

That’s a good catch. Will have a think on how to fix this - might come up with another card altogether.

"When you gain this on your turn" would be a reasonable fix I think. There are still ways the opponent could mess with you (e.g. playing a Reaction as Way of the Mouse-Ambassador), but they are signficantly less attainable.

There is still the issue that with any sort of trashing attack, going for Jetty is extremely risky, and that could make the card super swingy and unfun. Another solution that addresses that would be "When you trash this, return all your Embargo tokens" - though I guess that still does not account for Cardinal.

Couldn't you add "when you trash or Exile this..."

[Mahowrath]

Couldn't you add "when you trash or Exile this..."

If we're being pedantic, there's still the possibility of native village + swindler (when all your jetties are on your NV mat), or masquerade when the alternatives are key victory cards.

Maybe it's a different card, but you could have an embargo token that stays around for a turn like Deluded, and can be returned by playing your 3rd jetty in a turn. Or a token that stays around for a couple of turns, and this is sped up by playing jetty. These might be safer, if less edgy.

[gambit05]

My Submission:

Sentinel – Night - Duration Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard any number, taking for each. Put the rest back on top in any order. At the start of your next turn,    +1 Card per taken with this.

Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.

Tracking of how many have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from taken by other means.

[faust]

My Submission:

Sentinel – Night - Duration Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard any number, taking for each. Put the rest back on top in any order. At the start of your next turn,    +1 Card per taken with this.

Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.

Tracking of how many have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from taken by other means.

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

[Gubump]

My Submission:

Sentinel – Night - Duration Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard any number, taking for each. Put the rest back on top in any order. At the start of your next turn,    +1 Card per taken with this.

Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.

Tracking of how many have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from taken by other means.

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

Do you mean less than 3 cards between your deck and discard pile, or literally "less than 3 cards in your deck"? Because you do get to shuffle if there are fewer than 3 cards in your deck but more cards in your discard pile. See Sentry and Cartographer.

[faust]

Do you mean less than 3 cards between your deck and discard pile, or literally "less than 3 cards in your deck"? Because you do get to shuffle if there are fewer than 3 cards in your deck but more cards in your discard pile. See Sentry and Cartographer.

Yes, I meant the former.

[gambit05]

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

Unless I miss something important, I think the card is fine as is. There are a lot of deck inspection cards around and to my knowledge none of them has a backup function for the case that the deck is (nearly) empty. If that indeed happens, then either a) Sentinel helped in doing a good job in building a functional engine, and is just useless at that point (but likely helpful later when greening starts), or b) it wasn't a good idea to gain a Sentinel. If Sentinel's ability turns out to be too weak, I would rather consider changing the cost or the range of cards it can inspect.

Can you tell me what I might miss?

[Timinou]

My Submission:

Sentinel – Night - Duration Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard any number, taking for each. Put the rest back on top in any order. At the start of your next turn,    +1 Card per taken with this.

Notes
When a Sentinel doesn't discard any cards, no is taken and that Sentinel is discarded in the same Clean-up phase.

Tracking of how many have been taken due to discarding cards by a Sentinel can be simply done by adding them to the Sentinel card until next turn. This way, they can be easily distinguished from taken by other means.

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

I don't think it is necessary, unless I'm missing something.  Even if you are drawing your whole deck, Sentinel could be useful if you want to ensure that the cards you buy end up in your starting hand for the next turn.

[faust]

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

Unless I miss something important, I think the card is fine as is. There are a lot of deck inspection cards around and to my knowledge none of them has a backup function for the case that the deck is (nearly) empty. If that indeed happens, then either a) Sentinel helped in doing a good job in building a functional engine, and is just useless at that point (but likely helpful later when greening starts), or b) it wasn't a good idea to gain a Sentinel. If Sentinel's ability turns out to be too weak, I would rather consider changing the cost or the range of cards it can inspect.

Can you tell me what I might miss?

I guess I consider Sentinel to be a draw card more than a deck inspector. If you need deck inspection then you're likely not drawing your deck, so yes, this is less of an issue. But if you just want to use Sentinel to start each turn with +3 cards, then I imagine it would be frustrating for it to stop working because you didn't gain enough cards. I don't feel like that drawback is necessary or makes the card more interesting. I imagined a phrasing like this:

Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Take up to 3 Debt and discard that many of the cards. Put the rest back on top in any order.

[gambit05]

You may want to find a wording that lets this still be useful when you have less than 3 cards in your deck.

Unless I miss something important, I think the card is fine as is. There are a lot of deck inspection cards around and to my knowledge none of them has a backup function for the case that the deck is (nearly) empty. If that indeed happens, then either a) Sentinel helped in doing a good job in building a functional engine, and is just useless at that point (but likely helpful later when greening starts), or b) it wasn't a good idea to gain a Sentinel. If Sentinel's ability turns out to be too weak, I would rather consider changing the cost or the range of cards it can inspect.

Can you tell me what I might miss?

I guess I consider Sentinel to be a draw card more than a deck inspector. If you need deck inspection then you're likely not drawing your deck, so yes, this is less of an issue. But if you just want to use Sentinel to start each turn with +3 cards, then I imagine it would be frustrating for it to stop working because you didn't gain enough cards. I don't feel like that drawback is necessary or makes the card more interesting. I imagined a phrasing like this:

Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Take up to 3 Debt and discard that many of the cards. Put the rest back on top in any order.

I like the wording, though the consequences might be a bit confusing for casual players. I think Sentinel, as is, is strong enough for a $3 cost card. If a player can draw their deck, they shouldn't have a buffed Sentinel on top of it. In addition, Timinou found a neat function of Sentinel when the deck is almost empty that I haven't thought about before. Anyway, many thanks for your input.

[fika monster]

New entry

Taking the "trick token" from the lokis trick entry: i kinda like the idea of a counter, idk



A powerful Non-terminal workshop, but it gives your opponents a free 4$ card to hand on the third play. Should count for this weeks theme. If it doesn't, ill count on silverspawn saying "nah it doesn't count"

[mxdata]

New entry

Taking the "trick token" from the lokis trick entry: i kinda like the idea of a counter, idk



A powerful Non-terminal workshop, but it gives your opponents a free 4$ card to hand on the third play. Should count for this weeks theme. If it doesn't, ill count on silverspawn saying "nah it doesn't count"

So, on the third play you can gain a card costing up to $9, but your opponents get a $4 card?  That's quite a bargain!

[silverspawn]

24 Hour Warning

[anordinaryman]

Submission

Wanderer | Action | $3
+2 Cards

If you have no §, +1 Action.
Lose a §.
-
When you gain this, take 2§.

A reverse Lackeys. The can be cheap labs, but each one you get turns two lab plays into moats temporarily. Unlike Lackeys, buying these early can be problematic -- how willingly are you to draw your other opening card dead? Might want some villages/villagers first. Sometimes your opponent may "gift" you a Wanderer via ambassador or messenger so that yours are terminal at the start of your turn. Yikes! Maybe you stock up early, try to win the split, and get lots of § in the hopes of losing them soon enough to make the cheap labs worth it. Your choice. After all, not all who wander are lost.

This reuses Pain tokens §, but this is not designed to be balanced with other cards that gain/lose pain tokens.

[Timinou]

Submission

Wanderer | Action | $3
+2 Cards

If you have no §, +1 Action.
Lose a §.
-
When you gain this, take 2§.

A reverse Lackeys. The can be cheap labs, but each one you get turns two lab plays into moats temporarily. Unlike Lackeys, buying these early can be problematic -- how willingly are you to draw your other opening card dead? Might want some villages/villagers first. Sometimes your opponent may "gift" you a Wandering via ambassador or messenger so that yours are terminal at the start of your turn. Yikes! Maybe you stock up early, try to win the split, and get lots of § in the hopes of losing them soon enough to make the cheap labs worth it. Your choice. After all, not all who wander are lost.

This reuses Pain tokens §, but this is not designed to balanced or go with other cards that gain/lose pain tokens.

Cool design.  I don’t think winning the split will be super important unless this is the only draw on the board or you think the game will run long.  It may be better to have 4 Wanderers that are activated sooner than 6 that take longer to activate.

[majiponi]

Chancellor
cost $3 - Action
+$2
+1 Buy
If you have no debt, +$1.
You may put your deck into your discard pile.
---
When you gain this, take <2> debts.

[mathdude]

Updating cost:

$3$4 - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Take 1 Debt
For each Debt you have, discard a card.

I think there's some more design potential in this area.  I thought about going larger (4 cards, take 2 debt), or switching to Lost City variants (3 cards, 2 actions, 1 or 2 debt), but I figured I'd stick to a fairly simple one for the contest.  It's hard to judge how much it should be worth.  It looks like a Lab, ending you with 2 cards and 1 action (after 1 discard)... and/or strictly better than a Warehouse.  But this card doesn't stack well (play 2 in one turn, your second one now discards 2 instead of 1 leaving you with a cantrip).  And on top of the stacking problem, you also have a debt to pay off before you can buy a card.

[pubby]

Wanderer seems very strong as an opening buy and it seems decent if you can gain it mid-turn and wipe the tokens before next turn. Outside of that, I don't see myself playing with more than 1 or 2 copies.

This isn't a critique or anything; it's just an observation.

[segura]

$3 - Action
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Take 1 Debt
For each Debt you have, discard a card.

I think there's some more design potential in this area.  I thought about going larger (4 cards, take 2 debt), or switching to Lost City variants (3 cards, 2 actions, 1 or 2 debt), but I figured I'd stick to a fairly simple one for the contest.  It's hard to judge how much it should be worth.  It looks like a Lab, ending you with 2 cards and 1 action (after 1 discard)... and/or strictly better than a Warehouse.  But this card doesn't stack well (play 2 in one turn, your second one now discards 2 instead of 1 leaving you with a cantrip).  And on top of the stacking problem, you also have a debt to pay off before you can buy a card.

Looks better than Forum. The Debt is better for you then discarding another card.
Sure, with more copies it becomes more tricky to evaluate but a card that is better than a $5 while only costing $3 if you only run one copy of it is most likely totally out of balance.

[silverspawn]

If you or anyone else does want to make a change, I won't actually get to the judging part until much later today, so there's still a bit of time

[mathdude]

Looks better than Forum. The Debt is better for you then discarding another card.
Sure, with more copies it becomes more tricky to evaluate but a card that is better than a $5 while only costing $3 if you only run one copy of it is most likely totally out of balance.

There are times that Businessman could be better, times when it's the same, and times when it is worse.  Forum is fairly weak in its end result - it's a sifter that ends up resulting as a cantrip.  In an optimized deck ("junk" all trashed), Forum is a waste of a $5 purchase.  It will always leave you with the same number of cards (default case, I'll say leave you with 5 cards in hand).  In its best case, with multiple Forums, you end up getting the 5 best cards from your deck into your hand.

For Businessman, it's first play will leave you with 6 cards (default case), but also 1 debt.  As an opening purchase, that means you could end up with $6 (if you open Businessman/Silver) if you draw cards right.  This is relatively strong, I agree.  However, if you try to play a second (either double Businessman opening, or later in the game), then you end up still with 6 cards and 2 debt after some sifting.  A third played in one turn just doesn't make sense - ending up with 5 cards and 3 debt.  So it's very limiting by mid-game.

I've updated the cost to $4, to show that it's mostly better than Warehouse and overall worse than Forum (even though a single play may be better some of the time).  And I think that's okay, since dealing with negative tokens will sometimes have varying power levels, I suspect.

[silverspawn]

Submissions closed.

[segura]

Forum is fairly weak in its end result - it's a sifter that ends up resulting as a cantrip.  In an optimized deck ("junk" all trashed), Forum is a waste of a $5 purchase.  It will always leave you with the same number of cards (default case, I'll say leave you with 5 cards in hand).  In its best case, with multiple Forums, you end up getting the 5 best cards from your deck into your hand.

That is flat out wrong. Sifters have their use even in a thin decks. Before or while you thin you wanna cycle as hard as you can, sooner or later you will green and you gotta sift through your green and you always wanna match your engine pieces. For example with Dungeon a decent rule of thumb is to always get one and to get two (or sometimes more) if there is no trashing or junking.
Forum is always useful and far from being a weak $5. I don't think that I ever had a Kingdom with Forum in which I did not get at least one Forum.

overall worse than Forum (even though a single play may be better some of the time).  And I think that's okay, since dealing with negative tokens will sometimes have varying power levels, I suspect.

That is again flat out wrong. A single copy of Businessman is better than Forum for the very same reason that Laboratory is better than Poacher: discarding one card hurts more than 1 Debt.

The design is simply broken. If you price it at $6 people will just get one copy, if you price it at $5 or lower the first copy is too strong.

[pubby]

I don't think it's broken. Lots of $4 cards are better than it - I'd rather open a Moneylender or Spice Merchant or Shepherd, which tends to be better than a $4 Lab too. Obviously the first copy you buy is strong - perhaps too strong - but you're extrapolating that to mean the whole stack of Businessmen will break the game when in reality it's just a single above-average card in your deck. It's not going to do *that* much.