Print

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

[Timinou]

A money-oriented puzzler:

Appanage - Treasure Attack, $5 cost.
$2
Gold costs $1 less for the rest of the turn.
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure costing less than this (or reveals they can't).

When Treasures are the payload in a game, this makes swings and roundabouts. Gold looks tasty, but an opposing double-Appanage could see them discarded and/or you want to keep Coppers around to protect them (discards a Treasure costing less than 'this', i.e. Appanage normally at $5) and dilute your money density a bit doing so.
Could be doing a bit too much for $5, or a chance $5 opening with this could be too strong.

I don't think this is too strong in the opening.  In the majority of cases, it will be a non-terminal Cutpurse when played after the first shuffle, which seems OK at $5.  I think there will often be better $5-cost cards to open with. 

[Gubump]

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:



Philanthropist is a cantrip attack that self-junks and also junks your opponent's deck (but likely benefits them in the near term).  You could try to build a deck that will be able to gain Provinces with Philanthropist, but it might be more optimal to trash it early to gain a better card.  Philanthropist and Counting House would be a strong combo, but with only 5 copies of Philanthropist in the Kingdom, it shouldn't be game-breaking.  There are also synergies with cards like Beggar, Settlers, and Ill-Gotten Gains. 

Benefaction can help mitigate the Copper junking from Philanthropist.

Benefaction doesn't need the dividing line. See Improve and your own Philanthropist.

[emtzalex]

My Submission:

HUCKSTER VILLAGE    $5 ACTION - ATTACK +2 Actions Each other player may reveal a Copper from their hand; if they don't, they discard a card then gain a Copper to their hand. If a player gained a Copper, +$2, otherwise, +1 Card.

Gasp! An attack that not only isn't terminal, but is a village, and one that's both a junker and a makes your hand worse. Too oppressive? Not necessarily, because while the card is easy to play, the attacks don't stack. Once you've taken a Copper (or if you already have one), you can avoid taking any more. There might even be some cases where a player would prefer to take the Copper even if they have one to reveal. To mitigate that, receiving the Copper will also give a bonus to the player playing the attack.

[anordinaryman]

Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Ideally this could cost 3, but it absolutely can't because when Village and this are in a game together, you always buy this first, (maybe second if you're not drawing deck), and then you just buy Village all the other times -- and that isn't so interesting to me. I think this card is most interesting when you are forced to choose between this and another village and the choice isn't easy.

There's a natural tension here that you may only want to gain one Raiding Village, so it could be fun to subvert that. What if "if there is another Raiding Village in play, gain a Horse/+1 Buy/+1 Money/draw up to 5/ some other mild benefit" something like that.

I do applaud making a non-terminal attack that elegantly becomes friendly on second-play, that is really nifty and cool exploration of the non-terminal attack space.

[faust]

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Thanks for the comment!

I understand where you're coming from. I do think the "this is the only Village" case is more complex than you make it out to be; I feel like you'd want to manage your terminal space pretty carefully there and only get as many Raiding Villages as you absolutely need to. I don't think any of the official Villages offer that kind of decision (except arguably Hideout, but that's much harder to pull off as your main Village). I also think the case where there's 2 Villages could still be interesting strategically; it may become viable to pile the other Village early to force your opponents into more Raiding Villages.

I agree that this is not a super strong card. However it will come into play most games: If it's the only Village you probably need it, and if there's another Village then you probably want the attack. So it's not going to be a dud. I did consider dropping the price to $3, but I find that the discarding is a pretty effective way of block $5 purchases early on, and I didn't want to make it too easy to do that.

[anordinaryman]

I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...

"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be

each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

Hostile Village
Action - $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
The next time you play a card this turn, each other player with 5 or more cards in their hands discards a copy of it (or reveals a hand without it)

It's hard to know without playing this, but this feels like a really strong Attack. Consider Raider, which costs 6, doesn't draw a card, is a Duration (so it's slower), and the attack isn't as strong since the player gets a choice. I wonder if there is a way to cost this 6. Though villages don't work super well at $6 (who among us has not struggled to get a Nobles-as-village engine working -- though Border Village works great because it can come with a draw/payload card for free). Maybe this isn't a village but it's a cantrip with some bonus? That would let you cost it 6 given the proper bonus.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

Not the strongest card, but they can't all be the strongest 5. I like this a lot. The silver self-junking slows itself down which prevents spamming. Both me and my opponents grow our deck at the same rate. Nice!

Action - Attack - Duration ($5)
Djinn

+1 Card
+1 Action
Until your next turn, when any other player buys a card that they have a copy of in play, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

I love cards that award variety. I've always considered the carrot approach, but the stick works too. Nice design! I can't say I love the Caravan on play. There might be something more interesting to do here. Perhaps gaining a copy of a card you have/don't have. I dunno. Something more interesting here. Also something that fights for its non-terminality a little harder. But I really love the attack a lot!

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:

For my money (and I could be wrong with out actual play-testing), this feels like a terribly strong attack. Just think about how annoying Followers is. Imagine if Followers could be played T3 (even early with other shenanigans). And coppers never run out. Sure it improves the next turn, but those Coppers are hard to get rid of even with Benefaction. I'd open Philanthropist/Philanthropist many games. Maybe cost it 4? I could be wrong, play-testing could totally prove me wrong here.

[Gubump]

I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...

"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be

each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

I had a hunch that my Collector might've been misworded. Thanks; I've applied the change.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

That fact that it can trash opponents' Coppers makes sure it's frequently a Gold minus instead of just being a Gold plus, which is correct given the cost. I think it's fine as-is.

[4est]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

[Xen3k]

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

[emtzalex]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

The text should specify that you are setting the card aside from your hand.

[4est]

Thanks good catch, fixed now.

[Gubump]

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

Oops! Thanks for noticing the typo.

[Timinou]

For my money (and I could be wrong with out actual play-testing), this feels like a terribly strong attack. Just think about how annoying Followers is. Imagine if Followers could be played T3 (even early with other shenanigans). And coppers never run out. Sure it improves the next turn, but those Coppers are hard to get rid of even with Benefaction. I'd open Philanthropist/Philanthropist many games. Maybe cost it 4? I could be wrong, play-testing could totally prove me wrong here.

Thanks for the feedback.  I had priced Philanthropist at $4 in an earlier version, and I'm still undecided.  Unlike Followers, repeated plays don't accelerate the game end (Estates and Curses will run out much faster than Coppers).  I feel like junking your own deck with Philanthropist isn't necessarily the best long-term strategy on most boards, so you may not want to keep it around in your deck for long anyway.  For instance, if you hit $5 with Coppers by playing Philanthropist on T3 or T4, you may want to trash it then to gain another $5-cost card.

Part of the rationale in pricing it at $3 rather than $4 was to make it more likely to see Benefaction quickly, but I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason.

[faust]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

[Gubump]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

Same way Diplomat's "first reveal this..." and the +1 Card token's "you first get +1 Card" effect work. The card you play goes into play, then before you start resolving it, you discard a card.

Essentially, even when you put a card into play, the game's rules consider you to not have even started playing it until you start following its instructions. Otherwise, Diplomat would need to be revealed before Attacks go into play (i.e. they'd require you to be psychic), and the +1 Card token would give you the +1 Card before the card goes into play (which lacks accountability).

"When you play a card, first do X" is basically shorthand for "when you play a card, before following its instructions, do X." And like other "first" effects, you'd discard a card before you even make the decision of whether to use a Way or not.

[Gardoomalion]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card from your hand. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

[spineflu]

Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Ideally this could cost 3, but it absolutely can't because when Village and this are in a game together, you always buy this first, (maybe second if you're not drawing deck), and then you just buy Village all the other times -- and that isn't so interesting to me. I think this card is most interesting when you are forced to choose between this and another village and the choice isn't easy.

There's a natural tension here that you may only want to gain one Raiding Village, so it could be fun to subvert that. What if "if there is another Raiding Village in play, gain a Horse/+1 Buy/+1 Money/draw up to 5/ some other mild benefit" something like that.

I do applaud making a non-terminal attack that elegantly becomes friendly on second-play, that is really nifty and cool exploration of the non-terminal attack space.

I think the multiplayer case makes this an even worse proposition - Players A and B, on their turns, play this as their village. Player C now has 3 cards in hand, but gained two horses; pretty close to a "break even" case imo. Gets worse in 4 player - player D ends up net up a card.

I'd consider something like

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player reveals their hand; if they don't have a Horse in hand, they discard down to 2 cards and gain a Horse to their hand.

Which, yeah, brutal that discard down to 2, and yeah, breaks the horse-to-hand rule, and yeah, boosts the power of Patron in games with this, but doesn't have the scaling problem nearly as hard as this does.

[Gubump]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

This needs to specify that the played Action comes from your hand.

[Xen3k]

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Return this to the supply.
Take your -$1 token. If you did, each other player discards a Coffers token. If they can't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Changed to the normal 10 card pile. It should still have a major effect on the game and perhaps prevent slogs occurring as often.

Edit 2: Modified how the attack is triggered. The attack only happens when you take your -$1 token, so if you already have it, you cannot perform the attack. This should slow the spread of Kudzu to other decks. It is still possible to attack multiple times in one turn with Kudzu, but it will cost you.

Old Versions

[AJL828]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

Very picky thing here, but technically “$5+” means “$5 with the option to overpay.” I believe what you’d want in the bottom line would be “$5 or more.”

[spineflu]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

Very picky thing here, but technically “$5+” means “$5 with the option to overpay.” I believe what you’d want in the bottom line would be “$5 or more.”

i think just a space between the $5 and the + would work (so they aren't the same symbol); along the lines of Devil's Workshop

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Take your -$1 token.
Return this to the supply. Each other player may discard a Coffers token. If they don't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

This is brutal with the 20 card pile, automatic gain, and returning to the supply. Are you sure you want to put all three of those on there? Like removing one or two of them (i think lose the 20 card pile - ten is plenty) should be enough.

[Xen3k]

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Take your -$1 token.
Return this to the supply. Each other player may discard a Coffers token. If they don't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

This is brutal with the 20 card pile, automatic gain, and returning to the supply. Are you sure you want to put all three of those on there? Like removing one or two of them (i think lose the 20 card pile - ten is plenty) should be enough.

Good point on the pile size. I'll just remove the 20 card pile size. Thanks!

[NoMoreFun]

I'd consider something like

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player reveals their hand; if they don't have a Horse in hand, they discard down to 2 cards and gain a Horse to their hand.

Which, yeah, brutal that discard down to 2, and yeah, breaks the horse-to-hand rule, and yeah, boosts the power of Patron in games with this, but doesn't have the scaling problem nearly as hard as this does.

It seems brutal, but it's slightly weaker than Minion's attack - each player is left with their 2 strongest cards, plus 2 random cards. I think it's quite a clever Attack design.

[pubby]

[mandioca15]

Pendant (Treasure-Attack, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Each other player takes Thwarted.

------
Thwarted (State)

At the start of your turn, return this and reveal your hand. If you have any non-Victory cards costing $3 or more, you may discard one of them. If you didn't discard a card, trash a card from your hand.

An Attack that doesn't stack and might be helpful early on, but gets stronger as the game continues.