Print

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

[ashersky]

Objective: Create a non-terminal drawing card.  This is a card that may be used to increase your hand-size from what it was before it was played from your hand, while also offering exactly +1 Action.  The card must never add more than +1 Action, but there is no maximum to how many cards it can add to your hand.  The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card.

I am assuming so, but when you specify that the card may be used to "increase your hand-size from what it was before...," you explicitly mean by drawing from the deck, right?  That is, since the contest is "non-terminal draw," it needs to draw, as opposed to, say, gain to hand (i.e., a double-Explorer with +1 action would not count, even though it gives exactly one action and two cards (Silvers or Golds) in hand).

I ask because you never actually use the word "draw" in your objective.

[rinkworks]

Objective: Create a non-terminal drawing card.  This is a card that may be used to increase your hand-size from what it was before it was played from your hand, while also offering exactly +1 Action.  The card must never add more than +1 Action, but there is no maximum to how many cards it can add to your hand.  The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card.

I am assuming so, but when you specify that the card may be used to "increase your hand-size from what it was before...," you explicitly mean by drawing from the deck, right?  That is, since the contest is "non-terminal draw," it needs to draw, as opposed to, say, gain to hand (i.e., a double-Explorer with +1 action would not count, even though it gives exactly one action and two cards (Silvers or Golds) in hand).

I ask because you never actually use the word "draw" in your objective.

That's a good point.  Gaining to hand indeed shouldn't count.  I did use the word "drawing" in the first sentence of the objective, but I didn't want to get too specific and shut out ideas I think should count.  I'd give examples, but I don't want to inadvertently suggest ideas.

[gman314]

What about Minion? It can increase your handsize if you play it for the attack with less than 4 cards in hand.

[One Armed Man]

"Draw up to " is not allowed.

[NoMoreFun]

Objective: Create a non-terminal drawing card.  This is a card that may be used to increase your hand-size from what it was before it was played from your hand, while also offering exactly +1 Action.  The card must never add more than +1 Action, but there is no maximum to how many cards it can add to your hand.  The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card.

I am assuming so, but when you specify that the card may be used to "increase your hand-size from what it was before...," you explicitly mean by drawing from the deck, right?  That is, since the contest is "non-terminal draw," it needs to draw, as opposed to, say, gain to hand (i.e., a double-Explorer with +1 action would not count, even though it gives exactly one action and two cards (Silvers or Golds) in hand).

I ask because you never actually use the word "draw" in your objective.

That's a good point.  Gaining to hand indeed shouldn't count.  I did use the word "drawing" in the first sentence of the objective, but I didn't want to get too specific and shut out ideas I think should count.  I'd give examples, but I don't want to inadvertently suggest ideas.

Rule Bender
Cost: 2
+1 Action
Gain 2 coppers, put them on top of your deck
+2 cards

[gman314]

"Draw up to " is not allowed.

But Minion isn't "Draw up to" it's "discard your hand, +4 cards".

[eHalcyon]

"Draw up to " is not allowed.

But Minion isn't "Draw up to" it's "discard your hand, +4 cards".

Which is equivalent to "discard your hand, draw up to 4 cards."

[zahlman]

I feel like the design space here is as narrow, or narrower, than that for the Terminal Silver contest.  Mainly because the prototypical card--Lab--has been the card against which other $5s are measured (better or worse) for a long time.  It'll be hard to make one not overpowered I think.

I have a suspicion that a lot of submissions will be sharing design space with Wishing Well and Menagerie.

That said, it's not like there isn't any room for more powerful Lab variants that are more expensive. After all, Alchemist exists. What would you pay for a vanilla +3 Cards, +1 Action? Is that fundamentally unworkable as a card? Is there really no tweak that could be made that gives it a good price point?

"Draw up to " is not allowed.

But Minion isn't "Draw up to" it's "discard your hand, +4 cards".

As I see it, the distinction is that "draw X cards" always increases your hand size by the corresponding amount, as long as you have at least X cards in your deck. For this contest, X can be variable, but the card needs to, given enough cards in deck, always at least keep your hand at the same size, and at least sometimes increase your hand size.

Further, it must do so by drawing cards from the deck (and not gain to deck before doing so): if all effects that functionally just gain to hand are ignored, the above must still be true.

[Tables]

+3 cards +1 action is one of those oft discussed vanilla cards. It's generally the same as playing two Labs, which is pretty good. It's probably a strong $7, maybe even worthy of $8, which is the point you look for an alternate cost. $5P maybe? I suspect we'll see at least one version of it...

[Kirian]

+3 cards +1 action is one of those oft discussed vanilla cards. It's generally the same as playing two Labs, which is pretty good. It's probably a strong $7, maybe even worthy of $8, which is the point you look for an alternate cost. $5P maybe? I suspect we'll see at least one version of it...

I think it would have to be 8.  Compare to TR vs KC, and Remodel vs Expand.  But at 8, it's too expensive to be all that useful.  And there are already a few variations in the theme in the Potion contest.

[One Armed Man]

+2 Card, +1 Action If you have no [this card] tokens, discard a card and gain a [this card] token.

Is this allowed? My idea is very different, but this will give me some guidance.

[zahlman]

I don't see why not.

[Guy Srinivasan]

Is Caravan an example or not? Its primary purpose is clearly to increase the number of cards in your hand, but it doesn't do it this turn. Is "+1 Card next turn" sufficient like "+1 Action next turn" was for the Village?

[rinkworks]

+2 Card, +1 Action If you have no [this card] tokens, discard a card and gain a [this card] token.

Is this allowed? My idea is very different, but this will give me some guidance.

Looks fine to me.

Is Caravan an example or not? Its primary purpose is clearly to increase the number of cards in your hand, but it doesn't do it this turn. Is "+1 Card next turn" sufficient like "+1 Action next turn" was for the Village?

Oh yeah, Durations again.  Sure, I don't see why this shouldn't be okay.

--

Edit:  Modified the original post to allow Caravan but disallow Wharf.

[eHalcyon]

But Wharf provides non-terminal draw on your next turn.

(Fair enough!)

[NoMoreFun]

I suppose Haven would count as well, and Tactician wouldn't.

This gives me a few ideas.

[Kirian]

With all the new info, it seems to me that Mystic and Vagrant should qualify here.  Am I correct?

[eHalcyon]

With all the new info, it seems to me that Mystic and Vagrant should qualify here.  Am I correct?

Vagrant I think so, but not Mystic.  Mystic draws 1 at most.

[NoMoreFun]

Ironmonger would also qualify

[eHalcyon]

Ironmonger would also qualify

I wonder about that though.  The challenge description says:

"The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card."

I would argue that Ironmonger's primary function is not drawing, in that it is unreliable and the bonuses differ.  On the other hand, Vagrant is also unreliable but it only draws.  So I would say Vagrant works but Ironmonger does not fit the spirit of this particular contest.

[NoMoreFun]

Ironmonger would also qualify

I wonder about that though.  The challenge description says:

"The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card."

I would argue that Ironmonger's primary function is not drawing, in that it is unreliable and the bonuses differ.  On the other hand, Vagrant is also unreliable but it only draws.  So I would say Vagrant works but Ironmonger does not fit the spirit of this particular contest.

A primary function, not the primary function.

Scout is eligible, and that can't reliably increase your handsize but the ordering is still a primary function of the card. The draw is also a primary function.

This is all up to rinkworks really. My entry definitely straddles the line but I think it's very much in the spirit of the competition.

[eHalcyon]

Ironmonger would also qualify

I wonder about that though.  The challenge description says:

"The card need not always increase your hand-size, but this should be a primary function of the card."

I would argue that Ironmonger's primary function is not drawing, in that it is unreliable and the bonuses differ.  On the other hand, Vagrant is also unreliable but it only draws.  So I would say Vagrant works but Ironmonger does not fit the spirit of this particular contest.

A primary function, not the primary function.

Scout is eligible, and that can't reliably increase your handsize but the ordering is still a primary function of the card. The draw is also a primary function.

This is all up to rinkworks really. My entry definitely straddles the line but I think it's very much in the spirit of the competition.

But what else does Scout do besides possibly draw?  Reorder cards, I suppose, but the primary function is drawing up Victory cards.  I also gave the example of Vagrant which is similar.  Its draw is unreliable, but that is still its main function -- drawing junk.

Ironmonger's function is different.  It is basically a cantrip that provides some random bonus and provides filtering.  The draw is not a primary function.

It's a hazy line though!  Ironmonger could be acceptable if you use a more lenient appraisal.  I just don't think it fits the spirit of a drawing card.

[rinkworks]

I agree that Ironmonger doesn't fit the spirit of this contest.  That said, I try to err on the side of permissiveness, so if someone submitted Ironmonger to me (in a world where the official Ironmonger doesn't exist) then I'd probably allow it.

[ChocophileBenj]

My question may be stupid but... is this contest going to continue after Iso goes away ?

[yudantaiteki]

My question may be stupid but... is this contest going to continue after Iso goes away ?

I would assume so; this contest isn't connected to isotropic.