Print

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

[Asper]

As i kept the last few days nagging about your cards, i thought i should give you a chance to strike back

So here are some cards from my first fan expansion, Magic. I designed it as some kind of expansion-expansion, featuring mechanics from Seaside, Intrigue, and the two small sets Cornucopia and Alchemy (Hinterlands just happened to smuggle itself in). The sets main idea are cards that somehow help defend against attacks and cards that change the balance of existing cards as a sub theme (you'll see what i mean).

Anyhow, here are some of the cards. Let me know what you think. And if you'd like to playtest some, i would be glad. Many are allready playtested, but some tweeks probably still need to be made.



Shaman
+ 1$
Each other player gains a Curse. Each player (including you) may put a card from his hand back in the supply and gain a card costing exactly 0$.
If you gain a card this way, put it in your hand.
0$P Action - Attack

(A Curser that get's weaker when played very often, but also stays dangerous longer if curses are put back in the supply.)


Ranger V3
+ 1 Action
Look at the top two card of your deck. Put one of them in your hand and discard the other one.
$2 Action

(The really complex card from before could be condensed to this. It seems familiar, but i don't know from where...)


Artefact
1$
----------------
If you just resolved an Action Card, you may discard this. if you do: + 1 Action
3$ Treasure - Reaction

(A Smithy colliding with another terminal? Let's gamble and see if we draw an Artefact. This is one of my favourites.)


Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Trash up to two cards from your hand that are not Victory Cards. If you trash no card and your hand consists of only 2 or less cards by now, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action

(I wanted to make a Card that makes you want to reduce your hand size. I like it a lot. The one action is necessary to be able to gain a Gold even if no other cards are there that reduce handsize or no action is available after doing that, and no handsize attacks are in play. First it just let you gain a Gold, but i changed it to "A Treasure Card costing up to to 6$", as it would make the card a bit better - and as it's a Grand Vizier, gaining a Harem seems legit )


Seer
Discard a Card from your hand. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action Card. Discard all other cards revealed and play that Action Card.
$3 Action

(Originally this had no discard clause. I added it, as otherwise you'd just need to buy a single expensive action and only seers after that. Now you wouldn't do that, as any Seer you play makes you loose one card from your hand. It also has a little Chancellor effect.)


Incantation
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
You may trash a Card from your hand. If you do and it is an Action Card, Victory Card or Treasure Card: Reveal Cards from your deck until you reveal a Card of the same type that costs more than the trashed card and put it in your hand. Discard all other revealed cards.
$3P Action

(An almost-Lab that lets you trash stuff and changes it for something better. Usually you'll trash a Treasure or Ruin for this, but Tournament likes this card, too. Also nice to find your Potions. Keep in mind you also lose something from your hand when you play this, so this probably is not too much stronger than Lab itself. I have not playtested it that much, though.)


And something simple...
Dragon
+ 3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard them all and draw 5 new Cards.
$5 Action - Attack

(Groups of Dragons can be nasty. Too nasty, maybe? What do you think?)


If you like those, i'll post more cards, maybe even the ones that i'm confident about from my other set

EDIT: Removed Swamp for now, altered Ranger and Shaman, redoing Unicorn right now.

[Davio]

I think the reason there's no other Curse card is two-fold.

Firstly it introduces weird rules questions, can you gain a Swamp from Witch or from Torturer?
Secondly, if the first answer is yes, it deepens the Curse pile by 10 and this has serious repercussions for games using Cursers and cards like IGG.

Do you really want to play a Sea Hag game with 20 Curses?

[Asper]

I think the reason there's no other Curse card is two-fold.

Firstly it introduces weird rules questions, can you gain a Swamp from Witch or from Torturer?
Secondly, if the first answer is yes, it deepens the Curse pile by 10 and this has serious repercussions for games using Cursers and cards like IGG.

Do you really want to play a Sea Hag game with 20 Curses?

My idea was, that, yes, you can.

The thing is, if you use Swamp, the 10 first curses gained don't hurt that much. So actually Sea Hag is worse than usual for some time. Also, if you have a hand full of curses, and can't afford anything good, you can buy a Swamp to attack back. Third, Swamps make it easier to reach your trashers to get rid of normal curses. So yeah, it's worse once the first 10 run out, but until then, Sea Hag is not half as annoying as usual - the game might even be over allready. The more players, the less extra Curses per player. The less, the more time to end the game before Curses start to be actually annoying.

[Asper]

I think the reason there's no other Curse card is two-fold.

Firstly it introduces weird rules questions, can you gain a Swamp from Witch or from Torturer?
Secondly, if the first answer is yes, it deepens the Curse pile by 10 and this has serious repercussions for games using Cursers and cards like IGG.

Do you really want to play a Sea Hag game with 20 Curses?

I re-thought this. Maybe you're right. I never had the feeling Swamp made Cursers stronger, i rather thought of it weakening them. But well, if there's no way to trash Curses... So how about this:

Swamp
Trash a Curse from your hand.
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
Discard a Card from your hand.
----------------------
- 1 VP
----------------------
When you buy this, if you have no Attack Card in play, choose the player to gain this.
$0 Curse - Action

I'll do a bit of playtesting to see which works better

About "Can you gain a Swamp from Torturer?": You can gain any Knight from the Knight Pile, can't you? I don't see any trouble with a card having the Curse type, as long as it's not a strong card that only has a curse penality. If a card says "Gain a Treasure", you gain one. If it says "Gain a Curse", you gain one. If you play Mine on Silver and Harem as well as Gold are in the supply, you can choose. If somebody plays Witch and Swamp as well as Curse are in the supply, you can choose. What's the deal, rule-wise? I can imagine you don't want to have a power card with a Curse penalty, as playing a Witch would actually be giving presents to your opponents then, but Swamp is no such card. It weakens cursers a bit (talking of this newer version), but you also would not be clever to use Sea Hag if Masquerade is on the board. Cards interact. That's what the game is about.

[eHalcyon]

About "Can you gain a Swamp from Torturer?": You can gain any Knight from the Knight Pile, can't you? I don't see any trouble with a card having the Curse type, as long as it's not a strong card that only has a curse penality. If a card says "Gain a Treasure", you gain one. If it says "Gain a Curse", you gain one. If you play Mine on Silver and Harem as well as Gold are in the supply, you can choose. If somebody plays Witch and Swamp as well as Curse are in the supply, you can choose. What's the deal, rule-wise? I can imagine you don't want to have a power card with a Curse penalty, as playing a Witch would actually be giving presents to your opponents then, but Swamp is no such card. It weakens cursers a bit (talking of this newer version), but you also would not be clever to use Sea Hag if Masquerade is on the board. Cards interact. That's what the game is about.

The Knight thing is entirely different.  But no, you can't gain any Knight from the Knight pile -- you can only gain the one on top.

One problem with adding new Curse type cards is that Curse is NOT just a type.  It is also the card name.  Cursers are not consistent -- some say "each other player gains a Curse" (e.g. Jester, Familiar) while others say "gains a Curse card" (e.g. Witch, Sea Hag).  You would have to make a ruling as to whether all these cases are the same (they all refer to Curse type so if Swamps are around, you can always choose to gain one instead of a Curse) or if they are different (the ones that refer to "Curse" mean the specific card named Curse, so you cannot gain Swamp instead).  You can argue that they are all the same, and it would certainly make it simpler, but there does appear to be a difference and this would be a source of confusion for players.

Your examples about gaining a Treasure are not the same because Treasure is strictly a card type.  IMO, introducing a new card of type "Curse" is very similar to introducing a new action card named Treasure, which I hope we can agree is not the best idea.

Finally, Cursers are already carefully balanced.  Introducing a new Curse-type card would throw off that balance in ways we cannot really predict.

You also pointed out that it is a directed attack, and you offered a solution.  But the solution doesn't work.  If you do it that way, Swamp is an on-buy Curser like Ill-Gotten Gains.  An on-buy Curser that only costs $0?  That will break games.

[Asper]

About "Can you gain a Swamp from Torturer?": You can gain any Knight from the Knight Pile, can't you? I don't see any trouble with a card having the Curse type, as long as it's not a strong card that only has a curse penality. If a card says "Gain a Treasure", you gain one. If it says "Gain a Curse", you gain one. If you play Mine on Silver and Harem as well as Gold are in the supply, you can choose. If somebody plays Witch and Swamp as well as Curse are in the supply, you can choose. What's the deal, rule-wise? I can imagine you don't want to have a power card with a Curse penalty, as playing a Witch would actually be giving presents to your opponents then, but Swamp is no such card. It weakens cursers a bit (talking of this newer version), but you also would not be clever to use Sea Hag if Masquerade is on the board. Cards interact. That's what the game is about.

The Knight thing is entirely different.  But no, you can't gain any Knight from the Knight pile -- you can only gain the one on top.

One problem with adding new Curse type cards is that Curse is NOT just a type.  It is also the card name.  Cursers are not consistent -- some say "each other player gains a Curse" (e.g. Jester, Familiar) while others say "gains a Curse card" (e.g. Witch, Sea Hag).  You would have to make a ruling as to whether all these cases are the same (they all refer to Curse type so if Swamps are around, you can always choose to gain one instead of a Curse) or if they are different (the ones that refer to "Curse" mean the specific card named Curse, so you cannot gain Swamp instead).  You can argue that they are all the same, and it would certainly make it simpler, but there does appear to be a difference and this would be a source of confusion for players.

Your examples about gaining a Treasure are not the same because Treasure is strictly a card type.  IMO, introducing a new card of type "Curse" is very similar to introducing a new action card named Treasure, which I hope we can agree is not the best idea.

Finally, Cursers are already carefully balanced.  Introducing a new Curse-type card would throw off that balance in ways we cannot really predict.

You also pointed out that it is a directed attack, and you offered a solution.  But the solution doesn't work.  If you do it that way, Swamp is an on-buy Curser like Ill-Gotten Gains.  An on-buy Curser that only costs $0?  That will break games.

Yeah, i wrote something dumb about Knights, there ^^

Hmmm... You're right about the differences in the Curser wordings... I didn't know about that, i thought it was a translation thing - i'm german, so i play Dominion in german. Translaters also didn't get the difference between buy and gain, which is why Watchtower would work on buy here, too. I try to stick to the english rules, but i missed out the wording thing here...

Another try to use Knights as an example, though: "When a Knight is trashed" refers to a type, just as "Trash a Treasure CARD" on Mine does. I do see that Curse IS a Name and not only a type, though...

I'm still not so sure about your comparison with an Action named Treasure. It's not like i made a Victory Card called Curse. Let's assume i make a card bringing in "I'm a Curse and can be treated as one" as an extra rule. It's not like Dominion never came along and said: "By the way, did you know that THIS matters?" I'm thinking of the fact that you gain after buys or that you don't play all Treasures at the same time. Where's the problem? Donald will never make another Curse, so no conflicting rules. I especially don't see how balance is an issue. I made that on purpose. If we introduce a new card and nothing changes, where's the point? Sea Hag doesn't like opponent's Masquerade, now does it? Militia is bad on a Tunnel board. Cursers are a bit weaker on Swamp Boards - for a while...

I'm not saying you got it all wrong, you got some points. The fact that the attack is directed is one. I only tested it with 2 players, so probably that's why i didn't care. Your last point is what really got me. The comparison with IGG makes sense, i didn't notice that. It's directed, which i admit is something not very dominion-ish. But especially if there are only two players, it's much like a cheaper Ill-Gotten-Gains (the curse is not as useless, but you don't need to gain a Copper). I don't want it to cost more, though - that would really break the game in boards with cursers and trash-for-benefit. And making it ungainable for Cursers gives the card even more text and basically kills what i made it for.

So thanks, i guess i see Swamp doesn't work. But i admit i'm sad to let it go

[ahyangyi]

About "Can you gain a Swamp from Torturer?": You can gain any Knight from the Knight Pile, can't you? I don't see any trouble with a card having the Curse type, as long as it's not a strong card that only has a curse penality. If a card says "Gain a Treasure", you gain one. If it says "Gain a Curse", you gain one. If you play Mine on Silver and Harem as well as Gold are in the supply, you can choose. If somebody plays Witch and Swamp as well as Curse are in the supply, you can choose. What's the deal, rule-wise? I can imagine you don't want to have a power card with a Curse penalty, as playing a Witch would actually be giving presents to your opponents then, but Swamp is no such card. It weakens cursers a bit (talking of this newer version), but you also would not be clever to use Sea Hag if Masquerade is on the board. Cards interact. That's what the game is about.

The Knight thing is entirely different.  But no, you can't gain any Knight from the Knight pile -- you can only gain the one on top.

One problem with adding new Curse type cards is that Curse is NOT just a type.  It is also the card name.  Cursers are not consistent -- some say "each other player gains a Curse" (e.g. Jester, Familiar) while others say "gains a Curse card" (e.g. Witch, Sea Hag).  You would have to make a ruling as to whether all these cases are the same (they all refer to Curse type so if Swamps are around, you can always choose to gain one instead of a Curse) or if they are different (the ones that refer to "Curse" mean the specific card named Curse, so you cannot gain Swamp instead).  You can argue that they are all the same, and it would certainly make it simpler, but there does appear to be a difference and this would be a source of confusion for players.

Your examples about gaining a Treasure are not the same because Treasure is strictly a card type.  IMO, introducing a new card of type "Curse" is very similar to introducing a new action card named Treasure, which I hope we can agree is not the best idea.

Finally, Cursers are already carefully balanced.  Introducing a new Curse-type card would throw off that balance in ways we cannot really predict.

You also pointed out that it is a directed attack, and you offered a solution.  But the solution doesn't work.  If you do it that way, Swamp is an on-buy Curser like Ill-Gotten Gains.  An on-buy Curser that only costs $0?  That will break games.

Yeah, i wrote something dumb about Knights, there ^^

Hmmm... You're right about the differences in the Curser wordings... I didn't know about that, i thought it was a translation thing - i'm german, so i play Dominion in german. Translaters also didn't get the difference between buy and gain, which is why Watchtower would work on buy here, too. I try to stick to the english rules, but i missed out the wording thing here...

Another try to use Knights as an example, though: "When a Knight is trashed" refers to a type, just as "Trash a Treasure CARD" on Mine does. I do see that Curse IS a Name and not only a type, though...

I'm still not so sure about your comparison with an Action named Treasure. It's not like i made a Victory Card called Curse. Let's assume i make a card bringing in "I'm a Curse and can be treated as one" as an extra rule. It's not like Dominion never came along and said: "By the way, did you know that THIS matters?" I'm thinking of the fact that you gain after buys or that you don't play all Treasures at the same time. Where's the problem? Donald will never make another Curse, so no conflicting rules. I especially don't see how balance is an issue. I made that on purpose. If we introduce a new card and nothing changes, where's the point? Sea Hag doesn't like opponent's Masquerade, now does it? Militia is bad on a Tunnel board. Cursers are a bit weaker on Swamp Boards - for a while...

I'm not saying you got it all wrong, you got some points. The fact that the attack is directed is one. I only tested it with 2 players, so probably that's why i didn't care. Your last point is what really got me. The comparison with IGG makes sense, i didn't notice that. It's directed, which i admit is something not very dominion-ish. But especially if there are only two players, it's much like a cheaper Ill-Gotten-Gains (the curse is not as useless, but you don't need to gain a Copper). I don't want it to cost more, though - that would really break the game in boards with cursers and trash-for-benefit. And making it ungainable for Cursers gives the card even more text and basically kills what i made it for.

So thanks, i guess i see Swamp doesn't work. But i admit i'm sad to let it go

Actually, you can look at the Silverman thread. It could work, if you try some rewording.
And, I don't think adding Swamp change the game more than, say, Shelters.

[Asper]

Actually, you can look at the Silverman thread. It could work, if you try some rewording.
And, I don't think adding Swamp change the game more than, say, Shelters.

Thanks, i don't think the game changing is any problem, myself. Also i don't think the curse type is a problem, either (at least i'm not convinced, yet). But the comparison eHalcyon made between Swamp and IGG is quite fitting. I might redo Swamp some time later, but i have to make sure it is not obviously better than IGG. It HAS a different taste than it, but the difference between 0 and 5 is too big to excuse it.

Anyhow, is Swamp the only card somebody sees problems with? I'll take it all the other ones are perfect, then

[eHalcyon]

Shaman -- What is the purpose of the first clause?  In most cases, there is no reason a player would want to put a Curse on top of his deck.  It's an unneessary choice to offer the players.  In general, it seems too weak to warrant a potion cost.

Ranger -- It's alright, not all that exciting.  The ordering choice isn't very meaningful most of the time.

Artefact -- Fine.  Reminiscent of the popular fan card Hidden Village.

Unicorn -- Wording is very confusing.  It can be made clearer.  Here is an attempt:

Unicorn
$4 - Action-Duration
+1 action
Now and at the beginning of each turn this is in play: +$1.
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal your hand and your entire discard pile.  If a copy of the bought card is revealed, discard this.

It is simpler to word it as an Action-Duration.

It is swingy.  If you draw it at the end of a reshuffle, when everything is in the discard, that's not cool.  If you draw it right at the start, before anything has been discarded, this might help you out for 2-3 turns.

In general, it seems quite weak.  VP token games aside, you WILL be buying multiples of things.  Engine components, high value treasures, VP cards.  You will be buying duplicates of things early, middle and late game.  That reduces Unicorn to a mere Copper.

Best case scenarios -- Golden Deck where nothing is ever in the discard pile (could be Bishop driven, or maybe NV-Apothecary).  Maybe Fairgrounds strategies while you're buying up all the unique cards, though it gets bad when you actually start buying Fairgrounds.  Possibly big engines where you draw and play everything so that nothing is in discard or your hand... but then you still need a way keep yourself from accumulating duplicate VP cards, for example.

Eh, it might be fine.  It just seems super, super, super niche.  Maybe those good scenarios are enough for it.

Seer -- It's a mini-Golem.  Seems fine.

Incantation -- Why specify the three basic types?  I don't see a reason to do that.  Just have it say, "reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that shares a type with and costs more than the trashed card".  Works pretty much the same, except trashing a Curse will give you a Chancellor effect.  I don't see an issue with that.

I wonder how strong this would actually be.  Non-terminal trashing is nice, but $3P is expensive.  With increased cycling, you will run out of fodder quickly.  You do not often want to trash the actions you buy, I think.  This is tough to evaluate.

Dragon -- seems fine to me.

[AJD]

Shaman -- What is the purpose of the first clause?  In most cases, there is no reason a player would want to put a Curse on top of his deck.  It's an unneessary choice to offer the players.

If they have in hand Upgrade, Lookout, Masquerade, Junk Dealer...

[eHalcyon]

Shaman -- What is the purpose of the first clause?  In most cases, there is no reason a player would want to put a Curse on top of his deck.  It's an unneessary choice to offer the players.

If they have in hand Upgrade, Lookout, Masquerade, Junk Dealer...

OK, that's a few more than I had in my mind.   Still, it feels weak.

[Asper]

Shaman -- What is the purpose of the first clause?  In most cases, there is no reason a player would want to put a Curse on top of his deck.  It's an unneessary choice to offer the players.  In general, it seems too weak to warrant a potion cost.

It doesn't have that clause since long, but i figured you might want to topdeck it if somebody plays Shaman every turn. Are you sure it's weak? After all, it's still a curser. Originally it started somehow like this, and i didn't playtest since the change:

Shaman
+ 1$
Each other player gains a curse. Each player (including you) may put a card from his hand back in the supply and gain a card costing exactly 0$.
If you gain a card this way, put it in your hand.
$0P Action - Attack

This way, the Copper you might gain also goes to your hand. It didn't have the choice for others, too.

Ranger -- It's alright, not all that exciting.  The ordering choice isn't very meaningful most of the time.

True... I'll try to think of a little something that makes it more interesting. Maybe:

Ranger
+ 1 Action
Choose the order in which you do the following three:
+ 1 Card
Look at the top card of your deck
Discard or trash the top card of your deck.
2$ Action

Some other ideas: "Discard the top card of your deck or switch it with the bottom card", "...or switch it with the card under it", "You may discard or trash..." But i feel all that's not doing what i want, yet...

Artefact -- Fine.  Reminiscent of the popular fan card Hidden Village.

I didn't know a card like this existed, but i think that means it's a good idea

Unicorn -- Wording is very confusing.  It can be made clearer.  Here is an attempt:

Unicorn
$4 - Action-Duration
+1 action
Now and at the beginning of each turn this is in play: +$1.
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal your hand and your entire discard pile.  If a copy of the bought card is revealed, discard this.

It is simpler to word it as an Action-Duration.

It is swingy.  If you draw it at the end of a reshuffle, when everything is in the discard, that's not cool.  If you draw it right at the start, before anything has been discarded, this might help you out for 2-3 turns.

In general, it seems quite weak.  VP token games aside, you WILL be buying multiples of things.  Engine components, high value treasures, VP cards.  You will be buying duplicates of things early, middle and late game.  That reduces Unicorn to a mere Copper.

Best case scenarios -- Golden Deck where nothing is ever in the discard pile (could be Bishop driven, or maybe NV-Apothecary).  Maybe Fairgrounds strategies while you're buying up all the unique cards, though it gets bad when you actually start buying Fairgrounds.  Possibly big engines where you draw and play everything so that nothing is in discard or your hand... but then you still need a way keep yourself from accumulating duplicate VP cards, for example.

Eh, it might be fine.  It just seems super, super, super niche.  Maybe those good scenarios are enough for it.

Hmm, i haven't playtested this one much, only once. But then, it was in play a long time, and not that bad. I have to admit i had two 6$ cards there, so it didn't cause me to not buy something i really wanted. I guess i could lower the cost and/or make it an action card, even though the fact it never needed actions was something nice. Thanks for the input

Incantation -- Why specify the three basic types?  I don't see a reason to do that.  Just have it say, "reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that shares a type with and costs more than the trashed card".  Works pretty much the same, except trashing a Curse will give you a Chancellor effect.  I don't see an issue with that.

I wonder how strong this would actually be.  Non-terminal trashing is nice, but $3P is expensive.  With increased cycling, you will run out of fodder quickly.  You do not often want to trash the actions you buy, I think.  This is tough to evaluate.

I didn't think of ruins when i made this, but it helps. About the type, i guess i wanted to avoid it being a Chancellor. Alchemy cards cause enormous turns full of revealing, counting, and so on often enough, so i guess that was the reason. I just didn't want to make turns explode just because someone trashes a curse.

Thank you for your feedback, i appreciate it.

[Asper]

Unicorn
$4 - Action-Duration
+1 action
Now and at the beginning of each turn this is in play: +$1.
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal your hand and your entire discard pile.  If a copy of the bought card is revealed, discard this.

It is simpler to word it as an Action-Duration.

It is swingy.  If you draw it at the end of a reshuffle, when everything is in the discard, that's not cool.  If you draw it right at the start, before anything has been discarded, this might help you out for 2-3 turns.

In general, it seems quite weak.  VP token games aside, you WILL be buying multiples of things.  Engine components, high value treasures, VP cards.  You will be buying duplicates of things early, middle and late game.  That reduces Unicorn to a mere Copper.

Best case scenarios -- Golden Deck where nothing is ever in the discard pile (could be Bishop driven, or maybe NV-Apothecary).  Maybe Fairgrounds strategies while you're buying up all the unique cards, though it gets bad when you actually start buying Fairgrounds.  Possibly big engines where you draw and play everything so that nothing is in discard or your hand... but then you still need a way keep yourself from accumulating duplicate VP cards, for example.

Eh, it might be fine.  It just seems super, super, super niche.  Maybe those good scenarios are enough for it.

So let me just try this again, okay? I feel i cannot use your solution, though. "Now and at the beginning of each turn this is in play: +$1." seems redundant to me - Durations stay in play until the last turn they have an effect. If they have none, they get discarded rigth away. So if having an effect next turn is bound to staying out till next turn, how do i know what i am supposed to do? Here's another try, still a Treasure (I'm just trying this again):

Unicorn
1$
At the beginning of your next turn: If this is still in play, play it again.
-------------------
While this is in play, if you buy a card other than Unicorn that is allready in play, discard this card.
If you buy a victory card, discard or trash this card.
4$ Treasure - Duration

This should stop it from being that swingy and also make it stronger. Thanks for pointing those things out. Also it's less trouble as you don't have to look through and reveal your discard.

I also made up my mind to replace Swamp, and well, a totally different type of card arose. I'm not very happy with it's action right now, so if somebody has an idea about it, let me know.

Swamp (or Haunted Village, or whatever name will fit with the new action)
+ 1 Action
Discard any number of cards from your hand
+ 1 Action per card discarded
-------------------------
In games using this, if you would gain another card costing 0$, you may gain this card, instead.
$0 Action

If you feel it makes cursers weaker - yeah, that's what it's for. I want the action to be very bad, but good enough to have some use in certain cases. I don't really want to do the 20.0000th Village though... If i don't find a good replacing action, this probably will have to go, but maybe somebody has an idea...?

[eHalcyon]

What's the problem with my phrasing? Your card was a permanent duration until a duplicate came up, so that's why I phrased it as I did. Always being out was the point, wasn't it?

The new version is a slightly weaker Treasury.   

Edit: maybe the problem with my phrasing was that it might not seem like it has a next-turn effect at all. Maybe instead of saying when to discard, say when not to.

[Asper]

What's the problem with my phrasing? Your card was a permanent duration until a duplicate came up, so that's why I phrased it as I did. Always being out was the point, wasn't it?

The new version is a slightly weaker Treasury.   

Edit: maybe the problem with my phrasing was that it might not seem like it has a next-turn effect at all. Maybe instead of saying when to discard, say when not to.

Yes, that's right, it was supposed to be permanent. The thing for me was not you don't understand it - it's easier to understand than my wording.

The problem i had is something different. I looked it up at the Haven Wiki page, so yeah, your wording is absolutely as much working as mine. And i don't know for sure, but i believe that means both are not working.

The slight difference i believed in was that my version has an effect next turn in any case, while peolpe can consider your effect the premise of the card staying in play, so that's why i called it redundant. My wording has the effect "If this is in play... etc", so if it is NOT in play anymore, the effect is nothing, which - as far as i understood, is different from having no effect at all. Sadly, Haven doesn't stay out if no card is set aside. so i guess an empty effect here is the same as no effect, which makes my wording as redundant as yours.

Again the comparison to Treasury is what actually makes me want to kill it. I don't need to make a card that allready exists (Seer is something else, he works a lot different then Golem, usually - actually he goes back to before i even knew Golem). So thanks again. It's funny how high one thinks of his own creations and how much failure there still is to them. ^^