Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards
(Originally trashed it on the reaction instead of discarding it).

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

Recycle
Action-Reaction      3
Trash up to two cards; +1 card for every card trashed this way
_______________________________
Whenever a card is trashed, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, discard this card and gain a silver.


The set's early trasher which has a little late-game relevance and some interaction with itself and/or opponent's trashers. A little worried that opening double recycle could be too good, reacting to itself, but I'm not TOO hugely worried. Not a lot to say here.


Experience
Treasure-Reaction   3
Worth $2
Gain a treasure card worth at most the number of coppers you have in play.
______________________________________________________________
Whenever an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that attack.

Well, I'm not really thrilled with the 'main' function of the card, but I want it to be a treasure, and I'd like to keep the cost 3. As is, this should really cost 4 or maybe 5, I'm aware. But I love the reaction function, though I don't actually think it's all THAT powerful... I have a few other ideas for treasures floating around, and I'll probably attach it to one of them.

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

[Epoch]

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

As a $2-producing-$4, it's almost strictly superior to Cutpurse, right?  Only not superior to Cutpurse if Curses have run out, or if for some reason your opponent prefers gaining a Curse to discarding a Copper (which is a pretty damn rare scenario if you ask me).

Extremely deadly if spammed, right?  It's got a Torturer-like "either completely give up on your hand or gain lots of curses" deal?

[DG]

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

[WanderingWinder]

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

No. Is that discarding? If it is, I need to amend my wording to "from hand"

[WanderingWinder]

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

As a $2-producing-$4, it's almost strictly superior to Cutpurse, right?  Only not superior to Cutpurse if Curses have run out, or if for some reason your opponent prefers gaining a Curse to discarding a Copper (which is a pretty damn rare scenario if you ask me).

Extremely deadly if spammed, right?  It's got a Torturer-like "either completely give up on your hand or gain lots of curses" deal?

Well, taking a curse for keeping the copper would be something you should do sometimes, but you're probably right. There is at least some reason I left it as is

[rinkworks]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Well, make the draw conditional on discarding a card.  But I don't think it's too weak.  An attack card that earns +$2 needs to be roughly comparable to Fortune Teller, and this is almost certainly a better attack than that.  Not saying it has to go to $4, although it might.  Hard to know without testing.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

I think $4 is the right price for this.  Initially, I was thinking the attack portion is strong and comparable to Torturer's (since Mercenary doesn't let you shrug off the first attack or two by discarding victory cards).  But what makes Torturer so rough isn't the attack in isolation but the way its +3 Cards allow it to be spammed with Villages.  Mercenary is a lot harder to spam.

And if it's spammed anyhow, we should still recognize that Mercenary's attack is strictly worse than both Sea Hag's and Young Witch's.  Sea Hag's attack is stronger and offers NO benefit to the player.  Young Witch offers a mini-Warehouse benefit to the player (a better benefit than +$1), but it's attack is weaker than Sea Hag's and no worse than Mercenary's.  All told, I think that makes Mercenary competitive with both at $4.

But it's a close call.  Speaking strictly in terms of power level, you could get away with $3.  However, with costs $4 and below, it's more important to think of cost in terms of possible openings.  I'd really rather see Mercenary at $4 than see people being able to open double-cursing-attack.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and trash this. If you do, +2Cards

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

I'm not sure I understand your last comment.  If you play this card, you can no longer "reveal and trash this," (assuming you really meant "reveal and trash this from your hand," as it should say if that's what you meant).  Or are you talking about the cumulative effect of having two in your hand, one played and one revealed?

Anyway, discarding happens so often and in so many different contexts that I can't really envision how it would play.

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

No. Is that discarding? If it is, I need to amend my wording to "from hand"

Yes.  Sea Hag, for example, "discards" the top card of your deck.  Hunting Party makes you "discard the other cards," and so on.  "When you discard a card from your hand" would cover all these situations, although Vault (which DG mentioned) would still trigger it.

[Hamlet]

I love the concept for Rage. Trashing it seems a little bit extreme; perhaps discarding it instead?You could rewrite the action portion if you are only intending to discard it if an opponent forcing you to discard. I could see this being insane if you discard cards with Cellar and then draw even more cards on top of that. It's a tricky situation.

Deflection looks good the way rinkworks modified it.

I'd take the +$1 off of Mercenary and then make the cost $4 and you'd be set.

[rinkworks]

I'd take the +$1 off of Mercenary and then make the cost $4 and you'd be set.

That would make it strictly worse than Sea Hag, which also does nothing for the player but puts the curse on top of the deck.  With Mercenary, you get the Curse in your discard pile, or, if discarding a Treasure would do even less harm than that, you could do that instead.  So I do think it needs something for the player at the $4 level.  But what?  That's what I'm not sure about.  +$1 seems fine, but I'm sure it's a deliberate design decision on Donald's part that practically no terminal action offers only +$1 as a bonus.  And the ones that do, make up for it in other ways, like Bishop trashing and gaining Victory tokens, and Bridge also lowering prices.  But on attack cards, all the bonuses are higher -- or, in a few cases, non-existent.  Maybe that's just coincidence.

[Hamlet]

Mercenary could let the player return a curse card from their hand to the supply if they want instead of a +1. Or trash.
Being honest, I'd rather see this one cost $5 and gain a +2 money (to be more in keeping with the series) but it doesn't have to.

[play2draw]

I'm under the impression that Assassin from the $2 cards thread is quite superior to Deflection. While Deflection gives you an extra coin, Assassin is a much better and more reliable attack. Maybe you should switch the attacks on the cards?

Edit: Also, I'm liking these cards. They seem like the sorts of cards that could be released in a legitimate expansion. I too found making Dominion cards a nice little diversion to think about, and I'm beginning to understand Dominion as a bit more of a system than a game.

One last edit: Would you also mind doing what the fellow in the Dominion: Locomotion thread has done and put the new cards or new modifications at the top of the thread as well? It makes things a little easier to see at a glance.

[WanderingWinder]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Well, make the draw conditional on discarding a card.  But I don't think it's too weak.  An attack card that earns +$2 needs to be roughly comparable to Fortune Teller, and this is almost certainly a better attack than that.  Not saying it has to go to $4, although it might.  Hard to know without testing.

Yeah, I could make this into that, but I don't WANT to... you'll just sit on making them discard actions with impunity, as you basically never want to hit copper or estates, as their average card should be better than that. On the other hand, my version has this problem, too. But I'm worried about your version being too strong - it gives you a very good chance of making them skip their chapel or their witch or their sea hag or whatever their first actions were. So there should be SOME reason to dissuade you from missing - maybe making you discard instead if you miss? But I actually want to test it as is - you don't want it so often, but sometimes being able to sit on the action is really important.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

I think $4 is the right price for this.  Initially, I was thinking the attack portion is strong and comparable to Torturer's (since Mercenary doesn't let you shrug off the first attack or two by discarding victory cards).  But what makes Torturer so rough isn't the attack in isolation but the way its +3 Cards allow it to be spammed with Villages.  Mercenary is a lot harder to spam.

And if it's spammed anyhow, we should still recognize that Mercenary's attack is strictly worse than both Sea Hag's and Young Witch's.  Sea Hag's attack is stronger and offers NO benefit to the player.  Young Witch offers a mini-Warehouse benefit to the player (a better benefit than +$1), but it's attack is weaker than Sea Hag's and no worse than Mercenary's.  All told, I think that makes Mercenary competitive with both at $4.

But it's a close call.  Speaking strictly in terms of power level, you could get away with $3.  However, with costs $4 and below, it's more important to think of cost in terms of possible openings.  I'd really rather see Mercenary at $4 than see people being able to open double-cursing-attack.

Well, but you shouldn't look at it as a double-cursing-attack. Especially early, it's a double-cutpurse-attack, on a terminal copper instead of a terminal silver. It's probably fine.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and trash this. If you do, +2Cards

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

I'm not sure I understand your last comment.  If you play this card, you can no longer "reveal and trash this," (assuming you really meant "reveal and trash this from your hand," as it should say if that's what you meant).  Or are you talking about the cumulative effect of having two in your hand, one played and one revealed?

Anyway, discarding happens so often and in so many different contexts that I can't really envision how it would play.

No, it's just my sentence has two totally separate ideas in it. What I mean is that it's worse than woodcutter, and the only thing it offers that could make it better - the reaction part - isn't so good, because if you use the reaction, it's not any better than not having had to discard in the first place, except that you've gotten to trash this pretty bad card! So it's definitely far too weak.

[WanderingWinder]

I love the concept for Rage. Trashing it seems a little bit extreme; perhaps discarding it instead?You could rewrite the action portion if you are only intending to discard it if an opponent forcing you to discard. I could see this being insane if you discard cards with Cellar and then draw even more cards on top of that. It's a tricky situation.

No, I intend it to be able to react to your own discard-for-benefit. In fact that's the whole thing I wanted from this card, it was the point of the design. But I'm worried about it getting too out of hand if you discard it as well, though the more I think about it, the less I think I should be. So it still only gets you back to where you started, and then every extra one of these is a gravy one card. You know, that's not so broken (I think). I am a little concerned you could make a nice deck with only this and money, but... when I try to make that work, it either doesn't or is easier with other existing cards anyway. So I'm gonna roll with it as that.

[play2draw]

Looking a bit more at Mercenary... I'd say that this card is probably superior to Cutpurse in most any situation. Cutpurse's biggest flaw is that it quickly loses its relevance. Not only would this card force a player to potentially discard more valuable treasures (and be potentially devastating in the late-game), but it can dish-out curses as well? That benefit is much more valuable than the $1 you lose by choosing this card over Cutpurse. I'd very comfortably buy this at $4 over Militia or Cutpurse.

[Thinkaman]

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?[/b]

This is like, 70% political. (If say Embargo is 20% political.) Red flag already going off.

I don't like that this card is unreliable in two dimensions; it makes the cost for failure really steep!  And when it does hit, it can be just devastating in a way that makes Torturer and Ghost Ship blush.  I mean think about it turn 3/4, it's a coin flip that is going to potentially devastate their entire opening.  Huuuge player 1 advantage statistically, it's nasty.

Villages let this card chain in really obnoxious ways too; also works with any other reveal-opponent-hand card.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

This seems scary strong, more or less a Cutpurse that costs only $3 but is much stronger late game.  Only producing $1 is a small price to pay.  I might open with two of these, since double Cutpurse is just too nasty.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards

I bet discarding from hand is a much narrower mechanic across the existing cards than you'd guess.  Hamlet, Cellar, Warehouse, Tournament (kinda), Minion, SC, HT, Vault, and Baron (kinda) are the only cards featuring it in a self-controlled manner.  It is much better with most of them, and a resounding meh otherwise.

It's an okay defense against discard attacks--not great, since often I'd rather have 3 good cards than 2 good cards + 2 more random ones.  It's a meh defense agaisnt Curses/junk, not nearly as strong as HT.  It's a weird double-defense case against Montebank.  I don't think that's bad, it's just odd.

Its defense against discard attacks becomes much weaker in multiplayer.

Overall, I can't say I like reaction-to-hand-discard.  It's narrow and wildly variable across other cards.

[rinkworks]

No, it's just my sentence has two totally separate ideas in it. What I mean is that it's worse than woodcutter, and the only thing it offers that could make it better - the reaction part - isn't so good, because if you use the reaction, it's not any better than not having had to discard in the first place, except that you've gotten to trash this pretty bad card! So it's definitely far too weak.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure it's possible to foresee all the situations the reaction might be used and conclude it's too weak in all of them.  Mightn't it depend on why you're discarding in the first place?  There's Militia and Goons, yes.  But on the other hand, if you're discarding as a result of resolving your own Hamlet/Horse Traders/Young Witch play, using the reaction could be an excellent way to keep a late-game turn alive that's otherwise choking on green.  And the fact that the action part is so weak would make me more inclined to do that.

But I don't think I'm quite believing my own line of thought here.  You're probably right; I'm not sure I'd want to buy this over Woodcutter.  Even in the right environment (lots of discard actions and attacks; no other reactions; limited +Buy), I might still be inclined to power through without it.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

[rinkworks]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

Of course, this is true. I've always disliked that about Secret Chamber but I guess if it's already in the game, it's already in the game. Carry on.

[WanderingWinder]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

Of course, this is true. I've always disliked that about Secret Chamber but I guess if it's already in the game, it's already in the game. Carry on.

It's actually also not the case with Rage. You have to react to the discard before you draw more cards from that reaction. Now, it can chain with itself, but not infinitely - you can never react with a rage to another rage that you didn't originally have in your hand without playing another action in between.

[WanderingWinder]

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?[/b]

This is like, 70% political. (If say Embargo is 20% political.) Red flag already going off.

I don't like that this card is unreliable in two dimensions; it makes the cost for failure really steep!  And when it does hit, it can be just devastating in a way that makes Torturer and Ghost Ship blush.  I mean think about it turn 3/4, it's a coin flip that is going to potentially devastate their entire opening.  Huuuge player 1 advantage statistically, it's nasty.

Villages let this card chain in really obnoxious ways too; also works with any other reveal-opponent-hand card.

I hardly think this is going to give anyone a huge player 1 advantage. Actually, it's probably better for player 2. But even if, in the opening, they've got some really key actions, I don't think this will be that devastating really. We'll see in the playtest.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

This seems scary strong, more or less a Cutpurse that costs only $3 but is much stronger late game.  Only producing $1 is a small price to pay.  I might open with two of these, since double Cutpurse is just too nasty.

Again, I disagree that "double cutpurse" is so bad because I think there's so much less tempo for you - you aren't getting that $2, but only $1. It's actually also not always a stronger attack than cutpurse - sometimes you take the curse, and it's better for you! Also, it's not very good at all with any other curse-giver.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards

I bet discarding from hand is a much narrower mechanic across the existing cards than you'd guess.  Hamlet, Cellar, Warehouse, Tournament (kinda), Minion, SC, HT, Vault, and Baron (kinda) are the only cards featuring it in a self-controlled manner.  It is much better with most of them, and a resounding meh otherwise.

It's an okay defense against discard attacks--not great, since often I'd rather have 3 good cards than 2 good cards + 2 more random ones.  It's a meh defense agaisnt Curses/junk, not nearly as strong as HT.  It's a weird double-defense case against Montebank.  I don't think that's bad, it's just odd.

Its defense against discard attacks becomes much weaker in multiplayer.

Overall, I can't say I like reaction-to-hand-discard.  It's narrow and wildly variable across other cards.

Well, it's not so common in cards that are out there. This set will provide a lot more. But there's always at least one discard-for-benefit card in the supply - this one (this is an important part of the design!). I think this reduces the variability a good amount, though of course it's still massively variable - which is true of the majority of kingdom cards in print. If you don't like it... that's okay, I do.

[Hamlet]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

[Thisisnotasmile]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

Rage gets discarded when you reveal it. If you then have to reveal any further Rages in response to discarding that Rage BEFORE drawing 2 cards, then I made a mistake and you can't cause an infinite loop. If you draw the 2 cards first then you can.

[WanderingWinder]

Next batch of 3s:

Recycle
Action-Reaction      3
Trash up to two cards; +1 card for every card trashed this way
_______________________________
Whenever a card is trashed, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, discard this card and gain a silver.


The set's early trasher which has a little late-game relevance and some interaction with itself and/or opponent's trashers. A little worried that opening double recycle could be too good, reacting to itself, but I'm not TOO hugely worried. Not a lot to say here.


Experience
Treasure-Reaction   3
Worth $2
Gain a treasure card worth at most the number of coppers you have in play.
______________________________________________________________
Whenever an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that attack.

Well, I'm not really thrilled with the 'main' function of the card, but I want it to be a treasure, and I'd like to keep the cost 3. As is, this should really cost 4 or maybe 5, I'm aware. But I love the reaction function, though I don't actually think it's all THAT powerful... I have a few other ideas for treasures floating around, and I'll probably attach it to one of them.

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

[WanderingWinder]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

Rage gets discarded when you reveal it. If you then have to reveal any further Rages in response to discarding that Rage BEFORE drawing 2 cards, then I made a mistake and you can't cause an infinite loop. If you draw the 2 cards first then you can.

Absolutely you must discard that rage before drawing. In fact, the drawing is conditional on "if you do..."
Edit: And you have to reveal the other ones before drawing too, because what they're reacting to is the discard. It's just like how you have to react to an attack before the effects of the attack, for instance before the choice of an attack like minion or pirate ship.

[Hamlet]

Bah, that's my mistake in interpretation. Sorry about that. If you discard it then it could work out. Never mind.

[rinkworks]

Next batch of 3s:

Recycle
Action-Reaction      3
Trash up to two cards; +1 card for every card trashed this way
_______________________________
Whenever a card is trashed, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, discard this card and gain a silver.


The set's early trasher which has a little late-game relevance and some interaction with itself and/or opponent's trashers. A little worried that opening double recycle could be too good, reacting to itself, but I'm not TOO hugely worried. Not a lot to say here.

This is an excellent example of how you might have to price according to opening possibilities rather than raw power level.  Or at least it might be.  I can't really envision how this would play out in practice.  But if it is too powerful if opening Recycles collide, that would be kind of a bad thing, as the outcome of the game might depend too much on the luck of that first shuffle.

Now that I think a bit more about it only the action part, maybe it needs to go to $4 anyway.  Let's compare with Masquerade, which we know to be an elite $3 opener.  Its power is subtle, because it doesn't do any one thing super well, so it's not conspicuously a power card.  But it does three great things even if you disregard the "pass a card around" thing.  (1) It draws; (2) It trashes; and (3) arguably not a distinct third feature, but it lets you have a useful turn despite trashing on it.   That last item is really important, as it's pretty much the only thing that makes Chapel more obscene than it is and keeps Steward at "merely" strong.

This card is probably slightly better than Masquerade.  It can draw the same amount, trash double the amount, and the only drawback is it leaves you with a 20% smaller hand when it's all done.  Alternately, it trashes an equal amount and draws one less.  That flexibility itself adds to the card's strength.

I'm not entirely confident in my own line of speculation.  Masquerade (and therefore this) are subtle enough that I  might well be missing an important nuance.  It might play fine at $3.  But I wouldn't be surprised, either, if you playtested this and discovered you had an elite $5 card on your hands, more powerful even than Trading Post.  So tough to say.

Experience
Treasure-Reaction   3
Worth $2
Gain a treasure card worth at most the number of coppers you have in play.
______________________________________________________________
Whenever an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that attack.

Well, I'm not really thrilled with the 'main' function of the card, but I want it to be a treasure, and I'd like to keep the cost 3. As is, this should really cost 4 or maybe 5, I'm aware. But I love the reaction function, though I don't actually think it's all THAT powerful... I have a few other ideas for treasures floating around, and I'll probably attach it to one of them.

I kind of like both halves of this card.  The action part probably needs a Copper strategy to be really useful, but I think we could use a few more Copper strategy cards.  Even though most of them are usually weak, they open the game up to other possibilities.

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

This is my favorite of this batch.  Silversmith is not an original idea, but it's the first incarnation of it I've seen that solves its problems.  At $1 more, it's not nearly as interesting as Coppersmith, just because you don't start out with 7 Silvers, and by the time you have enough Silvers, you'd rather have Golds.  By offering +$2, Silversmith is a more viable proposition, and by offering +Buy, the potential cash you can rake in doesn't have to be wasted.

But are you sure $3 is the right price?

[WanderingWinder]

RE: The power level of recycle. I think it's probably USUALLY slightly worse than masq (clearly though, the answer lies in testing). Here's why:
Miss the passing, which is key for masq as it limits opponent's trashing. This isn't all that big.
You trash BEFORE you draw. This is huge.
You don't get the draw without trashing, which makes this much less worse late game.

Re: The pricing of silversmith.
I really have no idea. It's probably just not a super strong card anyway. But the reason it's $3 right now is Donald's "make it the cheapest you can (without it being overpowered)" maxim; this can be 3 because at 3 it still competes with silver, the very card you need to make this work.

[rinkworks]

Excellent points concerning Recycle.  Agreed.

With Silversmith, I just wonder about the average/edge-case effects of the card.  With Coppersmith, you start out with lots of Coppers and so are more likely to be able to get a benefit out of it.  But the upside in a normal hand is +$4, and that would be somewhat unusual.  The average would be +$1 or +$2, with a real shot at +$3.

With Silversmith, one has to think more about Baron and Tournament to get a feel for the probability that you'll collide with your Silvers.  The difference is you probably don't mind more Silvers than you normally would want Estates and Tournaments, so collision will be slightly easier.  Still, it's the same principle at work.

When you do collide, +$2 is the minimum, and +$4 doesn't seem very far-fetched.  And a whopping +$6 probably happens a decent amount of time.  Off-hand, I don't know of any other $3 card that offers a decent shot at just +$4 (Secret Chamber doesn't count), let alone an outside shot at +$6.  With a +Buy.  A couple of Silversmiths in a village/draw engine could probably produce double-Province turns a little too easily.  Admittedly, the Silvers themselves could potentially clog up the engine, but you'd probably only need two or three.

Yet again, though, I can't visualize it well enough without playtesting to be confident in my sense of this.  This card interests me enough, though, that I'd kind of like to playtest it myself.  I'll report back with my findings.

[ChaosRed]

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

This is my favorite of this batch.  Silversmith is not an original idea, but it's the first incarnation of it I've seen that solves its problems.  At $1 more, it's not nearly as interesting as Coppersmith, just because you don't start out with 7 Silvers, and by the time you have enough Silvers, you'd rather have Golds.  By offering +$2, Silversmith is a more viable proposition, and by offering +Buy, the potential cash you can rake in doesn't have to be wasted.

But are you sure $3 is the right price?

I had a similar card in my expansion. It is worth 4$, but it also reduces the cost of buying a Silver by 1 (but never less than 2). So even 1 silver and this card lets you acquire 2 silvers. This is of course, meant to complement the theme of my expansion. But this card has caught my eye, as I wish to have a similar card, and if this card is clean and viable at 3, perhaps I can 'poach' it as is and just put it in as WW designed it.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, I rarely contribute as I feel my reactions are poorly educated, but rest assured I do watch this expansion develop with great interest.

[Epoch]

What happens if Silversmith occurs on a board with Chapel?  Is it super good?  I have a hard time telling, but it seems like you could very easily get into a place of having a relatively rapidly growing deck that's almost entirely composed of Silver, and could often buy Province + Silver (you can do that with Silversmith + 3 Silver), and maybe that's a problem.

[rinkworks]

What happens if Silversmith occurs on a board with Chapel?  Is it super good?  I have a hard time telling, but it seems like you could very easily get into a place of having a relatively rapidly growing deck that's almost entirely composed of Silver, and could often buy Province + Silver (you can do that with Silversmith + 3 Silver), and maybe that's a problem.

Ooh, yeah, I hadn't even thought of Chapel decks.  Seems like it wouldn't be hard to get 2 Silversmith + 2 Silver in such a situation, which is a double Province turn -- or Province + Silversmith + Silver, which sustains that super buying power for longer.  I suspect Remake is a great alternative to Chapel, too, as it gets rid of the Coppers and turns the Estates directly into Silvers, which surely makes up for the slower trashing speed.  Steward might be sufficient too.

I'll be sure to test Silversmith in all of heavy-trashing, light-trashing, and no-trashing setups and see how it plays.

[rinkworks]

So, I tested a version of Silversmith priced at $5.  Buying only Province, Silversmith, and Silver, preferring them in that order until I had, I dunno, 4 or so Silversmiths -- at that point they seemed to collide too often -- I was able to get to 4 Provinces in 15 turns consistently.  I then tried a couple games where I bought a couple Villages within turns 3-5, but as it turned out I never managed to get a double-Silversmith turn.  I suspect that was merely unlucky.

Then I threw Chapel into the mix, opening Chapel/Silver.  I was able to get to 4 Provinces in 12 turns consistently.  6 Provinces in 15 or so.  Finishing with a double-Province turn wasn't uncommon.

I'm not up on what the Big Money + X benchmarks are for this, but isn't that a bit fast?  At this point I worry if it's overpowered even costing it at $5 and removing the +Buy.  But maybe that would be fine.  I did use the +Buys quite a lot, usually for buying Province+Silver or Silver+Silver.  (Silversmith+Silver would have required 8 coins, but I was always buying Provinces with 8+.)  But my suspicion is that reducing the bonus to +$1 per Silver -- even keeping the +Buy and the $3 cost -- would be an over-correction.

More later, I expect.

[WanderingWinder]

So, I tested a version of Silversmith priced at $5.  Buying only Province, Silversmith, and Silver, preferring them in that order until I had, I dunno, 4 or so Silversmiths -- at that point they seemed to collide too often -- I was able to get to 4 Provinces in 15 turns consistently.  I then tried a couple games where I bought a couple Villages within turns 3-5, but as it turned out I never managed to get a double-Silversmith turn.  I suspect that was merely unlucky.

Then I threw Chapel into the mix, opening Chapel/Silver.  I was able to get to 4 Provinces in 12 turns consistently.  6 Provinces in 15 or so.  Finishing with a double-Province turn wasn't uncommon.

I'm not up on what the Big Money + X benchmarks are for this, but isn't that a bit fast?  At this point I worry if it's overpowered even costing it at $5 and removing the +Buy.  But maybe that would be fine.  I did use the +Buys quite a lot, usually for buying Province+Silver or Silver+Silver.  (Silversmith+Silver would have required 8 coins, but I was always buying Provinces with 8+.)  But my suspicion is that reducing the bonus to +$1 per Silver -- even keeping the +Buy and the $3 cost -- would be an over-correction.

More later, I expect.

Way too fast, yes. That's disappointing a bit, dunno if it would be salvageable. Maybe if you ditch the buy and keep it at 2...

[WanderingWinder]

Fiefdom
Treasure-Victory   3
Worth $1 for every victory card in play.
________________________________________
Worth 1 VP

This is one of my favorite cards. I don't think it's too overpowering to chain with itself, but I suppose with chapel and lab it MIGHT be a bit much. But usually it'll be copper+estate or $1.5 + Estate, which is really quite reasonable.

Footsoldier
Action-Victory      3
+$2
______________
Worth 1 VP
Simple, boring, and probably balanced, if a bit weak.

Castle
Action         3
Choose one: Set aside a victory card from your hand onto your Castle mat, or +$1 for every card on your castle mat and a card from your castle mat into your hand.
An interesting pseudo-trasher, I really have no idea how strong it is without any playtesting. Might be worthless, might be broken (might be both!)

[rod-]

I'm not entirely sure that saying that 12 turns for chapel+X is "way too fast" ; there are several comboes with that kind of fast trashing that exist in the game (not a TON, but there are also not a lot of buy-and-money-generating actions out there).  15 with BM+X is pretty standard.

I'd still say it's maybe 1 turn too fast, for such simple strats, but there are games that end on 12 already.  (Not a lot of them..)  without the +buy i'm sure it'd be far slower.

[Buggz]

Fiefdom
Treasure-Victory   3
Worth $1 for every victory card in play.
________________________________________
Worth 1 VP

This is one of my favorite cards. I don't think it's too overpowering to chain with itself, but I suppose with chapel and lab it MIGHT be a bit much. But usually it'll be copper+estate or $1.5 + Estate, which is really quite reasonable.

You mean in hand? Considering that Harem, Nobles and Great Hall are the only playable victory cards (Island removes itself from play immediately).

[rinkworks]

Fiefdom
Treasure-Victory   3
Worth $1 for every victory card in play.
________________________________________
Worth 1 VP

You mean in hand? Considering that Harem, Nobles and Great Hall are the only playable victory cards (Island removes itself from play immediately).

I tripped up on that too, but note that Fiefdom is itself a Victory card, so if nothing else Fiefdoms will operate off themselves.  It makes me a little nervous that in most games that's all they'll be able to do, while in a few they become potentially a lot more powerful.  But it doesn't immediately strike me as game-breaking, just a couple of combos that are unusually self-evident.  So I suspect this card will work.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Fiefdom is a Victory card so it's worth at least $1 every time you play it. If you play more than one, the value of the later ones increase with each already played, just like Bank. Also, Footsoldier is a Victory card, and I'm sure there will be a number of playable Victory cards announced later on in this double-fan-expansion which will improve the value of Fiefdom.

[play2draw]

Fiefdom would certainly make Ironworks/Great Hall a devastating, and probably broken, combo. Fiefdom seems like a card I might purchase en-masse without other playable victory cards in the Kingdom, and it seems like an interesting alternative to normal treasures.

I don't think I would ever really buy Footsoldier... perhaps if I had an Ironworks and an abundance of +actions. People already ignore cards like Woodcutter when there are superior options to +buy, and I think the +buy the Woodcutter gives would be much more useful than the 1 VP of Footsoldier.

Castle seems interesting. For wording purposes, I think it needs the clause stating that the cards on the castle mat are returned to your deck at the end of the game, and I think you accidentally the word "return".

[Epoch]

Hmmm, again, how does Fiefdom do with Chapel?

If you can Chapel away 7 of your opening cards by the second reshuffle, and then finish off the other 3 in the 3rd shuffle (which happens quickly, of course), and otherwise you just buy Fiefdom, how does that work?

A hand of 4 Fiefdoms is a Province, right?  $1 + $2 + $3 + $4 = $10.  Okay, that's probably not terrible.  3 Fiefdoms are just 3 Silvers, but less good.  In fact, Fiefdom might be a little too bad, that being the case.

What about Great Hall?  With a GH -> 3 Fiefdoms, it's $2 + $3 + $4 = $9.

GH + Fiefdom + a strong trasher (Chapel of course, but Steward?  Remake (which can do Estates->GH or Fiefdom)?)  Might be that you'd also need +buy to make that worthwhile, at which point it's a fragile 4 card combo, so meh.  Fiefdom sounds fine.

[ChaosRed]

My side-comment to this:

I see a lot of Variant comments that mention Chapel. While it's an important consideration to be sure, I think we need to remember Chapel is a GAME CHANGER on a lot of boards. It is, to be blunt, probably the most undervalued card in Dominion, in terms of what it can do and what it costs and how much it effects the dynamics of the board.

Again, I think the comments are important and valid, but lets all remember that a lot of value changes with Chapel on the board. It's just one of those epic cards that distorts a board. It's probably why it remains my favorite Dominion card of them all.

[rinkworks]

What about Great Hall?  With a GH -> 3 Fiefdoms, it's $2 + $3 + $4 = $9.

GH + Fiefdom + a strong trasher (Chapel of course, but Steward?  Remake (which can do Estates->GH or Fiefdom)?)  Might be that you'd also need +buy to make that worthwhile, at which point it's a fragile 4 card combo, so meh.  Fiefdom sounds fine.

I think the problem, if there is one, is more along the lines of GH + GH + GH + Fiefdom + Fiefdom + Fiefdom = $4 + $5 + $6 = $15.  Swap out Nobles for Great Hall, this is even more manageable.  The key is that Great Hall and Nobles draw, while the number of Fiefdoms you can slam down is limited by whatever your hand size is at the time you start laying them down.

In theory, Bank has this problem too, but it doesn't seem to be a big deal.  On the other hand, Bank is a $7 card.  Fiefdom, at $3, could be snapped up more easily with extra buys and added to a Tactician/Laboratory/Alchemist deck loaded with Great Halls and Nobles and become an absolute beast.  Tough to say if it's broken or just a really cool combo you have to work towards.  It does seem like you have to work hard to get up to superpower levels, but I'd be pretty scared of an Ironworks/Great Hall/Fiefdom deck just the same.

[WanderingWinder]

What about Great Hall?  With a GH -> 3 Fiefdoms, it's $2 + $3 + $4 = $9.

GH + Fiefdom + a strong trasher (Chapel of course, but Steward?  Remake (which can do Estates->GH or Fiefdom)?)  Might be that you'd also need +buy to make that worthwhile, at which point it's a fragile 4 card combo, so meh.  Fiefdom sounds fine.

I think the problem, if there is one, is more along the lines of GH + GH + GH + Fiefdom + Fiefdom + Fiefdom = $4 + $5 + $6 = $15.  Swap out Nobles for Great Hall, this is even more manageable.  The key is that Great Hall and Nobles draw, while the number of Fiefdoms you can slam down is limited by whatever your hand size is at the time you start laying them down.

In theory, Bank has this problem too, but it doesn't seem to be a big deal.  On the other hand, Bank is a $7 card.  Fiefdom, at $3, could be snapped up more easily with extra buys and added to a Tactician/Laboratory/Alchemist deck loaded with Great Halls and Nobles and become an absolute beast.  Tough to say if it's broken or just a really cool combo you have to work towards.  It does seem like you have to work hard to get up to superpower levels, but I'd be pretty scared of an Ironworks/Great Hall/Fiefdom deck just the same.

Playtesting will bear out if it's too powerful, but on the other hand, specific 4-card combos that are merely super strong and not game-warping like KC-KC-Goons-Masq are fine with me. If you look at it, a 2-card combo of chapel-bishop is pretty darn strong.
But, if a problem does arise, I can always switch it to count fiefdoms rather than victory cards, and I don't think that will really be a big problem. Testing will tell.

[WanderingWinder]

Last two 3s in the set.

Prospector
Action         3
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard 1. Put the rest back in any order.


Pretty basic, self-chaining card that doesn't do all that much. Compares to apothecary, but without the drawing. Might still need to knock it down to top 4 or perhaps even top 3 cards to balance, but I think it's a fairly simple idea that can definitely work.

Formation
Reaction      3
Whenever a card is bought, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a costing up to $2 less than the bought card.

I'm not sure if $2 less is too weak here. Early game this is terrible as is, probably. Late game it can be fairly good, but grabbing a gold in response to a province isn't probably as strong as it seems. On the other hand, you can react to your opponent's last buying of the last province to grab a duchy. Interesting dynamic there, which I quite like. You can also, of course, react to your own buys.

[Octo]

Hmm, very interesting cards being discussed. A couple points from me:

First is purely aesthetic - the names of some of the cards discussed in this thread kind of break with the dominion tradition. You're building up your dominion, and so you buy things and build things. The only cards that are not possessions of a sort are cards like remodel and upgrade, but you can still imagine paying for them and verbs-as-names pretty much exclusively only apply when trashing cards for better ones. The theme of dominion is already pretty damn thin though, and so maybe this isn't a concern for you guys, and fair enough, but ask yourself this: I can imagine paying for pretty much everything in dominion so far, but how do you going about paying for 'rage' or a 'deflection'?

Footsolider  - a minor point on this (aesthetic again) is that it doesn't really fit into the naming scheme either - VPs are normally lands or real-estate of some sort or another obviously, either that or people that own lands (nobles or dukes). It's not a bit thing obviously, just thought I'd note it. The card itself however, I'm even less convinced about. It's a silver worth 1VP that requires an action to be anything other than an estate. Those 1VPs can flip an evenly matched game for sure, but there's already estates for that (you won't be banking on the +$2 towards the end of the game I suspect) and Great Hall are only good because of their cycling (and I guess their dual-card nature too). It just don't think the 1VP is nearly enough to make it matter to you, to clog up your deck with a really weak action. Then again, in Thief games and such, or for Gardens decks perhaps, it could perform better. Dunno, I can just see this card getting passed over very very frequently.

Fiefdom - I like. You could make it worth +1 for every TWO VPs in play (rounded either way could work) if you're worried about power issues. Would this make it too cack? Hmm, perhaps. The risk of them being absolutely crazy power houses with other dual-actions is just too great as mentioned by other, given the spammable nature of the 3 main ones (particularly Great Hall). Another alternative is to limit it's max value, though that of course would feel clunky. Or you could just have the ability as "if there is another VP in play, this is worth 2".

Mercenary - some people wondering whether it's too powerful or not here. Hard to say with any authority without playtesting of course, but when I read it I wonder about discarding a treasure yourself as a justification for keeping the cost at $3 an adding a bit more oomf to it (either the +$2 or perhaps discarding two treasure from the opponent). The danger with that though it one of just slowing the game for everyone. I think it's probably fine as it is.

Experience - the main action seems pretty random and tacked on. What was your motivation for it? Is the gain mandatory upon playing the treasury? I assume so, and then....well, that complicates things. You end up buying shit loads of coppers by the end if it was essential and that's a kick in the balls. Is it essential that it have a main treasure-action? Also the reaction is pretty flippin' good. The power of it is not what's irking me though, it's the nature of the reaction make people think twice about playing an attack - most reactions are designed to counter a few attacks, not actively  benefit from being attack. That's not inherently bad I guess, but certainly seems a shift in the 'dastardliness' of dominion. Also, have you considered how quickly the attack pile would run out? The card would then be useless. Other than that of being a silver. Which it costs the same as, and does shit loads more than. So that's another issue. My last red flag would perhaps be that it encourages the game to descend into multi-attack-chaos which can slow a game waaay down, and make it a bit un-fun. Not unbalanced or anything necessarily in that situation, just un-fun.

Reaction-discards - at first I thought these were a bit off, I thought it was a bit clunky and bolted-on, but I like the way you've stuck with it as a theme. And thinking about it now, my comments about the behaviour of reactions in when commenting on experience may be slightly off the mark - these are much more general reactions on the whole, and are not designed as the "defence" cards that most people assume the blues are after playing with the moat. However, there is a risk in general with them, in that they rely on the other player to be fully effective - if they just avoid the trigger (where possible) then you're effectively got dead cards. They're an interesting mechanic, and it would be interesting to see how it affected the meta-game, though it's not guaranteed to be for the better. It could easily be that the cost of your opponent benefiting is often just too much, or rather too much to give away if it's very easy to avoid. If it's not easy to avoid, then surely you're both going to hammer that reaction-discard choice as you're very likely to benefit. Take experience - would its presence merely guarantee that attacks were just outright avoided? Would be interesting to see.

Keep 'em coming.

Edit - oop, you just did.

[play2draw]

Indeed... I don't think Fiefdom is a very broken card. I doubt it would be more dominating than, say, menagerie in a game with hamlet, black market, and Fairgrounds. I still say that Footsoldier is much too weak to serve a good purpose.

Prospector without a doubt superior to Scout (except perhaps in the edge cases where you're grabbing an abundance of Nobles and Harems (which I often find to be more of a "fun" strategy than a good strategy)). I would almost suggest having it reveal only three cards if you want to price it at $3.

Formation is a neat little card. I don't quite know what to make of it yet. It seems like it would be immensely useful at the right times... but I get the feeling that it definitely needs to be playtested just to be sure that it's useful enough to not warrant it being an action/reaction with a minor benefit when played. I get the sense that it's the sort of card that will get in the way more often than not.

[Tejayes]

As I did with the 2s, I'll rework the 3s based on official wording, then give my thoughts on each card.

DEFLECTION
---
+$2
Name a card type. Each other player discards a card of the named type from his hand (or reveals a hand with no cards of the named type), then draws a card.
--
Action/Attack - $3

(Quite similar to you $2 card Assassin, but with more money, slightly less-perfect aim, and only one card drawn by opponents. I assume that the other players get to draw a card no matter what, including using Moat/Lighthouse. I see this as being more fun than Assassin as well -- name Attack, and if you whiff, your opponent might just draw that Attack you were trying to get rid of. Whoops!)

MERCENARY
---
+$1
Each other player may discard a Treasure card from his hand. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse.
--
Action/Attack - $3

(Worded this to feel more like Mountebank, since this is like Monty-lite. Terminal Copper instead of Silver, Coppers block it, and opponents don't get Coppers. The card creation guide advised against $3 Cursors, but the bribery defense mechanic makes this acceptable, in my opinion.)

RAGE
---
+1 Buy
+$2
Discard a card.
-
Whenever you discard a card from your hand, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards.
--
Action/Reaction - $3

(A strictly-worse version of Woodcutter on its own, this could get pretty interesting if you have some Villages and enough Rages to combo with. Also good against cards like Cutpurse and your Mercenary, which can restore your hand size to 5, or Militia and Torturer, allowing you a net loss of just one card.)

RECYCLE
---
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. +1 Card per card trashed.
-
If you trash a card, you may discard this card from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver.
--
Action/Reaction - $3

(I'm guessing you want the reaction ability to work with all trashing, not just from your hand. If so, this would be interesting in Thief/Pirate Ship games for sure, because you can replace a trashed Copper with a Silver, but then you'll be potentially allowing your opponents to knock out said Silver. I want to try this out.)

EXPERIENCE
---
$2
When you play this, gain a Treasure card costing up to $1 per Copper you have in play.
-
When another players plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of the Attack card played.
--
Treasure/Reaction - $3

(So unless you have at least 3 Coppers in play, you'll be gaining a Copper when you play this. Most of the time, that might not make this card worth the purchase, but I could see this working magic along with Counting House. Of course, the Reaction might be the big draw if there are good stacking Actions on the board.)

SILVERSMITH
---
+1 Buy
Silver produces an extra $2 this turn.
--
Action - $3
(Build a good Silver engine, win the game easily. I agree with a lot of people in thinking that this is too strong as it is now.)

FIEFDOM
---
When you play this, it's worth $1 for every Victory card you have in play (including this).
-
1 VP
--
Treasure/Victory - $3

(Certainly ridiculous when paired with Great Hall, Nobles, and/or Harem, and also has bonus power with Ironworks and Transmute (and Tribute), but by itself will probably just be cute. Worth trying, for sure.)

FOOT SOLDIER
---
+$2
-
1 VP
--
Treasure/Victory - $3

(More reliable than Fiefdom, but nowhere near as much fun as a result.)

CASTLE
---
Choose one: Set aside a Victory card from your hand onto your Castle mat (or reveal a hand with no Victory cards); or +$1 for each card on your Castle mat, then put a card from your Castle mat into your hand. Return all cards on your Castle mat to your deck at the end of the game.
--
Action - $3

(Had to add a few things to clarify matters, I hope. If these clarifications are not what you had intended, let me know. As for my opinions, it's a bit like a self-imposed Pirate Ship/Island combo, but not quite as good as either. I might see this as a $4 myself)

PROSPECTOR
---
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard one of the revealed cards, then put the rest back on top of your deck in any order.
--
Action - $3

(Yeah, this is better than Scout. Even if it doesn't automatically clean out the Victory cards, it's still far too easy to chain Prospectors together for a dominant deck. Dropping the revealed card amount to 3 might be for the best.)

FORMATION
---
Whenever a player (including you) buys a card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to $2 less than the card bought.
--
Reaction - $3

(At last, a pure Reaction that I could see really working, since every game will have people buying cards. As WanderingWinder said, you could use this to nab a Duchy as the last Province is bought, hopefully giving you the win as a result. That does beg the question, what if multiple players reveal Formation, and they all want the same card, but there are not enough copies of the card to go around? Who gets priority? Would it be the player to the left of the card buyer?)

[ftl]

. I assume that the other players get to draw a card no matter what, including using Moat/Lighthouse.

No. Lighthouse says that "you are unaffected by the attack". Not that you are affected by the portions of the attack that you want to be affected by. Same with Moat. It would take very specific wording to go around that.