I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.
I get what you mean and admit it's likely not worth a pile. Maybe i just grew attached to it and probably that's why i didn't scrap it, yet. I mean, it's certainly not on top of my "to print and try" list, so i guess that's a bad sign.
I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.
I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."
Well, in the Hinterlands contest, i tried this for 2$ and with the penalty that you had to set it aside when bought, putting it in your discard only after your next shuffle. It was called "Artifact" back then, and maybe you remember me constantly pestering you with "No, LastFootnote, the wording has to be exactly this way for ominous reasons, stop fixing my weird wordings.". Anyhow, it was clearly overpowered, and so i went to price it at $3, then $4. That seemed balanced. Thing is, having it cost a Potion and trashing that might be marginally worse, but it solves the delayed gain in a much simpler way than strange "set aside" rules. I allready felt the symbol was off, but didn't see what itched me... Thank you for pointing it out.
This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.
It's allready pretty similar to Vagrant, power-wise, and the fact that you might be seing two good cards, being forced to discard one, is mostly what makes it not-strictly-better. I agree that it's unexciting, though. Another one that's probably fine, just not worth the slot.
Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.
Hmm... I'm not sure whether the "no-Village" scenario isn't really too off-putting... I mean, it's a Moat if there are none... If i was to fix this "issue", it would really have to be a gentle fix, a setup clause seems the most appropriate, but i don't really like even that. A buy, maybe. it's something that you don't really need that many of, anyway...
I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.
Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.
Did you notice that it's a weaker Oasis with Estates and can discard Harems for Harems?
Actually, this started with the premise "something arabic that can gain Harems", and was "Grand Vizier" for a long time. it went through tens of versions... I know that's the absolutely wrong way to do a card, and i'm kind of surprised that after long time, it actually became something interesting. I'm very glad you like it
I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.
Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.
I'm pretty happy with it. I had high hopes for it in the Alchemy contest. I don't even know why it has the Potion cost, i think i just saw it as fitting. No reason not to give your version a try, though
I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.
The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.
When playtesting it, it was usually considered a surprisingly strong $5. The "if you do" is the tiniest nerf. I can see the appeal of keeping it as simple as possible, though, but then again, the card is very simple allready. It's pretty standard, i admit.
Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.
The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:
Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.
Yeah, the bonus is a little off. I wanted one that doesn't make this such an obvious Ghost Ship/Militia mashup and one that didn't work best if you just played one of these every turn. Actions ask for other cards to go with them and scale, the attack doesn't. I think it was my idea of how to make it a little more interesting.
Hmm... I think I like it.
I see nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary piece of information: It's called that way because it incorporates every Trusty Steed bonus in a minor way
I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.
I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.
I'm not very happy with this right now, and you pointed out the reasons pretty accurately. The Chancellor effect is probably the worst part. i wanted it on some cards for some reason (Politician being the other one) and when looking for a way to buff this a bit, i decided against a buy and for this. Obviously not my best choice. Anyhow, the bottom option is so you can not spam this until everybody has the worst possible hand. if somebody allready has a terrible hand, you help him a bit. But i see why that's off on an attack. I might have to scrap this. Maybe there's another way of doing the core attack. Even if you don't like it
Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.
Well, it's one point less than province for $6. Originally, it also trashed a Province from the supply when gained (so you had a chance that the game would end before you choke) but people argued that emptying 4 piles at once was a little too much... I have never playtested it, and if neither this version nor the Province trashing one works out (i haven't tried that one, either), i'll scrap this.
Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.
It's ooooooold... Actually, this card predates Dark Ages. I was worried it might be too bland, but my gaming group at least enjoys it. Funny how it behaves vastly different to Poor House.
I think this version is worth testing.
I'll do that soon, hopefully.
Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.
I'll just focus on the "OK", here
I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.
Hm... I'm worried it might keep the card from being worthwile. On the other hand, i assume that having +actions depend on luck isn't very much fun.
I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.
Yes, the basic idea is old news. I can see that the strength of a combo here isn't mostly dependant on card price, but more on WHICH specific card you play. Chapel and Secret Chamber are horrible, Fishing Village is awesome. Might scrap it, but for now i'll keep it around just to playtest it a bit.
Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.
My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.
Well, the Curse gaining is a means to help you buy time. Originally this started out as "Maze" (german: "Irrgarten", literally "Insane Garden") and counted Curses other players had. It was bad, as it would potentially make you target specific players whenever that was possible. It was critizised for being a bit bland before, and i'm willing to let it go if i must. The premise is an attack-victory that gets more valuable by attacking, of course.
Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.
Actually, Action-Treasure is the premise here. I thought if Donald can make a Duration-Copper (Treasury), i can do an Action-Treasure. The Reaction type is my solution to the rules issues Treasure-Actions generate. It's honestly not much more than that, but it's interesting you believe that it might be weak. I considered it a potential one-card-strategy. If i hadn't, i might have done this:
Jeweler, Action-Reaction, $5
At the end of your buy phase or when another player plays an attack card, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next buy phase: +$2 and discard this.
Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.
I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.
Thank you for your critique
I don't consider it harsh, but very valuable. You actually pointed out some flaws that i was pondering myself, while on other occasions you made some positive remarks on cards that i was still a little worried about