Quote BEASTS SETUP |
Ways that refer to another card are needlessly complicated, just put the text of the other card directly on the Way.
Joy and Footbridge are overpowered.
3/4, you buy Joy thrice and buy a Silver, your deck after the first shuffle consist of 7 Coppers and 1 Silver.
You hit 16, buy Footbridge 8 times and then are able to buy 9 Provinces.
I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.
I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.
Oh, really didn't know it. I even didn't know that there are two different words in English, one with "y" and one with "i". it's ok to use "Gipsy"?
I'd consider a different name for "G*psy Camp", on account of the first word of that being a slur.
Oh, really didn't know it. I even didn't know that there are two different words in English, one with "y" and one with "i". it's ok to use "Gipsy"?
No, different spelling, same meaning.
Most "gypsies" belong to the Roma (or Romani). See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people)
But you if you want to avoid any specific tribe naming, you can just name the card "Circus Camp" or something like that. Seems to fit to the art somehow.
Joy and Footbridge are overpowered.
3/4, you buy Joy thrice and buy a Silver, your deck after the first shuffle consist of 7 Coppers and 1 Silver.
You hit 16, buy Footbridge 8 times and then are able to buy 9 Provinces.
Removed the +Buy from Joy, nerferd Footbridge and made it doesn't apply to Victories. Hope these changes fix them.
Sorry about the Ways, I was wrong and totally missed that the Attack type is relevant!
Circus Camp looks too good. It is Village+Fugitive with the discarding happening before the drawing. That downside is unlikely to compensate for the cheaper price (Fugitive is a $4.5 ) and the Village effect.
Hidden Pond is lovely, especially as you avoided the pitfall of triggering the effect on play ... and the on-trash is a neat Feodum-esque feature (kill a green card to increase the VPs of the other greens).
Sacred Hall is a cantrip VP token thingy in all deck drawing engines. That happens to frequently to justify violating such a fundamental rule.
Shipmaster is brilliant, a Lost City variant that is very likely quite balanced.
Amazon does not excite me, but $6 for a slightly better Lost City (if there are Thrones or Remodelers) is OK.
I love the combine-cards idea of Guildmaster! Easily the most innovative mechanism I have seen in some time.
Cursed Land looks like a more narrow use Desperation, but the lack of a "once per turn" restriction might make it different enough.
Touch of Life is likely too good with Copper. You open X/Touch of Life (or just Touch of Life) and all those Coppers got converted into Peddlers.
This needs a non-Copper restriction or, perhaps more interesting, a Coin cost. Converting Silvers/Golds into Double/Triple Peddlers is extremly good (I play with a $5 Project which was an official outtake that gives you the option of treating Silvers as Peddlers).
Land Grant is a great concept. I'd seriously consider a Coin price though, otherwise it is a free gift for whoever ends the turn with an extra Buy. Sure, Annex has the same problem but it is only 3VPs. Those Landmarks are usually worth more.
I like this set, the quality of the cards is quite high and the female theme is great.
Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.
An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.
You have 3 $2-cost cards and all can produce + Buy; this might be a bit inflationary.
The number of cards providing +Buy seems okay (on the upper end), but that all $2 cost cards have it is a bit unfortunate.
Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.
Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.
Feedbacks are welcome, as always.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/051/full/Crusader.png?1607149030) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)
You have 3 $2-cost cards and all can produce + Buy; this might be a bit inflationary.The number of cards providing +Buy seems okay (on the upper end), but that all $2 cost cards have it is a bit unfortunate.
Yes, so I'm adding a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cost without + buy.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/118/full/Wanderer_%281%29.png?1607159183)
Comments on a few problematic ones (these are not representative, I think a lot of the ones I'm not commenting on are fine).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/551/full/Footbridge_%286%29.png?1607065065)
With 10$, you can get 6 cards costing 5$. Is this intended? Seems a bit much.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/163/full/3-Secret_Place.png?1607035744)
This is basically just way of the squirrel -- not sure the concept is worth the mat. Why not just draw more cards for next turn?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/594/full/Circus_Camp.png?1607081567)
This is pretty busted. It's a support card, so it can't break the game, but it's almost Refuge + village. I think this would be more reasonable at 5$.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/551/full/Footbridge_%286%29.png?1607065065)
With 10$, you can get 6 cards costing 5$. Is this intended? Seems a bit much.
...does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time....does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.
I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time....does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.
For the attack Ways, it just seems a little overkill to have 3 cards that do the "same", the only difference being which card is set aside / played. What if it was just one Way, and for the set aside part, it says "set aside one of x,y, or z" or give them a type and have it set aside one of those type (then maybe you can even have some other cards that interact with that type?)
An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.
Wishing Fountain seems really bad at 5 next to Laboratory, the trashing seems like it isn't enough to justify the price tag.
Calmness has a confusing wording, I'm not really sure what it does.
Burnish is too good with in the early game, particularly the opening. Maybe it should cost $2.
Season's Grace is pretty terrible next to sinister plot which is also +1 Card every other turn but a lot cheaper and more flexible.
Emissary could also use a clearer wording.
Circus Camp looks too good. It is Village+Fugitive with the discarding happening before the drawing. That downside is unlikely to compensate for the cheaper price (Fugitive is a $4.5 ) and the Village effect.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/594/full/Circus_Camp.png?1607081567)
This is pretty busted. It's a support card, so it can't break the game, but it's almost Refuge + village. I think this would be more reasonable at 5$.
Sacred Hall
This looks too powerful for a cantrip and with that cost.
Sacred Hall is a cantrip VP token thingy in all deck drawing engines. That happens to frequently to justify violating such a fundamental rule.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/149/full/2-Maid.png?1607035002)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/118/full/Wanderer_%281%29.png?1607159183)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/163/full/3-Secret_Place.png?1607035744)
+7 Cards
Discard all cards on your Secret Place mat, then put 7 cards from your hand onto your Secret Place mat.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/981/full/Sacred_Hall_%284%29.png?1607214655)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/177/full/4-Underworld_Gate.png?1607036114)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/178/full/4-Workers.png?1607036184)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/964/full/Circus_Camp_%282%29.png?1607212200)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/185/full/5-Gravedigger.png?1607036296)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/188/full/5-Immolater.png?1607036406)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/189/full/5-Magic_Library.png?1607036442)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/190/full/5-Marketplace.png?1607036480)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/191/full/5-Shipmaster.png?1607036517)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/192/full/5-Tavern_Nights.png?1607036560)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/194/full/5z-Tale-Teller.png?1607036681)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/198/full/6z-Amazon.png?1607036781)
Split Pile 5/5
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/203/full/sp4-Fruits.png?1607037001) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/470/full/sp6-Fruit_Mix.png?1607051326)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/200/full/zh-Blessed_Gems.png?1607036881) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/166/full/4-Blessing.png?1607035857)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/230/full/zh-Coin_of_Honor.png?1607037722) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/168/full/4-Emissary.png?1607035918)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/239/full/ev1-Burnish.png?1607037883)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/256/full/ev3-Pythoness.png?1607038629)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/265/full/ev7-Birth_of_Venus.png?1607038875)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/542/full/Way_of_the_Harpy_%283%29.png?1607063631) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/543/full/Way_of_the_Medusa_%284%29.png?1607063670) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/544/full/Way_of_the_She-Wolf_%282%29.png?1607063703)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/308/full/w-Harpy.png?1607040343) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/440/full/w-Medusa_%281%29.png?1607048567) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/320/full/w-She-Wolf.png?1607040604)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/122/full/Acreage_%281%29.png?1593869302) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/840/full/Barony_%283%29.png?1593682422) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/832/full/Bishopric_%281%29.png?1593679758) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/121/full/County_%281%29.png?1593869270) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/838/full/Domain_%283%29.png?1593680162) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/355/full/zl-Gold_Mine.png?1607042067) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/830/full/Grange_%281%29.png?1593679670) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/983/full/Virgin_Lands.png?1593862861) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/981/full/Yards.png?1593862830)
Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), it could be used as "Gain Three estates"I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time....does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.
i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/762/full/Footbridge_%289%29.png?1607197230)
Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.
Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.
Feedbacks are welcome, as always.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/051/full/Crusader.png?1607149030) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/051/full/Crusader.png?1607149030) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/265/full/ev7-Birth_of_Venus.png?1607038875)
This is basically just swingier, worse Donate. It's harder to afford due to needing to actually have its full cost when you buy it, and doesn't give you any choice in what to trash.
Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), it could be used as "Gain Three estates"I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time....does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.
i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/762/full/Footbridge_%289%29.png?1607197230)Crusader could use the "... Action Cards, revealing them, for..." I think there's an official card that uses that wording, but I don't currently remember the card itself.Overall: I haven’t counted or compared to official expansions, but I have the feeling that there are too many non-terminal cards for a set to be balanced this way; i.e. lots of cantrips, Villages, City variants, plus Night cards and Treasures.An initial note here is that there seems to be an imbalance of terminals, I think there are a couple too many non-terminal actions and not quite enough terminals.
Yes, there's a lack of terminals, in special strong terminal draw. So I'm adding these two cards. Maybe I will also add a terminal gainer.
Feedbacks are welcome, as always.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/051/full/Crusader.png?1607149030) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
And as an (unneeded) edge case, Poor House
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/256/full/ev3-Pythoness.png?1607038629)
Pythoness is a weird name for an event, considering that most Events are actually events, not people. Strange naming choice aside, this is way too strong compared to Pursue to just cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it. +1 Buy is nothing next to being able to have a potential 9-card hand.
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
Secret Place looks like a recipe for analysis paralysis and too fiddly for what it does. Maybe just say "...Draw 2 cards. Set aside 2 cards from your hand and put them in your hand at the start of next turn." (in addition to the usual 5 cards.) I don't think it needs a mat.
Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.
Wanderer looks too strong for $2 because of the trashing option.
Seems like you could easily end up with tons of Horses in your deck with Horse Lady if there are any other Horse gainers. Not sure the best way to change it, or if you don't mind if people get tons of horses in the deck (and exile mat).
Secret Place looks like a recipe for analysis paralysis and too fiddly for what it does. Maybe just say "...Draw 2 cards. Set aside 2 cards from your hand and put them in your hand at the start of next turn." (in addition to the usual 5 cards.) I don't think it needs a mat.
Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.
I agree with Gubump about Blessing, Emissary, Tale-Teller, and Birth of Venus.
I looked at the first dozen cards so far. The rest of the ones I looked at so far look good, though a few of them seem on the uninteresting side.
Why do you have it discard the cards from that mat at the beginning? That pretty much cancels the effect of any Secret Place you played earlier in the turn.
I'm pretty sure that's the point.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/542/full/Way_of_the_Harpy_%283%29.png?1607063631) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/543/full/Way_of_the_Medusa_%284%29.png?1607063670) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/544/full/Way_of_the_She-Wolf_%282%29.png?1607063703)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/308/full/w-Harpy.png?1607040343) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/440/full/w-Medusa_%281%29.png?1607048567) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/320/full/w-She-Wolf.png?1607040604)
Medusa should say "Each other player may discard a Curse. If they don't, they gain a Curse." That said, what's the point of having the set aside cards instead of just having their text on their respective Ways?
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png) instead of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png). In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/256/full/ev3-Pythoness.png?1607038629)
Pythoness is a weird name for an event, considering that most Events are actually events, not people. Strange naming choice aside, this is way too strong compared to Pursue to just cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it. +1 Buy is nothing next to being able to have a potential 9-card hand.
The "event" I had in mind was "a consult with the Pythoness", but you're right, as the name was only "Pythoness" it is not so good. I will change to "Divination". About card funcionalities and cost comparing to Pursue, I will see about.
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png) instead of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png). In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.
Thank you for clarifying. it would be good at $5, a cost that is easier to afford?
Emissary
How can it be checked that the passed cards are all copies of the same card?
What happens, for example in a 4-player game, when you have only 2 Coppers? Can the player pass them?
Emissary could also use a clearer wording.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/230/full/zh-Coin_of_Honor.png?1607037722) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/168/full/4-Emissary.png?1607035918)
Emissary doesn't have any wording to ensure honesty for two reasons: It doesn't ask the player to prove they don't have enough of what they chose to pass to pass one to each opponent, and passed cards aren't public information, so it doesn't even ask the player to prove that they're passing copies of the same card. It also has the problem of not really functioning properly as an Attack card, as all Attack cards tell opponents to do something, whereas this doesn't. Another big problem it has is that it scales way too much with player count, and is too strong no matter what; with two players, it's a Woodcutter and an Ambassador at once (although it only returns one card instead of up to two), which is clearly WAAAAAYYYYY too strong for just a mere (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). With three players, it becomes an Ambassador that gives +1 Buy and a whopping (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)! I would just recommend scrapping this one, in all honesty.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/118/full/Wanderer_%281%29.png?1607159183)
+2 Cards, trash a card from hand is too strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) even if it's limited to Coppers, IMO. This should probably cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), possibly even (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) because of the gain-a-Copper-to-hand option.
Wanderer looks too strong for $2 because of the trashing option.
The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/121/full/Emissary_%2812%29.png?1607233457)
Edit: removed Attack type.
The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/121/full/Emissary_%2812%29.png?1607233457)
Edit: removed Attack type.
It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.
The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/121/full/Emissary_%2812%29.png?1607233457)
Edit: removed Attack type.
It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.
The idea I had in mind works better with Coppers, so I'm trying a new version limited to Coppers. It's a kind of mix of Ambassador, Moneylender and Coppersmith. I think it's not so strong because the Coppers go to opponent's hands. As it will deal with Coppers, I think it's better without the Heirloom.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/121/full/Emissary_%2812%29.png?1607233457)
Edit: removed Attack type.
It still doesn't handle the case where you don't have that many Coppers. It also doesn't fix the problem that it scales too harshly with the number of players and is too strong. Giving each opponent +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) is a small price to pay for giving them Coppers and getting a net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per opponent (although it's nowhere near as overpowered as it was before since you can no longer return Estates and it's now all-or-nothing), especially since it's essentially an unblockable attack now. If you insist that it's not too powerful and that the scaling isn't an issue, the "prove you don't have enough Coppers" issue can be fixed by adding "(or reveal you can't)" to the end of the first sentence.
It's tricky to come up with an appropriate cost for all player counts.
I think this card loses its value quite quickly in games at higher player counts, especially given that plenty of other cards in the set give you +1 Buy. In a 4-player game, you won't be able to play it more than 1-2 times unless you quickly gain more Coppers. It might work if everyone is buying and playing Emissaries, and I suppose you could try to use your extra buys to fill your deck with Coppers and also combo this with Wanderer, but I'm not sure if that would be an effective strategy. This would definitely need to be playtested.
I think the cost might be fine for a 3-player game as there would be more balance between the ability to trigger the Ambassador-effect and the payoff.
For a two-player game, I think the cost should be 3. It's pseudo-trashing/junking ability is weaker than Ambassador's, and can only give you +2. While you could argue that this is an improved version of Woodcutter and so should cost more, it becomes distinctly worse than Woodcutter once your Coppers run out.
This also becomes harder to play if you have a game with Heirlooms. Carline, was that part of the intent in originally having an Heirloom for Emissary?
Without the victory card restriction, this can be used to pretty quickly empty the estate pile. Not the worst thing, but for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), it could be used as "Gain Three estates"I'm not sure it's a problem; might be more of a feature for stuff like Enhance or Farmland, and ignorable the rest of the time....does footbridge increase the cost of Coppers?
Good question. It's not intended. Maybe I have to change something on text to avoid this.
i think I've found a better version (below). it avoids this Copper thing, which could be a bit confusing, and also doesn't need the "non-Victory" restriction. Thank you!
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/762/full/Footbridge_%289%29.png?1607197230)
Money Trick
$1 (w/o “+”), then “+1 Buy”
Directly after you finish…; see Royal Carriage
I think this has to be a Reaction?
"…revealing it." No space before full stop; Exile.
At a first glance this seems to be too weak.
Money Trick
$1 (w/o “+”), then “+1 Buy”
Directly after you finish…; see Royal Carriage
I think this has to be a Reaction?
"…revealing it." No space before full stop; Exile.
At a first glance this seems to be too weak.
Yes, it has to be a Reaction, changed. I also made the wording fixes, thank you.
Changed Exile option to +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), which makes it better, but in general, I don't think it's too weak. Discard it after an Action is the same as play a Peddler and you can discard it after a terminal. You can even manage to draw it again this turn. It also rewards you if already drew your deck, you can discard it and draw the same copy, gaining +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) to exile it.
The Exile feature is needed to avoid loops. I think (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) is better for this option, it makes the Money Trick exiled be almost equivalent to a Stockpile.
The +Buy feature is to make you want to play it sometimes instead of discarding.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/651/full/Money.png?1607292944)
Split Pile 5/5
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/203/full/sp4-Fruits.png?1607037001) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/470/full/sp6-Fruit_Mix.png?1607051326)
Fruits is too strong to cost just (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), IMO. I'd say that it wouldn't work at any price if it didn't have the Villager option (too strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) but too weak for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)), but the Villager option makes it strong enough to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/265/full/ev7-Birth_of_Venus.png?1607038875)
This is basically just swingier, worse Donate. It's harder to afford due to needing to actually have its full cost when you buy it, and doesn't give you any choice in what to trash.
By now, about Birth of Venus. Maybe it could be improved, but I think it is not swingy, you always trash from all your deck, like Donate. The idea is to trash all your Coppers and Estates at once (and eventually also Shelters, Curses and Ruins), even if sometimes you would trash some $2 cost card along with them.
I know. The reason it's swingy is because the first player to be able to afford it completely snowballs, for the same reason Donate would be too swingy if it cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png) instead of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png). In fact, it originally cost coins, but Donald X changed it because of its swinginess. In other words, I was referring to the swinginess of being able to afford it, not the swinginess of its effect. And the reason I called it a worse Donate is twofold: Donate is easier to afford due to having a debt-cost, and Birth of Venus is strictly worse than Donate due to Donate giving more choice in what you trash, including being able to have the exact same effect as BoV.
Thank you for clarifying. it would be good at $5, a cost that is easier to afford?
I would honestly just scrap it. It's too similar to Donate for my tastes.
Blessing
Trash (1st time only)
Blessed Gems
…you’ve trashed…
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/200/full/zh-Blessed_Gems.png?1607036881) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/166/full/4-Blessing.png?1607035857)
Blessing is not just better than Feast, but it completely outclasses it, at the same price. And like Great Hall, Feast was removed for being boring, not weak. Blessing is almost certainly strong enough to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/178/full/4-Workers.png?1607036184)
I actually think this is good enough to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), or at least definitely too strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). Let's compare this to Walled Village (a promo card which costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)):
If you don't use both of Walled Village's actions, then you get to topdeck Walled Village so you can get another chance to use it next turn. However, "using both of Walled Village's actions" is determined by the number of cards you have in play, so Walled Village's left-over actions can still get wasted. +1 Villager, however, gives you the +1 Action on-command and cannot be wasted, and you could even naturally draw the same copy of Workers two turns in a row to get two un-wastable actions. Thus Workers is actually extremely close to strictly better than Walled Village (there are edge cases involving Throne Room variants and Ways), and should therefore cost more.
Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".
the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".
I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.
Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/993/140/full/Lending_%286%29.png?1607355551)
the current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".
I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.
Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/993/140/full/Lending_%286%29.png?1607355551)
I didn't look close enough at the new card-shaped thing. You can't buy something with the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) debt though, so on the first turn, you wouldn't be able to use thisthe current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".
I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.
Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/993/140/full/Lending_%286%29.png?1607355551)
I think the + Buy is needed to buy the next action with debt, as you spent your regular Buy to buy Lending.
I didn't look close enough at the new card-shaped thing. You can't buy something with the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) debt though, so on the first turn, you wouldn't be able to use thisthe current +buy is almost useless, as unless you have a supply of action (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), you can't play treasures to pay off the debt, leaving you unable to buy a second thing.Added this event. It can change first turns, I hope in intersting ways.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/816/full/Lending_%285%29.png?1607310954)
I am not sure, but my understanding of the wording is that you can gain any Action card from the Supply taking Debt instead of its $ cost. Is that correct? That seems to be too strong. What about Potion cost cards, e.g. can a player gain a Possession for 6 Debt, ignoring the Potion cost?
Despite that, gaining cards from the Supply is the default and does not have to be specified, i.e. you can delete "from the Supply".
I forgot completely that exists cards with Potion costs! And I missed a kind of Alms clause I want to include. I wiil review it, thank you.
Edit: Updated the event. The idea is to pay an Action card with debt, but the event costs 1 debt itself, so as final result the card costs you $1 more. Is it still too strong? Should I change the event cost to 2 debt Tokens?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/993/140/full/Lending_%286%29.png?1607355551)
I think the + Buy is needed to buy the next action with debt, as you spent your regular Buy to buy Lending.
Yes, I didn't consider this, thank you. I think this new version would work.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/994/146/full/Lending_%288%29.png?1607410154)
I also don't think that the combination of a $0 cost Event with +1 Buy and without "Once per turn" works well under certain circumstances, e.g. with cost reduction (e.g. 2 x Bridge), you can empty all piles that cost $2 or less.
]I haven't followed or read the discussion that lead to this version, but this is confusing. It is not clear for what you pay, i.e. for buying a card is missing.
On the other side of the cost spectrum, is your intention that also very expensive Action cards (King's Court, Prince etc.) can be bought?
I also don't think that the combination of a $0 cost Event with +1 Buy and without "Once per turn" works well under certain circumstances, e.g. with cost reduction (e.g. 2 x Bridge), you can empty all piles that cost $2 or less.
It doesn't give you extra Buys, only replaces the Buy you spent to buy it.Quote]I haven't followed or read the discussion that lead to this version, but this is confusing. It is not clear for what you pay, i.e. for buying a card is missing.
Yes, I will fix the wording.QuoteOn the other side of the cost spectrum, is your intention that also very expensive Action cards (King's Court, Prince etc.) can be bought?
I think it's Ok to buy expensive actions with it, you will pay for them anyway and with additional cost. With Transport, you can get any of these actions in turn 2, paying (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). And topdecked.
Edited: Fixed the wording. i hope now it's ok.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/994/159/full/Lending_%289%29.png?1607415747)
Note that I haven't read the other replies yet; so don't know if some of this has already been covered.
As a whole set, I feel like there's too many different things. It combines a lot of things from Nocturne as well as Menagerie, but also some Guilds and Renaissance mechanics. Between Overpay, Heirlooms, Night, Ways, Horses, Villagers, Coffers, VP Tokens, Exile, Events, Split Piles, Reserves, Debt, Projects, Hexes, Landmarks, Pile Tokens, and Durations (to be fair it seems Durations are now a core mechanic)... it just seems like way too many mechanics to fit into one set. Looks like 35 separate Kingdom Piles? That's a lot.
Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.
Money Trick seems a bit complicated in the reaction wording. I wonder if the "if it's a Money Trick" part is even needed.... was that added just to prevent an infinite loop with discarding a Money Trick into an empty deck? Either way this might be as strong as Peddler/Poacher; which would make it too cheap.
Amazon - I'm not sure if "gain a Horse to your Hand" is significantly different enough from "+2 cards"... of course when combined with things like Horse Lady, it is, and maybe that was the intent. I'm also not sure about Overpay on a card... the official Overpay cards don't exceed . At , you likely aren't going to be using the Overpay very often at all; though it is a nice bonus when you hit .
Fruit Mix wording; Donald is planning to update Treasures to not longer use "When you play this", and you don't have that on Fruits either. And instead of "worth", it should just be "+"l; like an action would be. I believe treasures like Bank will be updated to do that as well.
Calmness is a bit weird; it's obvious what the +1 Card Token does, but "whenever you want" is weird timing. It's also rare that you are going to hold onto it very long; so maybe instead during cleanup draw 1 extra card for your next turn.
Birth of Venus might be too similar to Donate.
Phoenix might be too strong with some one-shots like Pillage.
New versions of three cards. All of them care about what is in the trash. It could lead to instersting interactions between them.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/998/009/full/Gravedigger_%2829%29.png?1607666037) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/995/403/full/Sacred_Hall_%2810%29.png?1607492171) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/801/full/Underworld_Gate_%284%29.png?1607577545)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/994/138/full/Phoenix_%281%29.png?1607408105)
About the Ways, I'm changing a few things, so I will answer after that. Thank you again for feedbacks.
New versions of three cards. All of them care about what is in the trash. It could lead to instersting interactions between them.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/998/009/full/Gravedigger_%2829%29.png?1607666037) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/995/403/full/Sacred_Hall_%2810%29.png?1607492171) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/801/full/Underworld_Gate_%284%29.png?1607577545)
Gravedigger
This seems to simpler than the previous versions of Gravedigger. If it is trashing a Copper it doesn’t stay in play, right?
What is the idea behind the option to gain a cheaper (emphasis on cheaper) card from the trash? Is it to help accumulating cards of value in the trash or to keep the number of valuable cards in the trash low? After the initial Estates are gone, the best deal seems to be to have some Silvers in the deck (edge cases excluded). The Silvers can be played and then converted via trashing to +$3 for the next turn. Do you have a Silver gainer in your set?
Sacred Hall
I think, “If you did” is not necessary, because it is self-explanatory that when you haven’t trashed that you don’t have a cost.
…in the trash (below line): “T” in lowercase (see for example Forager).
The VP value may fluctuate significantly in dependency of the presence of different Victory cards in a Kingdom, especially cheap ones, but I think it is okay. Bishop looks stronger as it can trash anything. If Sacred Hall needs to be a bit stronger, you could let it trash anything, but only give VP tokens for trashed Victory cards: “You may trash a card from your hand. If it’s a Victory card, …”.
Underworld Gate
Could be swingy with cards like Ruins and Shelters in the game. On the other hand, self-trashing when a Victory card is gained counteracts to some extent. Could be interesting.
Edit: I thought about this one shot Silver gainer. It also would be a cheap card to gain from trash with Gravedigger.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/901/full/Tiara_%286%29.png?1607938503)
Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from your hand.
Gain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from you have in play.
Edit: I thought about this one shot Silver gainer. It also would be a cheap card to gain from trash with Gravedigger.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/901/full/Tiara_%286%29.png?1607938503)
It fills some gaps in your set, but it looks a bit boring. I am not sure about the cost/balancing, but how about this:QuoteGain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from your hand.
Alternatively:QuoteGain two Silvers. Trash this or a Silver from you have in play.
Another thing: With so many cards and so many updates, it is not easy to figure out, which cards in your original post are actualized and if so, when. For example, I think I suggested to swap colors for Money Trick (yellow/blue; see Fool's Gold). Could you just give the date of the latest update below each card? That would be very helpful.
No one commented about these cards funcionalities, so I presume they are OK as cheap support cards:Maid looks fine, but I'm not good at balancing small things, so I'm probably not one to judge. Same with small village and minstrel.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/133/full/Maid_%283%29.png?1607236730) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/150/full/2-Small_Village.png?1607035075) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/782/full/Taverner_%285%29.png?1607574863) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/157/full/3-Minstrel.png?1607035389) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/165/full/3-Valkyries.png?1607035796)
For these two landscapes I also didn't have feedbacks up to now:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/428/full/ev5-Tie_to_Ground.png?1607048012) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/275/full/prod4-Alert.png?1607039228)
No one commented about these cards funcionalities, so I presume they are OK as cheap support cards:Maid looks fine, but I'm not good at balancing small things, so I'm probably not one to judge. Same with small village and minstrel.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/133/full/Maid_%283%29.png?1607236730) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/150/full/2-Small_Village.png?1607035075) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/782/full/Taverner_%285%29.png?1607574863) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/157/full/3-Minstrel.png?1607035389) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/165/full/3-Valkyries.png?1607035796)
For these two landscapes I also didn't have feedbacks up to now:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/428/full/ev5-Tie_to_Ground.png?1607048012) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/989/275/full/prod4-Alert.png?1607039228)
For Taverner, 2 buys may be too much, but I think that 1 buy would make the card too expensive. Maybe move the cost to 3 and give an additional vanilla bonus on play/on call?
Valkyries seeks okay
Tie to the ground could be renamed "restrain" to be less of a mouthful. Also, it should be "discards an Action card or reveals a hand without actions"
Alert seems a little weak for a 4 cost project.
Wanderer
The double optional combination of Copper gaining/trashing looks a bit odd. A player can in principle gain a Copper to hand and then trash it immediately. Is there a reason to do it this way instead of “Choose one:…”? If yes, what about swapping the two parts (You may trash… You may gain…)?
Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.
I could avoid this effect of trash a Cooper from the Supply by changing order of options. However, I want to keep this possibilty for the few cases you may would want it like with Forager, Treasurer, Priest, Tomb and Sewers or, in the case of this set, Underworld Gate, Gravedigger and the Heirloom Blessed Gems (maybe this effect could be too strong with Tomb, but something similar happens with Lurker and Tomb).
Emissary/Coin of Honor
Coin of Honor: “When you play this” is not necessary on Treasures anymore: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0) (see 1st line under "Cosmetic changes").
What is the idea of the self-trashing option for +$1?
Circus Camp
Might be a bit strong. I have a similar card that I will probably never show on the Forum. It gets the +2 Cards if a card costing $2 or more is discarded (it doesn’t have the +1 Buy), though perhaps my card is a bit weak.
Magic Library
Do you need the restriction to react only with one Magic Library? What is the idea behind it?
Immolater
This one can be really powerful under some circumstances.
Amazon
The cost is probably okay, but for the most expensive card of the set, it looks a bit boring.
Divination
At the end of this turn,…
Seems to be very expensive for what it does.
Birth of Venus
Looks like a Donate variant. Is it worth to have it in the set?
Touch of Life
When and how often does this happen after you bought the Project? If only once per game, it might be better if it is an Event.
Jugate
How about: …with a total cost of $7.
I cannot figure out when I would do this, maybe near the end to gain a Duchy and an Estate for $6. Is there any other application for this I don’t see? With a cost reducer maybe (which are quite rare)?
Can “Jugate” considered to be an Event (I am talking about the name)?
Minstrel
I don’t think you need "(if any)". Since you reveal the cards, if you don’t have enough Action cards, you just can’t do it. For example: If you reveal only 1 Action card, you put it into your hand. That’s it. No Action card left, the other two cards are discarded.
Valkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.
Alert
No need to reveal the cards.
“…look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any number of them and put the rest back [on top]* in any order. (~ wording of Sentry).
*I don’t think “on top” is really required. See Night Watchman.
Not the best name for a Project. Also some of the Events have names that do not sound like events.
I wonder whether you use some mechanics (something that happens at the end of this turn; gaining Horses), because you think they are required for a better interaction of the cards of the set, or whether it rather reflects a preference of what you like. It seems that you also have quite a lot of Treasure interaction. I don’t say any of these are bad, it is just an observation and I am curious about it.
Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?
One thing that the majority of people here ignore: What about giving the source/name of the artists?
Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?
No, I didn't answer it before. For most of them, I write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art". Sometimes I use "painting".
Sorry if you've answered this before, but where do you get your artwork?
No, I didn't answer it before. For most of them, I write in Google the keyword I want plus "fantasy" and "art". Sometimes I use "painting".
I expected something else because that's similar to what I do, and I find it difficult to get good results. Maybe 'fantasy' is the keyword I'm missing.
How much time per card does this take, roughly?
Wanderer
The double optional combination of Copper gaining/trashing looks a bit odd. A player can in principle gain a Copper to hand and then trash it immediately. Is there a reason to do it this way instead of “Choose one:…”? If yes, what about swapping the two parts (You may trash… You may gain…)?
I answered this question to GendoIkari, see below. It's for edge cases, but if it looks a bit strange, maybe I should swap options.
Wanderer might be simpler though very slightly weaker if it were "choose one" with both options mandatory. It's a bit weird that now it gives you the choice to effectively just trash a Copper from the supply.
I could avoid this effect of trash a Cooper from the Supply by changing order of options. However, I want to keep this possibilty for the few cases you may would want it like with Forager, Treasurer, Priest, Tomb and Sewers or, in the case of this set, Underworld Gate, Gravedigger and the Heirloom Blessed Gems (maybe this effect could be too strong with Tomb, but something similar happens with Lurker and Tomb).
QuoteEmissary/Coin of Honor
Coin of Honor: “When you play this” is not necessary on Treasures anymore: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.0) (see 1st line under "Cosmetic changes").
What is the idea of the self-trashing option for +$1?
The self-trashing is to get rid of Emissary when you don't want it anymore, shomething we would like to see in Moneylender or Ambassador.
QuoteDivination
At the end of this turn,…
Seems to be very expensive for what it does.
It was cheaper, I change due to comments comparing it to Pursue.
QuoteBirth of Venus
Looks like a Donate variant. Is it worth to have it in the set?
I want a kind of reset buttom. I think this version plays different from Donate, you don't have free choice, you save the cards you have in play plus one card, so you have to manage to do it the best way. Thematically, this is the card which refers to set name, which something I also like.
QuoteValkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.
I think when you suffer a handsize Attack like Militia, Ghost Ship or Catapult, it's better to have a hand with Horse plus two cards than Valkyries plus two cards. The former gives you more chance to have a good turn. Anyway, the reaction is optional.
QuoteAlert
No need to reveal the cards.
“…look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any number of them and put the rest back [on top]* in any order. (~ wording of Sentry).
*I don’t think “on top” is really required. See Night Watchman.
Not the best name for a Project. Also some of the Events have names that do not sound like events.
Please tell which names you don't think are OK. I don't know all the subtleties of English language. I know many names for events are deverbal words, but maybe I thought there's more freedom to derive verbs from names. For Projects, I don't know by seeing existing ones what is the criterion for names.
QuoteI wonder whether you use some mechanics (something that happens at the end of this turn; gaining Horses), because you think they are required for a better interaction of the cards of the set, or whether it rather reflects a preference of what you like. It seems that you also have quite a lot of Treasure interaction. I don’t say any of these are bad, it is just an observation and I am curious about it.
I put three cards that deal with Horses to have more interactions between them and justify more the presence of Horse pile when play IRL (for the opposite reason, I'm changing the only card in set that gave hexes in previous version). There's a lot of Nights, but all have a reason to be a Night. Yes, I was doing the cards with mechanics I like, maybe without a more systematic vision. I should deepen this analysis now.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
One thing that the majority of people here ignore: What about giving the source/name of the artists?QuoteI'm intending to credit these wonderful artists in cards text. I didn't do it yet because it's hard sometimes, the source often also doesn't mention the artist. I'll do it as soon as I can. Even if it' is for non-commercial and very limited use, they deserve the mention.
Quote from: CarlineQuoteValkyries
The Reaction part looks like a bad deal.
I think when you suffer a handsize Attack like Militia, Ghost Ship or Catapult, it's better to have a hand with Horse plus two cards than Valkyries plus two cards. The former gives you more chance to have a good turn. Anyway, the reaction is optional.
How many hand size Attacks does your set have? Aside of that, maybe make the Reaction a bit stronger, for example set it aside and put it back to hand like Horse Trade does, let it cost $4. Just an idea.
Weak junkers are good. But I think Emissary has no good reason to be voluntary.
For the attack Ways, it just seems a little overkill to have 3 cards that do the "same", the only difference being which card is set aside / played. What if it was just one Way, and for the set aside part, it says "set aside one of x,y, or z" or give them a type and have it set aside one of those type (then maybe you can even have some other cards that interact with that type?)
Way of the Mermaid is strictly better than Pig; not that there are necessarily rules about avoiding strictly better ways, but it makes sense to try and do so.
Way of the Sphinx is probably too good (and strictly better than Pig); Wishing Well already exists as a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) card, this just makes any action you want into a Wishing Well.
I just had a look at your Attack Ways.
Format/Wording:
Set aside…
In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).
Harpy: …with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card. See Soldier.
Medusa: …may discards(singular) a Curse. If they don’t, they gain… See Mountebank.
Concept:
The attacks (especially Harpy) can be really unfunny when Necropolis is in the game. Just imagine, the player who plays Necropolis first hits an opponent with 5 Coppers in their hand. How about restricting the Attacks, e.g.:
“If you have at least one other (Action) card in play, each other player…”
Horse Lady shouldn't have a dividing line.
I'm pretty sure Way of the Birdwoman was tried during testing and didn't make the cut.
Way of the Centaur is too weak. It should be "Gain 2 Horses." That was tested and was fine, but it died for flavor reasons.
Centaur looks like a better Pig now.
I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.
Gargoyle: ...card of their deck...
Should be gender neutral. If you want to be funny you could write ...of her deck...
I like the new Way of the Beast idea to put them all together. I especially like the Set up sentence. I always wanted to shuffle beasts face down...
More serious: Do the players know the next Beast, i.e. is the top one face up? From the wording I assume no, but it may be worth to think about this as a set up.
In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).
Way of the Birdwoman seems intersting to me. Do you remember why it didn't make the cut?
Gargoyle: ...card of their deck...
Should be gender neutral. If you want to be funny you could write ...of her deck...
I did ctrl-c ctrl-v in Spy text at Wiki and I didn't notice it. Of course, I don't want the cards of this set to use male pronoms. For my taste, I would use "her", but I think it's better be neutral. I will change it. Thank you!
I like the new Way of the Beast idea to put them all together. I especially like the Set up sentence. I always wanted to shuffle beasts face down...
More serious: Do the players know the next Beast, i.e. is the top one face up? From the wording I assume no, but it may be worth to think about this as a set up.
I used the same rule used for Hexes. I think I will keep the next Beast unrevealed, because if it's Medusa and Curses are gone no one would want to play it.[/quotes]
In my understanding of non-Supply card, I would say you don’t need (better: you shouldn’t have) “This is not in the Supply”. All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. All non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Horse, Bat, Madman) have it (in parentheses).
So I think I can remove it from Novices also, right?
You are right that it is not a huge difference and Ways are less sensitive to power differences than Kingdom cards anyway. I nonetheless think that the card is too similar to Pig. I think it would be smarter to do stuff with only Villagers or Horses; that differentiates it more from official Ways.I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.
In terms of game playing, I don't think it's a big problem, as it plays differently. All of these cards can be played by Way of the Mouse and are not only better than Way of the Pig, but strictly better than it (in many cases, so much better):
Harbinger, Merchant, Village, Pawn, Wishing Well, Haven, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Menagerie, Scheme, Vagrant, Market Square, Sage, Urchin, Caravan Guard, Patrician, Settlers, Chariot Race, Pixie, Secret Cave, Border Guard.
I think it's possible in the case of the Ways and already done by an official card (Way of the Mouse) because of the recomendation of not using more than one Way per game. They will never be seen togheter, so there's no risk of the weaker be useless.
Edit: I also don't think Way of the Centaur is too much strong. You spend a card and an Action now to have a card and an Action in the future. If you save the action for the future, it's terminal.
You are right that it is not a huge difference and Ways are less sensitive to power differences than Kingdom cards anyway. I nonetheless think that the card is too similar to Pig. I think it would be smarter to do stuff with only Villagers or Horses; that differentiates it more from official Ways.I did not say it is strictly better. But a Villager is better than an Action and a Horse is roughly similar to drawing a cars.
Pig is already one of the strongest Ways, so I don’t see the appeal of a buffed version.
In terms of game playing, I don't think it's a big problem, as it plays differently. All of these cards can be played by Way of the Mouse and are not only better than Way of the Pig, but strictly better than it (in many cases, so much better):
Harbinger, Merchant, Village, Pawn, Wishing Well, Haven, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Menagerie, Scheme, Vagrant, Market Square, Sage, Urchin, Caravan Guard, Patrician, Settlers, Chariot Race, Pixie, Secret Cave, Border Guard.
I think it's possible in the case of the Ways and already done by an official card (Way of the Mouse) because of the recomendation of not using more than one Way per game. They will never be seen togheter, so there's no risk of the weaker be useless.
Edit: I also don't think Way of the Centaur is too much strong. You spend a card and an Action now to have a card and an Action in the future. If you save the action for the future, it's terminal.
Re: Beasts
1) it seems too similar to Hexes; though I guess it is different than a way that just said "Each other player receives the next Hex" since it can be blocked.
2) since they are not hexes; the "play, leaving it there" is awkward, since I assume you're then supposed to discard it somewhere? Or move it to the bottom of the pile? As written, I'd read this as you don't know the beast until the first time it's used, but then it's that beast for the rest of the game.
3) if someone gets to a point where they have a whole bunch of actions (or villagers) and action cards, can they just devastate other players on a turn? I wonder if some limit of once per turn would be good?
Quote BEASTS SETUP AND RULES |
Just to clarify, when you play a Beast, would it be considered to be "in play"?
Also, if I understand correctly, previous Action cards don't need to be played as Ways for the purposes of determining which effect gets triggered by Way of the Beast, right?
I think there needs to be some text somewhere to clarify that the Beasts stay in the supply and don't come into your deck when you play them.
Way of the Beast should say "If you have an odd number of Actionscards...".
For Gargoyle, I would recommend switching "his" for "their".
My sense is that this is still quite powerful.
Edit: Clarified question
Quote BEASTS SETUP AND RULES |
Maid: I think this is quite strong for $2 cost card. I would consider changing it to $3 or removing one of the choices.
Mirror: I like your Throne Room variant. I'm not sure if it should cost $2 or $3. I think in most cases you would choose to trash Mirror, unless you are using it to trash Ruins (which makes this better than Throne Room in this scenario).
Faithful Knight: I think there's a "." after the +1VP that doesn't need to be there.
Gravedigger: Salvager and Graverobber had a baby! It's beautiful, but I think the wording could be simplified a bit. I don't think it's necessary to have "If the trashed card costs $1 or more" (you can refer to how it is worded in Salvager).
Nurse: There is a stray "it" after "card" in the third sentence. Nurse is vulnerable to hand size attacks unlike Duration cards like Gear, Church, and Cargo Ship. It's not necessarily a flaw, but I'm just curious if that was intentional.
Warriors: It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.
Wishing Fountain: I think this should cost $3 like Wishing Well, or you should consider tweaking it to be able to reveal more than 2 cards to find matches. You'd have to be quite lucky to have both cards be the same; in most cases you will probably only gain 1 card to your hand.
Blessing: I feel like the net result of this is that you pay $5 now to gain a card costing up to $6 directly to your hand in the future. The option to trash in nice and there is some synergy with Blessed Gems if play both in the same turn, but it still seems a bit weak overall.
Buffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
Circus Camp: I think it may be overpriced; it's effectively a slightly better Village.
Golden Spoils: I like how you've combined Spoils with Fool's Gold. Shouldn't the top corners should say $? instead of $2?, since they can be worth either $2 or $4?
Immolater: I'm not sure about the cost here. It's essentially a Chapel that gives you some coin. It could be quite strong early in the game, but will become much weaker over the course of the game, especially in games without cursers or junkers.
Magic Library: What is the rationale behind the wording for the reaction "After another player finishes playing an Attack card...", as opposed to the more standard "When another player plays an Attack card"?
Shipmaster: If I understand the card correctly, is this essentially like a Scheme except that it gives you one additional action this turn and +1 Card the next?
Paladin: I think this is a bit weak for $6. It's slightly better than Destrier because of the sifting, but Destrier has a variable cost and is usually expensive at $6.
Guildmaster and Novices
I think this is a very creative and innovative mechanism! I would love to see you explore this design space more.
Young Saboteur: Typo ("trashes" not "trashs")
I haven't carefully reviewed the Events, Projects, and Ways (other than Way of the Beast) yet, but will try to do so when I have a chance.
Overall, I think the set looks quite good. I haven't really paid much attention to how all the cards work together, since there are quite a lot of them. There are some very intriguing concepts like the Secret Place mat and Hidden Pond mat.
Magic Library: What is the rationale behind the wording for the reaction "After another player finishes playing an Attack card...", as opposed to the more standard "When another player plays an Attack card"?
Paladin: I think this is a bit weak for $6. It's slightly better than Destrier because of the sifting, but Destrier has a variable cost and is usually expensive at $6.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/133/full/Maid_%283%29.png?1607236730)
I think it's OK. It's the female version of Pawn. Both give you two vanilla bonus (different for Pawn, same for Maid). All the things Maid could do are similar or weaker than what a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cost card does - 2 Cards (Moat), 2 Actions (Necropolis), 2 Buys (less than a Squire), (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (less than a Duchess).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/998/009/full/Gravedigger_%2829%29.png?1607666037)
I put this clause for it doesn't stay unnecessarily next turn when you trash Coppers with it.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
QuoteWarriors: It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/205/full/Warriors_%281%29.png?1608369603)
I initially thought to put it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), but it's stackable and could give you a lot of +buys, so I think maybe it' OK at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). I don't know for sure.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Here's my response to Carline's most recent comments:(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/133/full/Maid_%283%29.png?1607236730)
I think it's OK. It's the female version of Pawn. Both give you two vanilla bonus (different for Pawn, same for Maid). All the things Maid could do are similar or weaker than what a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cost card does - 2 Cards (Moat), 2 Actions (Necropolis), 2 Buys (less than a Squire), (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (less than a Duchess).
I think Timinou is right, actually. Remember that the versatility is a BIG deal. Let's analyze the options that Pawn has:
+1 Card, +1 Action: Useless cantrip. Can't actually exist by itself, so I'll call it a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) effect.
+1 Card, +1 Buy: +1 Card and +1 Buy aren't all that much better combined than by themselves. And that's because the strength of +Cards and +Buys are very highly dependent on what else the card does; more so than other vanilla effects. I'd probably call this a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) effect; it would be reasonable for an Attack card to give out a card with this effect.
+1 Card, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png): +Cards are generally better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), so this is between +2 Cards and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). Probably a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) effect.
+1 Action, +1 Buy: See my comment on +1 Card, +1 Buy. Another (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) effect.
+1 Buy, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png): Strictly worse than even a terminal Candlestick Maker, and strictly worse than Herbalist, which is already a bottom-tier (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)-cost. Probably a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) effect.
As you can see, most of the effects that Pawn can give are junk-level bad, and the rest are Scout-level. Maid, on the other hand, has some effects that would be reasonable to pay for without the versatility. I'd say the Maid's strictly-better-than-+2 Cards-ness is superior to Moat's, and that Maid should probably cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Likewise, Maid's strictly-better-than-+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)-ness is superior to Duchess's. In fact, I'd argue that Duchess is actually worse than a pure +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), as your opponents didn't have to spend a buy and then later a card slot and an action to get the self-spy effect. Giving an effect to every player is generally worse than not getting it at all for this reason.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/998/009/full/Gravedigger_%2829%29.png?1607666037)
I put this clause for it doesn't stay unnecessarily next turn when you trash Coppers with it.
It doesn't need that clause to avoid staying out unnecessarily. The official rule for Durations is that "a Duration is not discarded from play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn on which it does something," and getting +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) doesn't count as "doing something." Same reason Research doesn't stay in play when you trash a Copper with it (putting zero set aside cards into your hand doesn't count as "doing something").
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
QuoteWarriors: It's a clever concept, but I think it may be a bit weak for $4.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/205/full/Warriors_%281%29.png?1608369603)
I initially thought to put it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), but it's stackable and could give you a lot of +buys, so I think maybe it' OK at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). I don't know for sure.
You play Dominion very differently from how I do if you don't think that getting upwards of 4 Buys is needlessly excessive most of the time. The excessive amount of +Buys you can get usually doesn't make up for the fact that it's more expensive than Village and doesn't draw. Because of cards like Villa and Cavalry, the fact that the conversion is mandatory can even be detrimental in some instances.
I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?Quote(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
Quote(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?
Quote(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
Okay, your +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) short if you didn't play the Buffoon.I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?
You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.
EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.
Quote(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
Okay, your +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) short if you didn't play the Buffoon.I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?
You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.
EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.
I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?
EDIT: Does this wording works?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/009/390/full/Buffoon_%2834%29.png?1608504759)
"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.
Maybe "non-Command nor Victory" card?Quote(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
Changed "show" to "reveals".
The spirit of the card is "they choose and you choose over they choice". It won't be this card without this.
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
I have an edge case for you: The player to your left reveals a Duchy. There's only one Duchy left, and you know that if either you or your opponent gains it, the game ends and you lose, but you have enough to buy a Province this turn and that would make you win. So your only option is to choose to play it twice. But playing a Duchy doesn't make any sense, as Victories aren't playable. What happens?
In this edge case you pointed, the solution is easy: if you would buy a Province and win the game, you don't need to play the Buffoon. However, I agree that in general it's strange that there is a play option and they can reveal a non-playable card. Should I add something like "if it's a playable card..." to the option?
Okay, your +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) token is on the Buffoon pile and you'd be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) short if you didn't play the Buffoon.I may be getting the rule wrong, but doesn't the game end at the end of the turn, not the moment the pile is empty, so you could both gain the duchy and then go on to buy the province?
You're right. It's a bad example. But my point that you could be in a situation in which the only right move is to play a Victory card still stands.
EDIT: Just thought of an example where getting a Duchy and a Province would cost you the game, but just a Province wouldn't.
You have Wolf Den and Wall as Landmarks. Getting a Duchy would give you a net loss of 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) due to it being your first Duchy and you already being over 15 cards. Not getting the Duchy would therefore put you one point higher than you would be if you did get it, and would prevent a tie, and you went first so your opponent would win the tiebreaker.
I think there's no need to find more examples related to endgame edge cases, at least for the purposes of Buffoon analysis. I think the point about playing a Victory is already demonstrated by you and I already said that I don't think it's a good feature in general to be able to choose the option of playing when a non-playable card is revealed. So, I ask again: do you think that add a "if it's a playable card" to the option fix this?
EDIT: Does this wording works?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/009/390/full/Buffoon_%2834%29.png?1608504759)
"Playable" isn't really a defined keyword in Dominion, and there aren't very many playable cards aside from Treasures and Actions, so I'd prefer limiting it to those two types, but your new wording is probably fine. Assuming it's intended that you can choose the Throne option with non-playable cards as effectively a do-nothing option.
Maybe "non-Command nor Victory" card?
Quote BEASTS SETUP |
I have a few comments on your new cards.
Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"
Way of the Werecat
Wording: …at the end of this turn(after drawing). See Way of the Squirrel, River’s Gift.
Way of the Beasts
I like the idea that you extend the Novice idea of the double-faced cards. This emphasizes your new concept in your set. However, there might be a problem. Gargoyle is too weak compared to the alternatives and would be likely rarely played and thus, Sphinx would be rarely seen.
I have a few comments on your new cards.
Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"Quote from: CarlineIt was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.
Way of the Werecat
Wording: …at the end of this turn(after drawing). See Way of the Squirrel, River’s Gift.
I used the wording of Save, but the one you said is better.
Way of the Beasts
I like the idea that you extend the Novice idea of the double-faced cards. This emphasizes your new concept in your set. However, there might be a problem. Gargoyle is too weak compared to the alternatives and would be likely rarely played and thus, Sphinx would be rarely seen.
It does Spy in your deck too. You think it's weak even with it?.
QuoteWishing Fountain: I think this should cost $3 like Wishing Well, or you should consider tweaking it to be able to reveal more than 2 cards to find matches. You'd have to be quite lucky to have both cards be the same; in most cases you will probably only gain 1 card to your hand.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/509/full/Wishing_Fountain_%281%29.png?1607884043)
Did you see it cares about card types and not card names?
QuoteBlessing: I feel like the net result of this is that you pay $5 now to gain a card costing up to $6 directly to your hand in the future. The option to trash in nice and there is some synergy with Blessed Gems if play both in the same turn, but it still seems a bit weak overall.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/769/full/Blessing_%286%29.png?1607305936)
I don't think this version is weak, it's vanishing Chapel plus a kind of Feast.
QuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
QuoteQuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose. I'm still concerned about the power level. One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster. In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks. In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate. If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much.
Also, how would this work with Ruins? I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.
QuoteQuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074)
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose. I'm still concerned about the power level. One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster. In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks. In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate. If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much.
Also, how would this work with Ruins? I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.
Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).
With Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.
QuoteQuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
[imgwidth=150]https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074[/img]
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose. I'm still concerned about the power level. One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster. In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks. In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate. If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much.
Also, how would this work with Ruins? I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.
Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).
Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile). Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case.QuoteWith Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.
Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.
Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack?
QuoteQuoteBuffoon: I would replace the word "show" with "reveals" to be consistent with other cards. I think giving the opponent the choice of which card to reveal sounds good on the surface, but I think more often than not, they will reveal mediocre cards and Buffoon will end up being weaker than Jester. I feel like it would be better to have the opponent reveal the top card of the deck (I wouldn't have them discard it like with Jester).
[imgwidth=150]https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/008/893/full/Buffoon_%2829%29.png?1608437074[/img]
If they choose a good card, you gain it. If they choose a bad card, you do a kind of Mountebank attack. If they choose a mediocre card like Silver, it's not so bad also, you play it twice.
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of giving your opponent a choice, and then making a decision based on what they choose. I'm still concerned about the power level. One potential consequence of Buffoon is that because one of the options is for every other player to gain a copy of the card, in multi-player games some Supply piles could run out faster. In such a scenario, your opponent could reveal a card whose Supply pile is empty, and your choices would be either to play that card twice (which may not necessarily be useful for you) or force everyone else to gain a Copper, which is fairly weak compared to other junking attacks. In certain games where your opponent is winning, it may actually be beneficial for them to reveal an Estate. If you choose the junking attack, you risk accelerating the end of the game by emptying out a Supply pile, whereas if you choose to gain an Estate, that wouldn't help you much.
Also, how would this work with Ruins? I may be wrong about the rules, but if a player reveals "Abandoned Mine", for instance, you can't force them to gain a copy of it unless it also happens to be the top card in the Ruins Supply pile.
Many attack cards don't do the attack part when a supply pile is empty (Curses for Witch, the revelead card pile for Jester, etc).
Right, but Witch gives you +2 Cards and Jester gives you $2 (and in games with 3+ players you'd have to be unlucky if all players revealed something from an empty Supply pile). Buffoon doesn't do anything in this case other than the sub-par junking effect in this case.QuoteWith Ruins, you may always play them twice if the top card of the pile is not the same of the revelead one.
Depending on what is revealed, it may not always be that helpful.
Have you considered giving Buffoon some vanilla bonuses in addition to the attack?
Also if someone reveals a moat
I have a few comments on your new cards.
Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"Quote from: CarlineIt was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.
Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.
What happens with Night cards?I have a few comments on your new cards.
Touch of Life
This seems to be too strong. For example, you can convert all your Coppers to Peddlers.
What about "Once per game"Quote from: CarlineIt was a Project, so it was once per game. When I converted to Event, I forgot to put the clause.
Just to be sure: I would probably put the "once per game" there, but even then I feel that it is still too strong, mainly because of the Coppers.
Changed it to include a discard. Now Coppers, instead of Peddlers, would be endgame Poachers.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/011/686/full/Touch_of_Life_%2810%29.png?1608677624)
Also, someone in the Dominion Discord pointed this out about another playing-Victories-as-Actions fan card posted there, which also applies to Touch of Life: I think it's too broken to allow Provinces to be played since they can then be gained with Pilgrimage, Changeling, or Kiln.
Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card
I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/012/541/full/Touch_of_Life_%2811%29.png?1608764283)
Maybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card
I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/012/541/full/Touch_of_Life_%2811%29.png?1608764283)
Sorry, missed thatMaybe it should give +1 action, so you can actually play the set aside card
I think maybe Touch of Life could work as an Action. How much do you think it should cost?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/012/541/full/Touch_of_Life_%2811%29.png?1608764283)
It instructs you to play the card.
Pretty sure that this is still too good. You don't need to trash at all, all your Coppers are Peddlers. And Silvers become the card which shall not exist in an unconditional form.but only for one turn, not the entire game. Maybe as a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) it will be hard enough to reach that the power level is okay.
Suppose you open Warehouse/Silver. You get lucky after the first shuffle, hit $6, buy Touch of Life and a second Warehouse. You already got a deck at T5 which nearly draws itself!
Just so you know, the Blessing shown next to its Heirloom in the OP still shows the old version.
Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.
EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.
Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.
Carline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.
They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematicCarline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.
Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.
Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.
I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.
EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.
Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.
Thank you!
I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?
Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?
Sisterhood was a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.
I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.
EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.
Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.
Thank you!
I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?
Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?
Sisterhood was a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.
I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.
They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematicCarline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.
Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.
Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.
They could work as states/artifacts, even if it makes it less thematicCarline, unless I'm missing something, won't all players score the same amount of points with Bishopric?
It's one of the Land Grant Landmarks. You can only get it with Land Grant, which means that it only applies to a single player.
Thanks! I scrolled past that so didn't notice it.
Carline, you may want to consider adding some kind of marking (or create a new card type) so that they don't get mixed with standard Landmarks.
Maybe they could be States without losing thematically if I add "Owner" to their names.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/791/full/Gold_Mine_Owner.png?1609292721)
Or Artifacts if I add "Grant".
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/803/full/Gold_Mine_Grant.png?1609293511)
As my English is not so good, I don't know if these solutions are suitable or not.
However, I think it would be good if they are not confused with normal Landmarks, so a kind of mark or a new type could also be solutions. Which do you think is better?
I suggest simplifying cards wherever you can, especially the ones with very small text. For example, I would either remove Nurse's ability to return cards to the top of your deck or remove its gain-to-hand ability.
EDIT: On Sisterhood, I would specify either "all your unused Actions" or "any number of your unused Actions". "Each of your unused Actions" seems vague to me; I don't know which you mean. Also I'd go for "all". It's simpler.
Sisterhood itself is a cool effect, though maybe too powerful? The power of +Buy is the power to end the game. I'm not saying it's definitely too strong, I'd just keep an eye on that during testing.
Thank you!
I added return to topdeck ability to Nurse to make it a little better, making it not discard good cards if you reveal more than one. And the gain to hand is to make it good to open with. In terms of funcionality only, not text size, do you think it's too strong with these two features?
Nurse also has two parentheses which don't add instructions, only explanations. I myself think they aren't necessary. I copy the first from Save and the second from Nights gained to hand. I would be happy to remove them if this remotion wouldn't cause confusion. What do you think?
Sisterhood was a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), but I changed due to comments that it would be weak. I agree with you that many +Buys would be powerful at endgame. I think it's better to see tests, like you said. The first version converted all Tokens. I changed it because of Villa and Cavalry, but I still really don't know if these particular cases justify this change.
I frankly think Nurse is too weak even with the ability to put good cards back. It's basically a next-turn Border Guard without the Artifacts, which is too weak an effect for the fact that it's gained to hand to make up for, IMO.
It's Border Guard next turn already with a permanent Lantern and the ability of choose between discard or return to deck for each card not put in hand. I think it could help a lot to prepare your next turn. As it puts a card in your hand, it seems ok to me comparing to Night Watchman.
Edit: Does this wording works?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/788/full/Nurse_%286%29.png?1609292330)
Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.
I made a new serie, a cyclic line with mandatory exchanging.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/885/full/Four_Seasons_%283%29.png?1609303652)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/905/full/Spring_%282%29.png?1609306586) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/904/full/Summer_%282%29.png?1609306563) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/903/full/Fall_%285%29.png?1609305624) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/891/full/Winter_%281%29.png?1609304439)
Feedbacks would be very welcome!
Cool concept! How many Seasons would there be in each pile? What would happen if one of the piles runs out?
Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.
Cool concept! How many Seasons would there be in each pile? What would happen if one of the piles runs out?
The rule would be the same for travellers, if a pile is temporary empty, you can't exchange at this time. I still don't know how many Seasons for pile would be better, I think it has to be a number according to the number of players.Maybe add a color to the season type, so you remember to swap them out, similar to the duration orange reminding you to keep it in play.
Maybe the same arrow of Travellers is better, as it is a reminder for the same thing . Do you know how to put it in Card Generator?
I like this a lot as I a am a sucker for cards that want to be matched with others. I also think it is wise to nerf the Laboratory-Season aka Spring as this is potentially the most explosive of the vanila bunch.
Added Traveller type, made all Seasons cantrips and changed Four Seasons to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/918/full/Four_Seasons_%284%29.png?1609312754)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/922/full/Spring_%283%29.png?1609312874) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/921/full/Summer_%284%29.png?1609312847) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/919/full/Fall_%287%29.png?1609312776) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/920/full/Winter_%282%29.png?1609312810)
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/926/full/Amazon_%286%29.png?1609315838) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/980/full/Nightmare_%282%29.png?1609129800)
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/926/full/Amazon_%286%29.png?1609315838) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/980/full/Nightmare_%282%29.png?1609129800)
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/926/full/Amazon_%286%29.png?1609315838) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/980/full/Nightmare_%282%29.png?1609129800)
I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.
Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.
What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.
Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/980/full/Nightmare_%282%29.png?1609129800)
I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.
Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.
What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.
Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".
You'd have to specify "cheapest in (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) is not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), nor is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)).
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
I like this a lot as I a am a sucker for cards that want to be matched with others. I also think it is wise to nerf the Laboratory-Season aka Spring as this is potentially the most explosive of the vanila bunch.
Added Traveller type, made all Seasons cantrips and changed Four Seasons to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/918/full/Four_Seasons_%284%29.png?1609312754)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/922/full/Spring_%283%29.png?1609312874) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/921/full/Summer_%284%29.png?1609312847) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/919/full/Fall_%287%29.png?1609312776) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/016/920/full/Winter_%282%29.png?1609312810)
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
Updated these two cards:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/980/full/Nightmare_%282%29.png?1609129800)
I was aware of this, but it happens only with intentional sub-par playing. Similar situations could happen with Jester, Swindler or Oracle, for example.
Anyway, I think I can reduce this risk.
What I want is to give other cards, especially Coppers when Curse pile is out. Otherwise, you could pin the opponent.
Maybe it could be better if I write "a card you choose from one of the cheapest available in Supply".
You'd have to specify "cheapest in (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)," because once the Coppers and Curses run out, there is no "cheapest" if Vineyards are in the Kingdom ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) is not less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), nor is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)).
You could just say zero cost since it'd be extremely rare for both the Curses and Coppers to run out.
It's probably fine for Nightmare to just say "they gain a Curse (or a Copper if they can't)." If both the Curses and Coppers are out and the game hasn't ended, then that's the fault of the players, not the card.
Nightmare would be a political attack, as you could give one person a scout, and the other a colony in a three person game
That's not really the concern with "political" attacks. The politics issue is "picking who to hose", as Donald X. puts it. For Nightmare, that only happens when there aren't quite enough Curses to go around and you have to pick who gets them. Personally I'd be willing to live with that, but your mileage may vary.
Nightmare would be used in endgames to deplete piles, is that an intended usage?
- Deplete 3 piles faster!
- If there are two provinces left and you lead, give the penultimate province to your opponent, and buy the last one. Checkmate!
Welcome to the Forum!
Welcome to the Forum!
Thank you! Yes, I just joined here because I enjoy Dominion a lot and I really love seeing fan cards. Happy New Year!
I wanted to say the Venus expansion looks awesome. It has a lot of very interesting cards, seems very well put together, and the chosen artwork looks fabulous. I definitely want to play it !!!
Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
Added this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in playAdded this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.
Minor nitpick: "Card" shouldn't be capitalized.
If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in playAdded this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.
I meant that towards my first question of "Why would anyone play it as an action while they could play it as a treasure"If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in playAdded this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.
Yes, but you can reach Buy phase with 7, 9, 12 or any other number of actions played.
I meant that towards my first question of "Why would anyone play it as an action while they could play it as a treasure"If you play it as an treasure card, it still counts towards action cards in playAdded this gainer, a kind of Horn of Plenty variant.Why would you ever play it as an Action? I also think that this should cost more than horn of plenty, seeing as you can get more actions in play than differently named cards
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/018/732/full/Riches_%283%29.png?1609564645)
The answer for your two questions is the same: It gains a card costing exactly the number of action cards played.
Yes, but you can reach Buy phase with 7, 9, 12 or any other number of actions played.
The name and the art don't really make sense together, IMHO. Based on the art, I'd suggest calling it "Noblewoman," or something similar.
Speaking of art, where do you find your art, Carline? Did you draw your art for all these cards yourself?
The name and the art don't really make sense together, IMHO. Based on the art, I'd suggest calling it "Noblewoman," or something similar.
Speaking of art, where do you find your art, Carline? Did you draw your art for all these cards yourself?
I want to name the expensive objects she uses and own, not the woman. Like other treasures of the set (Tiara, Goldens Spoils), the woman is there but the name is the name of the treasure.
Does Jewelry itself count if it is played as an Action?
Unlike Horn of Plenty, you could play it with Throne Room or King's Court. Just wondering if you considered that when determining the cost.
HoP can be crowned.
Does Jewelry itself count if it is played as an Action?
There's no such concept as "playing a card as an Action." It's an Action regardless of when you play it. It always counts itself.
Unlike Horn of Plenty, you could play it with Throne Room or King's Court. Just wondering if you considered that when determining the cost.
She took the pricing advise from me and Something_Smart. I don't know if SS took its Thronability into account, but I didn't think about that.HoP can be crowned.
HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)
HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)Sure, but the card is bonkers not mainly due to number of TR variants. It is stronger and cheaper than HoP in most engines. Unlike with HoP you don't have to work for it.
HoP only has two Throne Room variants that work on it (Counterfeit and Crown), and even then, one of them trashes the Throned card. Jewelry, on the other hand, has both of those, Disciple, Ghost, KC, Mastermind, Procession, Royal Carriage, Scepter, and Throne Room (10 TR variants). 2 is negligible, 10 not so much. (I'm not counting Citadel because it wouldn't be a useful combo with Jewelry the vast majority of the time.)Sure, but the card is bonkers not mainly due to number of TR variants. It is stronger and cheaper than HoP in most engines. Unlike with HoP you don't have to work for it.
What if I remove the Treasure type and keep it only as an Action?I'd also get rid of the "exactly" at that point/change it to "up to"; too hard to line up otherwise.
What if I remove the Treasure type and keep it only as an Action?I'd also get rid of the "exactly" at that point/change it to "up to"; too hard to line up otherwise.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/191/full/Jewelry_%285%29.png?1609622311)Why not just say "... per Action card in play (excluding this)..."?
This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/191/full/Jewelry_%285%29.png?1609622311)
This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/191/full/Jewelry_%285%29.png?1609622311)
This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)?
I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:
If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/191/full/Jewelry_%285%29.png?1609622311)
This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)?
I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:
If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.
Yes, I've already put in Discord a version exactly like you said:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/216/full/Jewelry_%286%29.png?1609625722)
But I think I prefer this version which could gain both, Actions or Treasures, in both phases. Both versions avoid the questions concerning to gain Victories.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/217/full/Jewelry_%288%29.png?1609625754)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/191/full/Jewelry_%285%29.png?1609622311)
This version, which doesn't count itself, is still too strong at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)?
I haven't read the discussion about this card, but I don't understand why this is an Action-Treasure hybrid. I can't see the appeal to be one. What do you think about the idea:
If it's your Action phase: Gain an Action card costing something ... something
If it's your Buy phase: Gain a Treasure costing something ... something.
Yes, I've already put in Discord a version exactly like you said:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/216/full/Jewelry_%286%29.png?1609625722)
But I think I prefer this version which could gain both, Actions or Treasures, in both phases. Both versions avoid the questions concerning to gain Victories.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/217/full/Jewelry_%288%29.png?1609625754)
Did you got any feedback? For me the top version looks very interesting and makes more sense why this is an Action-Treasure card. I mean it doesn't have to be exactly like this, but it is a good starting point in my opinion.
Anyway, it totally depends on what your intention is with this card.
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.
Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.
Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.
I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.
So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/243/full/Jewelry_%2810%29.png?1609628387)
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.
Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.
I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.
So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/243/full/Jewelry_%2810%29.png?1609628387)
I think this looks quite good. The Treasure part is a bit odd, since Jewelry is flexible when it is played during the Buy phase, but on the other hand, it looks elegant as it has the equivalent wording of the Action phase.
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.
Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.
I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.
So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions. If the Kingdom doesn't allow to play many Actions, I think also players wouldn't have too much interest in gaining many Actions, so these Kingdoms wouldn't be so good for its Action gaining anyway.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/243/full/Jewelry_%2810%29.png?1609628387)
The top version is more elegant, the bottom version more versatile. Both make sense as Action-Treasure,as the condition is different in each phase. I don't know for sure which I like more.
My intention is to make a gainer with the challenge of being played in the right place in playing order. And also have an Action gainer in Action phase.
Hmm, then I think it would be better if it is not a Treasure. With the current version, you are likely playing it early on in the Buy phase when you have only a few Action cards. Later on, when you can play a lot of Action cards, you probably don't need the card anymore, or only for a one-time sacrifice to get a Province.
Edit: Just to be sure: I am talking about the version before, not about one of those posted in your last post.
I like the only action type version, but I think it would be uselles if Kingdom doesn't allow to play many actions per turn.
So, maybe this version would be the best one. You can use it in both phases but get different things in each case, making Action phase use needed if you want to gain Actions. If the Kingdom doesn't allow to play many Actions, I think also players wouldn't have too much interest in gaining many Actions, so these Kingdoms wouldn't be so good for its Action gaining anyway.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/243/full/Jewelry_%2810%29.png?1609628387)
Could you maybe make one of those "Otherwise, " rather than specifying Action/Buy phase, just in case we ever get like, a new phase you can play actions or treasures in, or to make it play better in games with this and alion8me's "Lunar Ritual" or whatever?
Here's a look through the first post without remembering what others have already said. They're nearly all mechanically sound by now, so I'll try to focus on interest level:
I always wanted Secret Place more to prepare a future turn than act as a pseudo-trasher (in this function it isn't so different from Exile). This version is too strong as pseudo-trasher, specially in first turns.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/999/553/full/secr.png?1607743725) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/999/552/full/Secret_Place_%286%29.png?1607743471)
So I think in this version. You still can try to use it as pseudo-trasher, but I think it is more trickier to do now.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/190/full/mats1.jpg?1609622223) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/188/original/Secret_Place_%286%29.png?1609622089)
EDIT: Now I see that the problem with all versions so far, including the above, is that you don't have a reason to put good cards there. So, I'm trying a new approach:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/999/553/full/secr.png?1607743725) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/374/full/Secret_Place_%287%29.png?1609637521)
The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.
The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.
What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.
(https://i.imgur.com/XvbKiuu.png)This is cleaner and simpler. The trash is no longer optional but you can also trash this itself to the reaction if you're done with it. Because of losing the option to trash I feel it's closer to $2 cost as well. Good suggestions.
I strongly suggest simplifying Healer. That text is almost unreadably tiny and the effect will be hard to remember. Honestly, lots of attacks put bad cards into your discard pile anyway, either by giving you junk, making you discard cards, or just incidentally flipping past cards looking for good stuff to trash. And of course sometimes you'll just have cards in your discard pile.
Donald X. has a rule these days for all new cards that text has to fit with the large font. I'm not saying all fan cards have to do so as well, but I think it's a good goal to shoot for. To that end, here's my suggested version of Healer (with different art since I couldn't quickly find the art you used):
(https://i.imgur.com/XvbKiuu.png)
EDIT: Whoops! I missed the "r" on "another".
The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.
What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.
It might not be your intention with Secret Place, but it's just something I think you could consider in order to have some more interaction between the different concepts in your expansion. The first time you posted the Season cards, I thought to myself that it would be fun to play with the original Secret Place.
I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.
All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.
Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons.
I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.
All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.
Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons.
If you write "from it's pile" it could duplicate many cards that normally are a trouble to get (Wishes)I may be mistaken, but the duplicate one doesn't interact with seasons, because it says "from the supply" which the seasons are not.
All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.
Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be instersting and also interact with Seasons.
Yes, you're right. If I write "from its pile" could it have some undiserable interaction with existent non-supply cards?
Anyway, even not interacting with Seasons, which version is better?
The last version wouldn't really combo well with the Season cards that you designed.
What do you mean? They're noy supposed to combo, as Seasons are non-Supply. However, I don't see any harmful interaction.
It might not be your intention with Secret Place, but it's just something I think you could consider in order to have some more interaction between the different concepts in your expansion. The first time you posted the Season cards, I thought to myself that it would be fun to play with the original Secret Place.
All previous versions had the same problem of being more wanted as pseudo-trashers and too strong in that role.
Though I think it maybe would be a bit slow to match Seasons in any version, I think about a "duplicate" version which could be insterstingand also interact with Seasons.(edit: it doesn't interact)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/999/553/full/secr.png?1607743725) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/019/374/full/Secret_Place_%287%29.png?1609637521) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/021/030/full/Secret_Place_%289%29.png?1609810478)
Which version do you think is better, "gaining" one or "duplicate" one?
Could this version of Morning still cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)?Here the ideal in an engine is picking up 2 of them to play each turn, starting with the lab play each time. You get the same total as smithy and caravan. It's good to do most of the time, and again opening with them both is often strong.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/021/107/full/Morning_%2812%29.png?1609828777)
On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.
EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.
Path is probably too good. Kusasai had the very same card but with 8D as cost some time ago.
Faithful Knight -
That's an immediate decision; so now I'm thinking if this needs to give Coffers and Villagers at all, and not just +Actions and +$ instead. It seems much simpler, and saves on potential Coffers hoarding too.
On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.
EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.
Thanks for your help, LastFootnote.
About Money Trick:
Mechanics – I started this with the idea of a card that you would better react with than play. So I think about a card which produces money when discarded and I think play actions could be an interesting trigger, they would be a kind of Peddlers not played which you can use even after terminals and even can use more than once per turn if you manage to do it. To it have some use on play, I made it a Treasure with + Buy, so sometimes you may want to play it for the +Buy. The Exile part came when I saw it could lead to an infinite loop if you already draw your deck when use it. Finally, I add a bonus when Exiling.
Theme – As it produce a money that, from play area point of view, comes from nothing, it reminds me coin tricks magicians do. This card preexists to this set and previous version was named Coin Trick. I didn’t find a good picture of a woman doing a coin trick, so I changed to “Money Trick”, which seems to me to be a name magicians do use to tricks with money. I don’t know, maybe there’s a better name.
Cost – Many comments were that it maybe would cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), so I think I will change it to this cost.
Art – One problem with the art of this card is, as it is a Treasure, Card Generator puts a big coin symbol, so there’s not much space for text. Now I made this version in Corel, with text in bigger font. I also fixed the colors order.
I’ll be very happy if you show me a simpler solution or wording for this idea.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/022/347/full/money_trick.jpg?16099151797)
On the subject of making cards simpler, can you summarize the concept of Money Trick? There's got to be a simpler version of that card.
EDT: Also, what is a "Money Trick"? There may be a better English name for the card, depending on what it's meant to be.
Thanks for your help, LastFootnote.
About Money Trick:
Mechanics – I started this with the idea of a card that you would better react with than play. So I think about a card which produces money when discarded and I think play actions could be an interesting trigger, they would be a kind of Peddlers not played which you can use even after terminals and even can use more than once per turn if you manage to do it. To it have some use on play, I made it a Treasure with + Buy, so sometimes you may want to play it for the +Buy. The Exile part came when I saw it could lead to an infinite loop if you already draw your deck when use it. Finally, I add a bonus when Exiling.
Theme – As it produce a money that, from play area point of view, comes from nothing, it reminds me coin tricks magicians do. This card preexists to this set and previous version was named Coin Trick. I didn’t find a good picture of a woman doing a coin trick, so I changed to “Money Trick”, which seems to me to be a name magicians do use to tricks with money. I don’t know, maybe there’s a better name.
Cost – Many comments were that it maybe would cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), so I think I will change it to this cost.
Art – One problem with the art of this card is, as it is a Treasure, Card Generator puts a big coin symbol, so there’s not much space for text. Now I made this version in Corel, with text in bigger font. I also fixed the colors order.
I’ll be very happy if you show me a simpler solution or wording for this idea.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/022/347/full/money_trick.jpg?16099151797)
Unfortunately, I would urge you to abandon the premise of "money from nothing" altogether. In a long turn, it's difficult to track how many coins your Money Tricks made, especially if you can use each one multiple times. In general this concept of "invisible money" is one Donald X. avoids these days. I believe he'd redo Mining Village if he could, shifting the trashing decision to the start of your Buy phase. That's the other thing: if invisible money is created in the buy phase, that's way less bad, since you're about to spend it. But Money Trick creates all this invisible money throughout your turn. It seems like it's just asking for trouble.
I was hoping there was some way to keep the card's core concept without the invisible money, but since the concept is invisible money, I'm not sure what to suggest.
Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction Quote
|
One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:
Money Trick
$? – Treasure - ReactionQuote+1 Coffers
+1 Buy
-----------------------
When any player plays a Money Trick,
you may play this from your hand.
If you do, draw a card, revealed.
If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.
One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:
Money Trick
$? – Treasure - ReactionQuote+1 Coffers
+1 Buy
-----------------------
When any player plays a Money Trick,
you may play this from your hand.
If you do, draw a card, revealed.
If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.
It seems interesting. I think there's no need of the last "if" clause, as you can react with the Money trick you draw.
Money Trick $? – Treasure - Reaction Quote
|
One could make the invisible money visible by using Coffers. However, I don’t like the Reaction part. It doesn’t seem interesting to react to playing an Action card in your own Action phase (in the majority of the cases). What if it reacts to other Money Tricks of any player and uses Coffers for tracking the money? E.g.:
Money Trick
$? – Treasure - ReactionQuote+1 Coffers
+1 Buy
-----------------------
When any player plays a Money Trick,
you may play this from your hand.
If you do, draw a card, revealed.
If it’s a Money Trick, +1 Coffers.
It seems interesting. I think there's no need of the last "if" clause, as you can react with the Money trick you draw.
It depends what you want. I kept it as close to your original version as possible. However, giving less Coffers would be much better and simpler:
Money Trick
$? – Treasure - ReactionQuote+1 Coffers
+1 Buy
-----------------------
When any player plays a Money Trick,
you may play this from your hand.
If you do, +1 Card.
What about this version?When it reacts outside of turn it's Mouse-Baker, a strong effect; and with a lean deck it can be redrawn to produce 2 Coffers per turn. When it reacts in turn, the draw will be more useful with a multi-type Action, but a chain of Money Tricks will be effective for big money strategies, like several Markets (except the first doesn't draw) but more flexible with its Coffers.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/023/671/full/Money_Trick_%283%29.png?1610005878)
Sisterhood: This is just personal preference (though it might not be), but I would make it "any of your unused Actions" instead of "each".
You're right. I'll edit my post.Sisterhood: This is just personal preference (though it might not be), but I would make it "any of your unused Actions" instead of "each".
That has a different function from what Carline intends. "Each" and the intended function of Sisterhood only allow all-or-nothing. "Any" would not be all-or-nothing. This matters because of Diadem and cards that return to your Action phase, like Villa and Cavalry.
Also, 2nd edition Rabble does not say "revealed" Actions and Treasures:Again, you're right. I'll change that in my post too. I was looking at the wiki's list of cards, which for some reason still has the revealed part from 1st ed (though I am going to change it right now). (first ed is better than second according to my brother, because he thinks the best card in the game is THIEF (I'm not joking about this))
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Rabble.jpg)
Thank you very much Something_Smart, Aquila and BBobb! I apreciated so muych your help. I'm reading carefully to all comments and I will do the changes needed to fix the issues, weakness and wording mistakes you pointed. :)No problem! I will give you my analysis of the cards some time in the next week.
Merged Path and Madame into one card (Path) and added other terminal money, a Harvest variant (better than it I hope).Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/027/215/full/Path_%287%29.png?1610178693) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/027/117/full/Fertility_%284%29.png?1610163905)
And 3 cards to have more non attack players interactions: A Wishing Well with a kind of reverse Gladiator bet, a Throne Command with a bit of the kindness of a Duchess and a Black Market gainer with Advisor condition.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/027/220/full/Gambler_%287%29.png?1610181330) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/027/118/full/Heiress.png?1610163964) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/027/167/full/Bootleg_%281%29.png?1610170290)
Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues
Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues
I think with the wording you suggested you could reveal the same copy many times until you draw your deck.
The player to your left reveals a card from their hand. You may reveal a copy from your hand for +1 Card.This is only 21 words (counting the +1 Card as one word) versus your wording's 26 words.
Gambler should end "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for + 1 card" so there isn't trust issues
I think with the wording you suggested you could reveal the same copy many times until you draw your deck.
The text is only followed once. Same reason Mountebank doesn't let opponents just discard any number of Curses for draw-to-X purposes, and Vault doesn't let opponents do the "discard 2 cards to draw one" thing multiple times, etc.
Why would "you may reveal a copy of it from your hand for +1 Card" be followed any number of times when it only allows it once?
Generally, cards don't reveal multiple cards when there's no reason to. For example, Gladiator only has your opponent reveal one card even though it could have them reveal their hand, because it only cares about that one card. Likewise, there's no reason for Gambler to reveal your whole hand when it only cares about one card in it. It would also be less wordy to only reveal one card:QuoteThe player to your left reveals a card from their hand. You may reveal a copy from your hand for +1 Card.This is only 21 words (counting the +1 Card as one word) versus your wording's 26 words.
Heiress is too good. Double BoM/Overlord without any cost restriction is extremely powerful and not compensated by the Exiling. A TR that first drew a card would be very strong at $5 and this TR draws a virtual card that is whatever you wish it to be.
The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.
The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.
Would this version work?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/028/378/full/Heiress_%281%29.png?1610311957)
The problem is not the power level of the compensation but that the effect is far too good to be counterweights by anything. Just imagine Heiress in a Kingdom with Mountebank. Alice plays Heiress as Double Mountebank, Bob gains 2 Curses, 2 Coppers and a Mountebank.
Would this version work?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/028/378/full/Heiress_%281%29.png?1610311957)
It should say costing less than this, so that you cannot play a Mountebank twice if you played Highway before Heiress. I don’t think giving your opponents a copy of the card adequately compensates for the fact that this is still way better than Band of Misfits at the same cost. For example, you could play a card like Moneylender twice and if your opponents already have one in their deck it is actually to your benefit if they gain another copy.
The problem with the card is, that getting too choose any card to play twice without requiring to have it in your hand (like Throne Room needs) is too powerful. For example, Pearl Diver is one of the weakest (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cost cards, so giving it to your opponents is a tiny cost. On the other hand, when you play it with Heiress, Heiress becomes a Lost City (with a tiny upside).
What if gain is optional?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/028/401/full/Heiress_%282%29.png?1610314346)
For formatting, I would put the "twice" after "than this" (sounds better) and would also put a "if they did" before the "They may discard" part, (otherwise, someone will probably ask "to gain what to hand?" Also, for the card's actual on-play ability, I think that its somewhat balanced for 2 and 3 players. But, for example, with 6 players, 6 plays of Heiress by any player can end the game. I can only imagine a game of 6 player where everyone opens (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)/(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and buys and Heiress. The game will probably be over very quickly.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/029/987/full/Heiress_%283%29.png?1610411238)
Gambler:
"The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.Reveal your hand. If it has at least a copy of the revealed cardYou may reveal a copy of it for +1 Card.
You are right. Thanks. I'll edit my postGambler:
"The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.Reveal your hand. If it has at least a copy of the revealed cardYou may reveal a copy of it for +1 Card.
Carline's most recent version of Gambler has that wording, but specifies "from your hand," as it should.
Samurai is likely too good. It is Lab plus Peddler and having an (integrated) Peddler seems better than the one-shot Villager for the opponents.
I like Rebel but the Attack looks too powerful, unless you intend that the card should more or less totally shut down engine play.
Spellbook's bottom-most section (the self-cost increasing) should say "during your turns." See Peddler, Destrier, and Fisherman. Janus' bottom section would be better worded as "during your turns, if your Journey token is face down, this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) less."
Wording aside, there's a big issue with cost increasing effects like Spellbook: What happens if I play 4 Bridges and have one Spellbook in play? Do the 4 Bridges try to lower its cost to -(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png), instead reducing its cost to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), and then Spellbook raises its cost to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)? Or does Spellbook raise its cost to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) first and then the Bridges reduce its price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)?
The discarding option of Resistance makes it too easy to keep it on your mat and use it again IMO. I don't think it needs that. Being a cantrip, it's easy to get it back on your mat anyway.I'd go further. Cantrip Reserve Moats are an old idea and they do pretty much shut down Attack play entirely. In multiplayer they might be viable.
I'll also expand on what the others were saying about Resistance: One big problem with Reserve-Moats is how much worse they are in multiplayer. It doesn't matter if you can Reserve-Moat when the player to your left Militias if one of your other opponents also has a Militia.You could still do a Reserve-Moat by saying "You may call this to set it aside. If you do, you are unaffected by attacks until your next turn."
If you're playing a 4P game, and all of your opponents have Militias, then blocking their Attacks is actually worse than just accepting the Attack, because you either have the same handsize at the end but don't have your Resistance on your mat anymore, or have just 2 cards in hand instead of 3.
New ones:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/542/full/Expectancy_%2812%29.png?1612170450) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/001/full/Night_Ranger_%283%29.png?1612100075) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/572/full/Lanterns_%283%29.png?1612178503) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/516/full/Shenanigans_%2825%29.png?1612155145)
For Ghost Pirate, is this supposed to be the one who plays the card who chooses, or the one who is getting attacked? If it is the one who is getting attacked, you need a (or reveals they can't).
Ah, I get it now. Thanks.For Ghost Pirate, is this supposed to be the one who plays the card who chooses, or the one who is getting attacked? If it is the one who is getting attacked, you need a (or reveals they can't).
It's just "discards a card" if they don't gain a copy. The only way they couldn't do that is if they have no cards in hand, which they don't need to reveal.
how big's the spell pile
i mean, start with same scaling as curses? or just do "same as any other victory pile"?how big's the spell pile
I'm still trying to find the best amount. How many do you think are good?
The problem with Pandora's box is that often you can just gain a $5 card while junking your opponents with estates or Coppers. I would not have your opponents be forced to gain a card.
For Spellbound, for tracking issues, I would make it "trash a card you have in play that you would discard during Clean-Up this turn" to get rid of those problems.
Yes, but a lot of the time when you are buying a $5 card, you are paying $6, especially later in the game.The problem with Pandora's box is that often you can just gain a $5 card while junking your opponents with estates or Coppers. I would not have your opponents be forced to gain a card.
For Spellbound, for tracking issues, I would make it "trash a card you have in play that you would discard during Clean-Up this turn" to get rid of those problems.
The idea of Pandora's Box includes this additional $1 to junk when you buy a $5.
Alright, I'll go through some more. The cards are all fairly high quality, which is it fun to come back to this!
Small Village - Solid design. I don't have any complaints.
Taverner - this is basically strictly better than a vanilla "+1 card, +1 action, +2 buys", which is arguably better than Market Square. I like the idea of +buys on demand, but I feel for the concept to work out it has to be a bit harder to actually get these to the Tavern mat, or to call them. Maybe you only get to call them when you buy a Treasure? Something like that would be good to nerf it and make it more interesting.
Wanderer - I don't understand the theming; what does a Wanderer have to do with Coppers? Anyways, this is decent if unexciting. I would maybe up the price to $3 just to not make it too good in 5/2 openings.
Flame Keeper - This is cool, but I think it needs to cost $4. It is just too powerful as a double opener. Makes it very easy to reach double $5 hands in the second shuffle, and cycles. Compare Mill and Conspirator, both of which are similar to this in different ways, and both also cost $4.
Gambler - This kind of feels like it should be an Attack, but then again it's hardly that. An issue is that if you play multiple Gambler, you may force one player and one player alone to reveal their entire hand in order to block you. It's also another card that really wants to cost $4, given how easy it is to activate in the early game. Finally, it's slow; there is a meaningful decision for the opponent every time you play this, and this slows the game down too much since it's also a cantrip. I would rather go the Tribute route and just have cards flipped from the top of your opponent's deck. This makes it a bit stronger though, so it should then really cost $4 (and might even be too good at that price point).
Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?
I am still confused about why you need that much Silver managing. In a normal game you get like, 2-3 Silvers? Sure there might come a point where I don't want them in my deck anymore, but it's not like I'll buy Tiara, which mind you comes with another of those things I don't really want, just to very slowly get rid of them.Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/002/756/full/Tiara_%2815%29.png?1608001503)
Thank you again!
Tiara is a Silver manager. You may gain one Silver at each play if you want. You may gain two Silvers at a play trashing Tiara. Or you may trash a Silver at each play without gaining one, if you want to get rid of Silvers. When you trashed all the Silvers you want to trash, you may autotrash Tiara.
I am still confused about why you need that much Silver managing. In a normal game you get like, 2-3 Silvers? Sure there might come a point where I don't want them in my deck anymore, but it's not like I'll buy Tiara, which mind you comes with another of those things I don't really want, just to very slowly get rid of them.Tiara - I don't understand this card. It gains Silvers but you also have to trash Silvers to keep it around? Seems like you want this when you want Silvers, but then you don't want to trash them again. It feels like you should decide whether this is a complete 1-shot or a more regular Silver gainer. Also not sure it needs the "you may"; if you don't want Silvers, why did you get this in the first place?
Thank you again!
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/002/756/full/Tiara_%2815%29.png?1608001503)
Tiara is a Silver manager. You may gain one Silver at each play if you want. You may gain two Silvers at a play trashing Tiara. Or you may trash a Silver at each play without gaining one, if you want to get rid of Silvers. When you trashed all the Silvers you want to trash, you may autotrash Tiara.
So I don't think it works when you want to get rid of Silver. It's only realistic use is mass Silver gaining a la Masterpiece. In which case, 95% of the time, I'll just use this as a one-shot for 3 Silvers. (the other 5% are games with Conquest) A Treasure that does nothing except net-gain one Silver isn't worth keeping around in pretty much any deck.
EDIT: Reacting to your edit! I guess my issue is that the only realistically usable option from the ones you listed is Gain 2 Silvers, trash Tiara.
I think it's fine to have one-shot cards that you may only buy once a game.
IMO, Tiara might be more useful if it gave you two Silvers when gained (it could cost $4 instead of $3), because then I could this being used more often to open games where you really want to hit $5 or $6 after the first shuffle.
The discarding option of Resistance makes it too easy to keep it on your mat and use it again IMO. I don't think it needs that. Being a cantrip, it's easy to get it back on your mat anyway.
I'd go further. Cantrip Reserve Moats are an old idea and they do pretty much shut down Attack play entirely. In multiplayer they might be viable.
But the two extras this has over a pure cantrip Reserve Moat push it over the top.
I'll also expand on what the others were saying about Resistance: One big problem with Reserve-Moats is how much worse they are in multiplayer. It doesn't matter if you can Reserve-Moat when the player to your left Militias if one of your other opponents also has a Militia.
If you're playing a 4P game, and all of your opponents have Militias, then blocking their Attacks is actually worse than just accepting the Attack, because you either have the same handsize at the end but don't have your Resistance on your mat anymore, or have just 2 cards in hand instead of 3.
Resistance - this one has a bit too much going on for my liking. I don't see why it has the thing where you can put it back on the mat instantly, I think that should just be scrapped. I am not in love with the double dividing line, but I can kind of see why it has extra buys. It might be a solution to just put the buy as an extra on-play effect and get rid of the when-gain.
You all are right. Thank you! Create a calling defense is not easy. There are at least three challenges:I don't think this a step in the right direction. For one, I very much doubt that this version will be useful without attacks. More generally, it's hard to even understand what's going on; you have sacrificed simplicity for some perceived versatility.
- Make it scale well with any number of players;
- Make it good to block attacks but not invencible;
- Make it useful when kingdom doesn't have Attacks.
I created this mat version to try to fullfill these conditions.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/071/916/full/matres.jpg?1612594686) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/071/915/full/Resistance_%2825%29.png?1612594664)
Swamp:
Though this isn't necessary, I would change this to an on-gain ability. Donald X. is moving away from on-buy and moving towards on-gain. Also, I wouldn't make it a victory card since it gives negative points. I wouldn't call it a curse either, so I dunno what to call it.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/071/935/full/Nomad_%2811%29.png?1612599067)
Privilege is too good. The condition is really not that hard to achieve, all you need is draw or discard Attacks which the majority of Kingdoms do have. The only neat thing about it is that it is a bad opener (unless there is Urchin).
Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.
An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.
True that, my mistake. I still think that it is a bit too straightforward as engine payload.Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.
An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.
If you have 6 cards in hand, then when you play Privilege, you'll have 5 cards in hand, which is the same number of cards as your opponents, not more.
Who is Nomad? Why would you need 7 cards instead of just 6?
Terminal payload does require terminal space and quite often a Gold could be better. And of course stop cards should always be added carefully. But that is a general notion and not every board has Peddlers for payload.
An Animal Fair with a trivial pseudo condition to trigger it is simply too good for $4.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/072/125/full/Big_Hall_%281%29.png?1612623881)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/070/967/full/Heiress_%2821%29.png?1612542087)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/071/960/full/Path_%2810%29.png?1612610310)
Due to the release of Allies expansion, I have to change the name of all these cards of my fan cards set. Any suggestions?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/091/full/Emissary_%285%29.png?1612110586) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/793/full/Guildmaster_%285%29.png?1607575995) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/065/426/full/Voyage.png?1612297653) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/068/285/full/Stronghold_%288%29.png?1612443587)
I think this probably happens with many fan cards creators when an official expansion is released. Did it happen to you?
Due to the release of Allies expansion, I have to change the name of all these cards of my fan cards set. Any suggestions?
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/091/full/Emissary_%285%29.png?1612110586) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/996/793/full/Guildmaster_%285%29.png?1607575995) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/065/426/full/Voyage.png?1612297653) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/068/285/full/Stronghold_%288%29.png?1612443587)
I think this probably happens with many fan cards creators when an official expansion is released. Did it happen to you?
No entiendo la carta Valquiria.Caballos son unas cartas en el decimotercero expansión de Dominion, Menagerie (no sé el nombre en español). Este es un enlace a la carta: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Horse. Lo siento si mi español no es perfecto, lo estoy aprendiendo.
¿Que caballo hay que coger? ¿Donde está esa carta?
Supongo que deb ser una carta que no está en las versiones en español.
No entiendo la carta Valquiria.Caballos son unas cartas en el decimotercero expansión de Dominion, Menagerie (no sé el nombre en español). Este es un enlace a la carta: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Horse. Lo siento si mi español no es perfecto, lo estoy aprendiendo.
¿Que caballo hay que coger? ¿Donde está esa carta?
Supongo que deb ser una carta que no está en las versiones en español.