TYPE: ActionThere are a total of of 30 Snow cards in each game.
Cost: 3$
+1 action
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, the first time each other player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
X plays Snowy Village
X plays Village
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/890/original/Eismagier4.png?1611935999)
Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage
Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 3 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction (- Attack)
The Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.
It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normalThe Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.
It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.
But the card still gives actions, it's just ignored(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.
no, because the further +Actions are ignored (due to the first Snowy Village)
It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normalThe Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.
It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.
But the card still gives actions, it's just ignored(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)if they already have a snowy village in play, would a normal village count as a card giving +2 actions?QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/bc403676984844eeea66046d967a2a96/image.png)Just was wondering, if I play a Snowy Village (which I think I don't get snow with), then I play a Village, do I get Snow from playing the Village? I don't think I do, but I was just wondering.QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, when another player plays an Action card that gives them +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
A haunted woods that attacks village use (but only of the common +2 Actions variety)
I tried a couple wordings that'd make it hit like, Snowy or Bustling village and they were a mess, so just when it gives an explicit "+2 Actions".
EDIT: Just answer the one that LittleFish posted. Also, I hadn't seen your post before I posted.
no, because the further +Actions are ignored (due to the first Snowy Village)
Sorry, when I started typing my post you hadn't posted the new version of your card, so I hadn't seen the change.I know, that's why I changed it.It doesn't matter, it still doesn't need the parentheses. See Minion and Pirate Ship. They don't always attack, its the players choice whether they attack or not, and they have the attack type like normalThe Attack type doesn't need to be in parentheses. Also, though the first the options are fine, the third option is just oppressive. I King's Court this, and you gain 9 SNOWS. That is just too oppressive. I would change it to 2 Snow Cards.
It used to be 2, but then I changed it to 3 as I didn't yet have the +2$ with the attack, and kinda forgot to change it back. I don't think that the King's Court is an issue, as you'll rarely be playing with king's court and it's OP as is.
I'll change it back to 2 Snow-Cards, especially because you can use Icemage to throne room another Icemage without using up an action and that way every player would gain 6 Snow-Cards which seems to be too much.
The parantheses is there as you can choose it not to be an attack.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Ice Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/912/original/Eismagier5.png?1611937207)
Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage
Choose one:
Play an action card form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snow-Cards.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
-------------------------
Ver. 2
Choose one: Play an Action card from your hand twice; +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and each other player gains 2 Snows.
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange that card for a card from the Supply costing exactly $2 more than it.
(https://i.imgur.com/pFsJWAN.png)
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/14t84w6p.png)QuoteIce Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.
This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.
open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.(https://i.imgur.com/pFsJWAN.png)
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/14t84w6p.png)QuoteIce Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
Buying one of these "junks" everyone, but you're pretty happy to have that "junk." Ice castles love snow, after all! Playing Ice Castle followed by a Snow turns that Snow into a Horses that gain you a $4! Of course, you're going to have trouble playing an Ice Castle and then a Snow, so without Villages, it'll be still hard. And in a game with some junking (Snow) it'll be even harder to line them up. Good thing this is a kind of trasher -- You can think of this like a more flexible Money Lender. Trash coppers in the beginning, and when you're desperate, well you can always turn this into a terminal silver at end of turn and then trash your gold. Great use for your cursed gold, as well.
This can trash Night cards. The +2 Cards you get aren't going to be useful, but the more flexible remaking can be useful. At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
Rats, Fortress, self-trashing cards, there's lot's of fun combos with this. The difficulty is having enough actions to do it all, of course.
open to feedback, of course! The one thing I was debating on was the "if you trash" part of the clause, but I think it's fun and gives you another reason to trash your snow castles with snow castles.
Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)
One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)
I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.(https://i.imgur.com/pFsJWAN.png)
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/14t84w6p.png)QuoteIce Castle | Action | $5[...]
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
[...]
Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)
One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/14t84w6p.png)QuoteIce Castle | Action | $5[...]
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
At the end of the game, if you don't have enough Treasures to buy a Duchy, end your Action phase with Ice Castle, then play a Vampire, gain a Duchy, and then trashing the Vampire to gain another duchy (and +2 cards).
[...]
Would it trash a Vampire though or does it lose track because of the exchange? (the only official "The next time you play a card this turn" card is Kiln, and since it gains it doesn't care about where the played card is. Also it uses the word first, so you could do that here?
That's feels weird, though, trashing the Vampire then playing it. (and in that case, would the exchange then fail?)
One last note with this - if we determine you don't trash the Vampire (or other cards that move on play, like Horse), then the Otherwise becomes ambiguous. Would it occur if you don't trash (as opposed to if you do trash a non Treasure)
Yeah I just realized Vampire was a bad example. Snow Castle loses track, so the Vampire is not trashed. Good catch. This actually makes Snow Castle pretty good to use on Vampires (gain a free $5!). The draw back is you can't play any Treasures if you want to take advantage of this. I should have used an example like Devil's Workshop.
I didn't intend for the otherwise to be ambiguous, the otherwise was meant for non-Action card. The gaining happens regardless on if you actually trashed a card. If I wanted it to be conditional on successful trashing I would have used either "Trash a card to ..." or "Trash a card. If you did,..." clauses.
Thank you so much for your feedback.
This is my stab at improving the wording:QuoteIce Castle | Action | $5
The next time you play a card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
I believe this is unambiguous. The "It" is always satisfied from the previous sentence, the card you played, regardless of whether you were able to trash it or not.
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, gain a card costing up to $1 more and +2 Cards.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow
I did think about Summon but the wording seemed artificial and less compact. "Play" is clearly defined in the rulebook, you put it into your play area and (normally) discard it in Cleanup.Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.(https://i.imgur.com/pFsJWAN.png)
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.
I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)
I agree. Paddock is perhaps the most radical example of how bad the draw delay of Horses can be. The card becomes superpowerful from a net effects analysis (Lab plus Double Peddler) once a pile is empty, but you often cannot exploit it (long enough) due to the delay.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.
I did think about Summon but the wording seemed artificial and less compact. "Play" is clearly defined in the rulebook, you put it into your play area and (normally) discard it in Cleanup.Thanks, I already fixed it, it was a remnant from a previous version.(https://i.imgur.com/pFsJWAN.png)
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
I think the comma changes the meaning of this from what you intend to being able to play any non-Command, any Action, or any Treasure. The comma should not be there.
I would also recommend making it gain and then play a card just so that it's clearer that you keep the card you emulate. You could word it like Summon: "Gain a non-Command Action or Treasure card costing up to $5. Set it aside. If you did, play it." (The setting it aside in this case is for tracking, so you can't topdeck it with Watchtower and then play it without putting it into play.)
For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.
Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.
I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.
I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.
Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.
For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.
Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.
The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.
There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).
Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.
Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).
The card is not gained. Just like an Exiled or passed or exchanged card is not gained yet still becomes yours.For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.
Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.
The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.
There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).
Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.
Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).
I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
I mean, even if it averages out at being a simple cantrip, which one could argue grants no benefit overall, I'd disagree. I think spiking in a turn is worth it if you need to achieve something meaningful and fast. Harbinger is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) cantrip with something on top, which is more than the sum of Arctic Base's parts, yet I'd still take Arctic Base over it pretty much always.
Spiking is good, but this card doesn't really help you that much with that. You can't control how Snow's and Bases mix up. If you play 3 Bases and draw 3 Snows, you haven't spiked at all.
Not sure quite what counts as spiking, but compared to a cantrip Arctic Base certainly increases the irregularity of how good the draw is. And the first Arctic Base you play will not draw any Snows (at least, none that were gained via Arctic Base!).
If you want to increase the irregularity still further, you could increase the draw by one and gain an extra snow - I've been considering such things for my Snowball entry, which is along similar lines.
Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.What kind of crazy thing is this, opening $4/3 guaranteeing a $5 on turn 2? Well next turn terminal silver is not great to carry in the deck afterward. It's all about the trash attack, so coming in early (as is needed for trashing) shapes the game away from the usual trash meta. You can try to anticipate when an opponent will trash and catch them out.
At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
-
When you gain this, you may play it.
The card is not gained. Just like an Exiled or passed or exchanged card is not gained yet still becomes yours.For a fan card submission a long time ago, I did "Gain and play." You could also use "Gain and immediately play." Both are pretty compact and help clarify. I didn't understand Builder until I read your explanation, so I think you could make it a little clearer.I am too stupid to get the stop-moving rule and the potentially weird interactions such a wording could have. Gain normally means that the card lands in your discard pile. "Gain and immediately play" implies that the card moves into your play area but I still think it can be misread.
Gubump mentioned Watchtower and I am not sure how "Gain and play" would interact with Watchtower, i.e. whether you could topdeck the card and yet still play it.
Play is clear, the card does not (potentially) visit an area it is not meant to visit and lots of other cards (Imp, Conclave, emulators) specify that a card is played from the hand or the Supply.
The issue I see is that is is not clear you have "gained" the card.
There isn't any official case of "play"ing a card that is not yours that then becomes yours. Either you "play it, leaving it there" and it does not become yours. Or you gain it first, then play (e.g. Summon).
Consider Exile, that introduces a concept that allows you to move a card from Supply in such a way that it becomes yours without gaining.
Put another way: while still feeling weird, it makes sense it moves into your area, and then gets discarded into your discard pile (and is now yours). But it is no way clear that the card was actually "gained". Which would matter for several interactions (e.g. Smugglers, Trade Route, Treasure Hunter, etc).
This is not a radical idea but just a slight modification of emulators that is, at least IMO, the most compact and rule-issue-preventing way to implement the idea.
I don't know if this is too strong with $5s, but the cantrip Workshop area is already covered by Sculptor, Cobbler and Falconer so I wanted to try something that gains $5s.
Note that this is not a conventional emulator, it plays a card from the Supply without leaving it there so it is "gain and play".
I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
Arctic Base is nicer as a consistency tool than Caravan is because Caravan only does something for you on half of the turns you buy it at most, whereas this can do something every turn. It's not net draw, of course, but the reason you're buying this is to make the chance that you are able to draw your smithy + village or whatever it is together more likely. For Advisor, Arctic Base doesn't fail in the way Advisor can when your deck has a lot of junk. Obviously Arctic Base will also occasionally get trash for benefit synergies as well.
Having said that - I don't believe this is particularly strong for $4 either, and Caravan/Advisor are probably stronger cards in general. But it also wouldn't look out of place at that price to me.
(I realize anordinaryman just responded in a similar vein, but I had finished typing this up before I had realized they posted and I think this is different enough to be worth posting anyways)
I think the reason segura said that is because of my original claim "I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even."There are pretty common scenarios where I think you would buy this over Caravan/Advisor.I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
Arctic Base is nicer as a consistency tool than Caravan is because Caravan only does something for you on half of the turns you buy it at most, whereas this can do something every turn. It's not net draw, of course, but the reason you're buying this is to make the chance that you are able to draw your smithy + village or whatever it is together more likely. For Advisor, Arctic Base doesn't fail in the way Advisor can when your deck has a lot of junk. Obviously Arctic Base will also occasionally get trash for benefit synergies as well.
Having said that - I don't believe this is particularly strong for $4 either, and Caravan/Advisor are probably stronger cards in general. But it also wouldn't look out of place at that price to me.
(I realize anordinaryman just responded in a similar vein, but I had finished typing this up before I had realized they posted and I think this is different enough to be worth posting anyways)
I do think it's kind of funny that segura said "would you prefer this over Caravan or Advisor" when both of those cost MORE. You generally prefer more expensive cards over cheaper cards, that's why they're more expensive...
(https://i.imgur.com/6U3wy1m.png)Though not obviously, I feel like this is a little similar to Masquerade. It draws three cards, and puts a snow onto your deck. This is essentially +3 Cards, take your -1 Card Token, or somewhat similar to +2 Cards. It then trashes a card from hand, which is very similar to Masquerade. Though it is slightly more powerful (+3 Card, -1 Card token is more powerful than +2 Cards), it can also be argued that its slightly weaker (no passing cards. I would say passing cards is more of a positive than a negative), so I think it probably could cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
Winter Retreat
Action - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. If it's a Snow, +1VP and Exile this, otherwise gain 1 Snow.
-
1VP
Discard for benefit doesn’t profit in any way from junk in your deck. It is rather the other way around, discard for benefit wants a lean deck that overdraws.I disagree. Would you ever prefer this over Caravan or Advisor?I am not so sure. If you can trash out of hand (Sentry, Lookout) or sift, this could be good. Plus, as always with Horse/Snow, Remodel.(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
Eh? This card nets as being a cantrip, but it's a Laboratory now, pay back later kind of deal. No idea how to appropriately price this.
Very weak, I think. But a good idea nonetheless.
The price is definitely correct, at $2 it would be too good.
The Snow-gaining can be less of a drawback in other situations too (and perhaps even desirable in some), e.g. if there are cards in the Kingdom that care about gains (e.g. Destrier, Sheepdog) or TfB where you want enough junk to feed it. It helps that Snow has a cost of $3 unlike Ruins and Curses.
I like Arctic Base.
I would be surprised if it were too weak for $4 even. I think it compares pretty favorably to Secret Passage. Although the $3/$4 price difference is fairly small anyways so it doesn't really matter.
Games where the only village is Sacrifice I want this over Caravan and Advisor. Games where draw is not too hard, but I want to have lots of cards (Discard for Benefit: Artisan, Artificer, etc. Or Gardens. Or Forge). Games where the only +Buy is salvager so I need something to sacrifice and this prints free snows for me. Tournament games where I badly need to win the first prize, no way I can afford to play Advisor and This gets me my extra card now, rather than waiting for next turn like Caravan.
I don't think these are wild edge cases. I think this card would still have some use as a cantrip snow gainer since many decks can profit over trashing those snows. Making it a lab gives it even more utility. I still think the 3 cost point makes some sense.
Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.
QuoteAbominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.
I don’t think that you can easily compare discard Attacks with „draw one less“ type of Attacks like Minion or Relic. Compared to Relic the card looks OK: better as Snow can stack and as it is cheaper, weaker as it is terminal.
Sleighmaker - $4
Action - Reserve
+1 Action. Gain two Snows. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you return a card to its pile, you may call this for +4 cards.
Though not obviously, I feel like this is a little similar to Masquerade. It draws three cards, and puts a snow onto your deck. This is essentially +3 Cards, take your -1 Card Token, or somewhat similar to +2 Cards. It then trashes a card from hand, which is very similar to Masquerade. Though it is slightly more powerful (+3 Card, -1 Card token is more powerful than +2 Cards), it can also be argued that its slightly weaker (no passing cards. I would say passing cards is more of a positive than a negative), so I think it probably could cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
By the way, the Snow card should have 'Action' capitalized in the text box, the (This is not in the Supply.) should be in italics (this should be done automatically), and it should have the Action type.
It kills me that 'mountain pass' is already taken, but alas
(https://i.ibb.co/njtzQn6/Mountain-Path.png)
Cool concept! It seems like it would be fun to play with.
I’m vacillating between this being a bit too strong or a bit too weak. You could always play this like a quasi-Library without having to gain any junk, which is OK for $5. On the other hand, if you choose to discard to draw more cards, the immediate benefit is good but I feel like you’ll wind up trudging through a lot of Snow in the long run. This reminds me a bit of Rats, where you could easily misplay it. That said, in multiplayer games, the Snow pile could run out pretty quickly and this could become a beast.
(https://i.imgur.com/gz5RFBS.png)
:'(Weekly Design Contest #103: Snow
Hello everyone! You all had some neat ideas for contests, but today i have a bit of hubris, and it also happens to be snowing in sweden where i live! Henceforth this weeks contest...
Design a Card Or WELP that interacts with 'snow' (ie, this fanmade card)
(https://i.imgur.com/BlX94wV.png)QuoteTYPE: ActionThere are a total of of 30 Snow cards in each game.
Cost: 3$
+1 action
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Snow is a temporary junk card, that goes away when you play it. You may design any sort of card, sideways card, or WELP that interacts with it. Or, if you want, your own mechanic with it.
My judging criteria for submissions:
1: Is this card Fun? (does it change the game in a fun way? Does it introduce interesting strategies? is it fun to play?)
2: Is this card understandable? (is there grammar or spelling errors? Does it condradict itself? Also, remember to have an english version if you post in another language!)
I hope you all have fun this week. The deadline for card submissions is February 5th, UTC 20/ 8 PM. ill try to have my judging up around February 6th.
Edit 1: fixed some formatting issues with snow as per silverspawns suggestions. i blame my jetlag!
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.
Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle
how's this interact with Scrying Pool? does SP let you dodge the rule on this, or?
You're right!Before you could play Fortress, then Ice Castle, trashing the Fortress to gain an Ice Castle
Just being pedantic here, but wouldn't you need a 2nd Fortress? You'd need to play the Fortress AFTER the Ice Castle to trash it, not before.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.
Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!
(https://i.imgur.com/VvdoRLXm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/YdPNyZXm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/VbwH2t1m.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/ffR5gIbm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/gNdtOu6m.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/D6IXEWUm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/ixRH7Ejm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/uYyUHClm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/tkJrtffm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/xpKRCOZm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/TMOXYSlm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/cixLftRm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/6GwUkExm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/OgusrSCm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/OXz0oUam.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/F0EjmhSm.png) |
Arctic Passage - $6
Project
At the start of your turn, +2 Buys, +$2.
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Snow.
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.
Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!
You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.
There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/059/804/full/Snow_Queen_%282%29.png?1612051844)
- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.
- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.
is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.
Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!
You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.
There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/059/804/full/Snow_Queen_%282%29.png?1612051844)
- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.
- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.
Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.
UPDATE:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/101/full/Snow_Queen_%283%29.png?1612112741)
Feedbacks are always welcome!
Snow Shoes - $2*This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)
I thought there was only one of these in the pile thoughSnow Shoes - $2*This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)
I must have missed thatI thought there was only one of these in the pile thoughSnow Shoes - $2*This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)
I thought there was only one of these in the pile thoughSnow Shoes - $2*This has accountability issues, because if you have multiple, you don't know if you're just revealing the same one over and over, or if you're actually revealing different ones. I'd suggest "When you play a snow, you may set this aside for +1 card. Once an action card is resolved, return this to your hand"
Treasure - Reaction - Snow Gear
$1
---------------
When you play Snow, you may first reveal this from your hand once per Snow played for +1 Card.
(This is not in the Supply.)
is the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.
Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!
You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.
There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/059/804/full/Snow_Queen_%282%29.png?1612051844)
- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.
- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.
Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.
UPDATE:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/101/full/Snow_Queen_%283%29.png?1612112741)
Feedbacks are always welcome!
Hearth
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.
$7 - Action
(https://i.imgur.com/wDL4QDn.png)Small pedantic thing. It should say "gain 3 Snows"QuoteHearth
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snow.
$7 - Action
If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could haveis the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/057/617/full/Snow_Queen.png?1611929889)This is far too harsh.
Basically Snow is to the -1 Card token what Horse is to +1 Card.
Relic is non-terminal but the token does not stack. So I would think twice about creating a non-terminal Snow junker and never even consider doing a cantrip snow junker.
Snow Queen is a double anti-Lab for the opponents, plus potentially a delayed multi-Lab for the active player. That is crazy!
You're right, thank you! I understimated the power of giving Snows. I though at first glance that giving a Snow was a kind of delayed Urchin attack, but Urchin is not stackable, which makes a big difference.
There was also a issue of exploding on multiplayer games, so I'm updating it to:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/059/804/full/Snow_Queen_%282%29.png?1612051844)
- Changed cantrip part to Upgrade effect, so you can benefit from the Snows you eventually receive from opponents, even remodeling them to Snow Queens.
- Changed triggered effect to a kind of trade-off: you may choose to transform opponent Snow in a cantrip to get Council Room effect.
Previous version still would be a bit messy in multiplayer games with many Snow Queens played. So, I changed the triggered effect to make it discard Snow Queen. Now, when another player plays a Snow, you choose if you want an extra card or give Snows next turn.
UPDATE:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/101/full/Snow_Queen_%283%29.png?1612112741)
Feedbacks are always welcome!
I was in doubt about this rule. I don't like so much a postponed effect without a marker. Discard is to make it draw only one card.
If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could haveThis opens a whole can of worms with other start of turn effects.
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is in play, each other player gains a Snow.
Avalanche ⑤ Action - DurationIt's a Wharf! It's a Hireling! No, it's an Avalanche!
Now and at the start of each of
your turns while this is in play,
+2 Cards and set aside a Snow
from its pile (under this).
-
At the start of Clean-Up, if you
gained a Victory card this turn, or
the Snow pile is empty, discard
this and the set-aside Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/Zj0Oiyy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Zj0Oiyy.png)
This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards. I like this version better.
I'm not sure about the cost. I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly. Feedback welcome!
(https://i.imgur.com/Zj0Oiyy.png)
This was originally called Slippery Slope and forced you to play a Snow from your hand for +2 Cards. I like this version better.
I'm not sure about the cost. I felt like it could cost $2, because while it could potentially draw 6 cards in one turn if you have one Dogsled, your pups will get exhausted pretty quickly. Feedback welcome!
The current wording is a little unclear on wether you get +1 Action aswell/if you actually have to return the snow to it's pile.
If you don't get +1 Action and have to return it, I think it's pretty well balanced, and can lead to an interessting T3 (especially if one would buy 2 Dogsleds in T1 and T2).
It's elegant, but I worry that it would just be very coin-flippy. It either collides with snow or it doesn't, and if it does it's extremely strong.
You are right. I'll change my post.If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could haveThis opens a whole can of worms with other start of turn effects.
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is in play, each other player gains a Snow.
Say you Princed a Herald. You play Snow Queen on one turn and discard it for the effect. At the start of the next turn, you play Herald into Snow Queen. Now, "this" is in play.
You can get rid of this issue by stating "if this is still in play". It's still a bit cumbersome, but it would work.
Here is what I came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/U7gdtLIm.png)
Arctic Castle - $4
Action - Victory - Arctic
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).
---------------
Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).
---------------
When you buy this, you may discard an Action card to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile. If you discarded Snow, +1VP.
I think it's an improvement, but wouldn't it be simpler to just give +2 Cards when you play a snow and not allow you to play a snow from your hand? It's identical for the first Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)
I agree with this. Also, the Snows aren't as bad with this, since they essentially are one-shot coppers if you have this in your hand. So, yeah, probably too powerful.(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)
$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)
$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold
Snow Storm - $5
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn, set aside any number of cards from your hand to gain that many Snow. At the start of your Action phase, play the set aside cards in any order.
Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50899782076_e4022963d3_b.jpg)
If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?
In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card). Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.
If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?
In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card). Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.
You would not get a Snow, unless the logic for rounding in Dominion is different than I assume.
I did have a version that handed out a Snow for every card set aside, but was unsure if that would be too harsh. This is basically a Night phase at the start of your turn with all your Actions acting as Night cards. I did not want multiples of these doubling up, but I think maybe they do, so that is another design flaw. Overall I really could not gauge the power level of the card, so went with something else.
If you play Snow Storm but draw a hand without any Action cards for your next turn, do you still gain a Snow because of the rounding up?
In any case, I think the penalty should be steeper (i.e. a Snow per set-aside card). Otherwise, it can get pretty strong since you essentially won't have any terminal Actions with this in play.
You would not get a Snow, unless the logic for rounding in Dominion is different than I assume.
Oh, you're right. I just had another brain fart (I've been having them all week).QuoteI did have a version that handed out a Snow for every card set aside, but was unsure if that would be too harsh. This is basically a Night phase at the start of your turn with all your Actions acting as Night cards. I did not want multiples of these doubling up, but I think maybe they do, so that is another design flaw. Overall I really could not gauge the power level of the card, so went with something else.
I think that since players can choose how many to set aside, they can still control how much they self-junk. I think a good deck can handle a little bit of Snow, especially since you can clear it away pretty easily.
<Not an entry>
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50899197278_2270cc6454_b.jpg)
+1 CardAnd it was incredibly weak. As in, worse than Harvest or even Stash weak. This is much worse, because not only is it dead the turn you draw it instead of working immediately, but it also floods you with junk.
Set aside any number of Action cards. Play the set aside cards in any order.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) - Action
cool concept
<Not an entry>
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50899197278_2270cc6454_b.jpg)
1. The start of your turn IS the start of your Action phase, so having an at-the-start-of-turn effect immediately followed by an at-the-start-of-your-Action-phase effect is just confusing.
2. This is incredibly weak. I have an old, playtested Fan Card that wasQuote+1 CardAnd it was incredibly weak. As in, worse than Harvest or even Stash weak. This is much worse, because not only is it dead the turn you draw it instead of working immediately, but it also floods you with junk.
Set aside any number of Action cards. Play the set aside cards in any order.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) - ActionThe only advantage Snow Storm has over that already terrible card is that it can't be drawn dead.
EDIT: Realized that last part isn't true, it also has the advantage that it doesn't take an Action to play the set aside cards. Still weak for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), though.
QuoteAlso, accidental pun:cool concept
(https://i.imgur.com/wDL4QDn.png)Small pedantic thing. It should say "gain 3 Snows"QuoteHearth
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snow.
$7 - Action
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)
$4 is too cheap for this - if you play it from a 5-card hand, it's a terminal Gold
Not to mention it junks opponents on gain with 2 Snows. I understand that this card turns snows into coppers that disappear essentially. But that's only if you line them up. In reality the 2 snows are junk on gain, and on gain attacking is very strong as opposed to on-play attack. Just look at how terrible of a card IGG is on play and then look at its price point. On the other hand, Snows are a lot better than curses.
I think due to this junking, the card could be +$5 at a cost of $4 or $5, or lower the junking to a single snow and raise the price up to 6 or 7. Consider lower the junking to a single snow also.
This is a really cool card. It's a lot like Poor House, which is a fun card.
If you want it to not have its next turn effect if you discard it, you could haveis the discard this effect meant to stop it from working on the next turn? because rn it doesn't
UPDATE:
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/060/101/full/Snow_Queen_%283%29.png?1612112741)
Feedbacks are always welcome!
I was in doubt about this rule. I don't like so much a postponed effect without a marker. Discard is to make it draw only one card.
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.
Each other player gains a Snow.
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.
EDIT: Added still thanks to Faust.
Thanks for all the feedback on my card. I don't really consider it a junker, the same way Messenger gaining a Curse is not a junker; it applies to all players equally, so it just slows the game down.I don't think the main worry about your card is that it's too good in Big Money; people are just using that example as an easy baseline. Mountaineer is clearly way more busted in an engine, if you have any decent trashing or sifting.
It's a terminal gold if used for big money, yes, but so is Smithy on average if your money density is better than $1/card (which it had better be if you're playing money). I don't expect that Mountaineer money will beat a decently-constructed engine. I can test this if people are skeptical.
Ice CutterIce Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it costs at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/yCbLoQO.jpg)I would say "if it costs" instead of "if it cost" just to be consistent with official cards.QuoteIce CutterIce Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/1c/26/0a1c26f920fff8663f31d9a9ec61b893.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yCbLoQO.jpg)QuoteIce CutterIce Cutter is a super-Workshop at the same price that gives you Snow for the privilege.
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
You can dodge the first Snow by gaining a card at Workshop's normal price range.
You can dodge the second Snow by aligning Ice Cutter with a Snow.
Thanks for all the feedback on my card. I don't really consider it a junker, the same way Messenger gaining a Curse is not a junker; it applies to all players equally, so it just slows the game down.I don't think the main worry about your card is that it's too good in Big Money; people are just using that example as an easy baseline. Mountaineer is clearly way more busted in an engine, if you have any decent trashing or sifting.
It's a terminal gold if used for big money, yes, but so is Smithy on average if your money density is better than $1/card (which it had better be if you're playing money). I don't expect that Mountaineer money will beat a decently-constructed engine. I can test this if people are skeptical.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png)It should say "when you gain" instead of "if you gain"
Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage
Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
If you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
-------------------------
The big change is that you can no longer use an Ice Mage, to play another Ice Mage twice.
The change was made, because in playtesting, that lead to a huge advantage of the first person to buy two or more ice mages, as the other players would constantly be bombarded with snow.
Edit: Wording
Ver. 3
It should say "when you gain" instead of "if you gain"
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png)Also some other wording changes:
Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage
Choose one:
Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice, or
+3 Cards +1 Buy, or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png)
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png)
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.
So if i gain a silver, i may discard EisMagier to instead gain a 5$ cost card?
Double Ice Cutter doesn't sound great for the number of cards you lose persistently: Even Soothsayer and Bandit get in the way of your money density in a really meaningful way, and they only cost 1 card per shuffle rather than Ice Cutter's ~2.6 cards. You would have to have good engine cards at $5, at which point managing Ice Cutter and its Snow sounds interesting enough to be worth the card being strong. I want players to be able to open with Ice Cutter and a $4-cost, especially because a lot of good trash-for-benefits like Remodel, Salvager, and Remake cost $4. Then players will more often have Snows and trash-for-benefits with them.Ice CutterIsn't the opening Ice Cutter, Ice Cutter too overpowered? Because you basically get two Gold, for the cost of 4 Snows. I'd change the cost to 4$, because that way you can't have that opening, and 4$ isn't much more expensive than 3$.
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it cost at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
BuilderI think it is worth making players "Gain and then set aside" the card for clarity.
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
Play a non-Command Action or Treasure card from the Supply costing up to $5. Gain 2 Snows.
Avalanche $5 Action - DurationIt's a thematically cute idea, but I don't think it works very well due to big scaling issues in multiplayer. There are always 30 Snows, regardless of player count, which means its self-discard will be more or less relevant based on the number of players. It is likely much too costly when you can't megaturn, especially because in the worst-case it is +2 Cards and gain a Snow (if you're gaining a Victory card on the turn you play it).
Now and at the start of each of your turns while this is in play, +2 Cards and set aside a Snow from its pile (under this).
At the start of Clean-Up, if you gained a Victory card this turn, or the Snow pile is empty, discard this and the set-aside Snow.
HearthLosing 3 cards in a shuffle seems a paltry drawback to a Council Room that doesn't give other players a Laboratory every time you play it.
+4 Cards, +1 Buy.
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.
$7 - Action
MountaineerIt's fun to put +$7 on a card. It's cute that it turns Snow into Coppers. It's a big problem that Throne Room + Mountaineer gets you a Province. Even from a basic hand Mountaineer nets you +$3. With good sifting like Cellar or Warehouse, getting to a Mountaineer with a Silver in hand is $8. Further, Snow hurts less if you have Mountaineers (because reducing your hand is not as bad), so once one players starts buying Mountaineers, the best thing to do is to follow, exacerbating the problem.
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$7. -$1 per card in your hand. (You can't go below $0.)
When you gian this, each player gains 2 Snows.
Arctic Castle - $4, Action - Victory - ArcticThis could be totally fine, but has run afoul of a high amount of complexity that makes it very difficult to read and evaluate as a judge. I highly recommend simplifying through eliminating the Snow Gear cards. I also have a remark to make about distributing Snow.
Each player reveals their hand, then gains a Snow for every 2 cards revealed that are not Snow (rounded down).
Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down).
When you buy this, you may discard an Action card to gain a card from the Snow Gear pile. If you discarded Snow, +1VP.
Ice MageThe "instead gain" wording typically goes with "would gain," but due to a variety of complications, that wording is abrogated. If you use the modern "when gain"/"exchange" wording, you aren't required to discard the card to make it function correctly, which is neat. I have issues with giving out Snow as an Attack, though.
Choose one: Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice; or +3 Cards +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
Snow Queen
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: $4
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. Each other player gains a Snow. At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.
While this is in play, when another player plays a Snow, you may draw a card. If you did, discard this.
Abominable Snowman - $4 - Action - Attack
+$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.
Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - DurationWith that in mind, Carline's Snow Queen, emtzalex's Arctic Castle, LibraryAdventurer's Abominable Snowman, Meta's Ice Mage, and spineflu's Wintery Woods run afoul of this. Wintery Woods and Ice Mage even multiply the number of Snows being given. This is doubly bad if the card in question help the player handle the Snow like Ice Mage, Snow Queen, and Arctic Castle, as it pushes players to buy the card if anyone buys one.
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards. Until then, when another player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.
Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.anordinaryman's Ice Castle, Aquila's Snowdrift, and Something_Smart's Mountaineer brush against this, but are reasonable by only triggering on-gain/on-trash of cards, significantly limiting the ability to bury other players in Snow.
At the start of your next turn, +$2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
When you gain this, you may play it.
On Attacking with Snow:i want to defend my design a little bit on that - the "attack" on Wintery Woods should push the game more towards a either
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile. It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do. The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow. Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.Snow Queen
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: $4
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. Each other player gains a Snow. At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, each other player gains a Snow.
While this is in play, when another player plays a Snow, you may draw a card. If you did, discard this.Abominable Snowman - $4 - Action - Attack
+$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.Wintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - DurationWith that in mind, Carline's Snow Queen, emtzalex's Arctic Castle, LibraryAdventurer's Abominable Snowman, Meta's Ice Mage, and spineflu's Wintery Woods run afoul of this. Wintery Woods and Ice Mage even multiply the number of Snows being given. This is doubly bad if the card in question help the player handle the Snow like Ice Mage, Snow Queen, and Arctic Castle, as it pushes players to buy the card if anyone buys one.
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards. Until then, when another player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
I've played with Cursers that can resupply the Curse pile: While being buried under junk forever is an interesting experience in one game, it is not an experience that needs much repeating. These cards may make the experience too common. Of course, Snow is easier to handle than Curses, so my read may be off, but I am wary just the same.
Ice MageThe "instead gain" wording typically goes with "would gain," but due to a variety of complications, that wording is abrogated. If you use the modern "when gain"/"exchange" wording, you aren't required to discard the card to make it function correctly, which is neat. I have issues with giving out Snow as an Attack, though.
Choose one: Play an action card (except for Ice Mage) form your hand twice; or +3 Cards +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
When you gain a card, you may discard this card from your hand, to instead gain a card that costs exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
(https://i.imgur.com/WeTt7vTm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/WeTt7vTm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/oAeg5mOm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/VvdoRLXm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/YdPNyZXm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/VbwH2t1m.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/ffR5gIbm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/izsEyOIm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/y27Wp3Mm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/AkdhTRMm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/ixRH7Ejm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/N0ODKg3m.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/mdRtHEFm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/TMOXYSlm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/cixLftRm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/6GwUkExm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/Bqetykqm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/Y4n6Ezqm.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/OgusrSCm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/8930JaRm.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/F0EjmhSm.png) |
On Attacking with Snow:I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile. It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do. The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow. Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.
I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning. This sort of attitude is not healthy. Any constructive criticism should be encouraged here. Rather than assuming the Fragasnap is acting in bad faith, I prefer to go to the more charitable (and frankly, more likely) interpretation - that they did not have that thought or got around to posting it until now. I think the goal for all of us here is to create good cards, and it doesn't matter all that much who wins in the end. fika monster won the last contest after adopting a suggestion that I put forth, and that made me feel just as good as if I had won a contest. Fragasnap is doing a lot of good work for this community by regularly posting their thoughts on current submissions.On Attacking with Snow:I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile. It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do. The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow. Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.
This is not what I was thinking. I do appreciate Fragasnap's feedback in general. I just found it in bad taste that he said "Using snow to attack is a bad idea" near the end of a contest where we're supposed to use a custom junk card and the most obvious thing to use a junk card for is attacking.I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning...On Attacking with Snow:I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile. It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do. The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow. Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.
I find it disappointing to see people assume that others would post card criticism just to improve the odds of them winning. This sort of attitude is not healthy. Any constructive criticism should be encouraged here. Rather than assuming the Fragasnap is acting in bad faith, I prefer to go to the more charitable (and frankly, more likely) interpretation - that they did not have that thought or got around to posting it until now. I think the goal for all of us here is to create good cards, and it doesn't matter all that much who wins in the end. fika monster won the last contest after adopting a suggestion that I put forth, and that made me feel just as good as if I had won a contest. Fragasnap is doing a lot of good work for this community by regularly posting their thoughts on current submissions.On Attacking with Snow:I think you should've said this at the beginning of the week the contest started rather than seemingly encouraging the judge to disqualify attack card entries when the contest time is almost over.
I believe that using Snow as a junk card dealt to other players via an Attack is a bad idea because there are always 30 Snow cards in the Snow pile. It is much easier to bury players in Snow forever because the amount doesn't vary the way Curses do. The junking is weaker than Curses, but it never really relents because players can continuously redistribute the snow. Even if you don't lose the Snow "split" so bad, a winning player can return the Snow cards and dole them out again faster than you can under all that Snow.
Anyway, I disagree with you because Snow is so easy to get rid of. Double Snow attacks may be too nasty, but generally (as Gubump said earlier) Snow is more like a -1 Card token than a normal junk card.
what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?
Probably best to switch the two options around to avoid confusion.
what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?
My interpretation is that Arctic Castle is always worth at least 2VP, but can score more if you have at least 9 Snow cards.
Basically, you score the either whichever of the following amounts is greater: (a) 2VP or (b) 1VP for every 3 Snow cards you have.
what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?
Probably best to switch the two options around to avoid confusion.
what does "Worth the greater of 2VP or 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down)." mean? Its confusing to me. Is it a competition betweent players where the players with the most snow cards get the 2 vp per 3 snowcards they have?
My interpretation is that Arctic Castle is always worth at least 2VP, but can score more if you have at least 9 Snow cards.
Basically, you score the either whichever of the following amounts is greater: (a) 2VP or (b) 1VP for every 3 Snow cards you have.
Also, if that is the interpretation then it will score 0 VP with 6-8 Snow (as then, neither is "the greater").
EDIT: The better phrasing is "Worth 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down), but not less than 2 VP."
Worth the greater of: 1VP per 3 Snows you have (rounded down); or 2VP.
if that is the interpretation then it will score 0 VP with 6-8 Snow (as then, neither is "the greater").
EDIT: The better phrasing is "Worth 1VP per 3 Snow cards you have (round down), but not less than 2 VP."
The time is up!
To be clear, this is NOT the judgement post. This is merely the list. The judgement will come in approximately 12 hours.
Here is a list of all the cards submitted. please tell me if i missed anything. (this was an exercise in trying to compile everything)
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/062/919/full/Snow_Queen_%284%29.png?1612256294)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/080762fdd9153857b2558d4ca6c2d611/image.png)QuoteWintery Woods • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
At the start of your next turn, +3 Cards.
Until then, the first time each other player plays an Action card that says +2 Actions, they gain a Snow.
Snowball
$4
Action
+3 Cards
Gain a Snow.
You may play a Snow from your hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png)
Translation:
-------------------------
Ice Mage
Choose one:
Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or
+3 Cards and +1 Buy; or
+2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows.
------
When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.
7$ Action - Reaction - Attack
------------------------
Ice Castle | Action | $5
After playing your next card this turn, trash it. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's not, +2 Cards and gain a card costing up to $1 more.
-
When you gain or trash this, each player gains a Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/plLk75r.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png)
QuoteSnowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow.
-
When you gain this, you may play it.
(https://i.imgur.com/6U3wy1m.png)Winter Retreat by Xen3k
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50889610657_04fb9c8768_b.jpg)QuoteWinter Retreat
Action - Victory
+2 Cards
You may play an Action card from your hand. If it's a Snow, +1VP and Exile this, otherwise gain 1 Snow.
-
1VP
Abominable Snowman
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Snow on top of their deck.
(https://i.imgur.com/3ElSpmp.png)QuoteSleighmaker - $4
Action - Reserve
+1 Action. Gain two Snows. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you return a card to its pile, you may call this for +4 cards.
(https://i.ibb.co/njtzQn6/Mountain-Path.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ISP87zo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wm6NsdC.png)QuoteArctic Passage - $6
Project
At the start of your turn, +2 Buys, +$2.
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/FziVq2M.png)QuoteHearth
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may gain 3 Snows.
$7 - Action
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/805728003865968670/Avalanche_v1.4.png)QuoteAvalanche ⑤ Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of
your turns while this is in play,
+2 Cards and set aside a Snow
from its pile (under this).
-
At the start of Clean-Up, if you
gained a Victory card this turn, or
the Snow pile is empty, discard
this and the set-aside Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/JbEZ9ko.png)Quote from: Original(https://i.imgur.com/Zj0Oiyy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png)
<Not an entry>
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50899197278_2270cc6454_b.jpg)QuoteSnow Storm - $5
Night - Duration
At the start of your next turn, set aside any number of cards from your hand to gain that many Snow. At the start of your Action phase, play the set aside cards in any order.
Frozen Throne
Action - $5
+1 Card
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow.
(https://i.imgur.com/bD8YxCE.jpg)QuoteIce Cutter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Gain a card costing up to $6. If it costs at least $5, gain a Snow. If you haven't played a Snow this turn, gain a Snow.
Ok so this has weird formatting issues, but ive been trying to edit this whole list for like 40 minutes, and do not have the energy to fix it right now. Could someone look it over and tell me what went wrong.
Snow Queen -- Carline | (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/062/919/full/Snow_Queen_%284%29.png?1612256294)[/img] | A snow attacker. I think its fine, but it just doesnt interest me much. | |
Wintery woods -- Spineflu | (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/60141e02fb9f1a1e4b8f3374/080762fdd9153857b2558d4ca6c2d611/image.png) | A haunted woods variant. i mostly like its attack, but i feel like in a lot of kingdoms it just wouldn't come up a lot. If there is no source of +2 actions, bam, it just doesnt attack! I might also be reading it wrong, but it doesnt attack cards like bustling village or snowy village, since those cards says +3 or +4 actions. i want to emphasize that i like its attack, i just think its too narrow. | |
Snowball -- infangthief | Snowball $4 Action +3 Cards Gain a Snow. You may play a Snow from your hand | A simple lab variant. The fact that you first draw, then gain the snow and THEN play a snow from your hand means that you can't spam these easilly. This is still a really good 4$, but it feels like an appropiate price. good job. | |
Eismager/Ice Mage -- Meta | (https://i.postimg.cc/jjMMsffy/Eismagier6.png) | Translation: ------------------------- Ice Mage Choose one: Play an Action card other than Ice Mage from your hand twice; or +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +2$ and each other player gains 2 Snows. ------ When you gain a card, you may discard this, to exchange it for a card costing exactly 2$ more than it. 7$ Action - Reaction - Attack ------------------------ | This one Feels kinda cluttered. All of the choices are pretty dang good, but i dont feel like they interact meaningfully enought to warrant all the options and the complexity that comes with it. I do like its reaction: It means that you want to gain snow in some situations. But overall, i just don't like this card that much. |
Ice castle -- anordinaryman | (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/xp51snyz.png) | A nifty Sacrafice variant. It's pretty cool how it let's you turn snows into horses, but only if you have the spare actions. Its Copper trashing is good enough even if you don't have village support. | |
Builder -- Segura | (https://i.imgur.com/plLk75r.png) | An overlord variant. The fact that it lets you play tresure cards is pretty cool: I imagine that it loves Capital boards. It's snow drawback feels about right, since its flexibility is amazing. | |
Artic base -- X-tra | (https://i.postimg.cc/6Tx7psg6/Arctic-Base-v1.png) | Another Lab variant. I like this one as well, but i just like snowball more. sorry! | |
Snow Drift -- Aquila | Snowdrift - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost. At the start of your next turn, + $2. Until then, when another player trashes a card other than a Snow, they gain a Snow. - When you gain this, you may play it. | Its pretty neat attack, but suffers from the same problem as winter woods, in that it's attack might just not come up in a lot of games. Otherwise it's about the right strength. | |
Frozen Crevace -- pubby | (https://i.imgur.com/6U3wy1m.png) | A Sorta smithy trasher. Pretty neat. Drawing 3 cards AND trashing a card from hand is really strong, so gaining a snow unto deck is an appropriate drawback. It interacts meaningfully With quite alot of cards like sacrafice that might really want junk cards. Good job. | |
Winter Retreat -- Xen3k | (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50889610657_04fb9c8768_b.jpg) | Winter retreat is sorta like if Imp and Island had a baby: And since imp is a good card, its approprieatly priced 5 and you gain a snow unless you played a snow, but if that's what you did, this card is just net neutral lab (though it exiles). It works well in a kingdom without other snow cards, and it works well with other snow cards as well. The VP and the alt vp is also perfect in my opinion. Good job. | |
Abominable snowman -- Library adventurer | Quote Abominable Snowman | Its sea hag but with snow! I think its fine attack. The vanilla benefit is about right, and its attack is weaker than sea hags, but works throughout the whole game since the snow cards will pretty much always be returned. Overall, this seems a lot more fun to play with then seahag. | |
SleighMaker -- Mahowrath | (https://i.imgur.com/3ElSpmp.png) | A cool card. It lets you turn a future snow into a super lab, which seems really fun! The fact that you get 2 snows when you play it means that you will still get a lot of junk with this, which is what makes it balanced. So if you play this, and then a snow, AND draw a snow, thats a net +1 card size overall in a sense, the same as a lab, but with a lot more setup. Good job making a reserve lab! | |
Mountain path -- Silverspawn | (https://i.ibb.co/njtzQn6/Mountain-Path.png) | This is a neat Library variant that i like a lot. With it you can get rid of a terrible hand, but at the cost of getting snowcards. If your next hand is the mountain path with the snows, thats no problem as you can just play the snows first. But you still have to balance how many cards you want to discard, since you really dont want to be discarding estate one shuffle just to draw the snow cards dead. Great card. | |
Snowy Library -- commodore chuckles | (https://i.imgur.com/ISP87zo.png) | On a similar note, Snowy library is also a library variant, but i dont like this one as much. Its draws a huge amount of cards (+4 cards if its the only action played, which compares to hunting grounds), and while its draw back cool in how its unique, and it is bad in some decks, like scrying pools or other kingdoms with great draw, i think think most of the time the drawback is neglible, and i would be happy to just play it with big money. The snow use is ok, but i think given how good the draw is, is a neglible drawback. i want to note that i still like it. | |
Artic passage -- Faust | (https://i.imgur.com/wm6NsdC.png) | A really simple project. I really like this one: +buy is a amazing resource to have in any deck, and the +2 money is also really good and it pays itself in 3 turns, All of this is balanced by how you gain a snow whenever you buy a card, which is a cool drawback. On one hand, you can buy a province with just 3 golds or 2 silvers in hand, which is great! but you get 2 dead cards for the price of one. that is a neat problem for both money decks and engines. A thing to note: Originally This project gave you +1buy and +3Money: If it was still that way, i wouldnt like it as much, as then it would be too good. Changing it to +2buy and +2Money makes certain decks explode (like potion games with no buys), but since buying cards gives you Snow, you feel the sting a lot more. One concern i do have is that its too good with some events that lets you gain cards instead, but that is somewhat minor | |
Hearth -- Allion8Me | (https://i.imgur.com/FziVq2M.png) | I like this one a lot. +4 cards is really good! but getting 3 snows is really bad, especially if you keep drawing them dead so you can't return them. This means that in almost all kingdoms, getting Hearths is a good but risky move. I do think that the +buy is a little too good, even for a card that costs 7 money or 3 snows, but that may just be me. | |
Avalanche -- Mochamoko | (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/805728003865968670/Avalanche_v1.4.png) | Ok first off: the painting you used here is really dope! ok, with that out of the way, i like the concept here a lot: its a hireling variant that is good a lot faster and costs 5$ so you get it more often, but you could make your deck a total train wreck when you actually start scoring. I think i would grab this a lot of the time. At first glance i thought it was nuts: but at a second glance i see that its actually somewhat balanced, in that if you have 10 of these in play, sure, you draw 20 extra cards each turn! but if you have them in play for 3 turns, that means that next turn you will get 30 snows in your next shuffle, which is pretty bad. I still think this is too good, but im not sure what to do about it. regardless, i like it a lot.[/sub]. | |
Dogsled -- Timinou | (https://i.imgur.com/JbEZ9ko.png) | This one is a neat 2 cost card, that COULD be a hunting grounds if you line it up with a snow, but quickly runs out. Gaining 2 snows when gaining Dogsled feels about right. It may be more apropriate as a 3$ card, but i like it more as a 2$ card | |
Mountaineer -- Somethingsmart | (https://i.imgur.com/Aw8UiPp.png) | This is pretty nifty: its a Poor House variant, but for every card in your hand. I think its too good however: If you play this with 4 other cards in hand, its basically a terminal gold, and that feels too good at its current price point. i also think its snow drawback is too weak, as the snow actually makes it stronger if you draw them all together. I would either make its +$ benefit a bit weaker (+6$ makes it on par with terminal silvers), or perhaps change its snow interaction: maybe you get a snow when you play it, or you also get -1$ for each snow you returned this turn. |
Throne room -- No more fun | Frozen Throne Action - $5 +1 Card You may play an Action from your hand twice. If you did, and it's still in play, gain a Snow. | A throne room variant. The +1 card is a big deal here, as normally when you draw 2 Throne rooms with, say, 3 coppers, you cant do anything. But with Frozen Throne, you could F-Throne the F-Throne, which nets you +3 cards, which could be the difference between a dead turn and a megaturn. The snow interaction here is also pretty neat: if you play a Snow with the Frozen Throne, it becomes a village. And you are essentially guaranteed that you will have Snows, as really, you want to play your GOOD action cards with Frozen Throne. Good job here. |
Ice cutter -- Fragasnap | (https://i.imgur.com/bD8YxCE.jpg) | A workshop variant. It's pretty dang good: you could always use Ice cutter to gain Gold, which is amazing for a 3$ card, even if you gain 2 snows. Its comparable to leprechain in that way: a cheap gold gainer that can make your deck worse. Its a lot more flexible than that of course. I also like the fact that you want to play a snow before this. |
Artic castle -- Emtzalex | (https://i.imgur.com/o3IuLNZm.png) | I think this card has a nifty concept. But i still dont really like it. One part is just that, there is so many snow gears card, and some of them just feel a bit pointless? I dont have the expertise or energy to analyse all of it. I would like this more if the snowgear pile was more limited. I also don't really like the attack part: There is already a lot of things going on here with Artic castle, and i dont think it adds to much. i do like the Alt VP here: Making snows a source of vp is neat. |