Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Asper on March 06, 2013, 03:21:53 pm
-
First of all, sorry for opening a new Thread on the same set. Old Thread was mostly discussion about two cards not (anymore) present here, and the biggest part is new, anyway.
Magic was designed as some kind of expansion-expansion, featuring mechanics from Seaside, Intrigue, and the two small sets Cornucopia and Alchemy (Hinterlands just happened to smuggle itself in) all kinds of sets. The main idea are cards that somehow help defend against attacks and cards that change the balance of existing cards as a sub theme (you'll see what i mean).
Swamp
+ 2 Actions
Discard a card.
When you play or buy this the first time in a turn: + 2 Buys
While this is in the supply, when you would gain a card, you may gain this instead.
0$ Action
Shaman
+ 1$
Each other player gains a Curse. Each player (including you) may put a card from his hand back in the supply and gain a card costing exactly 0$.
If you gain a card this way, put it in your hand.
0$P Action - Attack
Dwarf
+ 1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck. Look at the bottom card of your deck. You may put it in your hand. You may put a card from your hand to the bottom of your deck.
2$ Action
Ranger V3
+ 1 Action
Look at the top two card of your deck. Put one of them in your hand and discard the other one.
$2 Action
Wizard
+ 3 Cards
Discard any number of Action cards and Potions from your hand. +2$ per card discarded this way.
When you gain this, gain a Potion.
2$P Action
Artefact
1$
If you just resolved an Action Card, you may discard this. if you do: + 1 Action
3$ Treasure - Reaction
Elf
+ 3 actions
+ 1 Buy
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, for each $ overpaid, put a card from your hand back in the supply and gain another card costing at most the same as the returned card, putting it on top of your deck.
2+$ Action
Seer
Discard a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action Card. Immediately discard all other cards revealed and play the revealed Action Card.
$3 Action
Sunken City
+ 2 Actions
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it is an Action card, put it in your hand. If it is not, discard it.
At the start of your next turn:
+ 2 Actions
3$ Action - Duration
Incantation
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
You may trash a Card from your hand. If you do and it is an Action Card, Victory Card or Treasure Card: Reveal Cards from your deck until you reveal a Card of the same type that costs more than the trashed card and put it in your hand. Discard all other revealed cards.
$3P Action
Poisoner
+ 1 Action
Each other player with four or more cards in hand reveals a card from his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it or put it on the top of his deck.
Choose one:
+ 2$;
+ 1 Virtual Potion;
3$P Action - Attack
Amazon Village
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
At the start of your next turn:
+ 1 Action
While this is in play, if another player plays an Attack Card, you may immediately gain a copy of the played Attack Card.
4$ Action - Duration
Expedition
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
+ 1$
Each player (including you) takes a coin token.
4$ Action
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$.
Trash a card from your hand.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Copper.
$4 Action
Troll
+ 2$
At the start of your clean-up phase, put four Embargo Tokens on any piles in the supply. Every time a player buys a card, he gains one Curse per Embargo Token on that pile.
At the start of your next turn:
Remove four Embargo Tokens from any piles in the supply.
4$ Action - Duration
Dragon
+ 3 Cards
Each other player chooses one: He gains a Curse; Or: He reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new Cards;
$5 Action - Attack
Swamp already had its own tread. I don't think i want to change much about it for now.
Maze
Each other player gains a Curse.
Value 2 VP for each three Curses in the set of the player with the most Curses in his set at the end of the game (rounded down).
5$ Action - Attack - Victory
Temple
Trash up to three cards from your hand. + 1 Card per card trashed this way.
Value 1 VP per 10 cards in the trash at the end of the game (rounded down).
5$ Action - Victory
Vampire
+ 2 Cards
+ 1 Action
+ 2$
Each other player may reveal a Silver from his hand. If any player does, gain a Curse. If you would gain a Curse, but the Curse pile is empty, trash this.
6$ Action
Enchanted Forest
Value 4 VP
In games using this, you may reveal your hand at the start of your buy phase. During that buy phase, this costs 2$ less for any Curse revealed this way, but never less than 0$.
7* Victory
Palace
Value 1 VP for each three cards in your set that cost 6$ or more and are not Palace cards.
8$ Victory
-
Text versions of the cards would be nice, especially for those of us who browse on our phones.
-
^ What he said. It is almost impossible to critique cards in art form.
Also, Tournament will win you PRIZE cards, not PRICE cards. Prize is a reward, Price is how much something costs.
-
^ What he said. It is almost impossible to critique cards in art form.
Also, Tournament will win you PRIZE cards, not PRICE cards. Prize is a reward, Price is how much something costs.
Thanks for pointing this out, english is not my mother language. ^^'
I'm working on the text versions, it's just a lot to do... Have a bit of patience.
-
Added text versions of the cards now :)
-
Your font for the main card text looks very... off. Part of it is that you are using small caps. For the body text, you can just use Times New Roman and it looks fine.
Some of the card images seem to have different text than your transcriptions. Also, several have minor wording issues. I'll try not to pick at most of them.
Dwarf -- interesting. Probably on the weak side, but that's OK.
Wizard -- initial impression is that it is too powerful and should be $3P. But I am not sure.
Elf -- transcription doesn't include top decking. But it should say "put it on top of your deck".
Sunken city -- Why not use the construction, "Now and at the start of your next turn"? Fishing Village deviates from it because the bonus now and next turn are not the same.
Poisoner -- Wording issues... refer to cards like Pawn and Steward for how to do choices. Note the use of semi-colons.
Expedition -- Interesting. Not at all sure how it would play.
Necromancer -- I don't like how this is a targeted attack.
Troll -- I'm just not a fan of this.
Amazone Village -- Should be "Amazon", right? This looks way, way too powerful. It is already worth about $5 as a cantrip trasher, like Upgrade. But it is also a village, and a duration village at that... and it makes other players think twice before playing any attack.
Maze -- With just 2 players, this is worth only 2VP if Curses split evenly. If they don't, then it just lets the player who is already winning run away with the game. With more than 2 players, it feels very swingy (e.g. maybe the player on your left is lucky and has a Watchtower whenever you play Maze, so the third player ends up taking on lots of Curses and the player on your left has Mazes worth 6VP while yours are worth nothing).
Temple -- Too expensive to be an early game trasher. If you make it worth a lot, your opponent can take advantage easily. This is also much weaker than Gardens simply because with Gardens you only need to gain a lot of cards... with Temple, you need to gain a lot AND trash them. And it's more expensive. Granted, your opponent may be helping... or they could just piggy-back off of your work.
Vampire -- Werewolf would be more thematic.
Enchanted Forest -- OK, I think.
Palace -- Odd. Not sure how it would play. It would probably be best in games with gainers like Tunnel and Market Square.
Magic Sword -- I don't like reactions like this, even as a prize. It just punishes others for playing attacks. You can pretty much always claim to have this in your hand because there is no penalty to you for bluffing.
Grand Vizier -- Looks too strong. Non-terminal trashing (of more than one card!) that not only lets you gain Gold (or Venture or what have you) but puts it directly into your hand... man. Not being able to trash Estates hurts a little, but this is still really, really good.
Seer -- Half Golem. OK, I guess.
Dragon -- Attack sounds overpowered, like a Pillage-Minion. I don't know about it.
-
Thank you very much for the input. The Prizes are not considered very "serious" cards, actually.
About the others, i'll see what i can do to make them better.
Probably i should change Necromancer to be non-directed. It wasn't originally intended to be a directed attack, but i see it is.
Wizard might be too strong, it originally was too weak, and i'm still testing.
Troll originally was even worse, gicing out Curses to anyone who even bought any card. Well, i like it, but thanks for the feedback.
Amazon Village is too strong, you're right. I don't know what i was thinking.
Temple never seemed too bad to me. But i see how it is a card that other players profit from while you do the work. Didn't think of that.
Palace works nicely as far as my playtesting goes. Either the game becomes longer or shorter, it's weird ^^
Actually Grand Vizier was about having a smaller handsize. I could make it trash only one card.
Many Dragons probably are something very mean... I'll rethink that. Thank you.
With Sunken City, i don't know. If i wrote it at the top, it would seem like i could get that additional card both times. If i write it under the text, it looks awkward.
Btw. Vampire used a Bane Card originally - i wanted it to be less swingy, as Silver is something nice in almost every game, while some Bane Cards are not.
-
I have almost no idea how the card effect is tied to the card name in most cases.
-
I have almost no idea how the card effect is tied to the card name in most cases.
Really? I thought that they were rather thematic. Especially by Dominion standards.
-
I have almost no idea how the card effect is tied to the card name in most cases.
Temple has a religious theme, as Chapel and Bishop have a religious theme.
Grand Vizier can gain Harem and spares Victory cards, as he is an Intrigue-afine character.
Sunken Village is a Magic Seaside village.
Amazon Village is a Village you can use to attack more often.
The prizes are rewards for winning a Tournament (Crest stands for a noble title, though).
Vampire is a strong, corrupting card that is scared of Silver, which is said to help against evil forces.
Necromancer makes cards come back from the graveyard trash.
Wizards brew Potions.
Poisoner is a mean, game-poioning card (much meaner than it seams, especially when played several times) and gives you something not too trustworthy in a bottle.
Shaman has a pseudo-religios theme and is a pseudo-trasher.
Palace wants riches.
Enchanted Forest is cursed.
Maze is admittedly a pun in german, where "Irrgarten" means Maze, but also can be translated to "Twisted Garden".
Artefact is valuable and has a strange power.
Troll is an anti-bridge and lives under one.
Dwarf diggs to the bottom of your deck and hoards things there.
Incantation "summons" a good card by sacrificing a bad.
Seer finds your Action from "the future" and, by the way, counters Fortune Teller.
EDIT: Tried some fixes to the things eHalcyon pointed out.
-
Maze is admittedly a pun in german, where "Irrgarten" means Maze, but also can be translated to "Twisted Garden".
Oh, neat. Maybe "Hedge Maze" would make it sound a bit more Garden-like.
-
Maze is admittedly a pun in german, where "Irrgarten" means Maze, but also can be translated to "Twisted Garden".
Oh, neat. Maybe "Hedge Maze" would make it sound a bit more Garden-like.
I will do that if i find a fitting picture, thanks :)
-
Thanks for your points, eHalcyon. I changed most of the cards you criticized.
I'll keep the Prizes as are, though, at least for now. That doesn't mean i won't ever come to my senses ;)
And even though i'm aware Werewolf would be more fitting, i've just grown attached to Vampire with that name.
Here are the other changed Cards:
Wizard
+ 3 Cards
Discard any number of Action cards and Potions from your hand. +2$ per card discarded this way.
When you gain this, gain a Potion.
2$P Action
(Killed the + 1 Buy, too)
Elf
+ 3 actions
+ 1 Buy
When you buy this, put a card from your hand back in the supply. If you do, gain another card costing at most the same as the returned card and put it on top of your deck.
3$ Action
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a Victory Card. If you now have 2 or less cards in your hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action
(Only one card trashable)
Necromancer
Reveal the three top cards of your deck. Trash as many of them as you like. Discard the rest. Name a card. If such a card is in the trash, each other player must gain a copy of it. He may choose to gain it from the trash, if it still is there.
4$ Action - Attack
(Attack is not directed anymore. Opponents can gain cards from the trash to stop it hitting - theoretically)
Amazon Village
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
At the start of your next turn:
+ 1 Action
While this is in play, if another player plays an Attack Card, you may immediately gain a copy of the played Attack Card.
5$ Action - Duration
(Nerfed, so it's weaker than Junk Dealer without the "While in play" aspect)
Dragon
+ 3 Cards
Each other player chooses one: He gains a Curse; Or: He reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new Cards;
$5 Action - Attack
(Added Torturer choice, and now it resembles that card quite a bit. I don't know if i like that, maybe something fitting the alternative would be nicer.)
Maze
Each other player gains a Curse.
Value 2 VP for each three Curses in the set of the player with the most Curses in his set at the end of the game (rounded down).
5$ Action - Attack - Victory
(All Mazes are now equally much worth - you might even happen to be that player yourself.)
Temple
Trash up to three cards from your hand. + 1 Card per card trashed this way.
Value 1 VP per 10 cards in the trash at the end of the game (rounded down).
5$ Action - Victory
(Reduced the price and pushed it to trash up to three cards)
-
I have to give you credit for accepting suggestions well.
Grand Vizier: I am still worried. One disappearing village and this is a non-terminal to-hand Gold gainer for $4. Look at Explorer, which requires a more-difficult combo (Province), is terminal, and offers a consolation prize. The more I think about it, I like the +1 Action to discourage BM-this, so it would be something else that changed. If my wording was cleaned, I would like a version that said: "Gain a Treasure card costing 8-X or less and put it in your hand, where X is the number of cards in your hand" and to weaken it you change it to 7-X.
Amazon Village: Like many fan-expansions, this set has a high trash-ratio. I would like a version of this that was cheaper ($3?), didn't have the "trash a card from hand", and required you to trash itself from play to get the action card.
Elf: People may not know that you can still buy an Elf with no cards in hand. "You may" on the on-buy may also improve the power-level.
Temple: Doesn't scale well for multiplayer. In a 4 player game, it is worth (on average) 2x as much VP. It is wordy and confusing, but would some version of "5 cards in the trash per player" work?
Magic Sword: I used "Legendary Sword" as a card in the filling out the box thread. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4758.0 I also used "Royal Guard" as an attack-stopping Reaction, be it a Moat-like one. This is the wordiest and most problematic card here.
-
I have to give you credit for accepting suggestions well.
I want them to be good, that's all. But thanks. I'm very glad if people care to suggest things, so i would be a fool not to take them into consideration.
Grand Vizier: I am still worried. One disappearing village and this is a non-terminal to-hand Gold gainer for $4. Look at Explorer, which requires a more-difficult combo (Province), is terminal, and offers a consolation prize. The more I think about it, I like the +1 Action to discourage BM-this, so it would be something else that changed. If my wording was cleaned, I would like a version that said: "Gain a Treasure card costing 8-X or less and put it in your hand, where X is the number of cards in your hand" and to weaken it you change it to 7-X.
The point of the card is that i want it to reward small handsize. Explorer can gain silver with a big hand and buy something afterwards. The Gold in hand often is not that useful to Grand Vizier as it is gained at a low handsize. I could think about making the trashing mandatory. I'll try your scaling suggestion in a playtesting session today, though. Thanks for it.
Amazon Village: Like many fan-expansions, this set has a high trash-ratio. I would like a version of this that was cheaper ($3?), didn't have the "trash a card from hand", and required you to trash itself from play to get the action card.
The trashing is quite new to the card, and it's not that i have grown attached to it :)
actually, originaly it was a trash for benefit, but it's been a Village for some time now, and i think it's better, as you can play the attacks then. At 3$ it will resemble Sunken City very much, i fear - but maybe i can weld them together or something
Elf: People may not know that you can still buy an Elf with no cards in hand. "You may" on the on-buy may also improve the power-level.
Probably. I'll change that, it's not as if it was a Power card with that added.
Temple: Doesn't scale well for multiplayer. In a 4 player game, it is worth (on average) 2x as much VP. It is wordy and confusing, but would some version of "5 cards in the trash per player" work?
It never occured to me that you could word this as easy as that. I'll try that, thank you :)
Magic Sword: I used "Legendary Sword" as a card in the filling out the box thread. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4758.0 I also used "Royal Guard" as an attack-stopping Reaction, be it a Moat-like one. This is the wordiest and most problematic card here.
It's terrible, i know ^^
It's just that some friends of mine have grown attached to it and i tried to save it. I'll just remove it for now.
-
Thanks for those further suggestions, i guess it's time for round 3:
I did not change Amazon Village, though. A version for 4$ did terrible today and i'll playtest before i make a change - if i do, as i feel it's okay the way it is right now. Well, there's no accounting for taste :)
Version 3
Elf
+ 3 Actions
+ 1 Buy
When you buy this, you may put a card from your hand back in the supply. If you do, gain another card costing at most the same as the returned card and put it on top of your deck.
3$ Action
Grand Vizier
If you have two or less cards in hand, gain a Treasure costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand. Choose one: Discard a Treasure card. If you do: + 1 Action; Or: Trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action
(Didn't really playtest it yet, probably it's still not exactly what i want. But i think the way the card is constructed works - only give the Action if you choose the weakest option, still this option will bring you closer to Gold. Also checks for handsize before any chance to do something about it. Note that disappearing Villages alone can not trigger GVs Gold anymore.)
Dragon
+ 3 Cards
Each other player chooses one: He reveals the top three cards of his deck and discards those you choose, putting the rest back in the order he chooses; Or: He reveals his hand and you decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.
5$ Action
(This is now a mix between a mean Minion and a mean Rabble instead of a Witch and a Militia as with Torturer. Is it too wordy? I like how players with an allready bad hand are not hurt, but players with a good one decide if their actual or next turn might get damaged. In this aspect, the Rabble is more fitting than a Curse. Also it's more hurtful than original Rabble, as the attacker can leave Copper or Ruins on your deck. This compensates the victims can choose what hurts them less.)
Temple
Trash up to three cards from your hand. + 1 Card per card trashed this way.
Value 1 VP for each 5 cards in the trash per player at the end of the game (rounded down).
5$ Action - Victory
(Thanks for the brilliant idea with the per-player-counting, OneArmedMan.)
-
You are welcome Asper:
I thought about Dragon. I like the curse version better than the Rabbley version, since Rabble is already a mediocre $5 attack and already has +3 cards, it will be the most frequent choice, especially if the top cards are provably weak. I had an idea for that part of the card: "he gains a card costing $2 or less of your choice". If Ruins are available from a Looter, you can choose them. You can choose Estates or Coppers when Curses are out. The "$2 or less" bit is to prevent team-ups where you give a friend a province. It is a little more powerful than the curse bit, admittedly.
Switching the order of the effects is the right call on Grand Vizier. I don't think the Grand Vizier's optional +1 Action needs to be dependant on having a treasure in hand. Like Throne Room, it is unaccountable (meaningless because you can choose the other option). My updated wording is ambiguous; you shouldn't use it: "Choose one: Trash up to 2 cards from your hand; or +1 Action and you may discard a treasure card"
-
You are welcome Asper:
I thought about Dragon. I like the curse version better than the Rabbley version, since Rabble is already a mediocre $5 attack and already has +3 cards, it will be the most frequent choice, especially if the top cards are provably weak. I had an idea for that part of the card: "he gains a card costing $2 or less of your choice". If Ruins are available from a Looter, you can choose them. You can choose Estates or Coppers when Curses are out. The "$2 or less" bit is to prevent team-ups where you give a friend a province. It is a little more powerful than the curse bit, admittedly.
Switching the order of the effects is the right call on Grand Vizier. I don't think the Grand Vizier's optional +1 Action needs to be dependant on having a treasure in hand. Like Throne Room, it is unaccountable (meaningless because you can choose the other option). My updated wording is ambiguous; you shouldn't use it: "Choose one: Trash up to 2 cards from your hand; or +1 Action and you may discard a treasure card"
I like your solution for Dragon. But maybe some will argue that the choice makes it an directed attack, as i can choose Curse for one player (who uses Baron) and Estate for another one (who uses Enchanted Forest)... I don't mind it's more powerful that usual Cursers, as it's an option.
I don't think i wholly understand your point on Grand Vizier, though. Maybe it's my fault that the wording is confusing, i allready wrote i'm not perfectly happy with it. You only get one Action if you discard the treasure. So if you do not discard a treasure, it's the same as choosing the trashing option and trashing 0 cards.
I'll work a bit more on it. I personally think there are two things that have improved with the newest version: 1. Checking your handsize before reducing it. 2. Making players work for that action to avoid too strong non-terminal trashing.
I think it's more than allright you get a Gold every time you have two GV in hand, if you compare it to Treasure Map. So maybe it should be like this:
A (might be too strong):
Grand Vizier
If you have two or less cards in hand, gain a Treasure costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
You may discard a Treasure card. If you do: + 1 Action
4$ Action
B (Probably too weak):
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have two or less cards in hand, gain a Treasure costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one: Trash a card from your hand; Or: Dicard a card;
4$ Action
C:
Grand Vizier
If you have at most two cards in hand, gain a Treasure costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one: Dicard two cards. If you do: + 1 Card, + 1 Action;
Or: Trash up to two cards from your hand that are not victory cards;
4$ Action
I'll playtest them as soon as i can and then decide which one i'll take, i guess...
-
Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"
-
Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"
"Two or less" is better.
-
Because with prices you're told to gain a card costing "up to 6", not "less than 7". Dominion usually specifies the inclusive.
-
Because with prices you're told to gain a card costing "up to 6", not "less than 7". Dominion usually specifies the inclusive.
Dominion often says "less than" for prices. I don't think there is precedence for cards. Taking the less wordy option would be better, I think.
It should be "fewer" for cards, not "less".
-
Because with prices you're told to gain a card costing "up to 6", not "less than 7". Dominion usually specifies the inclusive.
Dominion often says "less than" for prices. I don't think there is precedence for cards. Taking the less wordy option would be better, I think.
It should be "fewer" for cards, not "less".
Hmm... Catacombs and Border Village use that wording, you are right... But saying "up to one less than this" would be silly, there.
As i have proven on more than one occasion, english is not my mother language... Would "At most 2" be okay? It's the shortest i can think of, and in any case i like the inclusive option a bit more than the exclusive one.
-
Grand Vizier, V 3
Now with fancy new wording instead of "less than 2" ;P
(I'll not post an image here again, there's no artwork for the card, anyway)
Grand Vizier
If you have at most 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one:
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card, + 1 Action
$4 Action
Main question: Should the trashing exclude VP-cards again or would that be too weak? Right now i'm going for this version, and i'm much too tired for playtesting (05:41 o'clock here...). All i know is it would make the discard option more important.
Secondary question: I read in another thread how a Vizier is usually regarded an evil character, and so if the second option comes of too weak / trashing will exclude victories i might add a little attack. Is it obvious to you that would not work? I don't want the second option to seem much better than the first, either. Also, in case an attack seems okay to you: What do you think are weak attacks? Is giving out Coppers one?
I am grateful you for your advice and input :)
-
I think i found what i was looking for:
(http://s7.directupload.net/images/130311/etrprwiz.jpg)
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have at most 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one:
Trash 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card and each other player gains a Copper;
4$ Action - Attack
What do you think?
I like the symmetry (2 cards), and how you'll always end up with a smaller handsize. Its trashing is much stronger than Stewards, as it's nonterminal, but it offers no good choice if you allready have a good hand. So if you don't want to loose the good cards in your hand, discard them, cycle a bit, and attack. I think the attack is not too strong, as discarding two cards is a high price, especially as you discard before drawing. It still can gain Harem, and now also attacks Grand Market strategy. Only one can be truly grand, after all ;)
-
Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"
"Two or less" is better.
"If you have no more than 2 cards in hand,"
-
Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"
"Two or less" is better.
"If you have no more than 2 cards in hand,"
That's the Walled Village wording, isn't it? I guess i could use that...
-
Grand Vizier now prevents yourself from using the newly acquired gold, except by itself (and optionally with a random card from the deck).
Hand: GV GV Copper Copper Estate. Play GV, trash Copper&Estate, Play GV, Gain Gold to hand, discard Gold and Copper to draw a random card & give opponent Copper to hand.
Hand: GV Warehouse Copper Copper Estate. Play Warehouse, draw Copper Estate Silver. Discard Silver, Copper, Copper. Play GV, You now have 3 cards in hand, so only trash 2 estates.
Hand: GV Copper Copper. You have been hit with Militia. Play GV, gain Gold to hand, trash 2 coppers, buy $3 cost.
Hand: GV Hamlet Copper Copper Estate. Play Hamlet, draw copper, discard 2 coppers. Play GV, gain gold to hand, trash copper estate, buy $4 card.
Hand: GV Hamlet Silver Silver Estate. Play Hamlet, draw copper, discard 2 Copper&estate. Play GV, gain gold to hand, discard 2 silvers, draw something, buy $3+something card.
-
EDIT: I see you changed your post. The Hamlet example would leave me with only one Gold in hand, wouldn't it?
I don't know, is your point that the card is too weak? If yes, see the alternate version below (you may choose both or none of the options, there).
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Choose one:
Trash 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card and each other player gains a Copper;
Or: If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand. Otherwise, gain a Copper;
4$ Action
-
That's it. If noone can actually show me this is overpowered, i will keep it like this.
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may choose one:
Trash 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card and each other player gains a Copper;
4$ Action - Attack
(The "exactly" instead of "no more than" is mostly for taste reasons, but it also keeps you from trashing with your first GV if you have two of them in hand, which makes the card a teeny bit weaker.)
-
Be careful with Copper junkers. Due to pile size, copper junking is very difficult to balance. Mountebank comes with a Moat and Ambassador is naturally limited because regular use will have you return your coppers until you run out of that fodder. I'm not sure if the discard penalty here is enough to cover it. I think it might.
Your wording is still not great. The "or" should not be capitalized and is not followed by a colon. Also, ending the sentence after "discard 2 cards" makes that seem like the end of the choice, so the "if you do" is ambiguous in what it applies to. Oh, and there shouldn't be a colon there either.
Since it is a choice, I'm not sure you need the "if you do" there at all. The only purpose for it is to prevent you from attacking when you only have fewer than 2 cards in hand.
So like this:
Grand Vizier
$4 - Action-Attack
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure card costing up to $6 and put it in your hand. You may choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard 2 cards, +1 card and each other player gains a Copper.
It is just very complicated and fiddly, I think. It has a bunch of moving parts that don't seem to fit together. I see that they do work together, in that one GV can enable the second to gain Gold, but it just doesn't feel cohesive to me. Sorry this is an unclear criticism.
-
Grand Vizier
$4 - Action-Attack
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure card costing up to $6 and put it in your hand. You may choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard 2 cards, +1 card and each other player gains a Copper.
It is just very complicated and fiddly, I think. It has a bunch of moving parts that don't seem to fit together. I see that they do work together, in that one GV can enable the second to gain Gold, but it just doesn't feel cohesive to me. Sorry this is an unclear criticism.
Thank you very much for your wording, eHalcyon. I really appreciate that. Your critique about the moving parts is also quite fitting, i'm afraid. It's just not clear enough what the card actually does... Well, at least i learned something about how to do choices here ;D
Maybe what i need to do is something much more simple:
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
Now it's much more clear what the card does - it's a deck improver. Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution.
-
Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.
You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.
The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.
-
Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.
You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.
The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.
I think it means "never more than 8 cards", which would result in a negative cost. A minimum on the Treasure cost would make more sense, perhaps. I'm not fond of using an actual variable X in the wording, but it's hard to find something better.
-
Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.
You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.
The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.
I think it means "never more than 8 cards", which would result in a negative cost. A minimum on the Treasure cost would make more sense, perhaps. I'm not fond of using an actual variable X in the wording, but it's hard to find something better.
Grand Vizier
$4 — Action
+1 Action. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $8 – $1 per card in your hand. You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
If you have more than 8 cards in your hand, you just wouldn't gain a Treasure. I think it's fine.
-
Grand Vizier
$4 — Action
+1 Action. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $8 – $1 per card in your hand. You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
If you have more than 8 cards in your hand, you just wouldn't gain a Treasure. I think it's fine.
I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.
If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action
The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.
Thank you. I believe that gaining other cards but treasures would make this too strong for a 4$, and i'd like to keep it at that cost. Just imagine how many GVs you could gain, not to mention playing Festival and GV to gain another Festival...
If i really were to improve this, i'd add "If you trash this, each other player gains a Copper".
-
I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.
If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:
I've been making fan cards for a while, and I have some advice for you: don't sacrifice the elegance and clarity of a simpler wording simply to make sure the card works exactly the way you originally intended in an edge case that will barely ever matter. I'd say your wording is less clear, if anything. I understand that you originally intended that the card would always gain at least a Copper, but is that really so important? How often is somebody going to buy a Grand Vizier and then build a deck that draws up to 9 cards before playing it?
Bear in mind that there is precedent for a card telling you to gain a card costing less than $0. When you play Develop and trash a $0 card, you must attempt to gain a card costing –$1, which will always fail.
-
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a Victory Card. If you have 2 or less cards in your hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action
What do you want this card to do? Do you want it to trash cards? Gain cards? Maybe a description of the desired function will give us a better idea of how to build the card rules.
-
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a Victory Card. If you have 2 or less cards in your hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action
What do you want this card to do? Do you want it to trash cards? Gain cards? Maybe a description of the desired function will give us a better idea of how to build the card rules.
It is meant to reward a small handsize. That's the only important point. I wanted to make a card that makes players go for a reverse strategy to "draw your whole deck". It's as simple as that. Well, not exactly. It should also combo with itself and have some regular use. It's gone a long way and evolved a lot during this thread, that's why it always looks different. But yeah, small handsize - that's what it's all about.
EDIT: Did i mention it absolutely must be able to gain Harem? ;)
I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.
If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:
I've been making fan cards for a while, and I have some advice for you: don't sacrifice the elegance and clarity of a simpler wording simply to make sure the card works exactly the way you originally intended in an edge case that will barely ever matter. I'd say your wording is less clear, if anything. I understand that you originally intended that the card would always gain at least a Copper, but is that really so important? How often is somebody going to buy a Grand Vizier and then build a deck that draws up to 9 cards before playing it?
Bear in mind that there is precedent for a card telling you to gain a card costing less than $0. When you play Develop and trash a $0 card, you must attempt to gain a card costing –$1, which will always fail.
Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.
The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.
-
Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.
The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.
That's fair. What if you made the gain optional?
-
Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.
The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.
That's fair. What if you made the gain optional?
That's a good solution. "You may gain a Copper" is strictly better than "Gain nothing" ;)
I know it's pedantic, sorry...
I'll just have to see if it doesn't make the card even stronger - i'm concerned it might be too good for plain old 4$ right now, but i'll find out playtesting. Probably i'm comparing it a bit too much with Steward...
So:
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may gain a treasure card costing up to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
4$ Action
-
That's a good solution. "You may gain a Copper" is strictly better than "Gain nothing" ;)
I know it's pedantic, sorry...
That's cool. Honestly, I like the version that just gains Gold if you have no more than 2 cards in your hand. It neatly avoids all this stuff, and it's what you usually want to do with the card anyway.
-
A non-terminal Silver gainer that trashes 2 from hand (optionally!) seems incredibly powerful. Probably better than JoaT in many situations. I think the idea is cute, but seems overpowered at $4. Note that Trading Post is quite similar but much less flexible, and it costs $5. I think this is would be a better opening than Remake in almost any board, and Remake is already one of the best $4 cards. And its flexibility for later is incredible.
-
I agree. I think the card should return to the basic premise. Buy a few of these to trim your deck with the "You may trash" part, chain them with the +Action, and gain Gold (or other) by running your hand down. I also liked that it gained directly to your hand.
-
I thank you all for your feedback, but oops, it's 03:09 in the morning again in Germany, so i'll look here again tomorrow...
If someone remembers a version of the card where he'd say "that's it" or wants to give making one a try, way to go.
Good night and thank you all :)
EDIT: If the only good solution is "make it cost 5$", then so shall it be. But i'd rather make it worse, as i want it to be something you can open with.
EDIT 2: Last try (for tonight):
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard a card.
4$ Action
-
How would that one rewording have made Grand Vizier stronger with 9 or more cards? It just means that players wouldn't gain any Treasure card at all. That is better than having to gain a Copper, but not that much better. It would still reward small hand sizes.
The point that this is $4 for strong non-terminal trashing is really good. Even without the treasure gaining, just +1 action, trash 2 cards might be too strong for $4. Gaining Gold just makes it way better. Hm.
-
How would that one rewording have made Grand Vizier stronger with 9 or more cards? It just means that players wouldn't gain any Treasure card at all. That is better than having to gain a Copper, but not that much better. It would still reward small hand sizes.
The point that this is $4 for strong non-terminal trashing is really good. Even without the treasure gaining, just +1 action, trash 2 cards might be too strong for $4. Gaining Gold just makes it way better. Hm.
Yes, but that's allready enough. I am willing to change anything else on the card, but not that Lower handsize = better GV.
It's pedantic, i know, but after all, that's the point of the card. If i can't make it work, that's okay, too.
What if i reduce the trashing and offer other choices, for example to save the Gold for the next turn?
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may trash a card from your hand.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Copper.
EDIT: Actually i'm close to giving up on it right now...
-
I like the required trashing more than the optional trashing.
-
Well, if we boil the concept of 'gainer that gets better the fewer cards you have in hand', I think it'd look something like this:
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $7 – $1 per card in your hand.
That seems reasonable to me. By default it gains cards costing up to $3. If you get hit by a Militia, it gains a card costing up to $5. It can't gain Provinces because that would be too crazy with Warehouse, Hamlet, Cellar, etc.
-
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may trash a card from your hand.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Copper.
I don't know. All i can say is that this worked nicely when i playtested it today. Oasis/Grand Vizier could beat Fools Gold/Market on a Board with constant Pillaging and Medium as another possible handsize-reducer. It won, but close. Considering that there was a cheap and good enabler that helped it as well as an attack that hit other strategies far worse, i think that's okay. Without an enabler and/or with junkers, GV would probably have lost. Required trashing might be a bit too tough, i think. But i'll keep playtesting and we'll see.
Actually i must admit i'm rather confident about it at the moment :)
LastFootnote, your idea is nice, but i don't know. I think there are enough Workshops allready. I know i brought it up myself, but only gaining something good once in a while seems more interesting to me. It's a stronger reason to go for a completely different strategy than usual, and that's important for me. I feel that, as reducing your handsize does not happen that easy (especially when the card itself is terminal), your card will be a Silver gainer most of the time...
EDIT: I'll try the mandatory trashing later today. As trashing will be the only real effect of the card if it does not gain a Gold, that might just be okay. Also it gives you a reason to trash other GVs late in the game ;)
I'll update the card if this turns out a good idea.
-
I think you might be underestimating non-terminal trashing.
As it is right now, two GVs in hand will get you Gold in hand. Along with the non-terminal trashing, that's probably too strong. At the very least, the Gold you gain shouldn't go in hand. Reducing hand size isn't that difficult, though it depends on the board. LF already mentioned Hamlet and Warehouse. GV itself helps you do it.
-
I think you might be underestimating non-terminal trashing.
As it is right now, two GVs in hand will get you Gold in hand. Along with the non-terminal trashing, that's probably too strong. At the very least, the Gold you gain shouldn't go in hand. Reducing hand size isn't that difficult, though it depends on the board. LF already mentioned Hamlet and Warehouse. GV itself helps you do it.
I don't know if i do. I will just try a version where the gain is not to hand. If it can keep up, i'll do it.
-
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure costing up to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand, putting it in your hand.
If you do, trash a non-Victory card from your hand.
4$ Action
Not necessarily better than Explorer w/out Province (Hand with no card you want to trash, hand size was 7 before, etc.)
Not necessarily better than Lookout (If you have all the good Actions and Treasures cards in hand or if you don't want unnecessary silvers, cannot trash estates)
Not necessarily better than Trading Post (Now trashes 1 card, no estates)
Not necessarily better than JOAT (Trashing isn't optional, cannot draw you 2 cards if you had 4 cards in hand before, trashes coppers not estates).
Is still a good opener if you want silvers.
Can trash its own gain in edge cases and when the only point of playing this was to set up another GV.
Cannot trash Victory cards because it looked really strong if that was the case. If you are suffering from discard attacks, you are discarding your Victory cards anyway and you almost would rather have estates than coppers anyway.
Doesn't gain a Gold even when 2 of these collide, requires 3 or more GV to gain golds, or another case where handsize is reduced (beggar, market square, discard attacks, minion, actions that decrease handsize, black market comboes, etc.)
"If you do" is there because all Treasure cards in the supply could be gone, creating an edge case where you can claim not to have non-victory cards. It can be easily replaced with "... or reveal a hand of all Victory cards."
Editted to in hand.
-
I just playtested it without "in hand", and it lost the game, but was still useful... I guess it could work. I still don't like it...
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure costing up to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand.
If you do, trash a non-Victory card from your hand.
4$ Action
Not necessarily better than Explorer w/out Province (Hand with no card you want to trash, hand size was 7 before, etc.)
Not necessarily better than Lookout (If you have all the good Actions and Treasures cards in hand or if you don't want unnecessary silvers, cannot trash estates)
Not necessarily better than Trading Post (Now trashes 1 card, no estates)
Not necessarily better than JOAT (Trashing isn't optional, cannot draw you 2 cards if you had 4 cards in hand before, trashes coppers not estates).
Is still a good opener if you want silvers.
Can trash its own gain in edge cases and when the only point of playing this was to set up another GV.
Cannot trash Victory cards because it looked really strong if that was the case. If you are suffering from discard attacks, you are discarding your Victory cards anyway and you almost would rather have estates than coppers anyway.
Doesn't gain a Gold even when 2 of these collide, requires 3 or more GV to gain golds, or another case where handsize is reduced (beggar, market square, discard attacks, minion, actions that decrease handsize, black market comboes, etc.)
"If you do" is there because all Treasure cards in the supply could be gone, creating an edge case where you can claim not to have non-victory cards. It can be easily replaced with "... or reveal a hand of all Victory cards."
That's very interesting, but i'm confused... Is the gain to-hand? If it is, it's interesting as it can be used to gain a Potion in hand whenever you need one. I don't know, but i think it's still often better than Explorer (which is easy, as Explorer is quite bad...).
-
That's very interesting, but i'm confused... Is the gain to-hand? If it is, it's interesting as it can be used to gain a Potion in hand whenever you need one. I don't know, but i think it's still often better than Explorer (which is easy, as Explorer is quite bad...).
If you're using Explorer as a reference point, don't assume it's "quite bad". Explorer's badness is pretty overblown on these forums.
-
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure costing up to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand, putting it in your hand.
If you do, trash a non-Victory card from your hand.
4$ Action
Not necessarily better than Explorer w/out Province (Hand with no card you want to trash, hand size was 7 before, etc.)
Not necessarily better than Lookout (If you have all the good Actions and Treasures cards in hand or if you don't want unnecessary silvers, cannot trash estates)
Not necessarily better than Trading Post (Now trashes 1 card, no estates)
Not necessarily better than JOAT (Trashing isn't optional, cannot draw you 2 cards if you had 4 cards in hand before, trashes coppers not estates).
Is still a good opener if you want silvers.
Can trash its own gain in edge cases and when the only point of playing this was to set up another GV.
Cannot trash Victory cards because it looked really strong if that was the case. If you are suffering from discard attacks, you are discarding your Victory cards anyway and you almost would rather have estates than coppers anyway.
Doesn't gain a Gold even when 2 of these collide, requires 3 or more GV to gain golds, or another case where handsize is reduced (beggar, market square, discard attacks, minion, actions that decrease handsize, black market comboes, etc.)
"If you do" is there because all Treasure cards in the supply could be gone, creating an edge case where you can claim not to have non-victory cards. It can be easily replaced with "... or reveal a hand of all Victory cards."
Editted to in hand.
From a hand of 5, this is usually +1 action, +$2, gain a Silver, trash a non-Victory card. I mean, I guess it doesn't give as much money as Explorer since you will probably be trashing Copper with it, but that trash itself is still good. I'd say that this is better than Explorer and is very close to a Silver+ at $4, which is a Dominion design no-no.
-
That's very interesting, but i'm confused... Is the gain to-hand? If it is, it's interesting as it can be used to gain a Potion in hand whenever you need one. I don't know, but i think it's still often better than Explorer (which is easy, as Explorer is quite bad...).
If you're using Explorer as a reference point, don't assume it's "quite bad". Explorer's badness is pretty overblown on these forums.
I'm not assuming here, i'm making a statement. I know Explorer. It is better than some think, but it's still not very good.
Of course eHalcyon is absolutely right, though. To gain the card in hand is much too strong. Even without, it is basically a Jack that instead of drawing cards gets better the less you have in hand and adds an action. It's probably too strong even then.
I guess i'll stick to my last version, but without gaining the card in hand.
-
Back in the old days (when this thread wasn't only about me trying to get Grand Vizier right ;)) OneArmedMan suggested to change the card Amazon Village because the trashing seemed unneccessary. I've made up my mind and would like to get back to that - trashing is nice, but maybe there really should be less of it. So i was thinking to get a version of AV which does not trash but still can gain Attack cards when they are played. OneArmedMan suggested it to cost 3$ and trash itself for gaining the attack, but i'd rather not do that (i know Procession also trashes Durations from play, but i don't like that very much, either).
So how about a 4$ card like this:
Amazon Village
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
At the start of your next turn: + 1 Action
While this is in play, if another player plays an attack card, you may immediately gain a copy of the played attack card.
4$ Action - Duration
It's worse than a Caravan on Boards without attacks, and only a Cantrip on the turn you play it. Also the additional action helps playing attacks, but only if an AV is allready in play.
EDIT: Strangely, i never really liked Villages as a card type. It's weird how many made it into the set nonetheless :P
Should i also un-Village it a bit?
-
Last changes/ideas:
Amazon Village (as in last post)
+ 1 Card
+ 1 Action
At the start of your next turn:
+ 1 Action
When this is in play and another player plays an attack card, you may immeadiately gain a copy of the played attack card.
4$ Action - Duration
Unicorn (new)
+ 1$
+ 1 Buy
When this is in play and you buy a card, reveal your hand. If none of the revealed cards or cards you have in play is a copy of the card you bought, put the bought card on the top of your deck.
3$ Action
Dragon (changed)
+ 3 Cards
Each other player chooses one:
He gains a Coppers, putting one of them on top of his deck; or he reveals his hand and you decide if he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.
5$ Action - Attack
Dwarf (changed)
+ 1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck.
Look at the bottom card of your deck. You may put it in your hand. You may put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck.
2$ Action
Unicorn is self-explanatory, it's trying to add a little Cornucopia to the set.
Dwarf now becomes more of a counter to top-decking attacks, as it also discards those Estates or Curses. A bit more cycling, too.
Still looking for a good alternative choice for players hit by Dragon... I know it's not very good, but i'd like a choice that 1) has not been there before, 2) hits bad/good enough to make the choice actually depending on the cards a player has (Outlook vs Tunnel) and 3) does not make the card overpowered.
-
For Dragon: What is "a Coppers", and how do you only put one on top of your deck?
For Unicorn: That had better be a Treasure because it is too weak otherwise. I also don't think it needs the "reveal the hand" part and it should be optional.
-
For Dragon: What is "a Coppers", and how do you only put one on top of your deck?
For Unicorn: That had better be a Treasure because it is too weak otherwise. I also don't think it needs the "reveal the hand" part and it should be optional.
Ah crap, i originally thought that Dragon could give out two Coppers, but that seemed too harsh. Maybe it isn't. I also see i underlined the wrong part of the card...
So:
Dragon
5$ Action - Attack
+ 3 Cards
Each other player chooses one:
He gains 2 Coppers, putting one of them on top of his deck; or he reveals his hand and you decide if he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.
All you said about Unicorn are good points, too. I'm sorry i neither read that post again to notice the mistake on Dragon nor thought Unicorn through enough before posting.
So:
Unicorn
4$ Treasure
1$
+ 1 Buy
When this is in play and you buy a card, if none of the cards you have in play is a copy of the card you bought, you may put the bought card on the top of your deck.