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

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

101

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: February 02, 2014, 04:04:22 pm »

I don't think it has to do with "being forced to wait" as that relates to turn order so much as "for the rest of the game in general".

Sure, but people seem to realize that they don't want to play "the rest of the game in general" pretty consistently at the end of their own turn.  As the resigning player did in the game I keep referring to.  (I would guess, on average, you get the highest concentration of new information about win expectations when your opponent plays his treasures.  I could be wrong.  I don't see how it's obvious.)

I agree that people prefer the opponent's turn in a fun game to their own turn in a dead game.  But even in a dead game, people noticeably prefer playing their own turn, and this is why the end of their own turn becomes the more natural point for realizing that the game is no longer fun.  Again, in the example I referred to, something like this seems pretty clearly to be happening, and in my own experience, it happens pretty frequently this way.

You might be right that, even if players could resign at the beginning of their own turns, players like the one above would more often than not still take the superfluous final turn, thus forcing the opponent to play another dead turn.  I admit that I don't really know which would happen; I only suspect it would be closer to 50/50 than the pure time-suck you think it would be.  But probably Goko's permissiveness shortens the turn-length of games at least a little.  You could compare the results on Isotropic and Goko to find out.

I don't really get how it could be that "people aren't complaining except at the complaints."  I mean clearly people have to be first complaining about the timing of resignation for other people to push back.  Anyway, the original post was complaining about the timing of someone else's resignation, which is why I chimed in.  I do get the sense that people frequently feel put off by resignation timing, not just me.  And that the result of people feeling frequently feeling put off is a less congenial gaming atmosphere.  I don't think I get significantly more offended than other people.  Actually, speaking for myself, I enjoy playing against extremely rude players; it gets my blood going.  But, I do think that formalizing resignation timing, as Isotropic did, contributes to more respectful gameplay.

I also think that, though the waters have gotten muddy here, there is a pretty strong consensus that people enjoy playing their own cards more than they enjoy waiting for their opponent to play theirs, pretty much in all types of games, including in games where the decision is basically decided.  There is also pretty much a consensus that quitting a decided game favors the losing player more than the winning player, and that there is some fun to be had for the winner in playing out the victory to completion.  I think that yours and Awaclus' position that playing out a victory is indistinguishable from pushing random buttons on a keyboard is, while sensible, not the way most people feel, and that the existence of resigning as an option is more the result of everyone averaging their own expected outcomes, reasoning that they will both win and lose games, and that they will suffer more by playing out losses than they will recoup in enjoyment from playing out wins.  And I do think that, from this consensus, derives the result that allowing your opponent the final turn is both generous and polite.  That does, hypothetically, demand a certain accommodation from the WWs and Awacluses of the world, who don't derive any pleasure at all from playing out wins.

I'm certainly sorry you feel so verbally attacked by this discussion.  I do still feel that your position is best characterized as circumstantial mild indifference to politeness in favor of humans just obeying their own instincts; and that you think a system of politeness would be detrimental.  I feel the same way about people who insist that there's no reason to say "gg."  It's anti-politeness, rather than alt-politeness.  I don't really have a problem with anti-politeness.  I get that you would not use these words yourself to describe your own position.  I get why you think that what you're advocating is an alternate take on what's polite.  I just don't agree that that's actually the way to put it.  I don't really think the libertarian "everyone should do what they want" should be defined as a form of politeness, even allowing the possibility that it would make people happier while saving time.  (Which I don't think it would.)

I would say that, attacked as you might feel by my having an interpretation of your position that you don't agree with, it doesn't really excuse the increasingly aggressive tone of your posts.  You're certainly becoming very comfortable characterizing my arguing for my own interpretation of what's polite as "whining."  I'm not complaining about anything.  I don't even play online anymore; I just read these forums and watch your videos.  I do think that since KingZog was bothered by the timing of his opponent's resignation in this game, he should look at the timing of his own resignation in the other game he posted about on the same day.

And now, according to long-agreed upon notions of what is polite, I will allow you the last word.

102

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: February 02, 2014, 12:50:51 pm »

So please quit assuming malicious intent without good reason.

I wouldn't say resigning at the end of your turn is motivated by "malicious intent."  It's just maximizing your own enjoyment of the game, probably subconsciously; that it comes at the expense of your opponent's enjoyment is just byproduct.  I don't find it all that cynical to believe that people are maximizing their own fun. 

As for "good reason," it seems to me to be the simplest explanation by far for why people are more likely to quit around the end of their own turns, even though that's not the point of the game when you receive the most new information.  And certainly I still think it's the simplest explanation for why, in the above example, the resigning player took that meaningless extra turn before deciding to resign.  Or, to use your language, I think that's the simplest explanation for why it only "occurred to him to resign" once his turn was done.

You seem to begin with the assumption that people are more like rational machines, who are capable of making perfect calculations as to when the odds of their winning outweigh the cost in time of continuing to play.  I don't share that assumption.  I think people quit a game of Dominion by making a snap decision that "it's not fun anymore."  And that, with the absence of a custom of politeness, they are more likely to feel that "it's not fun anymore" at the end of their own turn, when they are about to be forced to wait.

If I thought that people were mechanical, and usually made perfect decisions on their own, I would agree with you about the rest.  Perhaps we just disagree about where people fall on the logical-emotional spectrum.  I can see it being tempting to believe that, in the middle of a game based on making logical decisions, people will be in a logical headspace and resign at the precise perfect time, but I don't believe that this is what occurs in practice.

And, because I think people make these decisions emotionally and imperfectly, I think that enforcing a "resign at the beginning of your turn" custom will not waste anyone's time on balance.  It will often prevent people from taking the extra "one-last-turn" they tend to take.  Sometimes they will take that turn anyway, and be forced to wait through one more of their opponent's turns.  But these instances will cancel each other out.

I mean, this was the system that was in place on Isotropic, and I don't remember anyone complaining about it.

Get your terms straight.

Don't worry, I have them straight.  I agree that politeness derives from consensus.  But I disagree that the consensus should form around the precise "when is it most polite to resign in Dominion?"  The consensus forms around basic principles of politeness, and then, situation by situation, polite behavior is derived from those principles.  Otherwise, you could always claim that consensus didn't exist by further specifying the situation: "There's no consensus about when to resign in a game of Dominion when the Kingdom includes Scout and Witch and there are three Duchies left..."

The principle here is that generosity is polite, selfishness is rude.  And that since your own turn is more fun than your opponent's turn, the generous time to resign is before, rather than after, your own turn.  But again, I agree with you that a mechanical person would never think that their own turn was more fun than their opponent's turn, and never be capable of generosity or selfishness, and have no need of politeness of any kind.  The matter of our disagreement, I think, is how mechanical people are.

103

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: February 02, 2014, 03:14:47 am »

Why is it impolite? The fun part of the game isn't clicking stupid buttons. I don't believe that, and while I guess it's maybe true for you, I can't imagine it is for almost anyone else. Clicking buttons is something you can do in lots of contexts, and it isn't fun. The fun part of the game is in playing the game - contesting your strategy, tactics, and luck against the other peoples', and seeing who wins. Thus, once the game is over, you don't want to keep bumbling around; you move on to the next game. You don't play the next few turns after provinces run out, or three piles are gone. You move on. The game is effectively over (only referring to 2-player here) once a player decides to resign, so the only polite thing to do is to not waste the other guy's time by stringing him on, but to resign IMMEDIATELY after the decision is made.

Lots of players enjoy playing their cards and seeing their engines go off after building them up.  It's a distinct thing from pushing random buttons.  It's for this reason that, given the choice, players tend to resign at the end of their own turn.  They take the satisfaction of playing their own cards, because playing your own cards is fun, and then quit instead of waiting through the other player's turn, because waiting through the other player's turn is boring. 

Seriously, look at this game --

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140128/log.51467e35e4b0de86766bf3f3.1390928469821.txt

-- and tell me that the resigning player resigned immediately after he "decided" to resign.  He already had nine Curses.  He played a turn in which he played a Familiar and bought a Silver.  Then he quit.  There wasn't any new information at the end of the turn that wasn't there at the beginning.  I'm not assigning "malicious intent" here, just pointing out the obvious.  The resigning player took a superfluous last turn.  He was the one who wasted both players' time. 

Requiring players to resign at the beginning of their own turn isn't wasting anyone's time; it will prevent many players from taking an extra turn to hit buttons after they've "decided" to resign.

I mean, you, the guy who is upset at the other guy resigning at the wrong time (not necessarily you personally), are clearly being entirely incosdiderate of the other guy. You're saying he's not considering you, but you aren't considering him. You're wanting to waste BOTH of your times.

By this logic, any call for any kind of politeness is "inconsiderate" of someone else's desire to be rude.

104

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: February 01, 2014, 04:00:49 pm »

Or maybe he played his own cards because he didn't know that he would be having an absolutely awful hand next turn until he drew it at the end of his turn. And if I ask if my opponent minds if I resign, then the only polite way for my opponent to respond is that they don't mind, so it's pointless.

Sure, sometimes.  But not usually.  Like, here's the example that I noted.  I don't think any new information was gained on the resigning player's last turn.

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140128/log.51467e35e4b0de86766bf3f3.1390928469821.txt

And yeah, being polite is sometimes just adding another layer of time-consuming formal exchanges that accomplish nothing but demonstrating a perfunctory consideration of the other person's feelings.  That is what it means to be polite!  All I'm saying is, if you find politeness "pointless" and time-consuming, then the best way of describing your point of view is that politeness doesn't concern you that much.

I think you're confusing polite with inconsiderate, not that this really matters?
Anyway, I am definitely very annoyed by people asking me they resign. Can I call that impolite? Sure. But there isn't much point - I think the larger point here is to not assume malicious intent, and realize that whatever the little things, it's doesn't really matter THAT much in the scheme of things.

Actually, it's incorrect to label some behavior impolite just because it annoys you.  Impolite and annoying are different things.

Sure, this doesn't matter that much in the scheme of things.  I mean, what I've been arguing all along is that you are clearly not that worried about politeness in this instance, which is basically exactly what you're expressing right now. 

I would like to keep the meanings of words clear, when possible.  That's something I think does matters in the scheme of things.  So, instead of expanding the definition of "polite" to include mild indifference to politeness, I'd just prefer that the two things remain in separate categories.  You seem really resistant to being labeled as "mildly indifferent to politeness."  I don't really find it an offensive descriptor.

105

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 31, 2014, 07:12:13 pm »

I find it very strange that you think you understand my thought process better than I do - especially that this is true to the extent that you feel the need to comment on it.

But I guess you either have to disbelieve me or be surprised at your incorrect assumption, because I really don't think it's less polite to resign at any point - and I find it strange that other people do.

It's not really that strange! It's pretty common to feel, when someone else is talking, that they mean a different thing than what they're saying.  People don't express themselves perfectly.  Through a combination of awkwardness of language, and a desire, usually unconscious, to distort reality by misdescribing it, what people say is at best an approximation of what they think and feel.

It's not uncommon that one person can have a clearer idea of what another is thinking than that person is themselves expressing.  Especially in oppositional discourse like this.

106

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 31, 2014, 07:04:51 pm »

The other person has to wait while you play your cards.  It is then polite to return the courtesy and let the other person play their cards.

No, it's not polite to make them play their cards when there's no point in doing so. If you think clicking on cards on Goko is fun, then you can play against the bots or whatever; I assume that most people would rather be doing something of significance, such as playing another game of Dominion against someone who hasn't decided to resign yet.

Everyone prefers their own turn to the other guy's turn.  Almost all of the resignations I encounter come around the beginning of my turn, because the other guy played his own cards, because it was a little fun for him, and then resigned, because waiting through my turn was not at all fun for him.

If your opponent is playing a turn you think they would rather not play, if they knew you were just going to resign, you can tell them that, and ask if they mind if you resign.  "But wait!  That means going the extra mile just to avoid offending someone else!  I mean, there's a chance they might not have even minded if I just resigned!"

Well, that's what it means to be polite.  Going that extra mile.

107

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 31, 2014, 05:20:49 pm »

I still maintain that the polite time to resign is whenever (insert personal pronoun/name here) feel(s) like it.

The other person has to wait while you play your cards.  It is then polite to return the courtesy and let the other person play their cards.

I think what you're really saying is "I don't worry all that much about being polite."  Which is fine.

1) I disagree with your second sentence (actually I disagree with the first, too, but that is more of a technicality).
2) I do worry about trying to be polite. "All that much" is incredibly subjective, so I can't really speak to that. Certainly it isn't my TOP priority...
3) I meant what I said.
4) I find it rather rude to imply that numbers 2 and 3 are untrue.

I'm sure you meant what you said.  I just think the words I used are more apt in describing your thought processes.  Although an even better, even less objectionable way to put it would be, "I don't consider politeness, when it comes to the timing of when to resign in a game of online Dominion." 

If you or any hypothetical human being said something along the lines of "When it comes to the timing of when to resign in a game of online Dominion, I think everything is equally polite," I would assume what they actually felt was more like the first thing.

108

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 31, 2014, 03:10:35 pm »

I still maintain that the polite time to resign is whenever (insert personal pronoun/name here) feel(s) like it.

The other person has to wait while you play your cards.  It is then polite to return the courtesy and let the other person play their cards.

I think what you're really saying is "I don't worry all that much about being polite."  Which is fine.

109

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 29, 2014, 06:57:38 pm »

i know it can be irritating when you're losing badly, but this annoys me.  it's been happening more to me recently.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10312.0

?

the "this" that annoys me is "resigning in the middle of your opponents last turn", "last turn" being the turn where they'd be ending the game on a win themselves.  If you resign on my turn, obviously that's my last turn; it's only annoying if i was going to end on a win anyway.

The polite time to resign is at the beginning of your own turn.

110

Game Reports / Re: Wow. Buzzkill

« on: January 29, 2014, 06:33:26 pm »

i know it can be irritating when you're losing badly, but this annoys me.  it's been happening more to me recently.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10312.0

111

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 08, 2014, 04:27:09 pm »

Bottle Imp:

Druid and Research, as well as a few other submissions, demonstrate a desire¹ for an "alternative path to Potion cards."  That's a reasonable aspiration.  Potion cards are fun!  Potions themselves are not.

But both of those cards illustrate the difficulties with the concept of "replacing" Potion.  Druid, by both trashing your Potion and then seamlessly replacing it, takes all the "cost" out of Potion-cost cards.  It's too obvious a solution to the Potion problem, and ends up oversimplifying gameplay, rather than branching it out.  Research, on the other hand, is a redundancy -- a card you need a Potion to buy that then fills your deck with more Researches to get more Potion-cost cards.  You'll rarely want Research if you've already bought a Potion.

Bottle Imp is, I think, the closest the contest came to a true Potion-alternative.  I think it works because it doesn't aim to replace Potion.  You need two action cards in play to even buy Imp².  So it will be even later that you finally get Potion cards into your deck than if you'd gone the straightforward route.  Also, because each Imp has to be sacrificed to get a Potion card out of it, you'll never get as many Potion cards out of Imp as you would with Potion.  So, while it's nice to get Potion cards without having to clog your deck with Potion, the drawbacks of Bottle Imp are appropriately severe.  It's a true alternate route, and provides actual branching gameplay.

I don't think Imp is often a viable route, though.  Potion cards are designed to be massable, and Bottle Imp won't usually let you mass them.  So when you're going after mass Scrying Pools, Alchemists, or Apothecaries, Bottle Imp is probably worse than Potion.³  Familiar, on the other hand, you don't want to mass.  But you want them ASAP, sooner than your opponent, and Bottle Imp is going to lose the footrace to Potion.

Bottle Imp is a nice card for picking up Golems, since you don't really want a Golem until you have a lot of actions in your deck already, and you usually don't anticipate getting more than a few of them.  You might prefer Imps when Golem is the only other Potion cost card on the board.  But, Golem also tends to replace the need for Alchemist and Scrying Pool, so, even with those cards present, skipping Potion might be preferable.  Bottle Imp can also work nicely with Philosopher's Stone, a card that is more valuable later, and that you won't want more than a few of.  And, in those cases where a Familiar is better later⁴ Imp is a nice Potion alt. 

But, there are few cases when Bottle Imp beats Potion.  Usually, Potion will be the best way to buy Potion cards.  Luckily, Bottle Imp has other uses! 

Someone commented that Imp's ability to gain Duchies is a bad reward for the hoops you have to go through to get one.  But on engine boards, gaining Imp will be trivial, because you will almost always have two Action cards in play.  In those instances, the ability to trash into a Duchy can be huge for the endgame.  If you trash Imp on your last shuffle, then it was essentially a Market that was worth 3VP, which you probably bought for 5.  That's a great deal.

For that reason, it's probably good that you can't trash Imp into Duchy if you already have two Action cards in play.  That's the thing I really like about the card.  The "two action cards in play" clause intersects with the card's value at two critical points.  When the card costs 5, instead of 5P, it can no longer be trashed into Potion cards OR into 5s.  Now it can only grab 4s.  That might be nice for grabbing mass Silk Roads/Gardens/Feoda in a game-ending mega-turn.  But mass trashing into Duchies will be difficult.5

Imp has a few other uses besides trashing into VP.  In situations where +Buy is more valuable early in the game, such as with Peddlers, or with other Potion costs, you might want a "market" now, but a different 5 later.  You might want to trash them late-game into activated Cities.  The card offers some intriguing flex potential on a variety of boards.  And of course, there's also those other boards where all you really want is +buy or another non-terminal, and it's cost barrier is nothing more than a giant hassle.  Those are fun, too.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on my own card.  Thanks to those who voted for it and who said nice things about it!

¹ If not an actual need.
² Obviously you'd almost never buy it for 5P.
³ Though an Imp grabbed opportunely can help you win the Scrying Pool split.
⁴ Say your opponent has trashed down and then re-bloated their deck.
⁵ Though not impossible, since Imp can still be trashed into Duchy even if there's already one Action Card in play.  It self-trashes, so it no longer counts as an "action card in play" when the gaining happens.  Scrying Pool or Tactician can help you trash a bunch of Imps into 5s on the same turn.

112

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 06, 2014, 11:08:00 pm »

Elixir (C)
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Potion or a card costing at least P. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Most interesting Market variant I've seen in a while.  Having thought on it more, the self-chaining is a little scary and might actually warrant a $4P cost.  Still sounds fun enough to warrant a vote.

Even at 4P, Elixir itself makes amassing Elixir very easy.  Only the first one will be difficult to buy. 

I don't really see this card as interesting.  If you buy a Potion and then nothing but Elixirs, your hands will all more or less play themselves.  It's basically, "+1$, +buy, play all the Elixirs in your deck and put the rest of your deck in the discard."

113

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 06, 2014, 03:12:25 am »

Thoughts on the top cards.

INCANTATION: Good card.  Worth play-testing.
RESEARCH: A lot of fussy restrictions make it borderline unplayable.  The whole "Remodels-into-Potion-cards" concept might not actually be such a hot idea.
DRUID: A dominating card that is obviously useful, but creates very few interesting choices.
ELIXIR (B): Cantrip then Throne Room.
ELIXIR (C): Overpowered.  Will too often lead to races to drain the Elixir (C) pile.
CONTRAPTION: Does what University does but is almost always worse at it and is very expensive.  Good for fans of 9-card kingdoms.

Agreed about Incantation.

Research I still like. What is wrong with "Remodels into Potion cards"

Those were the only two of the ones that advanced which I voted for

There aren't a ton of Potion cards on the board, and you already have one card that's solely dedicated to getting them.  Also, other than Vineyard, there's no VP potion cost, so "Remodel-into-Potion" is going to become irrelevant.  The result is a card you won't get until the 3rd shuffle, that will soon become useless.

What do you like about Research?

I like research for the same reason I liked the smithy variants. Unless you count transmute, there isn't a remodel variant in Alchemy. Even without the "or $1P" the "remodel two cards at once, add the cost" is interesting enough for further consideration

I don't think "there isn't a remodel variant in Alchemy" is reason enough to vote for a card.  Especially since it's very possible that "trash a card, gain a card costing P more" is just a weak concept.  Maybe there's a good reason that there's no Remodel variant in Alchemy.  (Except Transmute.)

As far as "remodel two cards at once, add the cost" being an okay card, I agree.  That card would be okay, if basically a retread of other things.  But adding on to that card "or 1p" and a bunch of other stuff doesn't necessarily improve the design.

114

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 05, 2014, 11:31:45 pm »

Thoughts on the top cards.

INCANTATION: Good card.  Worth play-testing.
RESEARCH: A lot of fussy restrictions make it borderline unplayable.  The whole "Remodels-into-Potion-cards" concept might not actually be such a hot idea.
DRUID: A dominating card that is obviously useful, but creates very few interesting choices.
ELIXIR (B): Cantrip then Throne Room.
ELIXIR (C): Overpowered.  Will too often lead to races to drain the Elixir (C) pile.
CONTRAPTION: Does what University does but is almost always worse at it and is very expensive.  Good for fans of 9-card kingdoms.

Agreed about Incantation.

Research I still like. What is wrong with "Remodels into Potion cards"

Those were the only two of the ones that advanced which I voted for

There aren't a ton of Potion cards on the board, and you already have one card that's solely dedicated to getting them.  Also, other than Vineyard, there's no VP potion cost, so "Remodel-into-Potion" is going to become irrelevant.  The result is a card you won't get until the 3rd shuffle, that will soon become useless.

What do you like about Research?

115

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 05, 2014, 09:08:45 pm »

Thoughts on the top cards.

INCANTATION: Good card.  Worth play-testing.
RESEARCH: A lot of fussy restrictions make it borderline unplayable.  The whole "Remodels-into-Potion-cards" concept might not actually be such a hot idea.
DRUID: A dominating card that is obviously useful, but creates very few interesting choices.
ELIXIR (B): Cantrip then Throne Room.
ELIXIR (C): Overpowered.  Will too often lead to races to drain the Elixir (C) pile.
CONTRAPTION: Does what University does but is almost always worse at it and is very expensive.  Good for fans of 9-card kingdoms.

116

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: January 02, 2014, 09:03:01 pm »

Incantation
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that costs more than it and shares a type with it. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

Yeah, I've tried to do things with card types, but the thing is everything is a type. Reaction, Victory, Treasure, Action, Attack, Knight, Looter, Curse. They are all types. Now, for the effect it'll mostly find Better Treasures, or sift Victory cards, but it can skip actions which is bad. I don't see it being worth the Potion cost. Yes, cantrip trashing is good, but it's uninteresting and this card has that downside.

Trashing a Copper for a Silver/Potion/Gold is still neat, i think. The only cards where you normally can't hope for something better to reveal are Curse, Estate and Hovel (as you usually don't want to trash your other Victories - Feodum excluded) - and as you trash Estates as early as possible it's likely for all three that they will be the cheapest around and so this is still cantrip-trashing with a chancellor effect. Usually it would be better, giving you a hold of your Potions more often or trashing cheap actions for better ones (Rats!).

About the types:
Action: Useful
Treasure: Useful
Victory: Obviously the weakest of the main types, but can still give Chancellor effect (Aside: Tournament/Explorer)
Curse: Sure Chancellor effect
Knight: Irrelevant, as all Knights are actions.
Looter: Irrelevant, as all Looters are actions.
Ruins: Irrelevant, as all ruins are actions.
Reaction: Only type where things can get weird, but still only relevant with Hovel and another Reaction (benefit) or with Tunnel/Fool's Gold for a 4$ Reaction.

Trashing Actions with Incantation will be really nice if they're Ruins or Rats, but other than that, it seems like something you'd rarely do.  Usually Incantation will be trashing Estates and getting the Chancellor effect, or trashing Coppers and getting +1$-ish.  I don't know how good that is, honestly.  3P seems like a high cost for it.  Also, I don't know if the Potion in the cost makes it more or less fun.


As for Research... the on-buy bonus makes it better, but do you even want Research?  It seems like a weak card with too many restrictions.  The problem with it is that, yeah, it's neat the way it's designed to trash two Coppers into a Research.  But why would you want more than one Research?  Having two Researches in your hand is usually bad.  It's difficult to trash the second one into something useful, as you can with colliding Remodels or Upgrades. 

If there's Alchemists, Familiars, or Philosopher's Stones, you can trash a Research and a Copper into one of those.  If there's Golem, you can trash Research and a Shelter or a Poor House into it.  And Possession works.  But if those cards aren't on the board, the 2nd Research is basically dead.  That might be fine if the card wasn't forcing more Researches into your deck.  Research has some things going for it but I think Transmute might still be a stronger trasher.

117

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:30:46 pm »

Incantation
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that costs more than it and shares a type with it. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

Seems like a cool enough mechanic that is at least worth advancing for further discussion.

This is the only one I voted for besides my card.  I think it's an interesting addition to the cantrip trashing family.  How do people think it ranks with Upgrade and Junk Dealer?  I feel like the cycling alone could be hugely useful.

Catalyst
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal then discard any number of Action cards. For each card discarded, +1 Card, +1 Buy, and +$1.

I think this could lose the +Buy from discarded cards, but "turns your other actions into peddlers" is a really cool Market+ twist. Turning them into Markets just feels a bit too strong. I think its my favorite card in the round though.

Yeah, it's interesting, but I think even without the +buys, this is too strong in engines.  And then the rest of the time it's not very useful at all.

Research
Types: Action
Cost: $1P
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 or $1P more than the total cost of the trashed cards in coins.
When you gain this, gain an Action costing up to $4.

A little clunky, but a remodel variant for Alchemy would be cool.

Hm.  I think as written this is very difficult to use, except earlyish in the game, to trash down and get more Researches.  Midgame, it's gonna be really difficult to pair this with two cards that you want to trash that add up to exactly 2 less than the card you want.  If it's only an early game trasher, then Potion feels like a tough cost to justify.

118

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: December 25, 2013, 11:38:15 pm »

Elicitor
Types: Action
Cost: PP*
+1 Action. Discard a card. For each P in its cost, gain an Action card, putting it into your hand. If there is no P in its cost, +2 Cards.
If you have a Potion in play, this costs P less.

Too crazy with high-ticket Actions like Possession and King's Court.

It's for each Potion in its cost, not each coin.  Discarding KC just gives you +2 cards, and discarding Possession would only gain one action.

What I mean is, Elicitor gains any action straight to hand, and it's not too tricky to buy bunches of Elicitors and pair them.  So, it can be "Play Elicitor, +1 Action, discard Elicitor, gain King's Court and Possession in hand.  That's a little much. 

Easy enough to fix, I guess.

Ahh, I see.  I don't think that's a huge issue.  Buying a card taht costs $PP is already tough enough -- basically Treasure Map.  But to do what you're talking about you basically have to hit TMaps (Potions) twice to get two Elicitors, then hit them a third time (two Elicitors) to gain those two action cards.  It's just so much work and/or luck that it's impractical, and if you manage it then you deserve it.

Yeah, but Elicitor is the card where it effectively only costs P during your buy phase, and then reverts to PP during your action phase.  So, it's pretty easy to buy them.  Also, the first person to pair two Elicitors can play one Elicitor, discard the other, and then gain more two Elicitors to hand.  Repeat.

There is something kind of insane and interesting about the idea of gaining two action cards right into your hand.  But I think you'd need to cap the cost of the gained actions at 5.  Gaining King's Court or Golem to hand is overpowered. 

Even with a cap it might still be overpowered because gaining a card to hand is really strong!  There's almost zero cards that do that.

119

Game Reports / Re: Longest game in a while

« on: December 20, 2013, 09:50:33 pm »

You're not giving him enough credit!  It's a tough board, and he played a more challenging strategy than you did. 

Feoda were always gonna be kind of a longshot, but it seems possible that if he had pulled his deck in the perfect order on his last turn, he could have won.

He did, but it required buying all 10 Cities, then emptying a second pile (true pawn is an easy pile to empty), and Embassy is a good BM card so he then has to catch up on my lead. I don't agree with his play.

Now that I look more closely, you're absolutely right, he didn't go for Feodum until the end.  He just wandered around for a while with Cities.  Definitely, he shouldn't have emptied the Pawns.  The 2nd pile should have been Feoda.  And it's a tough strategy cause it's pretty trivial for the Embassy player to buy Feoda out from under him.  But, I definitely would have gone for it. 

Open Develop/Silver?  (Storeroom/Silver?)  First, rush the Cities with an Embassy or two, and hopefully a well-timed Mint buy, buy out Feoda, and then try and mega-buy a ton of Silvers using Minted Talismans.  That would probably lose to BM-Embassy most of the time.

120

Game Reports / Re: Longest game in a while

« on: December 20, 2013, 07:22:33 pm »

You're not giving him enough credit!  It's a tough board, and he played a more challenging strategy than you did. 

Feoda were always gonna be kind of a longshot, but it seems possible that if he had pulled his deck in the perfect order on his last turn, he could have won.

121

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #8: Guilds

« on: December 20, 2013, 02:55:44 pm »

Taskmaster
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Take a Coin token. Play a face-up card from the Taskmaster mat. If 4 cards are face-down, flip them over. At the start of Clean-up, return all cards played this way to the Taskmaster mat face-down.
Setup: Put the randomizers for 5 cards each costing up to $4 on the Taskmaster mat face-up.

Well, it's a cool concept, but it probably needs to be reworded somehow.  Also it's probably a better fit for Cornucopia, as Overseer might have been.

Dancer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. Take a Coin token. You may pay any number of Coin tokens. For each token you paid, +1 Action.
When you gain this, take a Coin token.

Not bad, but seems like it should cost 3.

Sojourner
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
+$2. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's the named card, put it into your hand. Otherwise, discard it or put it back.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, take a Coin token per $1 you overpaid.

Too close to Mystic.

Royal Guard
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Choose one: Take a Coin token; or pay any number of Coin tokens and +$2 per token paid.
When any player (including you) plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, take 2 Coin tokens.

EDIT: Changed the reaction from activating when any other player plays an Attack card to when any player plays an Attack card.

The ability to double the value of your Coin Tokens seems like it could be crazy.  The reaction is fine.

Councilman
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $8–
+1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player pays a Coin token. If nobody did, +1 Card and +1 Buy.
You may underpay for this card. For each $1 you underpaid, each other player takes a Coin token.

This isn't really an attack, is it? 

Skipping over question of whether the Underpay concept is valid, I think this is worth play-testing.  You can underpay for it but you give your opponents bullets to use against you.  It does create a strange dilemma in multi-player games, though, where you pass on spending a coin token because you hope someone else will pay the check.  That feels a bit un-Dominion.

Jeweler
Types: Action
Cost: $3+
Take a Coin token. Name a card. Each other player reveals his hand. If the named card is reveald, take a Coin token.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. Take a Coin token per $2 you overpaid (rounded down).

I dunno, I'm not sure I want to spend all this time guessing what's in my opponent's hand.  Tokens are nice but here I think I'd just rather have Silver.

Savings
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5+
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Coin token you have.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. Take a Coin token per $1 you overpaid.

This is a little too crazy when there are other token-producers.  Too bad, because there's something I like about it when it's the only token producer on deck. 

I know you're not supposed to do overpay for tokens but I think at 5+ it's probably OK.

Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $3+
+1 Action. +$1.
While this is in play, Victory cards cost $2 less, but not less than $0.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. +1 Buy per $1 you overpaid.

3 seems really cheap for this.  Quarry is 4 and can't be played until the buy phase.  Two of these and you can Ironworks Provinces. 

Seems like it just speeds the game into greening.

Town Hall
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+3 Actions.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, choose a card you have in play. If you discard that card this turn, put it on top of your deck.

The overpay is really close to Herald's.  Except there's this awkward pause between the overpaying and the benefit being accrued.  +3 actions is not adding much.

Pawnbroker
Types: Action
Cost: $3+
Take a Coin token. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, take a Coin token per $2 in its cost, rounded down.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, the player to your left chooses a card in the Supply costing exactly $2 more than the amount you overpaid. Gain it.

I don't know if I get the Overpay.  You spend $3, plus the cost of the thing you want, minus $2.  So, you pay an extra $1, and as a benefit, you get a Pawnbroker, but you don't get to choose what you get, just its cost.  And then, is Pawnbroker something you'd want more than one of?  There seems like there's something here, but it really doesn't add up.

Porter
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Card. +1 Action. You may put any number of cards from your hand on top of your deck.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, set aside the top card of your deck, putting it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

I like the overpay, but better over a 3 or 4; over a 2 makes mega-turns a little too easy.  6 for a nine-card hand next turn seems too clearly the right choice.  The top part isn't bad, but would you buy it other than for the Overpay?  Could it cost 3 or 4? 

The connection between the two is more thematic than tactical. I mean, you put the cards on your deck, then you buy a second one and set those cards away?  OK, but, regardless of the Porter you bought, you were going to draw those top-decked cards anyway.  It's the next cards that Porter lets you access.

Well, it's an interesting card and a great beer.

Jubilee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Actions. Take 2 Coin tokens.
While this is in play, you can't spend Coin tokens during your Buy phase.

Why am I amassing tokens if I can't spend them during my Buy phase?  OK, I'll spend them some other time.  But that really hurts the value of the tokens I'm getting.  I mean, this is Necropolis the turn you play it.

Demagogue
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
You may discard a Treasure. If you do, +2 Cards and +2 Actions.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. Each other player reveals 2 cards from his deck per $1 you overpaid, puts the revealed Coppers back, and discards the rest.

Stables, but a little different.  Then this Overpay attack that is often going to be weak, especially because the card itself adds value to Coppers.  I dunno, doesn't add up for me.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. +1 Action. At the start of your Buy phase, you may pay $2. If you do, take a Coin token.

Seems a lot like Plaza, but with much less utility.

Housekeeper
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
Trash a card from your hand. Take a Coin token.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, at the start of Clean-up, trash a card from your hand or from play per $1 you overpaid.

I think Doctor already covers Overpay trashing.

Highwayman
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Buy. +$1. Take 2 Coin tokens. Each other player gives you a Coin token.

This should have a secondary attack on players that don't have the token.  That would encouraging players to buy this, so that they have some tokens to defend the secondary attack.  Kind of like how Knights work.

City Councilman
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +1 Card per empty Supply pile.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, trash a card from the Supply that is not a Victory card.

I just think trashing from the Supply goes against the grain.  It denatures the cards and makes everything kind of generic.

I also don't like that this card rewards itself for annihilating alternate strategies.  Though it is a lot of work to go to just to get a Smithy +Buy.

Strike
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. +1 Action. +1 Buy. Place a Coin token on each Kingdom pile.
When a player gains a card from a pile, he takes all the Coin tokens on it.

I like this, but it is a lot of physical work with all those tokens.  I just think it needs to be narrowed down from "each Kingdom pile" to, say, each pile costing 3 or less, or maybe even 2.  Just so everyone's thumbs don't get tired.  Expensive cards don't really need bonuses anyway.  Also, if you're not putting tokens on Victory piles, that's better, so as not to cause confusion in Trade Route games.

Barber
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Choose one: Discard any number of cards and take a Coin token per card discarded; or pay any number of Coin tokens and +1 Card per token paid.

I think this works.  Perhaps better at $5?

Builder
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. If you've played 4 Action cards this turn (counting this), take a Coin token.
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, take a Coin token.

Conspirator and Tunnel, basically, with those cards' rewards replaced with "gain a coin token."  But I don't think a coin token is a cool enough reward for the work either of those cards make you do.

Investor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Either you gain a Curse or each other player gains a Curse, your choice. You may trash a Curse from your hand. If you do, take 4 Coin tokens.

It's a curser and a defense against cursers.  The end result of this card is that all the Curses will be in the trash, players will have coin tokens, and the Investors will be dead cards.  It feels like a lot of treading water. 

I don't think the move of buying Investors to gain in order to gain Curses to trash them will ever be worthwhile.

Bribe
Types: Action
Cost: $5+
+1 Action. Gain a card costing up to $4.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $5 you overpaid (rounded down), gain a Province.

OK, so this will privilege decks that generate large sums of cash.  I don't really think the Workshop plays into that, but maybe that's interesting.  I kind of like it.

Legionnaire
Types: Action
Cost: $5+
You may pay a Coin token. If you do, gain a Gold, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, take a Coin token.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. Each other player discards a card per $1 you overpaid.

The top is, I think, weak for 5.  It's on average a terminal $1.5, although you do get to keep the Gold you get every other play.  Well, it's strong with other token cards, I guess.

The bottom can be used to pin opponents.  That's usually a deal-breaker, but here, maybe not.  The pin would usually cost $10 to activate, and it can't be used indefinitely.  So, it might not be a game-breaker.  Worth exploring, I suppose.

Sculptor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. You may discard 2 cards. If you do, name 2 cards and reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. For each revealed card you named, take a Coin token and put that card on your deck. Discard the rest.

Very complicated.

Tavern
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. +$2. Trash a card from your hand. Pay a Coin token. If you have no Coin tokens, gain a Curse. If you gained a Curse, take 3 Coin tokens.

From the "a lot of things" family of cards, a la Jack of All Trades and Soothsayer.  Hard to evaluate.  I guess it's alright.

Potter
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
Take 2 Coin tokens. You may pay up to 5 Coin tokens. For each Coin token you paid beyond the first, gain a card costing up to $4.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, take a Coin token, then play this.

Seems like this makes it way too easy way to amass 4s.  The bottom part means that this card can be two 4s and Potter for your opening $4.

122

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #8: Guilds

« on: December 20, 2013, 12:51:45 am »

As for Taskmaker, it seems to me that it's just like Overseer, except there is more variety in what it provides you. The played card gets put back on the mat face down, and only face up cards can be played. It resets once 4 of the 5 cards are face down. The mat appears to be communal.

Actually, looking closer, it only resets during clean-up, because the Randomizer cards stay in play and don't get flipped face down till the end of the turn.  It can also only be played 5 times per turn, once for each effect.

As written, it only gets reset on play if there are 4 cards face down.  Not so great if there are 3 face down at the start of your turn and you have multiple Taskmasters to play, and that's after that the problems that I point out in my big post above get fixed.  Not sure if there's a way to fix that issue at all without having cards returned prior to clean-up phase.  Maybe it's not that big a deal?

Ideally, you would play the Taskmaster, get the effects of a card, flip the card -- without moving the cards into your hand.  Then if there were four face down, you'd flip them all back up.

Difficult to word that, though.  Makes you appreciate the good ol' Overseer Mat.

123

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: December 20, 2013, 12:25:22 am »

Elicitor
Types: Action
Cost: PP*
+1 Action. Discard a card. For each P in its cost, gain an Action card, putting it into your hand. If there is no P in its cost, +2 Cards.
If you have a Potion in play, this costs P less.

Too crazy with high-ticket Actions like Possession and King's Court.

It's for each Potion in its cost, not each coin.  Discarding KC just gives you +2 cards, and discarding Possession would only gain one action.

What I mean is, Elicitor gains any action straight to hand, and it's not too tricky to buy bunches of Elicitors and pair them.  So, it can be "Play Elicitor, +1 Action, discard Elicitor, gain King's Court and Possession in hand.  That's a little much. 

Easy enough to fix, I guess.

Drunkard
Types: Action
Cost: P
Discard any number of cards. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand. You may discard a Potion or an Action. If you do, play this again.
When you buy this, +2 Buys.

I don't know how I feel about a card you could play till infinity.  Well, I mean, it's pretty hilarious, I'll give it that.  I guess my initial disposition is positive.

I don't think this plays to infinity:

Play Drunkard.  Discard 4 cards, draw 4 cards.  Discard a Potion/Action and you only have 3 cards left.  Discard 3 cards, draw 3 cards.  Discard another card and you would only have 2 cards left.  You'd run out of cards after two more iterations.

It doesn't Cellar, it draws to 5 each time.  So, it keeps drawing the same amount.  If your discard is empty and you have 5 cards or fewer in hand, you can draw and discard the same Scout for the rest of your life, I think.

Also, if your hand is Watchtower, Tunnel, Potion, Drunkard and your deck and discard are empty --
Play Drunkard, discard Tunnel, gain Gold, trash Gold, draw Tunnel, discard Potion; REPEAT, discard Tunnel, gain Gold, trash Gold, draw Potion, discard Potion; REPEAT until the Gold pile is empty.  Neat trick.

124

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #7: Alchemy

« on: December 19, 2013, 08:55:38 pm »

Ivory Tower
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Choose one: Set aside a card from your hand face down on your Ivory Tower mat; or put up to 3 cards from your mat into your hand. You may look through your cards at any time; trash them at the end of the game.

Clarification: On-trash effects are triggered. They are resolved in player order starting from the player on whose turn the game ended.

I like it, though it's a bit complex.  The end-game trashing is a bit odd, as is the idea of playing with this and Native Village and having all these cards going back and forth among all these mats.

Elixir (A)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2P
Worth $2. You may play an Action card from your hand.

Interesting.  What's the benefit of playing Actions during your buy phase? 

Conjuror (A)
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+3 Cards. You may discard a Potion. If you do, +1 Action. Otherwise, gain a Potion, putting it on top of your deck.

I don't know if you'd really want to gain Potions to feed Conjuror.  Then again, you usually don't want to gain Estates to feed Baron.  I don't know.  It's fine I think.

Professor
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+1 Action. +1 Buy. Choose one: All cards cost $1 less this turn; or Action cards cost $2 less this turn. Cards cannot cost less than $0.

Like Highway, it's non-terminal.  Like Bridge, it gives +Buy and can be Throned.  And, it can also be the best part from Quarry, without Quarry's limitation to the buy phase.  Seems over-powered.

Elixir (B)
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+1 Card. +1 Action. You may choose an Action card in your hand. Play it twice.

A little familiar.

Druid
Types: Action
Cost: $4P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Choose one: +$2; or +P.
When you buy this, trash all Treasure cards you have in play.

It's obvious utility is attractive.

Contraption
Types: Action
Cost: $4P
+1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck and reveal one of them. Gain an Action costing less than it. Discard any number of the looked-at cards. Put the rest back in any order.

Feels like this would usually be pretty weak.  You'd maybe want it to gain Potion cards, but you'd need two of these, and you'd need to collide them.  Seems easier to just buy the Action cards you want.

Metallurgist
Types: Action
Cost: P
+1 Buy. You may trash a Treasure from your hand. If you do, +P. You may trash a Potion from your hand. If you do, +$3.

Feels kind of like Transmute, a P cost limited-utility trasher.  Also, feels weaker than all the other Copper-trashers.

Enclave
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+2 Actions. You may discard your hand. If you do, +1 Card per Action card you have in play.

Would it be overpowered in engine decks?  Or maybe it's like Crossroads, awesome but rarely.

Clairvoyant
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Action. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Set aside a revealed Action card. Put a revealed Victory card into your hand. Discard the rest. Play the set-aside Action.

Feels like it could be streamlined.  The Victory card feels a bit superfluous.

Alkahest
Types: Actoin
Cost: $5P
+1 Card. +1 Buy. Choose one: +2P; or +$3. You may choose an Action card in your hand costing at least P and play it.

Very strong but very expensive.  OK, but has the problem where it's a race to this card and then whoever gets there first snowballs into a huge lead.

Kettle
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
Reveal your hand. You may trash any number of cards from your hand up to the number of Victory and Curse cards revealed. +1 Card. +1 Action. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

The trashing mechanic is interesting.  Not sure I like a cost-reducer that is non-terminal and gives out buy.

Incantation
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that costs more than it and shares a type with it. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

Fun, although a lot of shuffling.  I like it.

Quicksilver
Types: Treasure – Reaction
Cost: $2P
When you play this, reveal your hand. This is worth $1 plus $1 per Action revealed.
When another player plays an Action, you may discard this. If you do, gain a copy of that Action.

It's hard to think of a time you'd rather play Quicksilver than play the actions.  Maybe with a lot of terminals, but even then, Quicksilver is only going to be 2 or 3, so why not just buy basic treasures?  Well, I suppose with terminal draw it could be nice.

Distill
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: PP
+2 Actions. Each player may return a card from his hand to the Supply. (Yours may come from your discard pile. You may trash it instead.) For each card returned, each player other than the one that returned it gains a copy of it. If there are no cards in your hand, discard pile, or deck, you win.

The first part would take a long time to resolve, and seems kind of like it cancels itself out.  The second part -- isn't it often fairly easy to play all the cards in your deck?

Refinery
Types: Reaction
Cost: $4P
When you buy a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, if the card you bought is an…
Action card, set it aside when you gain it, putting it into your hand at the start of your next turn.
Victory card, set it aside when you gain it, returning it to your deck at the end of the game.
Other card, each other player gains a copy of it instead of you.

With this and Squire, it becomes trivial to super-junk everyone with Curses, then Coppers.

Retort
Types: Treasure – Reaction
Cost: $3P
When you play this, it's worth $1 per differently named Treasure you have in play (including this).
When another player plays a Potion, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Treasure.

I like the top part. 

Catalyst
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal then discard any number of Action cards. For each card discarded, +1 Card, +1 Buy, and +$1.

The combo with Scrying Pool is just too strong.

Brewmaster
Types: Action
Cost: PP
+1 Card. +1 Action. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, gain a Potion. You may discard a Potion. If you do, choose one: Cards cost $2 less this turn; or cards cost P less this turn.

You already need two Potions to buy this, and then it gives you more Potions.  It provides a usage for the Potions, but a very weak one.  It would be very rarely useful, I think.

Ritualist
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+1 Card. You may discard a Potion. You may play an Action card from your hand. If you discarded a Potion, play it again. If it is a Ritualist, play it again. You may play it one more time. If you do, trash it.

Crazy, but I like it.  Unfortunately, this wording is really difficult, and I don't know how to fix it.

Elicitor
Types: Action
Cost: PP*
+1 Action. Discard a card. For each P in its cost, gain an Action card, putting it into your hand. If there is no P in its cost, +2 Cards.
If you have a Potion in play, this costs P less.

Too crazy with high-ticket Actions like Possession and King's Court.

Research
Types: Action
Cost: $1P
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 or $1P more than the total cost of the trashed cards in coins.
When you gain this, gain an Action costing up to $4.

I think it works, but I'd lose the on-gain.

Drunkard
Types: Action
Cost: P
Discard any number of cards. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand. You may discard a Potion or an Action. If you do, play this again.
When you buy this, +2 Buys.

I don't know how I feel about a card you could play till infinity.  Well, I mean, it's pretty hilarious, I'll give it that.  I guess my initial disposition is positive.

Elixir (C)
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Potion or a card costing at least P. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

This feels like a forced buy?  If you have all 10, then if you draw two you're guaranteed $10 +10 buys.  If you trash the Potion you only need one of them to guarantee the $10.  If you only use your Potions to buy Elixirs, then each one you draw is guaranteeing at least $1 and is guaranteed to draw your Potion eventually.  So they are also easy to amass quickly.  I don't know how you could compete with Elixirs.

125

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #8: Guilds

« on: December 19, 2013, 06:26:50 pm »

As for Taskmaker, it seems to me that it's just like Overseer, except there is more variety in what it provides you. The played card gets put back on the mat face down, and only face up cards can be played. It resets once 4 of the 5 cards are face down. The mat appears to be communal.

Actually, looking closer, it only resets during clean-up, because the Randomizer cards stay in play and don't get flipped face down till the end of the turn.  It can also only be played 5 times per turn, once for each effect.