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.

426

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 14: 'Tis the Season

« on: July 07, 2021, 10:56:55 pm »

Wrangler
Action/Season - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Horse...
In Summer: to the bottom of your deck
In Autumn: onto your deck
In Winter: to your hand

Rules clarification: In Spring, you Gain a Horse (to your discard pile)

Just want to let you know, Spring, Summer, and Autumn, this card is a delayed lab, with varying degrees of delay (with Autumn being equally strong as lab). However in Winter, this card is a double Lab. A double lab is pretty significantly stronger than a lab, DonX tested it at $8 and it was still too strong. Its okay that winter be a really strong effect, stronger than the cost would suggest, but that is pretty overboard. I suggest having Winter discard a card after gaining horse to hand. That way its +3 cards, +1 Action, discard a card. Still strictly stronger than lab, and still easily the strongest of the four seasons, without it being too crazy. Otherwise, I really like the card!

Cantrip + gain a Horse onto your deck isn't "equally strong as Lab."  It would only be equivalent to a Lab if you actually draw the Horse in the same turn. It's hyperbolic to call a card that's only a Lab if combined with another Cantrip "equally strong as Lab". You're right about Winter being a double Lab, though.

I didn't say "equivalent to" I said "equally as strong as". Setting up your next turn with a horse is about as good as getting +1 card now. There are definitely situations where you'd rather have a horse top-decked then get +1 card now, for example when you've already drawn your whole deck. With a drawn deck, autumn is *stronger* than a lab. Autumn is not a lab, but there are situations where it stronger than lab, and situations where it is weaker, and imo those occur about equally often. That's all that is meant by equally strong as. Autumn wrangle is to lab as Supplies is to peddler, they're not the same, but they are about as strong.

Sure, they're about as strong, I agree with that. But "about as strong as" is not the same thing as "equally as strong as." It's slightly weaker imo, and it would certainly look odd for a Cantrip that gains a one-shot Lab onto your deck to cost the same as a Lab (although it would also be very clearly too strong for ).

Setting up your next turn with a Horse is about as good as getting +1 Card now.

If you play a Cantrip that gains a Horse onto your deck and you do not draw that Horse until next turn, that's +1 handsize to next turn and net 0 handsize this turn. That's equivalent to Caravan, which is a , and not even one of the crazy s.

I do absolutely agree with you that Wrangler is currently too strong. The Summer and Spring effects would be overpriced at , probably even at , but Autumn would be an upper-mid and Winter is insane.

This last part's just my opinion, not really a balance concern, but I think Seasons cards should sidegrade themselves between Seasons, rather than being strictly better during certain Seasons than others.

427

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 07, 2021, 07:48:32 pm »

Feel free to suggest wording changes (and, well, other changes besides, I suppose).
Compost can turn your junk into whatever you Wish! It's a solution to all junkers. Be it from outside or in, Compost takes care of it all. If you need more of its services, you can always gain a Compost back to your hand and put it into play again.

A "hidden" usage is to set aside green cards like Provinces while being sure not to make the Compost overflow, to ensure that your green never enters your deck. Nifty, ain't it?

This card has been buffed several times over the course of its conception. Now it's a lot stronger.

Won't this keep working forever if played with BoM, Captain, or Necromancer? In all these cases, you fail to ever trash it.

428

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 14: 'Tis the Season

« on: July 07, 2021, 06:16:41 pm »

Wrangler
Action/Season - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Horse...
In Summer: to the bottom of your deck
In Autumn: onto your deck
In Winter: to your hand

Rules clarification: In Spring, you Gain a Horse (to your discard pile)

Just want to let you know, Spring, Summer, and Autumn, this card is a delayed lab, with varying degrees of delay (with Autumn being equally strong as lab). However in Winter, this card is a double Lab. A double lab is pretty significantly stronger than a lab, DonX tested it at $8 and it was still too strong. Its okay that winter be a really strong effect, stronger than the cost would suggest, but that is pretty overboard. I suggest having Winter discard a card after gaining horse to hand. That way its +3 cards, +1 Action, discard a card. Still strictly stronger than lab, and still easily the strongest of the four seasons, without it being too crazy. Otherwise, I really like the card!

Cantrip + gain a Horse onto your deck isn't "equally strong as Lab."  It would only be equivalent to a Lab if you actually draw the Horse in the same turn. It's hyperbolic to call a card that's only a Lab if combined with another Cantrip "equally strong as Lab". You're right about Winter being a double Lab, though.

429

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas

« on: July 07, 2021, 05:43:11 pm »

Sure, it doesn't especially matter for a RBCI, but Foal would need a "when you discard this from play" big-background-arrow thingy like the Page/Peasant lines, rather than a flat-out "exchange". Otherwise you end up in corner-case hell.

whys that? bats + vampires exchange both to and from the supply/out-of-supply with no problem

That was my initial thought as well. Vampire and Bat are not Action cards, so cannot be played in unusual ways using emulators/command cards/throne variants, which, in theory, could cause issues. The official rules cover an Exchange failing because there is no card to get, but I don't think they cover one failing because there is no card to return (or it has been lost under the stop-moving rule).

The logical answer is that an exchange requires both, and so just as you don't return a card if there is none to take, you don't take a card if there is none to return, but that is not officially set forth. I suppose someone could argue whether exchange should work conditionally like Wish or unconditionally like Horse (if you Throne the former you only gain one card, but if you throne the latter you get the +Cards and +Actions twice, even though you only return it once), but I think the plain meaning of the word pretty clearly suggests the former.

I don't know what other problems there could be.

The rules DO actually cover an Exchange failing because there is no card to return. From the Nocturne rules:

Nocturne has three cards that tell a player to "exchange" a card for another card. The card being exchanged is returned to its Supply pile, or non-Supply pile, and the card being exchanged for is taken and put into the player's discard pile. This does not count as gaining a card. The exchange only happens if both cards can be exchanged; if the pile is empty, the cards are not exchanged.

And the stop-moving rule would prevent a Commanded Foal from returning to its pile, as it's already there. "Exchange this for a Card X" is effectively identical to "return this to its pile. If you do, put a Card X from its pile into your discard pile."

430

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 11:38:39 pm »

Escort - $4
Action - Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Put a coin token on here for each $ it cost.
At the start of your turn, you may remove one coin token from here to discard your hand and draw 5 cards.

Is this a paid-for Guide? Yep! Could it be done as a mat with tokens as well? Sure it could! Has it been done in a previous WDC? Probably, I've been skimming them for a while now. Is it priced right? Almost certainly not!

I think this needs "while any remain" for the second part. As worded, it stays in play forever even when you've run out of tokens, as it still gives you the choice every turn even though it's meaningless.

I originally had that in the wording of the card, but it looked like it was going to make the text smaller than I'd like so I was going to have it as a side ruling that you discard it in Clean-up when there are no tokens left. If people think that it should be in the card text then I'm fine adding it back in.

I think it should have that wording back in just to make it explicit. I don't think it's a good idea to rely on an FAQ for fanmade cards to work properly.

431

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 04:35:52 pm »

This wording also breaks Command cards, though. If you Overlord a Galley (via cost reduction), the Overlord will be a Galley in-play forever. Based on previous comments, I'd suggest "until after you choose not to, at the start of each of your turns, you may Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't, Exile this for +3 Cards."

What about "Until after you choose to Exile this, at the start of each of your turns, choose one: Exile a card from your hand; or Exile this for +3 Cards."

Best wording yet.

432

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 14: 'Tis the Season

« on: July 06, 2021, 04:13:45 pm »

Also its a good thing to mention here, that the classic cantrip trasher for $4.5 thing is calculated for optional trash.

I don't follow you here as Ratcatcher is the only optional cantrip trasher. My reasoning is simple: Junk Dealer and Upgrade are the benchmark and show that a pure cantrip trasher has to be cheaper than $4.

Using Hideout as a baseline for mandatory trash, it's closer to $4.

Hideout is really a tricky beast as it does more and less than a cantrip trasher. I think that a cantrip trasher is stronger than Hideout; thrice not really trashing hurts a lot. Of course Hideout is the more interesting card, especially in Kingdoms without other villages (in which you thus somehow welcome the slow trashing).
As Hideout is tricky to evaluate I admit that it is absolutely not clear that a pure cantrip trasher would be OK at $4. I don't think so but could be totally wrong.

I'm having a hard time deciding whether Rats would be stronger or weaker without the self-gaining (I'm thinking stronger, the self-gain makes it so you're just replacing junk with other junk if it's the only trasher). But I don't think a Cantrip Trasher could exist at any price, for the following reason: If Rats minus the self-gain would be weaker, then Cantrip Trasher would be strictly worse than Rats and thus too weak for , but I think it'd be too good for . If it would be stronger, it would be too strong for , but strictly worse than Junk Dealer.

Then again, JD lets you trash Coppers without losing anything, which is quite a massive step up from Cantrip Trashing. So maybe it's fine at .

433

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 03:51:17 pm »

Thus, I would word it as follows:

Until after you Exile this, at the start of each of your turns, choose one: Exile a card from your hand; or Exile this for +3 Cards.

The only issue with this is that if you Trash it with Bonfire, you would be stuck Exiling a card for the rest of the game. Given that that would be entirely a player's choice, I do not see that as a huge problem. It does become a problem if another player uses Possession and then trashes it with Bonfire, forcing you to keep Exiling (unless you played it again and then Exiled it, or Exiled it from your hand, although that creates tracking issues if you have multiple copies).

Thanks, I went with this wording! The fact that no one would have a reason to Bonfire their own Galley means that it would be very rare to have Possession + Bonfire such that it becomes an issue.  I also hope that when Bonfire is reprinted it will get "non-Duration" errata to limit rules edge-cases.

This wording also breaks Command cards, though. If you Overlord a Galley (via cost reduction), the Overlord will be a Galley in-play forever. Based on previous comments, I'd suggest "until after you choose not to, at the start of each of your turns, you may Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't, Exile this for +3 Cards."

Also, opponents DO have a reason to Bonfire their own Galley. They can choose the latter option even if it's impossible; you can always choose impossible options. Removing Galley from play via means other than Exiling or it never entering play to begin with (such as by a Command card) effectively makes Exiling every turn optional without losing the ability as soon as you choose not to. You wouldn't actually be stuck Exiling every turn, as you can simply choose to Exile the Galley and fail.

434

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 01:34:17 pm »

War bond
$4 - Action - Duration
+1 Action
Put 1 Coffer onto this for each Action card in play (including this). At the start of your subsequent turns, take a Coffer from this. If none left, discard this.

1. Is this intentionally counting other player's Duration cards?
2. There's already a precedent for this kind of effect; Crypt uses "while any remain", so this should be "while any remain, at the start of each of your turns, take a Coffer from this."

Galley
$6
Action - Duration
At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand, or exile this for +3 cards.
 
I started with a design almost identical to mxdata’s rubbish collector (shortly before that was posted). Mine was $4, and said "at the start of each of your turns, choose one: trash a card from your hand, or discard this." 
 
However, I made a “permanent trasher” for a previous contest, and one issue that I didn't solve with that previous card is it felt like it should be a project because of the permanent effect once in play and the fact that you generally would buy only one.
 
Thinking about how to avoid that issue, I decided that my card needed an alternate effect that would correspond to being removed from play. I decided that removed from play should be exile rather than discard. The fact that it is exiled and not discarded presents a higher cost to getting it back, and means that without an appropriate gainer you can’t replay it the same turn you used it for the alternate effect. The card exiling itself also provides a particularly strong reason why a player might buy more than one.
 
Once the card exiled itself, it seemed thematic to exile cards from hand as well. Exiling reduces the downside of drawing an early hand of cards that you don't want to exile (but when you still have other junk in your deck). Hopefully the start of turn limitation means that it doesn’t as easily support simple “golden decks” that buy and exile a province each turn. It started at $5, but I was concerned that was too cheap and it was too strong an opener.

There are wording issues here. First of all, it says "at the start of your turn" which would usually just refer to the turn that this is played, so this would do nothing. That should be "at the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game". However, then it would still be active once you exiled it. So this needs to be fixed up in some way.

To elaborate on faust's comment: A common mistake I've seen in fan cards is creators assuming that Duration cards that make themselves leave play stop their effect once they leave play. This is not true; you can Bonfire a Hireling and still get +1 Card every turn even though that Hireling is no longer in play. So as worded, Galley's effect will still keep proccing every turn.

My suggested wording to fix this problem: "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play, choose one: Exile a card from your hand; or Exile this for +3 Cards."

P.S.: Spineflu, maybe you should add this "there is no rule saying that Durations just stop proccing if they leave play, you need special wording for that" detail to the OP?

435

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 10:49:46 am »

Escort - $4
Action - Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Put a coin token on here for each $ it cost.
At the start of your turn, you may remove one coin token from here to discard your hand and draw 5 cards.

Is this a paid-for Guide? Yep! Could it be done as a mat with tokens as well? Sure it could! Has it been done in a previous WDC? Probably, I've been skimming them for a while now. Is it priced right? Almost certainly not!

I think this needs "while any remain" for the second part. As worded, it stays in play forever even when you've run out of tokens, as it still gives you the choice every turn even though it's meaningless.

436

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 06, 2021, 10:48:03 am »

Refinery
Night - Duration ($6)
While this is in play, you may trash a card from your hand at the start of your Night Phase. If you do, gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc) you have in play. If you don’t, discard this from play.

My first ever Night card! I hope you like it!

The two cards of comparison I thought about while coming up with this are Horn of Plenty and Cobbler. The former can gain you higher cost cards a little more easily, but needs to be cycled to each turn to do so. The latter can only gain one card every other turn, but can always gain up to $4 regardless of how your turn went and gains the card to your hand next turn. Plus, they both cost $5.

It’ll (basically) always be able to gain $4s (Action, Treasure, and the two types on Refinery itself), and frequently be able to gain $5s and $6s. It’ll be able to gain Provinces on some boards, but with the trashing requirement I think that’s alright.

This is priced at $6 partially to not have lucky 5/2 opening splits, and partially because this seem extremely strong at $5 to me.

clarification question: You have two refineries in play. You trash one card at the start of your night phase - does that cover both of them?

No, the idea was to trash one card per Refinery you have out if you want to keep them all in play. I see how that’s confusing with the current wording but I don’t know how to adjust it to reflect that...

My suggested wording: "At the start of each of your Night phases that this remains in play, you may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. If you don't, discard this from play."

I think this addresses the issue pretty well. Mind if I update my OG post and use this wording?

Of course not, go ahead. You don't need permission to make suggested changes to your card.

437

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 05, 2021, 02:42:12 pm »

Refinery
Night - Duration ($6)
While this is in play, you may trash a card from your hand at the start of your Night Phase. If you do, gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc) you have in play. If you don’t, discard this from play.

My first ever Night card! I hope you like it!

The two cards of comparison I thought about while coming up with this are Horn of Plenty and Cobbler. The former can gain you higher cost cards a little more easily, but needs to be cycled to each turn to do so. The latter can only gain one card every other turn, but can always gain up to $4 regardless of how your turn went and gains the card to your hand next turn. Plus, they both cost $5.

It’ll (basically) always be able to gain $4s (Action, Treasure, and the two types on Refinery itself), and frequently be able to gain $5s and $6s. It’ll be able to gain Provinces on some boards, but with the trashing requirement I think that’s alright.

This is priced at $6 partially to not have lucky 5/2 opening splits, and partially because this seem extremely strong at $5 to me.

clarification question: You have two refineries in play. You trash one card at the start of your night phase - does that cover both of them?

No, the idea was to trash one card per Refinery you have out if you want to keep them all in play. I see how that’s confusing with the current wording but I don’t know how to adjust it to reflect that...

My suggested wording: "At the start of each of your Night phases that this remains in play, you may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. If you don't, discard this from play."

438

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 03, 2021, 01:22:21 am »

And no split piles / unique piles / traveller lines. One card to a kingdom pile.

Are existing non-Supply piles such as Horses or Spoils (or even Supply piles like Ruins) allowed?

Assuming Ruins are allowed:

Saves the trashing for the end of turn for tracking purposes.
Retracting the above because it drains the Ruins too quickly in 2P.

P.S. I had this exact challenge in my list of potential contest ideas.

You could avoid the issue of draining Ruins by having it instead return the Ruins to their pile

I thought of that, but:
1. It's a super weak card anyway, especially with what exfret pointed out, and
2. They'd have to be returned to the bottom or something, because I don't want players to just keep getting the same set of Ruins over and over. Which I could do, but again, point #1.

439

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 120: The Turn After Next

« on: July 03, 2021, 12:57:51 am »

And no split piles / unique piles / traveller lines. One card to a kingdom pile.

Are existing non-Supply piles such as Horses or Spoils (or even Supply piles like Ruins) allowed?

Assuming Ruins are allowed:

Saves the trashing for the end of turn for tracking purposes.
Retracting the above because it drains the Ruins too quickly in 2P.

P.S. I had this exact challenge in my list of potential contest ideas.

440

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita

« on: July 01, 2021, 06:08:07 pm »

I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.

One problem with that, though, is that the runner up from the previous week could have a submission to the current contest. I don't think it's a great idea to have a contestant also be judging.

Obviously he/she wouldn't give feedback on their own card, and wouldn't count it in the winners and runners up. Not perfect, but I think it's better than voting. At least this way we get feedback. With voting you have all the problems that come with voting (spoilers, strategic voting, etc.) and you have people in the running having an impact (through their vote) on who wins.

But then that's unfair to that person. Their card shouldn't be guaranteed to lose just because the judge was too slow.

441

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fan Card Mechanics Week 13: Et Factum Est Ita

« on: June 30, 2021, 06:00:04 pm »

I think in the future, if something like this comes up, the runner up from the previous week should take over as judge. I'm not such a fan of doing it by popular vote bc there might be some bias.

One problem with that, though, is that the runner up from the previous week could have a submission to the current contest. I don't think it's a great idea to have a contestant also be judging.

442

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 119: Triple Threat

« on: June 29, 2021, 04:21:40 pm »

An throne room you can play during your night phase in case you draw it dead. And at the beginning of your next turn, you get a bit of reliability!

It's much stronger than Mastermind, almost as good as KC. I think, playing once now and once later would be just fine for $5

Once now and once later was tested for Seaside, and it was an outtake because it was way too weak. Being a Night card definitely doesn't make it enough stronger to cost .

443

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 119: Triple Threat

« on: June 26, 2021, 12:21:15 pm »

Dream Comes True
cost $0* - Night - Prize - Victory
Put any number of cards from your play onto your deck.
---
2VP per a Prize you have.


2 additional card types in Prize pile.

This should take a page from Improve and Scheme's books and say "put any number of cards you would discard from play this turn onto your deck." It's probably not a great idea to be able to topdeck Duration cards that were played this turn.

444

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 23, 2021, 11:02:28 am »

Bounty - Event ⑤
② Action
Once per turn: Gain a copy of each differently
named non-Victory card you've gained this turn.

You have a typo here. My submission's a Event, not a Event and a Action.

445

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 20, 2021, 07:10:09 pm »

ever wanted your Silvers to be cantrips? who hasn't, these days. just line them up with one of these and there you go.

thought about something similar for last week's contest but forgot to post in time. i feel like this is balanced, not sure if it's all that interesting, but it definitely can help smooth out a deck relying on treasure payload (yes, you get the 2 money from playing the silver)

I don't think this is going to work out. The main reason is that it is so bad when it fails to connect to Silver. I would try it at "+1 card, +1 action, you may play a Silver from your hand for +1 card". It can still probably cost $3 as it's not a particularly compelling opener.

You could also go the Baron route: "If you didn't, gain a Silver."

446

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 20, 2021, 11:57:30 am »

https://imgur.com/a/rvLF6oV
Sentinel ($4)
Action - Duration

Now and at the start of your next turn: Exile a card from your hand, then +1 Card per $2 it costs (rounded down).

24 words and counting, and it only seems to use 5 lines

(Had to use a link cause my stupid brain couldn't figure out how to load the image directly, sorry)

Right click on the image on Imgur -> open image in new tab, copy filename from url (or right click -> copy image link). Then, without spaces:
[ img width=250 ]filename[ /img ]

447

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 19, 2021, 11:57:56 am »

@faust's Laborer: I'm skimming through the discussion. I hope my comments on this are not unwelcome. What if we say that cost-increasing happens before cost-reduction, as a general rule? I'm not too versed with strange costs (Wayfarer mostly), but this seems like it should solve problems.

I guess it's not my card / not my call, but picture what this looks like in terms of the dominion dot games log - all the sudden you're inserting events before the card is played. Likewise Gubump's proposal - it creates this weird inconsistency where the whole turn needs to be evaluated in one go (despite not being complete),

You don't need to evaluate the future. You only need to evaluate everything that's happened prior in the turn...just like you have to do with +Actions, +, and +Buys, among other things.

448

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 18, 2021, 03:43:04 pm »

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

Haggler + Livery is a poor example because Haggler triggers on-buy, before gaining the bought card, whereas Livery triggers on-gain, so Haggler would trigger before Livery no matter which order they were played in.

That aside, "stuff happens in the order things were played" doesn't make sense for the Highway + Laborer example because Laborer's cost increase is a constant thing that's always happening, not something with a specific timing like Bridge's cost reduction. Likewise Highway's cost reduction is also not an event like that of Bridge, it's an ongoing effect.

For this reason, the interaction between Bridge and Laborer is clearer than the interaction between Highway and Laborer imo. It seems to me like common sense that an ongoing effect would occur before an on-play event (i.e. Laborer's cost increasing effect would trigger before Bridge's cost reduction), but the order to resolve two opposing ongoing effects isn't so clear. Of course, your ruling that the "but not less than " occurs at the very end after counting up all the cost-changing effects rather than after each individual cost-changing effect makes a lot of sense and solves the issue perfectly.

449

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 18, 2021, 11:12:31 am »

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

What happens if you have 6 Highways in play and one Laborer? Does Laborer cost (- and then +), or (+ and then -)? I'd assume Laborer's passive cost reduction would trigger first (i.e. the latter).

450

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!

« on: June 18, 2021, 12:08:32 am »

Adventurer
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a copy of this.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

1. There's already an official card named Adventurer.
2. The name Adventurer doesn't make sense for a Treasure anyway.
3. Like the aforementioned Rats and Magpie, it should say "gain a/an [cardname]" instead of "gain a copy of this."