X-tra, no problem, shielding Attacks is quite natural for a card named Judge.
The card looks too weak - even without the exclusivity clause it's worse than Lighthouse. I suggest to add some significant delayed bonus
Judge $5 Action-Reaction-Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard any number of copies of this from your hand to set that card aside onto that player's Jail mat with a debt token on it for each copy discarded. Each time they shuffle their deck, they remove a debt token, then if the card has no debt tokens on it, place the card on the bottom of their deck. During a players turn, they may spend a buy and $3 to remove a debt token.
, but do say so if you believe it might be wrong.
those all look much improved - couple notes tho:
you only need the first bar on chalice
Vigilante needs an Action type
Shoppers can lose the bar
theres a section on the fan card creation guide about when to use the bar and what it means.
also i still think Architect has a very limited use case when alt-vp isn't present, since
4 estates -> province or
1 duchy + 3 estates -> colony
are the only nontrivial (estate-> estate is trivial) combos you can do w it. Open it up to using whatever as fuel, like a two-turn forge
Bushfire - I reveal an Apothecary (cost) and a Duchy. Which "costs the most?" Those two costs are orthogonal and therefore the answer to my question is "undefined." You have to specify "costs the most
."
Possessed Witch - This card showcases a common misconception. Contrary to evidently popular belief, there's no rule that says that Durations' effects stop when they leave play; Hireling still continues giving you +1 Card each turn even if you manage to trash it while it's in play. Possessed Witch needs to say something along the lines of "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play" in order to explicitly stop giving Curses once it's out of play.
Town Center - As worded, you don't need the "if you have any Actions remaining" part because it literally just gave you Actions so there's no way for the drawback to not trigger.
cost.Bushfire - imagine your opponent playing this 5 times every turn. You can't do anything on your turns, and pretty soon your deck won't be doing anything at all. This by itself makes it bad, so even if you took off the +Action and the gain it would need revision.
Personally, I would drop it altogether and stick to just Crook. Because it looks at decks rather than hands, it's far less oppressive.
Speaking of which, Crook should probably not have +1 Action as it's too easy to play repeatedly. The Knights also have their self-trashing to help stop them completely destroying decks; you may find you need to do something similar here.
I think Shoppers would be better worded 'this turn, when you buy a 2nd differently named card, +1 Buy and + $5.'
Vigilante needs to be Action type, and is perhaps too expensive. You could get games where Attacks stop someone from ever affording it.
Architect: This is way too weak. It's slow, not a good trasher, and not a good gainer of VP. Definitely not a 5.
Arsenal: Fine, and an interesting variation on durations. Probably a bit too strong, especially in money.
Bar: Fine, but boring. There's some first player advantage, but not enough to matter much.
Bushfire: There's way too much potential to trash the other player's entire hand every turn. The gaining stops that slightly, but not enough to make it not a problem. Even without that it's too harsh.
Cardinal: Strictly worse than the already weak Great Hall.
Carpenter: Not sure what you're trying to do here, but this would be a meh 2.
Chalice: Vanilla +1 Card isn't an advisable bonus. Receive isn't a Dominion term, you need to say gain. This is significantly worse than Watchtower with no upside.
Commander: This is almost identical to Oracle.
Crook: Knights that cost 4. Knights are already a strong attack, and this is only a slightly worse version, at least in the late game. It's awful early, too, since it thins for your opponent.
Devil's Pact: Self-cursing isn't enjoyed by most players unless the card lets you use the curse. I really like the idea, though.
Fence: I don't know what's going on with this card, but it seems confusing and weak. Also, strictly worse tan watchtower unless you really need the copper for some reason.
Haunted Treasure: Fine, but boring. Also, thoughts on the Buy type. The name may cause confusion and it doesn't really seem to be doing much as a type, since it doesn't change most of the cards it's on by a lot. This can't be gained except buying by most gainers, for example.
Lock: Dead without money actions, since it doesn't allow playing treasures.
Missionary: Why is the curse clause there? It seems strange. This is a weird card, but is too close to being a better superlab, an superlab is bad enough.
Possessed Witch: Does this stay in play? Its unclear. Also, I don't think it needs the Reaction type.
Promising Lands: This doesn't interact that well or interestingly with Clearing, especially since you can't play both.
Redistribution: This is just confusingly phrased and doesn't work with the rules that well.
Refractory Gold: Fine, a bit bland.
Riverbed Village: Weak and really boring. This is a 4.
Sarcophagus: Remove the curse part and this becomes pretty interesting.
Scrapyard: The pileout ability is scary. Very strong in Money if the other player went engine, and vice versa, so that's actually pretty interesting.
Shoppers: Needs to be rephrased, the +buy goes over the line. The idea is there, and it's decent.
Slaves: Again, it doesn't do anything unique with the Buy type. The card itself is fine enough, but I wish it was more unique.
Stray Cat: I really like this. Does the player to your left get the card on their tavern mat, or does it just go to their deck?
Town Center: There's probably a more interesting card to put the effect on, but a good concept.
Trap: It needs to do more for the player who plays it, maybe make it a treasure worth 1 or 2, but the idea is excellent. It's like a better Embargo.
Vigilante: Shouldn't be a 5, and is too easily a Necropolis for 5.
Witch Hunt: Definitely does a lot more with the Buy typing, and is a cool alt-vp source.
Wonder: Smaller Warehouse with vp isn't a 6. This isn't strong enough.
Some good concepts, but there isn't a lot of cohesion and the Buy type isn't really used. Some of the cards are pretty great, even if some need work. Stray Cat is definitely my favorite.
Ah, having read your FAQ, what you are missing is the fact that Moat, Champion, etc, will have no effect on a Stray Cat being called. They only do anything when an attack card is played, and you aren't playing the Stray Cat. Ill-Gotten Gains and Noble Brigand service as an official example of this... Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the attack type because it wouldn't actually do anything, and Noble Brigand's on-buy effect cannot be prevented by a Moat or reacted to by anything that reacts to an opponent playing an attack card. Without the ability to protect from the attack, the whole "otherwise, trash this" part could just be removed completely.
I'm not spineflu, but the big difference to Crossroads is that this gives +actions each time, so you can stack them easily, and once your hands get bigger, it is almost guaranteed to become a Lost City+. I agree that it should be priced at $5. It's more like a more reliable Shepherd with an extra action thrown in than it is like Crossroads.
Missionary is way too swingy as-is but maybe if you added a scrying pool esque mechanic where you can peek and discard a card or two it'd be fine.
This is super weak in any action-heavy deck (just being +1 card, +1 action).. and the strongest decks in most Kingdoms are action-heavy decks. But in a big money deck, this card is basically crazy.... if this reveals 2 treasures and then an action, it's already far too good. I don't know if this can be balanced; it's either way overpowered or very weak depending on the Kingdom.The idea behind Missionary was to make something that goes hand-and-hand with Big Money decks. However, in its current state. It’s 0 to 100 going from Engines to Big Money. I see that now. It’d be badass if it could excel at both (and not be game breaking), seeing that it’s currently price at 7$ (not that it can’t change). Maybe it should give you +$ and +Buys only after you revealed a certain number of cards. Drawing an Action card could be a +2 Actions instead. I’m throwing those ideas really fast and there could still be issues, but yeah. Maybe that’s the way to go about this one.
Possessed Witch is bonkers at $2 - hows it play? Usually I can kind of model a game in my head but i'm just picturing all the curses gone by like, turn 6 and no thank you. You almost need to have a setup rule for including a trasher since everyones gonna be so heavily junked immediately with that card.
"Do not discard this during your clean-up phase" is not needed; see Hireling. It does need an "until" though, because as worded, it will keep giving out Curses even if it gets trashed. Assuming that "at the start of your turn" was meant to be "at the start of each of your turns". Not sure if this is good or not; buying one basically forces your opponent to also buy one. And if there's no Curse-trashing available, the second player to play one of these has a big advantage... similar to Flag Bearer I suppose.This card is broken. On my way home earlier, I just thought about that particular card. If you play your Possessed Witch, then anyone else who tries to play one after you are going to get theirs automatically trashed when yours is going to activate. All other Possessed Witch are thus DoA. The idea behind this card is to have a threatening, cheap card that takes a while to start during which other players can quickly dispose of it before it hits, at the cost of wasting a bit of their time. Maybe it should be that whenever someone plays a Possessed Witch (including yourself), every Possessed Witches in play get trashed. Basically, something to keep an eye out for in case it spirals out of control. Dunno how that would work. I’ll rework that one.
Just by itself, playing one of these in a normal hand (except at the start of the game) gives +2 cards +. Pretty good. Gets crazier if you can make a larger hand size first. It might be too strong, but seems like a solid concept by itself... not sure it needs the Clearing stuff. The only reason to have a pile that starts empty and gets 1 card added periodically is if that card is really good. If Clearing were much stronger, this could work. The wording is awkward too, at first I thought you added a Clearing to the Promising Lands pile.Clearing needs to be strong, yeah. That’s the idea. You get a Promising Lands. Next player sees that newly added Clearing, sees that it’s good for its price and gets it. But then, that player helps you potentially trash your Promising Lands (that he thematically clears down), turning those good-looking lands into a newly built Duchy.
Redistribution needs a rewording or two - if I put back a Province, do I take two Duchies? If I put back a Colony, can I take ten Estates? Either way, it's some shenanigans.
The wording is very confusing. "Base Victory cards" is not an existing term in Dominion, though I can guess what you mean. Although I don't know whether Colony would count or not. Why not just make it work on any Victory cards? Basically what you're trying to do here is replace a Duchy with 3 Estates, or a Province with a Duchy and 2 Estates... that comes out more or less the same as just having them gain 2 Junk cards. When it hits; it's really strong, almost a much as "each opponent gains 2 Curses". But it's going to miss a lot as well... it does nothing at all most of the time you play it (it will either reveal no victory cards, or only Estates, which does nothing). So overall, too swingy I think.This kind of Attack gets stronger the more your opponents green their deck. Mid to late game, I suspect. It’s more of a deck diluter, though. They technically do not lose any VPs. As for the Base Supply part, I based the wording off this official structure portrayed on the Dominion Wiki:
Interesting, but it can easily show up in a Kingdom with no trashing available. Other "when you trash this" cards all do something else even if trashing isn't available. Maybe just make it a treasure worth ? That might be really interesting and balanced.This card shall be worth 1$, as a Treasure. You are right about the fact that, comes down to no trashing Kingdoms available, it needs to do something regardless.
Riverbed Village is really good and should probably be at least a $5 - compare with City Quarter.
Check out Crossroads. This is almost the same thing; except instead of giving +3 Actions the first time you play one each turn, you give +2 Actions every time.Because your two comments seem to conflict each other a little bit (Crossroads being priced at 2$), I have no idea where Riverbed Village stands right now. At least, price wise.
Sarcophagus is overpriced at $5 - $3 or even $2 is probably fine. Compare with Fool's Gold.
Would maybe be balanced if it just gave a Gold without a Curse. Very weak as it is. But even if it only gave a Gold, in games without attacks you just wouldn't ever get one unless there were no other way to get +buy at all. A version without the Curse might be balanced at actually.Awww… But I really like the idea of Cursing with the Sarcophagus. It has flavour, y’knowwhatI’msayin’. I will probably drop its price down to 2$ if that’s what it must take to keep the Cursing part.
Shoppers, the effect never triggers as-written - you can't play treasure after you've started buying cards.
I don't see how this one works in terms of wording / the rules. At the time you play it, you won't have bought any cards, so you can't have bought 2 differently named cards. You can probably get what you want with "this turn, if you buy a second card and it has a different name than the first card you bought, +1 Buy and +". The problem is, it could easily show up in a Kingdom where there is no +buy available. I think it needs to give +buy normally itself. Not sure about balance; but there will be an interesting decision about when to just take a Copper with your normal buy so that you can also get a .That rewording is indeed what I’m looking for with Shoppers. It has to have a +Buy too, you are right about that. We’ve had a game where we used a Counterfeit to play a Shoppers card twice. +10$ was pretty nifty, to say the least. Really loved that combo.
Stray Cat shouldn't have the attack type. How's a Moat gonna block it when it's never played? What do you mean leftmost player who can receive it?
I'm confused about the "Attack" part... this won't have any interaction with reactions like Moat, so having that type just leads to confusion. See Ill-Gotten Gains. Also, what does "receive it" mean? And when does "otherwise, trash it" come into play? If you choose not to call it? Why would you do that? If you put it on the deck of the leftmost player, you are basically giving them a Curse; as there's no way to play the card or put it on your Tavern mat beyond buying it. Finally, it's a Curse that attacks only one player, which is bad for 3+ player games.Since that card is gimmicky, I will, again, link a picture of the trusty rulebook (click the image to enlarge it).
Town Center is neat - i'd phrase the bit at the end as "If you have any Actions (not Action cards) remaining, when drawing a new hand during your Clean up phase, only draw 4 cards."
Seems interesting. Probably overpowered though; even if you always started every turn with 4 cards it would be worth it to play as many of these as you could every turn. The wording needs cleaned up; "start your next turn with a hand of 4 cards" should be "only draw 4 cards for your next hand during cleanup". It would just get rid of the "if you didn't use all your actions" part; it won't be too weak even if the penalty is automatic.Yet another card where you two worded better than I ever could. That change will be applied. How about this change too: Instead of starting with a hand of 4, it could state that you draw one fewer card (or discard 1). That way, chaining Town Centers becomes more dangerous. Play only 2 of them and you’ll only draw 3 cards in your Clean-up phase if you do not fulfill all of your Actions. Plus, every Town Center gives +2 Actions, driving you further away from completing said Actions the more of them you play at once.
Vigilante is .... well, rinkworks and DXV have some opinions on it.
Your thoughts are correct; it at least needs to gain its own copy... as it is, no one would ever buy an attack card if this card is in the Kingdom. Which in turn means no one would buy this card. If it gains its own copy it might be ok, but still very swingy. Playing an attack becomes a big risk that a person has to think about before each time they play one, if they know their opponent has bought any of these. Also, Donald X has a great post that I can't find right now about why it's bad to have reactions that punish the attacker. A lot of it comes down to the fact that in a 4-player game, it is simply far too punishing to the attacker to the point where they will just avoid attacks.Vigilante’s logistics are a nightmare anyway. Not unlike Possession from Alchemy, the rulebook has a thing or two to say about it. Actually, make that a whole God damned page. Exhibit below is as good as a proof as any (click the image to enlarge it).
Witch-Hunt, early on i did a thing similar to this but the idea that Curses are good is very un-dominion, may make it so people aren't using Cursing attacks.
Anordinaryman put it better than I could in his judging on my card:
Way too good in the right situation.... even if you just have 4 Curses, this is as good as Colony. In any engine that generate many +buys; you simply end the game by draining Curses and getting one of these. It's good that you can only buy one per turn, but I don't think that's enough to balance it. This is 25 if you have 10 Curses.Dang, I did not see that “shit I ain’t going to buy a Witch, knowing that Witch-hunt is also present in this game” drawback. This kills the entirety of the design of this card. I don’t know how I can fix this detriment without killing the essence of Witch-hunt. As for your calculations, GendoIkari, I don’t really see it that way. If you have one Witch-hunt and 10 Curses, then you have a sum of (10/2) * 5 – 10 = 15. Its net total is 15 because the Curses you needed to get there drag your score down by 10. Thus, 4 Curses and 1 Witch-hunt are the 5 cards you need to equal the score given by a single Province. 5 cards doing the same work a single card could’ve. Your deck is also now more diluted. Overall, it costed less, but used more Buys, so there’s that factor to consider.
Too powerful compared to Market. isn't much harder to get than ; though for sure harder to buy 2 or 3 at once.How about it gives you 1 VP and 1 extra VP if you have another Wonder? Or maybe I should just price that card at 7$, I dunno. Close to a Province indeed, but it still gives you a little bit of everything.
Buy cards - interesting idea, but what happens when, say, they're in the trash and a Rogue or Graverobber is instructed to gain them? which rules break?Did you try to get that card during your Action phase? If so, then you cannot get that Buy type card. Same when, for instance, an Ambassador returns a Buy card onto its Supply pile; other players do not get a copy of it.
Seems fine, except the wording is kind of awkward because it's not clear about exactly when you can put Victory cards under it... presumably "at any time", but generally things in Dominion tell you specifically when to do things. Perhaps this could be "at the start of your cleanup phase", because you'll have all the cards you wanted in your hand at that time.
Architect, you may want to rephrase so you're setting aside cards rather than putting cards.“At the start of your Clean-up phase” will be added on that card. You are right, you can’t leave information floating like that. I will also use the “set aside” lexicon. It’s better that way.
It's kinda got limited utility in a kingdom without either Shelters or alt-Victory tho.
This might be too much weaker than Hireling for such a small difference in cost.Arsenal, lol. This card used to be “+1 Card. At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards. At the start of your second next turn, +3 Cards.”. My partner bought like 3 and played them back-to-back. Donald would be paralyzed with terror if he saw what we did to his game. I dunno if giving more +Cards at the beginning of subsequent turns would be a good idea though. Without playing an Action, you get to have 7 cards in hand straight away? Seems too easy for 5$. I could rework that card, but now that you know its history, I’m scared of destroying the balance of Dominion again, lol.
Arsenal is probably underpriced but will also have tracking issues - is this the turn I discard it? or next?I made a mini .PDF rulebook in which I talk about the cards akin to the official Dominion rulebooks. In it, I say that you should turn the card sideways when you would normally discard that Duration card (the Clean-up phase of your next turn). That way, taking your second next turn, you’ll see that the card is sideways and therefore should be discarded at the end of this turn.
Far too swingy. Donald once tried a "each player trashes the top card of their deck" and it was awful. Giving something in return for losing a Province isn't enough to make up for it.
Bushfire is bad and swingy, not in a fun way. Again, probably underpriced. Compare with Swindler or Saboteur. There's no reason it should be giving +actions with that effectIf it’s any consolation, I agree completely with both of you. But my brother insisted about including this (he made 15 cards, I made the 15 others). Mind you, at first it just straight up trashed the top card, no matter what. I was on my knees begging him to spare the poor lil’ Provinces (or Colonies) until he gave in. Anyway, yeah. This card needs a total rework. It wasn’t particularly unfun when we played with these, but that does not mean it can’t be. And it probably will. On the todo list with you!
This is basically the same as Great Hall, which has now been replaced with Mill.I do like the fact that this card doesn’t come back to bother your hand, though (granted, kind of the same as +1 Card, +1 Action).
When you say "receive a card", do you mean "gain a card"? This seems very weak; both reactions are very conditional; normally it will just be the terminal Copper with +1 card. Maybe balanced at , but still situational.
Chalice has an issue, in that "receiving" a card isn't a defined thing - that's gaining. Compare with Trader.“Receive” will be changed to “gain”. I have no idea what I was thinking there. I might drop the price by 1$ for this one.
You should re-order the cards to have this right after Promising Lands; as it is it's very confusing to see this first. Without reading Promising Lands yet; this is indeed weak; I misread it as discard 2 non-Victory cards for each, and that would still be weak. I would think just allow discarding of Victory also.
Clearing seems pretty weak and not worth getting. Promising Lands needs a once-over on its verbiage - you can't "create" a Clearing, you add one to its pile - also kinda weak too - i'd change it to per non-Victory card revealed, +1 Card, +$1. Weird niche that one is filling but revise it so we don't have to do math, just say the number.I will edit my first message so that it is indeed less confusing.
Crook definitely needs a benefit to you, and again, it's swingy and kind of weak. Also "most expensive" isn't well defined - is Engineer or Golem more expensive? What about Silver or University?
Whether it fails or not; pretty much all attacks require a non-attack part. Attacks that do nothing for the person who played them are generally disliked. So are attacks that trash... there's two reasons Donald removed Saboteur from Dominion, and this card encompasses both. Also this just seems too similar to Knights.I have not played with Potions and Debt since I do not own the sets that use them. I guess what I meant there was the card that has the highest cost in $. I will definitely add a non-Attack part to that card. A small one though, because that card is borderline close to turn into a novel though, lol.
I don't understand why you would buy this... it seems extremely weak; like a much worse Watchtower. Except extreme edge cases, it's strictly worse than Watchtower.Well, I guess Fence is at worst +5 cards and -5$ (-4$ if you allowed yourself to gain that Copper). I suppose you might want to play that card to fish for Gold to counterbalance the money penalty it gives you.
Haunted Treasure (and Slaves, man, whys everyone put slaves in games, what a downer, I'm playing a game I don't wanna think about man's gross injustices against his fellow man), you gotta be careful using the Curse type. Slaves is also too good. rinkworks wrote a whole thing on it
This exact card has been suggested many times before. It has several issues. First off, having another card with the type Curse adds a lot of confusion and rules issues. Suddenly "gain a curse" as written on many other cards is no longer a clear instruction (do you gain a card named Curse or a card with the type Curse?) Also, the penalty just doesn't matter; anytime you would use to buy a Gold (instead of a different that might be stronger), you would still buy this. Either you can trash it before the end of the game, or the -1 VP doesn't matter much anyway. Cursed Gold implements this basic idea without these issues.Haunted Treasure (and Slaves) are Buy types and cannot be gained in anyway outside of your Buy phase. Therefore, if another player plays a Witch, you cannot choose to gain that Curse instead of the standard one. However, cards that refer to Curses (say, a card that say “trash a Curse from your hand”) do target the Haunted Treasure. That’s the subtlety of it, I guess. If I were to lower the penalty to -2VP, would that still be considered an auto-pick over Gold? The potential danger of not trashing this before the end of the game is a little more real that way, maybe. I’m not sure.
Architect (Action - Duration)
Arsenal (Action - Duration)
Bar (Action - Reserve)
more for each Bar on any Tavern mat.) and put this on your Tavern mat at the start of your next Clean-up phase; or +
and trash this.
Bushfire (Action) less than the trashed card that costed the most.
Cardinal (Action - Victory - Reserve)
Carpenter (Action)
Chalice (Action - Reaction - Reserve)
Commander (Action)
Crook (Action - Attack) and put back the remainder on their deck.
Devil's Pact (Action)
Fence (Action) per drawn card.
Haunted Treasure (Buy - Treasure - Curse)
Lock (Action) as wanted. For each spent: +1 Card and +1 Buy.
Missionary (Action). If you did not reveal any Treasure, +2 Actions.
Possessed Witch (Action - Attack - Reaction - Duration)
Promising Lands (Action).
Redistribution (Action - Attack). lost. If they can't, then this attack doesn't affect them.
Refractory Gold (Treasure - Reaction)
Riverbed Village (Action)
Sarcophagus (Treasure - Reaction)
Scrapyard (Action)
Shoppers (Treasure).
Slaves (Action - Buy - Curse)
Stray Cat (Reserve)
Town Center (Action)
Trap (Action)
Vigilante (Reaction)
Witch-hunt (Buy - Victory) for every 2 Curses you have (round down).
Wonder (Action - Victory)
Clearing (Action). Each player may trash a Promising Lands to gain a Duchy or a Gold.