Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Ok, so we've narrowed things down quite a bit. Time for open submissions. But in the spirit of doing this piece at a time, we're still going to do the action and reaction separately. We already know that the 2 halves work together, so no need particularly for the reaction to come first so that the action can fit. That being said, please submit to me your ideas for the top half of this card. Preferably by PM. Feel free to post general thoughts here so that there can be discussion.

Deadline is Wednesday, then I'll make a poll with all the ideas.

As a reminder, here's the restrictions for what your mechanic/idea must contain:

It must be sometimes terminal and sometimes not. This could include playing another card, or conditionally giving +actions, etc.
It must be able to trash a card (one of yours).
It must be able to gain a card.
Keeping in mind that it will also have a reaction that reacts to anyone gaining a card (with conditions on the gained card); the card must be strong enough that it should cost or more.

Do not include card names with submissions; name will be decided after.

[GendoIkari]

So to get the ideas rolling... I just realized that Spice Merchant meets both the "trasher" and "sometimes terminal" conditions. So that sort of thing is a possible idea that's already been done.

Also, what benefit you get could be based on the trashed card. Trashing treasure could get you +1 action while trashing victory could let you gain a card. This sort of thing would fulfill all requirements. Just some thoughts.

[LastFootnote]

The Action half of the card could be 100% terminal, and the Reaction could be/include "you may play this from your hand". Sometimes terminal, sometimes non-terminal.

[Gubump]

The Action half of the card could be 100% terminal, and the Reaction could be/include "you may play this from your hand". Sometimes terminal, sometimes non-terminal.

Gendo said that his intention was that the optional non-terminalness would be related to the top half:

Maybe the sometimes non-terminal-ness could relate to the reaction? Not sure how it would work, but sure, I'll vote special.

Well it can definitely relate, but my intention was that it's specifically sometimes non-terminal when played. So this would count as fully terminal, not "special":

Special Moat

+2 cards
------------------------
When you draw a card, you may discard this. If you do, +2 actions.

I guess that could count, though.

[enfynet]

What kind of problems would we run into by doing a Scheme-type selection. "Choose a card you have in play, trash it or gain a copy of it" mumbo-jumbo.

Obviously, careful word selection is necessary.

[Roadrunner7671]

Can I /tag? I think I'm going to.

[Marcory]

Ok, I'll take a shot. Feel free to bash this, suggest changes, or ignore it.

[Alfa] Action/Reaction $5

Trash a card from your hand. Gain an Action card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.

If the gained card costs $4 or less, +1 Action.
--------------
When a player (including you) gains an Action card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain an Action card costing up to $1 less than the gained card.

**************

This is obviously a hybrid of Ironworks and of Graverobber's Remodel function, with a weak Smuggler-type reaction. Don't know if it's strong enough. Should the Remodel part only allow cards costing $2 more than the trashed card?

PS. I named it Alfa so that we can keep track of the suggestions; the next suggestion can be Bravo, then Charlie, etc.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, I'll take a shot. Feel free to bash this, suggest changes, or ignore it.

[Alfa] Action/Reaction $5

Trash a card from your hand. Gain an Action card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.

If the gained card costs $4 or less, +1 Action.
--------------
When a player (including you) gains an Action card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain an Action card costing up to $1 less than the gained card.

**************

This is obviously a hybrid of Ironworks and of Graverobber's Remodel function, with a weak Smuggler-type reaction. Don't know if it's strong enough. Should the Remodel part only allow cards costing $2 more than the trashed card?

PS. I named it Alfa so that we can keep track of the suggestions; the next suggestion can be Bravo, then Charlie, etc.

I feel like this is stronger than Expand at less cost.

[spiralstaircase]

Bravo
Action - Reaction - $5
Trash a card from your hand.  Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.  If the trashed card is an action, +1 action.  If the gained card is an action, play it.
----
When any player gains a card, if it is an action, you may set this card aside.  If you do, at the start of your next turn, play this card as if it were the gained card.  This card is that card until it leaves play.

[Asper]

Ok, I'll take a shot. Feel free to bash this, suggest changes, or ignore it.

[Alfa] Action/Reaction $5

Trash a card from your hand. Gain an Action card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.

If the gained card costs $4 or less, +1 Action.
--------------
When a player (including you) gains an Action card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain an Action card costing up to $1 less than the gained card.

**************

This is obviously a hybrid of Ironworks and of Graverobber's Remodel function, with a weak Smuggler-type reaction. Don't know if it's strong enough. Should the Remodel part only allow cards costing $2 more than the trashed card?

PS. I named it Alfa so that we can keep track of the suggestions; the next suggestion can be Bravo, then Charlie, etc.

Actually, i like this quite a bit, allthough i'd suggest to just use "up to $2 more" and drop the action restriction. Besides that, a Remodel variant that sometimes is nonterminal looks nifty.

For the bottom, no idea. I think a reaction that reacts to any player gaining a card begs to be a Swindler variant, which isn't that novel in my opinion. But meh, gotta work with what we got, so:


Charlie, $5, Action - Reaction
Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may put the gained card on top of your deck. If you don't, +1 Action
----
When any player gains a card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a cheaper card that is not a victory card.

[enfynet]

Well, I did initially send it as a PM, but here's what I came up with as a starting point. I haven't studied my cards recently so my language may be off.


Delta $5 Action-Reaction

Choose an Action you have in play, including this. You may Gain a copy of it. If you do, set it aside and play it at the start of your next turn. Otherwise, Trash it and +1 Action.
------
When you Gain an Action, you may reveal this. If you do, set it aside and play it at the start of your next turn.

[Gubump]

I initially sent it as a PM, but here's mine:

Epsilon:
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it, then gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it, playing it.
Cost: $5/$6

No reaction yet because Gendo said in the OP that we're doing top-half and bottom-half separately.

Ok, I'll take a shot. Feel free to bash this, suggest changes, or ignore it.

[Alfa] Action/Reaction $5

Trash a card from your hand. Gain an Action card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.

If the gained card costs $4 or less, +1 Action.
--------------
When a player (including you) gains an Action card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain an Action card costing up to $1 less than the gained card.

**************

This is obviously a hybrid of Ironworks and of Graverobber's Remodel function, with a weak Smuggler-type reaction. Don't know if it's strong enough. Should the Remodel part only allow cards costing $2 more than the trashed card?

PS. I named it Alfa so that we can keep track of the suggestions; the next suggestion can be Bravo, then Charlie, etc.

I feel like this is stronger than Expand at less cost.

I thought so, too, but I just now realized after rereading it that it can only gain Actions.

[XerxesPraelor]

Wow, I am fully supporting Epsilon - simple and interesting.

[Gubump]

Wow, I am fully supporting Epsilon - simple and interesting.

Thanks, I'm glad you like that one!

[Rafy235]

I'll take a shot:

---- action/attack/reaction 5$
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card.
Choose one: Gain a copy of one of the discarded cards, or trash up to two cards from your hand or discard pile, or +1 Action per card discarded.

It only works once per turn, unless: (insert barrage of edge cases here.)
The gain a discarded card is also weak due to people discarding their worse card, but can be helpful if you hit them near the end game on an estate, or they're playing a slim deck where all their cards are valuable. Either way, the card cleverly moats itself. Trashing is good, but you allow your opponent to use this to take advantage of that, and vice versa, so nice interaction there.
Little large so it'll need a small reaction, thoughts?

[Rafy235]

Wow, I am fully supporting Epsilon - simple and interesting.

Thanks, I'm glad you like that one!

It seems far to similar to procession, still cool though.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, I'll take a shot. Feel free to bash this, suggest changes, or ignore it.

[Alfa] Action/Reaction $5

Trash a card from your hand. Gain an Action card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.

If the gained card costs $4 or less, +1 Action.
--------------
When a player (including you) gains an Action card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain an Action card costing up to $1 less than the gained card.

**************

This is obviously a hybrid of Ironworks and of Graverobber's Remodel function, with a weak Smuggler-type reaction. Don't know if it's strong enough. Should the Remodel part only allow cards costing $2 more than the trashed card?

PS. I named it Alfa so that we can keep track of the suggestions; the next suggestion can be Bravo, then Charlie, etc.

I feel like this is stronger than Expand at less cost.

I thought so, too, but I just now realized after rereading it that it can only gain Actions.

I don't think that's nearly enough of a limitation. Graverobber isn't too strong because it can only TRASH actions. Actions are the things you usually want to be gaining most of the time anyway. Sure you can't use it to turn those $5s into Provinces towards the end, but that ability must not by why Expand costs $7, because Graverobber CAN do that. Expand costs $7 because turning Estates into $5 actions is huge. So is turning Coppers into $3 actions.

[GendoIkari]

I'll take a shot:

---- action/attack/reaction 5$
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card.
Choose one: Gain a copy of one of the discarded cards, or trash up to two cards from your hand or discard pile, or +1 Action per card discarded.

It only works once per turn, unless: (insert barrage of edge cases here.)
The gain a discarded card is also weak due to people discarding their worse card, but can be helpful if you hit them near the end game on an estate, or they're playing a slim deck where all their cards are valuable. Either way, the card cleverly moats itself. Trashing is good, but you allow your opponent to use this to take advantage of that, and vice versa, so nice interaction there.
Little large so it'll need a small reaction, thoughts?

Sorry but attacks are not allowed (we voted it as not an attack early on).

[GendoIkari]

Just a note that my intention here is that this vote will be to decide the mechanic, not necessarily all of the specifics. That is to say, we could have Alpha in the vote, and if it's chosen, still decide later that it needs to be $2 more, not $3 more, to be balanced.

[eHalcyon]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

[Marcory]

I like it. But does it make three-piling too easy?

[GendoIkari]

I like it. But does it make three-piling too easy?

It's worse than Ironworks at doing that...

[eHalcyon]

I like it. But does it make three-piling too easy?

It's worse than Ironworks at doing that...

I don't know if it's worse (probably as is, but the reaction could change that) but I did intend for it to make it easier to three pile.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

Is it too strong to switch the order of trash and gain? My concern here is that if you don't have the chance to play other cards before this (which, on some boards, will be just how it is), then the "gain a card" will do nothing for you.

[eHalcyon]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

Is it too strong to switch the order of trash and gain? My concern here is that if you don't have the chance to play other cards before this (which, on some boards, will be just how it is), then the "gain a card" will do nothing for you.

Switching it would make it easier to play, which is less interesting to me.  The trick here is that the "gain a card" always has the chance to do something.  Suppose the kingdom is all terminals.  Play a copy of this and trash it.  Play a second copy of this and trash it again.  Now they are Villages, problem solved!  In practice, this is probably a terrible idea, but perhaps the Reaction can improve it there.

If this idea wins and the reaction doesn't help it out, switching the order is a simple buff if needed.

[Davio]

It must be sometimes terminal and sometimes not. This could include playing another card, or conditionally giving +actions, etc.
It must be able to trash a card (one of yours).
It must be able to gain a card.
Keeping in mind that it will also have a reaction that reacts to anyone gaining a card (with conditions on the gained card); the card must be strong enough that it should cost $5 or more.

Some Card - Action / Reaction - $5

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand.
+<VP> equal to half the number of differently named cards in the trash, rounded down. <-- This wording is a bit awkward
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

When another player gains a card, you may discard this.
If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down and your opponent may trash a card from his hand.


It might be trying to do a bit too much, but I'm open to tweaks.

[Infthitbox]

It must be sometimes terminal and sometimes not. This could include playing another card, or conditionally giving +actions, etc.
It must be able to trash a card (one of yours).
It must be able to gain a card.
Keeping in mind that it will also have a reaction that reacts to anyone gaining a card (with conditions on the gained card); the card must be strong enough that it should cost $5 or more.

Some Card - Action / Reaction - $5

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand.
+<VP> equal to half the number of differently named cards in the trash, rounded down. <-- This wording is a bit awkward
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

When another player gains a card, you may discard this.
If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down and your opponent may trash a card from his hand.


It might be trying to do a bit too much, but I'm open to tweaks.

I like the idea of spending VP tokens to do something, but I can totally see non-competitive players looking at this aspect of the card with disgust.

[GendoIkari]

Some Card - Action / Reaction - $5

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand.
+<VP> equal to half the number of differently named cards in the trash, rounded down. <-- This wording is a bit awkward
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

Still needs to gain, though. I do wonder if adding "gain a card costing the same as the trashed card" would keep it about the same power-level. It would make it much weaker as as a trasher, being unable to get rid of Coppers. But it would make it stronger in that you could get more cards into the trash without losing good cards from your deck.

[GendoIkari]

Keeping with the generally informal nature of the way I've been handling this, the deadline for submissions is sometime a little later today, in about 8 hours or so. Keep the submissions coming!

[Accatitippi]

Since everything's so informal, here's a under-the-line idea:
When a player gains a card, you may reveal this from your hand and discard a card to reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a copy of the gained card. Put it in your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

I'm afraid I might have to leave the internet alone for a while because of exams and I like the idea so I'd like you folks to see it anyway.

[eHalcyon]

Just to be clear, the poll won't include reactions, right?  So many people are posting ideas with both parts.

[LastFootnote]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

[enfynet]

Just to be clear, the poll won't include reactions, right?  So many people are posting ideas with both parts.

Correct. I think a few (myself included) are doing this to so the "self-synergy" of the two parts. I think this is valuable considering the proposed cost of $5. However, this does not mean the reaction part is completely fixed to the action itself.

[Accatitippi]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

I don't see myself buying it very often, if not for a good reaction part.
* Doesn't work as your only village because it will trash itself
* can't usually clear copper
*Action minting sounds cool but for 5c I'll probably prefer to directly buy the action itself, rather than a not-even-cantrip Upgrade variant that can only upgrade Actions. And to work that way, it needs to have villages or both expendable and desirable cantrips.
I might be missing something.

[GendoIkari]

Just to be clear, the poll won't include reactions, right?  So many people are posting ideas with both parts.

Correct. And most of the ideas that I've received via PM haven't had a reaction.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

Absolutely, no reason the poll can't have both options. Unless we were dealing with dozens of options or something, and we're not.

[mustang255]

Gamma - $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more. If it is an,
action card, +2 actions
treasure card, +$2
victory card, +2 cards

Ironworks/Remodel hybrid.

[enfynet]

Gamma - $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more. If it is an,
action card, +2 actions
treasure card, +$2
victory card, +2 cards

Ironworks/Remodel hybrid.

Tribute comes to mind as well.

[Gubump]

Gamma - $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more. If it is an,
action card, +2 actions
treasure card, +$2
victory card, +2 cards

Ironworks/Remodel hybrid.

It needs to clarify whether "it" refers to the gained card or the trashed card. I'm unsure which you meant currently.

[spiralstaircase]

We seem to have fallen into a different alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet

[enfynet]

Wow I just noticed that. Thanks Gubump!

[LibraryAdventurer]

I wanted to submit a card, but put off thinking about it till today. So I didn't think about it much, and it turned out silly. oh well.

Hogwash
If your Hogwash Mat is empty, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck. Trash it, discard it, or put it back. If you trashed it, play a card from your Hogwash mat. If there is still at least one card on your Hogwash mat, +$3.
-
When any player gains an action card, you may set this aside. If you do, put a copy of the gained card from the supply onto your Hogwash mat and play this at the start of your next turn.

(I originally called it Gee Wiz, but then I noticed we were on H.)

[LibraryAdventurer]

Gamma - $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more. If it is an,
action card, +2 actions
treasure card, +$2
victory card, +2 cards

Blue dog hybrid.

It needs to clarify whether "it" refers to the gained card or the trashed card. I'm unsure which you meant currently.

ftfy

[eHalcyon]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

Absolutely, no reason the poll can't have both options. Unless we were dealing with dozens of options or something, and we're not.

I'm afraid of that splitting votes though.  Would it OK for the entry to just be "Trash a card you have in play. Gain a copy of a card you have in play. +1 action per [TBD]"?

I don't see myself buying it very often, if not for a good reaction part.
* Doesn't work as your only village because it will trash itself
* can't usually clear copper
*Action minting sounds cool but for 5c I'll probably prefer to directly buy the action itself, rather than a not-even-cantrip Upgrade variant that can only upgrade Actions. And to work that way, it needs to have villages or both expendable and desirable cantrips.
I might be missing something.

It's intentionally weak precisely to allow for a powerful reaction.  Keep in mind that it's a gainer with a reaction to gaining, so it will probably have strong self-synergy.

[scott_pilgrim]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

Absolutely, no reason the poll can't have both options. Unless we were dealing with dozens of options or something, and we're not.

I'm afraid of that splitting votes though.  Would it OK for the entry to just be "Trash a card you have in play. Gain a copy of a card you have in play. +1 action per [TBD]"?

If the poll allows people to vote for as many options as they like, it wouldn't matter, right?

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to keep the top short, to save space for an interesting reaction.  Something like this, maybe?

Trash a card you have in play.  Gain a copy of a card you have in play.  +1 Action for each copy of this in the Trash.

It's terminal if none of them have been trashed, but even the first play of it can be non-terminal since it can trash itself.  I think 1:1 scaling on the +action would be interesting, especially if this is the only "village", but it can be changed if needed for balance.

Another idea I had for "sometimes non-terminal" was "+1 Action for each empty Supply pile".

I really like this one, but I would strongly prefer it with "+1 Action per empty Supply pile". Can I put forth that as an option, despite it not being my idea?

Absolutely, no reason the poll can't have both options. Unless we were dealing with dozens of options or something, and we're not.

I'm afraid of that splitting votes though.  Would it OK for the entry to just be "Trash a card you have in play. Gain a copy of a card you have in play. +1 action per [TBD]"?

If the poll allows people to vote for as many options as they like, it wouldn't matter, right?

I believe this is correct.

[eHalcyon]

If the poll allows people to vote for as many options as they like, it wouldn't matter, right?

Hm, fair point.  Though I think that there may be other possibilities as well, which could be better determined later.  I kind of think that "per copy in the trash" may be too steep while "per empty supply pile" may be too mild.

[Roadrunner7671]

I'm sure many people came up with mechanics that they haven't mentioned as they want their card to be unique. I am not a part of that group, but we will see when the poll comes out.

[GendoIkari]

If the poll allows people to vote for as many options as they like, it wouldn't matter, right?

Hm, fair point.  Though I think that there may be other possibilities as well, which could be better determined later.  I kind of think that "per copy in the trash" may be too steep while "per empty supply pile" may be too mild.

Good point; since what we really care about for this step is voting on the concept/mechanic, then we'll use +1 action per [tbd].

[eHalcyon]

If the poll allows people to vote for as many options as they like, it wouldn't matter, right?

Hm, fair point.  Though I think that there may be other possibilities as well, which could be better determined later.  I kind of think that "per copy in the trash" may be too steep while "per empty supply pile" may be too mild.

Good point; since what we really care about for this step is voting on the concept/mechanic, then we'll use +1 action per [tbd].

I'd encourage others to generalize the less important parts of their concepts too.

[Gubump]

I wanted to submit a card, but put off thinking about it till today. So I didn't think about it much, and it turned out silly. oh well.

Hogwash
If your Hogwash Mat is empty, +1 Card, +1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck. Trash it, discard it, or put it back. If you trashed it, play a card from your Hogwash mat. If there is still at least one card on your Hogwash mat, +$3.
-
When any player gains an action card, you may set this aside. If you do, put a copy of the gained card from the supply onto your Hogwash mat and play this at the start of your next turn.

(I originally called it Gee Wiz, but then I noticed we were on H.)

This can't gain, though, which is one of the criteria.

And as for a generalization of my card:

Generalized Epsilon:
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it, then gain an Action card costing exactly $X more than it, playing it.
Cost: $5/$6

Note that the original version should also be able to only gain Actions, which I accidentally left out.

[LibraryAdventurer]

It puts "a copy of the [other player's] gained card from the supply on your Hogwash mat", and then can play the card on your mat. I would think that's close enough to gaining, even though it doesn't use the term 'gain'.

[GendoIkari]

It puts "a copy of the [other player's] gained card from the supply on your Hogwash mat", and then can play the card on your mat. I would think that's close enough to gaining, even though it doesn't use the term 'gain'.

Still, I don't think it can work for our purposes, because the top half does nothing unless a specific reaction is chosen. We already know that we want it to react to gaining, but we don't want to have a top half that doesn't leave room for people to submit ideas for the reaction effect.

[LibraryAdventurer]

It puts "a copy of the [other player's] gained card from the supply on your Hogwash mat", and then can play the card on your mat. I would think that's close enough to gaining, even though it doesn't use the term 'gain'.

Still, I don't think it can work for our purposes, because the top half does nothing unless a specific reaction is chosen. We already know that we want it to react to gaining, but we don't want to have a top half that doesn't leave room for people to submit ideas for the reaction effect.

oh well. I probably wouldn't have voted for it anyway.

[Davio]

Some Card - Action / Reaction - $5

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand.
+<VP> equal to half the number of differently named cards in the trash, rounded down. <-- This wording is a bit awkward
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

Still needs to gain, though. I do wonder if adding "gain a card costing the same as the trashed card" would keep it about the same power-level. It would make it much weaker as as a trasher, being unable to get rid of Coppers. But it would make it stronger in that you could get more cards into the trash without losing good cards from your deck.

Fixed some things, my below the line stays the same, my above the line becomes:

• No more extra VP tokens per card in trash, that was weird, instead...
• Gain an action card with cost per differently named card in trash, so having trashed Estate and Copper can get you a Hamlet and with one more you can already gain $3 cards; note that you can freely trash the first card if there are no Poor Houses or Ruins in play

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand, gain an Action card costing up to $1 per differently named card in the trash.
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

[Gubump]

Some Card - Action / Reaction - $5

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand.
+<VP> equal to half the number of differently named cards in the trash, rounded down. <-- This wording is a bit awkward
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

Still needs to gain, though. I do wonder if adding "gain a card costing the same as the trashed card" would keep it about the same power-level. It would make it much weaker as as a trasher, being unable to get rid of Coppers. But it would make it stronger in that you could get more cards into the trash without losing good cards from your deck.

Fixed some things, my below the line stays the same, my above the line becomes:

• No more extra VP tokens per card in trash, that was weird, instead...
• Gain an action card with cost per differently named card in trash, so having trashed Estate and Copper can get you a Hamlet and with one more you can already gain $3 cards; note that you can freely trash the first card if there are no Poor Houses or Ruins in play

+1<VP>
Trash a card from your hand, gain an Action card costing up to $1 per differently named card in the trash.
You may spend any number of <VP>. +1 Action per <VP> spent this way.

Ruins don't cost $1. Poor Houses are the only case where you can't freely trash the first card with this.

[Davio]

No, because it says "up to".

Ruins, costing $0, are Action cards costing up to $1, so you'll have to gain one of them.

[Gubump]

No, because it says "up to".

Ruins, costing $0, are Action cards costing up to $1, so you'll have to gain one of them.

Ah, I see.