Print

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

[Doom_Shark]

Hall of Fame

The rules:

1. A challenge will have a set of requirements for the entries; entries must conform to the challenge

2. When not restricted by the challenge, custom card types and mechanics are allowed, provided that they are explained in the same post as the entry.

3. After roughly one week, the person who posted the challenge judges the entries, declaring a winner and one or two runners up.

4. The winner of a challenge posts the next challenge.

5. If the winner does not post within a reasonable amount of time, a runner-up may post the next challenge

6. It shouldn't need saying, but I'll say it anyway: a person may not post an entry to a challenge they set, and a person may only submit one entry to a challenge

7. Discussion of other entries is permitted, as well as changing your entries. If you change your entry, please do so as an edit to the post with your original entry and keep a changelog

With all of that out of the way:
Challenge #1: Design a Treasure - Reaction card! Keep in mind that if a reaction stays in your hand, you could, theoretically, reveal it again and again indefinitely

[Gubump]

Inflation
$1
When another player gains a Treasure card costing at least $3, you may reveal this from your hand to have them exchange the gained card for a Treasure costing up to $3 less.
Treasure - Reaction
$4

[Dsell]

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
During your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.



Edit: Changed from "On your turn" to "During your turn" - I don't believe a tiny wording change merits a spoiler tag and the old version but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gubump]

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
On your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

What would be the timing for this? Start of turn, or any time during your turn?

[Aquila]

Whetstone - Treasure Reaction, $4 cost.
Worth $3 if your deck is empty, otherwise $1.
-
When you play an Attack on your turn, you may play this from your hand.

[Dsell]

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
On your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

What would be the timing for this? Start of turn, or any time during your turn?

Anytime during your turn that you have no action cards in hand.

It should probably say "During your turn" instead of "On your turn" but oh well.

Edit: It was bugging me so I changed it in the op.

[MeNowDealWithIt]

Stallion

$2
+1 buy
-
When another player plays an attack, you may first set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +1 card and return this to your hand.

Cost: 5$
Type: Treasure - Reaction

[Violet CLM]

Investment

So it's a Laboratory that can redraw itself, without needing an action to use, and once you don't need to draw any more cards it doubles as a Silver?

[Dsell]

Investment

So it's a Laboratory that can redraw itself, without needing an action to use, and once you don't need to draw any more cards it doubles as a Silver?

It's only a lab if you don't have any other actions in hand. In strictly BM or games where you only buy cantrips, it's a lab equivalent that can also be used as silver, yes.

[Gubump]

Now that Violet CLM's pointed out the fact that Investment is a Lab variant, it definitely seems overpowered to me.

[Doom_Shark]

Edit: Changed from "On your turn" to "During your turn" - I don't believe a tiny wording change merits a spoiler tag and the old version but correct me if I'm wrong.

The spoiler thing is mainly there so that discussion of the card still makes sense after changes are made.

[faust]

Junkyard
$3 - Treasure/Reaction

Take your -1$ token. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card costing $3 or more. Discard that card and put the rest into your hand.
When another player trashes a card, you may set this aside from your hand, to gain a copy of the trashed card. If you do, put this back in your hand at the start of your next turn.

[spiralstaircase]

Bribe
Cost: $5
Types: Treasure - Reaction
$2, +1 Buy
-
When another player gains a second card in their turn, you may set this aside.  If you do, gain a copy of that card, and that player gets $2 and +1 Buy.  Return this to your hand at the start of your turn.

[ben_king]

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
During your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

I like the idea of this card, but I think it can't be a reaction, since there's nothing it's reacting to.  You could say "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this..."

If I was going to design a card inspired by yours, I think I'd do a Storyteller variant:

Tales of Investments
$4 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this, setting it aside.  If you do, +2 cards and discard this at the start of your cleanup phase.

[Dsell]

[Investment]

I like the idea of this card, but I think it can't be a reaction, since there's nothing it's reacting to.  You could say "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this..."

That's not a bad suggestion, but I will point out that there are no specific rules on reactions - each one gets its own FAQ. Neither the trigger nor the FAQ for Investment seem like they would be too confusing.

The other drawback to your suggestion is that it limits functionality quite a bit. I was hoping to design a treasure that enables less reliable engines. Using your clause, if Investment is drawn in a hand of all non-actions it's just silver - that's not necessarily bad, but my idea is to give those hands a second chance to kickstart the engine.

The card you create based on this does seem incredibly overpowered though, since you removed the bit about needing to show a hand with no action cards. Your version is a $4 super lab that is just silver if you can't play an action first.

[Asper]

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, you may discard an Action card, for +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

[Holunder9]

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, if you have more than 5 Action cards in play, +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Wouldn't At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand for +1 Action, be a simpler wording? Unless you want them to not stack.
This card is in my opinion the most interesting one, Treasures for an engine (kind of the inverse of Encampment). It is similar to Cookielord's Realm Tax.

[LastFootnote]

Wouldn't At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand for +1 Action, be a simpler wording? Unless you want them to not stack.

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

[ben_king]

The card you create based on this does seem incredibly overpowered though, since you removed the bit about needing to show a hand with no action cards. Your version is a $4 super lab that is just silver if you can't play an action first.

Yeah, I could definitely see sense in having it cost $5.

[LostPhoenix]

Ransom
$5 Treasure - Reaction

$2
---
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

[Dsell]

Ransom
$5 Treasure - Reaction

$2
---
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

I like this concept a lot. Obviously it's a great defense from certain attacks and it's amazing with trash-for benefit. It's just silver on boards with no trashing, but that's not super common. If it had the ability to trash stuff, that seems like it would make it perfect, but I don't know if that would make it too strong.

[gamesou]

Tulip
$3 Treasure - Reaction

$4
-$1 per Treasure card you have in play (including that one).
---
When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

[Asper]

Darn, I knew Quicksilver's top seemed familiar. I wanted it to be more interesting than a fixed amount, but the main catch was starting with a free Action if you have one in hand at the start of your turn.

[LastFootnote]

When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

Maybe you should mention this thing about Reaction cards in the OP? It seems to be an oft-unknown rule.

[Doom_Shark]

When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

Maybe you should mention this thing about Reaction cards in the OP? It seems to be an oft-unknown rule.

You're probably right, will edit shortly

[ClouduHieh]

Elektron

$2
——————————————————
When another player buys a victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do trash this or discard a potion from your hand. Then gain a duchy or a gold to your hand.

Cost ⚗️ $2


The Greeks use to call Amber elektron. Assuming you have them both in your hand you could gain 2 duchies to your hand or 2 golds to your hand or one of each. Otherwise your just exchanging it for a gold or duchy. This may seem similar to feast. I don’t know if it’s any better. But it does give the potion card another use.

[grrgrrgrr]

I know one as well. It is slightly inspired of the usual Smithy+BM thing.

Magic coin Treasure/Reaction, $5
+2$
--------------
When you play an Action, you may reveal this card, to forego its effect for +3 cards.

[Fragasnap]

Coffin
Types: Treasure, Reaction
Cost: $4
$2. When you play this, discard a card.When you discard any number of cards from your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all the discarded cards.

Discard effects down to a threshold (such as Militia) occur at once: You cannot pick and choose the discarded cards that you trash or don't.
EDIT: Thank you for the catch below, LastFootnote. For some reason, I recalled reading that one does not need to show what cards they are discarding to Militia (which would imply a simultaneous discard), but the rules do not say that at all. Regardless, my comment was intended as clarification, rather than balance consideration.

[LastFootnote]

Coffin
Types: Treasure, Reaction
Cost: $4
$2. When you play this, discard a card.When you discard any number of cards from your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all the discarded cards.

Discard effects down to a threshold (such as Militia) occur at once: You cannot pick and choose the discarded cards that you trash or don't.

No, they don’t!

[Asper]

I altered the top of Quicksilver to something I didn't steal 

New version:

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, you may discard an Action card, for +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Old version:
Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, if you have more than 5 Action cards in play, +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Edit: I misread the rules in the OP and forgot I had to post the new version here 

[Chappy7]

[Dsell]

I like this concept, but it seems a little weird that you could discard it during an opponent's turn as a reaction to an attack, but then nothing happens with that $3 since it wouldn't stick around until your turn.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Emerald City
Treasure - Reaction - $5
Worth $2
When you play this, +2 cards.
When you draw an action card, you may discard this from your hand to play it.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Emerald City
Action - Treasure - $5
Worth $2
When you play this in your action phase, +2 cards.
When you draw an action card during your action phase, you may discard this from your hand to play it.

FTFY

We don't want to be playing actions in the buy phase...
Also, does it produce coin when you play it in the action phase or only when you play it in your buy phase?

[Commodore Chuckles]

Whoops, I totally meant to write "Treasure - Reaction." Not sure how I screwed that up.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Whoops, I totally meant to write "Treasure - Reaction." Not sure how I screwed that up.

Oh. But with two of them, it can still lead to playing actions in the buy phase unless you say "When you draw an action card during your action phase"

[Asper]

My personal favourites are Ransom, Coffin and Molten Gold. They all have a unique but elegant catch.

For Molten Gold, I think the Reaction part should be tweaked a bit, as right now it's barely better (if at all) than playing it. Also it not working against attacks is sad.

I like that Coffin costs 4$ and is a Silver with a downside on play, unless you have two of them in hand. Which makes it even more meaningful that it costs 4$, as you can't open with two of them.

Ransom will be broken good with trash-for-benefit cards like Salvager, Bishop or the Remodel family. But not in a bad way. It looks fun. The name is a bit meh to me, though.

[Tejayes]

Edit: Changed cost from $4 to $5, effectively making this a Buy-phase Workshop in which you can immediately play Treasures, and also added $1. Hopefully this makes it a viable card for games without Attacks.

[ClouduHieh]

My personal favorites are molten gold and scepter. I’m also surprised that scepter wasn’t one of the cards in that antiquities thread.

[Holunder9]

The Reaction is cool but I don't think that the Silver gaining (what this will mostly be used for) is all that interesting. There is a reason Hermit sucks gaining-wise compared to Workshop variants.

[spiralstaircase]

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

[Tejayes]

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think my favorites are Scepter, Ransom, and Molten Gold.

[King Leon]

Magnet
Type: Treasure/Reaction
Cost: $5

$2
-
When you buy a Copper, you may set this card from your discard pile aside. At the start of you next turn, put this into your hand.

[GendoIkari]

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to ", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

[infangthief]

Loose Change
Treasure - Reaction - $2

$1. Gain a Loose Change.
-----------------
When you buy a Treasure, you may discard this from play to trash any number of Treasures you have in play.

[spiralstaircase]

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to ", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

So, after Tejayes' reply, I thought the intention was that the on-play is cheaper than the Scepter, but the reaction is cheaper than the Attack.  The on-play was the bit that was confusing me.  Now I'm even more confused.

[ben_king]

Centerpiece
Treasure - Reaction - $2

When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play
--------------
When you play a Silver, you may reveal and discard this to gain a Silver to hand.

[Tejayes]

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to ", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

So, after Tejayes' reply, I thought the intention was that the on-play is cheaper than the Scepter, but the reaction is cheaper than the Attack.  The on-play was the bit that was confusing me.  Now I'm even more confused.

You are correct. On play, you gain a card cheaper than Scepter. On reaction, you gain a card cheaper than the Attack, assuming you don't gain the Attack itself.

I'll keep fiddling with the wording to make it clearer. I just wish the Card Image Generator didn't make the text so small whenever I add even a little bit more.

[LostPhoenix]

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

[scott_pilgrim]

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

Unless otherwise specified, "discard" always means "from your hand". See, for example, Beggar.

[LostPhoenix]

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

Unless otherwise specified, "discard" always means "from your hand". See, for example, Beggar.

I see. Haven't played dominion in a while, so wasn't very familiar with the specific wording.

[Doom_Shark]

Judging in approximately 24 hours

[LostPhoenix]

Judging in approximately 24 hours

*prod*

[Chappy7]

All right, I think this new version is a bit better.  You can now use the reaction against attacks, and the reaction is a bit stronger, making it more worth it to try to line it up.  (if it isn't too late to edit my entry)

[Doom_Shark]

If I can be late on judging, you can be late on updates. Speaking of, actually finally judging this now. If anyone wants specific feedback when I'm done, feel free to shoot me a pm.

Winner: LostPhoenix's Ransom

Runner-Up: Chappy7's Molten Gold

[Umadin]

Late to the game:

[LostPhoenix]

Hey, thanks!

In honor of Renaissance...

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant
Design a card with 12 words or less on it (name, numbers, types, etc. do not count).

[Gubump]

Bond
+2 Coffers
Treasure
Cost: $5

[King Leon]

Hey, thanks!

In honor of Renaissance...

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant
Design a card with 12 words or less on it (name, numbers, types, etc. do not count).

Painter
Cost: $2
Types: Action/Duration

+1 Villager
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card

[Umadin]

[Holunder9]

This is strictly better than Baker.

[Doom_Shark]

Thanks to theta for helping fix the image size

[ThetaSigma12]

FTFY

[Umadin]

This is strictly better than Baker.

Certainly is!

Actually while I’m at it... I withdraw my first submission and tip this right into full new market for $6:

[Doom_Shark]

thanks theta

[Gazbag]

I think this just scrapes through at 12 words ignoring the numbers? Sorry if I can't count/misunderstood something. 12 words is really tight... it's a good challenge!

Wine Cellar
+2 Cards
Discard any number of Treasures, revealing them. +1 Action per Treasure discarded.
Action
Cost:$4

[Umadin]

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.” 

[Commodore Chuckles]

Moneychanger
Action - $5
+3 Coffers
Pay any number of Coffers. +1 Villager per Coffer paid.

[ThetaSigma12]

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.” 

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

[Umadin]

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.” 

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

Ah makes sence

[Gubump]

Moneychanger
Action - $5
+3 Coffers
Pay any number of Coffers. +1 Villager per Coffer paid.

Just the +3 Coffers alone is too strong for only $5. I'd say this is a $7-cost card.

[Aquila]

Confectioner - Action, $5 cost.
+1 Action
+ $1
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

(Hope subject change makes sense, in time this thread could get huge and hard to track.)

[Gazbag]

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.” 

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

Ah makes sence

Well the new Silos project just says "revealed" so I guess 1 word could be shaved off now with that wording.

[spiralstaircase]

Triptych
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal separate Action, Treasure and Victory cards from your hand, for $4.

[Asper]

Royalties, 5$, Treasure
$2
+1 Villager

[mith]

Supervisor
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Villager
+$1
--------
Setup: Each player gets +1 Villager

(This seems obvious, and I'd be a little surprised if that setup doesn't appear on an actual card.)

[Holunder9]

I am pretty sure that there won't be many "Villager cantrips" as you often have to use the Villager immediately anyway.

[Chappy7]

[Kudasai]

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission



Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word.

[Gamer3000]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +$1

Old Version:
Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

[Holunder9]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

[Aquila]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

[Asper]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Judging from an Event I tested, which costed 2$ and gave +1 Buy, +1 Coffers, I can confirm that card-shaped things that enable you to trivially amass Coffers by skipping turns is broken, and more importantly, no fun.

[Tejayes]

[Violet CLM]

(ab)

(Possibly cheating.)

[Holunder9]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

[vishwathg]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

But you only need 1 Pawn Shop per turn, not 5 Silvers.

[Holunder9]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

But you only need 1 Pawn Shop per turn, not 5 Silvers.

So? You just need one Vault to always reach 6! Great cycling so far far far better than Pawn Shop! Totally crazy, now you can buy Golds and that Vault soons hits 8! You just need one or two and gaining Golds and then Provinces becomes a piece of cake!

That's partial analysis and it is highly dubious. But let's nonetheless play this game:


Let's assume that you have to buy 5 Pawn Shops to consistently use them and that you play them 8 times for 32 Coin tokens and buy 4 Provinces (now your deck has 19 cards). So 13 moves to get half the Provinces is probably a bit too quick. But if you add 2 bad turns in which you draw no Pawn Shop we are already up to 15. Still better than Big Money though so perhaps a bit too good.

Add any attack, handsize, junking or whatever, and that entire thing becomes more complicated. With handsize attacks Pawn Shop fails and with junking attacks you need trashers or more Pawn Shops. If there is a quick engine it also fails.

So yeah, perhaps too good, perhaps not. Has to be tested to be definitely determined.

[Umadin]

(ab)

(Possibly cheating.)

I feel like this should be 2 still maybe 3.  Like chapel, most people will just buy one, the artifact wont enter your posession until after your first chapel and it seems the chance of that being passed along before payout is high.  Even at 2 chapel still shows almost equal strength since you limit trashing to 3.

I like this very much though!

[faust]

[Asper]

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).

You are not ignoring anything here because there is nothing to ignore. The strangth of Coffers lies, among other things, with the fact that you can ammass them over several turns, and spend them later. You don't have to buy a Province as soon as you have enough tokens. That's the first part of your reasoning that's wrong.

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

But you don't need to trust someone who tested a very similar premise. Trust your hyperbolical Silver comparisons.

[Asper]

This is awesome. I was really surprised when Nocturne didn't have any cards that make use of your unspent coins, and this has a cute catch. Just not sure whether it should spend those Actions/Coins...

[Holunder9]

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn after some build-up is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $4 or $5. At $5 I'd consider making it non-terminal although that might be redundant due to the ability to gainer Villagers via it.

[Asper]

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

[Holunder9]

Ignoring the circle of converting previously gained Villagers into Actions and then into Coffers I guess that the latter option is  more important. I'd also test the card at $4. While Recruiter is extremly strong and shouldn't be a benchmark this seems nonetheless weaker than it.

[Holunder9]

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

I fail to see why this card is supposed to be dull (not that such subjective issues are relevant in the first place; somebody might view BM as dull or a hyperthin Chapel deck as dull). Discard for benefit always competes with sifters and trashers and this is in no way a no-brainer if is priced correctly (as I wrote in my last post, I was totally wrong about the balance, this has to cost $4 or $5).

[Asper]

Ignoring the circle of converting previously gained Villagers into Actions and then into Coffers I guess that the latter option is  more important.

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

I fail to see why this card is supposed to be dull. Discard for benefit always competes with sifters and trashers and this is in no way a no-brainer if is priced correctly (as I wrote in my last post, I was totally wrong about the balance, this has to cost $4 or $5).

As usual, you insist to disagree, and that's fine with me. I feel I have sufficiently supported my point for others to draw their own conclusions.

[Holunder9]

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

Circle like in Transmure-esque circle.
Previously, like in Backstreet played previously, on a previous turn.
T1: Coins -> Villagers | T2:  Villagers -> Actions -> Coffers

[Asper]

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

I wrote previously, like in Backstreet playd previously, on a previous turn.
T1: Coins -> Villagers | T2:  Villagers -> Actions -> Coffers

That's true, of course.

[Holunder9]

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission



Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word.

I like it a lot but think that it is a tiny bit too good (of course it cannot cost $7 like the DoublePeddler tested during Prosperity, it is a bit weaker so $6 is the right price)
You can end up with extra Actions in a draw engine but I don't think that it is hard to pull off playing this while only having 1 Action.

[Umadin]

I like this, and although actions to coffers and coin to villagers is novel I think coin to coffers feels cleaner in concept to me but to each their own!  Great card

[Umadin]

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission



Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word.

I like it a lot but think that it is a tiny bit too good (of course it cannot cost $7 like the DoublePeddler tested during Prosperity, it is a bit weaker so $6 is the right price)
You can end up with extra Actions in a draw engine but I don't think that it is hard to pull off playing this while only having 1 Action.

I think its priced fine if its not as good as bank, kings court, expand, forge, its less then 7.  This doesn’t seem overpriced in the least, I’d even say its a low valued 6 / high value 5. Compare to mill, bazaar, treasury, hughway, bazaar.

[Holunder9]

As I already mentioned, the cost is right. The problem is that I fear, perhaps wrongly, that it is too easy to consistenly make Pioneer work. Compare this to the the only two official DoublePeddler versions, Conspirator and Grand Market:
Conspirator always implies the risk of being a terminal Silver, the downside is that you need to set up an engine before you can make Conspirator work as payload.
Grand Market is even harder, it has an additional extra Buy but you need to do a lot before you can gain it.

Pioneer on the other hand is a card that you can simply buy when you first hit $6 and unless you already have a lot of Villages in your deck chances are high that it will work without any further ado. You can e.g. play BM and use this instead of Gold with zero risk of failing.

[Kudasai]

As I already mentioned, the cost is right. The problem is that I fear, perhaps wrongly, that it is too easy to consistenly make Pioneer work. Compare this to the the only two official DoublePeddler versions, Conspirator and Grand Market:
Conspirator always implies the risk of being a terminal Silver, the downside is that you need to set up an engine before you can make Conspirator work as payload.
Grand Market is even harder, it has an additional extra Buy but you need to do a lot before you can gain it.

Pioneer on the other hand is a card that you can simply buy when you first hit $6 and unless you already have a lot of Villages in your deck chances are high that it will work without any further ado. You can e.g. play BM and use this instead of Gold with zero risk of failing.

I have the same concerns. I think this works too well in too many situations. The only downside is this clashes with villages (or spliters), but as most of those are cantrips, the risk here is often nominal. If every Pioneer played as "+1 Card, +1 Action, +$2" then cost $6 is a steal, but any amount of "+1 Card" plays are going to drop it's overall value. I just have no idea at what point this has an overall value of cost $5, $4, etcetera.

A lot of unanswered questions with this one! I would like to try and tweak it a bit, but outside the realm of this 12-word restricted competition. 

A possible change is to make it less likely to hit by making it cost $5 and a conditional Gold. Probably a bit more boring, but this way you have to rely more on Villages for draw (if you have them).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Royalties, 5$, Treasure
$2
+1 Villager

I think this one's my favorite. Both simple and interesting which was kind of the goal of this mini-contest. It's one that could easily turn out to be in Renaissance.

The power of Backstreet and Pioneer vary greatly depending on how many +actions are in the kingdom, but Pioneer seems a lot more controllable. I don't really like the idea of converting actions to coins anyway (which both of those do, in effect). There's a reason diadem didn't work as a kingdom card.
Also, Worker's Village.

[Kudasai]

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

It's a paradoxical card. When it has its extra effect then you have actions after playing it, so it's extra effect doesn't happen and then you don't have actions left so its extra effect happens which causes it extra effect to not happen...
("If you would have no actions after playing this." should do what you want.)

[faust]

The power of Backstreet and Pioneer vary greatly depending on how many +actions are in the kingdom, but Pioneer seems a lot more controllable. I don't really like the idea of converting actions to coins anyway (which both of those do, in effect). There's a reason diadem didn't work as a kingdom card.
Also, Worker's Village.

Well, the cashing in of Backstreet is delayed, you can't use the tokens the turn you get them. Is that enough to make it work? I don't know what you think the reason is that Diadem didn't work as a kingdom card, so that is hard to address. Of course if you don't like the concept there is not much I can do about that.

[infangthief]

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

It's a paradoxical card. When it has its extra effect then you have actions after playing it, so it's extra effect doesn't happen and then you don't have actions left so its extra effect happens which causes it extra effect to not happen...
("If you would have no actions after playing this." should do what you want.)

A simpler solution would just be to remove the bit in brackets completely:

+1 Card. If you have no Actions: +1 Card and +2 Actions.

That works if you're being precise about when exactly your Action count gets updated.
It also works from a common sense perspective. I mean, what else could it reasonably mean?

[Holunder9]

You are totally right, to prevent the paradox that LibraryAdventurer mentioned the future time referrence just has to be deleted.

About the actual card, I like it a lot (nothing surprising with Kudasai's designs). If you play two Sunken Cities their net effect is that of Laboratory. That sucks but I think this happens less often that pullung of a to and fro between Sunken City and a terminal.
I also like that it is different from Shanty Town and Cursed Village in terms of what happens when the card "misfires". Drawing a card is probably often better than being a Necropolis. On the other hand, it could warrant further village support which decreases the strength of Sunken City.

[Kudasai]

I can see the confusion with the text "(after playing this)" As I think you all already know, this was meant to help clear up any confusion about Actions being used when an Action is first played and not upon its resolution, but it does a poor job getting that point across. You all seem to think it's not needed, so that's good enough with me for removing it! Thanks for the heads up.

I should however argue that I think the phrasing is fine. I only bring this up, because at some point I might make a card that cares if you have Actions left and has a check for that at some point in the cards instructions. For instance: +$2, If you have Actions (after playing this), some effect. Here I think the "(after playing this)" is much more helpful in relaying the check happens mid-way into playing the card (i.e. after using an Action to play the card).

I'm basing this off the notion that playing an Action has three phases: (1) Play the Action, (2) Following the Actions instructions, and (3) Resolve the Action. Of course the rules don't quite phrase it this way, so I admit I could be wrong here. Would love to hear more from you all! Does my argument make sense? No sense at all!?

At any rate, here is the changed version (v0.2) of Sunken City. Thanks for enduring my rant.

[Holunder9]

I think you are right. The rulebooks are not totally clear about this but they do distinguish between playing and resolving Actions, e.g.:

To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area.
[...]
Furthermore, the player must fully resolve an Action card before playing another one

And of course the wording of 1st edition Coin of the Realm:

Directly after resolving an Action, you may call this, for +2 Actions.

Also, some clarifying text on cards is definitely always helpful. Tragic Hero also says after drawing even though it is not technically necessary.

[Asper]

From Adventures' second edition, it's pretty clear that a card is being played until you are done resolving it. So the first version of Sunken City wouldn't work. I'd suggest just using something like "If you have no Actions now".

Personally, I feel the difference between powered-up and default play is too extreme for a 5$. Just always give it the +2 Cards.
This would also be prettier in that it now perfectly mirrors Shanty Town. Also it reduces the word count.

I'd actually think about a name that references Shanty Town in that respect (although admittedly, I also have a card called Sunken City, so I might be biased).

Eg:
Suburbs, Action, 5$
+2 Cards
If you have no Actions now, +2 Actions.

[Kudasai]

From Adventures' second edition, it's pretty clear that a card is being played until you are done resolving it. So the first version of Sunken City wouldn't work. I'd suggest just using something like "If you have no Actions now".

Personally, I feel the difference between powered-up and default play is too extreme for a 5$. Just always give it the +2 Cards.
This would also be prettier in that it now perfectly mirrors Shanty Town. Also it reduces the word count.

I'd actually think about a name that references Shanty Town in that respect (although admittedly, I also have a card called Sunken City, so I might be biased).

Eg:
Suburbs, Action, 5$
+2 Cards
If you have no Actions now, +2 Actions.

I agree with all your points. Sunken City never really made sense; I merely wanted an excuse to use that great artwork! If you want it for your Sunken City just let me know. Anyways, here is the latest (and last) change:



You can't get any further from a Shanty Town than a Resort. Kind of fits the theme of the card as well. Often it is rest and relaxation one needs in order to be truly productive.

[Asper]

Thanks, but too many of my cards have a shade of blue already 

Needless to say, the new art is also really pretty.

[Kudasai]

And now it seems clear that an unconditional +2 Cards on Resort is too strong. It is now essentially a Laboratory if you chain them and can provide +2 Actions at times. So I won't be changing it back since I've changed this enough already, but I just wanted to acknowledge I'm aware this is too strong and will change it after the competition.

[Holunder9]

I'd stick with the previous version. It looks less elegant but it is mechanically more sound as the net effect of 2 Resorts being played subsequently equals that of 1, not 2 Laboratories like with the new version.

[Asper]

And now it seems clear that an unconditional +2 Cards on Resort is too strong. It is now essentially a Laboratory if you chain them and can provide +2 Actions at times. So I won't be changing it back since I've changed this enough already, but I just wanted to acknowledge I'm aware this is too strong and will change it after the competition.

You can always price it higher. But anyhow, your deck is going to contain other cards, too, so I think you shouldn't just assume you'll always be able to chain them directly. Especially if you get other Villages (which you should, because 5$ is still a high price point to get all your Actions from there) it becomes more tricky. At the very least, unlike Lab, this imposes a limitation on how useful other Villages are to you. I think that's a fair tradeoff. +1 Card is just such a god-awful effect for a card costing 5$... Also, it's not like Hunting Party cares too much for Lab's feelings.

Here's another idea, anyhow:

If you have no Actions now, +2 Cards, +2 Actions
Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action

[LostPhoenix]

Will judge in a few hours.

[Holunder9]

Especially if you get other Villages (which you should, because 5$ is still a high price point to get all your Actions from there) it becomes more tricky. At the very least, unlike Lab, this imposes a limitation on how useful other Villages are to you. I think that's a fair tradeoff. +1 Card is just such a god-awful effect for a card costing 5$.

So far we have: 2 Resorts is 2 Labs. Perfectly balanced. Or to generalize, with n being even: n Resports equals n Labs; n+1 Resorts equals n Labs plus 1 Lost City. Only upsides and no downsides.

But let's take a look at what happens in other bad cases with Village thrown into the mix.

Village plus Resort is a Lab. Bad.
Village plus 2 Resorts is Village plus 2 Labs. Perfectly balanced.

So I think that this very simple worst case scenario analysis suffices to note that the +2 Cards version is too good. You are totally right that +1 Card feels artifical and weird but that's just how it feels. Mechanically soundness is more important than feeling weird because it is novel or whatever.
And about "extremes", if we take a look at similar cards like Cursed Village or Shanty Town (this will also play very similarly, you want to play first Resort and then your terminal with Resort having the advantage over the other two cards that you can actually use it well for a draw engine) there are at worst a Necropolis. Not necessarily that much better than a Ruined Library.

Here's another idea, anyhow:

If you have no Actions now, +2 Cards, +2 Actions
Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action

This would be interesting if Herald did not exist.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the forum.

Haunted Mansion
$6
Action-Victory-Doom
Receive the next two Hexes. Gain a Ghost to your hand.
_____________________________________________
1VP

I have a card image, but can't figure out how to post it... Could someone tell me how to do it? Here's the link anyway.
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0

[Holunder9]

Welcome to the forum.
I like your card. Ghost would probably OKish at a price around $7 and this gains the Ghost to hand but also shoots you thrice in the foot (in the the presence of Ghost that self-junking will hurt a bit less) so it is probably roughly balanced. If it is too good I'd just cut the hand-gaining.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Thanks. I've been obssessed with Ghost since Nocturne came out and have been trying to come up with ways of gaining them besides Exorcist and Cemetery. Haven't playtested it yet, though.

[Kudasai]

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the forum.

Haunted Mansion
$6
Action-Victory-Doom
Receive the next two Hexes. Gain a Ghost to your hand.
_____________________________________________
1VP

I have a card image, but can't figure out how to post it... Could someone tell me how to do it? Here's the link anyway.
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0

You need to find an image hosting website to put your photo on. Then it should provide you a link in BBCode. Copy that link and paste it into your forum post.

I use www.imgur.com. It requires you to create an account, but it is worth the small effort.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I can't seem to get it to work. How do I put it into a post?

[LostPhoenix]

Solid submissions, everyone. I feel like the student critiquing the teacher. This was difficult to decide.

Winner: Backstreet by faust.

Runner up: Secluded Village by Doom_Shark.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I just realized that my card did not actually conform to the requirements. It should say 'Gain a Ghost from its pile, so it would be more than 12 words.

[faust]

Solid submissions, everyone. I feel like the student critiquing the teacher. This was difficult to decide.

Winner: Backstreet by faust.

Thanks!

New challenge: Create a Reserve with a call trigger that is distinct from any existing one.

[Aquila]

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

[Chappy7]

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

[Gazbag]

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

Isn't this pretty much Moneylender but better?

[Gubump]

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I like how it is your last 'resort' to be able to play more actions.

[Holunder9]

You could argue that this design space is already covered by CotR as the call part literally does the same thing (you never call CotR unless you need the Actions unless there is something funky going on like Horn of Plenty) but I think that it is just superficial comminality and that the card is  unique enough.
If Renaissance has a $4 village that yields two Villagers it would become retroactively obsolete as it is strictly weaker but I seriously doubt that even a cantrip that yields one Villagers will be in Renaissance.

[Chappy7]

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

Isn't this pretty much Moneylender but better?

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it. 

[Holunder9]

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it.

It is strictly better as you can call it in the same turn in which you played it (ignoring funky stuff like Storyteller and Black Market).

[Chappy7]

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it.

It is strictly better as you can call it in the same turn in which you played it (ignoring funky stuff like Storyteller and Black Market).

How about

'When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper."

[ben_king]

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.

Interesting. I really like this card.

[Holunder9]

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I like it, but that seems strong. Maybe put a price range on what it can gain and/or make it +2 Coffers? Also maybe it should be worded 'the player to your left gets +1 Coffers,' maybe not. I don't know if there's any cards to base that off of.

[Dsell]

I don't even want to think about how this interacts with Possession.

[Aquila]

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

[Chappy7]

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

Agreed.  What good are Coffers if you still don't want to spend them on anything?

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

       

Edit: Just to be clear, if you play Winery and don't have Wine, you take Wine and do not get the +3 Villagers or +3 Coffers.
Edit: Fixed Wine to say Winery.
Edit: Changed both images and renamed Brewery to Winery.
Old versions:
$4 Brewery
Action
If you don't have Wine, take it. Put this on your Tavern mat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
When another player takes Wine from you, you may call this from your Tavern mat for +1 Coffers

Wine
Artifact
When you play a Brewery, +2$ and +1 Buy.

[Chappy7]

If my opponent bought this, I'd never buy one.  They'd have to buy one, play it, and buy another just to get a Woodcutter effect for each play.  Woodcutter wasn't even good enough at $3 let alone $4. 

I do like the Project kind of feel with Wine and the idea of getting a benefit when it is stolen.

Oh and it seems odd that if your opponent ignores Brewery all of your Breweries are one-shot cards.  Wine needs to be good enough to almost guarantee a tug of war.
I might buy it if Wine said +$3 and +1 Buy.

[GendoIkari]

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

There are official ways to cause cards to be cleaned up on your opponent's turns actually. Call Coin of the Realm after playing Caravan Guard as a reaction to an attack. The official rule is that the Reserve cards are cleaned up the turn they are called; so it won't wait until your next turn.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18532.msg754212#msg754212

[GendoIkari]

It's not immediately clear if you should get the Wine benefit the first time you play Brewery. Some would think that by the time you take the Wine, it's too late, you've passed "when you play a Brewery". Except we do know that "when" effects actually happen after the event is done (except when things say "first"). Meaning you that playing a Brewery would always give you the wine bonus... which actually makes having the bonus on the artifact meaningless/arbitrary. It seems like that bonus could be on the action, while the "when an opponent takes" could be on the artifact.

Also, no reason to have "if you don't have Wine". Other artifact-takers don't. Unless your intent was that the "put this on your tavern mat" was also meant to be part of the condition, in which case you need to fix the wording.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Thank you Chappy7 and GendoIkari. Updated version above. Maybe it should cost 5 now... And my intention is that you do not get the Wine bonus from the first Brewery.

[Holunder9]

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

I don't think that sitting in front of you until the next Clean-up is an issue at all.

The card stealing is supposed to be nasty (and the card might be totally bonkers) but I don't think that this is necessarily game breaking, it is something like two Rogue attacks in a row and the gaining player has control over what he gains. If the presence of the card makes the game degenerate into Silver buying this looks boring at first sight but if this is the best stratey the player with Barmaid might lose. With +2 Coffers a money strategy looks like an even better counter.  So technically speaking the question is which equilibria might arise due to Barmaid: no Barmaid at all, just Silver gaining without Barmaid calling or ordinary play with everybody going for some Barmaids?

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Should I just make Wine a token or something and say, "If you don't have the Wine token, take it and put this on your Tavern mat. Otherwise +3 Coffers and +3 Villagers." They mean the same thing, I think.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Is there anyway to make Moat etc. work against Barmaid? That would go a long way in my opinion.

[Holunder9]

A wording hint: "you may call this [from your Tavernt mat] for" suffices, you don't need the stuff in the []. I also wouldn't implement this via a token, it is smaller than a card and the Artifact wandering around the table is much clearer to notice during the game.

I think this is the most creative idea so far among the Reserve cards and it shows what great things you can do with Artifacts beyond the hypersimple Renaissance stuff.

Is there anyway to make Moat etc. work against Barmaid? That would go a long way in my opinion.

Barmaid cannot have an Attack type as the actual attack can happen anytime, it doesn't happen right now or next turn like with Duration-Attacks so Moat being played would be impossible to track. Also, flavour-wise the idea is that the opponent gets softly lured into your Tavern and not bluntly crushed by a Knight or whatever.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Thanks, changed.

[ThetaSigma12]

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

[LibraryAdventurer]

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Just wanted you to know if there's supposed to be a card image or something here, there isn't anything (at least nothing shows up for me).

[Commodore Chuckles]

Native Guide - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
When you would draw a card, you may first call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put the others back in any order.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Native Guide - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
When you would draw a card, you may first call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put the others back in any order.

Neat card. You might want to word it like this: When you would draw a card, you may instead call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put 1 in your hand.

[LibraryAdventurer]

edit: Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

old version:

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

[/spoiler]
...how do you use spoiler tags anyway?

[Tejayes]

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.

I was working on a card quite similar to this:

Researcher
Action-Reserve - $5

+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play a Researcher, you may call this for +3 Cards.

But since you beat me, I'll officially submit this one instead:



Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

===

Any feedback is appreciated.

Edit 1: Reworded the call effect per ThetaSigma12's suggestion.

[ThetaSigma12]

Smokehouse should be:

...you may call this for +1 Coffers per that card costs.

See Recruiter. It's more clear in general and helps clarify for and costs.

[Violet CLM]

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

[vishwathg]

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

And what do they do there? Just sit there, like Coppers from Miser? Oh, it combos with Miser too.

[Violet CLM]

Unless they're Reserve cards themselves, yes, going by Miser's precedent they would just sit there. Which is nice if you're gaining Victory cards.

[Holunder9]

Just wanted you to know if there's supposed to be a card image or something here, there isn't anything (at least nothing shows up for me).

Is it showing up for other people?

Here's the card text

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

(It'd probably be okay at $3 cost.)

Yeah, I'd try it at $2 or $3. When you play it, the net effects are -1 Card and -1 Action and when you call it the net effects are +1 Card (and +1 Action if the target is an Action) so they cancel each other out. It is basically a cantrip that provides the advantage that you quicker play the new card. So it does a similar job as sifters.

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

[Asper]

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

Reminds me of this old card from my thread...

[Kudasai]

Challenge #3 - Unique Reserve Call Submission



Some clarifications on how this plays:
-This cares about draw instructions as a whole and not individually drawn cards. So you could turn +2 Cards into +$3 Coin, but you could not choose to turn +2 Cards into +1 Card and +$3 Coin.
-Cards that have multiple draw instructions can have multiple Revolutionist called for it. So if a Peddler has a +1 Card token on it, it technically reads as +1 Card, +1 Card, +1 Action. +$1 Coin and thus can be turned into +$3 Coin, +$3 Coin, +1 Action, +$1 Coin (+$7 Coin, +1 Action).

[Gamer3000]

Improvements
Type: Action - Reserve
Cost: $4
Put this on your Tavern mat
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may put it on top of your deck.
-
When you gain this, gain a cheaper card.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

I like this, but $5 seems too expensive. Island does something similar but is only $4. You can reuse this unlike Island, but it's slow. Island is also worth 2 VP.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Improvements
Type: Action - Reserve
Cost: $4
Put this on your Tavern mat
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may put it on top of your deck.
-
When you gain this, gain a cheaper card.

This seems too strong. Maybe make it cost 5? or have it only gain a card costing up to $1 more than it?

[Holunder9]

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

[spiralstaircase]

Wine Critic
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Reserve
+1 Buy
Put this on your Tavern mat
----
After you buy a card, you may call this, for $3

Edit: An earlier version of this card missed out "Put this on your Tavern mat", and another called it the "reserve mat".

[Holunder9]

Wine Critic
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Reserve
+1 Buy
----
After you buy a card, you may call this, for $3

This looks worse than Bridge. If you use the two Buys Bridge is +1 Buy +$3 but Bridge provides a Coin token in advance.
Despite the ability to save this for later the megaturn potential is actually lower as you need the extra Buys from another card. This is why I'd put the extra Buy on the calling part.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

Are you assuming that using the on-play as much as possible will always be better than leaving it on the Mat until something good is trashed by something else?

[spiralstaircase]

This looks worse than Bridge. If you use the two Buys Bridge is +1 Buy +$3 but Bridge provides a Coin token in advance.
Despite the ability to save this for later the megaturn potential is actually lower as you need the extra Buys from another card. This is why I'd put the extra Buy on the calling part.

That's a good comparison.  If you call it the same turn you play it, then you get the same benefit as a single Bridge, which is a good sign for a $4 card.

If you don't, then you need to play something later to be able to bring all your reserved wine critics back for your megaturn.  Another wine critic will do.  In some ways, this is stronger than a bridge, because although two bridges can be +2 Buy +$6, you can't achieve that without a third support card; whereas you can get +1 Buy +$6 with just two wine critics.

If it gave the +Buy on call, you could trigger it whenever you wanted by buying a copper, and you'd get +N buys into the bargain, which seems overly strong to me.

[spiralstaircase]

Shouldn't a Brewery get you Beer?

[Holunder9]

In some ways, this is stronger than a bridge, because although two bridges can be +2 Buy +$6, you can't achieve that without a third support card; whereas you can get +1 Buy +$6 with just two wine critics.

I don't get what you mean with "support card", a village? Wine Critic and Bridge are both terminals so this comparison makes no sense. The only advantage of Wine Critic over Bridge is that you can save it for another turn. But then the extra Buy on the current turn was likely wasted.
Also note that two Bridges are the equivalent of either +1 Buy and +$6 or +2 Buys and +$8 (if you use all 3 Buys you get the cost reduction of 2 on the 3 cards that you buy).

[silvern]

This one is maybe (=definitely) unwise for logistical reasons, but I think it's balanced!

[spiralstaircase]

I don't get what you mean with "support card", a village?

Yep, village would be a good example of a card that would let you play two bridges.

Wine Critic and Bridge are both terminals so this comparison makes no sense. The only advantage of Wine Critic over Bridge is that you can save it for another turn.

And in that other turn, you can call your reserved WCs without needing an extra action.  So where Bridge needs a support card, WC doesn't.

Also note that two Bridges are the equivalent of either +1 Buy and +$6 or +2 Buys and +$8 (if you use all 3 Buys you get the cost reduction of 2 on the 3 cards that you buy).

Good point.  Maybe WC should be $4 when called?

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Shouldn't a Brewery get you Beer?

Oops. The question is, do I change Brewery to Winery or Wine to Beer or Mead?

[Doom_Shark]

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

I thought about doing that. I decided against it because I wanted this to be something I could leave to run on its own if I had to. If enough people want me to, I can add a hall of fame to the op

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

I thought about doing that. I decided against it because I wanted this to be something I could leave to run on its own if I had to. If enough people want me to, I can add a hall of fame to the op

I think it's a good idea.

[Fragasnap]

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Smokehouse trashes a card before it ever reaches your Tavern mat, which means you wouldn't be able to call it until another card trashed something (so effectively one Smokehouse would require a second to generate Coffers on "each" play as you alternate the physical Smokehouses). The point I thought was that multiple Smokehouses can be called to a single trash effect, which means you could theoretically trash a Gold for +6 Coffers per Smokehouse on your Tavern mat.

[King Leon]

Revenant
Cost: $4
Type: Night/Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you gain a card, you may call this, to trash a card from the same supply pile.

[scott_pilgrim]

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

[Asper]

Revenant
Cost: $4
Type: Night/Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you gain a card, you may call this, to trash a card from the same supply pile.

While I like the concept of the reserve effect, this is not a novel trigger.

[Violet CLM]

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Full image for my submission, using Eagle's wording suggestion:

[Asper]

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot the price restriction on Duplicate.

[Fragasnap]

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

[King Leon]

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

Yes, this is exactly, what I also observed. There was no vanilla when-you-gain trigger.

Revenant is the idea of a replayable Acting Troupe. Unlike Acting Troupe, the actions are not usable in the same turn (if you forget about Villa). You can revive the Revenant later in different ways. You opponent plays a Witch? Gain a Curse, trash one from the Supply. That's the way to go.  You can also gather Villagers an collect your Revenants on you Tavern Mat to prepare a megaturn where you buy four Provinces, call three Revenants to trash the last three Provinces. Wow! It shares some similarities with Salt the Earth, will still being different. I had a lot of fun testing that card.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

Edit: Nevermind, ignore me.

[scott_pilgrim]

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

You're right; I should have checked the wording on Wine Merchant first.

[ConMan]

Wine Cellar
Action - Reserve - $4
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
---
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this, to spend all the coin tokens on it for $1 each. Otherwise, place a coin token on this.

Spending coin tokens works the same as using them from your Coffers. You must use all the tokens when you call the card (although you don't have to spend all the money you get from using them).

EDIT: I had a go at creating the card using Violet CLM's tool, here we go.

[Asper]

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

So, that means that cards like my Lady-in-Waiting don't qualify? Now I see why Fragasnap called his card first instead of putting it in his hand from his Tavern Mat directly...

[hypercube]

[NoMoreFun]

[Doom_Shark]

Banker
Action - Reserve $4
You may discard a treasure from your hand for +2 Cards and +1 Action. Put this on your tavern mat.
----------------------------------------------
When you play a treasure, you may call this to trash that treasure.

[Holunder9]

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

[GendoIkari]

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

Or perhaps a Wine Merchant variant.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

I think you need to change this to have an on-call effect, otherwise you are not calling it but discarding it, and the challenge says for the card to have a novel on-call effect. Also, if you leave it at discarding it should say 'discard this from your Tavern mat.'
Maybe faust doesn't really care if it is actually an on-call effect or just discarding it though.

[Kudasai]

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called. This would be my suggestion:



Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).



Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

[alion8me]

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

Edit: Forgot to put card type in the text version

[faust]

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

I think I am fine with anything that has a way to remove itself from the Tavern mat.

[Aquila]

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called.

I borrowed the wording from Star Chart. "When you shuffle, you may pick one of the cards" to set aside in the manner of Haven. Calling a Reserve brings it into play, so I hoped it would be intuitive to put the card face down under it to track what it was set aside for. 

Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).



Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

This second variant is almost exactly the intent, missing the shuffle to balance it further. I had it discard itself after it's done holding the card so it only misses one shuffle, but it may not need it?

I don't mind your mock-up at all, really I appreciate your post. I was on a tablet when I posted it so couldn't do a mock-up, so thanks.

[Kudasai]

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called.

I borrowed the wording from Star Chart. "When you shuffle, you may pick one of the cards" to set aside in the manner of Haven. Calling a Reserve brings it into play, so I hoped it would be intuitive to put the card face down under it to track what it was set aside for. 

Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).



Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

This second variant is almost exactly the intent, missing the shuffle to balance it further. I had it discard itself after it's done holding the card so it only misses one shuffle, but it may not need it?

I don't mind your mock-up at all, really I appreciate your post. I was on a tablet when I posted it so couldn't do a mock-up, so thanks.

Ahh, I now see that the discarding of Diarist happens the next turn after putting the set aside card into your hand. I guess the problem would have been how does Diarist go from being called into play to being set aside? You'd need some extra text to execute that. As you already mentioned though, the second mockup should play essentially the same without any rules issues.

Glad you like the mockups. I won't at all be offended if you go with your own mockups though. Half the fun of making fan cards is getting the choose the artwork. Actually, half the time choosing the artwork is a nightmare for me, but that's other story.

[Kudasai]

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

My first thought/fear was that it's probably pretty good with Big Money as you will always have 1 extra Action at the end of each turn to get Azure Coves back into the shuffle, but this is essentially a less efficient Smithy Big Money Deck. So you've got a very powerful card that appears to become less efficient in mass quantities. Very nice design!

As others have said though, this should read "...to discard this from your Tavern mat."

[Holunder9]

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

[Tejayes]

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

And much like with Smokehouse, you can save these up and use them on a single card gain, provided you have no gaps in card costs. In games with $7-cost cards, Poor House, and/or Bridge-variants, you could get Cursed, but then call series of Ateliers to eventually take you up to a good card. In most games, you should easily be able to buy a $2 card, then call four Ateliers to get a Gold.

[NoMoreFun]

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

And much like with Smokehouse, you can save these up and use them on a single card gain, provided you have no gaps in card costs. In games with $7-cost cards, Poor House, and/or Bridge-variants, you could get Cursed, but then call series of Ateliers to eventually take you up to a good card. In most games, you should easily be able to buy a $2 card, then call four Ateliers to get a Gold.

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

[Erick648]

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token each on two different non-Victory Action Supply piles.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

[alion8me]

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

[Holunder9]

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

A plays Witch after playing three bridges.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A gains 3 curses
B gains 2 curses
C gains 2 curses
Did I do that right? I could've gone on longer if I had made A play more bridges, because I only stopped because I ran out of Atteliers.
Fun stuff?

[alion8me]

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

A plays Witch after playing three bridges.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A gains 3 curses
B gains 2 curses
C gains 2 curses
Did I do that right? I could've gone on longer if I had made A play more bridges, because I only stopped because I ran out of Atteliers.
Fun stuff?

I think that's correct. (I was talking about City Founders, although its a good point that IGG+Atelier is kind of confusing. However, I would expect this to rarely show up in practice because playing a junker when everything on the board is cost reduced and your opponent has an Atelier is probably a sub-optimal move)

I actually had another variant of the card in mind that turns it into more of a Silver+ type of thing and lets it gain provinces;

Atelier Variant

+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I'm kind of worried that it would be too strong though because now you can use it on silver gainers to get $5's, gold gainers to get provinces, curses/ruins attacks to get $2's, and chaining them is insane. So this isn't my submission, the first Atelier still is.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Yeah, I think the easy solution is to never play with Atelier and IGG.

[Erick648]

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, I intended it as a non-attack interaction card.  I originally made the tokens stay on the piles permanently, but that seemed too powerful since it got exponential (your opponent gains a key card with three tokens on it; you call your five City Founders for 3x5=15 Coffers).  In multiplayer, players get the option to call City Founders in turn order, as with Reactions, etc.  Note that you can call it even if your opponent gains a card without tokens on it, if you just want to play it again (meaning that you can play it every turn unless your opponent gains no non-Victory cards).  And yes, you can poach your opponent's tokens if he gains the card first.

It's hard for me to gauge how strong it is, but you're probably right that it's a little weak.  I've edited it to add two tokens instead of one.

[alion8me]

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, I intended it as a non-attack interaction card.  I originally made the tokens stay on the piles permanently, but that seemed too powerful since it got exponential (your opponent gains a key card with three tokens on it; you call your five City Founders for 3x5=15 Coffers).  In multiplayer, players get the option to call City Founders in turn order, as with Reactions, etc.  Note that you can call it even if your opponent gains a card without tokens on it, if you just want to play it again (meaning that you can play it every turn unless your opponent gains no non-Victory cards).  And yes, you can poach your opponent's tokens if he gains the card first.

It's hard for me to gauge how strong it is, but you're probably right that it's a little weak.  I've edited it to add two tokens instead of one.

Wow, I didn't realize that you could call it even if your opponent gains non-victory cards without tokens on them. In that case, ~90% of the criticisms I had of the card are completely invalid. This also makes endgame with this card a lot more interesting than my misread-version, because when your opponent greens, they also deny you your villages that you were probably getting to use a lot before that.

[Fragasnap]

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.

Isn't each one after the first a Laboratory? I mean, you can stack them for multiple +Actions, but you could also ignore that and just have $3 Laboratories.

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

This wants to accelerate higher cost cards at the cost of buying and playing the Coffee Shop first. I'm not sure if this will ever be worth the opportunity cost as written, though I like it a fair bit. It needs to be cheaper and easier to get onto your Tavern mat.

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

The fact that it can't trigger off of itself is a neat limiter to the power of Coffers. The stacking is something that I'd like to see play out in some games.

Revolutionist
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Put this on your Tavern mat.When you would draw any number of cards (of any number), you may call this to instead get +$3.

I like this. It's a weak draw that turns any non-stop card into economy once you're ready for economy. I think it might need to cost $6. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this one?

Dwarven Smith
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Put this on your Tavern mat.When you gain a Gold, you may call this to gain a card costing up to $2 per Dwarven Smith remaining on your Tavern mat.

It takes 5 Dwarven Smiths to get Gold\Province\Duchy, which you could theoretically setup to do again. Curious, though I'm not sure this is very flexible since you have to gain Golds and then weather the Dwarven Smiths coming back home.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

The fact that it can't trigger off of itself is a neat limiter to the power of Coffers. The stacking is something that I'd like to see play out in some games.

Player 1 (I'll call them Owen) has 4 Smokehouses on his Tavern mat.
Owen plays a Smokehouse.
Owen trashes a Province.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

That should work.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.

[Chappy7]

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.

Yes thank you.  Except I think I'll be editing my entry to say "When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper." so it isn't always better than moneylender, and a bit more interesting. 

[grrgrrgrr]

My idea:

Servant
$4 Action/Reserve
2$, +1 Buy
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-----------------------
At the end of your Buy phase, you may move this card from the Tavern mat onto your deck.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.

Yes thank you.  Except I think I'll be editing my entry to say "When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper." so it isn't always better than moneylender, and a bit more interesting.

Here's the cropped image if you want it:
https://i.imgur.com/vQq964w.jpg

[ClouduHieh]

Fur coat-
+1 Action +2💵
Put this on your tavern mat.
——————————
When an attack is played not during
Your turn you may call this and gain
A gold;otherwise At the start of your
Next turn you may call this to gain a
Card costing up to 4💵.

4💵  Action-Reserve

If your wearing a fur coat you might find you might find some money in it

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Fur coat-
+1 Action +2💵
Put this on your tavern mat.
——————————
When an attack is played not during
Your turn you may call this and gain
A gold;otherwise At the start of your
Next turn you may call this to gain a
Card costing up to 4💵.

4💵  Action-Reserve

If your wearing a fur coat you might find you might find some money in it

I'm not quite sure when you would gain a card costing up to $4 here...

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

The Judging should be sometime today, right?

[faust]

The Judging should be sometime today, right?

Indeed.

[faust]

Well, this has not not been easy, as we've seen a lot of submissions, and a bunch of really solid ones too. I'll give a top 3:

1. Wine Cellar by ConMan

The design is very simple and yet compelling. If you get this early, you might cash in for 10 or more Coffers in the endgame, but you hurt your deck building. I have always liked the stockpiling aspect of Duplicate and this goes in a similar direction.

2. City Founders by Erick648

This offers interesting interaction similar to Gathering cards, and is a quite unique Village that your opponent can block by going full BM. It's intriguing, though I am not sure it should be limited to Action cards. And interactions may get too unpredictable in multiplayer.

3. Bailey by Fragasnap

It's a more interesting Attack blocker than what we have so far. I also like the on-play effect; it is very situational and still may be strong occasionally, and thus a good fit for a $2. One thing I might want changed is that it protects you until the end of your turn. It may get more interesting if it only protects you from a single attack.

[King Leon]

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

Whoops, this card has an issue, that it also gives you the +$4, if you have only one card in your hand, very similar to Tactician. This could be abusable with disappearing money like Festival, Harvest, Candlestick Maker, Pawn and even Poor House.

[Fragasnap]

3. Bailey by Fragasnap

It's a more interesting Attack blocker than what we have so far. I also like the on-play effect; it is very situational and still may be strong occasionally, and thus a good fit for a $2. One thing I might want changed is that it protects you until the end of your turn. It may get more interesting if it only protects you from a single attack.

Blocking a single Attack in 2-player games would probably be okay, but in multiplayer I am almost sure it would be weak and, more importantly, immensely frustrating--especially around the hand-size Attacks which Bailey doesn't like. Bailey in a standard hand doesn't care too much about Attacks (discards junk, discard a smaller hand for +$4 anyway), but when you call it to block an Attack it jumps straight into your hand, meaning you will typically have a 6-card hand with a Bailey that doesn't have to discard everything. Blocking a single Cutpurse to then suffer a different Cutpurse anyway would feel really bad.
I felt like blanket protection was the easiest to track and the best solution. Would you consider it significantly improved if it read "If you do, you are unaffected by copies of that Attack until the start of your next turn"?

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

Whoops, this card has an issue, that it also gives you the +$4, if you have only one card in your hand, very similar to Tactician. This could be abusable with disappearing money like Festival, Harvest, Candlestick Maker, Pawn and even Poor House.

That is entirely the point.  You ideally reduce your hand to 2 cards to get +$4 out of them on a Bailey play.  It also doesn't automatically go to your Tavern mat so you might be able to abuse this feature in Kingdoms without Attacks.
You need to discard at least 1 card to avoid obvious issues with Throne Room variants.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

[Kudasai]

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

5. If the winner does not post within a reasonable amount of time, the runner-up may post the next challenge

Do we let Erick648 post a challenge yet?

[ConMan]

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

Also weekends and Australian time zones can get in the way of my posting. That said, thanks for picking my card, faust!

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

I'll leave the details up for interpretation - maybe it works like Peddler, maybe it has an alternative means of being gained, maybe you can find some way to have two different costs on the card and rules for figuring out which one to use.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

Also weekends and Australian time zones can get in the way of my posting. That said, thanks for picking my card, faust!

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

I'll leave the details up for interpretation - maybe it works like Peddler, maybe it has an alternative means of being gained, maybe you can find some way to have two different costs on the card and rules for figuring out which one to use.

Sorry for being impatient  . Good Challenge!

[Tejayes]

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

Here's my entry:

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Reworded for concision.

[NoMoreFun]

[Asper]

Might as well try something random myself here.

[NoMoreFun]

Might as well try something random myself here.

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

[Fragasnap]

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
Look through your discard pile. Trash a card from it or your hand and gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

Archive

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
-----
During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

[Kudasai]

Might as well try something random myself here.

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

On my phone so I can't go into too much detail, but the Debt can be paid off after Outskirts is gained.

As for the card itself... awesome looking! I loathe your ability to make a good Duchy alternative.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

This is really powerful. I have a $4 card with the same upper half and it was strong enough to give it a drawback.

[Asper]

Might as well try something random myself here.

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

I wasn't sure myself until I realized this is pretty much what you do for each debt cost card there is.

[King Leon]

Reconstruct
Type: Action
Cost: $6*

Trash a non-Treasure card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

--
In your Buy phase, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

[Fragasnap]

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

Debt can be paid off during the Buy phase.  Capital gives special permission to pay off Debt because it is typically discarded from play (thus incurring Debt) during Clean-Up, when Debt cannot normally be paid.

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

This is really powerful. I have a $4 card with the same upper half and it was strong enough to give it a drawback.

Considering how players are still sleeping on Remodel, I know it is strong--most players discredit the power of trash-for-benefits.  I'll take your advice and post a weaker version as I enjoyed but am not married to the quoted version.

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
Look through your discard pile. Trash a card from it or your hand and gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

*Original post updated.

[spiralstaircase]

Grand High Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $8*

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Curse.
----
While this is in the supply, during your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile.  When you buy this, you may return any number of Curse cards from your hand or discard pile to the supply.  For each one you return, this costs $1 less, to a minimum of $0.

Clarification: You may buy this card so long as you have enough coins to pay its reduced cost.

[Asper]

As for the card itself... awesome looking! I loathe your ability to make a good Duchy alternative.

He he, thanks...
What can I say, I love me some alt-VP <3

[Violet CLM]

[Gamer3000]

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

[Chappy7]

[ThetaSigma12]

Eeegads some of this wording is annoying me:

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

This needs better timing, like Peddler: "During your turn, this costs more per Villager you have on your mat."

Renovate

This doesn't need the ? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Outskirts

You could just do this as "When you buy this, you may trash an Action from your hand. If you didn't, take ." Now the wording before was technically correct, but this would have fewer rules clarifications with paying off and would have a normal coin cost.

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

"When you play this, choose one: + and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for + equal to its cost in .
-
During your turn, this costs less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down)."

[alion8me]

Renovate

You made this in-between the time that I read through the current submissions and finished up my own, sorry if mine's a bit similar to yours.
I think they're different enough that I'll post mine anyways, though:

Prophet
$2* Action

+ $2
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them, then put the rest back in any order.
-
This costs 2 debt more per copper you have in play.

[ThetaSigma12]

Prophet
$2* Action

+ $2
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them, then put the rest back in any order.
-
This costs 2 debt more per copper you have in play.

Again, there's no reason to put in the cost (other than to fulfil the challenge). Just make it "When you gain this, take 2 per Copper you have in play." It's much simpler from a rules standpoint.

[Gubump]

Clarification: Cost reduction effects such as Bridge and Highway will make General cost fewer Debt during your Buy phase.

[Dsell]

Silver Smelter
$7* Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Gain a Silver.

Silver produces $1 more this turn.
---
This costs $1 less per Silver you have in play.

[GendoIkari]

Grand High Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $8*

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Curse.
----
While this is in the supply, during your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile.  When you buy this, you may return any number of Curse cards from your hand or discard pile to the supply.  For each one you return, this costs $1 less, to a minimum of $0.

Clarification: You may buy this card so long as you have enough coins to pay its reduced cost.

I feel like this needs to be reworded somehow. I see exactly what you intend to happen, but not sure that it works with the rules. Your clarification says you may buy it so long as you have enough to pay its reduced cost, but until after you have bought it, there is no way to determine what that reduced cost is! I think you need to have a way of reducing the cost before the buy actually happens. But the only way I can think of to keep identical functionality without breaking rules is pretty messy wording:

In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and reveal any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand. This costs less for each Curse revealed this way. When you buy this, return all revealed Curses to the supply.

[GendoIkari]

Might as well try something random myself here.

The wonderful thing about this card is that when first reading it, I thought "it probably needs to also give +1 buy when you buy it, because otherwise there's always a chance that you won't have anything you can do with that you just got... OH WAIT it costs debt too!"

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Eeegads some of this wording is annoying me:

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

This needs better timing, like Peddler: "During your turn, this costs more per Villager you have on your mat."

Renovate

This doesn't need the ? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Outskirts

You could just do this as "When you buy this, you may trash an Action from your hand. If you didn't, take ." Now the wording before was technically correct, but this would have fewer rules clarifications with paying off and would have a normal coin cost.

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

"When you play this, choose one: + and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for + equal to its cost in .
-
During your turn, this costs less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down)."

Just wanna say, I agree with all of this, and I was actually literally just going to say the same thing about Outskirts.

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

Older Version:
-
This costs $1 less per card you have multiple copies of in play.
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

[Tejayes]

Taking some advice from earlier to fix Rare Earth:

Rare Earth
Treasure - $6*
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for +$1 equal to its cost in $.
-
This costs $1 less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

[Asper]

I agree Outskirts would work as ThetaSigma suggested. Personally, I regard it as still being a card with "variable cost" then, but that's up to Con Man.
It loses the debt in the "cost" cost, which you can see as both a good and a bad thing. For instance, it's easier to wrap your head around it being a 5$ basically if you trash a card, but it might be easier to miss that you need to take debt if you don't.



Not sure here. If I HAVE to decide for a version, I think this is the right one. Even if it's less flashy and perhaps not considered as "variable cost".
Edit: On second thought, a cost of 5$ would make it gainable by Remodels, which might be a tad too good... On the other hand, a Remodel already trashes a card from your hand. Perhaps I should just make it on gain. But then you could still give it to somebody with a.g. Swindler... You know what, I will think about this before the deadline ends.

[LibraryAdventurer]

This bears a strong resemblance to death cart when you think about it, but I like it. It may be a little too strong as-is. Death Cart has the drawback that you have to trash an action card.

[Dsell]

Silver Smelter
$7* Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Gain a Silver.

Silver produces $1 more this turn.
---
This costs $1 less per Silver you have in play.

I am wondering if I should change this to +2 Cards instead of being a cantrip. That would make it much better as a BM enabler and it feels nicer from a flavor perspective. But it's moving away a little from what I was originally hoping for with the design - a card that could be strong with support in BM, but also could be a critical component of interesting engines that like silver.

With the current design I feel pretty alright about the pricing given its comparisons to market and grand market. If I changed it to +2 cards, it might need a bump to $8* because of it's BM strength but I am not so confident in that.

[Holunder9]

This is my favourite. Superficially it looks like a mixture between Woodcutter, Cemetery and Donate but it will probably play very differently.
Wording-wise is should probably be something like "When you buy this, look through your discard pile, trash ..."

Even though there are some nice interactions between the cost reduction and the Hexing (War can trash your Lost Temple, Locusts makes a $2 out of it or trashes it) this is far too good; just compare it to Cursed Village.
I have a hard time imaging situations in which you hit $6 and don't take a Curse in order to be able to buy 2 Lost Temples (unless you want the cost reduction to be only applicable for the Buy and not until the end of the turn).

You could fix it e.g. via self-junking and for thematic reasons I'd pick Ruins. If there is no junking or sifting you paid $3 for a village that draws an extra card while having added a dead card to your deck so the two effects roughly balance each other out. If there is sifting or trashing though you can get rid off or sift through the dead card and you still got a bargain for $3.
So perhaps only reduce the cost by $2?

[Aquila]

[spiralstaircase]

I feel like this needs to be reworded somehow. I see exactly what you intend to happen, but not sure that it works with the rules. Your clarification says you may buy it so long as you have enough to pay its reduced cost, but until after you have bought it, there is no way to determine what that reduced cost is! I think you need to have a way of reducing the cost before the buy actually happens. But the only way I can think of to keep identical functionality without breaking rules is pretty messy wording:

In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and reveal any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand. This costs less for each Curse revealed this way. When you buy this, return all revealed Curses to the supply.

I agree the wording needs work.  I considered an "at the start of your buy phase" wording, but that isn't quite how I want it to work for multiple buys; with that wording, you could reveal 8 curses and then every GHW you buy would cost $0.

Perhaps something like this:

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  This card costs less for each Curse still set aside in this way, to a minimum of .  When you buy this card, return a set-aside Curse to the supply for each that its price has been reduced by in this way.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside curses.

It's still pretty messy - I'm not happy with the "for each $1 that its price has been reduced by in this way" part, but I don't see how else to make it play properly with Bridge and friends.

[ThetaSigma12]

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

You need that clause there to determine the timing, and with that clause, it would affect all the copies of Rare Earth, even those owned by other players. See Peddler.

[faust]

[Asper]

Neat idea. It should be "the" Compass to be consistent with official cards, though.

[hypercube]

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.



Original version had a base cost of $2

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

Just letting you know, it says 'The image you are requesting does not exist or is no longer available.'
Edit: Nevermind, you fixed it already.

[GendoIkari]

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

Neat. One thing I don't like about the cost ratios are that if you plan to buy 2 cards this turn, there's absolutely no difference between buying 2 cards outright, or buying this event once and then buying those 2 cards.

[faust]

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

Doesn't this just give you buys for free? (as long as the cards you buy are expensive enough) The first one finances itself if you buy 2 cards, and each subsequent one will even make a net profit.

[GendoIkari]

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

Doesn't this just give you buys for free? (as long as the cards you buy are expensive enough) The first one finances itself if you buy 2 cards, and each subsequent one will even make a net profit.

It doesn't reduce the costs of Events; only Cards. So to buy it twice, you would need on hand (and then you'd get a refund of for each card you bought).

*Edit* I mean, yes, if you have enough money to spend, and are going to use up all your buys, then this does indeed give you more free money and buys. But it's a "rich get richer" type thing; it could turn into if you are going to buy 3 cards, or turn into if you are going to buy 4 cards, etc. But you need a lot of to start with to use it more than a couple times.

[faust]

Of course you need the cash to buy multiple cards; the same thing is also true if you, you know, just want to buy multiple cards. This card just makes it so whenever you want an extra buy, you can have it (modulo buying other Events or things already costing $0).

[Holunder9]

As faust has pointed out, this is broken as it does more than give you Buys for free (which would already be broken). You could e.g. get 4 Provinces for 29 (instead of 32 and 3 extra Buys ) and 8 Provinces for 43 (instead of 64 and 7 extra Buys).
Travelling Fair style conversion of stuff into each other is fine but free beer isn't.


At a base price of $4 the Event would be OKish though:

# times you buy the Event - cumulated cost - benefit in Coins - net Coin yield - net Coin yield of Travelling Fair

1 |   4 |  2 | -2 | -2
2 |   9 |  6 | -3 | -4
3 | 14 | 12 | -2 | -6
4 | 20 | 20 |  0 | -8

[Asper]

I disagree with the notion that free stuff was automatically bad. Events that give you free stuff make you play a variant of Dominion where that stuff is free. Nothing broken about that.
As such, I don't think that giving you free coins if you already have many is broken, either. You now play a variant of Dominion where buying cards progressively makes further cards cheaper. All players are playing the same variant. There is no asymmetry here, it's not like only one player can have this. It's not random, the Event is there from the start, everybody knows it. It doesn't break the game, because no card except Ruins gives only a buy, so you don't just lose all that many decisions. Instead, you now are encouraged to go for a special strategy, which creates decisions.
Not making a statement about whether this would be fun, by the way. But variants aren't broken.

[hypercube]

Indeed the event was intended to give you free money eventually; otherwise I don't think there would be an incentive to build up enough to buy it more than a couple of times. It's a fair point that a base cost of $2 maybe reduces how interesting the decisions are. I'll change it so that the base is $3 instead, that way you're breaking even if you buy it thrice (but can be doing better if you have other sources of +buy).

[faust]

I disagree with the notion that free stuff was automatically bad. Events that give you free stuff make you play a variant of Dominion where that stuff is free. Nothing broken about that.
As such, I don't think that giving you free coins if you already have many is broken, either. You now play a variant of Dominion where buying cards progressively makes further cards cheaper. All players are playing the same variant. There is no asymmetry here, it's not like only one player can have this. It's not random, the Event is there from the start, everybody knows it. It doesn't break the game, because no card except Ruins gives only a buy, so you don't just lose all that many decisions. Instead, you now are encouraged to go for a special strategy, which creates decisions.
Not making a statement about whether this would be fun, by the way. But variants aren't broken.

Well agreed, but I don't think handing out buys for free improves the game, or is a particularly interesting variant. Delve is a nice variant, but the fact that buys are limited plays a pretty big part in what makes Dominion challenging.

[Holunder9]

Champion being played at turn 1 is indeed not broken but it would not lead to particularly interesting games. Same applies for Champion for Buys being played at turn 1.

There are deckbuilding games without Buy or Action restrictions and while I don't dislike playing a match of Star Realms from time to time the lack of these very restrictions makes the Ascension/Star Realms/Hero Realms family of deckbuilding games extremely fluffy.

[GendoIkari]

Right, thinking more about the math, I agree with Faust and disagree with my earlier post.

The problem here is that this event as costed completely removes "+buy" as a resource in the game. It almost reads "in games using this, you can buy any number of cards per turn". That just removes a full part of Dominion strategy.

Now, it IS interesting that it allows you to afford more if you are buying more. Making it so that you can buy 2 cards with only would be interesting, because it's less obvious if you should buy a Province or not. But I feel like it should still make you earn your +buys with other cards to at least some extent. Maybe the event itself can give +2 buys only the first time it is bought.

[Holunder9]

If you just want to make buying a lot of cards worthwhile you could simply cut the extra Buys and merely do a Event that does cost reduction:

$2
+1 Buy
This turn cards cost 1 less, but no less than 0.

If you buy 2 cards it does nothing, if you buy 3 it yields +2, if you buy 4 it yields +6 and so on.
I am still skeptical, there are probably many overpowered combinations if you implement cost reduction as an Event. There is Ferry so DXV probably thought about or tried general cost reduction in Event form for Adventures yet didn't do it for good reasons.

I'll change it so that the base is $3 instead, that way you're breaking even if you buy it thrice (but can be doing better if you have other sources of +buy).

At a base price of $3 the Event behaves like this:

# times you buy the Event - cumulated cost - benefit in Coins - net Coin yield - net Coin yield of Travelling Fair

1 |   3 |  2 | -1 | -2
2 |   7 |  6 | -1 | -4
3 | 12 | 12 |  0 | -6
4 | 18 | 20 |+2 | -8

same stuff with one extra Buy before you buy the Event:

1 |   3 |  3 |  0 | -2
2 |   7 |  8 | +1 | -4
3 | 12 | 15 | +3 | -6
4 | 18 | 24 | +6 | -8

I am still not a fan of free Buys and would advocate to use the $4 base price version as it makes Buys sometimes costly and thus makes the Event more similar to Travelling Fair. But at least this version is less crazy than the $2 monster.

[hypercube]

The requirement to have $7, $12 etc. in hand to get free buys is nontrivial, it's definitely not the same thing as T1 Champion for Buys.

[Holunder9]

Situations in which you want to buy 3 cards while having less than $7 are rare. Namely piling or only 3 $2s.
Situations in which you buy more than 3 cards are pretty rare beyond endgame megaturns.
So I don't see the supposed general lack of a free lunch in the current version. As I showed above, the most you ever net pay is 1. Which is OK I guess, if you only buy one extra card the Event still competes with Travelling Fair.

[GendoIkari]

The requirement to have $7, $12 etc. in hand to get free buys is nontrivial, it's definitely not the same thing as T1 Champion for Buys.

Well the exception of buying $0 cost cards was already given. Other than that, it is the same... buying 5 cards that don't cost zero has always had a requirement of having at least $5. Usually at least $10.

[Chappy7]

Renovate

This doesn't need the ? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Hmmm, well I guess it isn't a good entry for this one then.  I kinda like the card still though.  Now to think of a way to give it a real variable cost....

[Tejayes]

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

You need that clause there to determine the timing, and with that clause, it would affect all the copies of Rare Earth, even those owned by other players. See Peddler.

Gotcha. Here we go:

Rare Earth
Treasure - $6*
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the Supply for +$1 equal to its cost in $.
-
During your turn, this costs $1 less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).
[\quote]

[Commodore Chuckles]

[Gazbag]

Gazbag

• Minion
• 
• Offline
• Posts: 735
• Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
• 
• Respect: +1003
• •