Print

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

[LibraryAdventurer]

Decided to start a thread for my cards that I don't consider a part of my Resurgence expansion.
Several of these are intentionally silly, but they're still meant to be fun to play with. Some were made for the weekly card design contest, and a few more were entered into one of the contests after I made them.

First, the landscapes:

Tally
Cost $2 - Event
Set aside up to 3 coppers you have in play. Put them in your hand at the start of your next turn.

(Was originally any number of coppers. well tested.)

Lease
Cost $1 - Event
Set aside an Action card from the supply and take <debt> equal to half its cost (rounded up). At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside action. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.

(tested a couple times. Seems fine to me)

Tornado
Cost $3 - Event - Preserve
Once per turn: +2VP. All players gain a ruins (starting with the player to your left). If you did, +1 Buy. Each player passes a card to the player on their left.

(tested only once or twice. This was made primarily for my Wizard of OZ themed kingdom.)

Taxidermy
Cost $3 - Project
Once per turn: You may spend an Action for +1 Card.

Originally "Way of the Deer", now it's a Project. tested once since I made it a Project.
EDIT: tested several times since and we like it.

Cat Tower
Cost $4 - Project
When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the card set aside with this, leaving it there. | Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $3 or $4.

Blue Doghouse
Cost $4 - Project
When another player plays an attack card, you may set aside an action card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your turn discard the set aside card for +2 Cards.

Stargazer
Cost $3 - Night - Duration
Reveal a card from your hand or discard pile and put it on top of your deck. If you topdecked a victory card, +1 VP, and +1 Coffers. At the start of your next turn, you may discard a card to choose one: Gain a Silver or trash this to gain a Duchy.

Centaur
$6 - Action - Night
If it's your action phase: +2 Cards, +1 Action.
If it's your night phase: Gain a Horse on top of your deck. Then reveal up to 2 cards from your hand, discard pile, or from play, and put them on top of your deck. If you topdecked a victory card, +1 VP and +1 Coffers.

(tested in a few games. Updated Stargazer 1/19/21) No one's gotten a chance to buy a Centaur since I made it a split pile. These are not serious cards, so I'm considering "look through your discard pile" to be implicit (as I think it should be when a card says to reveal or draw a card from your discard pile), otherwise it's too wordy.

Just updated these two:

Rubber Duchy
Cost $5 - Victory
Worth 2VP.
-
When you trash this, +1VP and put it into your hand.

Rubber Duchies replace the Duchy pile in games they're in. They count as Duchies for the purpose of any other card which refers to Duchies. (This is still not the same version I entered in the Weekly design contest.)

Rubber Duke
Cost $4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1 VP +1 VP for each 2 Rubber Duchies you have.
-
When you trash a Rubber Duchy, you may discard this from your hand for +2 Cards.

Art Gallery
Cost $4 - Action - Victory
+2 Cards. Discard a card. Gain a Silver.
-
Worth 1 VP for every two Silvers in the trash.

(Tested in several games now.)

Dreamer
Cost $4 - Action - Night
+1 Coffers. Turn your journey token over (it starts face-up). If it's face-down, nothing else happens.
Otherwise, if it's your Action phase: +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1.
If it's your Night phase: +2 Villagers.

(tested in a few games)

Unicorn
Cost $4 - Action - Liaison
+1 Card, +1 Favor.
All players receive the next Boon. Discard any number of cards. Gain a Horse for each card you discarded this way.

(tested in several games)

Monkey's Paw
Cost $3 - Night - Victory
Choose one: Gain a Curse and if you do, gain a Wish; or +2 Coffers and the player to your left gains this on top of their deck.
-
Worth 1 VP if you gained this after your last turn of the game. Otherwise, worth -2 VP.

tested in a couple games. was $4 cost. I've cut this one from my rotation. Maybe I'll come up with a better version sometime.
Adventurer / Mummy Split pile:
(Setup: Start with a Curse in place of one Estate.)

Adventurer
$2 - Action
+1 Action.
Look through your discard pile and put a Treasure or a Curse from it into your hand. Reveal your hand. +1 Card for each Curse or Ruins revealed. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, +1 Card.
-
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Mummy
Cost $4 - Action - Treasure - Attack - Preserve
+$2.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 2 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

Made for the weekly card design contest, the original version cost $5. I later decided it was weak enough to cost $4. The Preserve type is from my Resurgence expansion and puts both ruins and my special ruins into the kingdom (The number is split evenly between the two types of ruins). I haven't decided whether to add this to my Resurgence expansion or not, so it's here in the meantime. Tested in 2 games so far. (EDIT: Changed to set aside up to 2 action cards instead of 3.)

My split pile Explorer replacement:

Dwarf
Cost $4 - Action
Gain a treasure costing up to $5. Choose one: put the gained treasure into your hand or +2 Cards.
-
When you trash this, discard it and you may trash a Treasure from your hand.

Mithril Bar
Cost $5 - Treasure
If you have a Dwarf in play, +$3. Otherwise +$2.
-
When you trash this, discard it and you may trash a Treasure from your hand.

(tested in a few games.)

Mad Scientist
Cost $5 - Action
+1 Card, +1 Action.
You may trash a card costing at least $2 from your hand. If you do, +2 cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

(well tested)

Tyrant
Cost $5 - Action - Attack
+2 Actions.
Each player (including you) reveals cards from their deck until they reveal an Action or Treasure costing at least $3. Put yours in your hand and discard the rest; each other player discards theirs and shuffles the other revealed cards back into their deck.

(tested in several games) (based on Confessor by RTT: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10289.0.) was "Patrician" before Empires.

Bridge Builder
Cost $6 - Action
+3 Cards.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

(tested in a few games)

Stallion
Cost $7* - Action
+2 Cards. +1 Action.
Discard a card. Gain a Horse.
-
In games using this at the start of your buy phase, you may reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Until the end of your turn, this costs $1 less for each treasure card revealed.

I replaced Destrier with this because having another card whose play effect is exactly the same as Lab didn't seem interesting to me, especially in an expansion that already has horses.
EDIT: changed so it doesn't discard the revealed cards.

   A traveller line:
("mimble" is the word for someone with special powers in a silly fantasy/parody story I'm writing. The most powerful mimbles are called mimblegablaizers.)

Mimbleseeker
Cost $2 - Action - Traveller
Gain a silver. You pay put a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +$2.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Scout.

Mimble Scout
Cost $3* - Action - Traveller
+$1.
Name a card. Reveal the top four cards of your deck. Put all victory cards and one copy of the named card into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Camp.

Mimble Camp
Cost $4* - Action - Traveller
+2 Actions.
Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Trainer.

Mimble Trainer
Cost $5* - Action - Traveller
Now and at the start of next turn: Reveal and discard any number of victory cards. +$1 and +1 Card for each card you discarded this way.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimblegablaizer.

Mimblegablaizer (version 1)
Cost $6* - Action
Play this once or twice as if it were a traveller in the Mimbleseeker line or an action card in the supply costing up to $4. This is that card until it leaves play.

Mimblegablaizer (version 2)
Cost $6* - Action - Victory
Play this as if it were a traveller in the Mimbleseeker line or an action card in the supply costing up to $4. This is that card until it leaves play.
-
Worth 3VP.

Mimblegablaizer (version 3)
Cost $6* - Action
Choose a traveller in the Mimbleseeker line or an Action card in the supply costing up to $4. Put your +1 card token on that card. Then play this as the chosen card. This is that card until it leaves play.

(most of them tested in a few games.) I originally used MB version 1, but decided I liked my other two versions better. Then I printed out one of the other two to use, but I don't remember which version I printed...
EDIT: Tweaked wording so none of the Mimblegablaizers can emulate cards from a different traveller line.
I intentionally don't use the 2nd edition wording from Band of Misfits/Overlord. I prefer the original wording.

The following cards are from my Tavern (TAV) mini joke expansion which likes using the Tavern mat:
(All except the last two of these have been tested in several games.)

Mysterious Tankard
Cost $2 - Action
The player to your left chooses an action card in the supply costing at least $3. Play this as the chosen card. This is that card until it leaves play.
-
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand.

Illusionist
Cost $4 - Action - Reserve
+$2.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time an action card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All of your copies of that card use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved.

I've tweaked the wording of this several times, but I think it should be clear how it works now.

Bartender
Cost $4 - Action
+2 Cards. You may put an Action card from your hand onto your tavern mat.
-
In games using this, at the start of your turns, you may call a non-Reserve Action card on your tavern mat, to play it.

Brewery
Cost $4 - Action
You may gain a card costing up to $4.
If you gained a Reserve card or a TAV card, +$1 and you may put it on top of your deck.
If you didn't gain a card, +$2.

Roadhouse
Cost $4 - Action - Reserve
+1 Action, +$1, +1 Buy.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this to discard a card, then draw 2 cards.

(I think of this as a Market with delayed draw/sifting instead of the +1 Card.)

House Brew
Cost $5 - Treasure - Reserve
Worth $4. +2 Buys.
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
-
When you buy a Ruins with this on your Tavern mat, +$1.
When you buy any zero-cost card, discard this from your tavern mat.

Drunken Huntsman
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.
If you have an even number of Drunken Huntsmen in play: Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand, and each player passes a card from their hand to the player on their right.

Here's my controversial peddler attack. Hopefully, the attack won't be so bad since it's only when you have an even number of them in play.
...then there's this last thematic one, which I'll likely never bother to print and use, only partly because it might not all fit:

Insurance Fraud Fire
Cost $3 - Action - Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this to trash this and all but one card in your hand. When you call this, each other player may reveal an undercover cop, if they do, they gain a spoils. If no one does, +$3. Setup: Designate a supply pile costing $5 as undercover cop cards.

EDIT: Here's the Tavern set card I wanted to fix before posting. I've improved it from how it was before. It comes with a new junk card.

Drunken Master
Cost $5 - Action - Attack - Reserve
+3 Cards.
Each other player gains a Drunk. You may put a Copper from your hand on your Tavern mat. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this to play a Drunk or a Copper from your Tavern mat.

Drunks rules: In games using Tavern card(s) and Ruins, Ruins are Drunks. They gain the Reserve type and the following text: "Put this on your Tavern mat." At the start of clean-up each turn, if you gained any Victory cards this turn, you must discard a Drunk from your Tavern mat if you have any there. (EDIT: changed 2/17/21, inspired by the Weekly design contest using Snow.)
Here's a new card for the Tavern set that I haven't tested yet:

Moonshiner
$4 - Action - Attack
+$2.
Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then gains a Drunk on top of their deck.

(based on my entry for the Weekly design contest #103)

The following cards I'm still deciding whether they're worth printing to play with, and I might never bother testing them:

Night Stocker
Cost $5 - Night - Duration
Pay up to $2. Return a card from the trash to the supply for each coin you spent this way.
At the start of your next turn: +$2, +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, +2VP when you gain the last card in a supply pile.

Pushy Salesman
Cost $5 - Action - Duration - Attack
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.
At the start of next turn only: If no other player gained a curse since your last turn, +1 Coffers.
-
While this is in play, when another player ends their buy phase, they reveal their hand. If they ended their buy phase with any unspent coin or unplayed treasures, they gain a curse.

Maybe I could cut the Coffers part and make this cost $4.

Landmine
$4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1VP.
-
When another player gains a victory card, you may set this aside to choose an Action card that player has in play. They choose: either you get +2VP or they trash the chosen card. Return this to your hand at the end of the turn.

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
Reveal the top card of your deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $4, they get +1 Coffers.

I weakened the attack a little from the version I entered in the contests, so that it's less likely to destroy your opponent's turn. ...And now you reveal your own card instead of the player to your left.

Cabal
$4 Action
You may turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then, if it's face up, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$2.
-
While you have any Cabals in play, if your Journey token is face up, when you buy a card, gain a Copper, and you may not buy Victory cards.

(weekly design contest 101)

Town Square
$5 - Action - Reaction
+2 Villagers.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put one in your hand and discard the rest. If all 3 revealed cards were Actions, take Crowded.
-
When you reveal this (using the word 'reveal'), gain a Silver.

Crowded
Artifact
You may not use more than one Villager per turn.
If you end your turn without playing any Actions, return this.
(Villagers used this turn before taking Crowded don't count towards this.)

(Set Design contest for Renaissance) Considering changing Town Square to +1 Action and +1 Villager so it'll still be non-terminal when you have Crowded.

Weatherman
$4 - Action - Duration - Conditional
At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Then, if it's Rainy, you may discard 2 cards for $2. Otherwise, trash a card from your hand.
-
In games using this, when you gain a treasure, you may flip Rainy/Dry.

(Entry for fan card mechanic contest using Conditions)
[I have snipped a few bad cards I had listed here before that I've given up on.]

Old versions:

Rubber Duchy
Cost $4 - Victory
Worth 2VP.
-
When you trash this, put it into your hand.

Rubber Duchies replace the Duchy pile in games they're in. They count as Duchies for the purpose of any other card which refers to Duchies.

Rubber Duke
Cost $4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1 VP for each 2 Rubber Duchies you have.
-
When you trash a Rubber Duchy, you may discard this from your hand for +1 VP and +1 Card.

[segura]

Lease seems crazy with Prince or Hireling and Tornado looks too automatic (out of deck VPs are pretty strong so you will always try to hit 11 or 19).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Lease seems crazy with Prince or Hireling and Tornado looks too automatic (out of deck VPs are pretty strong so you will always try to hit 11 or 19).

Yeah, most people didn't like Lease when I entered it in a weekly contest either, but I'm going to at least try it as-is.
Prince wouldn't work with Lease because its effect depends on being set aside and a Leased Prince would go back to its pile instead of being set aside. But you're right about Hireling. I'll have to think of a way to prevent Leased Hirelings.

I don't think Tornado would be too automatic when it makes you gain a ruins as well as other players.

[gambit05]

Lease seems crazy with Prince or Hireling and Tornado looks too automatic (out of deck VPs are pretty strong so you will always try to hit 11 or 19).

Yeah, most people didn't like Lease when I entered it in a weekly contest either, but I'm going to at least try it as-is.
Prince wouldn't work with Lease because its effect depends on being set aside and a Leased Prince would go back to its pile instead of being set aside. But you're right about Hireling. I'll have to think of a way to prevent Leased Hirelings.

I don't think Tornado would be too automatic when it makes you gain a ruins as well as other players.

I had the opposite idea; i.e to buy a card with a powerful ability for a lower cost, but if you want to keep it, you have to pay a Debt. I am not ready with their design, but if you want I could show an example here or in a new thread.

[segura]

I like this idea, it seems quite thematic. I guess the leased card would have to stay out of deck though to prevent tracking issues.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Lease seems crazy with Prince or Hireling and Tornado looks too automatic (out of deck VPs are pretty strong so you will always try to hit 11 or 19).

Yeah, most people didn't like Lease when I entered it in a weekly contest either, but I'm going to at least try it as-is.
Prince wouldn't work with Lease because its effect depends on being set aside and a Leased Prince would go back to its pile instead of being set aside. But you're right about Hireling. I'll have to think of a way to prevent Leased Hirelings.

I don't think Tornado would be too automatic when it makes you gain a ruins as well as other players.

I had the opposite idea; i.e to buy a card with a powerful ability for a lower cost, but if you want to keep it, you have to pay a Debt. I am not ready with their design, but if you want I could show an example here or in a new thread.

Go ahead, what's your example?

[gambit05]

Lease seems crazy with Prince or Hireling and Tornado looks too automatic (out of deck VPs are pretty strong so you will always try to hit 11 or 19).

Yeah, most people didn't like Lease when I entered it in a weekly contest either, but I'm going to at least try it as-is.
Prince wouldn't work with Lease because its effect depends on being set aside and a Leased Prince would go back to its pile instead of being set aside. But you're right about Hireling. I'll have to think of a way to prevent Leased Hirelings.

I don't think Tornado would be too automatic when it makes you gain a ruins as well as other players.

I had the opposite idea; i.e to buy a card with a powerful ability for a lower cost, but if you want to keep it, you have to pay a Debt. I am not ready with their design, but if you want I could show an example here or in a new thread.

Go ahead, what's your example?

Okay. As I have said, they are just ideas at the moment and not fully thought out:

Serf $2 – Action +1 Card +2 Actions +1 Buy Choose one: Return this to the Supply; or take 1 Debt and discard this.

No name yet (version 1) $3 – Action +3 Cards +1 Buy Choose one: Return this to the Supply; or take 1 Debt and discard this.

No name yet (version 2) $3 – Action +4 Cards Choose one: Return this to the Supply; or take 1 Debt and discard this.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Neat idea, but why do they discard themselves instead of staying in play?  With a few Mountain Villages, you'd never need more than one of those draw cards.

[gambit05]

Neat idea, but why do they discard themselves instead of staying in play?  With a few Mountain Villages, you'd never need more than one of those draw cards.

As I said, the cards are not ready yet. Usually I start with as little text as possible, and then I look whether or what changes they need. Do you think they would be too strong if they can be discarded immediately? At least the player has to pay for it. On the other hand with version 2, a player could draw 8 cards for $3+1 Debt, which looks like a superb deal.

[gambit05]

I had a rather quick look to the first couple of cards.

Stargazer
Needs the wording “Look through your discard pile”.

Rubber Duchy
I don’t think you need the Reaction type.

Rubber Duke
Isn’t 1 VP per 2 Rubber Duchies a bit low? In a 2-player game that would give on average 2 VP per Rubber Duke. The real Duke is a better deal (4VP). Wait, I just realized that you have a reaction. Maybe leave the benefit as is. If Rubber Duchy isn’t a Reaction, then of course the wording has to be different.

Art Gallery
I know since your “random Kingdom” thread that you rather play with selected Kingdoms. With this in mind, do you expect to have a lot of Silvers in the trash? Otherwise 1 VP per 3 Silvers seems quite low for what else the card is doing.

Dreamer
Do you need “If it's face-down, nothing else happens”?
I like the double-duality of the card, but is the ability of the Night phase useful when the Action phase gives +1 Action? Wouldn’t it be more interesting to be terminal in the Action phase? For example…+2 Cards and +$1. As it can be used only every second play, maybe +3 Villagers in the Night, also to make it more attractive.

Unicorn
Quite a lot of different things on one card. The Horse gaining seems too strong.

Monkey’s Paw
Over the years I designed at least 4 different hot potato-type cards. The very first one was an Action-Victory Kingdom card. It was worth some VP (~4 VP if I remember correctly) and was a strong card when played, but then passed automatically to the player to the left. It was fun, but too centralizing. Then the next two versions I designed directly after Nocturne came out. One was a Heirloom-Copper giving -2VP and when played moved to the player on the left. The second was exactly the same card, but part of an extra deck (face down) a la the Black Market deck, with the notable difference that a specific Kingdom card could gain the top card of the deck for free (as one of two options) without showing it to the opponents. That was quite funny, as the other players didn’t know whether the cards (each card in the deck came in 2 copies) are in the game or (still) in the extra deck; sometimes they didn’t enter the game. The most recent one is an untested Artifact.

I wrote almost an essay and even not about your card, but what I wanted to say is that I have a better experience with a hot potato card when there are only a limited number of copies in the game.

Mummy
Wouldn’t the Night phase for the last part be more natural (not that it matters much mechanically)?  I had 2 related ideas. The older one was a Duration-Looter, which gave Ruins +1 Action while in play. The newer one exchanges cards for Ruins (up to 2), which can be immediately played. I will likely present it soon in my thread about “Tales & Stories”. Anyway, I like your version.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I had a rather quick look to the first couple of cards.

Stargazer
Needs the wording “Look through your discard pile”.

Rubber Duchy
I don’t think you need the Reaction type.

Good catch, I'll fix those.

Art Gallery
I know since your “random Kingdom” thread that you rather play with selected Kingdoms. With this in mind, do you expect to have a lot of Silvers in the trash? Otherwise 1 VP per 3 Silvers seems quite low for what else the card is doing.

Well, I wouldn't put this in a kingdom with no trashing, or only weak trashing with no tfb, but I do use some randomization when I make kingdoms. I just think its on-play effect seems decent enough that it doesn't need to be worth more than maybe 2VP to be worthwhile. You're probably right that 1 VP per 2 Silvers is fine. It just seemed kind of strong in the one or two games we played with it so far.

Dreamer
Do you need “If it's face-down, nothing else happens”?
I like the double-duality of the card, but is the ability of the Night phase useful when the Action phase gives +1 Action? Wouldn’t it be more interesting to be terminal in the Action phase? For example…+2 Cards and +$1. As it can be used only every second play, maybe +3 Villagers in the Night, also to make it more attractive.

I'm not sure if the "If it's face down..." part is necessary, but I thought it would make it clearer because of the multiple "If"s on the card.
You've got a point that a +Villagers night effect might be interesting with a terminal Action phase effect, but I like the activated conspirator effect for the Action phase. And I think an (effectively non-terminal) +2 Villagers in the Night phase with the automatic +1 Coffers will be enough to make it worth using in the night a decent amount of the time.

Unicorn
Quite a lot of different things on one card. The Horse gaining seems too strong.

Having a little bit of several different things was part of the premise of this one. I know it's not a great premise. It wasn't really intended to be a serious card, but it was intended to be roughly balanced and fun to play with once in a while. Do you think it's too strong for $4 despite letting other players share the boon?

Monkey’s Paw
Over the years I designed at least 4 different hot potato-type cards. The very first one was an Action-Victory Kingdom card. It was worth some VP (~4 VP if I remember correctly) and was a strong card when played, but then passed automatically to the player to the left. It was fun, but too centralizing. Then the next two versions I designed directly after Nocturne came out. One was a Heirloom-Copper giving -2VP and when played moved to the player on the left. The second was exactly the same card, but part of an extra deck (face down) a la the Black Market deck, with the notable difference that a specific Kingdom card could gain the top card of the deck for free (as one of two options) without showing it to the opponents. That was quite funny, as the other players didn’t know whether the cards (each card in the deck came in 2 copies) are in the game or (still) in the extra deck; sometimes they didn’t enter the game. The most recent one is an untested Artifact.

I wrote almost an essay and even not about your card, but what I wanted to say is that I have a better experience with a hot potato card when there are only a limited number of copies in the game.

I don't really like most of the hot potato type cards I've seen posted. I thought this one would be interesting, but I agree that it might be better if it came in a limited number. I guess I figured it'd be rare that more than half of the pile would get bought anyway.

Mummy
Wouldn’t the Night phase for the last part be more natural (not that it matters much mechanically)? I had 2 related ideas. The older one was a Duration-Looter, which gave Ruins +1 Action while in play. The newer one exchanges cards for Ruins (up to 2), which can be immediately played. I will likely present it soon in my thread about “Tales & Stories”. Anyway, I like your version.

I like it as an Action-Treasure figuring a mummy with its sarcophagus would be considered a treasure to museums and such. Also, the +$2 effect happens in whichever phase you play it.

[segura]

Neat idea, but why do they discard themselves instead of staying in play?  With a few Mountain Villages, you'd never need more than one of those draw cards.

As I said, the cards are not ready yet. Usually I start with as little text as possible, and then I look whether or what changes they need. Do you think they would be too strong if they can be discarded immediately? At least the player has to pay for it. On the other hand with version 2, a player could draw 8 cards for $3+1 Debt, which looks like a superb deal.

Discarding played cards is something you should never ever do to avoid loops. Also, it is weird to have such a strong buff occur in the part of the card that is supposed to nerf it. For tracking reasons, I would put the „leasing costs“ into Clean-up.

[gambit05]

Neat idea, but why do they discard themselves instead of staying in play?  With a few Mountain Villages, you'd never need more than one of those draw cards.

As I said, the cards are not ready yet. Usually I start with as little text as possible, and then I look whether or what changes they need. Do you think they would be too strong if they can be discarded immediately? At least the player has to pay for it. On the other hand with version 2, a player could draw 8 cards for $3+1 Debt, which looks like a superb deal.

Discarding played cards is something you should never ever do to avoid loops. Also, it is weird to have such a strong buff occur in the part of the card that is supposed to nerf it. For tracking reasons, I would put the „leasing costs“ into Clean-up.

I don’t want to hijack Library Adventurer’s thread with those card ideas, but they are not yet ready for an own thread. So, after posting them here, I thought a bit about the concept yesterday, and quickly came to the conclusion that the cards need the “discard at Clean-up”.

I think tracking is easy as it is. Either the card is returned to the Supply, i.e. leaves play, or it stays and the player gets 1 Debt.

What do you mean with the “strong buff/nerf part? Do you mean the “immediately discard”? If so, that is gone.
Thanks for the feedback.

[gambit05]

Unicorn
Quite a lot of different things on one card. The Horse gaining seems too strong.

Having a little bit of several different things was part of the premise of this one. I know it's not a great premise. It wasn't really intended to be a serious card, but it was intended to be roughly balanced and fun to play with once in a while. Do you think it's too strong for $4 despite letting other players share the boon?

The combination with Boons makes it quite swingy with the subsequent Horse gaining part for the player them self. If I counted correctly, 3 Boons (may) decrease player’s hand-size and thus are counter-productive; one increases it. The card is terminal, except when the player receives the Field’s Gift. I think on average, the other players benefit more from the Boons than the active player. So, having looked into this a bit more carefully, I think it is okay as it is.

Mummy
Wouldn’t the Night phase for the last part be more natural (not that it matters much mechanically)? I had 2 related ideas. The older one was a Duration-Looter, which gave Ruins +1 Action while in play. The newer one exchanges cards for Ruins (up to 2), which can be immediately played. I will likely present it soon in my thread about “Tales & Stories”. Anyway, I like your version.

I like it as an Action-Treasure figuring a mummy with its sarcophagus would be considered a treasure to museums and such. Also, the +$2 effect happens in whichever phase you play it.

I missed the +$2. So yes, it makes sense as it is.

[gambit05]

I had a look to some more of your cards:

Dwarf/Mithril Bar
According to Fortress, wording should be “When you trash this, discard it.”  You have to look through your discard pile to do something with it.
With this and Mithril Bar, quite a lot is going on. Do you need the very last part (“or discard pile”) about Treasure trashing?
Since Mithril Bar is a Treasure, how about:
$2
If you have a Dwarf in play, +$1.

Mad Scientist
You need to specify from where you trash. Wording could be: “Choose one: Gain a Silver; or trash a card from your hand costing $2 or more, for +2 Cards.”

Patrician
Looks good. Suggestion for name: Wizard.

Bridge Builder
Looks good.

Stallion
I am a bit confused about the below the line part. Does that mean that that happens every single turn, or only when you have a Stallion in play? I guess you mean the first one, but that could be annoying. The second possibility would mean that the first Stallion costs $7, which would be too much for what it is doing.
I think you need a restriction to avoid that you can reveal cards every single turn without any consequence.

I have mentioned earlier that I am playing with Debt tokens with some of my cards. That could work here:

At the start of your Buy phase, if you want to buy this, reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. This costs $1 less for each Treasure revealed. If you don’t buy it, take 1 Debt.

Maybe not perfect, but at least this gives some restrictions for revealing, and a penalty if you don’t use the bonus of revealing cards for the purchase.

Mimble Traveller line
From Scout onwards cards need * in their costs and (This is not in the Supply.).

Mimble-Trainer has to be a Duration type. Reversed order: +1 Card and +$1. You could write: …any number of Victory cards, for +1 Card and +$1 each.

Mimblegablaizer (v1 and v2): It seems that the intention is to emulate Travellers from other Traveller lines as well. Is that correct?
v1: Why the option “once or twice”?
I think v2 looks like the most interesting version. You don’t need “Worth”.
Is the “up to $4” only for the Traveller or also for the card from the Supply?
What happens if you target a Traveller when it leaves play? Can it be exchanged for the next Traveller? It looks like this is your intention.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I had a look to some more of your cards:

Dwarf/Mithril Bar
According to Fortress, wording should be “When you trash this, discard it.”  You have to look through your discard pile to do something with it.
With this and Mithril Bar, quite a lot is going on. Do you need the very last part (“or discard pile”) about Treasure trashing?
Since Mithril Bar is a Treasure, how about:
$2
If you have a Dwarf in play, +$1.

I wasn't sure the Fortress wording would work with discarding instead of returning it to your hand. Maybe I'll change it back, but I think my current wording works too. You're probably right that it doesn't need the "or discard pile" for treasure trashing.
I don't see any significant difference between your wording for Mithril bar and mine.

Mad Scientist
You need to specify from where you trash. Wording could be: “Choose one: Gain a Silver; or trash a card from your hand costing $2 or more, for +2 Cards.”

Oh yeah, forgot the "from your hand" part.

Stallion
I am a bit confused about the below the line part. Does that mean that that happens every single turn, or only when you have a Stallion in play? I guess you mean the first one, but that could be annoying. The second possibility would mean that the first Stallion costs $7, which would be too much for what it is doing.
I think you need a restriction to avoid that you can reveal cards every single turn without any consequence.

It's any turn in games using Stallion. Why does revealing cards need a consequence? You don't gain much by it. I will change it so it doesn't discard the revealed cards though.

Mimblegablaizer (v1 and v2): It seems that the intention is to emulate Travellers from other Traveller lines as well. Is that correct?
I think v2 looks like the most interesting version. You don’t need “Worth”.
Is the “up to $4” only for the Traveller or also for the card from the Supply?
What happens if you target a Traveller when it leaves play? Can it be exchanged for the next Traveller? It looks like this is your intention.

I include "Worth" on my fanmade victory cards because I want to make it clear that it's not using victory tokens. I know it's not needed. "up to $4" is for any card you want to emulate with the Mimblegablaizer. I didn't think about the exchanging for the next traveller part before. That's a good reason to not allow it to emulate cards from other traveller lines, but I don't see a problem with doing it with its own traveller line. I don't really like version 1 anymore. Which version do you think is best? (assuming I change v1 and 2 so they can't emulate cards from other traveller lines.)

[gambit05]

I had a look to some more of your cards:

Dwarf/Mithril Bar
According to Fortress, wording should be “When you trash this, discard it.”  You have to look through your discard pile to do something with it.
With this and Mithril Bar, quite a lot is going on. Do you need the very last part (“or discard pile”) about Treasure trashing?
Since Mithril Bar is a Treasure, how about:
$2
If you have a Dwarf in play, +$1.

I wasn't sure the Fortress wording would work with discarding instead of returning it to your hand. Maybe I'll change it back, but I think my current wording works too. You're probably right that it doesn't need the "or discard pile" for treasure trashing.
I don't see any significant difference between your wording for Mithril bar and mine.

Functionally, there is no difference. I just thought, because Mithril is a Treasure, my wording is more elegant and shorter.

Stallion
I am a bit confused about the below the line part. Does that mean that that happens every single turn, or only when you have a Stallion in play? I guess you mean the first one, but that could be annoying. The second possibility would mean that the first Stallion costs $7, which would be too much for what it is doing.
I think you need a restriction to avoid that you can reveal cards every single turn without any consequence.

It's any turn in games using Stallion. Why does revealing cards need a consequence? You don't gain much by it. I will change it so it doesn't discard the revealed cards though.

I think revealing the cards in every Buy phase of every player will a) slow down the game considerably and b) could give extra information for deck inspecting cards, especially useful when you return to your Action phase.

Mimblegablaizer (v1 and v2): It seems that the intention is to emulate Travellers from other Traveller lines as well. Is that correct?
I think v2 looks like the most interesting version. You don’t need “Worth”.
Is the “up to $4” only for the Traveller or also for the card from the Supply?
What happens if you target a Traveller when it leaves play? Can it be exchanged for the next Traveller? It looks like this is your intention.

I include "Worth" on my fanmade victory cards because I want to make it clear that it's not using victory tokens. I know it's not needed. "up to $4" is for any card you want to emulate with the Mimblegablaizer. I didn't think about the exchanging for the next traveller part before. That's a good reason to not allow it to emulate cards from other traveller lines, but I don't see a problem with doing it with its own traveller line. I don't really like version 1 anymore. Which version do you think is best? (assuming I change v1 and 2 so they can't emulate cards from other traveller lines.)

For v1, I guess you mean with “once or twice”,  1x Traveller or 2x Supply card, right?
With the current wording it is unclear (to me) that the "up to $4" belongs to both choices.

Suggestion for wording for v2:
Play this as if it were an Action card costing up to $4, either in the Supply or in the Mimbleseeker line. This is…

Could be a bit weak for the last card of a Traveller line. You probably run out of Travellers pretty fast, then Mimblegablaizer is a Band of Misfits (plus Duchy for scoring). So, v1 might be actually the better choice, although it is less elegant and looks a bit clumsy. If I interpreted “once or twice” correctly, how about this wording for v1:

Play this as if it were an Action card costing up to $4; play it once if it is a Traveller in the Mimbleseeker line; or play it twice if it is in the Supply. This is…

[LibraryAdventurer]

Stallion
I am a bit confused about the below the line part. Does that mean that that happens every single turn, or only when you have a Stallion in play? I guess you mean the first one, but that could be annoying. The second possibility would mean that the first Stallion costs $7, which would be too much for what it is doing.
I think you need a restriction to avoid that you can reveal cards every single turn without any consequence.

It's any turn in games using Stallion. Why does revealing cards need a consequence? You don't gain much by it. I will change it so it doesn't discard the revealed cards though.

I think revealing the cards in every Buy phase of every player will a) slow down the game considerably and b) could give extra information for deck inspecting cards, especially useful when you return to your Action phase.

In practice when we've played with it, we only reveal cards if we want to buy a Stallion. There's rarely any reason to do it otherwise. I'm thinking it'll just be a nice side effect for those times when Villa or Calvary show up in the same kingdom.

Mimblegablaizer (v1 and v2): It seems that the intention is to emulate Travellers from other Traveller lines as well. Is that correct?
I think v2 looks like the most interesting version.
Is the “up to $4” only for the Traveller or also for the card from the Supply?
What happens if you target a Traveller when it leaves play? Can it be exchanged for the next Traveller? It looks like this is your intention.

"up to $4" is for any card you want to emulate with the Mimblegablaizer. I didn't think about the exchanging for the next traveller part before. That's a good reason to not allow it to emulate cards from other traveller lines, but I don't see a problem with doing it with its own traveller line. I don't really like version 1 anymore. Which version do you think is best? (assuming I change v1 and 2 so they can't emulate cards from other traveller lines.)

For v1, I guess you mean with “once or twice”,  1x Traveller or 2x Supply card, right?
With the current wording it is unclear (to me) that the "up to $4" belongs to both choices.

Suggestion for wording for v2:
Play this as if it were an Action card costing up to $4, either in the Supply or in the Mimbleseeker line. This is…

Could be a bit weak for the last card of a Traveller line. You probably run out of Travellers pretty fast, then Mimblegablaizer is a Band of Misfits (plus Duchy for scoring). So, v1 might be actually the better choice, although it is less elegant and looks a bit clumsy. If I interpreted “once or twice” correctly, how about this wording for v1:

Play this as if it were an Action card costing up to $4; play it once if it is a Traveller in the Mimbleseeker line; or play it twice if it is in the Supply. This is…

Actually, the intent with version 1 is that you have a choice of whether to play it once or twice (to be nice in a case like if what you really want is a single play of a forced trasher or something) regardless if it's from the supply or the Mimbleseeker line. The wording weirdness is part of the reason I don't like it as much as the other versions because I'm not sure how to make it clearer without getting too wordy.

I like your wording suggestion for version 2. I may change it to use that.

Personally, I'm leaning toward thinking version 3 is best.
If versions 2 and 3 seem weak, I could make them emulate cards costing up to $5 like Overlord does.

[LibraryAdventurer]

And now, a Way and two projects:

Way of the Deer
Once per turn:
+1 Card. Return this to your hand.

Basically spend an action for +1 Card. EDIT: Made it once per turn.

Cat Tower
$4 Project
When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the card set aside with this, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $3 or $4.

Yeah, it's just a bigger Way of the Mouse.

Blue Doghouse
$4 Project
When another player plays an attack card, you may set aside an action card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your turn discard the set aside card for +1 Card for each $2 in its cost.

Turn all your action cards into blue dogs!
(Still deciding whether this should be how it is, or discard the action for a flat +2 Cards.)

[silverspawn]

What happens if you throne a card and use way of the deer on the first play? Does the card magically go back into play from your hand when it's played for the second time?

[LibraryAdventurer]

What happens if you throne a card and use way of the deer on the first play? Does the card magically go back into play from your hand when it's played for the second time?

Uh... yes? yes. that was my plan all along.
Unless the Stop Moving rule applies, I guess, which I don't know if it would or not.
According to the spirit of the rule (meant to help tracking), I think it'd be silly if it applied to something that returned to your hand, so I don't think it should.

[silverspawn]

Good call. Otherwise, you could have drawn arbitrarily many cards with two throne rooms.

As-is, you can draw n many cards sacrificing one action and one throne room, provided you have n throne rooms in hand. Here is the scheme with n = 5:

TR-1
> TR-2
> > TR-3
> > > TR-4
> > > > TR-5 (way)
> > > > TR-5 (way)
> > > TR-4 (way)
> > TR-3 (way)
> TR-2 (way)

In the end, you have 5 more cards in hand but lost one action and one throne room.

[LibraryAdventurer]

In the OP, I mention a card in my Tavern mini-expansion that I didn't want to post yet because it needed fixing. Well, I think I've fixed it and here it is:

Drunken Master
Cost $5 - Action - Attack - Reserve
+2 Cards.
Each other player gains a Drunk or a Ruins. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Whenever you gain, draw, or discard a Ruins, you may call this for: +1 Card, set aside the Ruins, and play the Ruins at the start of your next turn.

And it comes with a new junk card:

Drunk
Cost $0 - Action - Ruins - Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, if you have not already called a Drunk this turn, you must call this for +$1.

There are the same number of Drunks as Ruins or Curses. Drunken Master is not a Looter, so normally Drunks are the only Ruins in a kingdom with Drunken Master. But whenever Drunken Master is in the kingdom with a Looter, use half the amount of Drunks and Ruins and mix the two piles together (so that the total number in the pile is the usual number of Ruins you'd use). If any other card from the Tavern set is in the kingdom with a Looter, replace a quarter of the Ruins pile with Drunks.

Also, I wanted another card in my Tavern set to use Drunks, so I'd like to consider this one part of the set (but I won't put it in the OP because it's not really my card. It's only a slightly modifed version of "Wealthy Town" by Beri. I thought his version was still a little too strong, so this one still has a drawback if you have no copper to discard.)

Hotel Pub
Cost $5 - Action   
+2 Cards, +2 Actions.
You may discard a treasure. If you didn't, gain a Drunk or a Ruins.

EDIT:
On further thought, I thought of a way to keep from having to print out a bunch of Drunks with this alternate version:

Drunken Master
Cost $5
Action - Attack - Looter - Reserve
+2 Cards.
Each other player gains a Ruins. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Whenever you gain, draw, or call a Ruins, you may call this for: +1 Card, set aside the Ruins, and play the ruins at the start of your next turn.

And print out this one card-shaped thing that comes with Drunken Master instead of printing 20 Drunks:

Drunks: In games using both Tavern card(s) and Ruins, Ruins are called Drunks, they also have the Reserve type and the following text: "Put this on your Tavern mat. | At the start of your turn, if you haven't already called a Ruins this turn, you must call this for its original on-play effect."

It cuts out some of the flavor, but we can still call them Drunks.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I don't like the Potion mechanic, but I use modified versions of some Alchemy cards that don't use the potion mechanic. I posted this card in Weekly card design contest that uses VioletCLM's Mutineers from the 5th Weekly card design contest. (short explanation: Mutineers are tokens worth -1VP, but you can discard a card during your action phase to get rid of one.)

Privateer
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player gets +1 Mutineer.

Except that I use this card to replace Familiar, including naming it "Familiar". Also, for my use, I renamed the Mutineers to "Hex tokens" (because I also use them to replace Hexes in modified versions of some Nocturne cards).

This was "Sellsail", one of Violet CLM's original cards using the Mutineer mechanic, but I renamed the card and the tokens. The only functional change I made was making it cost $3 instead of $4.

Alchemist
$3 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Take 2 hex tokens.

For my use, I also made it a split pile (so I can replace two Alchemy cards with one kingdom pile). Here's the bottom half of the pile:

Philosopher's Stone
$6 - Treasure
$2.
Choose one: trash a Copper you have in play to gain a Gold; or reveal the top card of your deck and either put it in your hand or leave it there.

I originally had my PS costing $5, but it seemed stronger than Counterfeit which is one of the stronger $5 treasures. Both my PS and Counterfeit + Copper make $3, and both trash the copper, but my PS also gains a Gold. But then my PS can't double-play a Silver or Gold, so maybe it would be okay at $5. I added the second choice when I changed it to $6, but my PS also doesn't have +buy compared to Counterfeit. Maybe I'll change it back to $5. What do you think?

[gambit05]

I don't like the Potion mechanic, but I use modified versions of some Alchemy cards that don't use the potion mechanic. I posted this card in Weekly card design contest that uses VioletCLM's Mutineers from the 5th Weekly card design contest. (short explanation: Mutineers are tokens worth -1VP, but you can discard a card during your action phase to get rid of one.)

Privateer
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player gets +1 Mutineer.

Except that I use this card to replace Familiar, including naming it "Familiar". Also, for my use, I renamed the Mutineers to "Hex tokens" (because I also use them to replace Hexes in modified versions of some Nocturne cards).

This was "Sellsail", one of Violet CLM's original cards using the Mutineer mechanic, but I renamed the card and the tokens. The only functional change I made was making it cost $3 instead of $4.

Alchemist
$3 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Take 2 hex tokens.

For my use, I also made it a split pile (so I can replace two Alchemy cards with one kingdom pile). Here's the bottom half of the pile:

Philosopher's Stone
$6 - Treasure
$2.
Choose one: trash a Copper you have in play to gain a Gold; or reveal the top card of your deck and either put it in your hand or leave it there.

I originally had my PS costing $5, but it seemed stronger than Counterfeit which is one of the stronger $5 treasures. Both my PS and Counterfeit + Copper make $3, and both trash the copper, but my PS also gains a Gold. But then my PS can't double-play a Silver or Gold, so maybe it would be okay at $5. I added the second choice when I changed it to $6, but my PS also doesn't have +buy compared to Counterfeit. Maybe I'll change it back to $5. What do you think?

I don't know whether they are balanced (at a glance they seem so), but concept-wise I like all three.

Philosopher's Stone
It seems you like to have a safety net (last part); why not be a bit more risky and change it simply to "+1 Card". You would get rewarded if you have some deck control, and if you are uncertain you can always use the other choice (even if you can't do it). A safer alternative would be "+1 Buy", but that may make it too similar to Counterfeit.

[LibraryAdventurer]

This was "Sellsail", one of Violet CLM's original cards using the Mutineer mechanic, but I renamed the card and the tokens. The only functional change I made was making it cost $3 instead of $4.

Alchemist
$3 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Take 2 hex tokens.

For my use, I also made it a split pile (so I can replace two Alchemy cards with one kingdom pile). Here's the bottom half of the pile:

Philosopher's Stone
$6 - Treasure
$2.
Choose one: trash a Copper you have in play to gain a Gold; or reveal the top card of your deck and either put it in your hand or leave it there.

I originally had my PS costing $5, but it seemed stronger than Counterfeit which is one of the stronger $5 treasures. Both my PS and Counterfeit + Copper make $3, and both trash the copper, but my PS also gains a Gold. But then my PS can't double-play a Silver or Gold, so maybe it would be okay at $5. I added the second choice when I changed it to $6, but my PS also doesn't have +buy compared to Counterfeit. Maybe I'll change it back to $5. What do you think?

I don't know whether they are balanced (at a glance they seem so), but concept-wise I like all three.

Philosopher's Stone
It seems you like to have a safety net (last part); why not be a bit more risky and change it simply to "+1 Card". You would get rewarded if you have some deck control, and if you are uncertain you can always use the other choice (even if you can't do it). A safer alternative would be "+1 Buy", but that may make it too similar to Counterfeit.

I guess because part of the reason I added the second option was to make it stronger (to be worthy of costing $6) and having it often draw an action that you couldn't play wouldn't help there.
EDIT:
If I changed the cost back to $5, I'd consider changing it to just "+1 Card".
If I keep it at Cost $6, maybe I'll let you pick from the top 2 cards of your deck to double the chances of drawing something other than an action. That way, I could get rid of the weird "put it in your hand or leave it there" part without making it weaker.
I don't really want to make you want more Treasures in your deck than actions. Actions are (generally) more fun.

[gambit05]

I don't know whether they are balanced (at a glance they seem so), but concept-wise I like all three.

Philosopher's Stone
It seems you like to have a safety net (last part); why not be a bit more risky and change it simply to "+1 Card". You would get rewarded if you have some deck control, and if you are uncertain you can always use the other choice (even if you can't do it). A safer alternative would be "+1 Buy", but that may make it too similar to Counterfeit.

I guess because part of the reason I added the second option was to make it stronger (to be worthy of costing $6) and having it often draw an action that you couldn't play wouldn't help there.
EDIT:
If I changed the cost back to $5, I'd consider changing it to just "+1 Card".
If I keep it at Cost $6, maybe I'll let you pick from the top 2 cards of your deck to double the chances of drawing something other than an action. That way, I could get rid of the weird "put it in your hand or leave it there" part without making it weaker.
I don't really want to make you want more Treasures in your deck than actions. Actions are (generally) more fun.

I think giving $2, letting you trash a Copper for gaining a Gold is already quite strong. If you add this Treasure to the Kingdom, it should be meant to (also) assists Big Money strategies with few or no Action cards in deck, independent of whether Action heavy decks are more fun or the better strategy. A Gold gaining Treasure should give the Big Money folks some food.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Decided to tweak/simplify Adventurer a little to make it cost $2 because Mummy likes $2 cost Actions. I got rid of the discarding-from-deck part, and made it so it's a plain cantrip at worst. I think now it fits better as a top half of a split pile with Mummy.

Adventurer
$2 - Action
+1 Action.
Look through your discard pile and put a Treasure or a Curse from it into your hand. Reveal your hand. +1 Card for each Curse or Ruins revealed. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, +1 Card.
-
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Setup: Start with one Curse and one Ruins of your choice in place of two Estates. (+1 Card counts as putting a card in your hand.)

EDIT: oops I thought I was making a new post when I was modifying this post so the original version of Adventurer is gone.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

This should maybe have the looter type

[LibraryAdventurer]

Stargazer is already in the OP, but I recently thought about making it the top half of a split pile with Centaur on the bottom. (Apparently, I like split piles.)

Stargazer
Cost $3 - Night - Duration
Look through your discard pile. Reveal a card from your hand or discard pile and put it on top of your deck. If you topdecked a victory card, +1 VP and +1 Coffers.
At the start of your next turn, you may discard a card to gain a Silver or discard two cards to gain a Duchy.

Centaur
$6 - Action - Night
If it's your action phase: +2 Cards, +1 Action.
If it's your night phase: Gain a Horse on top of your deck. Then reveal up to 2 cards from your hand, discard pile, or from play, and put them on top of your deck. If you topdecked a victory card, +1 VP and +1 Coffers.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Decided to tweak/simplify Adventurer a little to make it cost $2 because Mummy likes $2 cost Actions. I got rid of the discarding-from-deck part, and made it so it's a plain cantrip at worst. I think now it fits better as a top half of a split pile with Mummy.

Adventurer
$2 - Action
+1 Action.
Look through your discard pile and put a Treasure or a Curse from it into your hand. Reveal your hand. +1 Card for each Curse or Ruins revealed. If you didn't put any cards in your hand, +1 Card.
-
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Setup: Start with one Curse and one Ruins of your choice in place of two Estates. (+1 Card counts as putting a card in your hand.)

And another split pile, named to fit a certain themed kingdom:
Dollhouse / Chest of Expensive Clothes (split pile by me, 5 of each)

Dollhouse
$2 - Treasure
+$1.
Reveal the top two cards of your deck. Discard one. If you discarded an Action card, lose a hex token. Put a revealed Treasure costing $2 or less into your hand. Return any remaining to the top of your deck.

Chest of Expensive Clothes (not sure if this should cost $5 or $6)
$5 - Treasure
+$4.
Take 2 hex tokens.

(My Heirloom Jewelry in the set expansion contest was based on Chest of Expensive Clothes except without using hex tokens. I actually think it works better using the hex tokens.) Originally, Dollhouse had "put a revealed Copper into your hand", I changed it to "Treasure costing $2 or less" so it works with heirlooms and other Dollhouses.

[Holger]

Way of the Deer would be far too strong IMO.

E.g. it can turn any Village into an optional Lab (or a Smithy, should you prefer that), as long as you have any Action in hand when playing it.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Way of the Deer would be far too strong IMO.

E.g. it can turn any Village into an optional Lab (or a Smithy, should you prefer that), as long as you have any Action in hand when playing it.

You're right. I didn't think about that. Maybe making it usable only once per turn would balance it enough.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Changed Rubber Duchy & Rubber Duke in the OP.
Also added my entries in recent contests: Landmine, Gangster, and Paladin.

With Gangster, I weakened the attack a little from the version I entered in the contests, so now it's less likely to destroy your opponent's turn by discarding their only Village:

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $4, they get +1 Coffers.

[gambit05]

Changed Rubber Duchy & Rubber Duke in the OP.
Also added my entries in recent contests: Landmine, Gangster, and Paladin.

With Gangster, I weakened the attack a little from the version I entered in the contests, so now it's less likely to destroy your opponent's turn by discarding their only Village:

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $4, they get +1 Coffers.

Is there a specific reason that the player to the left reveals the card? It seems shorter and simpler when the player them self reveals the card. In this way, also the "each other player" is unambiguous and the other players are all treated equally too.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Changed Rubber Duchy & Rubber Duke in the OP.
Also added my entries in recent contests: Landmine, Gangster, and Paladin.

With Gangster, I weakened the attack a little from the version I entered in the contests, so now it's less likely to destroy your opponent's turn by discarding their only Village:

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $4, they get +1 Coffers.

Is there a specific reason that the player to the left reveals the card? It seems shorter and simpler when the player them self reveals the card. In this way, also the "each other player" is unambiguous and the other players are all treated equally too.

Because it was made for the "The player to your (left/right)" contest...
Yeah, now that you point it out, I think I'll change it to the player reveals it.

[Holger]

Way of the Deer would be far too strong IMO.

E.g. it can turn any Village into an optional Lab (or a Smithy, should you prefer that), as long as you have any Action in hand when playing it.

You're right. I didn't think about that. Maybe making it usable only once per turn would balance it enough.

That's probably fine in terms of balance. But a Way that you can only use once per turn and that doesn't "spend" the Action card on which you use it seems a bit awkward to me.
Essentially, it's equivalent to a free Project "Once per turn, you may spend an Action to draw a card." Therefore, I'd consider changing Way of the Deer into an actual Project, maybe costing $2 to $4 in order to make it an interesting decision whether to buy it.
(Sorry for necroing this ...)

[LibraryAdventurer]

Way of the Deer would be far too strong IMO.

E.g. it can turn any Village into an optional Lab (or a Smithy, should you prefer that), as long as you have any Action in hand when playing it.

You're right. I didn't think about that. Maybe making it usable only once per turn would balance it enough.

That's probably fine in terms of balance. But a Way that you can only use once per turn and that doesn't "spend" the Action card on which you use it seems a bit awkward to me.
Essentially, it's equivalent to a free Project "Once per turn, you may spend an Action to draw a card." Therefore, I'd consider changing Way of the Deer into an actual Project, maybe costing $2 to $4 in order to make it an interesting decision whether to buy it.

That might be a good idea. Since it's once per turn, I don't think it would need to cost more than $3, but this also removes the need to have an action card in your hand which makes it more useful.
(I'll update it in the OP as a project once I come up with a new name for it.)

(Sorry for necroing this ...)

Not at all. I always welcome feedback on my cards, and I still update the OP from time to time (or at least I intend to...)

[Holger]

Yes, $3 sounds good.

You're right, as a Project this is better with no Actions in hand at all than as a Way, I didn't think of that. It's also better when you play only non-terminal Action cards (e.g. Labs) during your turn, or when the last Action card you want to play draws several cards - e.g. you'd rather play Village-Smithy (and then use the Project if your Smithy didn't draw any Action cards) than Village-Way of the Deer-Smithy (drawing three cards dead instead of one).

I hope this doesn't make BM too strong as you could essentially have 6-card hands from turn 2 in the absence of any terminal Actions in your deck, if you buy the Project on turn 1 - it essentially becomes a cheaper and faster (but non-stackable) Hireling. But it's probably fine...

If you want to keep the card's theme, I'd suggest the name Deer Park (or Game Park) for the Project.

[LibraryAdventurer]

It doesn't need the deer theme. It was only animal themed because it was a Way. But my dad, who is my usual irl Dominion opponent, suggested Taxidermy...   


EDIT: Updated the OP, adding Taxidermy, Cat Tower, Blue Doghouse, Cabal, and Chamberlain.
EDIT: and Town Square.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Updated the OP, changing Drunken Master and the rules for Drunks, tweaking Monkey's Paw, and adding Drunken Huntsman, Moonshiner*, Weatherman, and this possible Pearl Diver replacement:

Window
$2 - Action
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Now and at the start of clean-up, look at the top card of your deck. Either discard it, put it on the bottom of your deck, or leave it there.

*Moonshiner is pretty much the same as the Abominable Snowman card I submitted for the Snow contest, rethemed to fit my Tavern expansion.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Here's a few cards I've been working on trying to make the idea work. Most of these are still untested so far.

Stablehand
$2 - Action - Reaction
+1 Coffers.
Choose one: +1 Action; +1 Buy; Trash a card from your hand; or Gain a Horse.
-
When you trash a Treasure, you may play this from your hand.

This originally costed $3 (and was called "attendant"), but someone said it was too weak so I made it cost $2. I think the game could use some more decent $2 Actions anyway.

Lumbermill
$4 - Action
+$2, +1 Buy.
Choose one: Add a token to your Lumbermill mat. Or remove all tokens from your Lumbermill mat for $1 per 2 tokens removed, then trash this.

(or $1 per token,  but that seems like it might be OP)

Lumbermill B
$4 - Action - Duration
+$2, +1 Buy.
-
At the start of your buy phases while this is in play, choose one: Add a token to this; or remove the tokens and discard this for +1 Buy and +$1 per token on this (but not more than +$6).

I don't like Farmer's Market, so these are attempts at something similar that doesn't screw over the other player.

Buttinski
$4 - Action - Duration - Attack
You may trash a card from your hand.
Now and at the start of next turn: +$1.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player trashes a card costing $2 or less on their turn, they discard the trashed card.

Originally, this gave Silvers instead of Coppers but that didn't seem like much of an attack. The bad effect happens to you as well on the turn this is played. The wording seems a little weird... [EDIT: I reworded the attack and made it only trash once.]

Gemcutter
$4 - Action - Duration
Trash a treasure from your hand. Gain a Treasure costing up to $3 more than it, putting it on your deck.
At the start of your next turn, discard a card, then draw up to 6 cards in hand.
-
When you gain this, play it.

From a recent weekly card design contest, this originally cost $5 but was too weak.

Jinx
$5 - Action - Attack - Duration
This turn, when you gain a card, put it under this. Gain a card costing up to $4.
At the start of next turn: shuffle the cards under this into your deck.
Until then, when another player ends their turn without gaining a copy of a card you have set aside, they gain a Curse.

An attack that's kindof the opposite of Smugglers. I don't like how wordy it is. I've tested this one a couple times and it seems to work. Originally, it put the cards under it into your hand at the start of next turn, but that was too strong. Maybe using a fan mechanic like the Queue mat would cut some of the wordiness.

Golden Flute
$3 - Action
If you didn't spend an Action to play this, +1 Card.
You may discard a card to replay the previous Action card you played this turn if it's still in play. If you don't, +1 Action and +$1.

I have several cards with the "If you didn't spend an Action to play this" theme. I've tested this in a few games, and I'm thinking of changing to cost to $2. (This was also submitted to a weekly design contest)