Print

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

[LastFootnote]

WDC #115: Don't Count On It

"+3 Cards"
"Choose one"
"Play a card from your hand twice."

Enough with all this mathematical nonsense! Please design a card or landscape that doesn't use numbers in its text.

Specifically:
• The only numeral on your card should be its cost (EDIT: Having "$0" in the top corners of a Treasure card is also allowed). This means no vanilla bonuses of any kind.
• Written-out numbers are also not allowed. Your card cannot say "two", "seven", or even "one". Nor can you use the words "once" or "twice".
• Ordinality is as bad as cardinality! You can't use the words "first", "second", etc.
• I'll try to be relatively generous with gray areas, but try not to use e.g. "You may play an Action card from your hand" without a good reason it couldn't have been "+1 Action" instead. Something like Imp's "You may play an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play" would be fine.
• Entries are allowed to refer to numbers and amounts indirectly. Some examples include Counting House, Forge, Monastery, and Way of the Chameleon.



Judgment Details:
• Entries and revisions must be submitted by 7:00 PM CDT (12:00 AM UTC) on Saturday, May 22. I'll do my best to post the results on Sunday, May 23.
• I value concision pretty highly. Ideally entries should be able to fit with the large font that new Dominion cards use, meaning no more than 7 lines of text for cards or 3 lines for landscapes.

I'm guessing this'll be a tricky one, but hopefully also fun. I'm sure you'll come up with some cool stuff!

[NoMoreFun]

Socialite
Action - $4
Reveal your hand and discard the Coppers, Estates and Curses.  Afterwards, draw until you have more cards in your hand than any other player.

[LastFootnote]

If I upvote your entry, it means I’ve read it and it successfully meets the criteria. If your entry doesn’t meet the criteria, I’ll let you know ASAP.

[mandioca15]

Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

[LastFootnote]

Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This is a cool idea. May I suggest this wording?

"Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this."

These days Treasures are losing the "When you play this" text. The "most expensive card" is actually impossible to determine in some cases since City Quarter is neither more nor less expensive than Market, as an example. Finally, I'm not sure what requiring the card to have been played this turn gets you. It's strong with e.g. Hireling without that clause, but I don't think that's problematic. It's a rare combo. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a good reason for only caring about cards played this turn?

[gambit05]

Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This may have a problem with different currencies, i.e. what is more expensive, a Golem or a Goons?

Also, I think you don't need the "When you play this" anymore. See for example the newest version of Ill-Gotten Gains.

Edit: LastFootnote said basically the same, just 1 minute earlier.

[mandioca15]

Jasmine (Treasure, $4)

When you play this, gain a card costing less than the most expensive card you played this turn that's still in play (including this).
If it's a Victory card, trash this.

A Horn of Plenty variant that always gives you a Silver (for example) at the very least.

This is a cool idea. May I suggest this wording?

"Choose any card you have in play (including this). Gain a card costing less than it. If it's a Victory card, trash this."

These days Treasures are losing the "When you play this" text. The "most expensive card" is actually impossible to determine in some cases since City Quarter is neither more nor less expensive than Market, as an example. Finally, I'm not sure what requiring the card to have been played this turn gets you. It's strong with e.g. Hireling without that clause, but I don't think that's problematic. It's a rare combo. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a good reason for only caring about cards played this turn?

Yes, your wording is nicer, thank you - I will use that instead.

I did wonder if the card would be too strong with expensive Durations like Hireling, hence that clause, but maybe it’s sufficiently rare not to worry about...

[Shael]

The rules have two condition that could be interpreted differently (in red):

WDC #115: Don't Count On It

"+3 Cards"
"Choose one"
"Play a card from your hand twice."

Enough with all this mathematical nonsense! Please design a card or landscape that doesn't use numbers in its text.

Specifically:
• The only numeral on your card should be its cost. This means no vanilla bonuses of any kind.
• Written-out numbers are also not allowed. Your card cannot say "two", "seven", or even "one". Nor can you use the words "once" or "twice".
• Ordinality is as bad as cardinality! You can't use the words "first", "second", etc.
• I'll try to be relatively generous with gray areas, but try not to use e.g. "You may play an Action card from your hand" without a good reason it couldn't have been "+1 Action" instead. Something like Imp's "You may play an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play" would be fine.
• Entries are allowed to refer to numbers and amounts indirectly. Some examples include Counting House, Forge, Monastery, and Way of the Chameleon.



Judgment Details:
• Entries and revisions must be submitted by 7:00 PM CDT (12:00 AM UTC) on Saturday, May 22. I'll do my best to post the results on Sunday, May 23.
• I value concision pretty highly. Ideally entries should be able to fit with the large font that new Dominion cards use, meaning no more than 7 lines of text for cards or 3 lines for landscapes.

I'm guessing this'll be a tricky one, but hopefully also fun. I'm sure you'll come up with some cool stuff!

So I have a question: if we make a treasure that give no coins, we're forced to put "$0" on the preview (on the top corner) so, is this eliminatory because there is a number other than the card cost? or can we make this type of treasure for the contest since all the numbers aren't on the actual text ?

[LastFootnote]

So I have a question: if we make a treasure that give no coins, we're forced to put "$0" on the preview (on the top corner) so, is this eliminatory because there is a number other than the card cost? or can we make this type of treasure for the contest since all the numbers aren't on the actual text ?

Good question. I'll allow "$0" in the top corners.

[Shael]

Good question. I'll allow "$0" in the top corners.

Thank you, I have few ideas and a treasure may be one of them.
Edit: I haven't that treasures have already been post

[anordinaryman]

Does "discard a" count as the number 1?

For example, "discard a card from your hand, if you do, gain a Duchy," would that fit the contest rules? (this is not a submission, just a theoretical question)

What about "gain a card?" Does that count as a number?

[LastFootnote]

Does "discard a" count as the number 1?

For example, "discard a card from your hand, if you do, gain a Duchy," would that fit the contest rules? (this is not a submission, just a theoretical question)

What about "gain a card?" Does that count as a number?

No, you may freely use "a", "an", "the", etc. You can see that in some of the examples up top.

[scolapasta]

Entry for the week:



Old version:

Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card. Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
• the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
• where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents (if I need to buff or nerf it)

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! )

[LastFootnote]

Entry for the week:

Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
• the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
• where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! )

Nice. You don't have to say "from the Supply", though. That's implicit in gaining unless you call out a non-Supply card, type, or pile.

[anordinaryman]

My entry

Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

I gain now, you gain later. I've played around with a similar concept in several other design contests. Previously I used the Exile mechanic to delay the gain. I like this way more, opponents simply gain the card a turn later.

This is heavy 3-piler enabling card, similar to how stone mason is. I enjoy the occasional cards that enable that, but it's possible to slow this down with a Journey Token flip.

open to feedback, as always.

[spineflu]

Entry for the week:

Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
• the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
• where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! )

Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?

My entry

Conglomerate • $6 • Action - Duration
After shuffling, look at the top card of your draw pile: you may Exile it, discard it, or put it back.
(This stays in play)

I assumed based on the a/an/the question relative ordinals (after) would be ok? Priced at six bc while having one of them is decent, having several of them means your deck gets clean real fast and you have real good control over what you'll be getting. Named after the shipping companies of the 17th through 19th centuries more than the rock, mechanically connected via Warehouse for sifting (although if you want to interpret it as the rock, that's fine too)

[LastFootnote]

I assumed based on the a/an/the question relative ordinals (after) would be ok?

Yep, that's fine.

[LastFootnote]

Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

[anordinaryman]

Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Edit. Removing the following which was me misreading the comment


Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.

[scolapasta]

Entry for the week:

Border Crossing - Action - $4
Gain a non-Victory card from the Supply.
Each other player gains a cheaper card.

If you get a Gold, your opponents can get a strong $5 (or in the late game, a Duchy even, as they are not restricted to non Victory). Or maybe you use it to gain a good $2 and make them gain a Copper.

Things I could tweak:
• the cost (I went with $4, because I like the ability to buy it as an opener)
• where the gained cards go, both for you and your opponents

(I realize I could have entered this last week, as well! )

Nice. You don't have to say "from the Supply", though. That's implicit in gaining unless you call out a non-Supply card, type, or pile.

I thought about this, but it looked almost too barren. But you're right, it's the correct text and actually does look even better (i.e. "simpler).

Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?

Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

[LastFootnote]

Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.

Gaining is implicitly from the Supply. Setting aside cards is not, even if you're then going to gain them later. For instance, Camel Train specifies that you Exile cards from the Supply, instead of from your hand or somewhere else.

[spineflu]

Should this be an attack given the copper-junking potential?

Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But I think I prefer it not to be an attack, even for that case. Not exactly the same (since you also have to gain the Copper), but Messenger is not an attack and can give out coppers.

I mean, Messenger is an on-buy, like Noble Brigand. A closer comparison would be Jester or Swindler.

[anordinaryman]

Legate - Action | Command - $4
Gain and play a non-Command Action card. Each other player may set aside a copy of that card. If they do, at the end of their next turn, they gain their set aside card.

This doesn't specify where the other players set aside the card from. I assume it's the Supply.

Yup, it's from the Supply.

Workshop, Artisan, Ironworks, Smugglers, University, Horn of Plenty, Hermit, Armory, Dame Natalie, Alter, Artificer, Alms, Ball, Seaway, Engineer, Charm, Advance, Banquet, Cobbler, Vampire,The Earth's Gift, Inventor, Sculptor, Groom,  Falconer, Bargain, and Demand all use "gain" without specifying "from the Supply." Donald X has ruled that "from the Supply" is implied.

Devil's workshop is the most compelling evidence that "from the Supply" isn't needed since it gains the imp "from its pile" and omits any "from" clause for all the gain up to $4 case.

From the Supply was used on other Command cards because it's not normal to play cards from the Supply. This card is a gainer first (literally it gains it before playing it -- in certain circumstances like Changling, the play may fail), so the clause is not necessary.

Gaining is implicitly from the Supply. Setting aside cards is not, even if you're then going to gain them later. For instance, Camel Train specifies that you Exile cards from the Supply, instead of from your hand or somewhere else.

Ah whoops!! I totally misread your initial message. Thank you.

[4est]

Here is my submission for this week. Horse Race is an Action-Duration card that can gain Horses and then play any Horses in your hand at the start of your next turn for a village effect. When you play it, you make your “wager” by discarding Treasures (like Hostelry). The more Horses you bet on, the greater chance you’ll have some to play in your next hand, though it’ll cost you some buying power this turn. You’re hoping your horses show up for the race—if you don’t have any in your next hand, Horserace’s Duration effect does nothing. With multiple Horse Races in play, you can play any Horses you draw from the first one with the second, and so on. You’re of course welcome to play the Horses you gain on this turn instead, but then they definitely won’t show up for the race.

I know DXV had a card early on in Menagerie that was Cellar for Horses, but gained too many Horses—I think having this work only on Treasures and being a terminal-Duration hopefully mitigates that issue a bit. This can still go nuts but needs support to do so.

I’ve got my money on Sir Barton!

[fika monster]

A quick idea i got: Faithful hound meets band of misfits. It's probably pretty weak without its reaction, which is why i added it.

I think this is strongest late game, when you have a lot of douchys or provinces. But early game, you might want two or three if there is no thinning.
This probably likes sifters a lot, and village Green of course. I imagine that it should combo with faithfoul hound a bit.



Edit 2: (v7)



On play ability has been buffed: You can now, for example, discard a douchy and play a powerful 5$ card. Andon some boards with a 2$ card on them, you might want to get a scribe to exile a copper or estate, and then you can play scribe on an estate to play an 2$.

Added an "When you gain this, you may exile a card in hand". I think this is unique for the card, (the closest equivalent being mints "trash all treasures in play when bought" effect).

very late game, you might want to buy a Srcribe over and estate as you could exile a victory card in hand. This should also give workshops a sort of unique thinning on the boards it's on.

Edit 3: Gambit thought the card was too busy, and editing it further, I think I agree: I removed the treasure part and changed the language a bit on the bottom. I think it looks better like this, while still keeping the spirit of the bottom changes

Edit 4: added "reveal" to the bottom part to have accountability.