Print

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

[mxdata]

Edict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Coppers with a copy of that card.

EDIT: Changed to replacing a Copper rather than an Estate

Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card.  It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3.  In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one

Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card.  You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery.  Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card

The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles.  My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible.  Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)

*I've been going back and forth on this.  Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?

[naitchman]

*I've been going back and forth on this.  Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?

I would go even further and allow them to replace any card in their deck. Most of the time it will be shelter or estate anyway, and it won't have any problems if the game evolves and Donald decides to make a new mechanic that allows you to start with no estates or shelters.

[Shael]

This is my card for this contest.
Obviously I've made something with potions, hope you'll like it.

[DunnoItAll]

[grrgrrgrr]

I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?

[fika monster]

My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!

... that you can't trash. boooh!



Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!

Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion



Edit 2: People don't seem excited for this edict. so I'm turning up the volume on this: Now Every curse is a village, but they are worth -2vp instead of -1 vp.

[emtzalex]

My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!

... that you can't trash. boooh!



Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!

Per Inheritance, you probably don't need "the text" and "actions" should be capitalized. Also, per Fortress, the other part would say "When you trash this, put it into your discard pile." As it is currently written I'm not sure it's clear that the discarding is an on-trash ability versus something a part of resolving the card on-play (and thus would not trigger if trashed from your hand). If it were on a card organically, it would be below a line:



Putting the line itself on the card inside quotation marks is impractical, and I'm not sure there is an elegant alternative to giving it that on-trash ability. However, I think there is a way around that. Since the Edict itself generally affects all aspects of the game, there's no need to put that mechanic onto the Curse itself. Thus, I would suggest the following wording:

Curses are also Actions with "+2 Actions." When you trash a Curse, put it into your discard pile.

[DunnoItAll]

I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?

It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point.  For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though.  Maybe I'll try to do that this week.

[grrgrrgrr]

I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?

It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point.  For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though.  Maybe I'll try to do that this week.

Mmm, this might be better on a second thought. I mean, without +Buy this will be somewhat mediocre, but it might be a little automatic with +Buy. (it's pretty terrible at getting rid of Ruins)

[mxdata]

*I've been going back and forth on this.  Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?

I would go even further and allow them to replace any card in their deck. Most of the time it will be shelter or estate anyway, and it won't have any problems if the game evolves and Donald decides to make a new mechanic that allows you to start with no estates or shelters.

The idea is that it's an Estate version of Heirlooms.  Heirlooms replace Coppers, these replace Estates.  I'm not too concerned about a hypothetical future expansion that might create games where this has no effect.  There are already a number of landscape cards that have no effect in certain kingdoms, such as Tomb in a game with no trashing. Really, I could probably have just said "Estates" and left it useless in Shelters games, but since it only requires two extra words to accommodate Shelters, I added that part

[mxdata]

I like it, but... why can't it work for $0 costs?

It could, but I think it would be too game changing at that point.  For me, these edicts seem to have the most potential to be fun if they change the game but not too much. Being able to easily get rid of coppers/curses/ruins in addition to estates (etc.) seems like too big of an effect for something that is free and you always have. I'd really need to play with it a few times to see for sure, though.  Maybe I'll try to do that this week.

Mmm, this might be better on a second thought. I mean, without +Buy this will be somewhat mediocre, but it might be a little automatic with +Buy. (it's pretty terrible at getting rid of Ruins)

Even with most sources of +buy, it would generally be fairly slow at trashing Coppers.  In effect, it would be equivalent to adding "You may trash a Copper from your hand" to any card with +1 Buy.  In games with lots of +buy, like games with Worker's Village or Fair, it could trash pretty quickly though.  And you have to spend $2 to trash an Estate

Curse-trashing would also be somewhat limited, since once the Curse pile is empty, you're stuck with whatever Curses you hadn't gotten a chance to trash

So, it would certainly have a big effect, but it seems like it would be less game-warping than, say, Chapel

[spineflu]

since shael's card is kinda cramping my style on haggling, I'm changing my entry:

Urbanizing • Edict
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.

FAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers or the barracks project - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villages.

[mxdata]

since shael's card is kinda cramping my style on haggling, I'm changing my entry:

Urbanizing • Edict
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.

FAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villagers.

So a regular village now gives you +4 Actions and Snowy Village is +8 Actions?

I take it it doesn't affect the +Action token either?

[spineflu]

since shael's card is kinda cramping my style on haggling, I'm changing my entry:

Urbanizing • Edict
When a card gives you +Actions, you get twice as many.

FAQ: it's not recursive. Doesn't affect villagers - they aren't cards. Turn all the cantrips into villagers.

So a regular village now gives you +4 Actions and Snowy Village is +8 Actions?

I take it it doesn't affect the +Action token either?

yes / yes, but it still hamstrings further actions / yes, not a card

[grrgrrgrr]

Edict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Estates or Shelters with a copy of that card.

Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card.  It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3.  In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one

Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card.  You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery.  Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card

The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles.  My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible.  Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)

*I've been going back and forth on this.  Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?

I'd honestly just replace a starting Copper in the opening phase. This is probably the cleanest and also the most "future proof". Also, anything that produces $1 will leave opening theory mostly intact. Of course, stop cards that don't trash or produce $$ will slow the opening phase, but having a Kingdom deck already in your deck somewhat makes up for it.

[mxdata]

Edict
Select an unused Kingdom card costing $2 or $3. Each player replaces one of their starting Estates or Shelters with a copy of that card.

Kinda like Heirlooms in that each player starts off with one copy of a particular card.  It replaces starting Estates (or Shelters), however, and can be any Kingdom card costing $2 or $3.  In a Shelters game, each player gets to choose which of their Shelters to replace*. Whichever card is chosen, it has no pile, making one-shots like Experiment much more powerful, not unlike Way of the Mouse in that respect, except you only get the one

Unlike Mouse, though, it does not have to be an Action card.  You can, for example, have a Victory card (Tunnel is currently the only one that would qualify) or Treasure card such as Ducat or Coin of the Realm, or even a Night card such as Monastery.  Any set-up for the chosen card would be done as usual - which in some cases could mean that you'd have a mat used only by the selected card

The FAQ would have to clarify how to handle cards from split piles.  My thought is that any card that has enough copies for the number of players would be eligible.  Thus, cards like Catapult would qualify except in 6-player games, while Humble Castle would qualify in a 2-player - and only in 2-player - game (of course, Humble Castle would be pretty useless in such a game, being nothing more than a Copper with 1 VP)

*I've been going back and forth on this.  Should I specify a Shelter to be replaced, or leave it as is?

I'd honestly just replace a starting Copper in the opening phase. This is probably the cleanest and also the most "future proof". Also, anything that produces $1 will leave opening theory mostly intact. Of course, stop cards that don't trash or produce $$ will slow the opening phase, but having a Kingdom deck already in your deck somewhat makes up for it.

Hmm .... that would definitely be simpler.  On the other hand, most of the time that means you'd only start with 6 Treasures, unlike Heirlooms which still leave you with 7 Treasures, just a different set.  But, hey, a lot of the cards that could be used are already going to change the opening - anything with draw, for example, will trigger a reshuffle after turn 1!  So, that might not be such an important issue anyways

[Aquila]

I struggled here with finding something that is best justified as an Edict over Event, Project, Act or kingdom card!

Revised entry:

Underlords - Edict
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.

Edit: entry changed from this:

Censorship - Edict
At the start of each of your turns, reveal your hand, and the player to your left chooses one for you to discard. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Trying to add player interaction, but this probably makes sad times. It would be terrible with discard attacks, so it gives draw to 5 to soften them. It buffs Outpost and Borrow, only a few things.

[emtzalex]

I struggled here with finding something that is best justified as an Edict over Event, Project, Act or kingdom card!

Censorship - Edict
At the start of each of your turns, reveal your hand, and the player to your left chooses one for you to discard. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Trying to add player interaction, but this probably makes sad times. It would be terrible with discard attacks, so it gives draw to 5 to soften them. It buffs Outpost and Borrow, only a few things.

By attempting to "soften" the impact of discard attacks when using this, it makes those cards nearly unbuyable. The attacks go from hurting your opponent(s) to helping them.

With no discard attack, each turn Censorship causes you to lose the best card in your hand, then (barring other effects like the Flag) get one card from your deck to make it up. If you're hit by a Militia, you lose the two worst cards in your hand, then the best, then get 3 cards from your deck to make up for it (or, put another way, 3 cards that your opponent cannot choose as the card to discard). That turns the strongest part of Militia (its attack) from a benefit to the player playing it into a benefit for their opponent(s).

It hurts Ghost Ship (usually one of the best handsize attacks) even more, as it essentially allows the player hit with the attack to protect the two best cards in their hand, knowing that they will get them back at the start of their next turn (unless a deck-order attack is also played, which is not easy to do after playing the terminal Ghost Ship).

[fika monster]

My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!

... that you can't trash. boooh!



Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!

Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion

made an edit

[DunnoItAll]

After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:

[Aquila]

Yeah, thanks for the feedback. Here's something that's still a bit interactive that shouldn't have bad moments:

Underlords - Edict
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.

'Such a card' is a $2- cost, hope that's self-intuitive.

[emtzalex]

After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:

Do you have to trash a copy to prevent the gaining? For example, if I play Goons, Gold, and 3 Coppers (emptying my hand) and buy a Province, can I then buy a Copper and choose to use the Edict (still buying the Copper and thus triggering Goons to give me +1VP but not gaining a Copper) even though my hand is empty and therefore I cannot trash a Copper? I think that is how the Edict would play under the official rules.

If this is how it plays, that creates potential accountability issues (albeit relatively minor ones), as a player can claim not to have the card in a non-empty hand (although this is only an issue in cases where a player wants to buy a card but neither gain a copy of it nor trash a copy they have in their hand during the Buy phase; the only case I could think of is in a game with Orchard if they had a Haggler in play, and wanted to buy but not gain an Action they already had 3 copies of in order to gain, but not Buy, some other card, possibly one with an Embargo token on its pile; or, in an Orchard game where a player had 3 Stonemasons, wanting to buy (and overpay for) another one, without either gain it or trashing the other).

[emtzalex]

Yeah, thanks for the feedback. Here's something that's still a bit interactive that shouldn't have bad moments:

Underlords - Edict
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $2 or less from your hand. If you don't, gain such a card from the trash.

'Such a card' is a $2- cost, hope that's self-intuitive.

I think it would be more in line with official cards (Rogue, Baron, Mountebank) to say: "If you don't, gain a card costing $2 or less from the trash." I think you could say "up to $2" instead of "$2 or less" both times (see Prince), which is slightly shorter. Also, although you corrected this in the text of your post, the card itself still says "At the start of each of your turns," when "At the start of your turn," is better (see Cathedral).

[fika monster]

My edict: curses are now necropolises! yay!!!

... that you can't trash. boooh!



Shoutout to Unjer on the dominion discord for playtesting this with me on the TableTop Simulator mod he is making!

Edit: Updated wording per emtzalex suggestion

made an edit

People don't seem very interested in tribulations: May I ask why? feedback would be interested

[DunnoItAll]

After some playtesting, I have decided to alter my entry to this version:

Do you have to trash a copy to prevent the gaining?

Good call.  I will try to come up with a wording so that the answer is yes. Maybe just add "if possible" before "you may."