Print

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

[spheremonk]

*Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
Drawing won't change the number of cards you have, only the number you have in hand.

Yup, that was stupid. Thanks for the help. I changed the OP.

[Timinou]

Charge | Event | $8
Once per game:
Play the top card of each Action Supply pile in any order, leaving them there.

Edit: cost changed to $8

Wow, this is probably the most bonkers idea I've submitted. Simple, but totally out of control.
I will point out that this card isn't very strategic at all, in almost every game it's pretty clear if you want to buy this, and if you, you're going to want to buy this as soon as you can. The point of this event is it's just a fun thing to do. But we have to limit it to once a game, because then it's broken in some Kingdoms. In games with multiple attacks that stack, you likely want to rush $8 to get this, that's pretty much as far as this goes, strategically. Of course there's cases like Beggar and no trashing, or lots of virtual money but no +buy or gainers that make you think twice about buying this.

In tests with random kingdoms, this works well. Because it happens once, I decided to let it go full-wild (no restrictions on Duration cards -- the buyer will remember and it's easy because they can just look at the entire Supply on their next turn, and no restrictions on Commands -- it wasn't as confusing as I'd thought it'd be).

Open to feedback. I think this counts as simple for the contest? Even if the effect can be complicated.

This looks like it could be fun, but in some kingdoms it will really favour the player who is able to hit $8 first.  I think the once per game restriction helps to keep this from snowballing, but if there are certain Attacks in the kingdom, you can impede your opponent from being able to hit $8 on their turn and so they may not be able to catch up.  I don't think this will be the case for most kingdoms, though, so I don't know that I would necessarily want to change anything.

On a separate note, how would this work with Hireling?

[mathdude]

Gonna replace my entry with this:

Sycophant • $2 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Sycophant, put it in your hand.

Pile is 16 deep, doesn't scale on player count.
Did you know Syncophant only has one 'n' in it? I didn't.

I love this idea!! I don't think it needs to have 16 cards in it, though.

Sycophant feels very weak, even at 2.  It seems worse than Will-o'-Wisp, even though that's not a Supply card.  It doesn't serve much purpose, other than as a Cantrip to replace itself (putting another Sycophant in your hand doesn't improve in any way).  I guess the only purpose is that it lets you know the next card in your deck, which can impact whether you play a terminal draw card.

Two optional suggestions:
1. If it's a Sycophant put it in your hand, otherwise you may discard it or put it back.  (I know, this makes it way too many words), or
2. If it's a Sycophant, play it (effectively making this sort of a cheap Village).

[X-tra]

Opening Village, lol.

Kinda Silver+, but y'know. Port does stuff similar to this, and it gains a versus Silver's cost. I don't think it's an entirely illegal thing to do here.

[spineflu]

Gonna replace my entry with this:

Sycophant • $2 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Sycophant, put it in your hand.

Pile is 16 deep, doesn't scale on player count.
Did you know Syncophant only has one 'n' in it? I didn't.

I love this idea!! I don't think it needs to have 16 cards in it, though.

Sycophant feels very weak, even at 2.  It seems worse than Will-o'-Wisp, even though that's not a Supply card.  It doesn't serve much purpose, other than as a Cantrip to replace itself (putting another Sycophant in your hand doesn't improve in any way).  I guess the only purpose is that it lets you know the next card in your deck, which can impact whether you play a terminal draw card.

putting another sycophant in your hand increases your hand size, while still being non-terminal. You seed these in your deck correctly and they're labs. While they are a worse will-o-wisp, they're not nearly as useless as you're implying them to be - i take it you've never tried flooding your deck with will-o-wisps?

[spheremonk]

It's only a Lab in some circumstances. Also, Labs have a whole other chaining effect that you can't replicate easily with Charnel House.

[majiponi]

Golden Goose
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a Golden Goose.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

EDIT: renamed, rephrased a bit.

[Gubump]

Adventurer
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a copy of this.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

1. There's already an official card named Adventurer.
2. The name Adventurer doesn't make sense for a Treasure anyway.
3. Like the aforementioned Rats and Magpie, it should say "gain a/an [cardname]" instead of "gain a copy of this."

[faust]

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per Laborer you have in play.

EDIT: Wording changed as suggested by gambit05. Thanks!

[Aquila]

Thane - Action, $5 cost.
You may discard the top 2 cards of your deck. Look through your discard pile; you may play an Action from it twice.

Exactly 20 words if the '2' doesn't count.

Edit: up to 22 according to host's recommendation.

[Shael]

I’ve already post this card on an expansion, I let the comment I’ve made about it (with some correction): It’s simple: you buy a Province, I discard a Duchy to gain 2vp. So it’s interesting to buy Duchy right? Sure but since we all start with 3 Estate maybe you’ll give 2vp to the other player while doing so. And if everyone take them and not the Provinces; they won’t be that valuable and there was no real point to buy them. It’s a type of card that I like because if a game plan is too strong, you may buy a certain card to take advantage of it: Duchy beat Province, Province  beat Estates and Estae beat Duchy…

Edit: reworded it to fit with the contest requirements
Edit 2: the previous rewording wasn't "dominiony" enough: it was full of word that aren't usualy used in dominion's cards

[gambit05]

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?

[faust]

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?

Well, Laborer is at worst a $5 gainer, so its baseline is much stronger than Inventor. (note that once you played one, it is already in play and thus costs $6 when the gaining ability activates)

[gambit05]

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?

Well, Laborer is at worst a $5 gainer, so its baseline is much stronger than Inventor. (note that once you played one, it is already in play and thus costs $6 when the gaining ability activates)

I see. I misinterpreted the wording and thought that "per copy of it" means that the first Laborer doesn't count. Would "per Laborer you have in play" be clearer?

[Shael]

Adventurer
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a copy of this.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

I really like your card but I think that, even if it's not requier, you should put an image of it ^^.
(do you know how to do it? If you don't I can try to explain)

[Gubump]

Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

What happens if you have 6 Highways in play and one Laborer? Does Laborer cost (- and then +), or (+ and then -)? I'd assume Laborer's passive cost reduction would trigger first (i.e. the latter).

[faust]

What happens if you have 6 Highways in play and one Laborer? Does Laborer cost (- and then +), or (+ and then -)? I'd assume Laborer's passive cost reduction would trigger first (i.e. the former).

I will say that you apply all cost modification to the card, and then if it costs less than $0, up the price to $0. So in that example Laborer would cost $0.

[spineflu]

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

[emtzalex]

Thane - Action, $5 cost.
You may discard the top 2 cards of your deck. You may play an Action card from your discard pile twice.

Exactly 20 words if the '2' doesn't count.

You could probably drop the word "card" after "Action" (so the second sentence would be "You may play an Action from your discard pile twice.") Official cards sometimes do this, especially (though not always) when pressed for space. (See Champion, Ghost, Herald, Scrying Pool; and especially Crown). That would get you down to 20 words.

[faust]

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

[Gubump]

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

Haggler + Livery is a poor example because Haggler triggers on-buy, before gaining the bought card, whereas Livery triggers on-gain, so Haggler would trigger before Livery no matter which order they were played in.

That aside, "stuff happens in the order things were played" doesn't make sense for the Highway + Laborer example because Laborer's cost increase is a constant thing that's always happening, not something with a specific timing like Bridge's cost reduction. Likewise Highway's cost reduction is also not an event like that of Bridge, it's an ongoing effect.

For this reason, the interaction between Bridge and Laborer is clearer than the interaction between Highway and Laborer imo. It seems to me like common sense that an ongoing effect would occur before an on-play event (i.e. Laborer's cost increasing effect would trigger before Bridge's cost reduction), but the order to resolve two opposing ongoing effects isn't so clear. Of course, your ruling that the "but not less than " occurs at the very end after counting up all the cost-changing effects rather than after each individual cost-changing effect makes a lot of sense and solves the issue perfectly.

[spineflu]

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

Haggler + Livery is a poor example because Haggler triggers on-buy, before gaining the bought card, whereas Livery triggers on-gain, so Haggler would trigger before Livery no matter which order they were played in.

That aside, "stuff happens in the order things were played" doesn't make sense for the Highway + Laborer example because Laborer's cost increase is a constant thing that's always happening, not something with a specific timing like Bridge's cost reduction. Likewise Highway's cost reduction is also not an event like that of Bridge, it's an ongoing effect.

For this reason, the interaction between Bridge and Laborer is clearer than the interaction between Highway and Laborer imo. It seems to me like common sense that an ongoing effect would occur before an on-play event (i.e. Laborer's cost increasing effect would trigger before Bridge's cost reduction), but the order to resolve two opposing ongoing effects isn't so clear. Of course, your ruling that the "but not less than " occurs at the very end after counting up all the cost-changing effects rather than after each individual cost-changing effect makes a lot of sense and solves the issue perfectly.

no, but we can picture the game itself as a series of states with a series of transitions (cards that are played, which take us from one state to another; you can view any player-decision point as a transition). since you can just not play a card, it's weird for there to be some after-the-fact/after-the-transition rule of the world that comes in and says "negative costs are ok as an intermediate step".

Like say you play six highways. Laborer now costs $0. Now you play your Laborer - it costs $1, because it cost $0 at the state you played it. It's a really weird phenomenon to play a Laborer, and then go back and say, actually it cost $-1 before, and costs $0 now. The environmental rules (cards can't cost less than $0) should hold true at every state of the game. Ergo, per-play/per-transition cost adjustment, even for ongoing effects and while this is in plays.

[The Alchemist]

So I just decided to throw in my 3 shortest and simplest fan cards that best fit the prompt for now, and in a few days I'll pick one to be my final submission, if that is okay with the Judge?

   

[MochaMoko]

Hi! It's me again. I've been looking at the cards! Everyone's doing well! I'm going to be away for about a day, gonna put down the list of submitted cards so I can keep track of them (in order of submission).

Total submissions: 16 (not counting The Alchemist yet)

kru5h: Grand Workshop ⑥ (Gainer)
mandioca15: Violin ⑥ (Non-terminal draw/Peddler variant)
LastFootnote: Knave ⑤ (Gold gainer)
emtzalex: Greedy Heir ③ (Artifact: Will/Cantrip +Buy/Alt-VP)
segura: Way of the Eagle (Way/Cost reduction)

spineflu: Sycophant ② (Non-terminal draw)
anordinaryman: Charge ⑧ (Event/Once-per-game/Command-like)
Chappy7: Coin Collector ④ (Terminal draw/Treasure gainer/Treasure Throner)
Gubump: Bounty ⑤ (Event/One-per-turn/Gainer)
NoMoreFun: Factory ⑤ (Smithy+/Self-gainer)

spheremonk: Charnel House ⑤ (non-terminal DtX/Trasher)
X-tra: Mining Camp ④ (Village+/Silver+)
majiponi: Adventurer ⑤ (Virtual coin/Gainer/One-shot)
faust: Laborer ⑤ (Gainer)
Aquila: Thane ⑤ (Throne Room variant)

Shael: Shared Border (Landmark)

The Alchemist: Pending (General Store ①, Reforge ②, Timepiece ③)

If I've missed anyone, misspelled anyone's name, or incorrectly described anyone's card, please let me know.
Every submission is valid! Hooray! To take care of some loose ends:
@faust's Laborer: I'm skimming through the discussion. I hope my comments on this are not unwelcome. What if we say that cost-increasing happens before cost-reduction, as a general rule? I'm not too versed with strange costs (Wayfarer mostly), but this seems like it should solve problems.

@Aquila's Thane: If I'm not mistaken, you need to be told to look through your discard pile, even though the card tells you to do something with a card in your discard pile. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Watchtower and Sleigh allow you to look through discard pile if your card is covered up, I believe, but say, something like March, which is more direct about the discard pile (and is from the most recent expansion, though yeah Sleigh is too, but like I said), tells you to look through your discard pile. If you need to add more words, don't worry about it. Some mechanics in Dominion just need more words dedicated to them, as annoying as it is. Since your concept is simple, I'm fine if you have to add a few more words to it for clarity/consistency with already existing cards.

I can't think of anything else to say. Enjoy the weekend!
As I said in the original post, the deadline is midnight UTC of 23 June (end of Tuesday), or 24 hours after I give the 24 hour warning, whichever comes later.

Edit: look at these beautiful cards! All on one line! :brightandhappy:

[faust]

@faust's Laborer: I'm skimming through the discussion. I hope my comments on this are not unwelcome. What if we say that cost-increasing happens before cost-reduction, as a general rule? I'm not too versed with strange costs (Wayfarer mostly), but this seems like it should solve problems.

Sure, it can be ruled that way, but in effect that rule will produce precisely the same outcomes as the rule I suggested - unless there is ever a cost-increasing effect that says "but not more than $X".