Print

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

[MochaMoko]

WDC #124: Yes… ha ha ha… YES!
Design a non-terminal Attack card.
For this week, ready your pitchforks and load your weapons, it’s Attack time!

Most Attacks in Dominion are terminal. That’s because many Attack effects may either take a long time to resolve or be extremely painful when stacked. Some just have other vanilla effects instead (think most Attacks that draw cards).
There are 10 non-terminal Attack piles if I’m counting correctly (Minion, Scrying Pool, Familiar, Urchin, Relic, Idol, Werewolf, Raider, Vampire, Coven), and a few asterisks in Cultist, Dame Molly, Sir Bailey, and Black Cat. I’ll just say that not all of these are cards you should look for for inspiration. I think Minion sucks (It even has a clause that prevents it from discarding too much, but I still think it’s too much). Scrying Pool doesn’t need the attack imo, Urchin is Urchin, and Familiar… well, I dunno. The later cards are a lot more of what I would like to see in a Dominion card. Donald X. is really good at making cards these days! Who woulda thunk it!

The nature of non-terminal cards is that you can play more of them much easier. Therefore, many non-terminal Attacks have a weaker effect or have an effect that doesn’t stack. Please take these considerations into account when making your card. Of course, you are free to do as you wish! Surprise me!

Clarifications:
・On non-terminality, if when it’s Attacking, it’s non-terminal, that’s a non-terminal Attack. So Werewolf for example counts, but if its options were switched (putting aside how horribly weak that would be), it would not.
・For what's non-terminal or not, we can argue on the specifics of what makes something non-terminal, but I don't feel like taking the time to describe the specifics. If it looks non-terminal to me, it's non-terminal. I'll tell you if your card doesn't fit, and if enough people disagree, I'll relent on it.

The deadline will be in a week, midnight UTC of 12 August (end of Thursday), or 24 hours after I give the 24 hour warning, whichever comes later. Happy designing!

I’ll say this right now: I don’t particularly like many of the non-terminal Attacks in Dominion. Oppressive Attacks aren't really my cup of tea. Maybe I just don't like fun. In my opinion, this is a hard prompt. I do want to see more Attacks (that I like), though! So I’m excited to see what you all have to offer.

[Gubump]

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

[LastFootnote]

Are non-Supply cards allowed?

[JW]

Forest Witch

Action - Attack
+ and +1 Buy.
Take a Villager from the Forest Witch Supply pile. If you can’t, +1 Villager and each other player gains a Curse.
Setup: Put three Villagers per player on the Forest Witch Supply pile.
 
This is inspired by Coven. Cursers are less dominating if they don’t junk your deck right away. The symmetry of when it starts handing out curses means that it needs a reason why it should get bought by the first player to do so. But I also don’t want it to be an auto-buy. Updated from a previous contest with the power level reduced, because that version was judged to be too much of an auto-buy.
 
Flavor: I think of the Witch in Into the Woods stealing the baby Rapunzel. “Forest” also fits with the not-so-missed Woodcutter.

[NoMoreFun]

Hostile Village
Action - $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
The next time you play a card this turn, each other player with 5 or more cards in their hands discards a copy of it (or reveals a hand without it)

[AJL828]

Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks

I’m withdrawing this card but I’ll be posting another card with the same name and picture in awhile when I’m home.

[LastFootnote]

Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?

[Gubump]

Djinn
Action - Attack ($5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

An attacking Peddler Variant. Quick to resolve, doesn't stack (usually, Council Room/Governor could kinda make it stack), no annoying opening swinginess. Hopefully that covers most things people hate about some of the official attacks

Isn't this just Relic, only it's a Peddler instead of a Silver, and at the same cost?

Yes it is, and that comparison makes it clear that it's too strong.

[AJL828]

I was kinda worried about it being too similar to Relic. I totally glossed over the Silver/Peddler comparison. I’ll resubmit something else when I have more time to think it over.

[MochaMoko]

Are non-Supply cards allowed?

Anything goes! As long as it includes a non-terminal Attack.

[faust]

Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.

[xyz123]

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1

Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

[faust]

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.

This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.

[xyz123]

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.

This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.

I did consider that, but I don't think it will be much different to Margrave. They can end up being chained together for draw and that involves your opponents drawing and discarding cards. Margrave was actually one of the inspirations as one of the things I find interesting about it is that subsequent plays can end up helping rather than hindering your opponents. I wanted to achieve a similar effect.

-Edit-
Apologies, you might be right. Didn't consider that the Royal Guard-Royal Guard scenarios double the number of times it has to be resolved. I will have another think about it.
Thank you for the feedback.

[faust]

Royal Guard
$5
Action - Attack

You may play an action card from your hand twice.
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.

This seems like it is going to be very tedious to resolve when you do Royal Guard chains.

I did consider that, but I don't think it will be much different to Margrave. They can end up being chained together for draw and that involves your opponents drawing and discarding cards. Margrave was actually one of the inspirations as one of the things I find interesting about it is that subsequent plays can end up helping rather than hindering your opponents. I wanted to achieve a similar effect.

The issue comes mostly from Throne chains. Imagine the following plays:

Throne Room - Throne Room - Throne Room.
The last TR plays a card twice, then the second TR has another play left. All that I really need to remember is that I may play 3 cards twice now, and add +1 for each further throned TR.

Royal Guard - Royal Guard - Royal Guard.
So three times I attack, then I play a card twice, then I attack again, then I play another card twice, then I attack again, and finally the third card twice. Okay, slightly annoying, but if I just remember to do the attack after each double-play, it's fine.

Royal Guard - Royal Guard - Throne Room.
Okay, so 2 attacks, then the TR doesn't attack, then I guess now I play 2 cards twice without attacking in between, then I attack and then I play another card twice. Here it becomes really messy.

I see the comparison with Margrave. Honestly I already find the subsequent attacks on Margrave a bit annoying, but they are acceptable. Royal Guard is much worse because
1) you usually want to chain Thrones, meaning you get more total attacks out of 3 Royal Guards than you would out of 3 Margraves, see second example above.
2) the number of Margraves you want is often limited to however much you need to draw your deck. Also it's terminal, so you need support to play more than one already. However, Thrones you can never have enough of, meaning in the average game you will have a lot more Royal Guards than you would have Margraves.

EDIT: Wrote this before seeing you edit. Well, I'll leave it here in case it is helpful to others.

[majiponi]

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

[spineflu]

Pearl • $5 • Treasure - Attack - Doom
+ $2
If you have an odd number of Pearls in play, +1 Buy. Otherwise, choose a face up Hex for each other player to receive, turning it face down for the turn.
-
Setup: Set aside the Famine, Fear, and Haunting Hexes, face up

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.

[faust]

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.

I find it hard to believe that you could effectively set up a Famine pin. Famine is by far the weakest option here anyways, and you'd need to play like 6+ Pearls each turn to set something up halfway reliably. If you're able to do that in a Curser game without trashing, you probably won anyway.

I don't think preventing that is worth the extra complexity.

[spineflu]

Idol-esque multiflavored handsize/topdeck attack, sort of in the style of Druid. Does the necromancer facedown thing because with a curser in the kingdom, picking Famine every time could result in a pin.

I find it hard to believe that you could effectively set up a Famine pin. Famine is by far the weakest option here anyways, and you'd need to play like 6+ Pearls each turn to set something up halfway reliably. If you're able to do that in a Curser game without trashing, you probably won anyway.

I don't think preventing that is worth the extra complexity.

yeah idk. I wanted to do a sort of rondel/whatever you call the turn option mechanism in scythe but that was too much to fit on a card ("do a hex different than the last one you chose"?)

I think using each of those hexes in the order you choose is fine.

[Gubump]

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.

[xyz123]

Guard
$5
Action - Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
_______________________________________________________________
Each other play draws until they have 5 cards in hand then discards down to 3.



- Edit -
Changed from a Throne Room variant to a peddler variant following feedback that the can take a while to resolve when chaining the card for a Throne->Throne effect.
There is still a potential element of this to a lesser extent, but on that point I did want to create a card with a potentially stackable attack where subsequent plays have the potential to help opponents rather than hinder them. Personally, I do like Margrave for this reason and  I wanted to make an attack with a similar effect. I accept that some people might not like this though.

This shouldn't have the dividing line. It's also an on-play effect.

Thanks. The dividing line was left behind from the previous version.

[X-tra]

[Aquila]

A money-oriented puzzler:

Appanage - Treasure Attack, $5 cost.
$2
Gold costs $1 less for the rest of the turn.
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure costing less than this (or reveals they can't).

When Treasures are the payload in a game, this makes swings and roundabouts. Gold looks tasty, but an opposing double-Appanage could see them discarded and/or you want to keep Coppers around to protect them (discards a Treasure costing less than 'this', i.e. Appanage normally at $5) and dilute your money density a bit doing so.
Could be doing a bit too much for $5, or a chance $5 opening with this could be too strong.

[AJL828]

Action - Attack - Duration ($5)
Djinn

+1 Card
+1 Action
Until your next turn, when any other player buys a card that they have a copy of in play, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

(it has the same name and picture because I didn't wanna part with those, but it does a different thing now)

My two points of comparison for this were Caravan and Swamp Hag. Swamp Hag is a mediocre curser, and also costs $5. However I feel that since Caravan is already $4 and is almost certainly more useful than a next turn terminal gold, that the cursing on this attack should be a little more difficult. It can stack, but all cursing can be ignored by avoiding purchasing the wrong cards (which granted, does still slow you down).

At the very least, I hope this card is notably less irritating than Familiar is.

[Timinou]

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:



EDIT: Revised the cost of Philanthropist to $4

Philanthropist is a cantrip attack that self-junks and also junks your opponent's deck (but likely benefits them in the near term).  You could try to build a deck that will be able to gain Provinces with Philanthropist, but it might be more optimal to trash it early to gain a better card.  Philanthropist and Counting House would be a strong combo, but with only 5 copies of Philanthropist in the Kingdom, it shouldn't be game-breaking.  There are also synergies with cards like Beggar, Settlers, and Ill-Gotten Gains. 

Benefaction can help mitigate the Copper junking from Philanthropist. 

[Timinou]

A money-oriented puzzler:

Appanage - Treasure Attack, $5 cost.
$2
Gold costs $1 less for the rest of the turn.
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a Treasure costing less than this (or reveals they can't).

When Treasures are the payload in a game, this makes swings and roundabouts. Gold looks tasty, but an opposing double-Appanage could see them discarded and/or you want to keep Coppers around to protect them (discards a Treasure costing less than 'this', i.e. Appanage normally at $5) and dilute your money density a bit doing so.
Could be doing a bit too much for $5, or a chance $5 opening with this could be too strong.

I don't think this is too strong in the opening.  In the majority of cases, it will be a non-terminal Cutpurse when played after the first shuffle, which seems OK at $5.  I think there will often be better $5-cost cards to open with. 

[Gubump]

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:



Philanthropist is a cantrip attack that self-junks and also junks your opponent's deck (but likely benefits them in the near term).  You could try to build a deck that will be able to gain Provinces with Philanthropist, but it might be more optimal to trash it early to gain a better card.  Philanthropist and Counting House would be a strong combo, but with only 5 copies of Philanthropist in the Kingdom, it shouldn't be game-breaking.  There are also synergies with cards like Beggar, Settlers, and Ill-Gotten Gains. 

Benefaction can help mitigate the Copper junking from Philanthropist.

Benefaction doesn't need the dividing line. See Improve and your own Philanthropist.

[emtzalex]

My Submission:

HUCKSTER VILLAGE    $5 ACTION - ATTACK +2 Actions Each other player may reveal a Copper from their hand; if they don't, they discard a card then gain a Copper to their hand. If a player gained a Copper, +$2, otherwise, +1 Card.

Gasp! An attack that not only isn't terminal, but is a village, and one that's both a junker and a makes your hand worse. Too oppressive? Not necessarily, because while the card is easy to play, the attacks don't stack. Once you've taken a Copper (or if you already have one), you can avoid taking any more. There might even be some cases where a player would prefer to take the Copper even if they have one to reveal. To mitigate that, receiving the Copper will also give a bonus to the player playing the attack.

[anordinaryman]

Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Ideally this could cost 3, but it absolutely can't because when Village and this are in a game together, you always buy this first, (maybe second if you're not drawing deck), and then you just buy Village all the other times -- and that isn't so interesting to me. I think this card is most interesting when you are forced to choose between this and another village and the choice isn't easy.

There's a natural tension here that you may only want to gain one Raiding Village, so it could be fun to subvert that. What if "if there is another Raiding Village in play, gain a Horse/+1 Buy/+1 Money/draw up to 5/ some other mild benefit" something like that.

I do applaud making a non-terminal attack that elegantly becomes friendly on second-play, that is really nifty and cool exploration of the non-terminal attack space.

[faust]

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Thanks for the comment!

I understand where you're coming from. I do think the "this is the only Village" case is more complex than you make it out to be; I feel like you'd want to manage your terminal space pretty carefully there and only get as many Raiding Villages as you absolutely need to. I don't think any of the official Villages offer that kind of decision (except arguably Hideout, but that's much harder to pull off as your main Village). I also think the case where there's 2 Villages could still be interesting strategically; it may become viable to pile the other Village early to force your opponents into more Raiding Villages.

I agree that this is not a super strong card. However it will come into play most games: If it's the only Village you probably need it, and if there's another Village then you probably want the attack. So it's not going to be a dud. I did consider dropping the price to $3, but I find that the discarding is a pretty effective way of block $5 purchases early on, and I didn't want to make it too easy to do that.

[anordinaryman]

I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...

"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be

each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

Hostile Village
Action - $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
The next time you play a card this turn, each other player with 5 or more cards in their hands discards a copy of it (or reveals a hand without it)

It's hard to know without playing this, but this feels like a really strong Attack. Consider Raider, which costs 6, doesn't draw a card, is a Duration (so it's slower), and the attack isn't as strong since the player gets a choice. I wonder if there is a way to cost this 6. Though villages don't work super well at $6 (who among us has not struggled to get a Nobles-as-village engine working -- though Border Village works great because it can come with a draw/payload card for free). Maybe this isn't a village but it's a cantrip with some bonus? That would let you cost it 6 given the proper bonus.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

Not the strongest card, but they can't all be the strongest 5. I like this a lot. The silver self-junking slows itself down which prevents spamming. Both me and my opponents grow our deck at the same rate. Nice!

Action - Attack - Duration ($5)
Djinn

+1 Card
+1 Action
Until your next turn, when any other player buys a card that they have a copy of in play, they gain a Curse.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

I love cards that award variety. I've always considered the carrot approach, but the stick works too. Nice design! I can't say I love the Caravan on play. There might be something more interesting to do here. Perhaps gaining a copy of a card you have/don't have. I dunno. Something more interesting here. Also something that fights for its non-terminality a little harder. But I really love the attack a lot!

My submission for this week is a split pile with 5 copies of Philanthropist and 5 copies of Benefaction:

For my money (and I could be wrong with out actual play-testing), this feels like a terribly strong attack. Just think about how annoying Followers is. Imagine if Followers could be played T3 (even early with other shenanigans). And coppers never run out. Sure it improves the next turn, but those Coppers are hard to get rid of even with Benefaction. I'd open Philanthropist/Philanthropist many games. Maybe cost it 4? I could be wrong, play-testing could totally prove me wrong here.

[Gubump]

I'm gonna just put a bunch of my feedback in one post...

"Return" isn't a concept for tokens. It's "remove any number of tokens from your Coffers" as in Butcher version 2, or  "spend" as in Butcher version 1. So this would be

each other player may remove a token from their Coffers or Villagers or discard a Horse

I had a hunch that my Collector might've been misworded. Thanks; I've applied the change.

Interest
cost $5 - Treasure - Attack
+$2
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one of those Treasures, and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Treasures.


Strong Thief! It earns at least $2! Prepare not to be Thiefed your Interest!

Unfortunately this falls into a tight design space that makes it hard to balance.
As written, this falls into the same problem as Theif -- it trashes your opponents Coppers. So, it's good for them. Noble Brigand is a better example of how to do a Treasure-trasher. But if you modeled this after Noble Brigand, it becomes WAY too strong in comparison, it generates extra money (2+), and it is non-terminal. Not sure how to resolve those tensions.

That fact that it can trash opponents' Coppers makes sure it's frequently a Gold minus instead of just being a Gold plus, which is correct given the cost. I think it's fine as-is.

[4est]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

[Xen3k]

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

[emtzalex]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

The text should specify that you are setting the card aside from your hand.

[4est]

Thanks good catch, fixed now.

[Gubump]

EDIT: Changed wording as per anordinaryman's suggestion.

I think you intend to attack by handing out curses, not horses.

Oops! Thanks for noticing the typo.

[Timinou]

For my money (and I could be wrong with out actual play-testing), this feels like a terribly strong attack. Just think about how annoying Followers is. Imagine if Followers could be played T3 (even early with other shenanigans). And coppers never run out. Sure it improves the next turn, but those Coppers are hard to get rid of even with Benefaction. I'd open Philanthropist/Philanthropist many games. Maybe cost it 4? I could be wrong, play-testing could totally prove me wrong here.

Thanks for the feedback.  I had priced Philanthropist at $4 in an earlier version, and I'm still undecided.  Unlike Followers, repeated plays don't accelerate the game end (Estates and Curses will run out much faster than Coppers).  I feel like junking your own deck with Philanthropist isn't necessarily the best long-term strategy on most boards, so you may not want to keep it around in your deck for long anyway.  For instance, if you hit $5 with Coppers by playing Philanthropist on T3 or T4, you may want to trash it then to gain another $5-cost card.

Part of the rationale in pricing it at $3 rather than $4 was to make it more likely to see Benefaction quickly, but I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason.

[faust]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

[Gubump]

Here's my entry this week. Prisoner is a Night-Duration-Attack card that "imprisons" an Action or Treasure from your hand and plays it next turn, while forcing other players to discard a card when they play copies of it. This is another one of my old cards that I've revised for this contest: the original was a terminal Action and ended up being very weak. As a Night instead, Prisoner gets the non-terminality it needs to make it useful while also letting you save dead-drawn Actions. There's an interesting relationship between how strong the attack is vs. how strong the next turn effect, with both varying a lot by what you aside (e.g. Copper, especially in the early game vs. an okay Action your opponent has a lot of vs. a strong Action your opponent has only one of).

I'm not completely sure how "first, discard a card" works. You would have to have already selected and shown the card you want to play, right? So you can't discard the card that you're going to play? What happens to the card I want to play if I discard a Village Green and play it as Way of the Mole?

Same way Diplomat's "first reveal this..." and the +1 Card token's "you first get +1 Card" effect work. The card you play goes into play, then before you start resolving it, you discard a card.

Essentially, even when you put a card into play, the game's rules consider you to not have even started playing it until you start following its instructions. Otherwise, Diplomat would need to be revealed before Attacks go into play (i.e. they'd require you to be psychic), and the +1 Card token would give you the +1 Card before the card goes into play (which lacks accountability).

"When you play a card, first do X" is basically shorthand for "when you play a card, before following its instructions, do X." And like other "first" effects, you'd discard a card before you even make the decision of whether to use a Way or not.

[Gardoomalion]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card from your hand. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

[spineflu]

Raiding Village - $4
Action/Attack

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Horse.

I love this concept, but I find it a little weak and strategically simple. If this is the only village: well you have to load up on it. If this is not the only village, you gain one or two of these and then buy the other village.

It feels a little weak. Discard down to 3 and gain a horse is close to the friendly interaction of Vault (it's a little worse because draw delayed in this case is worse), which I often choose to do. Especially early in the game I have two cards I don't super mind discarding, and the horse is really helpful to hit 5 on a later turn. So the attack isn't even that bad. Of course subsequent plays of this are just "gain a horse" and in a 3+ player game essentially almost every Raiding Village becomes Village + each other player gains a Horse.

Ideally this could cost 3, but it absolutely can't because when Village and this are in a game together, you always buy this first, (maybe second if you're not drawing deck), and then you just buy Village all the other times -- and that isn't so interesting to me. I think this card is most interesting when you are forced to choose between this and another village and the choice isn't easy.

There's a natural tension here that you may only want to gain one Raiding Village, so it could be fun to subvert that. What if "if there is another Raiding Village in play, gain a Horse/+1 Buy/+1 Money/draw up to 5/ some other mild benefit" something like that.

I do applaud making a non-terminal attack that elegantly becomes friendly on second-play, that is really nifty and cool exploration of the non-terminal attack space.

I think the multiplayer case makes this an even worse proposition - Players A and B, on their turns, play this as their village. Player C now has 3 cards in hand, but gained two horses; pretty close to a "break even" case imo. Gets worse in 4 player - player D ends up net up a card.

I'd consider something like

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player reveals their hand; if they don't have a Horse in hand, they discard down to 2 cards and gain a Horse to their hand.

Which, yeah, brutal that discard down to 2, and yeah, breaks the horse-to-hand rule, and yeah, boosts the power of Patron in games with this, but doesn't have the scaling problem nearly as hard as this does.

[Gubump]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

This needs to specify that the played Action comes from your hand.

[Xen3k]

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Return this to the supply.
Take your -$1 token. If you did, each other player discards a Coffers token. If they can't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Changed to the normal 10 card pile. It should still have a major effect on the game and perhaps prevent slogs occurring as often.

Edit 2: Modified how the attack is triggered. The attack only happens when you take your -$1 token, so if you already have it, you cannot perform the attack. This should slow the spread of Kudzu to other decks. It is still possible to attack multiple times in one turn with Kudzu, but it will cost you.

Old Versions

[AJL828]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

Very picky thing here, but technically “$5+” means “$5 with the option to overpay.” I believe what you’d want in the bottom line would be “$5 or more.”

[spineflu]

Witch's Hat
Action-Attack-Looter
Cost 5

+1 Card
You may play an Action Card. Each other player gains, if played Action cost...
... - : A Curse
... - : A Ruins
... +: A Ruins in their hand.

Witch's Hat is a сantrip junker, the power of which depends on your next Action. Witch's Hat goes well with cheap Actions and combines badly with other Witch's Hat. Witch's Hat deals nicely with those Ruins, that you got from other Witch's Hat and gives other players a Curse in return. Witch's Hat sucks, when it's the last Action in your turn.

Got the wording from Iron Maiden http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0

Very picky thing here, but technically “$5+” means “$5 with the option to overpay.” I believe what you’d want in the bottom line would be “$5 or more.”

i think just a space between the $5 and the + would work (so they aren't the same symbol); along the lines of Devil's Workshop

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Take your -$1 token.
Return this to the supply. Each other player may discard a Coffers token. If they don't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

This is brutal with the 20 card pile, automatic gain, and returning to the supply. Are you sure you want to put all three of those on there? Like removing one or two of them (i think lose the 20 card pile - ten is plenty) should be enough.

[Xen3k]

Kudzu - $3
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Take your -$1 token.
Return this to the supply. Each other player may discard a Coffers token. If they don't, they gain a Kudzu.
----
In games using this, when you buy a card, you may pay $1 for +1 Coffers. If you don't, gain a Kudzu.

This comes in a 20 card pile. It is an Action you do not want to buy, but will make it's way into your deck if you are not careful. The game changing on-buy effect added to every supply pile allows you to build up Coffers, which allows you to avoid the attack when other players play a Kudzu. Made the price $3 simply to interact with trash for benefit and gainers in an interesting way. Feedback is appreciated.

This is brutal with the 20 card pile, automatic gain, and returning to the supply. Are you sure you want to put all three of those on there? Like removing one or two of them (i think lose the 20 card pile - ten is plenty) should be enough.

Good point on the pile size. I'll just remove the 20 card pile size. Thanks!

[NoMoreFun]

I'd consider something like

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player reveals their hand; if they don't have a Horse in hand, they discard down to 2 cards and gain a Horse to their hand.

Which, yeah, brutal that discard down to 2, and yeah, breaks the horse-to-hand rule, and yeah, boosts the power of Patron in games with this, but doesn't have the scaling problem nearly as hard as this does.

It seems brutal, but it's slightly weaker than Minion's attack - each player is left with their 2 strongest cards, plus 2 random cards. I think it's quite a clever Attack design.

[pubby]

[mandioca15]

Pendant (Treasure-Attack, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Each other player takes Thwarted.

------
Thwarted (State)

At the start of your turn, return this and reveal your hand. If you have any non-Victory cards costing $3 or more, you may discard one of them. If you didn't discard a card, trash a card from your hand.

An Attack that doesn't stack and might be helpful early on, but gets stronger as the game continues.

[MochaMoko]

It's around the halfway mark into the week! I made a list of the currently submitted cards. I hope I got the descriptions accurate; this is how I'm interpreting the cards. If I got anything wrong, be it names or costs or card effects, or if I missed someone, please let me know via message or something.

Keep it up with the designing! I'll make another post like this a little bit before the deadline.

18 submissions:
Gubump: Collector ⑥ (gives all 3 vanilla bonus token-cards, removes one from everyone else or Curses them)
JW: Forest Witch ⑤ (Patron +Buy, gives Curses after it’s played enough times this game)
NoMoreFun: Hostile Village ⑤ (Village that targeted-discard-attacks a copy of the next card you play)
faust: Raiding Village ④ (Village+Militia attack+they gain a Horse)
xyz123: Guard ⑤ (Peddler that has everyone else draw to 5 and discard to 3)
majiponi: Interest ⑤ (Silver+ Knight attack for Treasures (their choice) + may gain/play a trashed Treasure)
spineflu: Pearl ⑤ (Silver+ flip flops between +Buy and Hex you choose from Famine, Fear, Haunting; only one copy of Hex per turn)
segura: Priestess ③Ｐ (Cantrip that gives Boon on odd (any) cards-in-play and Hex otherwise)
X-tra: Sickos ⑤ (Non-terminal stop, replaces a card in hand (discarded) with Silver (gained), Curses)
Aquila: Appanage ⑤ (Silver+ Gold cost-reduction; target-discards a single* Treasure costing less than Appanage)
AJL828: Djinn ⑤ (Caravan, until then Curses on other players buying a copy of a card they have in play)
Timinou: Philanthropist ③ / Benefaction ⑤ (Cantrip, gives Copper to everyone's hands; Cleanup ability one-shot to gain a card costing up to ① per Copper you have in play) / (Silver+ Cleanup ability trashes up to 2 Coppers from play)
emtzalex: Huckster Village ⑤ (Village that turns Conclave* if an opponent replaces card in hand (discarded) with Copper (gained); junking prevented by revealing Copper)
4est: Prisoner ⑤ (Night card that delays Action or Treasure from hand; until then discard-1 attacks anyone else who plays a copy)
Gardoomalion: Witch’s Hat ⑤ (Cantrip that junks based off of the cost of the card it plays: the cheaper, the harsher*)
Xen3k: Kudzu ③ (Non-terminal one-shot stop that gives the player -① token, and whittles others’ Coffers or spreads copies of itself; it’s a penalty gained for not overpaying ① for +1 Coffers when buying a card)
pubby: Charity House ③ (Cantrip* that sifts Treasures; discard attacks players with >⑩ card cost total in hand)
mandioca: Pendant ⑤ (Silver+ Buy; gives others State that at start of turn may discard a non-Victory card costing >③; or trash a card from hand)

[grep]

Inquisition $5 - Action - Attack +2 Cards Each other player with 4 or more cards discards a card. The player to your left names a card. You may play an Action card from your hand other than the named card.

Conditional cantrip (the opponent can try to evade it naming a card that would break the chain)

[Gubump]

Gubump: Collector ⑤ (gives all 3 vanilla bonus token-cards, takes one from everyone else or Curses them)

Just a clarification, Collector doesn't steal tokens/cards, it just makes people lose them (you probably realized this, I'm just clarifying because of the word "takes"). Also, it costs , not .

Inquisition $5 - Action - Attack +2 Cards Each other player with 4 or more cards discards a card. The player to your left names a card. You may play an Action card from your hand other than the named card.

Conditional cantrip (the opponent can try to evade it naming a card that would break the chain)

This is a conditional Lab, not a conditional Cantrip.

[faust]

This is a conditional Lab, not a conditional Cantrip.

I'm not sure by what definition a Lab wouldn't also be a cantrip.

[Gubump]

This is a conditional Lab, not a conditional Cantrip.

I'm not sure by what definition a Lab wouldn't also be a cantrip.

I guess it depends on your definition of Cantrip, but it also just seems weird to me to understate it as a mere conditional Cantrip vs a conditional Lab.

[Timinou]

Inquisition $5 - Action - Attack +2 Cards Each other player with 4 or more cards discards a card. The player to your left names a card. You may play an Action card from your hand other than the named card.

Conditional cantrip (the opponent can try to evade it naming a card that would break the chain)

Minor nitpick, but I think it should say "Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card".

It might be a departure from what you envisioned for the card (and maybe wouldn't fit with the contest rules), but I think it would be interesting to make the handsize attack conditional on whether or not you play another Action card. 

[fika monster]

Pissprophet!

[alion8me]

Magister

At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +$1.
Until then, after the first time each other player plays a non-Duration card costing $1 or more that they already have a copy of in play on their turn, they trash it.

Night - Duration - Attack
$5

Ty to the people on discord that helped tighten up the wording.

edit: another wording fix

[MochaMoko]

Alright, I didn't realize that it's been a week already. Sorry for the wait, everyone! I promised there would be 24 hours after the 24-hour warning.

You have 24 hours left!

If you would like to edit your submission, please include an edit: label so I can easily find the changes.

3 new submissions so far:
grep: Inquisition ⑤ (conditionally non-terminal draw; discards 1 card for players with 4 or more cards in hand)
fika monster: Pissprophet ⑤ (non-terminal draw; gives everyone Copper to hand)
alion8me: Magister ⑤ (Night-Duration delayed Peddler; until then, trashes the first card each other player plays that they have a copy of in play)

This brings the total to 21 submissions.

[The Alchemist]

Abductors: Torturer but between half militia and a -1 action token attack. They can take the -1 action token as much as they want, so taking it once is a defense to all future attacks by abductors. The fact that Abductors is a necro ensures that every kingdom with this attack has at least one village. 

Rules for -1 Action token: A player with this returns the token the next time they receive a +1 Action, and ignores that action. Because the Action given at the start of the turn is not a +Action, it is unaffected. At the end of a player's action phase, they may also spend an action to return the -1 Action token as well (so playing no actions on your turn returns the token).

Considerations: As now, one can choose to discard twice (down to 3) instead of taking the action token. An old version allowed discarding down to 2. I am unsure if this new version is therefor too generous, as the choice to discard instead may be too favorable over the token, but maybe that's okay.

[lompeluiten]

at the end still some inspiration:

New wording
Hooligans $3
Action - Attack
+1 action
+1 attack
Each opponent shows their hand, then discards one of their highest costed cards in $. Then they draw an card
+1$ if an card costing $5 or more is discarded this way.


Old wording

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.

[majiponi]

at the end still some inspiration:

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.

I have a Scrying Pool, a Fortune, a Colony in hand. Which is the most expensive card?

[lompeluiten]

at the end still some inspiration:

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.

I have a Scrying Pool, a Fortune, a Colony in hand. Which is the most expensive card?

"
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Potion
"P is orthogonal to $ in a cost; thus, although a card with a cost of $XP is considered to cost "more" than a card costing $x or less with no P, costs of, e.g., $4 and $3P are incomparable—neither is more or less than the other. Many trash-for-benefit cards whose effects depend on a card's cost only consider the cost in $ and ignore P; most Workshop variants can't gain cards with P costs at all."
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Debt
"A cost in D is orthogonal to a cost in a $; cards with D in their cost do not cost less or more than cards with a $ cost. D and P are similarly not comparable."

In "Highest cost" the alternative payment methods are not taken into considiration. That should also be true for this card.
So the Colony

[lompeluiten]

This looks slightly too good. It can easily lead to degenerate, stalemate like openings (nobody can get any purchases but Hooligans into play).
I like the conditional Pendler aspect of the card though, that looks quite fun and quite interactive. But it could also be too centralizing (the card does after all partially defend against itself, you want lots of them such that the likelihood of the Attacker getting a Peddler is smaller).

It is quite an risky opener. The first time you play it, it often take out the card they just bought, but also an estate they get to draw an better card for it. And even if you did, you are not advancing your game plan, while your opponents still do.

[spineflu]

at the end still some inspiration:

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.

I have a Scrying Pool, a Fortune, a Colony in hand. Which is the most expensive card?

"
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Potion
"P is orthogonal to $ in a cost; thus, although a card with a cost of $XP is considered to cost "more" than a card costing $x or less with no P, costs of, e.g., $4 and $3P are incomparable—neither is more or less than the other. Many trash-for-benefit cards whose effects depend on a card's cost only consider the cost in $ and ignore P; most Workshop variants can't gain cards with P costs at all."
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Debt
"A cost in D is orthogonal to a cost in a $; cards with D in their cost do not cost less or more than cards with a $ cost. D and P are similarly not comparable."

In "Highest cost" the alternative payment methods are not taken into considiration. That should also be true for this card.
So the Colony

might wanna clarify highest cost in coins then, borrowing that wording from Forge

[Gubump]

at the end still some inspiration:

Hooligans $3
+1 action
+1 card
Every opponent shows their hand and then discard their highest cost card, then draws an card.
+1$ if an card that cost 5 or more is discarded.

I have a Scrying Pool, a Fortune, a Colony in hand. Which is the most expensive card?

"
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Potion
"P is orthogonal to $ in a cost; thus, although a card with a cost of $XP is considered to cost "more" than a card costing $x or less with no P, costs of, e.g., $4 and $3P are incomparable—neither is more or less than the other. Many trash-for-benefit cards whose effects depend on a card's cost only consider the cost in $ and ignore P; most Workshop variants can't gain cards with P costs at all."
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Debt
"A cost in D is orthogonal to a cost in a $; cards with D in their cost do not cost less or more than cards with a $ cost. D and P are similarly not comparable."

In "Highest cost" the alternative payment methods are not taken into considiration. That should also be true for this card.
So the Colony

Except your card doesn't say "highest cost in ," it just says "highest cost." Highest cost between Colony, Scrying Pool, and Fortune is undefined, because as what you quoted says, those 3 costs cannot be compared.

[Timinou]

I made a revision to my entry to revise the cost of Philanthropist from $3 to $4:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20870.msg874543#msg874543

[mathdude]

Warlock
Action-Attack, $5
If this is the only Warlock you have in play, +1 Cards, +2 Actions, each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it or puts it back (your choice). Otherwise, +3 Cards, each other player gains a Curse.


I wanted a card that gave delayed Curses... ended up by happening only if you match 2 in a turn. I started the first play as a Lost City, no attack. But it felt weird playing an Attack card that didn't attack. So I changed it to a Village with a simple sifting attack, ruining any topdeck setup. This is now wordier and has 2 distinct attacks, but I think it's still okay.

The wording does intentionally let you get the Village/sifting attack multiple times with Throne variants (which was more powerful when it was a Lost City).

As it stands, it's a decent engine starter/enabler with the ability to run multiple attacks. But it can't run a full engine on its own, and needs another village for support. Otherwise, you're limited to 3 Warlocks... a Village and 2 Smithy with cursing attacks.

[MochaMoko]

Submissions are closed! Expect results within 6 hours.

[MochaMoko]

Alrighty! It’s judgment time!
I’m going to have each of your card texts and then my feedback. If the card text differs, please take it as my suggestion on wording.

Gubump: Collector
⑥ Action - Attack
+1 Villager
+1 Coffers
Gain a Horse.
Each other player may remove
a token from their Coffers or
Villagers, or discard a Horse. If
they don’t, they gain a Curse.

It’s a super Baker* on-play, and the attack is pretty rough (the Coffers attack is the least painful imo, but it’s still a hit). I’m worried that I’ll spike ⑥, get a stockpile of Coffers or something, and then just start handing out Curses to other players, making it harder for themselves to hit ⑥ to even get started on Attacking. In my opinion, it’s a bit too snowbally. Oh wait, lots of Attacks are like that. Well... I can’t fault you too much for it.

JW: Forest Witch
⑤ Action - Attack
+1 Villager
+1 Buy
+➁
Remove a Coin token from the
Forest Witch pile. If you can’t,
each other player gains a Curse.
-
Setup: Put 3 Coin tokens per
player on the Forest Witch pile.

Uses coin tokens in a cute way. The vanilla portion is pretty nice to have, which is good, or else this thing wouldn’t be gotten much. The delayed aspect of the Cursing makes it significantly less painful, and also since the top half of the card is payload, it probably won’t be prioritized early anyways (though right, the Villager is nice). I like it. I wish there were a way to word it nicely and have the text fit better.

NoMoreFun: Hostile Village
⑤ Action - Attack
+1 Card
+2 Actions
The next time you play a
card this turn, each other
player with 5 or more cards in
hand discards  a copy of it
(or reveals they can’t).

Targeted attacks!! Well, the top is just a Village. But boy oh boy, killing turns? mwahaha. If Hostile Village is the only Village on board, well, I sure hope there’s also some non-terminal draw around (so I don’t have to have this in hand to kick off my turn). I think this attack is pretty brutal. If the Attack misses, you get to see their hand and maybe plan something more nefarious with another Hostile Village. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad design, but I’m scared of it.

faust: Raiding Village
④ Action - Attack
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player discards
down to 3 cards in hand and
gains a Horse.

More Villages! I think this gives out too many Horses. For example, if 10 of these (distributed across the players, assumedly) are played in a single shuffle in a 4-player game, that’s 30 Horses distributed out. That’s an extreme case, but yeah. I’d only give a Horse to players who discarded any cards. Yes I know that gets rid of the whole thing with this turning terrible after too many plays, and maybe it ends up too powerful. But I mean Horses are good.

xyz123: Guard
⑤ Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
+①
Each other player draws until
they have 5 cards in hand and
then discards down to 3.

This was discussed in the thread with the Throne variant, but even as this, I think the amount of drawing is way too much. Someone compared it to Margrave, and I think even that one’s annoying. This is a cantrip, so it can just happen whenever through your turn, and then everyone else has to draw and think about more cards. Worst case (which I fear will be much too common) is that someone has to shuffle in the middle of your turn. Multiple times. I hate Minion. I’m not sure how to salvage this idea, but I think this attack probably can’t go on a non-terminal card, especially not a cantrip like this one.

majiponi: Interest
⑤ Treasure - Attack
+➁
Each other player reveals the
top 2 cards of their deck, trashes
a revealed Treasure, and discards
the rest. You may gain a trashed
Treasure. If you did, play it.

This card on the board will make me loath to use Treasures as primary payload. Oh wait, Interest is also a Treasure. I don’t like it. If the board demands use of Treasures, this just destroys things, and then they destroy each other and chain, much to the dismay of whoever has the ill fortune to have their Interest trashed and used against them. The good thing is that there’s a lot more payload than Treasures these days.

spineflu: Pearl
⑤ Treasure - Attack - Doom
+➁
If you have an odd number of Pearls
in play, +1 Buy. Otherwise, choose
a face up Hex, turning it face down
for the turn. Each other player
receives the Hex you chose.

-
Setup: Set aside the Famine, Fear, and
Haunting Hexes, face up.

Well, this looks similar to Idol. It also looks similar to Relic. I expect the regular order of the Hexes will go Haunting, Fear, and Famine. The thing is, going through all that would require uh a lot of Pearls to be played. (Yes maybe you’ll play it for Famine if other players already Haunting/Feared some other players). Though the usage of Hexes this way is cute, I think there must be a way to cut down on the complexity/text length. I also dearly hope that Famine won’t be played too much, because that would be a lot of shuffling.

segura: Priestess
③Ｐ Action - Attack - Fate - Doom
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have an odd number of
cards in play, receive a Boon.
Otherwise, each other player
receives the next Hex.

Potion cost! I’ll give you some credit for slowing down the acquisition of this by making this cost Potion, but I think this card can’t exist. Cantrip Booning and Hexing means that there will potentially be a lot of Boons and Hexes thrown about. Well besides for the fact that it’s probably just skippable unless I already have Potion around, or I really need to attack my opponents. The thing about cantrip Boon is that I don’t know what I’m going to get (and if I want it for a specific Boon, well that’s not happening very often.) So if I get this, I feel like I’m more looking for some random Hexing.

X-tra: Sickos
⑤ Action - Attack
+1 Action
Discard a card.
Gain a Silver to your hand.
Each other player gains a Curse.

Unconditional Cursing, here we go! This is a simple card. It just slows down everyone’s decks. The Silver is probably good if we’re just slogging it out. I think it snowballs less quickly than most cards of this kind, mainly because it slows down your deck as well. I like its simplicity.

Aquila: Appanage
⑤ Treasure - Attack
➁
Gold costs ① less this turn.
Each other player with 5 or more cards
in hand discards a Treasure costing
less than this (or reveals they can’t).

The attack is cute, but it probably hits Copper most of the time. I probably want this card when I just want a deck full of Treasures. Most of the time, I’m not worried about this Attack much at all. I feel like there’s something interesting going on here, but it doesn’t seem to be coming together as an exciting card to me.

AJL828: Djinn
⑤ Action - Duration - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card. Until then, when another
player buys a card they have a
copy of in play, they gain a Curse.

Caravan woo! I don’t know how to evaluate this card. Caravan that Curses sounds pretty strong for ⑤; of course this has a condition. This seems stronger than Swamp Hag at first glance, mainly because it’s draw too. And so I feel like it’ll just force Curses down people’s throats. I mean that’s what a Curser does, so...

Timinou: Philanthropist / Benefaction
④ Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player gains a Copper to
their hand. At the start of
Clean-up, you may trash this
to gain a card costing up to ①
per Copper you have in play.

⑤ Treasure
➁
At the start of Clean-up,
trash up to 2 Coppers
you have in play.

Philanthropist seems like a strong-ish card to me, but I can’t tell. Copper to hand is a funny thing. Well first of all, this junks everyone. Second of all, this gives people free money, which could be important for hitting some important price points. Okay they have to live with or get rid of an additional Copper. Depending on the board, well, yeah, that’s pretty harsh. But don’t forget you also have to junk yourself, so…

Well hey, would you look at it, there’s Copper trashing with Benefaction! Unsure how often it will get uncovered, but Philanthropist conveniently has a thing that trashes itself, so it promotes getting more, potentially. And like dude if we’re drawing somehow, this thing can gain Provinces or Colonies. Probably will pop it before drawing deck though. I don’t know how to evaluate this pile. But it looks well thought out! Props!

emtzalex: Huckster Village
⑤ Action - Attack
+2 Actions
Each other player may reveal a
Copper from their hand. If they
don’t, they discard a card and
gain a Copper to their hand.
If any player gained a Copper,
+➁. Otherwise, +1 Card.

Huckster Village is a funny one. I feel like the junking attack really won’t occur very often until late when it might even help the opponent, unless we have very strong trashing. And then, well, it gives Coppers. Which makes it easier for the Attack to be blocked. My hunch is that it’s a weak card, but hey, it does Village things. I wonder if it could be fine at ④. Like, if you get it early, it’s just a Vanillage, basically, anyways.

4est: Prisoner
⑤ Night - Duration - Attack
You may set aside an Action
or Treasure from your hand
face up (on this). At the start
of your next turn, play it.
Until then, when another
player plays a copy of it,
they first discard a card.

Scary scary. The penalty that this brings for cards that you want to play a lot of is pretty big. Well it’s kind of hilarious with DtX. But otherwise, man this can just destroy turns, especially if multiple people are using Prisoner. That being said, Prisoner’s effect of delaying an Action or Treasure seems like a pretty weak non-Attack effect. You also have to forgo playing an Action that you presumably wanted to play. Delaying Coppers sounds scary when people haven’t gotten nice deck control yet. Like NoMoreFun’s Hostile Village, my reaction is that I don’t think it’s necessarily forbidden Attack territory (given the conditionality of the discard Attack), but I’m very scared of it.

Gardoomalion: Witch’s Hat
⑤ Action - Attack - Looter
+1 Card
You may play an Action card
from your hand. Each other
player gains, if the card you
played cost…
from ⓪ to ➁: a Curse.
from ＋➁ to ④: a Ruins.
⑤+: a Ruins to their hand.

Cantrip junker! I think it’s cute that it gives out cheap Actions that can be used to Curse players. Not that I’d want to spend the Action on playing a Ruins, usually. The fact that it needs to play an Action to junk makes it a bit more possible to exist in my opinion. I’m not enthused that this can distribute 2 piles of junk cards, though.

Xen3k: Kudzu
③ Action - Attack
+1 Action
Return this to the Supply.
Take your -① token. If you did, each
other player removes a token from
their Coffers. If they can’t, they gain a Kudzu.
-
In games using this, when you buy a card,
you may pay ① for +1 Coffers.
If you don’t, gain a Kudzu.

This has got to be the funkiest entry this week.
It seems to slow down games significantly. Well, Coffers are good though! The existence of this will probably help with spiking. However, without proper care, you’ll get grown over by not overpaying and getting junked by others. the -① token means that it’ll get pretty tough to overpay for things afterwards, which is concerning. It could keep spiraling towards sadness. I’m glad there are only 10 of these now. Props for originality. It is a really weird card.

pubby: Charity House
③ Action - Attack
+1 Action
You may discard a Treasure
for +2 Cards.
Each other player may reveal
a hand with a total cost in 〇
of ⑩ or less. If they don’t,
they discard a card.

I think the non-Attack effect is decent. Of course, if something tragic like Stables happens, you’re out of luck. I expect that the Attack will start doing something around turn 7 or something. It seems like it can get pretty harsh. 2-card hands do not seem too out of the picture. I wonder if that means this might want to be bumped up to ④ or something at least. Though again, the attack doesn’t work early on, so that price difference doesn’t really matter that much.

The card is definitely flavorful. It might start getting annoying in multiplayer, where you’re more likely to be attacked more often. Actually, a hand that hits Province with basic Treasures will be destroyed. So money probably takes a big hit with this card around, though it takes a big hit with many cards.

mandioca: Pendant
⑤ Treasure - Attack
➁
+1 Buy
Each other player takes Thwarted.

State: Thwarted
At the start of your turn, return this, and you may
discard a non-Victory card costing ③ or more.
If you don’t, trash a card from your hand.

I am getting tired. Sorry, it’s been a long week.
I feel like Thwarted is probably not going to be strong often. Later on, it trips on Provinces/Duchies. Earlier on, it helps trash. In the middle, it has the most potential, but I think odds are, there’s still stuff I might want to trash. And then it’s just me discarding a Silver or a Gold or something. That being said, hey, who doesn’t like +Buy.

grep: Inquisition
⑤ Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player with 4 or more
cards in hand discards a card.
The player to your left names a
card. You may play an Action card
from your hand other than the
named card.

The Advisor-esque disabling is kind of cute. This definitely needs a bit of support to work as non-terminal draw. I expect the Attack to more or less turn into Militia, but not doing that immediately (unless you get attacked by two opponents early) is nice. It’s probably well-priced and well-balanced.

fika monster: Pissprophet
⑤ Action - Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Every player gains a
Copper to their hand.

This Attack is pretty annoying with discard attacks. Otherwise, hey, it’s draw, and hey it throws Copper all over the place. I would expect that this is weaker than Laboratory; could be wrong. I’m not too concerned about everyone having a deck full of brown, but maybe I should be. Copper isn’t the worst thing for someone to have you gain to hand. Like I said earlier, it can help with price points and such, and even just having a larger hand size can help with things. The junking with Copper might be a net negative for the player of Pissprophet, considering everyone gets junked. But this is still non-terminal draw, one of the best types of non-terminal cards to put in a deck. So it’s probably not so weak.

alion8me: Magister
⑤ Night - Duration - Attack
At the start of your next turn,
+1 Card and +①.
Until then, after the first time
another player plays a
non-Duration card on their turn
costing ① or more that they
already have a copy of in play,
they trash it.

Trashing attack! The way this Attack is timed, it’s likely you trash a non-terminal Action or a Village. Which is a pretty tough choice unless you have some dummy non-terminal Actions (preferably cheap cantrips) in your deck that you can count on farming. If the Attack doesn’t go anywhere, this card looks very sad, on par with Caravan Guard. I think most of the time, the Attack will be something significant though. I think it’s a fine design. I’m glad that it doesn’t stack.

The Alchemist: Abductors
④ Action - Attack
+2 Actions
Each other player with 4 or
more cards in hand either
discards a card, or takes their
-1 Action token, their choice.
(They may pick an option
they can’t do.)

Necropolis? T_T I think the option besides for the -1 Action token has been toned down too much. I’d expect to just discard to 3 cards in hand most of the time; it’s less likely to kill my turn. Well if I have no Actions, I’m happy to take the -1 Action token. So that option just makes the Attack pretty weak in my opinion. And then well the bonus is so sad. Like others have said, the -1 Action token is a real toughie to make work imo. I’d love to see a card that uses it that I can say “Yes, this is the one!” to, but I don’t have high hopes for finding that card.

lompeluiten: Hooligans
③ Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals their
hand, discards a card with
the highest cost in 〇 out of
the revealed cards, and then
draws a card.
If a card costing ⑤ or more is
discarded this way, +①.

It’s a cantrip Attack that likely turns into a Peddler later on. I feel like it makes a bit more sense for it to Peddler when it’s discarding cheap cards. In that case, it might only activate in the beginning of the game, though.
I think the Attack is brutal/swingy without deck control. That includes the beginning of the game. If it skips over an important trasher, it will just slow the opponent down so much. I don’t like that.

mathdude: Warlock
⑤ Action - Attack
If you have no other Warlocks in
play, +1 Card and +2 Actions,
and each other player reveals the
top card of their deck and discards
it or puts it back, your choice.
Otherwise, +3 Cards, and each
other player gains a Curse.

This is a curious one. Of course +3 Cards and Curse is crazy strong. But buying a Village for ⑤ isn’t really something you’d want to do. Oh right there’s the Spy attack. I don’t like that. I would have liked this card without the Spy attack, but unfortunately that wouldn’t really fit the criteria of this week’s prompt. The good thing is that the Spy attack will only happen once per turn (usually). Maybe I’m fine with it then, to be honest. The delayed Cursing is nice in my opinion (because it’s slightly less snowbally). This seems to be a common trait in the Cursers that I like from this week.

Runner-ups:
JW’s Forest Witch
X-tra’s Sickos
Xen3k’s Kudzu
grep’s Inquisition
mathdude’s Warlock

Winner: Timinou's Philanthropist / Benefaction

[Timinou]

Thanks for the win!  There were some very creative and clever designs this week, so I wasn't expecting it!

Faust's Raiding Village was one of my favorites.  I get the concern about too many Horses, but I don't think the Raiding Village pile will empty on boards with other Villages.  Even if it's the only Village, I think you start to be more thoughtful about when you play subsequent Raiding Villages on your turn. 

I'll have the next contest up later today.

[spineflu]

spineflu: Pearl
⑤ Treasure - Attack - Doom
+➁
If you have an odd number of Pearls
in play, +1 Buy. Otherwise, choose
a face up Hex, turning it face down
for the turn. Each other player
receives the Hex you chose.
-
Setup: Set aside the Famine, Fear, and
Haunting Hexes, face up.

Well, this looks similar to Idol. It also looks similar to Relic. I expect the regular order of the Hexes will go Haunting, Fear, and Famine. The thing is, going through all that would require uh a lot of Pearls to be played. (Yes maybe you’ll play it for Famine if other players already Haunting/Feared some other players). Though the usage of Hexes this way is cute, I think there must be a way to cut down on the complexity/text length. I also dearly hope that Famine won’t be played too much, because that would be a lot of shuffling.

Thanks for judging! I don't think the text length is that bad - it's on par with Necromancer imo. The setup/line is really what makes it too long.

I was also surprised no-one used Hexes like this either - it really helps take words off a card.
For funzies, I made another one that outsourced its attack to a hex. It's a bit 👀


anyhow, congrats Timinou!

[pubby]

I wonder if that means this might want to be bumped up to ④ or something at least. Though again, the attack doesn’t work early on, so that price difference doesn’t really matter that much.

Oh it's cheap to inherently defend against itself. Having a hand with Charity House + Copper means the attack won't hurt worse than Villain.