Print

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

[emtzalex]

Fortified City
+1 Card
+2 Actions
-
When you gain this, if you bought it, trash it. In games using this, when you draw your hand after Clean-up, you may discard an Action or Treasure card to gain a copy of this from the Trash to your hand.

What does it cost? _{(No one respond with the Thanos meme)}

[Augie279]

What does it cost? _{(No one respond with the Thanos meme)}

Got edited to say it costs $4.

[faust]

Alright, a bit late, but now the

Contest is closed!

The judging will be later on the weekend.

[faust]

Alright, sorry about the delay. The judging is now complete. Each submission gets a score from 0-10; I am stingy so getting a 7 is already a pretty good result. My comments below are in alphabetical order by card author.

	4est's Bargainer This seems decent. I see it mostly as a Woodcutter/Workshop mashup. The fact that you can use it on another player's turn makes it more exciting. However. I don't really see that this should have the "card they bought" clause. There isn't anything really that requires this to be so restrictive. Unlike Haggler, there is not going to be an issue with this firing off of its own gains. So this could be simpler, but then of course it would no longer qualify for this contest. This unfortunately has to affect the rating. 6/10
	AJL828's Barter This looks like a lot of fun! But I feel like it's going to wind up being a bit too powerful, especially for the endgame. YOu can get so many gains off of this. just imagine Travelling Fair in the game, you can gain 20 cards (+10 Coffers) just with 2 Barters in play and $10, and already 2 piles are empty. 8/10
	arowdok's Tycoon I don't think this is quite interesting enough. It's not a difficult decision whether to spend the Buy, and then you'll keep the rest. The fact the you get the Coffers delayed makes this a bit weak. However it enables a pretty strong stockpile strategy where you just don't buy stuff and get 4 Coffers every time. 2 time sof doing this and you basically have an exiled Province. That is why I think 4 Coffers from a single card is too much. 4/10
	Augie279's Perpetual Wheel This seems solid. I am questioning why it is restricted to gains by buying (other than the contest rules, of course). Does it break without that? I think not. I also wonder whether the initial cost of $6 is too high for you to go for this. Innovation is at its best with gains during the Action phase, this doesn't quite work with Perpetual Wheel. But I also understand the reasoning that it would otherwise be too cheap with a Perpetual Wheel already in play. 7/10
	BryGuy's Buyer's Remorse Generally speaking I would prefer no fan mechanics. This is a bit strange because it provides +Buys that it can't also benefit off of. If Buyer's Remorse gets you lots of Buys, then there are lots of spare Buys in the game, and then that implies that you don't need any Gophers. And if there aren't a lot of Buys, then hey will not be left unused and then Buyer's Remorse is crap. So ultimately I don't think this card works. 3/10
	Builder_Robert's Mythryl This doesn't really qualify. In the submission, it says that there is no practical difference between "when buy" and "when gain" for this -  fair I suppose (of course there are edge cases), but that doesn't mean this card cares about buying. But I'll still consider this. I feel like the problem here is that it's too automatic. Getting Mythryl is always going to be a straight upgrade, trashing a bunch of Coppers and maybe a Silver or two for a $4 Treasure is always good. And once it's in your deck it's not like it does anything particularly interesting. It's fine overall, I think the balance is good, but I find it a bit boring. 5/10
	CaptainReklaw's Painter This does not work on two levels. First of all, it's unclear what would happen with Victory cards that already are Treasures. The intended effect is to have them make $1 more, I suppose. That could be fine. However the Overpay also doesn't work. You don't want Estates even if they occasionally generate $1. The overpay effect would mainly be useful in a 3-pile, and that is not a fun reason to have this effect. 4/10
Fortified Village Action - $4 +1 Card +2 Actions - When you gain this, if you bought it, trash it. In games using this, when you draw your hand after Clean-up, you may discard an Action or Treasure card to gain a copy of this from the Trash to your hand.	Commodore Chuckles's Fortified Village I think it would be good if the gaining of this did not happen during Cleanup. It would be natural at the start of your next turn, but of course you wouldn't want to buy this just for your opponent ot take advantage of it. I also think that the "cares about buying" on this is a bit artificial, it could just work the same for any gain. Overall I think it would be fun if this leaned heavier into the "on-demand village" side. Maybe it goes to the Tavern mat so only you can retrieve it? Or something like that. 5/10
	emtzalex's Symposium I think this is quite cool. You will usually want to play a cheap cantrip with this, but at some point those will run out and then you have to find other ways to get those sweet +VP. One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good. 10/10
Bargain Market ——— +1 card +1 action +2 buys +(2) Each other player may discard a card to draw a card. - Once per turn (even if you discard multiple), when you discard this from play, each other player may gain a non-victory card costing up to (1) per leftover buy. If any player does, you may gain a card costing up to (3). ——— {4} ——— Action	IlstrawberrySeed's Bargain Market I think I get what you mean, but please be aware that your notation for $ is not standard around here. Now onto the card. Sadly, this is just too much text to fit well onto a card. That is because this wants to do too much. I'd say you either give your opponents the filtering or the gains. I also don't like the political nature of this, where a single player gaining something makes sure you'll also get something. Preferably the clause that gives you a $3 would also be removed. If it was just Grand Market with extra buy, it could work, though the first of these would probably still be a must-open. Maybe "+$1 per Bargain Market in play"? This makes it scale better. 5/10
	J410's Thriving/Silent Market This is actually the second Grand Market variant in here! I think this one creates an interesting tension. Converting one Thriving Market to Silent is fine but if you have lots of Thriving Market you really need to spend all your buys. I feel like maybe the exchange condition on Silent Market could be something a bit different, so you can make a deck with some Thriving and some Silent Markets work. 9/10
Isolated Village - Action +1 Card and +2 Actions. You may spend a Villager to trash a card from your hand. _________________ Overpay: Gain a Villager per $1 overpaid.	JW's Isolated Village It seems counterintuitive to me to stick overpay Villagers onto a card that already is a village. You can use the Villagers differently, sure, but it seems like that is the only way you're ever going to spend the Villagers with this around. The trashing effect itself it a bit underwhelming. You first need $5 to get it started at all, and then you'll only be able to trash one card. Sure that's situationally useful, but I doubt that you'd want to get this over a $5. It's better if you can overpay more, but on the other hand if you can overpay more then it's already later in the game and trashing one card at a time is less useful. So I guess where I arrive is that this is a bit weak and mainly useful for its village effect. Which is fine, lots of villages are like that, just not super exciting. 7/10
Gold reserve $5 Action - Duration Now and at the beginning of next turn: +1$ +1 buy - While in play, whenever you buy an card costing 5$ or more, gain an gold.	lompeluiten's Gold Reserve "While in play" is a deprecated mechanic, so I'd rather see this with something else. But let's look at the actual effect. It seems that this is kind of similar to Hoard, but a bit more versatile. It wants to be in an engine because +$1 +1 Buy is a terrible effect for Big Money, but the Gold flooding makes the engine difficult. So I feel like either way you'd mostly want to use this during greening, which makes it even more similar to Hoard. But it seems stronger and a bit more interesting, which is good. 7/10
Handicraft City cost $3+ - Event Gain a card costing up to $4. Overpay: +1 Villager per $1 you overpaid.	majiponi's Handicraft City First, let's discuss flavor. I don't think an Event card should be flavored as a place, that is just weird. Okay, now onto mechanics. This Event is like Delve for all $4 costs (kind of, it doesn't give +Buy). That along is quite game-warping. Many $4 costs are costed that way so that you can't usually open with 2 of them. Of course other cards have broken this before. But then this also give Villagers, so now every time you have $4 you'll just get a free Villager. That just seems a bit too much for me, and also not particularly interesting. 4/10
	nagdon's Old Bridge I like this take on Bridge. It's more interesting if your megaturn still requires you to have some payload, and if you get lots of Old Bridges getting other engine components may suddenly prove difficult. One things that worries me a bit is how easy it is to gain these with Remake and the like. Poor House in comparison is often something you'd rather not get from Remaking, whereas you're probably happy to a bunch of Old Bridges. I would have to play a game to see exactly how big of a problem that is. But otherwise I like the card. 8/10
Appraiser Action - $5 +$3 The next time you gain a card this turn, if... ...you bought it, put it onto your deck; ...it's an Action, +1 Buy; ...it costs less than this, +1 Action	NoMoreFun's Appraiser This is kind of neat, giving variable effects depending on how the card is used. I have doubts about the +1 Action bit though. In order for this to be useful, you'd need (a) an extra Action after you played Appraiser (b) something that allows for mid-term gaining in the kingdom. This seems pretty niche and a lot of setup just to get a measly +1 Action. The other effects are reasonable and interesting, but I would suggest replacing this last one. 7/10
	nyxfulloftricks's Gift Horse There is a common wisdom that Copper junking isn't great. This one sweetens the deal with a Horse. It's also slowed down by the fact that it's a Duration, so you can only play it every other turn. That could work. Then, however, we have the Livery-like effect. It's better than Livery, working also on cards bought costing less than $4, and the Horses are gained to the top of your deck, and it lasts for 2 turns. That just seems too much, it is pretty much better than Livery for $4. 5/10
	SignError's Night Market "You only get one Buy" is an interesting enough concept for an Attack. It can be quite punishing though, and the only way to escape it is with your own Night Markets. I don't think I'm the biggest fan of attacks that are their own counter. Night market pretty much forces everyone to get one. You can still get Events, maybe sometimes that will be enough. I kind of want this to work but maybe it could be less punishing, like you lose some $ when you gain a card you bought? Not sure. 7/10
	Snes's Tapestry I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt. But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think. 6/10
	Udzu's Rug Merchant Two bought cards isn't all that much of a requirement. I suppose the first time you play Rug Merchant, you might rather go for a single $5 or $6 but afterwards I'd expect that you can discard Rug Merchant every turn. I don't think this card is very far from a blanket "+1 Buy +$3", and it is too strong. The inverse direction might be better for this - you only get a discard if you didn't buy more than 1 card. 5/10
	Xen3k's Picky Patron I like this concept. This is clearly strong in the opening but gets more tricky to use later on. I think right now it may be a little too punishing, may it could also allow Silvers? I think "when you play a card costing as much as this or more" would be a sufficient downside. I'm not sure how well it will play but I would be interested to find out. 9/10
Lumberjack $4 Action - Night - Duration If it's your Action phase +2 Buys $2. Otherwise add a token here per unused buy you have. At the start of your next turn, remove them for +1 Card each.	xyz123's Lumberjack I think this is quite neat. Not sure how good the Night option really is without other support, but if you spend one buy each Lumberjack after the first can be a Den of Sin, that could be enough actually. There is also a bit of a weird interaction where if you play this during your Buy phase, you will get the full benefit from all your buys. Maybe this is neat? But I feel like it's unintuitive. 9/10

And with that, we come to the conclusion:

Runners-Up: Thriving/Silent Market by J410, Picky Patron by Xen3k, Lumberjack by xyz123

Winner: Symposium by emtzalex

[emtzalex]

Winner: Symposium by emtzalex

Thanks to faust for the judging and the win. I'll post the next contest later today.

[Snes]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

[AJL828]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

[Snes]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.

[faust]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.

[faust]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

Well, Peddler makes it too spammable, I think it needs to decrease handsize. Oasis might work, though it's a bit weird to have two separate discard triggers. And it's possibly too weak then. I'm not quite sure what an ideal top would look like.

[Holger]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

One thing is that I'm not super convinced this need the "if you bought it" restriction, it would be fine as an on-gain effect. Well maybe it would be a bit too good with stuff like Experiment. Oh and Horses. Ok never mind, I convinced myself that you actually need a restriction. Then this is just good.

I mean, Collection gets you the same effect when you gain any Action that turn.  I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the same effect would be too broken.

Collection can also lead to stalemates with Stampede for that exact reason though.

The wiki has a quote from Donald X. saying that they printed Collection fully aware that it interacted well with Stampede, having decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker.  If that's the official ruling on the Collection effect, I don't see how a significantly more narrow version of the effect wouldn't get a pass.

If Symposium didn't have the "if you bought it" restriction, it wouldn't be "strictly more narrow" than Collection:
Collection being a Treasure means it can only give you VPs for Actions gained in your buy phase - not for Actions gained in your Action phase with Workshops, Remodels etc. (in the absence of Villa or other "return to Action phase" cards).

Symposium might still be fine without the restriction, though - I don't think it would be worse than Collection+Stampede, though that does not say much...

FWIW, "unrestricted Symposium"+Stampede would "only" give 15 VP per turn if you play 3 Symposia, a Horse and 2 Gold each turn, while Collection-Stampede gives 50 VP.

[Snes]

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.

That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?

[emtzalex]

If Symposium didn't have the "if you bought it" restriction, it wouldn't be "strictly more narrow" than Collection:
Collection being a Treasure means it can only give you VPs for Actions gained in your buy phase - not for Actions gained in your Action phase with Workshops, Remodels etc. (in the absence of Villa or other "return to Action phase" cards).

There are also at least 5 official cards (Storyteller, Herb Gatherer, Courier, Specialist, Black Market) that let play Treasures during your Action phase.

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.

That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?

My second reaction to Collection was that if someone had submitted it to a fan card contest I was judging, they would have almost certainly lost, and my main point of feedback would be that the card is totally busted with Stampede. I was a bit more reserved on the forum, but my sentiments are very similar to faust's regarding that card.

To Snes's point, I don't think's it's so black and white. The existence of Stampede doesn't mean that "no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions", but it does mean (imo) that every such card needs to be evaluated in the context of a potential combination with Stampede. You also have to look at the different options that might avoid super-powerful bonuses. For example, Collection could only work on Action cards you bought, or Action cards you gained from the Supply, or the first copy of each Action card you gain. These (1) add complexity, and (2) take away from Collection's power when Stampede is not on the board (which, in the vast majority of cases, it won't be). You have to weight those "downsides" (if that's what (2) is) against the downside of a super-strong combo. Imo (which is relevant to submissions in contest I will judge), the existence of a combo that is really busted almost always warrants changing the card, even if it makes it slightly worse. My metric is Lost Arts + Smithy, and if I think the combo of a submission with an existing card/landscape is stronger than that, I'd consider it to be busted.

With Symposium, I think restricting it to "if you bought it" is fine. First, I tend to think it is on the stronger side anyway. It is basically a Lab ($5), and my sense is that it's virtual +Action is a benefit in more cases (e.g. Toil, Scepter, Gamble) than it is a downside (e.g. Diadem, Cavalry). Thus, it's worth at least $5 before the VP benefit, which, on an engine component, is especially strong (since it self-synergizes in helping you to play multiple copies). It also makes playing a gainer/remodeler after it easier, another reason for the limit. Thus, I think the "if you bought it" language is the best approach for the card I wanted to make.

[faust]

It's not a ruling, it's a design choice. A choice you may disagree with. Donald X. himself has frequently changed his mind on design choices.

I personally have always thought the having Collection work with Horses was a terrible decision, not just because of the Stampede thing.

That's fair, although I worry about what that design philosophy means for the long-term health of the game.  Every set brings new cards with new effects.  It's inevitable that some of those effects will interact with each other to produce unbalanced strategies.  Should those interacting effects be blacklisted from all future card designs?  Does the existence of Stampede mean that no card should ever be printed cares about gaining actions?

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

[Snes]

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.

[faust]

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.

I would actually agree with you if this was just a single bad interaction with Stampede, but it's not. It interacts badly with multiple Horse gainers (at least those that gain Horses during the buy phase: Livery, Supplies in particular, Ride to a lesser extent, honorary mention for Cavalry). If there are 3 cards with bad interactions, that is sufficient grounds for me to modify a card.

[Holger]

I don't think that's inevitable. Collection/Stampede could easily have been avoided. And there is nothing in the game the is quite so bad.

The only way Collection+Stampede could have been avoided is if Collection was given a different ability, such as "when you gain an Action card from the supply" or "the first time you gain an Action card this turn".  What I said still holds true: if Collection should have been changed to avoid the interaction with Stampede, then we've effectively blacklisted abilities that trigger "whenever you gain a [Action] card" because it interacts poorly with one card printed years before.  I think it's inevitable that these situations will pop up more and more because cards with never-before-seen abilities keep getting printed.

I ultimately feel like the Collection+Stampede issue is one that largely solves itself.  Players curate the kingdoms they play with; if they decide it's overpowered, they can simply not put Collection and Stampede in the same kingdom.  Even if they opt for zero curation and go completely random every single time, that's only a tiny fraction of games that result in broken outcomes.  By my calculations, even if a kingdom is made exclusively of random cards from Prosperity and Menagerie (and follows the recommended layout of ten supply piles and two landscape cards), Collection and Stampede will both be in the kingdom only once every 110 games on average.  I think that's an acceptable rate of non-games.  Add any other sets and the odds get even lower.

I would actually agree with you if this was just a single bad interaction with Stampede, but it's not. It interacts badly with multiple Horse gainers (at least those that gain Horses during the buy phase: Livery, Supplies in particular, Ride to a lesser extent, honorary mention for Cavalry). If there are 3 cards with bad interactions, that is sufficient grounds for me to modify a card.

Agreed. Also, while "when you gain an Action card from the supply" is technically a different ability, it doesn't make a difference in 90% of kingdoms. There are only two kingdom cards (Devil's Workshop, Exorcist), one heirloom (Magic Lamp) and no events that regularly gain a non-supply pile other than Horse in the buy phase or later (Night phase/clean-up). Combinations of Collection with both phase shenanigans like Villa and non-supply gainers are an order of magnitude rarer still in random kingdoms.

So the main effect of restricting Collection to supply cards would be to remove the risk of stalemates with Horse gainers.

I don't really understand why Collection was allowed to work with Horses, while on the other hand  Hoard has the much more restrictive (and IMO confusing) "when you gain, if you bought it", and Bonfire was significantly nerfed just to prevent a hypothetical infinite loop that practically never comes up in randomized kingdoms.

[Commodore Chuckles]

I also think that the "cares about buying" on this is a bit artificial, it could just work the same for any gain.

Not true. If it trashed itself on all gains, well, then you could never gain it from the Trash. It could get around this using Fortress's "put this in your hand" wording in the "in games using this" clause, but then it would have a bad interaction with gain-to-hand cards like Cobbler. It would force you to get it by discarding something from your hand, since any other way to gain it would put it in the Trash.

[Snes]

I think the below-the-line effect is rather neat, an interesting way to deal with the prompt.
But the top is a problem. You just need 4 of those and then you probably have enough sifting to ensure that you can play all of them each turn and buy a Province. This is too powerful I think.

That's a fair critique.  Do you think I should have gone with my second instinct and made it an Oasis effect?  Or maybe even gone with my first instinct and made it a Peddler?

Well, Peddler makes it too spammable, I think it needs to decrease handsize. Oasis might work, though it's a bit weird to have two separate discard triggers. And it's possibly too weak then. I'm not quite sure what an ideal top would look like.

Okay, how about this:

Tapestry - $5
Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +$1 and +1VP.
-
Once per turn: When you gain this, you may spend an unused Buy to gain another Tapestry.

It ranges from a vanilla cantrip to a Peddler + 1VP, but it's limited by how many victory cards you have in your deck.  Do you think the +VP might be too much?

[IlstrawberrySeed]

It is a spamable +vp. Unlike monument, you don’t need villages, but rather draw.

I personally think that +1 card, +1 action, you may reveal a non-revealed victory card from you hand (until end of turn) for +(1) is fine. Suedo discard, without providing the fodder to spam play these as the last cards as with oasis.

[Snes]

It is a spamable +vp. Unlike monument, you don’t need villages, but rather draw.

I personally think that +1 card, +1 action, you may reveal a non-revealed victory card from you hand (until end of turn) for +(1) is fine. Suedo discard, without providing the fodder to spam play these as the last cards as with oasis.

Is it more spamable than Chariot Race?  I could make it more like Chariot Race and have you reveal the card you draw and only get the benefit if you draw a victory card.