Print

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

[RovingBear]

This week's contest:

Design a card or horizontal that causes you to play cards or card types in different ways.

Official cards that exist that do this:
Charlatan and Enchantress are good examples for this.
Sheperd from Nocturne is a borderline example because it does allow you to "play" victory cards but doesn't actually change them in the game like charlatan does.
Ways is another example but i prefer different ideas for the contest.

Rules:
Besides being creative and what i posted above no other limitations.
Try to keep it simple and make a kingdom more interesting with it (Changing the way you deal with Curses, Coppers anything you can think of).

Will try to judge as best as i can, but i wont playtest the cards.
Will look at:
- How you fit the theme of the contest
- Creativity
- Blanced card (If there are similarities to existing cards ill try to compare)
- If it makes a kingdom more interesting to play

Hope this was understood!
Ill give a 24 hour warning before submissions will be closed.

[JW]

Chameleon Preserve
- Action
+1 Card and +2 Actions
Once this turn when you play an Action, you may choose that each time it would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa.

Notes: A Way in Village form. Hopefully it fits the intent of the contest. 

[Augie279]

I think I get what you're aiming for here? Comparisons to Merchant Ship with +Buy can be made here, but this doesn't give you the handsize reduction it does, and you may not always want to bloat your deck with Silver.

[BryGuy]

Sly Fox • $5 • Action
Choose one: +1 Card; or +$2
Choose one: +1 Action; or +1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
In games using this, Curse is also an Action with "+1 Action; If another Curse is in play, trash this."

[silverspawn]

Edit: Midas now learned to turn things into Counterfeit

[segura]

Terminal space is most of the times to scarce to make this worthwhile. Lots of Coins are pointless without extra Buys so you’d rather have those nonterminal Golds and use terminal space to draw.

[xyz123]

Chronokinesis
Event
$3

Move your Duration token to a non-Duration Action supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you may either play it immediately; or set it aside and play it at the start of your next turn).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Flock of Ducks
Ally
At the start of your turn, you may spend 3 favors to gain a Duchy.
-
In games ising this, Duchies are also Treasures. If there are less than 6 Duchies in the supply, they give +$2. Otherwise, +$1.

I tried to choose a cutoff point (6 Duchies left) that worked with 3+ players as well as 2 players. But if only one person goes for Duchies in multiplayer, it probaby won't be worth it.

[majiponi]

Fertilizer
cost $4 - Treasure - Heirloom
+$1
You may play a Victory card from your hand.

Golden Garden
cost $5 - Victory - Duration
At the start of your turns for the rest of the game, +$1.
---
Worth 2VP


Golden Garden is a mere 2VP without Fertilizer, but gives you many with it.

[grep]

Booming Village
$4 - Action
+2 Actions
Gain an Estate from the supply into your hand.
For the rest of this turn, Estates are also Action cards with the text "+1 Card, +1 Action".


Rule clarification for Inheritance: both texts are played in any order the player prefers

[fika monster]

Great challenge! Here is my submission
GREEDY VILLAGE (v2.

Greedy Village
Action, $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card

For the rest of this turn, Coppers are Action cards with "+1 Card, +1$". (They are no longer Treasure cards.)

Coppers now draw themself! Turning coppers into actions means you can't play them during the buy phase, and it messes with plenty of cards. But other cards will love changing the coppers to actions, and you can still play other treasures as normal.


Edited via silverspawns suggestion

[majiponi]

Great challenge! Here is my submission
GREEDY VILLAGE

Greedy Village
Action, $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card

For the rest of this turn, Coppers are not Treasures, but are instead Action cards that say "+1 Card, +$1

Coppers now draw themself! Turning coppers into actions means you can't play them during the buy phase, and it messes with plenty of cards. But other cards will love changing the coppers to actions, and you can still play other treasures as normal.

With Capitalism, which wins?

[silverspawn]

That would have made the out of context channel if you had said "who wins"

[fika monster]

That would have made the out of context channel if you had said "who wins"

My intent was that the coppers and during the turn greedy village is played, ALWAYS ACTIONS. And cant be turned into treasures for that turn

Is that an bad idea?

How do i word it better so that its clearer, so people wont ask the question?

Also is greedy village interesting in your opinion?

[fika monster]

How come this doesnt have +1 buy?

[silverspawn]

How do i word it better so that its clearer, so people wont ask the question?

I can't think of a non-awful phrasing that solves the issue. (I thought maybe let them be Treasure cards and disallow playing them in your buy phase, but then you get into trouble when something allows you to play Treasures in your Action phase, so I don't think that's a good idea.) Seems like an interaction you just have to clarify explicitly.

Card is interesting for sure! (I didn't upvote bc of phrasing errors.) I would rephrase, even if it doesn't solve the Capitalism issue, into

+1 Card
+2 Actions
For the rest of this turn, Coppers are Action cards with "+1 Card, +1$". (They are no longer Treasure cards.)

(+cards always comes before +actions, and the "with" phrasing is from inheritance.)

How come this doesnt have +1 buy?

Well I don't think there's a rule that cards that produce a lot of $ must give you a buy. It would be much stronger if it had a buy, but stronger isn't better!

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be. For sth that nukes other cards and just makes them into $, having a weaker effect seems preferable to me.

Also I kinda like that midas can only make money and nothing else

[faust]

Leshy - 8D
Action/Night

Do this up to three times: Play a Victory card from your hand to replay a cheaper card you played this turn that's still in play.
-
When you gain this with no Victory cards in play, gain a Duchy.

FAQ:
- the Victory card does not itself have any effect upon playing (unless it is a hybrid VP card); the effect comes from Leshy. So if this is played on a Duration, the Leshy stays out, not the Victory card.
- Similarly, you can use this to replay another Victory card played previously, but this will have no effect.

[faust]

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be.

Hm, I think a card that's irrelevant in 2 out of 3 games is too weak to be a good design. It should at least have +1 Action.

[fika monster]

Edited via silverspawns suggestion

card update

[silverspawn]

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be.

Hm, I think a card that's irrelevant in 2 out of 3 games is too weak to be a good design. It should at least have +1 Action.

There are lots of official cards that are bought in less than 1/3 of games! Like Treasure Map is probably less than 1/5 and still a great design.

[faust]

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be.

Hm, I think a card that's irrelevant in 2 out of 3 games is too weak to be a good design. It should at least have +1 Action.

There are lots of official cards that are bought in less than 1/3 of games! Like Treasure Map is probably less than 1/5 and still a great design.

Yeah you're right, my critique wasn't really hitting what bothers me. It's more my issue that Hand of Midas is not doing anything useful on a significant amount of boards. Official cards have that property as well, but I think the combination of being sometimes completely pointless and quite situational when it can be used is what bothers me.

I also think your numbers are too high and this wouldn't be bought in 1/3 of games. I think it's not even worth considering in half of all games, and then of the other half you maybe buy it in 1/3 of all cases, and that still feels like a generous estimate.

[Will(ow|iam)]

Fancy Chair
$3 Action
You may discard an Action card. If you do, follow any instructions on it in bold, twice.

[scolapasta]

How do i word it better so that its clearer, so people wont ask the question?

I can't think of a non-awful phrasing that solves the issue. (I thought maybe let them be Treasure cards and disallow playing them in your buy phase, but then you get into trouble when something allows you to play Treasures in your Action phase, so I don't think that's a good idea.) Seems like an interaction you just have to clarify explicitly.

Card is interesting for sure! (I didn't upvote bc of phrasing errors.) I would rephrase, even if it doesn't solve the Capitalism issue, into

+1 Card
+2 Actions
For the rest of this turn, Coppers are Action cards with "+1 Card, +1$". (They are no longer Treasure cards.)

(+cards always comes before +actions, and the "with" phrasing is from inheritance.)

What about something like:
+1 Card
+2 Actions
For the rest of this turn, Coppers are Action cards with "If it's your action phase, +1 Card, +1$".

In this case they remain treasure cards as well (making Capitalism is irrelevant), but do nothing*.

* of course, they then would still interact with anything that cared about treasures, like Mine, Bank, etc, but maybe that's ok, to avoid the weirdness with Capitalism.

P.S. It's been a long time since I've posted anything - Hi everyone!

[segura]

How come this doesnt have +1 buy?

Well I don't think there's a rule that cards that produce a lot of $ must give you a buy. It would be much stronger if it had a buy, but stronger isn't better!

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be. For sth that nukes other cards and just makes them into $, having a weaker effect seems preferable to me.

Also I kinda like that midas can only make money and nothing else

I don’t get this argument. You gotta play 3 Villages, Hand of Midas and two $5s to produce 10 Coins. That is only one Coin more than you get via 3 Golds and 3 Golds is not particularly exciting.

If you use that terminal space to draw, 3 Villages, a Gear and two Rabbles net draw 5 Cards (ignoring the extra stuff those terminal drawers do). That is far better than the above effect on virtually every board.

An extra Buy would be a simple fix because then the card would actually to something useful. It would still be weak and situational but at least it would be bought on some boards.

[silverspawn]

This feels like it's strong enough to be bought reasonably often without the buy (like mb one of three games), and if that's true, it's just a question of how strong you want the card to be.

Hm, I think a card that's irrelevant in 2 out of 3 games is too weak to be a good design. It should at least have +1 Action.

There are lots of official cards that are bought in less than 1/3 of games! Like Treasure Map is probably less than 1/5 and still a great design.

Yeah you're right, my critique wasn't really hitting what bothers me. It's more my issue that Hand of Midas is not doing anything useful on a significant amount of boards. Official cards have that property as well, but I think the combination of being sometimes completely pointless and quite situational when it can be used is what bothers me.

I also think your numbers are too high and this wouldn't be bought in 1/3 of games. I think it's not even worth considering in half of all games, and then of the other half you maybe buy it in 1/3 of all cases, and that still feels like a generous estimate.

Okay; I changed it to give +buy to other cards. Feels more elegant to me than giving buy the card itself. It'd be sad if you play several copies just for the +buy.

[anordinaryman]

Silversmith | Action | $4
+2$ +1 Buy
This turn, when you play a Silver, instead of following its directions, replay the last action card you played before it.

Silversmiths don’t stack, playing two doesn’t make your silvers into throne rooms.

Often the last terminal you play will be one you want to re-play in your buy phase, but not always. Hey, maybe silversmith will be the last card you played, turning your silvers into +buy silvers.

Rules clarification, if the last action card you played is trashed (via procession), I believe because of losing track rule, the silvers would have no affect. Someone may correct me.

[spheremonk]

[lompeluiten]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card from the supply costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

[faust]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

I think the wording of Inheritance was debated for quite a long time and is the best compromise to get. Your wording does not really work for me: "Played as if it were that Action card" just means you can play it during your Action phase, following its instructions. But Duchy has no instructions. So the way I parse this, it just means "you can now play Duchies, but they don't do anything". You don't change what happens upon playing, only the rules for when they can be played.

And if this were to work, technically it would have to involve some sort of shapeshifting - the instructions of the set-aside card now need to be on Duchy somehow.

I suggest just using the existing wording.

[grep]

Edit: Midas now learned to turn things into Counterfeit

This card is basically dead in absence of villages. Should it give at least +1 Action?

[grep]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

You should explicitly specify where the card comes from. Should you take it from hand or from the supply or from some other place?

[silverspawn]

This card is basically dead in absence of villages. Should it give at least +1 Action?

No, think being dead in absence of villages is just a property of design. Even if it gave +1 Action, the effect is pretty awful if you can only use it once, so it'd be pretty dead anyway.

[segura]

BM Project. Might be a $5, I don't know.

[Gubump]

[RovingBear]

24 hour warning!

[segura]

I really like this. The Throne Room with a buff as the baseline is fine but nothing to write home about. Where this really shines is as an alt-VP card. You nearly always have Provinces and with this you might want to keep an Estate around. But with a lot of VPs on the Duchy pile you want a midgame Duchy and timing it well is obviously the tricky thing.

So yeah, really great TR variant with a Gathering-like alt-VP twist.

[lompeluiten]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

You should explicitly specify where the card comes from. Should you take it from hand or from the supply or from some other place?

Jeha, you are right about that. I will adjust it.

[lompeluiten]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

I think the wording of Inheritance was debated for quite a long time and is the best compromise to get. Your wording does not really work for me: "Played as if it were that Action card" just means you can play it during your Action phase, following its instructions. But Duchy has no instructions. So the way I parse this, it just means "you can now play Duchies, but they don't do anything". You don't change what happens upon playing, only the rules for when they can be played.

And if this were to work, technically it would have to involve some sort of shapeshifting - the instructions of the set-aside card now need to be on Duchy somehow.

I suggest just using the existing wording.

I did not participate in any of those discussions. And if you ask my opinion: Inheritence is written like it is for an computer program. Store info, make them refence that info.

Meanwhile humans would not have an problem with just: "play it like some other card". At least, if you not have to ignore current text that is on it. I found many people struggling with ways.

[silverspawn]

I highly doubt that Inheritance or any other card was written with primary consideration being online stuff. Afaik Donald primarily cares about casual players who play 3p. Could be wrong, but that's been my impression.

[segura]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

I think the wording of Inheritance was debated for quite a long time and is the best compromise to get. Your wording does not really work for me: "Played as if it were that Action card" just means you can play it during your Action phase, following its instructions. But Duchy has no instructions. So the way I parse this, it just means "you can now play Duchies, but they don't do anything". You don't change what happens upon playing, only the rules for when they can be played.

And if this were to work, technically it would have to involve some sort of shapeshifting - the instructions of the set-aside card now need to be on Duchy somehow.

I suggest just using the existing wording.

I did not participate in any of those discussions. And if you ask my opinion: Inheritence is written like it is for an computer program. Store info, make them refence that info.

Meanwhile humans would not have an problem with just: "play it like some other card". At least, if you not have to ignore current text that is on it. I found many people struggling with ways.

Command cards, respectively non-Command restrictions like on Inheritance, have been introduced to avoid loops. Loops are not an issue in and of themselves, but when combined with something like Training you can get infinite Coins.

This has nothing to do with whether the game is physical or digital.

[RovingBear]

Contest closed!
Will do my best to get judgements in a day or two.

[faust]

does this quailify:

Prosperous Duke $2+
project
Put an action card costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.


It has other wording then Inheritance, but i think this is cleaner.

I think the wording of Inheritance was debated for quite a long time and is the best compromise to get. Your wording does not really work for me: "Played as if it were that Action card" just means you can play it during your Action phase, following its instructions. But Duchy has no instructions. So the way I parse this, it just means "you can now play Duchies, but they don't do anything". You don't change what happens upon playing, only the rules for when they can be played.

And if this were to work, technically it would have to involve some sort of shapeshifting - the instructions of the set-aside card now need to be on Duchy somehow.

I suggest just using the existing wording.

I did not participate in any of those discussions. And if you ask my opinion: Inheritence is written like it is for an computer program. Store info, make them refence that info.

Meanwhile humans would not have an problem with just: "play it like some other card". At least, if you not have to ignore current text that is on it. I found many people struggling with ways.

Well, you provide an extra issue yourself right there: Can you play the Duchy as a Way?

[Gubump]

I really like this. The Throne Room with a buff as the baseline is fine but nothing to write home about. Where this really shines is as an alt-VP card. You nearly always have Provinces and with this you might want to keep an Estate around. But with a lot of VPs on the Duchy pile you want a midgame Duchy and timing it well is obviously the tricky thing.

So yeah, really great TR variant with a Gathering-like alt-VP twist.

Thanks for the kind words!

[RovingBear]

Results!
Just wanted to add that these were all great cards and ideas, and really enjoyed going through them. Thank you all for the submissions. Hope i judged fairly.

Chameleon Preserve by JW
4$ - Action
+1 Card and +2 Actions
Once this turn when you play an Action, you may choose that each time it would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa.

Nice and simple design. I like the fact that in some cases this would be very strong (Smithy in a kingdom would be a good example) and in others it wouldn’t be as strong- using this with a cantrip card isn't that great. Balance wise I think this is a little hard to track and maybe a tad strong for $4. Maybe changing it to the first action played after this would be more balanced?

6/10

Siversmith by Augie279
5$- Action Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, gain a Treasure costing up to $4 to your hand. On this turn and your next turn, when you play a Silver +1 Buy.

Interesting card, must say found this one hard to judge. I feel like this card would only work in certain kingdoms, especially ones without many buys. I like the idea that Silvers give you +1 Buy when this is in play. I would change the card to: may gain a treasure, to just give that flexibility on the small occasions where you wouldn’t want an extra Silver- but you would still get the extra Buys when playing Silvers.

6/10

Sly Fox by BryGuy
5$- Action
Choose one: +1 Card; or +$2
Choose one: +1 Action; or +1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
In games using this, Curse is also an Action with "+1 Action; If another Curse is in play, trash this."

Cantrip trasher with choices! Very strong card, too strong I think. Making the Curses able to trash themselves is interesting though may not be enough to balance, because it would depend on pulling at least 2 Curses on the same turn. Though making the Curses also actions would give for some interesting interaction (Death Cart, Sacrifice or any card that cares about card types). Would make this cost 6.
Like the idea with action Curses.

7/10

Hand of Midas by Silverspawn
3$- Action
For the rest of this turn whenever you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you gain +1$ per 1 $ it costs and +1 Buy.

Hard to judge this card. Very cool idea making the cost its +$. Problem with this card is that its dependant on a kingdom with villages, otherwise this is a dead draw. I would definitely add at least +1 Action. Still a gamble because it depends on drawing another action with it and “sacrificing its effect” for money- though this is an interesting decision to make in game. Great idea- needs fine tuning in my opinion.

5/10

Chronokinesis by xyz123
3$- Event
Move your Duration token to a non-Duration Action supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you may either play it immediately; or set it aside and play it at the start of your next turn).

Very nice idea and design! I like the Adventure vibes it gives. I can imagine this would give some interesting decisions during a game (i'm assuming each player only has 1 Duration token?) I'm just wondering about how this works with throne rooming issues.

8/10

Flock of Ducks by LibraryAdventurer
Ally
At the start of your turn, you may spend 3 favors to gain a Duchy.
-
In games using this, Duchies are also Treasures. If there are less than 6 Duchies in the supply, they give +$2. Otherwise, +$1.

Making Duchies more tempting! Interesting. I could definitely see someone trying to win going all duchies and finishing fast, being that the duchies are also treasures so they don’t cause youre deck to be bogged down so much. Really great work with the theme.

9/10

Making Duchies more tempting! Interesting. I could definitely see someone trying to win going all duchies and finishing fast, being that the duchies are also treasures so don’t cause youre deck to be bogged down so much. Really great work with the theme.

9/10

Fertilizer/Golden Garden by Majiponi
Fertilizer
cost $4 - Treasure - Heirloom
+$1
You may play a Victory card from your hand.

Golden Garden
cost $5 - Victory - Duration
At the start of your turns for the rest of the game, +$1.
---
Worth 2VP

Nice interaction here, putting in effort to effectively “exile” a victory card while gaining money for it. Though no reason the Fertilizer should cost $4. This doesn’t work so well with the theme of the contest because you basically only use Fertilizer to play Golden Garden (except for some edge cases), so youre not really changing the way you play something.

4/10

Booming Village by Grep
$4 - Action
+2 Actions
Gain an Estate from the supply into your hand.
For the rest of this turn, Estates are also Action cards with the text "+1 Card, +1 Action".

Im not sure i can see myself buying this card very often. I would be worried about getting bogged down with estates. I would balance this by changing it to cost 3 and adding "you may gain an estate to your hand". That would give it some more flexibility, though i still think its a card that you usually wouldnt go for. Maybe at the start of game with no good trashing.

5/10

Greedy Village by Fika Monster
4$- Action
+2 Actions
+1 Card
For the rest of this turn Coppers are Action cards with "+1 Card, +1$ (they are no longer Treasure cards).

Honestly really love this idea. Makes for some really interesting deliberations. On the one hand this could help create a really great engine while keeping Coppers. On the other hand this is also a gamble because your coppers can pull coppers which can really cause for a dud turn. Just a small semantic fix- +1 Card should be above the +2 actions. Great theme.

10/10

Leshy by Faust
8$debt- Action/Night
Do this up to three times; Play a Victory card from your hand to replay a cheaper card you played this turn thats still in play.

When you gain this with no victory cards in play, gain a Duchy.

Great card! Only night card as well. Interesting to play a victory card to play an action already played in the night phase. It is a little situational though. Also this is a mid to end game purchase- though I like that it balances out by possibly gaining a duchy when you gain it. Very unique card and concept.

9/10

Fancy Chair by Will(owiam)
$3 Action
You may discard an Action card. If you do, follow any instructions on it in bold, twice.

Interesting thought to replay only what’s bold on the card. Problem is I think this is too weak the way it is now. It’s a weaker throne room that possibly should be stronger somehow, or maybe even cost less. Doesn’t change how you play cards too much either.

3/10

Peace Treaty by Spheremonk
5$- Project
When you play an Attack card, replace all of its text with the following: trash this for +1 Action+5$.

An interesting thought to be able to trash an action for benefit. But I have a few problems with this one. First and biggest if there is a kingdom with no attacks then this is dud. The other main issue I have is that I don’t see myself making the effort of buying the attack then investing in the project to trash the attack- not for that price. I can see why you in some situations (empty curse pile) you would want to trash for benefit, but still too expensive.

3/10

Prosperous Duke by Iompeluiten
2$?- Project
Put an action card from the supply costing the amount overpaid under your project cube. Duchies can be played as if it were that action card.

Variable cost project! Cool! Another card making duchies more tempting. This can make for some very interesting games. Good idea, though im not sure if it is more worth it to jus buy a Gold-  in the case that you were aiming on spending 6 to place a 4 cost action under the project cube.

7/10

Homestead by Segura
4$- Project
When you play a Copper, +1 Buy.
When you play a Silver, -1$ and +1 Coffers.

I actually think this is balanced at 4$. In a game with no trashing this is an endless amount of Buys lol. This is an interesting project, making Silvers able to save up on cash. Solid idea, simple and elegant.

7/10

Manor by Gubump
5$- Action
You may play a card from your hand twice. If it's an...
Action card +1 Action
Treasure Card +1$
Victory card, take the vp tokens from the pile;
non victory card, add 1vp to the Estate, Duchy and Province piles.

Very cool idea for a throne room variant. I like the gathering idea on the victory card piles, that would definitely cause a fun competition. Just to be clear, any card played that is not a victory card causes you to add vp tokens? My worry is that this can cause deliberately prolonged games. Would think about adding “victory card, take the vp from its pile then trash one from that pile.

8/10

Honorable mentions: Chronokinesis by xyz123, Manor by Gubump

Runner ups: Leshy by Faust and Flock of Ducks by LibraryAdventurer

Winner: Greedy Village by Fika Monster

[silverspawn]

nice job winning both contests back to back!

[fika monster]

whoah! Thank you all, didnt expect this! Gimme some time to think and come up with a contest idea.

Expect a WDC post later today.

Im going on a small vacation next week 19th-21 Aug where i cant judge actively, so the deadline would be either befor that  (17th aug, judging18th aug friday) or after. Does that sound good to everyone?

[fika monster]

My current ideas for a contest theme! Let me know what you guys think.
Note: I recently went full furry this year, and thus all suggestions are animal based, no one can stop Me

1: Design a card that interacts, changes, or attacks, by using ways.
Could be a card that lets you change what way is beside the game, like "+1 card +1 action, you may change the way to one of the set aside ways"
Could be a card similar to enchantress that forces the opponents first action to be played as a way
maybe it lets you way non actions as ways?

2: Design an animal card.
Design a new card that feels like it would fit right into dominion! Can be a supply card, non supply. Make it feel unique.

3: design a card (landscape, action, whatever) that is themed around otters! My fursona is an hipster otter, and obviously a furry character is out of the dominion lore (pooka doesnt count, shes a "nekomata" or maybe a kitsune... except rabbit? i dont know)

Also, not relevant for the contest but heres my introduction page i just made with art of my fursona!
https://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21762.new#new

[silverspawn]

I'd like the second one the best bc it's the least restrictive, but then again people have used pretty specific themes in contests before and that went tine, too.

[faust]

I'd like the second one the best bc it's the least restrictive, but then again people have used pretty specific themes in contests before and that went tine, too.

Personally I like some restrictions because it helps with my creativity. But I'll be on vacation and not contributing, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter too much.

[Ethan]

Silversmith by anordinaryman seems to be dropped in the judgement. Also, Silversmith by Augie279 is mistyped.

[RovingBear]

My bad! Completely missed the second silversmith.. if you want me to add to the judging i will