Print

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

[WilsonWriter]

Here's the link to the card views, but the mechanics are listed below.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151268347341176.1073741828.687061175&type=3&l=72d79bc365

I've made minor changes to some of the cards, and big changes to Pied Piper and Savoyard. I'd love to hear your reactions here, instead of to the old versions of the cards. (I tried deleting those posts for clarity sake, but this forum doesn't allow me to do so.)

Ale House
$5 - Action
Discard a Treasure from your hand.
+4 Cards
+1 Action
Put two cards on the bottom of your deck.

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
While this is in play, you may trash up to two Curses. If you do, each other player discards a card from his hand.

Crusader
$5 - Action-Attack
Choose one:
+$3
Or trash this.  Each other player reveals his hand and trashes an Attack or Treasure of your choice.  You may gain any Treasure trashed in this way.

Helping Hand
$3 - Action-Victory
Reveal your hand.  If you have no Treasure cards or only one Copper, gain a Gold and put it into your hand.
---
Worth 2VP

Infirmary
$3 - Action-Reaction
Choose one: Draw 2 cards, or trash up to 2 cards.
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal and set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $5 from the trash and discard this.

Lady of Learning
$4 - Action
+ Action
Choose one: Pass one card from your hand to the player on your left; or look at the top 3 cards of your deck, put one into your hand and discard the other two.

Patron of Arts
$5 - Treasure
Worth $0
---
When you buy a card, you may gain one costing up to $5 that is a different card type than any others gained while this in play.

Pied Piper
$3 - Action-Attack
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Each other player trashes a Copper or reveals a hand with no Copper. You gain +$1 for each card trashed in this way.

Sculptor
$4 - Action
+$1
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put two of them into your hand, discard the others.

Shepherd
$5 - Action-Victory
You may reveal any number of Victory cards from your hand; +$1 for each one, including this.
---
Worth 2VP

Sisters of Charity
$3 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a Treasure, or reveal a hand with no Treasures and gain two Silvers.

Sisters of Mercy
$4 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal a hand with no Treasure cards, or give a Treasure to the player on your left.

Cudgel
$5 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+$2
Each other player draws one card, then chooses one: Discard two cards, trash a Treasure that is not a Copper, or gain a Curse.

Savoyard
$4 - Treasure
Worth $2
---
When this is in play, it is worth an additional $1 for each other Savoyard you have in play.

Inventor
$6 - Action
+1 Action
Trash a card.  Discard a card.  When you do, put 2 Action cards from any supply pile into your hand.  During the clean-up phase, return both cards to supply, even if the card was a Duration or was trashed.  Inventor can be played only once per turn.

Gargoyle
$5 - Action-Attack
+ 2 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. If he holds a Gold or Province, he gains a Curse.
---
If no players gained a Curse in this way, you gain a Silver and put it into your hand.

Castle Builder
$5 - Action
+ 2 Cards
+ $1
Trash a card from your hand, gain a card of equal cost or less and put it into your discard pile. When you do, each other player gains an Estate card.

I will comment on Inventor. Many seem to think that tracking the two Action cards is an issue. I just don't get it. If, for one turn, I choose Council Room and Market, for example, how hard is it to play them on this turn just as I would if they'd already been in my hand and then to remember--and I'm sure your opponent will have no problem remembering!--which two cards you chose for this turn.

[LastFootnote]

Stop...making...new...threads! You can edit your posts with that Modify button in the upper-right corner! Next time you revise your cards put your edited versions in an existing thread and update the link!

[enfynet]

Inventor - what happens if the cards are trashed?

self-trashers: embargo, feast, death cart; or trash-for-benefit: remodel, procession, salvager; trash-reward: cultist, squire; or weird stuff like Ambassador and Masquerade, or even your card Ale House that could put those cards into your deck?

[WilsonWriter]

As the Inventor card says, even trashed cards get returned to the supply pile.

[enfynet]

What if it's in someone else's deck or hand already? How can you track that?

[eHalcyon]

Confessor -- It is still odd that you have an immediate effect attached to a "while this is in play".  Why isn't this written as a regular effect of playing the card?  Also, since Confessor can cause others to discard, it needs to have an Attack subtype.

Crusader -- The templating is still a little off.  Choice cards use semi-colons, like this:

Crusader
$5 - Action-Attack
Choose one: +$3; or trash this and each other player reveals his hand and trashes an Attack or Treasure of your choice.  You may gain any Treasure trashed in this way.

It reads a bit awkwardly.  This could be fixed by making the choice just between "+$3; or trash this" and putting all the other stuff into a "When this is trashed" effect.

Infirmary -- It doesn't need to say "reveal" because the act of setting it aside implies revelation.  Refer to Horse Traders.  And again, the choices should be separated by a semi-colon.

Lady of Learning -- + how many actions now?

Patron of Arts -- The effect should begin with the phrase, "while this is in play".  Note that specifying "card type" is more restrictive than the banner colour, as I read it.  Suppose you have two PoA in play.  You buy something.  Let's just say you buy an Island.  With your first PoA, you gain an Island (possible because the Island you bought has not actually been gained yet).  So far so good.  Now with the second PoA, you want to gain a Duchy.  With the banner colour restriction, I would imagine that this is legal -- pure green banner and green-white banner are different.  That's just how I interpret it.  But referring specifically to type, Island is both a Victory and an Action, which means you can no longer gain either with your second PoA.  Thus you are locked out of Duchy as well as all the actions.

This is not a problem with the card.  I am just noting the difference.

Pied Piper -- While it is correctly labeled as an Attack, this card is a benefit to the other players most of the time.  It scales strangely with game size too.  Against a single opponent, it is terrible from the start -- the best you are going to get is +$1.  In a 4 player game it becomes a lot better, likely netting you +$3, but the card will help all your opponents trim their deck AND it quickly dies off.  As you help your opponents trash Copper, it becomes harder for Pied Piper to hit.  Basically, I would almost never want this card and would be happy to see my opponent buy it.

The card might be more interesting if it has a secondary attack.  For example:

Pied Piper
$3 - Action-Attack
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Each other player trashes a Copper from his hand or gains 2 Coppers.  +$1 for each Copper trashed in this way.

Now, the trimming you help them with is only temporary.  Making them reveal their hand isn't necessary in this version; removing it simplifies the card and gives opponents an interesting choice to make.

Sculptor -- I think this is too strong for $4.

Shepherd -- People have already given better templating (remove "including this" and just add a flat +$1).

Sisters of Mercy -- People have already explained why this is too powerful.

Cudgel -- I think this is too strong for $5... and I think people have explained why already as well.

Savoyard -- Wording is still a problem, since the extra money should really be an on play effect, not a "while in play".  There is also an issue that this is strictly better than Silver while only costing $4.  This design issue has been discussed by Donald X himself... it's somewhere in the forums.  But basically, a better-than-Silver treasure needs to cost at least $5 because it is very common to buy Silver with $4.  Consider Venture and Royal Seal.

Also, Savoyard kind of steps on the toes of Fool's Gold.

Inventor -- You still haven't dealt with the main problem with this card, which is the enormous tracking issues that can crop up.  What happens if a card you gained gets discarded and shuffled into the deck?  What if you top-decked it with Watchtower?  And there is still the issue that "only played once per turn" will cause unresolvable conflicts with cards like Golem and Throne Room.  I see you have a comment that you don't get it -- I'll post something longer about it after this.

Gargoyle -- The Silver-gaining effect should not be underneath a line.

Castle Builder -- You don't need to say "put it into your discard pile" because that is where gained cards go by default.  You also don't need "when you do" on the last sentence.  Finally, forcing others to gain an Estate is actually an attack.

[eHalcyon]

OK, for Inventor, here are some scenarios.

I play Inventor and take Masquerade and Rats into my hand.  I play Masquerade and pass Rats to my neighbour.  At the end of my turn, does that Rats in my neighbours hand have to be returned to the supply?

I play Inventor and take Inn and University.  I now play Inn, but I state very specifically that this is a different Inn, an Inn I already had in my hand before playing Inventor.  To try to prove it, I discard a second Inn due to playing the first one.  Can you trust me on this?  Let's say you do.  Now I play University and gain a third Inn... and now I shuffle that second Inn into my deck.  At the end of my turn, that Inn I gained is presumably in my deck now.  How can I return it?

I play Inventor and take Oasis and AnyCard.  I play Oasis and discard AnyCard.  Then I play Smithy, triggering a reshuffle.  AnyCard gets shuffled into my deck.  How can I return it?

I play Inventor and gain Nomad Camp, which immediately goes on top of my deck, and Highway, which I top-deck with Watchtower for some reason.  I end my turn.  Has Inventor lost track of them?  Do I still need to return them?


And two different examples:

I play Throne Room and choose Inventor.  I play Inventor and gain some things.  Now TR says that I have to play Inventor a second time.  Inventor says only one can be played per turn.  We are stuck; the cards tell us to do conflicting things and there is no way to resolve it. 

I play Golem and it finds two Inventors.  I play the first one and gain some things.  Now Golem says that i have to play the second Inventor.  Again, Inventor says I can't.  Again, the cards tell us to do conflicting things and we are stuck.

Now, you can decide to make an FAQ that says the restriction on Inventor trumps the other restrictions.  But this doesn't flow naturally from the cards.  I and some others have suggested that you could fix this particular problem by following the example of Crossroads.




Even so, the first problem is enough that this idea is mostly unfixable.  It can be tweaked until it works, but then you'll end up with a clone of Band of Misfits.

[Awaclus]

Confessor -- It is still odd that you have an immediate effect attached to a "while this is in play".  Why isn't this written as a regular effect of playing the card?  Also, since Confessor can cause others to discard, it needs to have an Attack subtype.

If it says "While this is in play, you may", it means you can do that any time you want and as many times as you want. Which is pretty powerful, because you can choose to trash 0 (=up to 2) curses five times and make your opponents discard all their cards each time.

So, not only is it odd, it most likely means a very different thing from what was intended.

[zahlman]

Pied Piper -- While it is correctly labeled as an Attack, this card is a benefit to the other players most of the time.  It scales strangely with game size too.  Against a single opponent, it is terrible from the start -- the best you are going to get is +$1.  In a 4 player game it becomes a lot better, likely netting you +$3, but the card will help all your opponents trim their deck AND it quickly dies off.  As you help your opponents trash Copper, it becomes harder for Pied Piper to hit.  Basically, I would almost never want this card and would be happy to see my opponent buy it.

The card might be more interesting if it has a secondary attack.  For example:

Pied Piper
$3 - Action-Attack
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Each other player trashes a Copper from his hand or gains 2 Coppers.  +$1 for each Copper trashed in this way.

Now, the trimming you help them with is only temporary.  Making them reveal their hand isn't necessary in this version; removing it simplifies the card and gives opponents an interesting choice to make.

... Now it's actually interesting, though it drifts even further from any apparent theme. At first it looks like you've weakened an already too-weak card (by giving opponents a strategic option), but sometimes the Copper gain will be compulsory and quite undesirable. It still feels weak to me though, and "+1 Card, +1 Buy" is a strange combination to me. Although it sort of makes sense in multi-player games when you're going to pull in a lot of money from it...

How would you price it with vanilla bonuses of +1 Card, +1 Action (cantrip)? Would that make it stronger than Familiar?

Re Savoyard: Yep, I meant it when I said to bump the cost to $5 after changing the card in that manner.

[eHalcyon]

... Now it's actually interesting, though it drifts even further from any apparent theme. At first it looks like you've weakened an already too-weak card (by giving opponents a strategic option), but sometimes the Copper gain will be compulsory and quite undesirable. It still feels weak to me though, and "+1 Card, +1 Buy" is a strange combination to me. Although it sort of makes sense in multi-player games when you're going to pull in a lot of money from it...

How would you price it with vanilla bonuses of +1 Card, +1 Action (cantrip)? Would that make it stronger than Familiar?

Re Savoyard: Yep, I meant it when I said to bump the cost to $5 after changing the card in that manner.

If I were proposing a brand new card, I would probably end up with different vanilla bonuses and a different name.  That said, it kind of fits thematically.  It doesn't interact specifically with the Rats card, but pretend that these Coppers are Rats.  Pied Piper can help the town (read: your opponents) get rid of their vermin... or the Pied Piper might turn on them and send those pests right back into their decks.

I don't think it should be made cantrip because that would make it arguably a better junker than Mountebank and, yeah, Familiar.  that's a lot of Coppers going into opponent's decks.  Depending on their hands and their stubborness, it would cantrip-Cutpurse them repeatedly as well.

I have no idea what kind of vanilla bonuses would work best with this two-way Copper attack.

[LastFootnote]

Wilson,

As an author, I'm sure you have a firm grasp of the rules of the English language. But sometimes writers make mistakes, so presumably you have an editor who catches errors, consolidates your work, etc. Dominion cards have extra rules and subtleties all their own. Because you're new to creating cards, you've made quite a few mistakes. We're here to edit your cards to bring them in line with the "rules of Dominion", as it were.

It's pretty clear that you're fairly new to Dominion (compared to many of us), which is great! I'm glad you enjoy the game. However, since you posted on this forum, I'm assuming you're looking for advice from people much more knowledgeable about the game. I'm going to exercise the same rigorous standards when critiquing your cards that I'd use for any cards here, so I apologize up front for my harshness.

I'm guessing from the cards you've posted that you own Dominion, Dominion: Intrigue, and maybe Dominion: Prosperity and that you don't have much familiarity with the cards outside those sets. When I reference an existing official card, I'll make it into a link that you can click on to see that card.

I'm going to critique each card. The first paragraph or two that I write for each card is going to cover syntax errors. Changes I make here are changes that are necessary in order for your card to be valid. I will strive to change the functionality of the card as little as possible in this first section. Second, I will post an edited version of the card with those syntax changes. Finally, I will talk about the power of the card, compare it to existing cards, and suggest changes to the card's function.

Ale House
$5 - Action
Discard a Treasure from your hand.
+4 Cards
+1 Action
Put two cards on the bottom of your deck.

By default, discarded cards come from your hand, so you don't have to specify that. However, most cards that are moved do not have a default initial location, so you do need to specify 'from your hand' when putting cards on the bottom of your deck. Alehouse also has an accountability issue when the player claims not to have a Treasure in hand, so a hand reveal is necessary in that case.

Ale House
$5 - Action
Discard a Treasure card (or reveal a hand with no Treasures).
+4 Cards
+1 Action
Put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck in any order.

I'd test it with discarding the two cards rather than putting them on the bottom of your deck. The fact that this leaves you with the same hand size if you had any Treasures in hand means that it's not strictly better than Laborartory or Stables. The discarding is faster than putting cards back into your deck and the card could probably use the power boost. If it's too powerful, go back to putting the cards on the bottom of your deck.

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
While this is in play, you may trash up to two Curses. If you do, each other player discards a card from his hand.

I'm glad you got rid of the Action – Treasure hybrid. That's generally a very confusing type combination. The bottom of the card still has problems, though. You cannot have a "While this is in play" clause that is open-ended about when the events trigger. I believe that the idea is to be able to trash Curses that you draw after you play Confessor. As the card is currently worded, though, I could play it, discard zero Curses (which is in the range of "up to 2"), and make each other player discard a card from his hand. Since I can just do this while Confessor is in play, I can immediately do it again four more times, completely wiping out my opponents' hands. The card didn't have the discard portion earlier, and I suggest you remove it again.

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
When you discard this from play, you may trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.

This might be OK as-is, but I think it's going to nullify Curse-giving attacks a little too much. I suggest changing it so that if you trash Curses from your hand, you also trash the Confessor.

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
When you discard this from play, you may trash up to 2 Curses from your hand. If you trashed at least one Curse this way, trash this.

Crusader
$5 - Action-Attack
Choose one:
+$3
Or trash this.  Each other player reveals his hand and trashes an Attack or Treasure of your choice.  You may gain any Treasure trashed in this way.

You should put the "+$3" inline with the rest of the text, rather than offsetting it on its own line. It also needs a semicolon after it. Also, as it is written, the attack is not contingent on trashing the card. So I could get +$3, not trash the card, and perform the Attack.

Crusader
$5 - Action–Attack
Choose one: +$3; or trash this and each other player reveals his hand, trashing a revealed Attack or Treasure card of your choice.  You may gain any or all of the trashed Treasures.

As others have said, +$3 is already a pretty solid—if boring—$5 Action card. Adding more on top of that makes the card quite powerful. I'd replace the +$3 with +3 Cards or something of that sort. The attack portion is problematic because when played repeatedly, it can wipe out your opponents' turns. You should include a clause so that this only hits players with 5 or more cards in hand.

Helping Hand
$3 - Action-Victory
Reveal your hand.  If you have no Treasure cards or only one Copper, gain a Gold and put it into your hand.
---
Worth 2VP

Interpreting this wording as strictly as possible, I could reveal a hand of Copper/Gold/Gold/Gold and gain a Gold, since I only have one Copper in hand. I'd revise the card such that it activates if you have no more than one Treasure in hand, regardless of what that Treasure is. Also, you need to specify that you revealed zero or one cards, not that you have them. "Having" cards is not a defined Dominion term.

Helping Hand
$3 - Action–Victory
Reveal your hand.  If you revealed at most one Treasure card, gain a Gold and put it into your hand.
---
Worth 2VP

I generally dislike Action–Victory cards where the Victory portion just feels tacked on and has nothing to do with the rest of the card. I think Great Hall, Nobles, and Harem sufficiently cover that territory. However, it seems OK to me on this card because its Action portion is going to trigger so seldom. It's a card you have to work to activate (or get really lucky). I like the idea.

Infirmary
$3 - Action-Reaction
Choose one: Draw 2 cards, or trash up to 2 cards.
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal and set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $5 from the trash and discard this.

Instead of "Draw 2 cards", use "+2 Cards". Again, you have to specify that you're trashing up to 2 cards from your hand. When a card is set-aside, it is implicitly revealed, so you don't need to specify that.

Infirmary
$3 - Action-Reaction
Choose one: +2 Cards; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, discard this and gain a card costing up to $5 from the trash.

I'd say that the top part is a little too close to Steward. It's a little more flexible with the trashing and doesn't have the +$2 option, but it's similar. The bottom part is interesting, but cards that gain from the trash generally need a component that puts good cards into the trash, or they'll be useless in most games. See Graverobber and Rogue.

Lady of Learning
$4 - Action
+1 Action
Choose one: Pass one card from your hand to the player on your left; or look at the top 3 cards of your deck, put one into your hand and discard the other two.

I only have minor wording nitpicks here. These are just for ease of understanding though. They're not strictly necessary changes.

Lady of Learning
$4 - Action
+1 Action
Choose one: Pass a card from your hand to the player on your left; or look at the top 3 cards of your deck, put one of them into your hand, and discard the rest.

People have already talked about the asymmetry issues this card has. If you're cool with that, there's nothing else I have to say.

Patron of Arts
$5 - Treasure
Worth $0
---
When you buy a card, you may gain one costing up to $5 that is a different card type than any others gained while this in play.

"Is a different type" is vague because it's not clear whether it refers to each individual type or the combination of types. I'd replace it with "does not share a type with". You also need a "while this is in play" clause. Also, you used to have a "bought or gained" clause. You should bring that back so that it applies to the card you bought to activate this ability. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, it doesn't count the card you're buying now because Patron of the Arts's gain happens before you actually gain the bought card.

Patron of Arts
$5 - Treasure
Worth $0
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, you may gain a card costing up to $5 that does not share a type with any card you've bought or gained while this was in play.

I have no idea how this would actually play, so I can't comment on its power. If it seems to be working for you, great! Keep in mind that once you buy your first card (during your buy phase), you can no longer play any Treasure cards that turn. So you'll have to play all of your Patrons of the Arts before buying a card, making it weaker.

Pied Piper
$3 - Action-Attack
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Each other player trashes a Copper or reveals a hand with no Copper. You gain +$1 for each card trashed in this way.

You must specify that the Copper trashed comes from the other players' hands. Also, you don't "gain" coins. You only gain cards.

Pied Piper
$3 - Action–Attack
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Each other player trashes a Copper from his hand (or reveals a hand with no Copper). +$1 for each card trashed in this way.

This card has a couple of issues. First, although trashing Copper from an oponent's hand hurts their next turn, it's almost always a net benefit for them. Second, the coins you get scale badly as the number of players changes. You'll note that there are several trashing Attack cards that get better as the number of players increases (Thief, Noble Brigand, Pirate Ship, Jester), but none of them scale by giving you more coins to spend this turn. An early play of this card will almost certainly get you +$5 in a 6-player game.

Sculptor
$4 - Action
+$1
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put two of them into your hand, discard the others.

Usually you'd use "the rest" rather than "the others", but it's not crucial.

Sculptor
$4 - Action
+$1
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put 2 of them into your hand and discard the rest.

The version you had before that gave +$2 was way too powerful for even a $5 card. I'd say this version should cost $5. It's not terribly interesting, but might be a fine card at that price.

Shepherd
$5 - Action-Victory
You may reveal any number of Victory cards from your hand; +$1 for each one, including this.
---
Worth 2VP

As multiple people have told you, you should not say "including this" for a set of cards that clearly does not include "this". Espeically not when the fix is as easy as adding "+$1" to the card. Also, you don't need the "you may", since zero is included in "any number". Honestly, for expediency's sake, you really should change it to "Reveal your hand. +$1 for each Victory card revealed." That's how Crossroads handles it.

Shepherd
$5 - Action-Victory
+$1.
Reveal your hand. +$1 for each Victory card revealed.
---
Worth 2VP

This is what a Action–Victory card should be. It matters that it's a Victory card because it synergizes with itself. Very nice.

Sisters of Charity
$3 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a Treasure, or reveal a hand with no Treasures and gain two Silvers.

As this is written, it's not clear whether I can gain two Silvers even if I reveal no Treasures.

Sisters of Charity
$3 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal your hand. If you revealed no Treasures, gain 2 Silvers. Otherwise, discard a Treasure.

I think this overlaps too much with Helping Hand. I like Helping Hand better, personally. I'd cut this card, or at least give it an overhaul.

Sisters of Mercy
$4 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal a hand with no Treasure cards, or give a Treasure to the player on your left.

As many people have told you, "give" is not a defined Dominion term. If it goes into that player's hand, use "pass". If not, use "gain". Also, if you use "pass", the card must be revealed first so that the other players know that it is a Treasure card.

Sisters of Mercy
$4 - Action
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal a hand with no Treasures). Pass it to the player on your left.

It's another card with asymmetry, and quite similar to Lady of Learning. Personally, I'd cut the passing option from Lady of Learning and keep Sisters of Mercy as-is.

Cudgel
$5 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+$2
Each other player draws one card, then chooses one: Discard two cards, trash a Treasure that is not a Copper, or gain a Curse.

You need some semicolons here to delineate the options. Also, the Treasure-trashing part has accountability issues, and needs a hand reveal.

Cudgel
$5 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+$2
Each other player draws a card, then chooses one: he discards 2 cards; or he gains a Curse; or he trashes a Treasure from his hand that is not a Copper (or reveals a hand with no such cards).

This is another card with several issues. First, +2 Cards/+$2 is already pushing the power limit for a $5 card. Adding an attack onto that is just nuts. Second, it's really too similar to Torturer, a card I'm guessing you're already familiar with.

Here's something you may not know about Torturer: when another player plays one, you can choose to gain a Curse even if the Curse pile is empty. So once all the Curses are gone from the Supply, Torturer's attack does nothing. Cudgel's attack is even more prone to missing because a player without non-Copper Treasures in hand can choose the Treasure-trashing option and not be hit it.

Savoyard
$4 - Treasure
Worth $2
---
When this is in play, it is worth an additional $1 for each other Savoyard you have in play.

This wording is incorrect. As others have pointed out, Treasure cards give you coins when they are played, not by being in play.

Savoyard
$4 - Treasure
Worth $2
---
While this is in play, when you play a Savoyard, +$1.

However, this card has other issues. First, you should never make a Treasure that costs $4 and generates $2 without some sort of penalty. The reason is that $3 and $4 are pretty similar in how often you're able to afford them, and good players will often gladly buy Silver for $4 in many games. So $4 Silver-with-a-bonus will be bought up very quickly.

Also, this card is too similar to Fool's Gold to be interesting. In fact, Fool's Gold was originally meant to work exactly like this (except it was worth $1 instead of $2), and the eventaul decision was that it would require too much crazy wording.

Inventor
$6 - Action
+1 Action
Trash a card.  Discard a card.  When you do, put 2 Action cards from any supply pile into your hand.  During the clean-up phase, return both cards to supply, even if the card was a Duration or was trashed.  Inventor can be played only once per turn.

I will comment on Inventor. Many seem to think that tracking the two Action cards is an issue. I just don't get it. If, for one turn, I choose Council Room and Market, for example, how hard is it to play them on this turn just as I would if they'd already been in my hand and then to remember--and I'm sure your opponent will have no problem remembering!--which two cards you chose for this turn.

This is where the harshness comes in. This card is a train wreck. It's like a laundry list of what not to do on a Dominion card. I'm not going to attempt to fix the syntax because the card isn't worth saving. Here's what's wrong with the card:

• It has too many moving parts. It does too many different, disconnected things at different times, which might make it hard to remember how the card works.
• "Trash a card" should be "Trash a card from your hand".
• "When you do," should be "If you do,".
• "2 Action cards from any Supply pile" sounds to me like the two cards have to come from the same Supply pile, which I assume is not your intention.
• "During the clean-up phase" is not an acceptable timing; it's too vague. You could say, "At the start of Clean-up."
• In Dominion, there is a rule called the "lose track rule" that prevents a card from moving other cards if it has "lost track" of them. eHalcyon has done a beautiful job of coming up with many situations in which Inventor loses track of the cards it gets you, but the worst ones are when the cards are already shuffled back into your deck.
• eHalcyon has likewise demonstrated why you can't say, "Inventor can only be played once per turn."
• It's too close to Band of Misfits, which is a much cleaner and better take on this sort of card.

Gargoyle
$5 - Action-Attack
+ 2 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. If he holds a Gold or Province, he gains a Curse.
---
If no players gained a Curse in this way, you gain a Silver and put it into your hand.

"If he holds" should be "If he revealed".

Gargoyle
$5 - Action–Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. If he revealed a Gold or Province, he gains a Curse.
---
If no players gained a Curse in this way, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand.

I think it would be a solid card if the Silver didn't go into your hand. I think that really pushes it over the edge in terms of power. See my earlier comments on +2 Cards/+$2 being very powerful. The fact that it's not reliable might make it OK.

Castle Builder
$5 - Action
+ 2 Cards
+ $1
Trash a card from your hand, gain a card of equal cost or less and put it into your discard pile. When you do, each other player gains an Estate card.

You don't have to specify that gained cards go into the discard pile; that's the default destination.

Castle Builder
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
+$1
Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing no more than it. Each other player gains an Estate card.

Having other players gain Estates is a bad idea because there aren't that many in the Supply. I'm really not sure how the rest of the card would play out. I forsee a lot of trashing Estates for other Estates or Coppers near the beginning of the game, and trashing Provinces to gain Provinces near the end of the game. I recommend making the trashing optional and possibly making the player return the card to the Supply rather than trashing it.

By the way, did you name this card because the prototype for Dominion was once called "Castle Builder", or is that just a coincidence?

[LastFootnote]

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
When you discard this from play, you may trash up to 2 Curses from your hand. If you do, trash this.

I think it's great how careful, close and helping you look at cards, LastFootnote. But as you pointed out, "up to two" cards also means 0 cards, so you always would have to trash Confessor as you discard it, if worded like this.

Hmm, I see your point. I was thinking that because it says "you may trash up to 2 cards", you could say you hadn't used that option. But you're right, it could be interpreted that way.

Well, it could be remedied by saying "If you trashed at least one Curse this way, trash this."

EDIT: Ack! Your post disappeared! Well, I still think you have a point. It's clearer with the change. But now that your post is gone, I can't +1 it!

[Asper]

Confessor
$2 - Action
+2 Actions
+ $1
---
When you discard this from play, you may trash up to 2 Curses from your hand. If you do, trash this.

I think it's great how careful, close and helping you look at cards, LastFootnote. But as you pointed out, "up to two" cards also means 0 cards, so you always would have to trash Confessor as you discard it, if worded like this.

Hmm, I see your point. I was thinking that because it says "you may trash up to 2 cards", you could say you hadn't used that option. But you're right, it could be interpreted that way.

Well, it could be remedied by saying "If you trashed at least one Curse this way, trash this."

EDIT: Ack! Your post disappeared! Well, I still think you have a point. It's clearer with the change.

Talking about +1, i killed the post because i thought instead of nagging about your wording, i should just have +1'ed it. Well, too late, you read it anyway ^^'

[eHalcyon]

Going off of LastFootNote's post:

An alternative nerf to Ale House could be making the draw contingent on the discard, i.e. "Discard a Treasure.  If you did, +4 Cards...".  A different nerf would be putting the draw before the discard, thus making the forced discard more likely to happen.

I think Crusader's hand size attack might be OK to be stackable, because the attack portion is one-shot.  Then again, Pillage is limited.

I think the under-the-line text of LFN's Gargoyle rewrite has a superfluous "you".  It should be, "If no players gained a Curse in this way, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand".  The card tells you what you are doing, by default.

On the rewritten Castle Builder, I don't think a semi-colon should be used since they are typically used to delineate choices.  Is there an official example where it is used otherwise?  I also think the "When you do" clause is superfluous, and that the Estate giving warrants an Attack type.  Finally, Hunting Ground shows that it's not necessary to say "Estate card".  So I would rewrite it as:

Castle Builder
$5 - Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+$1
Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing no more than it.  Each other player gains an Estate.

[LastFootnote]

A different nerf would be putting the draw before the discard, thus making the forced discard more likely to happen.

I think that might make the card more powerful, not less.

I think the under-the-line text of LFN's Gargoyle rewrite has a superfluous "you".  It should be, "If no players gained a Curse in this way, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand".  The card tells you what you are doing, by default.

You are correct. I'll update my post soon.

On the rewritten Castle Builder, I don't think a semi-colon should be used since they are typically used to delineate choices.  Is there an official example where it is used otherwise?

It's in Mine, although not used in the exact same way.

EDIT: I've updated my post. I also eliminated the "when you do". Thanks for catching that.

[eHalcyon]

A different nerf would be putting the draw before the discard, thus making the forced discard more likely to happen.

I think that might make the card more powerful, not less.

With the discard first, I can reveal a hand without any Treasure and then draw four Treasures that I keep.

With the draw first, I might not have any Treasure in my starting hand but would still have to discard a Treasure if I draw one.

[LastFootnote]

A different nerf would be putting the draw before the discard, thus making the forced discard more likely to happen.

I think that might make the card more powerful, not less.

With the discard first, I can reveal a hand without any Treasure and then draw four Treasures that I keep.

With the draw first, I might not have any Treasure in my starting hand but would still have to discard a Treasure if I draw one.

Sure, I get that. But you're more likely to have a lower-value Treasure in hand after the draw. Also, if you have no Treasures in hand, then chances are you're trying for some sort of Treasureless deck, which I think should be rewarded rather than punished.

[eHalcyon]

A different nerf would be putting the draw before the discard, thus making the forced discard more likely to happen.

I think that might make the card more powerful, not less.

With the discard first, I can reveal a hand without any Treasure and then draw four Treasures that I keep.

With the draw first, I might not have any Treasure in my starting hand but would still have to discard a Treasure if I draw one.

Sure, I get that. But you're more likely to have a lower-value Treasure in hand after the draw. Also, if you have no Treasures in hand, then chances are you're trying for some sort of Treasureless deck, which I think should be rewarded rather than punished.

Ooh, good point. Recanted.

[WilsonWriter]

elHalcyon and LastFootnote (and a number of others as well), thank you for your detailed comments. I never expected such time from others, and I really appreciate it.

I've again updated many of the cards due to the suggestions made here. There are still one or two that I've kept pretty much the same (namely Inventor). While I get the concerns, we've just had way too much fun with it and found it to be a lot less complicated in real-play. And that's what it's really all about, right?

Besides my own family and friends, none of these cards mean much to anyone or ever will, but that's okay, because we love the game, love the expansions, and love using these cards--especially with many of the clarifying comments and edits, thanks to all of you!

I truly am honored that you took the time.

[yudantaiteki]

LastFootnote:

The attack portion is problematic because when played repeatedly, it can wipe out your opponents' turns. You should include a clause so that this only hits players with 5 or more cards in hand.

I don't know about that; you have to trash Crusader before you even know if they have the cards.  The only way to wipe out an opponents' turn is if you play 5 Crusaders (trashing them all) and they happen to have a hand of entirely attack cards and treasure.  This seems like a reasonable edge case to me.  (As I read the card, KC/TR does not work with the trash part.)

[Asper]

Crusader probably could wreck hands. Hands with only Treasures and Junk are not that uncommon, and a hand with only Curses/Estates/Shelters is basically wrecked.

But it would be too expensive to get only for the purpose of playing and trashing all of them in one turn, ruining opponents hands and possibly freeing their decks of Copper. I could have bought a Province or even Colony instead.

[yudantaiteki]

It *can*, but so can Cutpurse and Bureaucrat. ("I don't know about that" meant I don't know if it's actually a problem.)

[Asper]

It *can*, but so can Cutpurse and Bureaucrat. ("I don't know about that" meant I don't know if it's actually a problem.)

Yes sure, i didn't want to make a point against yours. I just wanted to point out wrecking hands comes at a price that is much too high for the attacker himself.

[GendoIkari]

Ale House
$5 - Action
Discard a Treasure card (or reveal a hand with no Treasures).
+4 Cards
+1 Action
Put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck in any order.

I'd test it with discarding the two cards rather than putting them on the bottom of your deck. The fact that this leaves you with the same hand size if you had any Treasures in hand means that it's not strictly better than Laborartory or Stables. The discarding is faster than putting cards back into your deck and the card could probably use the power boost. If it's too powerful, go back to putting the cards on the bottom of your deck.

I'm confused by this... isn't putting it on the bottom of your deck more powerful than discarding them on average? Putting them on the bottom of the deck means that you'll see them sooner. It's basically equivalent to a Stash-like ability that says you put them on the top of your deck when you shuffle.

[LastFootnote]

Ale House
$5 - Action
Discard a Treasure card (or reveal a hand with no Treasures).
+4 Cards
+1 Action
Put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck in any order.

I'd test it with discarding the two cards rather than putting them on the bottom of your deck. The fact that this leaves you with the same hand size if you had any Treasures in hand means that it's not strictly better than Laborartory or Stables. The discarding is faster than putting cards back into your deck and the card could probably use the power boost. If it's too powerful, go back to putting the cards on the bottom of your deck.

I'm confused by this... isn't putting it on the bottom of your deck more powerful than discarding them on average? Putting them on the bottom of the deck means that you'll see them sooner. It's basically equivalent to a Stash-like ability that says you put them on the top of your deck when you shuffle.

It depends on which two cards we're talking about. If it's two Victory cards, you'd rather discard them. If it's two useful cards, you'd rather put them back. Which one is better depends on your deck composition. I believe that discarding the cards would make Alehouse more powerful on average. Also, the decision of what to discard is much easier than the decision of what to put back, making the card resolve faster.