Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards
(Originally trashed it on the reaction instead of discarding it).

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

Recycle
Action-Reaction      3
Trash up to two cards; +1 card for every card trashed this way
_______________________________
Whenever a card is trashed, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, discard this card and gain a silver.


The set's early trasher which has a little late-game relevance and some interaction with itself and/or opponent's trashers. A little worried that opening double recycle could be too good, reacting to itself, but I'm not TOO hugely worried. Not a lot to say here.


Experience
Treasure-Reaction   3
Worth $2
Gain a treasure card worth at most the number of coppers you have in play.
______________________________________________________________
Whenever an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that attack.

Well, I'm not really thrilled with the 'main' function of the card, but I want it to be a treasure, and I'd like to keep the cost 3. As is, this should really cost 4 or maybe 5, I'm aware. But I love the reaction function, though I don't actually think it's all THAT powerful... I have a few other ideas for treasures floating around, and I'll probably attach it to one of them.

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

[Epoch]

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

As a $2-producing-$4, it's almost strictly superior to Cutpurse, right?  Only not superior to Cutpurse if Curses have run out, or if for some reason your opponent prefers gaining a Curse to discarding a Copper (which is a pretty damn rare scenario if you ask me).

Extremely deadly if spammed, right?  It's got a Torturer-like "either completely give up on your hand or gain lots of curses" deal?

[DG]

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

[WanderingWinder]

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

No. Is that discarding? If it is, I need to amend my wording to "from hand"

[WanderingWinder]

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

As a $2-producing-$4, it's almost strictly superior to Cutpurse, right?  Only not superior to Cutpurse if Curses have run out, or if for some reason your opponent prefers gaining a Curse to discarding a Copper (which is a pretty damn rare scenario if you ask me).

Extremely deadly if spammed, right?  It's got a Torturer-like "either completely give up on your hand or gain lots of curses" deal?

Well, taking a curse for keeping the copper would be something you should do sometimes, but you're probably right. There is at least some reason I left it as is

[rinkworks]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Well, make the draw conditional on discarding a card.  But I don't think it's too weak.  An attack card that earns +$2 needs to be roughly comparable to Fortune Teller, and this is almost certainly a better attack than that.  Not saying it has to go to $4, although it might.  Hard to know without testing.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

I think $4 is the right price for this.  Initially, I was thinking the attack portion is strong and comparable to Torturer's (since Mercenary doesn't let you shrug off the first attack or two by discarding victory cards).  But what makes Torturer so rough isn't the attack in isolation but the way its +3 Cards allow it to be spammed with Villages.  Mercenary is a lot harder to spam.

And if it's spammed anyhow, we should still recognize that Mercenary's attack is strictly worse than both Sea Hag's and Young Witch's.  Sea Hag's attack is stronger and offers NO benefit to the player.  Young Witch offers a mini-Warehouse benefit to the player (a better benefit than +$1), but it's attack is weaker than Sea Hag's and no worse than Mercenary's.  All told, I think that makes Mercenary competitive with both at $4.

But it's a close call.  Speaking strictly in terms of power level, you could get away with $3.  However, with costs $4 and below, it's more important to think of cost in terms of possible openings.  I'd really rather see Mercenary at $4 than see people being able to open double-cursing-attack.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and trash this. If you do, +2Cards

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

I'm not sure I understand your last comment.  If you play this card, you can no longer "reveal and trash this," (assuming you really meant "reveal and trash this from your hand," as it should say if that's what you meant).  Or are you talking about the cumulative effect of having two in your hand, one played and one revealed?

Anyway, discarding happens so often and in so many different contexts that I can't really envision how it would play.

Is rage supposed to react when discarding cards for loans, vaults, etc?

No. Is that discarding? If it is, I need to amend my wording to "from hand"

Yes.  Sea Hag, for example, "discards" the top card of your deck.  Hunting Party makes you "discard the other cards," and so on.  "When you discard a card from your hand" would cover all these situations, although Vault (which DG mentioned) would still trigger it.

[Hamlet]

I love the concept for Rage. Trashing it seems a little bit extreme; perhaps discarding it instead?You could rewrite the action portion if you are only intending to discard it if an opponent forcing you to discard. I could see this being insane if you discard cards with Cellar and then draw even more cards on top of that. It's a tricky situation.

Deflection looks good the way rinkworks modified it.

I'd take the +$1 off of Mercenary and then make the cost $4 and you'd be set.

[rinkworks]

I'd take the +$1 off of Mercenary and then make the cost $4 and you'd be set.

That would make it strictly worse than Sea Hag, which also does nothing for the player but puts the curse on top of the deck.  With Mercenary, you get the Curse in your discard pile, or, if discarding a Treasure would do even less harm than that, you could do that instead.  So I do think it needs something for the player at the $4 level.  But what?  That's what I'm not sure about.  +$1 seems fine, but I'm sure it's a deliberate design decision on Donald's part that practically no terminal action offers only +$1 as a bonus.  And the ones that do, make up for it in other ways, like Bishop trashing and gaining Victory tokens, and Bridge also lowering prices.  But on attack cards, all the bonuses are higher -- or, in a few cases, non-existent.  Maybe that's just coincidence.

[Hamlet]

Mercenary could let the player return a curse card from their hand to the supply if they want instead of a +1. Or trash.
Being honest, I'd rather see this one cost $5 and gain a +2 money (to be more in keeping with the series) but it doesn't have to.

[play2draw]

I'm under the impression that Assassin from the $2 cards thread is quite superior to Deflection. While Deflection gives you an extra coin, Assassin is a much better and more reliable attack. Maybe you should switch the attacks on the cards?

Edit: Also, I'm liking these cards. They seem like the sorts of cards that could be released in a legitimate expansion. I too found making Dominion cards a nice little diversion to think about, and I'm beginning to understand Dominion as a bit more of a system than a game.

One last edit: Would you also mind doing what the fellow in the Dominion: Locomotion thread has done and put the new cards or new modifications at the top of the thread as well? It makes things a little easier to see at a glance.

[WanderingWinder]

Here's the first batch of 3-cost cards

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?

Well, make the draw conditional on discarding a card.  But I don't think it's too weak.  An attack card that earns +$2 needs to be roughly comparable to Fortune Teller, and this is almost certainly a better attack than that.  Not saying it has to go to $4, although it might.  Hard to know without testing.

Yeah, I could make this into that, but I don't WANT to... you'll just sit on making them discard actions with impunity, as you basically never want to hit copper or estates, as their average card should be better than that. On the other hand, my version has this problem, too. But I'm worried about your version being too strong - it gives you a very good chance of making them skip their chapel or their witch or their sea hag or whatever their first actions were. So there should be SOME reason to dissuade you from missing - maybe making you discard instead if you miss? But I actually want to test it as is - you don't want it so often, but sometimes being able to sit on the action is really important.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

Another card I quite like. Probably it would work better as a 2-producing 4, in which case it's very comparable to cutpurse, but it's here for now. Potentially very strong if you can play it often though, so that's something to check on.

I think $4 is the right price for this.  Initially, I was thinking the attack portion is strong and comparable to Torturer's (since Mercenary doesn't let you shrug off the first attack or two by discarding victory cards).  But what makes Torturer so rough isn't the attack in isolation but the way its +3 Cards allow it to be spammed with Villages.  Mercenary is a lot harder to spam.

And if it's spammed anyhow, we should still recognize that Mercenary's attack is strictly worse than both Sea Hag's and Young Witch's.  Sea Hag's attack is stronger and offers NO benefit to the player.  Young Witch offers a mini-Warehouse benefit to the player (a better benefit than +$1), but it's attack is weaker than Sea Hag's and no worse than Mercenary's.  All told, I think that makes Mercenary competitive with both at $4.

But it's a close call.  Speaking strictly in terms of power level, you could get away with $3.  However, with costs $4 and below, it's more important to think of cost in terms of possible openings.  I'd really rather see Mercenary at $4 than see people being able to open double-cursing-attack.

Well, but you shouldn't look at it as a double-cursing-attack. Especially early, it's a double-cutpurse-attack, on a terminal copper instead of a terminal silver. It's probably fine.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and trash this. If you do, +2Cards

And I definitely want some reacting to discard in this set, but this as is is probably too weak. I'm worried if I make it a discard condition though (instead of trash), that you could really chain this up big-time. As is, it's a likely-worse version of woodcutter that you rarely, rarely want to trash due to it only bringing you back up to where you were at before the first discard. Maybe if it trashed for 3 cards?

I'm not sure I understand your last comment.  If you play this card, you can no longer "reveal and trash this," (assuming you really meant "reveal and trash this from your hand," as it should say if that's what you meant).  Or are you talking about the cumulative effect of having two in your hand, one played and one revealed?

Anyway, discarding happens so often and in so many different contexts that I can't really envision how it would play.

No, it's just my sentence has two totally separate ideas in it. What I mean is that it's worse than woodcutter, and the only thing it offers that could make it better - the reaction part - isn't so good, because if you use the reaction, it's not any better than not having had to discard in the first place, except that you've gotten to trash this pretty bad card! So it's definitely far too weak.

[WanderingWinder]

I love the concept for Rage. Trashing it seems a little bit extreme; perhaps discarding it instead?You could rewrite the action portion if you are only intending to discard it if an opponent forcing you to discard. I could see this being insane if you discard cards with Cellar and then draw even more cards on top of that. It's a tricky situation.

No, I intend it to be able to react to your own discard-for-benefit. In fact that's the whole thing I wanted from this card, it was the point of the design. But I'm worried about it getting too out of hand if you discard it as well, though the more I think about it, the less I think I should be. So it still only gets you back to where you started, and then every extra one of these is a gravy one card. You know, that's not so broken (I think). I am a little concerned you could make a nice deck with only this and money, but... when I try to make that work, it either doesn't or is easier with other existing cards anyway. So I'm gonna roll with it as that.

[play2draw]

Looking a bit more at Mercenary... I'd say that this card is probably superior to Cutpurse in most any situation. Cutpurse's biggest flaw is that it quickly loses its relevance. Not only would this card force a player to potentially discard more valuable treasures (and be potentially devastating in the late-game), but it can dish-out curses as well? That benefit is much more valuable than the $1 you lose by choosing this card over Cutpurse. I'd very comfortably buy this at $4 over Militia or Cutpurse.

[Thinkaman]

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?[/b]

This is like, 70% political. (If say Embargo is 20% political.) Red flag already going off.

I don't like that this card is unreliable in two dimensions; it makes the cost for failure really steep!  And when it does hit, it can be just devastating in a way that makes Torturer and Ghost Ship blush.  I mean think about it turn 3/4, it's a coin flip that is going to potentially devastate their entire opening.  Huuuge player 1 advantage statistically, it's nasty.

Villages let this card chain in really obnoxious ways too; also works with any other reveal-opponent-hand card.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

This seems scary strong, more or less a Cutpurse that costs only $3 but is much stronger late game.  Only producing $1 is a small price to pay.  I might open with two of these, since double Cutpurse is just too nasty.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards

I bet discarding from hand is a much narrower mechanic across the existing cards than you'd guess.  Hamlet, Cellar, Warehouse, Tournament (kinda), Minion, SC, HT, Vault, and Baron (kinda) are the only cards featuring it in a self-controlled manner.  It is much better with most of them, and a resounding meh otherwise.

It's an okay defense against discard attacks--not great, since often I'd rather have 3 good cards than 2 good cards + 2 more random ones.  It's a meh defense agaisnt Curses/junk, not nearly as strong as HT.  It's a weird double-defense case against Montebank.  I don't think that's bad, it's just odd.

Its defense against discard attacks becomes much weaker in multiplayer.

Overall, I can't say I like reaction-to-hand-discard.  It's narrow and wildly variable across other cards.

[rinkworks]

No, it's just my sentence has two totally separate ideas in it. What I mean is that it's worse than woodcutter, and the only thing it offers that could make it better - the reaction part - isn't so good, because if you use the reaction, it's not any better than not having had to discard in the first place, except that you've gotten to trash this pretty bad card! So it's definitely far too weak.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure it's possible to foresee all the situations the reaction might be used and conclude it's too weak in all of them.  Mightn't it depend on why you're discarding in the first place?  There's Militia and Goons, yes.  But on the other hand, if you're discarding as a result of resolving your own Hamlet/Horse Traders/Young Witch play, using the reaction could be an excellent way to keep a late-game turn alive that's otherwise choking on green.  And the fact that the action part is so weak would make me more inclined to do that.

But I don't think I'm quite believing my own line of thought here.  You're probably right; I'm not sure I'd want to buy this over Woodcutter.  Even in the right environment (lots of discard actions and attacks; no other reactions; limited +Buy), I might still be inclined to power through without it.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

[rinkworks]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

Of course, this is true. I've always disliked that about Secret Chamber but I guess if it's already in the game, it's already in the game. Carry on.

[WanderingWinder]

Rage has an aesthetic issue in that it theoretically COULD cause an infinite loop of discarding and drawing, although revealing a reaction card is optional so the player could break this loop at any point. I just don't like that it can happen.

Isn't that already the case with Secret Chamber?  But I get what you're saying.

Of course, this is true. I've always disliked that about Secret Chamber but I guess if it's already in the game, it's already in the game. Carry on.

It's actually also not the case with Rage. You have to react to the discard before you draw more cards from that reaction. Now, it can chain with itself, but not infinitely - you can never react with a rage to another rage that you didn't originally have in your hand without playing another action in between.

[WanderingWinder]

Deflection
Action - Attack      3
+$2
Name a card type. Every other player discards a card of that type (or reveals a hand with none), then draws a card.
I really like this concept. What you must note is that they draw a card whether or not they discarded one. This suggests to me that the card is too weak as is, and I need some tweak to make it viable. Suggestions?[/b]

This is like, 70% political. (If say Embargo is 20% political.) Red flag already going off.

I don't like that this card is unreliable in two dimensions; it makes the cost for failure really steep!  And when it does hit, it can be just devastating in a way that makes Torturer and Ghost Ship blush.  I mean think about it turn 3/4, it's a coin flip that is going to potentially devastate their entire opening.  Huuuge player 1 advantage statistically, it's nasty.

Villages let this card chain in really obnoxious ways too; also works with any other reveal-opponent-hand card.

I hardly think this is going to give anyone a huge player 1 advantage. Actually, it's probably better for player 2. But even if, in the opening, they've got some really key actions, I don't think this will be that devastating really. We'll see in the playtest.

Mercenary
Action-Attack      3
+$1
Each other player either discards a treasure card or gains a curse

This seems scary strong, more or less a Cutpurse that costs only $3 but is much stronger late game.  Only producing $1 is a small price to pay.  I might open with two of these, since double Cutpurse is just too nasty.

Again, I disagree that "double cutpurse" is so bad because I think there's so much less tempo for you - you aren't getting that $2, but only $1. It's actually also not always a stronger attack than cutpurse - sometimes you take the curse, and it's better for you! Also, it's not very good at all with any other curse-giver.

Rage
Action-Reaction      3
+1Buy
+$2
Discard 1 card
_____________________________
Whenever you discard a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, +2Cards

I bet discarding from hand is a much narrower mechanic across the existing cards than you'd guess.  Hamlet, Cellar, Warehouse, Tournament (kinda), Minion, SC, HT, Vault, and Baron (kinda) are the only cards featuring it in a self-controlled manner.  It is much better with most of them, and a resounding meh otherwise.

It's an okay defense against discard attacks--not great, since often I'd rather have 3 good cards than 2 good cards + 2 more random ones.  It's a meh defense agaisnt Curses/junk, not nearly as strong as HT.  It's a weird double-defense case against Montebank.  I don't think that's bad, it's just odd.

Its defense against discard attacks becomes much weaker in multiplayer.

Overall, I can't say I like reaction-to-hand-discard.  It's narrow and wildly variable across other cards.

Well, it's not so common in cards that are out there. This set will provide a lot more. But there's always at least one discard-for-benefit card in the supply - this one (this is an important part of the design!). I think this reduces the variability a good amount, though of course it's still massively variable - which is true of the majority of kingdom cards in print. If you don't like it... that's okay, I do.

[Hamlet]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

[Thisisnotasmile]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

Rage gets discarded when you reveal it. If you then have to reveal any further Rages in response to discarding that Rage BEFORE drawing 2 cards, then I made a mistake and you can't cause an infinite loop. If you draw the 2 cards first then you can.

[WanderingWinder]

Next batch of 3s:

Recycle
Action-Reaction      3
Trash up to two cards; +1 card for every card trashed this way
_______________________________
Whenever a card is trashed, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, discard this card and gain a silver.


The set's early trasher which has a little late-game relevance and some interaction with itself and/or opponent's trashers. A little worried that opening double recycle could be too good, reacting to itself, but I'm not TOO hugely worried. Not a lot to say here.


Experience
Treasure-Reaction   3
Worth $2
Gain a treasure card worth at most the number of coppers you have in play.
______________________________________________________________
Whenever an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that attack.

Well, I'm not really thrilled with the 'main' function of the card, but I want it to be a treasure, and I'd like to keep the cost 3. As is, this should really cost 4 or maybe 5, I'm aware. But I love the reaction function, though I don't actually think it's all THAT powerful... I have a few other ideas for treasures floating around, and I'll probably attach it to one of them.

Silversmith
Action         3
+1 buy
Every silver produces $2 more this turn.

Not a lot to say here. Probably almost as weak as coppersmith is.

[WanderingWinder]

Well, this is the main reason I'm 100% against the player using the reaction in response to their own discarding in this way:

Hamlet plays a Cellar
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...Discards an Estate, reveals a Rage, draws two Estates.
...

:/

Rage gets discarded when you reveal it. If you then have to reveal any further Rages in response to discarding that Rage BEFORE drawing 2 cards, then I made a mistake and you can't cause an infinite loop. If you draw the 2 cards first then you can.

Absolutely you must discard that rage before drawing. In fact, the drawing is conditional on "if you do..."
Edit: And you have to reveal the other ones before drawing too, because what they're reacting to is the discard. It's just like how you have to react to an attack before the effects of the attack, for instance before the choice of an attack like minion or pirate ship.

[Hamlet]

Bah, that's my mistake in interpretation. Sorry about that. If you discard it then it could work out. Never mind.