Print

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

[Asper]

I created these over the course of several years with the main goal to bring original but relatively easy to understand concepts to life. The cards can be split up into several groups:

• Dominion Legacy: Cards and Events using existing game mechanics, but in new ways. This is the biggest bulk. (Cog icon)
• Fame cards: A minor mechanic about cards that get better if the player fulfilled certain "Feats" tracked on a board (Also cog icon).
• Spellcasters: Cards that allow you to "cast" Spells that you previously bought. (Wand icon)
• Seasons (created by Co0kieL0rd and me): Cards that change over the course of the game. (Hourglass icon)
• Team Dominion: Cards created for a Dominion variant that has players team up against each other. (Shaking hands icon)
• Edicts: Sideways cards that introduce straight-up rules changes. These predate Projects, by the way.

Format:
Card Name
Cost
Types
Text
-
Under-the-line texts


Legacy
These are cards that use existing mechanics. No real new rules.




















(predates Allies)















(predates Nocturne, was called Necromancer, and now I'm bored of changing its name)
(my Necromancer also came with Zombies starting in the trash, howaboutthat, I renamed those, too)
(you have three guesses how this card was called before Nocturne)

















Events
These are just some new Events.

Blessing
0
Event
Once per turn: +1 Buy; Trash a card from your hand.


Tithe
0
Event
Once per turn: You may trash an Action card from your hand, for +1 Buy, +$2


Synthesis
P
Event
Once per turn: +1 Buy; Name a card. When you discard copies of that card from play this turn, you may put them onto your deck.


Plundering
2
Event
Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.


Exodus
3
Event
If at least one Supply pile is empty, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5.


Parting
3
Event
Flip your Journey Token over. If it is face-up, gain a card costing up to $5.


Buerocracy
5
Event
Move your Bureaucracy Token to another Supply pile. (When you gain a card from a pile with your Bureaucracy Token on it, put it onto your deck).
Setup: Each player puts their Bureaucracy Token on the Province pile.


Improve
5
Event
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than it.


Sale
6
Event
+1 Coffers; Gain a card costing up to $5.


Contest
6
Event
Gain a card of your choice from the Contest pile.
-
Setup: Make a Contestdeck out of 10 different unused Kingdom cards costing $5.


Edicts
Edicts are straight-up rules changes. They can never be bought or added to anyone's deck, and are basically a broader variant of Landmarks.

Expansion
Edict
At the start of your turn, you may take your -$1 Token, to get +1 Action.


Appeasement
Edict
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard an Estate from your hand, to be unaffected by it.


Diplomacy
Edict
At the start of your turn, you may discard 2 cards, for +1 Card.


Isolation
Edict
When you gain a card, you may exile it and gain a Copper.


Gigantism
Edict
Setup: Use 3 additional Kingdom card piles.


Trade Agreement
Edict
When you shuffle your deck during the game, you may gain a Silver and shuffle it in.


Imperialism
Edict
Setup: If it isn't already there, add the Platinum pile to the Supply.


Inflation
Edict
Cards can never cost less than $2.


Monarchy
Edict
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may set it aside here to play it again. Trash it at the start of your cleanup phase.


Reformation
Edict
Setup: Add a Province to the Supply per player.


Simplicity
Edict
Setup: Each player gets +5 Villagers


Tyranny
Edict
When you gain a Treasure card, take your -$1 Token.


Supervision
Edict
Setup: Before drawing starting cards, all players may look through their deck and put its cards in any order.


Banishment
Edict
When you buy a Victory card, trash a cheaper Victory card from the Supply.


Urbanisation
Edict
Setup: Each player replaces one of their starting Estates (or a Shelter of their choice) with a Copper.


Spellcasters & Spells
When a card with the Spellcaster type is in the supply, 3 Spells are chosen at random and put next to the Supply. Spells are effects similar to Events, which never go into your deck, but which you can buy in your buy phase. Each player gets 5 Spell Tokens in their color. When you buy a Spell, you put one of your tokens on the Spell you bought. That Spell is now "prepared". The only way to actually perform what a Spell does is when a Spellcaster card tells you to „cast a Spell“. By casting a Spell, you do what it says, then remove your token from the Spell. Naturally, you can have up to five Spells prepared.


Trickster
2
Action – Spellcaster
+2 Actions; You may cast a Spell.


Magician
3
Action – Spellcaster
+1 Buy; You may cast a Spell.
-
While this is in play, Spells cost $1 less, but not less than $0.


Shaman
3
Action – Spellcaster
+2 Cards; You may cast a Spell. If you do: +1 Card.


Stone Circle
3
Victory – Spellcaster
Worth 2 VP.
-
When you gain this, you may cast a Spell.


Shaman
3
Action – Spellcaster
+2 Cards; You may cast a Spell. If you do: +1 Card.


Ivory Tower
4
Action – Spellcaster
+1 Card, +1 Action; Discard up to 2 cards. Cast a Spell per card discarded.


Grimoire
4
Treasure – Spellcaster
+$1, +1 Buy; When you play this, you may cast a Spell. You may discard a card, for +$1.


Sorcerer
5
Action – Spellcaster
+3 Cards, +1 Buy; You may cast a Spell.


Warlock
5
Action – Spellcaster
+2 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy; You may cast a Spell.
-
When you gain this, gain a Curse.


Wizard
5
Action – Spellcaster
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1; You may cast a Spell.


Esprit
1
Spell
+3 Buys


Purity
2
Spell
Trash any number of cards from your hand.


Wisdom
2
Spell
+2 Cards


Dexterity
4
Spell
Gain a card costing up to $5.


Harm
3
Spell
Gain a Silver. Each other player gains a Curse.


Wealth
4
Spell
+$3


Glory
7
Spell
Gain a Province.


Seasons
Season cards were created as a project together with the user C0okyL0rd. They change as the game progresses. When one or more Season cards are in the Supply, use the Season mat. The Season Mat has 20 spaces on it that go in a circle, and shows the 4 Seasons. A token is used to track the current time of year, starting the game on space 1, the first of Spring. After each full round (that is, after the last player in turn order took their turn) the token is moved forward one space. After each 5 turns a new Season begins. Summer starts with turn 6, Fall with turn 11, and Winter with 16. After turn 20 it is Spring again, and so on. Season cards check the current Season and do different things depending on it.






(should probably be renamed to Pupil now...)

[Archetype]

First!

[Archetype]

Contraption: With the trash option, it may be a bit too strong. But the on-gain clause is unique and looks like it may help counter that. This one needs to be play tested to determine its strength.

Archive/Cryptograph: Interesting! I think the Crytograph should be 1$, 1 VP. I'd almost never let you keep it and Archive may be a bit too strong.

Hospital: Hm, I'm not sure I like this. Seems highly board dependent, which I don't really like. It may be too strong, but I personally would dislike playing with this if it were a printed card.

Parliament: This is so cool! I'd add another row: $5......play it once. Also, change the text to 'an Action card'. 'A card' is a bit too ambiguous.

Charter: This is pretty cool. Usually having the ruins go to players hand is useless, but it's a small nerf that may be needed. Nice one!

Clearance: I'm not exactly seeing the utility of this. I mean, it's good if you're falling behind someone who's rushing Provinces, but it really changes up the dynamic of the games it's in. But if you dont mind those kind of games, then I'd say use it. I can't think of any good replacements for the top, but the placeholder is good enough.

Swamp: So it's an alternate to Curses and Ruins, in a way.  Hm. I don't like that it has 3 sections, and I'm almost not sure you need that second part. And if not, then the third. I just think you need 2 different cards for each idea than trying to shove the two together. But if you don't mind the 3 spaces, then go for it!

Grand Vizier: Cool concept. I've never seen one like it before. 'Gain a Victory $6 or less' is a little clunky and I think you can get away with 'Gain a Duchy'. But you'd know better than me if you can. Really like the concept of having a small hand size, increasing it, but then discarding a card to fuel another one. The top part rocks so I think the only thing that can potentially be changed is the Victory part.

Hedge Maze: Name may need to be changed, but the idea is nice. To simplify it, I'd remove the "on top of your deck" clause.

Dragon: Nifty. Not sure what else to say.

Unicorn: Looks balanced. I'd remove the "Put your deck into your discard pile" and put in "+2 Buys"

Siren: Eh, it's a bit too similiar to Ghost Ship for me. But it's probably alright.

Chameleon: The Setup clause is interesting, but I think that a lot of people already play that way.

Overall, some cool cards here. My favorite has be Grand Vizior, but my least favorite is Hospital. Cool collection, thanks for posting!

[Asper]

Wow, thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you like most of them.

Contraption: Will do

Cryptograph: The choice is so cards like Thief and Pirate Ship can still trash it.

Hospital: I understand why you wouldn't like it printed - it takes pretty long to resolve it, especially when you have several cards to choose from. I'll playtest and reconsider it.

Parliament: Oops, is of course supposed to be "action card". I figured a 5$ card usually will be played directly, unless you go for Conspirators or handsize matters. I'm really glad you like it

Swamp: I put it together that way because both parts are pretty irrelevant on some boards. I'll playtest and rethink this, too. Maybe it's really better to split it for simplicity.

Grand Vizier: Thank you, though i stole the top part from Oasis... I'd really like to give a choice which victory card to gain, so that it interacts with Harem, Nobles and such... Hm...

Hedge Maze: There are not many situations where you'd want it on your deck (Outpost), so probably you're right and it's better without that part or even better directly putting the Curse in hand.

Unicorn: Hmm... Yeah, why not. Not a Trusty Steed bonus, but pretty nice. Thanks for the idea

[scott_pilgrim]

For now I'll just comment on the ones that jump out at me:

Hospital - Cantrip victory token gainers don't really work in general; I'm sure you've heard of the problems with it before.  So you gave it a drawback.  I'm not sure that any sufficient drawback for the cantrip victory token card exists, but I'm pretty sure that your solution won't be enough to balance it.  I mean, maybe on many boards it will be, but there's always going to be a board where none of the (non-Hospital) cards costing $4 or less are appealing, and then Hospital just becomes a normal cantrip victory token gainer.

Charter - Non-terminal junking is crazy good.  Familiar limits itself by costing potion (meaning you usually only get one once per shuffle at maximum).  Cultist is at least kind of terminal in that it can only chain with itself, and it can also be drawn dead by other cards.  Charter is a treasure so you can't draw it dead, and there's no restrictions on how many times you can play it per turn.  Gaining to hand is a nice nerf though.  It's probably a power card but maybe not worse than Cultist.

Dragon - I am totally baffled by what you are trying to say in that comment.  If you get to choose whether they discard one card or their whole hand, doesn't that make it stronger than if there was no choice?

Siren - Terminal gold with a plus for $5 probably compares too favorably to Harvest.  Also, the wording is a little weird.  I would say "Each other player sets aside cards from his hand until he has 3 cards in his hand..."  I agree that it's a lot of text for a not-so-exciting effect.

[Asper]

Thank you for your feedback too, scotty

Hospital: Yeah, i'm not really happy with it right now, and that both of you share this view shows it needs work. I'll try to think of something else, but i still like the idea of a cantrip VP card.

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

Siren: Wording changed and Vanilla placeholder added instead of +3$. I don't know what i was thinking there.

[Asper]

So would Swamp look better this way, maybe?

Swamp
0$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard a card. If this is the first time you play a Swamp this turn: +2 Buys
----
In games using this, when you would gain a card and this is in the supply, you may gain this, instead

[AJD]

So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

[scott_pilgrim]

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

[Asper]

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.

[Asper]

So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.

[AJD]

So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.

Maybe not. But I wonder what a cantrip VP token card where you gain a card when you play it would be like? Say, "gain a card costing less than this"—so you must either block the cantrip chain or run piles out or both in order to use it. Not sure if it's a $4 or a $5 or what, though.

[Asper]

Oh yeah, sorry, i got what you wanted but my answer didn't have anything to do with it... 
I'll consider that approach for another version
Sorry, i'm very tired...

[Asper]

So, I misread Hospital and thought it said you gain a card costing up to $4.

But I wonder how that would actually work out, on a cantrip VP-token earner? The problem with non-terminal token earners, right, is that you can just keep playing them and nothing else and never end the game. But having cantrip VP with mandatory gain solves both those problems: you can't just trash your deck down to those and nothing else, because they re-bloat your deck for you (though okay, if you're lucky you can get a bunch of Sages or Pearl Divers or something), and it definitely forces the game toward an end on piles.

The idea was to give others the choice of bringing the game closer to it's end. Obviously doesn't work out the way i wanted to.

Maybe not. But I wonder what a cantrip VP token card where you gain a card when you play it would be like? Say, "gain a card costing less than this"—so you must either block the cantrip chain or run piles out or both in order to use it. Not sure if it's a $4 or a $5 or what, though.

Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Hospital
5$, Action
+1 Card
+1 action
+1 VP
Gain a card costing less than this.

Will also redo the upper half of Swamp, probably. Still have to think about how to push Dragon a bit, +1 Buy seems good, but is too similar to Margrave. And removed Siren for now.

[AJD]

Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Maybe, but note you might rather gain a lot of $4 cards than $3 card. But I suppose it... (wait for it...) depends on the board.

[Asper]

Hmm... 4$ or 5$, that's tough. I'll playtest it at 5$, it seems still too good at 4$.

Maybe, but note you might rather gain a lot of $4 cards than $3 card. But I suppose it... (wait for it...) depends on the board.

True, true. But at 4$ it's still a nonterminal cantrip Silver gainer with VP, at the least. The more i think about it, the more i feel it's even stronger than my original version... I'll playtest it at 5$ and, depending on the result, maybe at 4$ and/or 6$.

Edit: Ugh, just playtested it on a random kingdom... And that Kingdom mas Duchess, Develop, Shanty Town, Masquerade, Bishop, Monument, Mining Village, Hospital, Mountebank and Border Village, with Colony. That was soooooooo helpful in estimating the power level of 5$-Hospital... 
(Hospital/Bishop lost to Border Village/Mountebank, but not by much... Probably also didn't help i played terribly. I guess it's too strong, too.)

[scott_pilgrim]

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.

Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense now.  Thanks for clearing that up.

With the new Hospital gaining for yourself I would think it's way too strong, even at $5.  I don't think we've had a cantrip gainer before (except Upgrade, but that's dependent on trashing).  It does balance for the fact that it's a cantrip victory token gainer, but the benefit of gaining is probably greater than the amount of nerf it gives to the rest of the card (if that makes sense).  Actually, if there are any cantrips costing $4 or less, you can just spam them (presumably they slightly improve your deck, even if they are something like Spy or Pearl Diver), and that won't slow down your victory tokening at all.

[mail-mi]

Dragon: You don't get to choose the card he discards, just how many. So if a player has a good hand, he will have to discard it, but if he has been hit by several Dragons and now has a terrible hand, he may still discard his worst card and draw a new one (you won't let him discard all those terrible cards). I assume the wording had you think you could choose the card to discard, so i'll make it a bit clearer. (Actually i wasn't sure whether the wording was clear enough and it shows it was not).

That is a good explanation of how the card plays out (I didn't quite think through it upon first reading), although I'm still a little confused by the comment.  I guess I don't know what the one card choice was added to (if I've seen the original card it's been a while), so maybe that is the source of the confusion?

I was just thinking that the original must have read "+3 cards; Each other player discards his hand. He then draws the same number of cards he discarded." in which case the new version is strictly better.  But maybe that's not what the original card said.

Anyway, I think the wording was clear as it was.  It's a very interesting card, though it may be too weak for $5.

Well, the former version was this:
+3 Cards
Each other player reveals his hand. You decide whether he has to discard it and draw 5 new cards.

The problem here was that you could keep playing Dragons until everybody had a terrible hand. The decision between two alternatives was a nerf. I'll add it to the comment for others. And yeah, it might be a bit weak because of it.

Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense now.  Thanks for clearing that up.

With the new Hospital gaining for yourself I would think it's way too strong, even at $5.  I don't think we've had a cantrip gainer before (except Upgrade, but that's dependent on trashing).  It does balance for the fact that it's a cantrip victory token gainer, but the benefit of gaining is probably greater than the amount of nerf it gives to the rest of the card (if that makes sense).  Actually, if there are any cantrips costing $4 or less, you can just spam them (presumably they slightly improve your deck, even if they are something like Spy or Pearl Diver), and that won't slow down your victory tokening at all.

OIr you make it cost $3 so you have to take an Estate or Copper or something (Or a $2 action)

[Jack Rudd]

*sets up five-card hand of Highway-Highway-Parliament-Parliament-some draw card*

EDIT: Ah, that doesn't work: it works on the printed cost, not the modified cost. Neat wording.

[Asper]

Figured i should actually use this thread for my card ideas.

I tried two other takes on my old idea, Hedge Maze. Do you think one of them is balanced? If yes, which is better?

Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 5$ (1)
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile.


Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 4$ (2)
Each other player gains a Curse in hand.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile that is not Province's.


Also a second card: First i wanted to post this in the "Very bad card ideas" thread, but maybe it's not that terrible - might be overpowered when compared to Junk Dealer or Market, though:

Pony, Action, 5$
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1$
Gain a Silver



What do you think?

[silverspawn]

Figured i should actually use this thread for my card ideas.

I tried two other takes on my old idea, Hedge Maze. Do you think one of them is balanced? If yes, which is better?

Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 5$ (1)
Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile.

Let's see, so it's usually either worth 2VP (curse and Province) or 3VP (3 piles). You'll want to buy it really early, like most junkers. You probably won't get more than 2 of them. So, compared to Witch, you'll lack the +2 card beneift early, but have 4/6 VP's more endgame. That seems weak to me, but I'm not sure. It's defintiely worse than Mountebank, but what card isn't, so that's not an issue.

Hedge Maze, Action - Attack - Victory, 4$ (2)
Each other player gains a Curse in hand.
-----
Worth one VP per empty supply pile that is not Province's.

I don't like this version. Firstly because, following the same logic, it's usually either worth 1VP or 3VP, very swingy. Second, I don't think we need another curser for $4. In games without trashing, it'll be must-buy, a duchy which deals out curses. In games with good trashing, it's an Estate with a slight attack, you'll often get rid of the curse right away. I don't see that being fun. Try the 5$ version.

Also a second card: First i wanted to post this in the "Very bad card ideas" thread, but maybe it's not that terrible - might be overpowered when compared to Junk Dealer or Market, though:

Pony, Action, 5$
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1$
Gain a Silver



What do you think?

I like the name. Aside from that, I think the card is fine. If it were in the game, it would probably be one of the most frequently missused cards, because it kills your engines. It's a BM card, you're flooding yourself with silver, not a card for engines. Because of this, comparing it to market or Junk Dealer doesn't make all that much sense. I think the closest comparison is Jack of all Trades. Both give you a silver, both have you back at 5 cards when playing them. JOAD also trashes your estates and curses and defends against discard attacks, this card simply provides +1$, and it isn't terminal. I could see them working fairly well together, not to the point where you ever buy it over gold, but you might buy it rather than another silver.

Despite what I said, it might be a good addition to some engines, but only after they're set up, to increase their buying power. In that way it'd work similiar to Explorer: if you draw the silver in the turn you get it, it's +3$ for your current turn, +2$ for every following turn, +1 card for your deck. Explorer is +3$ for your current turn, +3$ for every following turn, +1 card for your deck; but it's terminal and you need to already have a province. Explorer also doesn't draw, but it doesn't make you have to draw the gold either, so it's like +1 card in that way.

Might also be good for some other stuff. Anyway, I like it. Needs testing though.

[Asper]

Thanks for your feedback. The name of Pony comes from the fact that it gives each of Trusty Steed's bonuses, but in a weaker form. I can see why you like it, though

I myself had the feeling that the 5$ version of Hedge Maze was more dull than the other one, so that's why i wanted to have the 4$. I can definitely see you concern about it, though.

I'd still like to have an Attack-Victory, but maybe i can come up with something more clever. Using Ruins seems an obvious choice, but probably that's not good, either.

[Asper]

Junk me, baby!

I noticed two ideas for alt victory cards i had some time ago went in very similar directions. So i combined them:

Demolition, 6$, Victory
Worth 2VP if you still own your Demolition token.
---
Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes it when he trashes one of his Victory cards.
---
When you gain this, gain a Duchy and an Estate and trash a Province from the supply.


Things worth noting:
This is a Province for 6$ that junks your deck and demands that you don't trash junk.
The Province trashed from the supply is none of your cards and doesn't remove the token or trigger Market Square.
The card is a Victory card that works horribly with Rebuild, maybe against it.
If it seems too weak, i could change Estate and Duchy for "two differently named VP cards costing less than this".

About the 2nd line i don't really know what to do. I feel the idea itself is sufficiently simple, but obviously 2 lines is a no go. If somebody has an idea how i could reach a similar goal with just one, i'd greatly appreciate it. Or do you think the rules allow me to put the first two together? Like: "Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes that token when he trashes one of his VP cards. This card is worth 2VP for players that still have their token."

I'm really uncertain of what to do with this, so please help me out a bit here

[clloxin]

 

Junk me, baby!

I noticed two ideas for alt victory cards i had some time ago went in very similar directions. So i combined them:

Demolition, 6$, Victory
Worth 2VP if you still own your Demolition token.
---
Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes it when he trashes one of his Victory cards.
---
When you gain this, gain a Duchy and an Estate and trash a Province from the supply.


Things worth noting:
This is a Province for 6$ that junks your deck and demands that you don't trash junk.
The Province trashed from the supply is none of your cards and doesn't remove the token or trigger Market Square.
The card is a Victory card that works horribly with Rebuild, maybe against it.
If it seems too weak, i could change Estate and Duchy for "two differently named VP cards costing less than this".

About the 2nd line i don't really know what to do. I feel the idea itself is sufficiently simple, but obviously 2 lines is a no go. If somebody has an idea how i could reach a similar goal with just one, i'd greatly appreciate it. Or do you think the rules allow me to put the first two together? Like: "Setup: Each player takes a Demolition token. He removes that token when he trashes one of his VP cards. This card is worth 2VP for players that still have their token."

I'm really uncertain of what to do with this, so please help me out a bit here

I'm not an expert, but it seems that it wouldn't be worth it to not trash when you have the option.
In games without trashing, it is a cheap province which junks your deck, but its a unanimous buy late game.
I might be wrong, but I don't think this card would fit it's purpose, and be just cheap victory points for $6, either a province or a duchy and an estate for $6.

[eHalcyon]

@silerspawn -- Hedge Maze is not worth either 1VP or 3VP.  It's worth 1-4 VP usually, with a chance of being worth MORE than 4VP.  If the game ends in a 3 pile, Hedge Maze is worth a net 4VP because of the Curse.  It can be worth an intermediate value because games that end on Provinces often ALSO have another empty pile or two.  It can be worth more because there are sometimes games where more than 3 piles are emptied on the last turn.  For the version that counts the Province pile as well, it's worh a net 2-4VP (because there is a guaranteed empty pile at the end).

Also note that this is a curser itself.  That almost guarantees that the curse pile will empty, further lowering the variance.

Despite the variable VP, I don't think it is that swingy.  Before you buy it, you can reasonably predict how many empty piles there will be.  If it's a powerful engine board with Hamlet or Fishing Village as the only +actions, then you can be pretty sure that that pile will drain quickly.  If it's a dull BM board with no +actions or +buy or gainers, probably no pile will empty.



Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.








On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.

[Asper]

Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.

I think there is one. Originally Hedge Maze was only counting the piles of cards costing 0$, but i felt that was awkward.
I can see why you think it's boring... 

On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.

Yeah, originally it was about trashing cards during your turn, but that was too complex. I guess you just shouldn't buy Demolition on a board with trashing attacks...


As i mentioned it were two cards originally. Maybe i should post them, too:

Rental, 6$, Victory
Setup: Each player puts 6 VP tokens on his rental mat. Whenever he trashes a VP card during his turn, he removes one VP token from the mat.
---
This is worth 1 VP per VP token on your Rental mat.


Headquarters, 6$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard any number of cards. +1$ per card discarded.
----
When you gain this, gain two differently named Victory cards costing less than this and trash a Province from the supply.


Any thoughts? I don't want to have two cards that have so similar goals (though not same), so if i can't combine them i will dismiss one. Which one should i get rid of?

[clloxin]

Despite defending the card on those fronts, I think a bigger problem is that it just wouldn't be that interesting or fun.  Players tend not to like attack cards that give no benefit (e.g. Saboteur, Sea Hag) on play.  I like the VP portion (there's a similar one in one of the mini-set design contests, I think?) but the cursing just isn't exciting at all.

I think there is one. Originally Hedge Maze was only counting the piles of cards costing 0$, but i felt that was awkward.
I can see why you think it's boring... 

On Demolition -- the double line is off-putting.  I like the general idea (cheap province that junks you a lot more) but I'm not sure about the implementation.  It makes trashing attacks even swingier than they normally are.  Swindler hits your Estate... now your Demolitions are all worthless.  I'm also not sure if it would be fun to feel constricted against trashing.

Yeah, originally it was about trashing cards during your turn, but that was too complex. I guess you just shouldn't buy Demolition on a board with trashing attacks...


As i mentioned it were two cards originally. Maybe i should post them, too:

Rental, 6$, Victory
Setup: Each player puts 6 VP tokens on his rental mat. Whenever he trashes a VP card during his turn, he removes one VP token from the mat.
---
This is worth 1 VP per VP token on your Rental mat.


Headquarters, 6$, Action
+2 Actions
Discard any number of cards. +1$ per card discarded.
----
When you gain this, gain two differently named Victory cards costing less than this and trash a Province from the supply.


Any thoughts? I don't want to have two cards that have so similar goals (though not same), so if i can't combine them i will dismiss one. Which one should i get rid of?

I don't think the idea of rental is that good. Punishing you for not trashing is bad. and when there is no trashing it's a cheap province. Still, you could try testing it if you really like the idea.
I think the idea for headquarters is better. Except It gives alot of victory points for $6 late game, especially when there is alt. victory cards. If you re-did the card, keeping the main idea though, it probably would be okay, Gimmicky, but still okay.

[Asper]

Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?


Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;

[silverspawn]

Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?



Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;

a lab+ for 2$? sounds legit

[Asper]

Another take at a card that was intended to be a mix of Pearl Diver and Native Village:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Choose one:
Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, play this again; Or: Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand.

Edit: This card is basically either a cantrip that draws from the deck's bottom, or, more interestingly, a way to prepare combos by storing cards and then Villaging them.
Thinking about it, the card's a bit too complex, isn't it?



Edit II, cleaner version:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Card
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;

a lab+ for 2$? sounds legit

Ah crap, i forgot to remove the +1 card when redoing the wording.

Of course that's how it's supposed to be:

Dwarf, Action - Duration, 2$
+1 Action
Chose one:
Put the bottom card of your deck in your hand;
Or: Put a card from your hand at the bottom of your deck. At the start of your next turn, chose one again;

[silverspawn]

well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

[Asper]

well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar.

[silverspawn]

well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar.

it's worse, with haven you always draw, and if you don't want to set aside a card, you can usually just choose a dead card

[Asper]

well, it's very similar and a lot worse than haven

I'm not sure on the worse, but it probably really is too similar.

it's worse, with haven you always draw, and if you don't want to set aside a card, you can usually just choose a dead card

Probably you're right. Was a bad idea...

[Asper]

Updated the OP list of cards after some time of being rather unproductive as a fan card designer. As always, i'm grateful for opinions.

Edit: If you have no opinions, i take credit cards, too.

[Halvard]

Politician Action, $3
+$3
For each other player, choose one of the following he may do (choices must be different):
Draw a card; Trash a card from his hand; Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Gain +1VP

Comment one:
When you say "choose one" I would think that "choices must be different" is unnecessary?

Comment two:
The choices you have for what your opponents can do will sometimes be awful for him (and I assume that you want them to be good for him).  Let us say he has built up a strong deck with the use of Chapel or another trashing mechanism, you risk that he has only strong cards in his deck.  And is putting his deck in his discard always a good thing?  I think I would choose "Put his deck in his discard" most of the time.

Comment three:
I really liked the idea of this card.  What if your opponents could choose themselves?  I think that could be cool.  It might set the cost down to $2?

[Asper]

Politician Action, $3
+$3
For each other player, choose one of the following he may do (choices must be different):
Draw a card; Trash a card from his hand; Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Gain +1VP

Comment one:
When you say "choose one" I would think that "choices must be different" is unnecessary?

Comment two:
The choices you have for what your opponents can do will sometimes be awful for him (and I assume that you want them to be good for him).  Let us say he has built up a strong deck with the use of Chapel or another trashing mechanism, you risk that he has only strong cards in his deck.  And is putting his deck in his discard always a good thing?  I think I would choose "Put his deck in his discard" most of the time.

Comment three:
I really liked the idea of this card.  What if your opponents could choose themselves?  I think that could be cool.  It might set the cost down to $2?

Thank you for the input.

Comment one: The "choose one" is to make clear that i can't have player one do all five things so player two can't do anything. "choices must be different" makes clear i can't let player one and two do the same thing. But you are right and it can probably be shortened. "For each other player, choose another one of the following he may do".

Comment two: Yes, most of the choices are not exactly great under certain situations. That's on purpose - you can for each opponent pick whatever choice you think helps him the least (well, unless another opponent allready got that benefit). Trashing is awful if all your opponent has is good stuff. Silvers can harm a trimmed engine. Drawing can trigger reshuffles (but is still pretty good). The +1VP is never a drawback, but it's also the only one that can never benefit your economy. The Chancellor effect doesn't stack. That aside, i think people generally underestimate how good it is at speeding you up. Nonetheless you are most certainly right, you don't always want it. That's why players only may do the bonus and are not forced to.

Comment three:
Well, the point of the card is to make it deliberately political, which means that you have to be the one who chooses who gets what. There are quite some "friendly interaction" cards allready, and most of the effects on this card have been on those allready. The fact that you choose is what makes it special.

[Asper]

Images!!


Figured i could just as well follow my own advice and add images to some of my cards. Naturally, positive feedback should now ensue.

Assassin & Sultan are two new cards. Sultan is vaguely as good as Oasis (i think), being less useful when paired with Estates, Curses, Ruins and dead Actions, but better if you can meet it up with Duchies, Provinces or alt-VP, or if you have no junk in hand at all. As a gainer, it plays actually very differently.
Assassin is a super-powered Militia/Ghost Ship attack. +2$ seemed a logical bonus, but i didn't want it to become a card that just goes "play one of these every turn". If you have no other actions, the bonus is useless, and if you play several, the attack doesn't stack.

Tribunal is the renamed Dragon. A lot of cards don't have (good) art yet, either, so i left those out. They are in the first post, though.

[werothegreat]

I like River.  But you have to strike a balance as to how many you get - too many, and you have a bunch of Rivers in hand that you don't need.  Too few, and you'll only see it once a shuffle, though the turn you get it will be awesome.

[Asper]

I like River.  But you have to strike a balance as to how many you get - too many, and you have a bunch of Rivers in hand that you don't need.  Too few, and you'll only see it once a shuffle, though the turn you get it will be awesome.

When i suggested it in the "-1 action" thread, there actually was some discussion as to how strong it was. Like you, i believe that balancing how many you want is tricky (considering you may be unlucky and draw it without Villages), which is why i priced at easily available $3. I don't have people who would playtest cards with me, though, and i find solo playtests terribly unsatisfactory. So maybe i'm totally wrong here.

[TheOthin]

That is a lot of +Actions.

[Asper]

That is a lot of +Actions.

Interesting point... I guess Assassin doesn't really need to be one of those. There were some more cards that didn't have +actions, but i had no images.

After some search here's part two. Should reduce the +action percentage Also has a few $4 cards.



Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that
Edit: Forgot vampire.
Edited Edit: On second third thought, the picture for that one isn't good enough, though

[AJD]

I like Assemble, but it's gonna need some clarification. Do you choose both cards before you gain either of them?

[Asper]

I like Assemble, but it's gonna need some clarification. Do you choose both cards before you gain either of them?

Good point. I imagined that you would first gain one card costing up to $3 more and after that gain another one costing up to whatever is left, but couldn't find a nice wording for that - i guess i forgot to make it clear in either way  Anyhow, i think it should only matter if Curses and Coppers both are out, but of course that can happen. Either option works for me, it's all about which wording is better.

I have this: "Trash a card from your hand. Choose two card in the supply that together cost up to $3 more than the trashed card. Gain them"
A bit lengthy, though.

Edit: Changed wording It now makes clear you choose both cards, then gain them.

[LastFootnote]

I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.

[werothegreat]

Politician seems very... political.

[Asper]

I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.

Would you recommend going back to the old wording? I'd like to give the option of gaining duplicates and wasn't aware the wording wouldn't allow it. Maybe it would be sufficient to go back and only clarify the actual order in a faq - given it will matter very rarely.

[Asper]

Politician seems very... political.

I don't see where you draw that connection.

On a side note, i would be glad to find a better option than the +1VP one, just so the card doesn't ask for material that's otherwise not needed. There's trashing, gaining, drawing, accelerating and i wanted one that gave no economy boost at all. I pondered a few alternatives, including "set aside a Victory card in his hand during the end of the game", "gain a Copper in hand", "discard his hand and draw 5 new cards", but they were too redundant to the existing options.

[Jack Rudd]

Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that

Actually, it's more like "disassemble". "Dissemble" is something completely different.

[LastFootnote]

I believe with the new wording of Assemble, you cannot gain two copies of the same card, as only the top card in each pile is "in the Supply" for this kind of purpose. Same way you can't use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin if he's buried in the Knights pile.

I think with the old wording, you gained a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed, then gain another card costing up to the remainder. If there is no such card, you'd gain nothing, but there almost always will be either a Copper or Curse to gain.

Would you recommend going back to the old wording? I'd like to give the option of gaining duplicates and wasn't aware the wording wouldn't allow it. Maybe it would be sufficient to go back and only clarify the actual order in a faq - given it will matter very rarely.

I would use the old wording, yes.

[Asper]

Assemble is a new card. It's more like "dissemble", actually, but good luck finding images for that

Actually, it's more like "disassemble". "Dissemble" is something completely different.

Ah, i didn't know that. Thanks.

I would use the old wording, yes.

Changed it back, thank you.


Also, here's Vampire:


Certainly not the best card here, but it's my take on the Self-Curse concept and an older version was pretty popular in my gaming group. Figured i could just as well pick some art and post it here.

[Asper]

I have changed the wording of Parliament to avoid the somewhat clumsy "printed" clause. It now doesn't distinguish between $2 and $3 cards anymore, but i actually feel that's better balanced. Now it's just a King's Court for weaker and a Throne Room for better cards. Like, Fishing Village and Scout, for example...



The order of the conditions is to avoid cases where a hypothetical cheap cost reducer might be played 5 times with Parliament (play Bridge, play Minibridge three times, Parliament and Minibridge now both cost $0, play it twice). It could still do weird stuff with Actions that only reduce/increase the costs of certain cards, but i'm not going to do one of those and i hope Donald won't, either. Also you can use it as a TR for $5 cards after some cost reduction, but it doesn't go crazy at all.

[LastFootnote]

I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.

[Asper]

I honestly do not understand why you're bending over backwards so that Parliament doesn't combo with cost-reducers. It's a combo, man. Combos are fun! You don't see Prince with wording that prevents you from prince-ing expensive cards after playing Highway. Border Village has the wording so that you can't take the whole stack after one Highway and Band of Misfits has it so that it can't copy itself. Parliament has no such issue with loops.

Well, it started out as a card where the times you played scaled with how cheap it was, which would have meant that a card could be played up to 5 times. In the process of fixing this (terribly overpowered) effect, i changed it so it wouldn't scale. Thinking about it, now that the maximum effect is King's Court, i could actually revert it to $4 and less than $4. "Combos are fun" is a valid concern, after all. Thank you

[Asper]

So, here's Parliament with room for cost reduction combos. the wording is a bit less pretty than the one before, sadly. The "3 or less" is mostly to avoid two coins saying "$4", which looks silly. +1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

[LastFootnote]

+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?

[Asper]

+1 to whoever guesses why i didn't use: "If it costs $4/If it costs ($3 or) less"

Is it so you don't play Bridge 5 times?

+1 respect was received

Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.

[LastFootnote]

Edit: I assume you could actually call that a combo, too... I just felt that it would look really unintended. Like putting revealed and bought Black Market cards back on top of the stack with Trader or stealing an Outpost turn with Possession. It technically works, but it's clearly a rule gap that causes the interaction.

Putting the cheaper one first is best. Playing Bridge 5 times is a little too nuts, I think.

[Awaclus]

You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.

[Asper]

You could have an "otherwise" in there if you wanted to put the more expensive one first. Not worth it, though, unless you're going to come up with a fan card that increases costs because then you need it there anyway.

Yeah, i had it as "If it costs $4/Otherwise, if it costs less" shortly, but that looked plain stupid. I don't think i'll ever make a cost increaser - there's Cutpurse and Embargo, so it's not really novel, and then there are rules issues with Highway etc.

[Asper]

Guys, about Politician: Do you think it should cost $4? I know it costed $4 before i carried it over to this collection thread, but that had no particular reason as i didn't settle on the vanilla bonus back then. Obviously Parliament/Politician is crazy strong, but i'm willing to accept this as an edge case. Not being able to open with this and another $4 might still be a good idea, though. The question is just whether +$3 and a drawback are actually something you'd consider buying for $4, even if the drawback is just a Chancellor effect...

Alternatively, i could of course change the benefit it gives. For example it could take coin/vp tokens (and give one of the same kind as a possible opponent bonus), which would make sure the card doesn't need tokens just for the possibly rare case you give one to an opponent.

In fact, i could even do both, like:

Politician, Action, $4
Take three coin tokens.
...yadda, yadda, yadda...
He may take a coin token;


Looks pretty strong though, doesn't it? Maybe it's a $5, even. Given that decisions take a while, it maybe shouldn't be easily available.
Edit: On second thought, 3 coin tokens are probably too much at any cost. Not because it's unbalanced, but because it shifts the focus from "political card" to "that one massive coin token card". Maybe this was a bad idea.

[LastFootnote]

I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".

[Asper]

I think Politician should have at most 3 options. Letting him put his deck into his discard pile is a bad option because it only works once (at most), which matters if you play it multiple times or if it's a game with more than two players.

I personally hate to see just one or two cards that use Coin or Victory tokens in a set. It's like, if you don't own this other set, this card is unplayable .

So my three options would be "draw a card; trash a card from his hand; gain a Silver".

Hmm... I see your points. I wanted it to have 5 options so the card could demand you to give another bonus to each player, without that becoming impossible in a 6 player game. The reason was that i wanted the card to be as political as possible, and forcing different choices was a means to ensure that. If i only have 3 options, i have to drop that clause. Maybe that's not horrible, though. Actually, it might be better. Instead of thinking "how can i distribute the bonuses between my opponents so the uselessness is maxed" it's just "what will be the least useful to Charles". It would certainly reduce analysis paralysis.

And you are clearly right about the non-stacking Chancellor effect. I was aware of that, but i guess it's true that in a 4 player match, where everybody plays Politician, the one guy who was chancellor'd first will receive no bonus for the next two plays, either.

Edit: This is how a 3-option-Politician looks:

I admit it's much more simple. A bit... vanilla-ish, even, but i think that's fine. Thank you for your very helpful consideration, LastFootnote

[LastFootnote]

I will now critique the cards that have images. Yay, images!



I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.



I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."



This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.



Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.



I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.



I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.



I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.



Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.

Hmm... I think I like it.



I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.



Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.


I'll do the next batch soon. Sorry for the harsh critiques!

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.



I think this version is worth testing.



Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.



I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.



I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.



Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.



My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.



Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.



Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.



That's all for now!

[TheOthin]

A Tribunal engine could be incredibly painful, forcing them to redraw over and over again until they get a shit hand. You do offer them a chance to improve their hand when you let them keep it and at any later Tribunals, but... it'd just be so unpleasant, and could border on pin territory. And think of all the shuffling.

[LastFootnote]

I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

[Jimmmmm]

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

[scott_pilgrim]

I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.

[LastFootnote]

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.

[Jimmmmm]

Jeweler should say "you may discard this from your hand" right? As worded you can discard from play and get both the +3 cards and +$2.

Discarding is always from your hand unless otherwise stated. Although hey, just another reason to combine River and Jeweler. Then it'd never be in play.

Hmm, I guess you're right.

[Asper]

I am working under the assumption that this card is not meant to be bought. Yes, you might buy it if it's the only +1 Buy on the board, but maybe not even then. The real thrust of Swamp seems to be that you can gain it instead of a Curse, Ruins, etc. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's worth one of your 10 Kingdom card slots. I don't even think I want Swamp out as an 11th Kingdom pile most of the time. It makes witches weak for a while and it empties fast, and that's about it.

I get what you mean and admit it's likely not worth a pile. Maybe i just grew attached to it and probably that's why i didn't scrap it, yet. I mean, it's certainly not on top of my "to print and try" list, so i guess that's a bad sign.

I'm not sure this card needs the on-gain "penalty". Is the idea that it's usually a bonus because it's the only Potion card out? If so, that rubs me the wrong way, though I can see the logic behind it coming from the "full random" crowd.

I don't find Homonculus exciting, but it's probably a fine utility card. Small nitpick: it should say, "Trash a Potion you have in play", not, "Trash a [potion symbol] you have in play."

Well, in the Hinterlands contest, i tried this for 2$ and with the penalty that you had to set it aside when bought, putting it in your discard only after your next shuffle. It was called "Artifact" back then, and maybe you remember me constantly pestering you with "No, LastFootnote, the wording has to be exactly this way for ominous reasons, stop fixing my weird wordings.". Anyhow, it was clearly overpowered, and so i went to price it at $3, then $4. That seemed balanced. Thing is, having it cost a Potion and trashing that might be marginally worse, but it solves the delayed gain in a much simpler way than strange "set aside" rules. I allready felt the symbol was off, but didn't see what itched me... Thank you for pointing it out.

This is also unexciting. I wonder if it would be too strong if you looked at the top 3 and drew one, discarded one, and put the last one back. Similar to Lookout, but I still think it's an improvement. The current version is very Pearl Diver; usually doesn't hurt, but not enough cool combos to make it pop.

It's allready pretty similar to Vagrant, power-wise, and the fact that you might be seing two good cards, being forced to discard one, is mostly what makes it not-strictly-better. I agree that it's unexciting, though. Another one that's probably fine, just not worth the slot.

Very cool idea. It makes me sad that you need a village to make it activate, though. Conspirator needs non-terminal Actions, but chances are really good that you'll have some of that in your Kingdom. The chance that you'll have a village is way lower, and without one, River is just +2 Cards.

Hmm... I'm not sure whether the "no-Village" scenario isn't really too off-putting... I mean, it's a Moat if there are none... If i was to fix this "issue", it would really have to be a gentle fix, a setup clause seems the most appropriate, but i don't really like even that. A buy, maybe. it's something that you don't really need that many of, anyway...

I am having trouble envisioning a reason to use this other than trashing Estates. I don't think I'm likely to trash a Province for a Gold in hand. I guess I could turn a Duchy into a Silver to buy the last Province, but even that sounds weak. Really the whole card just seems very weak. I'm trying to think of a fix, but I'm coming up short. Even if you put 2 copies of the Treasure into your hand, it has these same issues. That's where i'd start if you want to make this card work, though.

Just noticed it says "discard" instead of "trash". Cool card! I don't think I'd use it on Estates that often, but maybe it makes me want Duchies? Obviously it's great once you have Provinces.

Did you notice that it's a weaker Oasis with Estates and can discard Harems for Harems?
Actually, this started with the premise "something arabic that can gain Harems", and was "Grand Vizier" for a long time. it went through tens of versions... I know that's the absolutely wrong way to do a card, and i'm kind of surprised that after long time, it actually became something interesting. I'm very glad you like it

I would make the trashing mandatory. Suggested rewording:

+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cool card. I think I'd like it better with a non-Potion cost and without the +1 Card, but it's definitely a neat concept.

Thanks
I'm pretty happy with it. I had high hopes for it in the Alchemy contest. I don't even know why it has the Potion cost, i think i just saw it as fitting. No reason not to give your version a try, though

I think that the "if you do" is unnecessary. If you have no cards in your hand to discard, then I think you deserve the +1 Card.

The card isn't very interesting to me. The effect needs to be bigger. At minimum, I would have it discard 2 cards, then draw 2 cards.

When playtesting it, it was usually considered a surprisingly strong $5. The "if you do" is the tiniest nerf. I can see the appeal of keeping it as simple as possible, though, but then again, the card is very simple allready. It's pretty standard, i admit.

Probably another vanilla bonus would be better. Sure, there are a lot of Attack cards with +2 Cards or +$2, but they're classics for a reason.

The attack effect itself has potential. It might cause too much AP, but I think it's worth testing as-is. Suggested rewording:

Each other player reveals all but 3 cards from his hand. You choose whether he discards them or puts them back in an order of his choice.

Yeah, the bonus is a little off. I wanted one that doesn't make this such an obvious Ghost Ship/Militia mashup and one that didn't work best if you just played one of these every turn. Actions ask for other cards to go with them and scale, the attack doesn't. I think it was my idea of how to make it a little more interesting.

Hmm... I think I like it.

I see nothing wrong with that. Arbitrary piece of information: It's called that way because it incorporates every Trusty Steed bonus in a minor way

I don't think I really understand this. First of all, the chancellor effect seems out of place, especially on a card that draws. If you play it multiple times (throne, multiple copies, etc.), your chancellor effect is just prompting extra shuffles and likely hurts you. I also don't understand why the bottom option helps your targets.

I hate Minion. I hate the way that it casually wipes away good hands and makes the game more random in a really frustrating way. Tribunal is at least wiping your hand intentionally, but I'm not sure that's much better. It seems potentially super harsh and very un-fun to me.

I'm not very happy with this right now, and you pointed out the reasons pretty accurately. The Chancellor effect is probably the worst part. i wanted it on some cards for some reason (Politician being the other one) and when looking for a way to buff this a bit, i decided against a buy and for this. Obviously not my best choice. Anyhow, the bottom option is so you can not spam this until everybody has the worst possible hand. if somebody allready has a terrible hand, you help him a bit. But i see why that's off on an attack. I might have to scrap this. Maybe there's another way of doing the core attack. Even if you don't like it

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

Well, it's one point less than province for $6. Originally, it also trashed a Province from the supply when gained (so you had a chance that the game would end before you choke) but people argued that emptying 4 piles at once was a little too much... I have never playtested it, and if neither this version nor the Province trashing one works out (i haven't tried that one, either), i'll scrap this.

Hmm, might be fine. Sort of like Jubilee for card drawing.

It's ooooooold... Actually, this card predates Dark Ages. I was worried it might be too bland, but my gaming group at least enjoys it. Funny how it behaves vastly different to Poor House.

I think this version is worth testing.

I'll do that soon, hopefully.

Bah, VP chip cards. Well, I guess this is OK. Combos with Copper-trashers and/or alt-VP.

I'll just focus on the "OK", here

I would take out the third part to keep it simpler.

Hm... I'm worried it might keep the card from being worthwile. On the other hand, i assume that having +actions depend on luck isn't very much fun.

I have seen this sort of idea before (maybe from your other threads, not sure), and I'm not a huge fan of it. I like the idea of combos with cheap cards, but this seems kludgy to me. I'm struggling to come up with a fix, though. Maybe it's fine.

Yes, the basic idea is old news. I can see that the strength of a combo here isn't mostly dependant on card price, but more on WHICH specific card you play. Chapel and Secret Chamber are horrible, Fishing Village is awesome. Might scrap it, but for now i'll keep it around just to playtest it a bit.

Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.

Thanks

My problem with VP for empty piles is that it's really hard to get them above 3 in most games. A formula VP card that has a range of 1VP to 3VP just doesn't grab me. I like the outside-the-box thinking with the Curse gaining, but it doesn't fix this particular issue.

Well, the Curse gaining is a means to help you buy time. Originally this started out as "Maze" (german: "Irrgarten", literally "Insane Garden") and counted Curses other players had. It was bad, as it would potentially make you target specific players whenever that was possible. It was critizised for being a bit bland before, and i'm willing to let it go if i must. The premise is an attack-victory that gets more valuable by attacking, of course.

Hmm, I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a Treasure/Action. Maybe it being a Reaction is less confusing. The card seems maybe a bit weak, but the flexibility is nice.

Actually, Action-Treasure is the premise here. I thought if Donald can make a Duration-Copper (Treasury), i can do an Action-Treasure. The Reaction type is my solution to the rules issues Treasure-Actions generate. It's honestly not much more than that, but it's interesting you believe that it might be weak. I considered it a potential one-card-strategy. If i hadn't, i might have done this:

Jeweler, Action-Reaction, $5
+3 Cards
----
At the end of your buy phase or when another player plays an attack card, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next buy phase: +$2 and discard this.

Worth a shot, I guess. The biggest worry is that the tokens run out in a game with lots of players. I guess you could introduce negative VP tokens for just this problem.

I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.



Thank you for your critique
I don't consider it harsh, but very valuable. You actually pointed out some flaws that i was pondering myself, while on other occasions you made some positive remarks on cards that i was still a little worried about

[Asper]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much... Then again, Jeweler is not very exciting but solid, and River might be exciting but sometimes useless. It's actually a neat solution in that respect

I have had an Idea. What if you add Jeweler's reaction to River?

River (or Jeweler)
Types: Action - Reaction
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Put this into your hand.
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard this. If you do, +$1.

Way more worth buying without villages. With villages, you feel less bad about picking up multiple copies because at worst they're Coppers.

I was actually going to suggest the same thing.  Except I think it's actually cleaner as an Action/Treasure.  If you play it as an action, +2 cards and return it to your hand.  If you play it as a treasure, +$1.  I think this might be the first case where an Action/Treasure is really worth doing.

I really don't think i want to make it an Action-Treasure, sorry
All the rules i'd have to break are just not worth it. I'd rather have a reaction that can never happen outside your turn. At least there's ONE precedent with Hovel.

[Jimmmmm]

I wanted to avoid having to introduce new material for the card, that's why i went with VP instead of Curse tokens. They are technically unlimited anyhow, but i see that it IS an issue in physical Dominion games... Maybe use some coins or stuff as placeholders? I'm actually preferring that to the introduction of VP tokens, i admit.

I doubt it's more of an issue than with Goons - I often use Trade Route tokens as 20 or 25 VP in IRL Goons games.

[LastFootnote]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

[pacovf]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.

[TheOthin]

I don't think the Action-Treasure thing would work, either. It'd have two on-play effects, one for playing it as an Action and one for playing it as a Treasure, and the explaining it'd take to lay out both would be much more troublesome than just having it be a Reaction.

[Asper]

LastFootnote, i like your idea. I'm just not certain whether bringing together two breaks of unwritten Dominion rules isn't a bit too much...

I'm not sure which two rules you mean. I assume you're talking about the two new things it does, which are: a card that returns to your hand when played, and a reaction that always triggers at the start of your buy phase. Do not be afraid of new stuff! New stuff is cool! The important things are:

#1. It's not too confusing.
#2. It plays well (not too many tracking/logistics issues).
#3. It's fun (for at least some players).

Anyway, I don't think the card would be confusing and I think it would play better than River as printed. If it turns out lousy, you can always go back to Jeweler as you have it here. You can try River as you have it here too of course, but I'm not optimistic there. I love how simple River is, but I worry that it's just dead without villages.

Rats without TfB (and edge cases) is deader than River without villages, and I think there's marginally more villages than TfB? So there are precedents.

Then again I am the guy who campaigned to price River at $5 in that other thread (Counting House argument), so I might be biased.

Well, Rats can also replace Curses with pseudo-Confusions, which might not be great, but as each played Rats gains another one, the opportunity cost is pretty low, too.

Also, here's how Reaction River would look like:



Fun fact: When i made Jeweler, i breifly considered Moat-Copper instead of Smithy-Silver for $3 because i thought the second option could become a monolithic strategy. I dismissed it as having a too high opportunity cost. I'll definitely try this

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

[Awaclus]

I usually use a cell phone as VP tokens in Goons games.

[pacovf]

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.

[Asper]

Edit: Effectively giving +2 cards, +$1 on a single play is pretty strong when compared too Smithy, though... Isn't it?

I do think so...

You could try the less exciting "choose one: +1 action, + $1; or +2 cards, return this to your hand."

But I am not convinced River is the card that wants this effect tacked onto it. If there aren't any villages, this doesn't really make it so much more attractive to buy, because the main effect is still only moat. And if there are villages, River is already strong enough. YMMV.

I don't know. As you said, without Villages, this is still a bad card. So it makes the card more complex without solving its main issue.

I don't really want it to cost $4, either. But i do feel it almost certainly needs to cost that as printed. I mean, it's not strictly better than Smithy, but with the discard for Copper, you can open double-River at practically no risk at all at get more than from Smithy. The only minor deficit is that the +$1 doesn't happen if you play it several times, but the fact that it highly pushes the first play destroys my reason to cost it at $3 in the first place.

I'd rather have it give a buy. Buys don't really scale much, either, and they are also often pretty useless in the early game, contrary to Jeweleriver.
Edit: Of course, the problem here is that you have to count buys without a card in play. Ugh. On the other hand, you have to count Actions, so you might be able to figure it out retrospectively, even if you lose track of the number of buys itself. Official cards also allready have that problem.

[LastFootnote]

I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.

[Asper]

I think it's fine at $3. Compare to Courtyard.

I'll try it. Like its older incarnations, it still has the problem of being rather bad if you want those actions for something else. I will also try a version that is just blank River with a buy and see which works better. I really find myself unable to judge its power at this point.

[Drab Emordnilap]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

[Asper]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

It looks nicer than my wording and also doesn't go crazy with cost reducers, but i'd still rather avoid the edge case of cost reducers getting played more often because they altered their own cost on the first play. Maybe i'm too stubborn here, but i experience that cost reduction is one of the most confusing topics (especially to inexperienced players), and i'd like to avoid a wording that opens that door if not necessary.

Edit: but i'll think about it tomorrow and maybe give it a shot. Thank you for the suggestion
I'm off for now, it's 03:26. Good night and thank you all for your great ideas and considerations.

[AJD]

Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.

[Asper]

Regarding Dungeon and Paddock, I know it's not always meaningful to blue-sky compare costs based on changing vanilla bonuses, but:

I think Paddock (Peddler + gain a Silver) seems pretty strong for $5. Compare Explorer, which is usually "terminal silver, gain a Silver" for $5; Peddler is a lot stronger than terminal silver. I dunno, I recognize that Explorer has a shot at Gold-gaining, so maaaaybe it evens out.

Dungeon (curser + Victory card per empty pile) sounds balanced to me. It's a scaling victory card, yes; but don't think of it as a scaling card because it doesn't scale very much. Think of it as more like Nobles or Harem or Tunnel, a functional Victory card worth about 2 points. This makes Dungeon : Witch :: Dame Josephine : Sir Destry, which seems like a fair $5 card. Dame Josephine is on the weak side, but Dungeon has the added bonus that you have a shot at getting it up to 3 points in some games.

Well, Explorer looks weak when compared to Squire, too. $1 coin for what, a cost decrease of $3, two additional options and an on-trash clause? O-okay... I think we have to consider the Gold gaining as something big, even if it isn't, just so Explorer doesn't look bad in comparison to a lot of cards, especially Silver gainers. Think of Ironworks, too. Paddock can draw dead cards, which is made up by the fact that it can draw Silvers. It has an action but can't get you Gold. I know it's a close call, but i wouldn't really like to make Paddock worse only because Explorer is weak. If it playtests as too strong (which might still be the case), that's something different. Some people have pointed out that it's an engine component that clogs engines.

About Dungeon, i can't really add much to what you said. I need to try it a bit. I'm certainly more concerned about fun than about cost, here.

Edit: If Paddock turns out too good, i could still make a version for $4 without th +$1... Bye bye, Trusty Steed bonus...

[Asper]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)

[Drab Emordnilap]

You could word Parliment as

"You may play an action card from your hand. If it costs 4 or less, play it again. If it costs 3 or less, play it a third time."

Thinking about this, i can really see its appeal. It's about as simple as my "the same as this/less than it" wording, just with cost reduction possible. The mid-execution cost change with Bridge and Highway really feels a bit off to me though... Then again, crazier things can happen, and it DOES tell you what to do right on the card. I might just as well give this a try :-)

At least it doesn't play Bridge 5 times. :p

[TheOthin]

"Gain a Silver in hand" seems like a $4 effect, especially in comparison to Squire. Which puts Explorer in a strange spot but we knew that.

[Asper]

Allright, here's Palindrome Bard... um, i mean Drab Emordnilap's Parliament:


Ha! Ha! Ha! I don't know how that happened...
*beat*
Now, seriously:



Edit: I have to say, it's really a version to consider

[LastFootnote]

I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?

[Asper]

I think the "play it a third time" phrasing is more clear. Also, you should have commas rather than colons in the text.

EDIT: Can I offer you a better template, Asper? Which program are you using to make these images?

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.


I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

[LastFootnote]

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.

[Asper]

I figured "once more" was sufficient, but i used that mostly to avoid a line break, so there's no good reason against "a third time" if you think that's better. Aren't commas misleading you into believing the lines are alternatives? I know semicolons would do that, but i'm not sure about commas.

I would say the colons mislead you into thinking the lines are alternatives. The "a third time" clarifies further that they are cumulative.

That's a good point. "Once more" might technically be mistaken to mean the same as "a second time". Allright, i'll change that.

I would be very grateful for a better template
I made mine using Photoshop and some templates i found online. When i had to print them, i shifted them slightly because it gave better results, but forgot to change it back, which is why they are a bit askew.
Edit: I don't mind using another software, though, if that produces better-looking cards

My template may be the same as the one you use now, but I've improved it significantly over the years. I'll send it to you later when I have access to my home computer. It's in .xcf format because I use GIMP. Maybe Photoshop can read that format, I'm not sure.

Thank you
I'm not very experienced with Gimp, but i'm sure it's going to work out one way or another.

[Asper]

Ah, i see i misundertood you point before because i mistook "colon" for "period". Confused me a bit. So i believe this is what we are talking about.



It might be okay. Bridge and Highway are only two cards, anyhow. Well, and you could play Herald/Throne Room/ Parliament/King's Court to play Black Market to play 1-2 Quarries and be able to play Herald/Throne Room/Parliament/King's Court two more times... But i think that's it.

[GendoIkari]

Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.

[LastFootnote]

I blame Bridge. I really wish its cost reduction were "while in play" like all the others.

[Asper]

Although even 2-card combos are not that common, it's worth noting that Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge is as good as KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge except that Parliament costs 4 instead of 7. So I'm guessing that almost any board with both cards (and and sort of draw to help them combine) is going to be a race to play that.

Oh my, good point. That's really not something i'd want.

You can reduce the effect of Parliament-Parliament-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge a little if you change the wording to first distinguish between costs and only then play the card a set number of times: "If it costs $3 or less: Play it three times. If it costs $4: Play it twice. If it costs $5 or more: Play it once." I tried something like that before, and, well, the wording wasn't very elegant. Anyhow, it reduces the Bridge count to 5 plays instead of nine. It gets bumped up to 7 if you start your PPBBB hand with a spare action, and becomes 9 again if you somehow played a Bridge before.

The other option, which i posted earlier, would be to compare the price of the action with Parliament itself, effectively killing any cost reduction combos: "If it costs more than this: Play it once. If it costs the same: Play it twice. If it costs less: Play it 3 times."

And then of course there's scrapping the card alltogether...

[pacovf]

Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.

[Asper]

Pretty sure that the option to play a card from your hand once should only be there if it makes the card simpler to word.

Hmm, yeah... I saw the benefit of adding it in the fact that it covers all cases, making the card possibly easier to grasp. You won't sit there, wondering "Huh, and what does it do if the card costs more?". I might be wrong, though, and i'm far from unwilling to remove this part if that's better.

[pacovf]

Have you considered adding underline text?

"In games using this, bridge costs $17P."

EDIT: just to be safe.

[Asper]

Allright, i think i have narrowed it down to these two. I like the wording on the right better, but the left one allows more combos and i'm leaning a bit more towards it for this reason.

A PPBBB hand can still get crazy if you play a Highway first, but that's a 3-card-combo. You can also play a Bridge before setting up that hand, but you'd either have to use Prince (another 3-card-combo) or have PPBBBB in hand and an action to spare, which is quite a bit harder to do. Either way, i can live with those possibilities. Highway can get played up to 3 times depending on how many you played before, but it doesn't do anything Pawn can't on those additional plays, so that's fine.

And Princess... Um, well... Let's just say she's very much into politics.

[GendoIkari]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

[Asper]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

[GendoIkari]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

[Asper]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.


Thanks for the tips and considerations

[LastFootnote]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

[Asper]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

This really looks much better than my template.
Thank you again for sharing

I also allready tried it out a bit. Very nice
Here's something i did with it, a variant that gives you the choice to take a buy instead of returning it to your hand. Without Villages, it's a Woodcutter that draws instead of giving coins, so it's pretty weak. Ah, maybe it's really too weak...



Anyhow, i will test both the version you mocked up and this as soon as i can. If it shows Jeweleriver isn't too superior to Smithy, i'll go with it, but it's nice to have an alternative, i guess. I can't tell when my next playtest will be, though, i'm procrastinating my studies right now as is...

[TheOthin]

Throne Room could have some weird interactions with that wording, although it's not like an excess of buys would matter too often.

[Awaclus]

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

[Asper]

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

You're playing... um... uh... Big Money, maybe? Or... a slog? Yeah... a slog, that's it!

Allright, i know a buy isn't awesome. I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

[Asper]

I don't think the +buy makes sense. How often do you even need +buy if there isn't a village?

I thought about this. Let's just assume there's no Village. What could make you buy a River with a buy? A cantrip engine? Hardly. Would you buy Smithy for a cantrip engine? I don't know about you, but i probably wouldn't. River doesn't need to be good on any board. Smithy isn't, either. It's okay if you have actions to spend or if you are basically playing big money. The buy adds a few Alt-VP scenarios. I think that's sufficient. But i might want to price it at $2 with the version i suggested. I really don't know. Which is why i'll make a few solo playtests now. It's far from as good as multiplayer, but hey, it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

[pacovf]

it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.

[Asper]

it's 2 in the morning here, i probably shouldn't wake the neighbors for testing my card. Or should i...? Hm...

I'm sure they will understand, if you explain that it's a matter of life and death. I mean, every second you spend thinking that basic River could reasonably cost $2 is one second of high heart attack risk for me.

Silly pacovf, we're not talking basic River costing $2. We're talking River-with-a-buy costing $2.
But i wouldn't want you to die, so let's just claim i never said that. Unless of course, playtesting reveals that's actually reasonable.

About playtesting, did i mention how unsatisfying solo playtests are? I just played a game with River-plus-buy for $3, and while there were no Villages, there was Highway, and all other cards giving buys costed $5 or more. River-Highway barely won against Wharf-Big Money and Stewart-Counterfeit-supported Grand Market. Why? Because solo playtesting sucks. Or at least i do suck at solo playtesting. Curse those neighbors and their petty "need for sleep".

[Co0kieL0rd]

You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I will give you my thoughts on your cards, always referring to the most recent version of them I can find.

Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this

Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about Simpler is better in this case.

Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

Politician: This is the right way to do a political card You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.

[Asper]

You got some pretty cool ideas there, Mister Asper I am kind of surprised how multiple creators of fan cards differ in their preferred concepts and ideas and all of them can make reasonable cards that rarely overlap with what other people do. I don't see a comprehensive concept among your cards but that's not a problem nor is that the point of your ideas, I assume.

I like to do new things, i guess. Some of them end up good, others not so much. I'm glad you think some ideas are cool
At some point i tried to make a fan set or two, but half of the cards were always not good enough, and so i was left with a random mix. It's why this thread is "Asper's cards" and not "Asper's Fan Expansion"
Also your post reminds me that i should probably update my Opening Post.

Swamp: The basic thought behind it is neat but I don't like how it just makes every cursing attack so much weaker with literally no downside to it. Maybe you can come up with something better? Something that makes it a non-trivial decision whether you really want the Swamp over Curse. I was thinking about a side-effect that harms you right now, like "While this is in the Supply, when you gain a card, you may gain this instead. If you do, discard 2 cards."

I think i saw it as the non-obvious downside that a Curser would give you quite a lot more junk than usual if you gain Swamps. 10 Curses in a 2-player game are bad, but 10 Curses and 10 Swamps are awful. It prolongues the junking. That said, i'm accepting that the overall feedback on Swamp is negative. I wanted it to be bad enough to not destroy junkers completely and at the same time add something you might buy it on your own. Probably that's where the problem comes from, it'll always be too bad or too good.

Homunculus: I like the options you have with it. I just don't see why (a) you should trash a Potion on-gain, (b) it should be a Potion-cost card in the first place, and (c) it should be a cantrip. That doesn't mean I consider these bad decisions. I would be glad if you clarified, though, because I cannot seem to follow your explanation for it.

Well, as i said to LastFootnote, this started out as a cantrip trasher for $2. It always had the exact same text above the line, and was grotesquely powerful. One way to weaken it would be to remove the draw, but then it's just not the same card anymore:

+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, put a card from your hand on top of your deck.

(Left out the discard option for obvious reasons)

For the Hinterlands contest, i instead tried a version that would get set aside when gained, only to be put in your discard after your next shuffle. Well, turns out that a delayed gain doesn't do enough to keep this from being dominating. So i tried it at $3, then $4. That seemed okay, at least you can't normally open double-Homunculus (or Artifact, at that time), anymore. Just, if it costs $4 and is gained with a delay, i could just as well make it cost a Potion and trash that on play. At least you don't have to worry about weird Trader, Inn or whatever interaction, and don't need to introduce new rules. So, this actually wasn't a Potion card for a long time - it just solved two problems at once. I can imagine a lot of reasons why a card shouldn't cost a Potion, but here i saw it as the best option.

Ranger: I agree with LFN, it's not very exciting but it's something that you should still go for because it's not bad. And it would be even better and probably a little more exciting if you looked at 3 cards, drew one, discarded one and put one back. That should still work for $2. Pretty strong, though.

Well, when choosing between only two, this is still commonly better than Vagrant if the first card is worse than the second. It's about equally good if both cards are bad or the second card is worse than the second, as long as you don't consider handsize. Ranger is worse than Vagrant if both revealed cards are something you'd want to draw, or if both at least are better than you can expect from your deck on average. Having said that, i would rather drop this than letting it reveal 3 cards. We'd have another Outlook then (i assume it would have to cost $3), and i think Outlook doesn't need a brother. Considering it's generally viewed as boring, dropping seems appropriate.

River (the version by LFN): I love how simple and clever and useful it is. I totally want to play-test this

That would be great. Do so and tell about it
I guess we can consider this the preferred version of the card right now (pacovf may disagree ).

Sultan: Great idea! Some nice synergies, e. g. with Fool's Gold, Harem (nice one) and many Treasures from Prosperity. I will probably play-test Sultan, too.

Woo-Hoo! Thanks

Incantation: Another cool concept, although I also prefer LFN's suggestion "+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand, then reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a more expensive card that shares a type with it. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest." I know you're happy with the original but the man knows what he's talking about Simpler is better in this case.

Yeah, i guess you two are right. I'll change it.

Aqueduct: Dunno, seems fine but... needs more oomph, I suppose.

i tried to add a bit of complexity by nerfing this before in the Prosperity contest (it made attacks you played while it was out do nothing). It was not well received. Power wise, i think it's more than decent, but it's certainly one of the more boring cards. Anyhow, it's one of the better tested cards, too, and plays nice and easy. As it allready exists, i'm not worrying about card space, either. I can see why you would want something more appealing, though.

Assassin: Another cool idea and I personally don't mind the break it causes because the decisions really matter (unlike with Spy, which we all know is more of nuisance to all players than an attack). The vanilla bonus seems weird at first but hey, it doesn't say anywhere you can't or shouldn't do that. The attack doesn't stack so it's fine imo. It's even adequate for such a strong attack.

Good to hear you don't mind the bonus. As you figured, the attack's strength is why the bonus is not worth much on its own. You need other cards to go with. I imagined it could be interesting to have an attack engine where the attack plays the Village part. It wasn't ever playtested, though, so i wouldn't be surprised if i missed something here. Maybe the attack is just too cruel to be fun, too.

Paddock: Cute. Somehow, I like it more than Aqueduct - not that they're related anyway.

Thanks

Tribunal: You are open towards political cards! This is meant as an accusation! Jokes aside, I think there are cases where you can do such things but this is the wrong place for it. Each player should be treated the same way and maybe they could reveal only a part of their hand, though I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you see cards from each other player's hand and then have to make one decision for all of them, that would (perhaps) be less frustrating and really make the attacking player think about it. The Chancellor option has no place on that card.

The Chancellor effect is rubbish. LastFootnote told me, you tell me, and i kind of saw it coming anyhow. The only reason why this card is still there the way it is is because i didn't undertake any effort to fix it. Probably because i know that the core concept itself isn't very fun (choose whether opponent keeps or discards his hand).
I don't quite see why it's political, though. I mean, you choose the worst option for every opponent. Though i CAN see how you get the idea - it could theoretically be used to actively support a certain player... Generally, i find choosing an option for all players even more political. If four people play and only the leading guy has a good hand, do i let them all draw new cards, even if it helps more players than it hurts?
I'm going to remove this card for now. Maybe i'll bring back the core idea later, but at this time it just has too many issues.

Meadow: Too many gains. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. I just think one gain shouldn't come with two more gains, especially when all of them are Victory cards.

I see this isn't really popular. Still i kind of want to try this out sooner or later. But you guys have a reason to not like it, and maybe i'm being stubborn. I'll put it on my testing list and take it out for now.

Alley: Seems fine and balanced. Sorry, I can't say more right now but I might play-test it eventually.

That would be awesome
My group tested it a bit and it's fairly popular, but of course that doesn't mean anything (as they are mostly relatives without in-depth dominion strategy knowledge).

Politician: This is the right way to do a political card You don't know anything about the hands of other players without the help of other cards and that's good. It encourages attention and strategic gameplay. Tribunal, on the other hand gives you too much information and power. It should do only one of the things.

Thanks

Hospital: It's good that Hospital has a limitation to how many VP you can get with it. It's bad that diluting your deck with Coppers will drag out the game because Hospitals will be played less frequently while players still might be unwilling to end it as long as there are Coppers in the Supply. So I'm not okay with it.

Hmm, interesting point. I figured that gaining a Copper would be an incentive to buy something if you allready watered down your deck for that extra coin. I mean, if you don't, your deck will constantly become worse. I might misjudge Hospitals power, but i believed that this would be a rather weak strategy, potentially beatable with things as simple as Big Money+. Of course, if there is decent trashing, you might as well create a timed Golden Deck. If it works, the Copper pile should drain quickly. The worst case would probably be a game where all players attempt such a Golden deck, only to find out that the trashing isn't good enough (and not bad enough to make switching to another strategy better). Then again, you can have a game where everybody thinks an unsupported Poor House/Rats/whatever other support-dependant card was the best choice...

Nouveau Riche: I like it. Dominion has some cards that mitigate or even reward greening, and those are necessary, within limits. While I don't have a problem with the third paragraph, I still suggest at least testing the card without it for previously stated reasons.

I'll change it for now. If it turns out to be better with that option, i can still add it again, later

Parliament: I can't estimate how balanced it is but you're probably way ahead of me in that regard. So I'll just say, it's a good TR-variant. I'd like to play-test that.

Thank you
I'd be curious as to how it turns out if you playtest it.

Assemble: I would say the exact same thing as LFN^^ ("Cool. If trashing $5 cards into Province/Copper ends up too strong, try having the gained cards go on your deck.")

I don't mind doing that, if it turns out to be needed.

Dungeon: Similarly to Meadow, too much self-synergy, plus it's really bland and lackluster.

Yeah, another one that's more about the idea than about the card. I think it is balanced, but it's certainly bland. I don't really see the self-synergy with Meadow, though. I mean, i think Farmlands has more of that than Meadow, i think.

Jeweler: I assume this fused with the old River into the new River? Anyway, Jeweler seems fine as a Reaction. Maybe too weak but maybe not. I also regret that the Dominion rules make it very difficult to properly implement an Action/Treasure card, although there could have been some elegant solutions for this, I'm sure.

This was the most elegant way i found, but maybe there's something better. Obviously Jeweler is obsolete if River stays in in the form LastFootnote suggested.

Vampire: Yeesh, I saw these kinds of cards manifold before and they all seem so MtG and so anti-Dominion (the name and image of the card add to that sensation). Balance and tactics aside, I don't like it. Sorry, it's not Dominion for me.

That's fine. I'm aware it's a bit off. It's from a time when i was working on a "Fantasy" expansion and started out as one of those awful "Curse/Actions". Now we all know Curse/Actions are horrible. This was my solution as to how you can avoid the issue with trashing, make it scale with each use, and still not be dependant on the Curse pile or on new tokens. It's a bit like Jeweler. An experiment about whether you can actually make a certain concept work while staying inside Dominion's existing ruleset.


Thank you very much for your critique and suggestions

Edit: I'm going to update the OP as soon as i am finished mocking up the current versions with LastFootnote's awesome template. Yay!

[LastFootnote]

I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.

[Asper]

I'd just like to have a buff over blank River that doesn't make Smithy obsolete or make the card overly complex. LastFootnote's fix does the second thinkg, and if the first turns out allright, i'll use it. There might be something Smithy can that River can't, and i may be blind for it right now. Playtesting will tell. I could also cost it at $4, but because the majority of Villages now costs $4 or more, i'd like to avoid that too, if possible.

I meant to post this awhile ago, but life happens. Posting it now!

Although I haven't tested it yet, I'd say it's pretty likely that $3 Reaction-River isn't just better than Smithy. BM-River may be better than BM-Smithy in the same way that BM-Courtyard is better than BM-Smithy. But if you're building a draw engine, you'd rather have Smithies that Courtyards. Similarly, I think sometimes you'd rather have Smithies than Rivers. If you only have one River in your draw engine deck, you're screwed if you don't get it in your hand. But adding too many Rivers hurts because each additional River you draw in a turn is effectively a Copper, whereas each Smithy you draw is a Smithy. Also, Smithy just cycles 50% more than River, which is very significant.

I have thought a bit about this, and the idea you suggested to put Jeweler and River together is just too good. Unless there comes up hard data that says it behaves better in both engines and Big Money, i'd say let's just use the Reaction version.

Also, i'm not even sure River is better for BM. It's like a Smithy that always draws a Copper as the third card. Depending on how your deck looks, it might be worse.

Edit: I updated the OP with new mockups made with your awesome template. Yay!

[Asper]

I really wish it was possible to find pictures of medieval nobleman on horses looking fierce and holding a pergament...
I mocked up a version for Charter with only pergament (sans fierce guy on horse), but that simply doesn't look like an attack anymore...



Edit: Renamed it because without the horse-person "Charter" neither looks nor sounds very attack-like.

[polot38]

A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…
2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).
3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.

[pacovf]

2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?

[XerxesPraelor]

I declare there to be three

[Asper]

A few comments:
1. Ranger. Is the version i am reading right? +1 Card, +1 action, then get another card? Thats far better than a lab, and at 2$ cost…

Argh, no... When i mocked up the card with LastFootnotes new template, i accidentally added a +1 Card...
This is how it should look like:

2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

I admit i am having a hard time to judge River's power. Originally the card was just "+2 Cards, return this to your hand". There was some discussion as to how strong it was. pacovf argued it was a Smithy plus, and should cost $5. I argued that it was a Moat plus, and should cost $4 or $3. I decided $3 was fine, because double-openings were a horrible idea, obviously.

Then it was pointed out plain River was Moat (minus) in Village-less games, and wouldn't be bought. I considered to ignore it, but then it seemed an issue too big to ignore. LastFootnote suggested to fuse basic River and another card, Jeweler, together, to get this new version of River.

I am starting to think that, while i'm sure that "perpetual Smithy" and "Smithy plus" are misinterpretations of what the card does, this version is too close in power to Smithy, and should cost $4. Maybe it doesn't necessarily need to be - it's not "strictly" better than any $3 card, and in a limited array of situations it's worse than smithy. But i am very much in doubt, and i think that if you treat River like Smithy, playing each copy only once, it's still about on par. Smithy has more cycling, River draws a guaranteed "Copper". So it "should" cost $4. The thing is just, i'm not sure whether a $4 version of River makes sense. I would prefer a version that's easily available and where balancing how many you get is the real issue. This version isn't as easy to get anymore and balancing is less of a problem, as it's still a Copper when drawn dead.

Hmm... The more i'm thinking about this, the less i like that aspect. It just makes the card too easy to play. I considered this as a problem of Jeweler before, but it itches me more with River, which was supposed to be a "clever little card", while Jeweler was supposed to be a "strong $5 card". Shame. It seemed like a really cute fix. Even if it actually could cost $3 (which i'm not saying it can't) i don't like the fact that it loses much of the strategical challenge.

This should keep that aspect:

3. An attack/treasure? This seems far too spammable, even with the nerf you gave it. I could just buy this a lot, have a good economy, all the while ruining my opponent's deck.

Well, compare it to Mountebank: It gives +$2, has a bane and junks you. Unlike Mountebank, this is spammable. Unlike Mountebank, it gives only only one junk card, causes no victory point loss, and gives you the bane (which also doubles as an actually useable card) in hand.

Then again, a Witch variant with an action - no matter how weak its attack would be - couldn't cost $5, either. Then again, Minion is another nonterminal attack that gives +$2, and that's annoying, but balanced. I admit it doesn't scale, though.

[Asper]

2. River is just plain OP. Part of the thing about why moat and such aren't good drawers is that all cards have an implicit -1 Card in their effect. This card has no such drawback (essentially becoming a perpetual smithy), aside from the first time you play it in any given turn, and allows engines to fire very easily with very few of these and a lot of villages (the basic village becoming essentially a +3 cards +1 action with this in play…).

Mwahaha, now there's two of us, Asper... Are you afraid yet?

Consider my jimmies thoroughly rustled.

[LastFootnote]

I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.

I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.

[market squire]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.
When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).

[Asper]

I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.

I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

Anyhow, i'm still preferring a kingdom card variant. Maybe i'll try the last version i posted (the one with a buy) at $2. For Village engines, the problem isn't affordability, but whether you find the right balance, anyhow. Getting a lot of Rivers isn't the problem. Getting the right amount is, i think. Games without Villages would be the ones to really profit: Alchemists, Conspirators, Lab, Stables and many other nonterminals can produce/draw nice amounts of coin without spare actions and often enough could profit from a cheap buy to finish the chain.

[Asper]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.
When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).

The Reaction effect (originally created for another terminal draw, Jeweler) is specifically to get an Action-Treasure functionality while avoiding the rules confusion and/or weird wordings this makes necessary.

[pacovf]

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.

[Asper]

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.

Lake Village is a cute name. How about another clause, though:



Now you even BUY River with Actions
The really great aspect about this is that it solves the "no-Village" problem while keeping my beloved vanilla River the same <3

[TheOthin]

River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?

[Asper]

River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?

The clause may not be perfect yet (or rather, it certainly isn't), but i'd prefer to not have Lakeside Village return to the supply. One thing i don't like about Hermit/Madman is that there's no noticeable connection between the cards. Urchin/Mercenary have the same theme, but they are still vastly different and don't feel like they belong in the same deck. River and Lakeside Village (or however the name will be) belong in the same deck, and support each other. So you wouldn't want to remove one for the other. When you gain Mercenary, chances are you're not missing Urchin at all - actually, removing it makes sense. You'd miss the Village if you gain River, though. Also, i don't see why you shouldn't do something only because there is no precedent.

That's not saying the idea can't have other problems.

Edit: I considered Lakeside Village to be more of a mashup between Walled Village and Bandit Camp, actually.

[pacovf]

I think the point of the village going back to the supply is more about making the combo harder to achieve than to remove a card you don't need from your deck (and also, it is cute thematically, but names can be changed later).

Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

Basically the question is, how hard should it be to get a river once you have the village? Especially now that the combo is always available? The village really wants to draw a card to help River draw your deck, but it shouldn't cost more than $5 because you want a lot of them, so we are looking at a $4 cost village, which really isn't much of an increase compared to the vanilla village. How hard it is to gain a River should reflect that.

Of course, I believe River to be a very strong card, so something like TheOthin's suggestion seems good to me. You are paying $4 for a mining village-feast mix that can only gain one kind of card, seems reasonable to me. However, if you think that River is still worth somewhere around $3 even if villages are guaranteed to be in the kingdom, that is going to look like too harsh a condition for you.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I love ancillary cards and fancy special stuff so I'm in favour of this Lakeside Village+River combo! Although on first look I would agree with pacovf that it seems too easy to get Rivers. After all, it's a strong card that you keep (unlike Madman) and that's gonna be useful the entire game (unlike Mercenary). And just opening with a Lakeside Village would be a guaranteed River after the second reshuffle.
Returning the Village to get a River seems fine, balance-wise. You could still get it easily AND buy a new Lakeside Village before the second reshuffle and you're good to go. There are probably other reasonable ways to do this so continue looking for alternatives.

[werothegreat]

You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.

[cactus]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.


Thanks for the tips and considerations

Point of interest (maybe for some, anyway):

The painting you've used for Parliment is a painting by Tom Roberts of the opening of the first Parliment of the commonwealth of Australia which took place on Melbourne in 1901 in the Royal Exhibition Buildings. Not far from where I live and across the road from where I work. :c)

[werothegreat]

You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.

Actually, I rescind this idea: you gain a River if you have an unused Buy that turn.  Less thematic, but probably more balanced.  Have a wording like "When you discard this from play, if you have any unused Buys, you may use one to gain a River."

[TheOthin]

Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?

[Asper]

Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

About names, there'll be something. Maybe "Post Office" and "Runner"? That would go a bit into the direction i imagined earlier before the card's name was set to River. But for now we got an image, and images are nice, and the name can be changed when the card itself is somehow set on.

You are right about this. I don't like the idea of trashing it, but probably i need another condition.

I thought about an Overpay: "Gain a River from the River pile per $ you overpayed" Doesn't seem that exciting to me, though. Besides, Overpay isn't exactly my favourite mechanic...

Alternatively, a restricted on-gain: "When you gain this, you may put a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, gain a River from the River pile." This does allow a few cute options, but you still have to spend $4 on each River you want to get (as you get only one per LV). Also, at the start of the game, this means either wasting a possible $5 turn for a Village and River, or using a $4 turn and harming your next one. On the other hand, hey, there may be some combos here, but i don't mind that.

Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?

That's something i considered: "While this is in play, you may buy River cards from the River pile during your buy phase.". It's not bad, but i'm a bit worried that River would end up costing $3*/$2* or something like that, and that would make it look like Peddler, a supply card. If it costs $0*, on the other hand, it looks a bit strange that you'd "buy" it. I mean, it neither costs something (like BM cards) nor is it in the supply (like other buyable $0s are).

werothegreat's idea isn't bad either, though i wouldn't have it "spend" the buys. Diadem doesn't "spend" your actions, either. Sure, there is only one Diadem (edge case: Counterfeit), but you don't want to gain massive amounts of River, anyway. The only thing i don't like about the option is that it doesn't really feel different from Hermit. On some boards, it's going to be the same.

[popsofctown]

The +buy makes River busted with Villages without making it stronger without villages.

[popsofctown]

I really would prefer to see River as a standalone pile though, because it's a cool card. That's not mutually exclusive with making a pile that brings it into play specifically.

I think letting you trash it for 1-2$ whenever you play it would be enough to let it keep up in BM games.  It would allow you to use it early on as your terminal and switch over to high quality 5$ terminals later.

Or to make it look super elegant, "+2 cards: Put this in your hand, anywhere in your deck, or the trash pile."

[LastFootnote]

I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]

[Asper]

I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]

I thought about something like this, though i somehow wanted to put the clause first. "If you have at least one unused action..." Of course, yours won't be nearly as confusing.

Speaking of confusion, today i wondered whether counting unused actions wasn't a bit unelegant, considering Rivers wording  tries to avoid exactly that.

Another idea i had: Simply having to choose between gaining River and the Village bonus. But that feels a bit unsatisfying.

Yet another was allowing the gain only when you played LV and allready had three cards in play. That's very similar to Conspirator, of course - except River itself doesn't count.

I'm seriously considering the topdecking restriction on gain. It harms you at the start, because you'd return an Estate or sacrifice a $5 opening. Later on, you might want to use it on an Action you couldn't play. But, you know, top-decking an action while gaining a Village is nice, problem's just that you gain even another card that spends those actions you obviously didn't have enough of. You could play it? Well, you just didn't. You might even use the effect on a River you allready played this turn. This, too, sounds better than it is, though, as you'd spend $4 and gain another River in the process.

[Asper]

This is what i'm (probably) going to try:



The question here is how good Town/Road is. It's a question that i still think i can't answer. If it isn't sufficient to beat most strategies, which i assume, i'm okay with this being an easily available "combo". Unless you want to drown in Roads, you'd need other Villages to reduce the Road/Village ratio, and well, that's a lot of Villages to buy. If you buy Town for the Village itself, you just got another terminal that you might not actually want.

I might cost it at $5 or do the requirement, but for now it's hard to judge. I'll playtest once i get a chance

Either way, i like the name "Town"

[Asper]

I just playtested Town in the most pathetic imaginable way, solo with four versions of me. Anyhow, as i mentioned, i'm not a very good player, so i decided to have each player follow a distinct strategy:
A: Town/Big Money
B:Town/Engine
C:Big Money
D: Town-less engine

The board was: Poor House, Candlestick Maker, Oasis, Fortune Teller, Town, Horse Trader, Stables, Haggler, Torturer, Upgrade

I think the comparison was harmed because there were no Villages besides Town, which meant that for the Town-less player a lot of strategies were impossible, e.g. Torturer chains. Interestingly, theTown-engine had very poor buying power overall and went in last with 18 VP, while Town/BM won with 27. Big Money and the town-less "engine" both got 21, which alone should be esufficient to show that a lot of this was because of me being awful at building engines. I admit i didn't even have a plan for how either engine should look like, so i bought silly amounts of Candlestick Makers and Oasis' for both... You may laugh at me.

Anyhow, it was obvious that Road was a card you were very happy to have at the right moment - starting your hand without one but with Towns meant "Play Town... Drat! A Copper! Okay, one more chance... Noooo! Another Copper!!! Why meee?", while having a hand without Towns was basically dead (not so much for Town/BM, though).

If you ask me what this test showed, it's that i need a better player than me. I had the feeling that the cards were pretty strong, though that may be because my "engines" were awfully built.

Edited for typing errors.

[pacovf]

Town/Road is an engine-y card, so I don't think 4p, with Town as the only village, is the best way to test it...

With that being said, I don't like this version of Town. The interesting part of Road was to balance how many of them you wanted in your deck. Now you don't get to choose, you get as many as you have villages, which is fairly horrible. Town is effectively a no-draw village, because each one of them (aside from the first) will have to compensate for a dead Road in your deck. And a no-draw village is very poor support for Road.

I think the gain has to be either optional or conditional.

EDIT: Thinking about it a little bit more, another option would be to keep the compulsory gain, and replace the top part of town with "+2 cards, +2 actions, discard two cards", for better synergy with road and extra combos.

[TheOthin]

The thing about the draw two, discard two is that it's the same on-play effect as Inn, just with a different on-gain effect.

[pacovf]

Indeed! But in both cases, it's the on-gain effect that is interesting. So it's sort of like saying that Cultist and Ghost Ship are the same, because they both draw two cards.

Something to note is that, if you go with the compulsory on-gain effect (which I am not convinced is the right way to go), you can make Road be the supply card, instead of Town.

Fun puzzle: when would it make a difference which of the two cards is in the supply, and which is a zero-cost extra pile?

[LastFootnote]

I agree with pacovf. Specifically, I think it would be far better to have a conditional gain for Road. I'd like to see something like this:

Town
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.
When you gain this, you may discard a Province. If you do, gain a Road from the Road pile.

Road
Types: Action
Cost: $0*
+3 Cards. Put this into your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

This way Road is a powerful card you really want to shoot for and you have some better control over how many you gain.

By the way, the reason I keep using "Put this into your hand" instead of "Return this to your hand" in my examples is that there's no guarantee Road was in your hand when you played it. It might have been played by Golem or Herald.

[TheOthin]

That's very extreme. What about leaving it at +2 Cards and just having the option of discarding any one card upon gaining Town for it?

[LastFootnote]

That's very extreme. What about leaving it at +2 Cards and just having the option of discarding any one card upon gaining Town for it?

That's like not having an extra cost at all. Extreme can be fun.

[pacovf]

I like LFN's suggestion, although it is moving the card in a different direction altogether.

One problem with that version is that by the time you can discard a province, there might not be any town left to gain, if it's the only village in the kingdom...

[LastFootnote]

I like LFN's suggestion, although it is moving the card in a different direction altogether.

One problem with that version is that by the time you can discard a province, there might not be any town left to gain, if it's the only village in the kingdom...

Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!

[TheOthin]

Don't we already have two cards that let you use Provinces to get cool shit?

[LastFootnote]

Don't we already have two cards that let you use Provinces to get cool shit?

And we have 204 cards that don't! This lets you use Provinces to get cool shit on-gain, which might be interesting.

[pacovf]

Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!

Mmm... that's just not going to happen in multiplayer games. Are you happy with that?

[LastFootnote]

Yes, I'd thought of that. Better get that Province quickly!

Mmm... that's just not going to happen in multiplayer games. Are you happy with that?

Well, no. But I don't think we should necessarily assume that will happen. I mean it's quite possible that it will. But it's also possible that players will usually want to leave some in the pile so that they can try to snag a Road later. And if you're gunning for a fast Province, you don't necessarily want a lot of villages early.

[pacovf]

Definitely, but if another player just bought an early province, and there's one or two Towns left, you can bet that I am buying them. On the other hand, if you avoid buying Town specifically to avoid that happening, then there might not be that many left after you get your Road, which sort of defeats the point of forcing a village to be in the same kingdom as Road in the first place.

(I am talking about multiplayer games here)

[TheOthin]

It just strikes me as very strange to incorporate this kind of Tournament-like luck here.

[LastFootnote]

It just strikes me as very strange to incorporate this kind of Tournament-like luck here.

There's way less luck than Tournament because you only have to collide your Province with a $4 of cash. That's not tough.

[pacovf]

It's less luck-dependent than tournament because you only need to collide the Province with a $4 hand, and because all Roads are identical.

Another idea would be to make Town a 15-card pile or something. You know, just to make the whole Town-Road thing even more crazy.

PPE: ninja'd.

[TheOthin]

It's definitely not the same, but hitting $8 first still isn't that easy.

[LastFootnote]

Definitely, but if another player just bought an early province, and there's one or two Towns left, you can bet that I am buying them. On the other hand, if you avoid buying Town specifically to avoid that happening, then there might not be that many left after you get your Road, which sort of defeats the point of forcing a village to be in the same kingdom as Road in the first place.

(I am talking about multiplayer games here)

You are making good points. Here are my counterpoints. First, this concept is pretty unlike anything Dominion has, so it's very hard for us to predict how it would actually play out. I'm sure that, especially in e.g. a 4-player game, Towns would sometimes run out before anybody got a Road. But how often would that really be the case? If they run out first 90% of the time, obviously that's no good. But if it only happens 10% of the time, that's fine. Sometimes there will be other villages, and if you're not getting a Road, those other villages are probably better, so players will be less likely to buy Towns early. Sometimes multiple players will be gunning for that early Province, leaving enough Towns left over. I'm just saying that with something this exotic, it bears testing before we jump to conclusions.

One solution is to have the ability be on-trash or on-gain-or-trash.

[TheOthin]

If not for Diadem already having the "trade away all your excess Actions" property, I'd say an especially powerful Road available as a reward for getting Provinces and in need of a Village to be worthwhile may as well just be another Prize. It wouldn't be guaranteed to show up with Villages that way, but you could just pass it up for the other Prizes in that case.

[LastFootnote]

If not for Diadem already having the "trade away all your excess Actions" property, I'd say an especially powerful Road available as a reward for getting Provinces and in need of a Village to be worthwhile may as well just be another Prize. It wouldn't be guaranteed to show up with Villages that way, but you could just pass it up for the other Prizes in that case.

Yes, having it as a Prize is definitely a very plausible option.

[pacovf]

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

[LastFootnote]

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

True, although you can draw Diadem anytime during your turn, whereas Road gets way worse the later you draw it.

EDIT: Also, Diadem is usually weak.

[pacovf]

Haha, gotcha! You were defending Diadem before you realized what you were doing.

Talking about the devil, from the Secret History of Cornucopia:

Diadem started in the large version of Alchemy long ago, as an Action: "+$2. Return this to your hand." It was a cute combo with Villages, but useless without them. I then tried some "choose one" versions, which solved the problem of it sometimes being dead, but didn't make the actions-to-money part any better. I eventually gave up on it, and well here it is at last.

So, will we find another working version of this concept?


PPE:

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

Not really, though. If you use the extra action, you lose the coin.

EDIT: sorry, too late 

[LastFootnote]

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

That's not quite right. With Diadem, you either get the +$1 or the +1 Action from your villages, but not both.

But neither does Road make villages triple Labs. It's more double-Labs. You can't count the Road itself in the draw. The Road just gives you a Smithy after all the conversion is done. Similarly, the Diadem is a Silver after the conversion.

[pacovf]

I don't get what you are saying. As long as you are holding a Diadem in your hand, any village can be a peddler. As long as you are holding a +3 card Road in your hand, any village can be a triple-lab.

Once you've done the conversion, Road is a smithy and Diadem is a gold, or Road is dead and Diadem is a silver, depending on how you look at it.

[TheOthin]

Draw Village and Super-Road, play both, and you end up with an 8-card hand and one Action, just like if you played three Labs. Get another Village through that and play it and you end up with an 11-card hand.

Unlike other Actions, most relevantly Smithy, Road doesn't leave your hand when you play it. It does, however, ensure that whenever you're done playing Roads, you'll still have one left in your hand and likely dead, decreasing the total card gain by 1. But there are still ways of making use of that, such as cards with discarding or top-deck effects.

[LastFootnote]

Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures is to try the crazy-looking version first. That way, if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's better to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.

[TheOthin]

It's more that you have to draw Road before you run out of non-Road draws. If you play five Villages and draw Road on the last one, you can burn all the Actions you racked up earlier from those Villages.

[XerxesPraelor]

What about making it duchy to steer things a different way from normal and to make it easier for Roads to be gotten?

[GendoIkari]

Note that Diadem transforms villages into peddlers Bazaars, and that the +3 card Road transforms villages into triple labs.

You know. For power level comparison.

ftfy

That's not quite right. With Diadem, you either get the +$1 or the +1 Action from your villages, but not both.

But neither does Road make villages triple Labs. It's more double-Labs. You can't count the Road itself in the draw. The Road just gives you a Smithy after all the conversion is done. Similarly, the Diadem is a Silver after the conversion.

Yeah I realized that and deleted my post, but apparently not in time.

[GendoIkari]

Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures, it's to try the crazy-looking version first. That way if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's nice to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.

Yes but the cards in Adventures ARE crazy. Especially spoilers and spoilers.

[LastFootnote]

Ah, yeah, I think I get it now. You're right. Perhaps +2 Cards is more reasonable. Although, again, you have to draw Road early.

I think the most important thing I learned from Donald while playtesting Adventures, it's to try the crazy-looking version first. That way if it works, you get to have something that looks crazy. And it's nice to have cool-looking cards than mediocre-looking cards.

Yes but the cards in Adventures ARE crazy. Especially spoilers and spoilers.

I think the word you're looking for is "awesome". The cards in Adventures are awesome, especially spoilers and spoilers.

[Awaclus]

Especially spoilers and spoilers.

Oh, you mean Bandit Camp and Marauder? Or is it Pillage?

[Asper]

I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

Making the gain of Road conditional takes a lot of the decision out, i think. Sure, even if something is conditional, you don't always want to do it - but you have to make the decision easier if you want to make sure fulfilling the condition feels like it "pays off". So that's what gets us to the +3 cards variant. My problem: The question isn't anymore about how to handle/balance Roads, but about how to reach that condition. And really, how different are conditions in Dominion? It's always "reach a good deck fast" or "be set back and return to a good deck fast". That's, like, something we try to do every game, isn't it? Well, slogs aside.

One condition i mentioned earlier is to return a card from your hand to your deck. If i do a condition, i think that's the one i'll take. Province discarding just doesn't thrill me. It was on Tournament. And hey, it's on Sultan, too. Actually, i'm currently leaning towards re-adding the third +action part back on Nouveau Riche, and that would be three cards in one set. Besides i like my cards to be multiplayer-friendly, and i don't think this kind of thing is. Towns will run out, it won't feel like it pays, Stan will draw it dead once with his Torturer and tell us how it lost him the game for weeks. It really feels like on-gain Tournament to me, and i don't want another one. Oh, and Explorer reveals them, so i guess i just don't feel the "do stuff with Province" design space is very spacey anymore.

Duchy is a different thing, but again, there's allready Nouveau Riche. While i'm not doing a "set", i wanted to make the cards as easy and different as possible, and this feels a bit like two ideas glued together.

Sorry for being so ignorant of your ideas

[LastFootnote]

It's cool, dude. It's your set and you should do what you want. If you don't use the "discard Province on gain", that just means I feel better about doing it in Enterprise. Hmm, "When you gain this, discard any number of Victory cards and take that many Trade tokens."

I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

The thing is, I think you want fewer Roads than villages, especially now that additional Roads you draw in a turn are basically Confusions. So Road seems weak by itself (without villages available), and not all that strong with an equal number of villages (current version with no other villages available). I think its strength is when you have a couple of Roads and a bunch of villages.

[scott_pilgrim]

What about something like "When you buy this, gain a Town or a Road", and then bump it up to $5 if necessary?  I don't like having the Roads forced on you, because you probably end up with more than you want.  Giving you the option to balance it out with more villages makes it easier to get the ideal ratio of actions to roads.  Though I think you would have to be careful with the wording, because you end up gaining the Town you just bought from the on-buy before you gain it from having bought it, so you only end up with one Town when you're clearly intended to get two.

Another option would be to just make it +3 Actions instead of +2 Actions (and probably bump the price up).

[LastFootnote]

Another option would be to just make it +3 Actions instead of +2 Actions (and probably bump the price up).

This sounds promising.

[pacovf]

I like the mandatory gain. It makes the card feel more dependant on the board to me. If there are other Villages, you got to balance which and how many of them you gain. Or maybe you just want Town itself, for the action - but how to deal with the appendage? Would you buy one to push your Gardens or Vineyard? Town isn't strictly better than Village and worse for some use cases, so i'm actually considering whether i should try it at $3 some time (though the name isn't very plausible at that point - i guess you can claim Towns are Villages that have Roads leading to them...). It's funny how we once said that Road should cost $4 on its own, and now it seems weak even if you get a Village for free (at least without other Villages). I'm not sure where this will lead.

You're getting this backwards, I think. As LFN said, you don't want many Roads, probably only 2 (+/-1) and tons of villages. By having the gain be compulsory, you get yourself in a tough spot: too few Towns and then Road can't shine, or too many and then you are drowning in stop cards . If there are other villages, then you just get a couple of town/roads and piledrive the other village. Otherwise, town seems like a no-no, since you are effectively cursing yourself with each town you buy.

What I am trying to say is, if you make the gain compulsory, you are not solving the problem of "Road is dead if there are no villages in the kingdom".

That's why I suggest to change town if you want to make the gain compulsory. Adding some sifting into it seems like a natural fit, but there are other possibilities, probably. Also, think about which card you want to be in the supply, because it will illustrate what you think the focus of the card couple should be.

You can also make a relatively simple condition, like "if you have 2 unused Actions", to justify using the +2 card Road. Not something you have to particularly work towards, but that still represents an extra cost to get the "free" card.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I basically agree with everybody else who said that plain "When you gain Town, gain a Road" is not a good idea, and there have been good reasons named for why it isn't. I would like a conditional on-gain or on-buy decision to gain a Road so it's not too easy to get it. You don't want many Roads anyway. However, I don't particularly like LFN's suggestion to discard a Province. Maybe a Duchy or Victory card in general?

[LastFootnote]

I basically agree with everybody else who said that plain "When you gain Town, gain a Road" is not a good idea, and there have been good reasons named for why it isn't. I would like a conditional on-gain or on-buy decision to gain a Road so it's not too easy to get it. You don't want many Roads anyway. However, I don't particularly like LFN's suggestion to discard a Province. Maybe a Duchy or Victory card in general?

Victory card in general is sort of a non-cost, since you usually start with 3 Estates. I like Duchy.

[Asper]

I thought about this, and i guess you guys are right. I imagined Town to be a Village+, which is why i costed it at $4 before. Problem is, mandatory gain doesn't make Town a Village+,  actually it's worse than default Village on many occasions. As i said, i thought about costing it at $3, but that doesn't solve the main problem. I thought having to "deal" with Roads was a good idea. There are one or two cards that do a thing like this, like Rats, but i can't even claim i actually enjoy those cards, really. So probably that just was a bad idea.

Partly i imagined the mandatory gain as a nerf. There are better ways to achieve that, but part of what i liked was that mandatory gaining was a very simple one.

So... What about just "you may"? Would un-nerfed Town be too good? You are paying $4 for Road (more than i planned originally) but get a free Village. Or you pay $4... for a Village. If this is balanced, i'd like it, i think.

[Co0kieL0rd]

In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."

[LastFootnote]

So... What about just "you may"? Would un-nerfed Town be too good? You are paying $4 for Road (more than i planned originally) but get a free Village. Or you pay $4... for a Village. If this is balanced, i'd like it, i think.

Seems like a good place to start.

[GendoIkari]

Fun puzzle: when would it make a difference which of the two cards is in the supply, and which is a zero-cost extra pile?

That's easy... when you use a trash-for-benefit on one of them. But that could be eliminated by giving the non-supply card a cost of $4*.

Second edge case; Band of Misfits can be one of them, but not the other.

[scott_pilgrim]

I actually agree with you (Asper) that there are some interesting things that result from the version of Town with the forced Road gain, and it wouldn't be a bad card like that.  It's just that it could be a lot better.  Road is already such a cool card that I feel like it's sort of a waste to use it on the version that gives you too many of them, because you don't really get to take advantage of what makes Road fun.  I feel like Town/Road should be as straightforward (not sure if that's the right word...) as possible, and then if you want to make another card that has that kind of village/terminal balancing act, that should be its own thing.

[Asper]

In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."

While i'm not really looking for $3 Town anymore, i don't think that's true. The existing Village alternatives at $3 (Shanty Town,Fishing Village) don't say +1Card, +2Actions, but that doesn't mean such a card wouldn't work. You'd just have to choose an effect that makes the Para-Village equal in power to normal Village. Forced effects are a way to achieve this.

Anyhow, here's voluntary Town with an updated Road featuring LastFootnote's wording:




Also, here's some small idea i had a while ago, added as a setup clause to Ranger:



I'm aware it doesn't really "fit" on Ranger, but then again i don't think it really "fits" on any specific card - well, maybe Noble Brigand or Nomad Camp... Anyhow, Ranger is nonterminal and costs $2, so it's nice to pair with a $5 - in a way that probably fits, i guess. I'm not exactly sure whether it's a good thing to make the decision for a 2/5 opening easier, but hey, at least you do have a choice. Equal chances and stuff, and who knows, somebody may pick a 3/4. In that way it's not "equal starting hands". I picked "put in any order" over choosing just your five card starting hand because it took me fewer words, mostly.

Meh, now that i wrote this, i'm not that convinced it's a good idea... It doesn't really make Ranger itself more interesting, either.

[Co0kieL0rd]

In whatever way Town enables you to gain a Road, as long as it says "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else.]" it has to cost either more or less than ordinary Village. So it cannot cost $3. DXV wrote somewhere something like "if Village and Village+ (in this case Town) were in the same Kingdom and both cost $3, that would just seem wrong."

While i'm not really looking for $3 Town anymore, i don't think that's true. The existing Village alternatives at $3 (Shanty Town,Fishing Village) don't say +1Card, +2Actions, but that doesn't mean such a card wouldn't work. You'd just have to choose an effect that makes the Para-Village equal in power to normal Village. Forced effects are a way to achieve this.

You missed my point. I was specifically talking about cards that say "+1 Card. +2 Actions. [Something else]." Fishing Village and Shanty Town don't say that so the "rule" doesn't apply here. If you want Town to cost $3, it cannot have plain "+1 Card. +2 Actions." as a vanilla bonus because with the voluntary (or obligatory, or conditional) Road gain it's different from village (not necessarily better or worse, that's not the point) and it includes everything that Village has. Thus it has to have a different cost. Otherwise you have to exclude something on Town that Village has to balance it out if it's supposed to cost $3.

As for Ranger, I think there are better, more clever ways of alternating opening buys. This is just way too simple. Ranger could allow for a one-time mulligan and reshuffle your deck if you don't like your starting hand, for example.

[TheOthin]

Consider a card that said "+1 Card, +2 Actions, Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand." It does what Village does, plus something else. But does it outclass Village? Absolutely not. Either one could be preferred depending on the situation.

A Village with a required on-gain is the same way. Maybe you want the card, maybe you don't. Some cards are pretty much always good to gain for free, but Road is not one of those cards. Once you have a couple, you'd prefer gaining regular Villages over ones that force a Road on you. This does not apply to cards where the on-gain is optional, like the current Town.

[Asper]

Consider a card that said "+1 Card, +2 Actions, Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand." It does what Village does, plus something else. But does it outclass Village? Absolutely not. Either one could be preferred depending on the situation.

A Village with a required on-gain is the same way. Maybe you want the card, maybe you don't. Some cards are pretty much always good to gain for free, but Road is not one of those cards. Once you have a couple, you'd prefer gaining regular Villages over ones that force a Road on you. This does not apply to cards where the on-gain is optional, like the current Town.

Thanks, that was what i was trying to say.

Donald wrote why he is against cards that are (what we have come to call) "strictly better" than others. He never said anything about cards that are "strictly more complex". Mandatory Town is more complex than Village, but not better.

[LastFootnote]

But the problem is one of perception in the first place. And Mandatory Town looks better than Village to the kind of people that complain about this sort of thing.

[Asper]

But the problem is one of perception in the first place. And Mandatory Town looks better than Village to the kind of people that complain about this sort of thing.

Can't really argue about that. I wonder whether there are people that say Rats was better than cantrip trashing because it gains copies of itself.

[TheOthin]

It's certainly strange and awkward when the effect of being forced to gain a card that's "supposed" to be desirable turns out to be a noteworthy disadvantage.

[Asper]

It's certainly strange and awkward when the effect of being forced to gain a card that's "supposed" to be desirable turns out to be a noteworthy disadvantage.

I don't even disagree, sorry if it sounded like that. Rats IS one of the cards that make Dark Ages the weirdest expansion in my book. Mandatory Town is off the table for a lot of good reasons that were pointed out, and i still do like it better as a Village+, which also means it should be "better" than Village. That also fits the name better. I like the name.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm glad it's off the table. I' starting to chum up with the version of Town that gives you the option of gaining a Road on-gain. It's still often enough going to be a non-trivial decision, while the concept itself is simple which I like. The situation will be a whole lot different with another Village on the board but any terminal draw will look more attractive with a Village on board.

[Asper]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

[polot38]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.

[Asper]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.

I don't know about cards that increase costs. I always remember some rules issues that were cited with cost reducers and cards costing $0, and i feel it would mean introducing new rules. It's probably not impossible, but unless there comes an official card that does cost increasing, i'd rather not do it.
Of course you could do it as an overpay "Gain two other VP cards that cost less than the total you paid", but i'm really not an overpay friend. The machanic feels overly complex to me, even though Meadow would be one of the more simple use cases.

About buffs, these are the options i had in mind:



None of them really makes the card more interesting, though. Probably the crazy second option is more interesting, but i still feel it's a bit lacking. Maybe i just should let it go, after all :-/

[Co0kieL0rd]

I would really like to reply more positively but there's just absolutely no way I would appreciate this concept. I'm sorry

To me, it just reads "gain a bunch of green" or "gain a Province split in 3 pieces." It's uninteresting and it's too many gains that just come flying in without any twist or condition to it. And trashing a Province from the Supply is terrible per se; if it happens additionally to all that gaining, Meadow just turns into a Kingdom-flattener that destroys the regular course of the game and ends it at a frantic pace with a foreseeable outcome, especially in multiplayer games.
On top of that, it destroys your deck. If you go for Meadows while your opponent goes for Provinces, you will likely choke horribly on green cards while your opponent might not be able to score enough points any more. Towards the end, it will be painfully slow for both of you and your opponent will pray for you to end the game finally.

Wow, I wrote into a frenzy. I guess I'd very strongly advise you against this idea.

[Co0kieL0rd]

On a positive note, I have recently conducted a non-human-interactive playtest involving your Sultan and Politician. Nobles and Great Hall were also on the board so Sultan should have been really good. But it was just okay which, frankly, surprised me but also relieved me. I was relieved because I thought Sultan would be too good. I like the card and I hope it works out. The real question for me is how does it compare with Explorer? Just the fact it's non-terminal makes me feel like it should cost at least $4, even though my only playtest showed Sultan isn't amazingly good. I mean, Explorer always gives you a Silver but without Villages, Explorer isn't any better at gaining Golds than Sultan. It's even worse because Sultan draws an additional card and you can still play another action after Sultan. That doesn't feel right.
Sultan has a cute concept but being a cantrip might make it too good, even if it's just in comparison with Explorer which isn't a good card but still costs $5. And Sultan is for $3? Yeah it might whiff but it's at least a cantrip then. I hope you can see my point.

Every time I played Politician I subconsciously chose the same option for all 3 other players. Eventually I realised I could have chosen different options for each one. But in 95% of cases, you won't because most player interaction cards are symmetrical in Dominion so there's no point in bothering thinking about who should get what. You always focus on your own deck anyway. So I think you could make Politician simpler by making one decision for each other player. It's still a fun card. That +$3 is really enticing at a cost of only $3 so I expect people to go for it and see how good of a job Politician does for them.

[Asper]

It's okay. There hasn't been any positive feedback to Meadow, so i guess a clear "It's no good" statement helps me make a cut and let it go. So i'll let it go.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

About Politician, you raise a very interesting point. Making it one choice might or might not make the card less political. Actually, i can imagine a case where Alice says "Why do you let us gain Silvers? Bob's playing Big Money and you're just helping him! My Torturer chains are the only way to stop his Treasure madness!" (added drama). Long story short, i guess it doesn't harm the intend of the card as much as it improves it.

Edit: I just realized a choice for all makes Politician rather similar to Governor on paper. Though the biggest difference is that for Governor you pick the choice you want, while for Politician you choose what your opponents get the least of... Still, 2 of 3 bonuses are the same. That's rather unsatisfying. Considering i still think that one choice for all might be better, i wonder whether doing Politician is worth it at all 
A shame, i was pretty fond of this one...
Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

[XerxesPraelor]

FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.

[Asper]

FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.

That's good to hear
Hm... I guess i'll try it and see whether Co0kieL0rd is right.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.

I think neither Sultan nor Explorer should be considered Gold gainers. Sultan can gain Coppers if you're desperate,  but Silver gaining needs some investment, and Sultan itself doesn't help you to get there. Explorer can give you a Silver, no questions asked. Whenever you have no VP card, Sultan does nothing. Explorer is worse at gaining Golds, but it's better at getting you to a point where you can actually buy Provinces - in that respect, you can open Explorer.

All that doesn't change that Sultan does look good compared to Explorer. You are the one who playtested it (thanks again), but your playtests didn't show it to be OP even on an alt-Vp board. If it turns out to be too good after all, i'm not against changing the cost to $4, of course.

[Asper]

So, for now i removed Politician from my list of cards (it's hardly a set), because its bonuses are too similar to Governor. Also, given recent... Events... it's seems a good thing Road is a non-supply pile. Hooray! No neverending Roads! So Town/Road is what it's at and it's going to stay.

Enjoy your Adventures Time.

[Asper]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^

[Asper]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

Well, the original card, Ranger, did the same with two cards and costed $2 (without being a Reserve). It was on par with Vagrant but a bit boring. This now is better than Laboratory (most of the time) and costs less. I liked the VP clause (i originally posted it as a prediction for Adventures), and thought it fitted well on a sifter, and Ranger was a sifter but boring, and that's the story. I don't know whether you noticed, but you can of course discard any number of Hunters to the same VP buy. So, one Duchy per shuffle, and you get super-Labs that help with green for $4. Honestly, i thought that was pretty synergetic.

Edit: Given how new the card is, it might still be off on the power level.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^

I don't know. But i'm sure somebody doesn't like it. I like it, but i'm a bit biased in favour of alt-VP, i think. Hmm... Now that Distant Lands exists, we do have an official VP card that gets better by playing it... Maybe this makes Maze less unique

Sadly, that's not really my name. It was just a shout-out to Troy McLure from "The Simpsons", who would always introduce himself with a list of movies/advertisements/whatever that you might remember him from.

[XerxesPraelor]

Yeah; I think the new Hunter is much cooler than the old Ranger. Definitely a keeper.

[Asper]

Thanks

I changed the wording a tiny bit. Don't know why i didn't do it like that from the start:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put two in your hand. Discard the other one. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

Only difference is that the first version failed (partially) for the last 1 or 2 cards in your deck, and the new one doesn't.

[Asper]

Woohoo! Since i now have post/respect equilibrium, i can finally stop posting memes and cheap jokes. HURRA!

Here are slightly reworked versions of Necromancer and Zombie from Werothegreat's "Flavorful X or Z card" thread. As you can see, i decided for the +2 cards version for now to keep Necromancer from comparing too favourably to Rogue (though it might be too weak now) and gave Zombie an easier to do bane*:



*The last version had Necromancer draw 3 cards and gain only action cards, while Zombie allowed opponents to topdeck two cards with the attack taking place either way.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.
Also i just noticed that this might be considered a bit similar to Town/Road, being a supply/non-supply pair of Village/Draw. Hm...

[LastFootnote]

I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.

[Co0kieL0rd]

*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.

[Asper]

I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.

Thanks

Wow, i didn't even think about Shelters as a precedent. Will fix this.

I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.

Never played Magic. Had it explained to me, though, and i'd probably like it.

Thanks to you too

I guess you are right. Vampire is a bit anti-thematic, thinking of it. And yes, i know cards like that are generally considered poor design. Sometimes i do cards just to see whether i can implement the idea without the power being off or rules breaking, similarly to why i did Jeweler (which implements Action/Treasure). Vampire is the same about that Curse/Action concept, and actually started out as an Action-Curse. It's an old card, and i'm mostly trying to fix it because it's very popular in my gaming group. I know it doesn't live up to some of the other cards.

Edit: Also i myself am a mediocre player at best.

[LastFootnote]

I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

[Asper]

I'm having a hard time finding better bonuses for the cards from the spot. It's less hard for Zombie, which could just give +$2. That way, it becomes a bad idea to load up on Zombies too much, and i think Necromancer would have to give +2 Actions itself so you want Zombies at all. Maybe +$1, too? Problem is, this is even more similar to Town. In a way, i think it's more elegant the other way around, and i'd rather try to find a way of making the attack stack less (or add a bane that doesn't run out). Either way, i sadly don't really have time to think about it right now, but i'll definitely try to improve it.

About the "this is not in the supply": I'm not sure whether it might make some people think of Zombie as a regular kingdom card that's just missing a randomizer if i keep it out. Hmm... I guess having it be both a setup and kingdom card would cause some confusing cases. So probably i could leave it on.

[pacovf]

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.

[Asper]

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.

The discard option was added so Zombie isn't just Dame Molly for less money and without a trash clause. I know it's never in the supply, but i didn't like the idea of Necromancer always being able to gain a card that was worth $5. Now that i'm thinking about a different Vanilla bonuses either way, it should be possible to balance the card without the discard option.

I'm not really a fan of gaining and playing the card. I could imagine gaining a card and allowing you to play a Zombie a lá Cultist. But that probably makes the synergy too obvious and discourages gaining the cards your Zombies trashed, which i wouldn't like as much, either.

How about:

Necromancer
+2 Actions
You may gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.


Makes Necromancer rather similar to University, but probably not in a problematic way. At least Zombie doesn't draw, so it's not as Town-ish (i hope). Still not sure this is the solution. I don't know what Necromancer is supposed to cost in this version. I doubt it's worth $5 on its own...

[pacovf]

I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

Can be tweaked, of course. It's kinda cheating in that it's hiding complexity behind a second card, but oh well. If this would be too strong, you could make it return the chosen card to its Supply Pile too.


Other ideas:

If you don't like (conditional) gain to hand, make Necromancer gain cards to the top of your deck (maybe only if it's an Attack card, to make it more different from Graverobber?).

Make Zombie:

Zombie
Trash a card from your hand.
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.

[GendoIkari]

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

[pacovf]

That's easily fixed: add an "s" to the name of the card.

[LastFootnote]

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]

[scott_pilgrim]

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

You're right about the phrasing, as it should be in accordance with Saboteur's. But Asper said he wouldn't like for one to be ble to gain and play the card, which I assume meant, play it right away. I would agree as that would make Necromancer a little too simple for my taste.

I like Pacovf's idea of Necromancer being played as if it were a card from the trash, and Zombie trashing a card from your hand. Tha't actually a pretty interesting and flavourful BoM variant. It only has the problem tht Grave Robber and Rogue could easily ruin Necromancer's day and distort the game balance by gaining the only copy of Zombie that exists. This could be prevented by either putting a clause on Zombie such as, "When you gain this, trash it", which would be kind of awkward. Or just giving Necromancer two options;

Necromancer:
You may play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. If you do, this is that card until it leaves play. Otherwise, (trash a card from your hand and)
each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.

Looks really weird, though. I don't know, I'm also just brainstorming. Have fun, evaluating all the options

[GendoIkari]

Just making zombie cost $0* will stop it from being able to be gained from the trash, if you wanted to go that way.

[Asper]

I'll try to describe what i'm trying to achieve with the card duo, because i'm not sure i know myself:

• Necromancer is supposed to make use of cards in thre trash
• Zombie is supposed to start in the trash, useable by Necromancer
• Setup aside, Zombie should behave like any other card in the trash. It should be gainable by Graverobber and not be referenced on Necromancer besides in the set-up clause
• Zombie is supposed to add cards to the trash for Necromancer to use.
• I'd like them to be different from Town/Road in that i don't want a supply Village and a non-supply Draw. Everything else is fine.
• The cards should be simple.

I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

This is an interesting idea, but it's very far from my original concept. I think it makes having 10 Zombie cards seem silly, considering how few other cards in Dominion could remove them from the trash. So maybe have just one costing $0. But, you know, this basically makes Zombie a "choose one" on Necromancer, where #1 is Zombie's ability and #2 looking at the trash. It kind of makes putting Zombie in the trash moot.

Also this version removes the deckbuilding aspect - instead of gaining an army of Zombies (and their victims) over time, you just expand your Necromancer's ability list. It plays very differently. If you want to do a card like this, i'd rather go with a personalized mat where trashed cards go, and a single card type that chooses between a trashing attack and impersonating a card on the mat:

Necromancererer
Choose one: Play a card from your graveyard mat; Or each other player reveals the top two cards from his deck, chooses one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. Put all chosen cards on your graveyard mat.

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.

Necromancer: Action, $5
+1 Action. Gain a Zombie from the trash. Play any number of Zombies from your hand.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
+1 Card. [Attack effect here]

I didn't really think about it when i first suggested the card, but i guess what makes it actually reasonable to use the trash in my original concept is this: Necromancer gains cards from a shared pile, Zombies start in that pile and put cards from other player's decks there for Necromancer to gain. You can do this without using the trash - but it's far less trouble using it.

With this version, using the trash becomes pretty unnecessary: Zombies behave just like any other non-supply pile (except for Rogue and Graverobber), and the cards they put in the trash are ignored by Necromancer. If i assume you forgot to put that part there, it still treats Zombie differently - i'm not sure i like that.

I had an idea for a version that could play a Zombie, though:

Necromancerer
(possible vanilla bonus)
(You may) gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash. If it is an action card, you may play a copy of it from your hand.
----
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.

I think you mean "at most $2 less", otherwise I'm gaining Province every time!  I'm not sure it needs that though, I think Saboteur only has it because it can trash Provinces (without support).

Have you considered having the non-terminal Necromancer gain the card to your hand?  Then you can play Zombies right away, but you can also do fun stuff with the other cards that have been trashed.

I figured it would work this way, because you can translate "at least 2 less" as "less by at least 2", but i see how it's misleading. As "at most" is the wording on Saboteur, that's the way to go, obviously. Thanks for pointing this out

[LastFootnote]

Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.
Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

[Asper]

Based on your excellent comments and ideas from the above post, how about something like this?

Necromancer: Action, $5
Play a card from your Graveyard mat.
Your Graveyard mat starts with a Zombie on it.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $0*
+$1. Return this to your Graveyard mat. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure or Action card costing at least $3, and discards the rest. Put one of the trashed cards onto your Graveyard mat.

EDIT: Well as you say, this is still pretty far from your original concept. Hmm...

Necromancer: Action, $5
Gain an Action or Treasure card from the trash and play it.
Setup: Put the Zombie cards in the trash.

Zombie: Action–Attack, $4
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

This isn't bad at all... I'm not sure which variant i like more. The second is so very simple on paper, but allows for a whole lot of options. I just wonder whether it might be too many. It seems balanced, either way, with Necromancer behaving similar to Dame Natalie at the start, possibly becoming Explorer (gain a Silver) or even a limited but more flexible Band of Misfits of sorts. I like it. Thanks for that idea

Edit: Here are the mockups:



I decided to keep the "not in the supply" on Zombie just to make sure nobody would take it for a kingdom card. On their own i think they'd be a bit boring. Also i dropped their price to 3$ (even though it doesn't matter), because i doubt a card like that would be worth $4 (might also not be worth $3, but whatever). I wouldn't want people to misjudge Zombie's power just because they looked at the price.

[GendoIkari]

My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.

[LastFootnote]

My only problem with this latest version is the terminal thing. You have a terminal action that gains you more terminal actions. Unless you have lots of Villages, or your opponent is trashing lots of non-terminal actions, then you don't want to play this card too many times, because each time you do you just get another terminal. You don't get to play your army of zombies that you've built. Since the only way to get a Zombie is to play the Necromancer, I'm thinking that Zombie might not be too strong if it had +1 action.

I think it's worth testing as it is. In retrospect, probably Zombie should have some vanilla bonus like +2 Cards, but I think the ability to easily play lots of Zombies would just be too brutal.

And although you probably don't want to make it too much like Knights, I sort of feel like it would make sense if it interacted somehow if a Zombie hits another Zombie.

Well a Zombie "kills off" another Zombie it hits, like any other trashing attack. More importantly, Zombies can kill off Necromancers. I guess Zombies could be one-shots (with a bonus like +1 Card, +1 Action. Or I guess they could do a Knights-like thing and only trash themselves on any successful attack.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I also think you should try the terminal versions of Necromancer and Zombie. This way, players are discouraged from getting too many Necromancers, which is good IMO. Zombie is that kind of attack that you really don't want to be hit by too often. But it could do with a vanilla bonus (+$2 I think is fine).

[Asper]

I think i'll give the latest version a shot, though i can imagine one action on Zombie might be an improvement. Then again, what's wrong about a card that wants Villages in the kingdom? There are plenty. Not sure i want the self-trashing clause, though.

Either way, it's gonna take a while. Gotta playtest my own game first.

[LibraryAdventurer]

In responce to the other comments, here's my suggestion:

Zombie
Cost $4*. Action - Attack
+1 Action. +$1.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If any cards are trashed, trash this.
(This is not in the supply.)

It can have the thematic muti-zombies in one turn thing, but that shouldn't happen very often when they trash themselves on a successful attack. (Added the +$1 to make up for the self-trashing.)

[pacovf]

I don't really like Zombie being a one-shot.

I am also partial to (my own idea of) giving Zombie a compulsory "Trash a card from your hand" (maybe with +1 Action). It fits both as a bonus and as a check on the number of Zombies that you want to get.

[Asper]

I think i really like the version LastFootnote suggested. They are so very, very little text and still clever solutions to my main problems (Necromancer being much better than Rogue, Zombies being better than Knights), while staying true to the original concept. There'd have to be big issues to get me away from this solution - which i wouldn't know for quite a while, cause i don't playtest (Dominion fan cards) currently.

[Asper]

Mockup for the new version of Hunter, which was named Ranger before and is now a Reserve. Created using LastFootnote's awesome template.
It's so much more text than i figured the effect would take...

[LastFootnote]

• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.

[Asper]

• Usually Dominion cards use numerals for Cardinal numbers greater than one.
• I think Hunter would be more compelling and interesting if it searched 4 cards. This would also save text.

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
Put 2 into your hand; discard the rest.
Put this on your Tavern mat.

EDIT: I really like the card in general. It feels different enough from Wine Merchant to be worth doing.

Actually the "call to return" (edit: by VP buy) effect was an Adventures prediction i made before Wine Merchant was revealed. When it turned out no official card used VP cards as a limiter, i basically salvaged it to make Ranger more interesting.

Are you sure 4 cards isn't a bit much? It's allready a super-Lab for $4 as long as you get a single VP card per reshuffle. Then again, the "super" part is needed to deal with those VP cards in the first place - but minus that it's still a Lab for $4. It will eat up a few of your buys, which will give you some VP, so i guess it's worse than a normal Lab most of the time, but then again, it's a $4.

Edit: Of course, the price isn't what the card's about. If 4 seems more interesting but too good for $4, i could still try it at $5.

[Asper]

Asper

• Governor
• 
• Offline
• Posts: 4995
• 
• Respect: +5339
• • 

Re: Asper's Cards