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!
