Print

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

[markusin]

Whew* I'm happy that the winner is at least an all around fine card. Congratulations, jamespotter! I feel a bit bad for not voting for it, but I was hesitant to vote for so many cards. Personally, my opinion on this card is pretty neutral. So much disagreement this time around.

[cluckyb]

So I'm curious if people have ideas on how to make the "reaction that lets you gain a card into hand" part of Factory work cause I thought it was pretty cool when I made it

Clearly the reaction needs to leave your hand after use. Otherwise you can use it to piledrive ironworks. Set aside doesn't really work, cause when would you return it. I like topdeck better than discard because it makes it still marginally useful in your buy phase because you can save the factory for next turn. That being said, using the reaction just to save the card for the next turn is pretty weak and thus the top half clearly needs to be a gainer so that it works in games without other in-turn gainers.

The +1 action on the top half is also pretty important to the self-combo (and it needs to self combo because there aren't necessarily other gainers). Otherwise, without villages gaining an action into hand doesn't help because you don't have any actions to play the gained card with. Now having the +1 action, it needs to be harder to spam thus being a straight up workshop isn't a good choice. Which is why I wanted the discard and that lent itself perfectly with the mint style gaining. Can't let it gain victory cards though, as that is really strong in the end-game.

So yeah, this certainly isn't meant to be a "my card was perfectly thoughtout and everyone should be ashamed for not voting for it". I'm just curious what people didn't like about it. I'm also wondering what the best way to defend our cards is during the discussion session. Like, one guy said the on-play needed to be terminal but I didn't want to reply pointing out why it was non-terminal cause that would give away which card I made which I can't do.

[jamespotter]

@cluckyb The bottom seemed interesting enough, I just wasn't a fan of the top, mostly because I have seen (and made) way too many "Discard a card, gain a copy" clauses on cards, and they always just end up seeming boring. I would have liked the bottom on a much weaker, cheaper card.

I am really surprised Diviner won, but I guess I  will follow SirPeebles example, though mine will probably end up a lot more boring:

Secret History of Diviner

This card started out as an on-buy attack, with the wording "When you buy this, each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, discards one that you choose, and puts the other back." I read the Secret Histories around that time, and realized that on-buy attacks usually end up being painful and unfun, and also, I had created an effect that would be really hard to balance. That got rid of the attack. Now, unfortunately, the sifting was boring, and overall too weak, so I finally came up with the idea of changing of it to the similar "When you buy a card". Thus, the bottom.

I now approached the top, knowing it had to have a +buy, and should probably be terminal, because this card can stack and become slightly obnoxious, and I didn't want it to be a "no-brainer" type of buy. I decided to go for +2 cards with the buy because it had been used less than coins, and it fit Hinterlands "Cycling" theme. I decided to cost it at $3 because on an average turn (one where you buy one thing) it is a Oracle that draws first, cycles second, and doesn't hurt anyone else, with a buy tacked on. I realize that is not its intended use, but it was certainly not a $5, and I saw no reason to prevent someone from opening double Diviner, especially since it was not strictly better than Oracle. The name was something I came up with last minute, and I am certainly open to changes.


There you have it, in case anyone was interested. 

EDIT: And, of course, thank you to LastFootNote for organizing and administrating this great contest.

[Tables]

Congrats, James. Diviner was one of the cards which got my vote. I think it's an interesting mechanic, and the card is nice and simple.

[jamespotter]

Congrats, James. Diviner was one of the cards which got my vote. I think it's an interesting mechanic, and the card is nice and simple.

Thanks! I have noticed that simple design mechanics often get chosen over complex ones simply because they are easier to analyze and understand...I think that may be due to the sheer number of submissions for each contest. It's definitely the way my vote skews...

[eHalcyon]

Congrats, James. Diviner was one of the cards which got my vote. I think it's an interesting mechanic, and the card is nice and simple.

Thanks! I have noticed that simple design mechanics often get chosen over complex ones simply because they are easier to analyze and understand...I think that may be due to the sheer number of submissions for each contest. It's definitely the way my vote skews...

You are correct in this.  But I don't care and I am trying to submit weird and funky cards rather than simple ones.  They may get crazier as time goes by.

My entry this time was Pilgrimage.  As I said when the contest opened, I had trouble with Hinterlands.  I came up with something on the fly.  I didn't think too much about it until the ballot was up, and it was only then that I realized +2 Buys was too good and it stacked really powerfully.  I think it can be fixed with simple tweaks, but the card really is quite narrow and not as interesting as it seemed to me at first.  Discussion about it convinced me not to vote for my own card.  Oh well.

[mail-mi]

I had a card submitted, but I figured it would work better in a seaside/hinterlands combined contest, and made Bargain on the fly.

[Jack Rudd]

Secret History of Safe House

It's Tunnel, only for junking attacks rather than discard attacks. Congratulations to everyone who figured that out. Oh, that would be everyone.

And yes, it does have rather strong interactions with Peddler, Tournament and the special-card piles.

[Tables]

Any idea when the results are going to go up, LFN?

[Asper]

Artefact
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Choose a card from your hand. Trash it, discard it, or put it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, set it aside instead of gaining it. Discard it after you next shuffle your discard pile (or when the game ends).

I made Artefact and was surprised that when i playtested it once during the contest, it seemed much stronger than during my playtests before that. I'm probably changing the card to a simple cantrip with forced trashing, instead of the discard and top-deck options:

Artefact
Action, $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
When you buy this, set it aside instead of gaining it. Discard it when you shuffled your discard pile the next time (or when the game ends).

Edit: Or i'll cost it at 4$, instead. Will have to see...

The wording below the line caused some discussion, and when i submitted it LastFootnote reworded it on his own, probably thinking he did the card a favour. It (mostly) has to be how it is, though, and so i asked him to change it back. For those wondering why:

• "When you buy this" provided a nice and sometimes thematic way to get your Artefact earlier (Workshop, Stonemason, Ironworks). This way, the card also became more relevant for Hinterlands, because it got a "gain me, don't buy me" theme. Furthermore, cards like Armory would allow top-decking your Artefact if it triggered "on gain", which is a bit confusing for newer players.
• "Instead of gaining it" is unnecessary normally because of the lose-track rule, but it makes clear Trader cannot be revealed when buying Artefact.
• "Discard this" instead of "gain this" had some reasons, too. If it was "gain", three things would cause trouble:
  • You could reveal Trader and Watchtower to a card you bought several turns ago, or even at the end of the game (imagine a Feodum game with only one Silver in the supply as the game ends).
  • You will wonder where your Artefact is supposed to be after revealing Trader for it, and whether it will be discarded later or whether you will have to keep in mind which of your Artefacts can still be gained and which not.
  • Possession, if timed correctly, could effectively steal all your Artefacts.
  Edit: I feel "put it in your discard pile" is even better, but maybe people would argue you could put it in your freshly shuffled discard pile, then.
• "After you next shuffle your discard pile" instead of simply "after your next shuffle" was necessary, because otherwise Inn triggers the discard and then a 2/5 opening would be much better than a 5/2 opening. Also i have no idea whether it's correct english, my original wording was "when you shuffled your discard pile the next time", which also avoided the ambiguous "after" (because, you know, six turns later is still "after"). That got lost somehow.
  
• Edit: "Or when the game ends" is probably necessary, because unlike Horse Traders and such cards there's no real connection between Artefact and your deck until you put it in your discard pile.

I'm still curious whether anyone voted for it. The "gain me, don't buy me" concept seemed like my best idea for Hinterlands.

[Tables]

Oicho-Kabu
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $5
+1 Buy. +$2.
Worth 1 VP. While this is in play, when you buy a card, +$2 and discard the top card of your deck. If it's a Victory card, trash this.

This was mine (not Mine however). In retrospect, I think I may have overdone the numbers. Even though it's obviously a really simple tweak, I think a lot of people saw this and went "Terminal +$4, too strong, move on." Really, it should have been +$1, +1 buy I think, or perhaps +$1 after buying.

The thing I most love about the card is the theme. As Just a Rube pointed out, it's the name of a traditional Japanese card game. The card was originally conceived as a Highway variant that's more powerful, but comes with a risk. The risk part I knew always had to be a really big factor on the card, and I pretty quickly settled on "top deck = victory card" for a few reasons - firstly you can control the risk sometimes, giving the card a strategic element, secondly it's got generally low-medium chance of hitting, but is high over the course of a game if you use it a lot. Thirdly, it has a distinct effect during megaturns. Buy a victory card at the end? Bam, say goodbye to your Oicho-Kabu's.

I was never entirely satisfied with the card. At first it ended your buy phase if you revealed a victory card. I thought that might be a little too harsh, but in retrospect it might have worked better. The card is likely too strong currently anyway. Secondly I felt it was too easy to avoid the trigger while building an engine, so I made it a victory card worth 1 VP so if you wanted to use multiple, you better be damn careful. Weakening a card by making it worth points, now that's a trick you don't see often. It also fit thematically in two ways - firstly it fit the set by being a dual type card, and secondly now this exotic foreign game could earn you some of renown - provided you didn't lose at it and tarnish your reputation, at least. The third issue is one I only realised after it came out which is that it has slightly weird timing. You buy a card, then trigger your OKs, THEN gain the card. Notice that means you can definitely buy e.g. two Provinces before you start trashing your OKs on a megaturn. That's weird. I also would have liked the card to fail if you had NO cards in deck, i.e. negative wording - "reveal a card, if it's not a victory card +$2, otherwise trash this" but decided to simplify when I submitted. In retrospect that was a bad move. Both of these problems could have been fixed by changing the wording, and also the trigger to when you gain a card, but I missed that option when I made the card.

I'm going to guess the card didn't do that well - there were a number of issue I still needed to eke out, which collectively dragged the card down. Which is a shame - personally I like this more than my Prosperity submission (Philanthropist) which came 5th, but I reckon this will be much lower. But it was largely my own fault, I suppose.

Oh and Fragasnap, I'll claim that respect now, thank you very much.

[ChocophileBenj]

Troglodyte Caves
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.
When you gain this, you may reveal a card from your hand costing less than this. Gain a copy of it.


This was mine (no, I won't do the same joke).
Action part and price were still the same since the beginning.
At first, I had another on-gain effect the first day. It was : "when you gain this, you may set aside an action card from your hand and then, play it during your action phase" with rules clarifications "it isn't counted as in your hand for any purpose" clause (reactions, draw until you have X cards in hand and so on...) and "it still requires an action ; at end of game, return this to your deck".
It was inspirated by "Iron Defense" from Puzzle Strike, if you know.
At first, everything I change was wording, swapping "+1 action, +1 card" written in this order, then something about whether should be cards face up or face down. Okay, face down they are, and if you don't play them to end of game, you still reveal them to show you didn't cheat.
And later the same day, I changed my on-gain effect, because I was afraid of this being too complicated.
But the action part was still the same !
And I still wonder how much votes it got, but many people seemed to like it.

[StrongRhino]

I created Wagon Raider.
SECRET HISTORY OF WAGON RAIDER:
I thought it up in final form while eating a grilled cheese.

[WanderingWinder]

Mine was this:

Action    
$5    
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.

My entry was the much-debated Used Land Salesman. As you can tell, I am rubbish at coming up with names.
I also find it quite hard to believe that it would be too strong for BM. I mean, it just can't be better than even something like courtyard or Jack for BM, and those don't totally break the game - I guess some of you might disagree - but I think it's even most often just worse than those. Like, you don't really want a free duchy in a BM deck until reasonably late. More importantly, it's even later if you aren't in a BM vs BM matchup, so while it in some ways helps BM a bit, it doesn't dissuade engines, if that makes sense. Well anyway, I am even more surprised that people thought it would win, between all the people who were confident it was broken, those who felt it was terrible, and those who just found it boring - only a couple actually said they liked it.

As for crazy effects, crazy new effects are fine and awesome, but you don't want like 4 of them slapped together randomly. A little bit at a time, and cards that have different parts which make sense together.

[eHalcyon]

Mine was this:

Action    
$5    
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.

My entry was the much-debated Used Land Salesman. As you can tell, I am rubbish at coming up with names.
I also find it quite hard to believe that it would be too strong for BM. I mean, it just can't be better than even something like courtyard or Jack for BM, and those don't totally break the game - I guess some of you might disagree - but I think it's even most often just worse than those. Like, you don't really want a free duchy in a BM deck until reasonably late. More importantly, it's even later if you aren't in a BM vs BM matchup, so while it in some ways helps BM a bit, it doesn't dissuade engines, if that makes sense. Well anyway, I am even more surprised that people thought it would win, between all the people who were confident it was broken, those who felt it was terrible, and those who just found it boring - only a couple actually said they liked it.

As for crazy effects, crazy new effects are fine and awesome, but you don't want like 4 of them slapped together randomly. A little bit at a time, and cards that have different parts which make sense together.

I +1 because ULS was definitely one of my favourites.  Not because of another Mine joke.

[scott_pilgrim]

Mill
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Each other player draws a card. Gain a card costing up to $5.
When you gain this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

So, my card was Mill.  Some people said they didn't like it because DXV said he had tried on-gain discard attacks and they didn't work.  Well, in general I'm always at least a little skeptical of DXV's playtesting (how did Rebuild get through?), but even so, I think Mill is a lot less painful than the on-gain discarders that DXV tried.  The cards that DXV tried either had a much more painful on-gain attack (put a random card from your hand on top of your deck), or also attacked on play, or both.  This can attack on play if you use it to gain another Mill (or IGG or Noble Brigand), but either way it gives each other player a card first, so that's at least not quite as bad.  And if you don't use it to gain another Mill, then it's friendly rather than painful.  And if you keep using it to load up on Mills, the idea was that later on in the game, you would just end up being super-friendly to the other players to make up for how mean you were to them early on.

The biggest concern that I had with Mill was that there might be some kind of Duchy rush thing you could do by just constantly attacking early on while piledriving Mills, then piledrive Duchies and something else.  But my intuition (and I haven't playtested it, so I don't know whether this is correct) is that the benefit of card-drawing that you're giving to your opponent in that process will be plenty for them to take the lead during your Duchy piledriving phase.

People also talked about the opening "problem", which, even though I told myself I wasn't going to comment on my own cards until after the voting, I couldn't resist talking about.  Yeah, it's ugly, but it only comes up in 1/72 (or is it 1/48?) 2-player games, and still not terribly often in 3- or 4-player games.  There are a lot of painful things that can happen with bad luck in Dominion, even in the opening, like getting a Curse on your first shuffle with IGG, or Noble Brigand reducing you to a $4/$2 opening.  I don't feel like a $3/$2 opening is game-breaking, and it's pretty rare anyway.

As for the name, I was looking through a thesaurus under workshop, since that's another gainer, and then hey there's mill which makes an awesome pun on Militia.  Also a pretty generic name that sounds like something a Dominion card would be.

[Tables]

(how did Rebuild get through?)

It was the last card made. On buy discard attacks would have gotten a lot more testing, and I don't think Mill looks to fix the problems.

[eHalcyon]

Mill
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Each other player draws a card. Gain a card costing up to $5.
When you gain this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

So, my card was Mill.  Some people said they didn't like it because DXV said he had tried on-gain discard attacks and they didn't work.  Well, in general I'm always at least a little skeptical of DXV's playtesting (how did Rebuild get through?), but even so, I think Mill is a lot less painful than the on-gain discarders that DXV tried.  The cards that DXV tried either had a much more painful on-gain attack (put a random card from your hand on top of your deck), or also attacked on play, or both.  This can attack on play if you use it to gain another Mill (or IGG or Noble Brigand), but either way it gives each other player a card first, so that's at least not quite as bad.  And if you don't use it to gain another Mill, then it's friendly rather than painful.  And if you keep using it to load up on Mills, the idea was that later on in the game, you would just end up being super-friendly to the other players to make up for how mean you were to them early on.

The biggest concern that I had with Mill was that there might be some kind of Duchy rush thing you could do by just constantly attacking early on while piledriving Mills, then piledrive Duchies and something else.  But my intuition (and I haven't playtested it, so I don't know whether this is correct) is that the benefit of card-drawing that you're giving to your opponent in that process will be plenty for them to take the lead during your Duchy piledriving phase.

People also talked about the opening "problem", which, even though I told myself I wasn't going to comment on my own cards until after the voting, I couldn't resist talking about.  Yeah, it's ugly, but it only comes up in 1/72 (or is it 1/48?) 2-player games, and still not terribly often in 3- or 4-player games.  There are a lot of painful things that can happen with bad luck in Dominion, even in the opening, like getting a Curse on your first shuffle with IGG, or Noble Brigand reducing you to a $4/$2 opening.  I don't feel like a $3/$2 opening is game-breaking, and it's pretty rare anyway.

As for the name, I was looking through a thesaurus under workshop, since that's another gainer, and then hey there's mill which makes an awesome pun on Militia.  Also a pretty generic name that sounds like something a Dominion card would be.

Well, even if you doubt DXV's playtesting, this tidbit is not about power but about fun.  And I can imagine pretty easily how this can become really un-fun.  Granted, that also exists with official cards like Saboteur.

Anyway, in the Noble Brigand secret histories, he says this:

Maybe it's for the best that you'll never experience the joy of a when-gain discard-based attack just sitting there, promising that any hand you draw might be taken away, even if no-one has even bought the card yet.

This says nothing about the type of discard attack.  He mentions elsewhere the random-topdeck one that you talk about, but he also implies that he tried a lot of on-gain attacks.  It's pretty reasonable to assume that he tried an on-gain Militia as well as the random topdeck one.

The fact that some of these cards may have also attacked on play is not a big deal.  The pain is from the on-gain attack, not from on-play which already exists on other cards anyway.

Your concept is still pretty interesting though.  The idea of being friendly later to make up for early rudeness -- I like that.  And the name was pretty great, I have to give that to you.

[SirPeebles]

Ill-Gotten Goons
$5 Action

When you buy this, all other players gain a Curse and discard down to three cards.  +1 VP, and you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.

[Titandrake]

I made Sanctuary. I think on-gain Island is actually pretty powerful, but I went way overboard in trying to balance it.

The issue is that it
1. Probably shouldn't be easy to open T1/T2, because that's similar to old Hovel.
2. Probably shouldn't be an easy buy, in that there needs to be tension in whether you want another Sanctuary or not.

So I tried to resolve it by making it terminal + non-hand size increasing, when I really only needed one or the other. If it was terminal draw, maybe it'd be too good in engines, but it'd be more interesting.

[sudgy]

I made Fence (which LastFootnote named, btw), it originally was just thinking of how to make gaining a card costing $1 more would work.  If I were to remake it now, it would either cost $4 or have +1 Buy +$1.

[markusin]

Mine was this one:

Mountain Dwellers
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Reveal your hand. If you revealed 3 or more Treasure cards, +$1.
When you buy this, you may trash a Treasure card you have in play. Gain a Treasure card costing exactly $3 more than it.

Okay, this is actually Mountain Dwellers, but it's based on Mine. It's also mine. I was going to wait for the results before talking about it, but who knows when they'll be released.

Do we have a Secret History of Mountain Dwellers?
Not too much to say here. I didn't want to make another treasure flooder (we Had Trader and Cache already), but an on-gain Mine effect seemed like a cool idea. Engines aren't as averse to the Mine effect as they are to the treasure gainer effect, so perhaps it could have made everyone happy. I wanted the top part to at least be a cantrip, so that you wouldn't be afraid to get multiples of these. It needed a bit more than that, but a simple $1 coin would be too strong. I figured I can make the coin conditional so as to favour large handsizes and sifting. It made sense to me to have it activate with treasure in your hand, since you probably have treasure in your deck if you bought this in the first place.

My mistake was making it activate a 3 treasures in hand. That's overkill. Activating at 2 treasures would have been enough to drive home the point that it wants you to have at least some treasures in your deck, but even 1 treasure can possibly work.

Balance wise, I made it on-buy because I was worried it would be too strong with Border Village and Haggler, let alone if it could Mine cards from your hand when gained. I knew it had to at least be able to work on treasures in play for it not to suck. I liked that it was an early game accelerator, turning a copper into a silver before the first reshuffle, just like IGG can give a curse before the first reshuffle. Mining a Silver into a Gold is neat. Perhaps the best use of this card is to provide fodder for TfB.

This card had a relatively easy design stage compared to the card I'm preparing for Intrigue. You'd think all that work would make my Intrigue card better, but at this rate it's looking like it will be one of the weirdest Intrigue submissions.

[nopawnsintended]

This was my card.

Barn
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard a card. If you discarded a Victory or Curse card, gain a Treasure costing up to $4. Otherwise, +$1 and gain a Victory card costing up to $4. Put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, gain an Action card costing up to $4, putting it onto your deck.

The secret history of this card.  The card's idea was conceived as a card that would have a fun interaction with Tunnel, my favorite Hinterlands card.  And, that is probably where the opposition to the card began.  So, I designed a card that could gain Tunnel to hand, and then discard it if you happened to have another one of these to play.  How to do that?  Well, make it Oasis with a gain that depends on the discard.  I guess that's complicated, or has a lot going on, or so people say.  Anyway, the Victory-Curse discard started Silver, and the non Victory-Curse discard started with cost up to $4.  That didn't feel parallel enough -- so I made both $4. 

Then, I thought... this card is too SIMPLE, too vanilla... not enough going on for my taste.  What can I do to make it even more Hinterlandsy?  Well, I can break it by giving it an on-gain autopile problem below the line.  OK.  That works, and the card is what it came to be.  Actually, the idea was to allow the card to gain all types of cards, so it was thematic, but as others have pointed out, gaining actions atop your deck is after something else entirely than the top part of the card (which is a nice sifty-gainy mix by itself).  Even after fixing the autopile issue (and then unfixing it myself in a comment), the card had complexity issues.

So, what would the card be if I could rewrite it?

Barn
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

OK, that's not mine (or my card), but in all honestly, congrats jamespotter.  Simplicity won the day... today.

In all seriousness, I still like my card, and I appreciate the genuine criticism that others have given it.  Here's how I would change my card based on the feedback.

Barn
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard a card. If you discarded a Victory or Curse card, gain a Treasure costing up to $4 to your hand. Otherwise, gain a Victory card costing up to $4 to your hand.

Back to the drawing board.  I'm dreaming up my next broken trainwreck right now....

[XerxesPraelor]

Shaman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Name a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card with that name. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you gain this, each other player discards any number of cards from his hand then draws a card per card discarded.

This was my card, if you couldn't tell. I'll make sure not to promote my own card next time as much.
I wasn't very interested in on-buy or on-gain effects, so I decided to work more on the filtering aspect of Hinterlands. After brainstorming a bit, I realized I'd made a card that could do that amazingly, which I had called Magician. The main idea of it is that you can get to your good actions easily despite perhaps having a bloated deck. I was worried the opportunity cost of getting it rather than a power-5 was too big, so I dropped it to 4. The deadline was getting closer, and then I figured out it would be way too powerful like that with no drawback, so added on an on-buy nerf and submitted. From the comments it seems it would still be too powerful, and I thought of another way to phrase it that would be much more elegant, so here's what I would have submitted. I'm still surprised that most people didn't like the idea, which I think is a niche just begging to be filled, and even though I knew it was hard to balance, it still deserves a card.

Shaman
Action - $5
Discard your deck. Play a card from your discard pile.

is what I would have it at now.

Any reasons it wasn't liked? I was really hoping this one would do well.

[SirPeebles]

Shaman
Action - $5
Discard your deck. Play a card from your discard pile.

is what I would have it at now.

Any reasons it wasn't liked? I was really hoping this one would do well.

It is a card idea has been discussed many times on this forum, and is usually referred to as Demonic Tutor after a similar card from Magic.  It just enables some really ridiculous combos.  Scavenger is the official card which has tread a bit on this design space.