And it's an even bigger nerf in a second way: if you 'power up' the Pilgrim by going with just the +1 Action, then you have to collect your benefit the next time you play a Pilgrim. You can't save the +1 Action, +3 card play for when you need it.Sure, you have to collect the benefit immediately, but with the previous version, you have to pay the cost immediately instead. You can use Pilgrim in the middle of your turn, but if you don't have 2 more Pilgrims in hand your turn is essentially dead. With the flipped version, you can delay paying the cost until your deck is already drawn.
I'd strongly suggest allowing you to flip the token before you draw, rather than after. The reason being, it's most useful to get +3 Cards, +1 Action at the start of your turn, and then have subsequent plays still give +3 cards. Once you've drawn your deck, the last play of Pilgrim can be to flip the token again, setting up for the next turn.
oh yeah. spelling.
I would recommend changing it to:
Cost
This costsless if your Journey token is face up (it starts face up).
This is functionally identical to interpretation #2, but is unambiguous.
I think you're right about the swinginess; whoever pops it first has a huge advantage. But I don't see stalemates occurring. One can always buy an extra Dragon Egg which breaks the stalemate immediately.
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.
Think about this situation: No other Spoils gainer on Kingdom. Alice exiled 8 Spoils, Bob exiled 7 Spoils. Bob plays Dragon Egg. Spoils pile is empty, so he put 7 Spoils in hand. If he plays all of them this turn (hiting $21 and having at least 1 extra buy!), Alice would be 7 plays of Dragon Egg away from remove her Spoils from exile. An extraordinary advantage for Bob. Knowing this, nobody would want to leave in the Spoils pile less Spoils than Dragon Eggs their opponent has, so it could lead to a situation in which noboby wants to play Dragon Egg anymore and the Spoils already exiled rest useless in the Exile mats.
I like this idea. I think the first part can probably be simplified as "Discard a card. Play the two set-aside cards in any order leaving them there."Those seem like good changes to make. Thanks!
Seeing as you discard a card and the card you are playing are limited to $3 or less, I think this could possibly work as a $5 cost card. Need to look at the list of card to see if that would be busted in any combination, but that is my first take.
Magical LandsIt seems very weak to me. The 2 potion cost is prohibitively expensive, and I don't see the points scaling fast enough considering cards like Duke and Vineyards exist. But the bigger issue is that it's disadvantageous to be the player trashing potions. Just let your opponent do that and buy Magical Lands without trashing.
Cool card! I like very much the idea.Very true point. I've posted an updated version, which should help somewhat.
In a two player game, it seems to be very well balanced between the strategy of buying Native Lands and try to three-pile soon and the opposite strategy of buying Provinces to reduce the value of oponnent's Native Lands. It could lead to a very exciting tension.
In multiplayer, however, when Native Lands starts worthing $12 (3 or 4 players), $15 (5 players) or $18 (6 players), it seems that is always better to mirror Native Land strategy than go to Provinces.
