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

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

3351

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 24, 2019, 03:53:30 pm »

Hi all, I had a very busy week so haven't been able to respond to any of the recent feedback. That said, thank you very much, it continues to be invaluable!

It'll take a while to get to the specific points, so I'll probably write up several small posts (plus at some point, post last week's challenge cards for discussion).

Since I had already made some tweaks of the cards last week, I'm going to first post those (and the reasoning) plus some thoughts I've had since then (related to the feedback):





Occult Dealer and Convent get the changes I had mentioned in previous posts (based on feedback from GendoIkari and Commodore Chuckles, respectively). Occult Dealer gets a price bump to $5, and Convent both gets a discount and now works when trashing Victory cards, in order to help with starting estates. 

For Congregation / Blessing, I had a couple of routes, either make weaker or more expensive (which was tricky, because of the side effect of making it stronger). I decided to try weaker, by removing the +1 Card.

Additionally, I changed Blessing to be a more standard Action - Reserve. The idea behind being a pure Reserve was that it would always be gained to your Tavern mat and returned to its pile. Now that it's an Action - Reserve it can be gained to your hand, which causes you to spend the Action from Congregation to put it on the Tavern mat.

Secondly, now that they are also Actions, I may consider going back to the original idea of trashing them (I had liked the idea of limited Blessings). My concern with them in the trash was for future proofing against something that made you gain from the trash and having you gain a completely useless card.

I was pretty happy with this until I read Gazbag's comment:

... once you have a Worshipper and a Gold each play basically becomes a Province gain and that's not really much setup for that effect ...

Wow! It never even occurred to me that you could use one Worshipper to trash a card (in this case a Gold) and then call multiple Blessings, effectively on the same trashed card. That is clearly quite strong. My original intent was "trash one card, bless one card".

SO I'm trying to decide if's OK to keep like this or try to find a way for it to be the original intent. (I'm toying, for example, with the idea of it costing you an extra worshipper to call the Blessing. But now I risk making this too weak!

More thoughts on Archbishop, Cloister, and Graveyard, and other responses to feedback, coming soon!

3352

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kru5h's card ideas

« on: June 24, 2019, 01:58:36 pm »

ust curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

The precedent for this would be Encampment / Scheme.

In both cases, the card is set aside. They can't be schemed because they are not discarded from play.

(while I agree start of clean up is before discarding, I don't think it would be different if it said at the end of cleanup. If you didn't return it, it would just remain set aside forever).

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

I think this alternative could work, but think the setting aside is more future proof. (if ever there are cards that do things at start of cleanup)

One thing that seems ambiguous with the current wording: can you play $2 to keep multiple Old Smithies or do you have to pay for each? (I assume the desired effect is the latter)

I'm pretty sure that if the Scheme loophole works then the card just doesn't work because you can always choose to discard it, Scheme topdecking it when you discard it doesn't really make a difference.
Encampment is set aside to help track that it gave +Actions and to "prevent recursion" and to make Plunder get covered up later so it's easier to buy. Experiment doesn't set aside as there's nothing to really track (and apparently recursion is fine now?), it's also the more recent card so I would tend to use that as the reference point. Old Smithy stays in play until cleanup anyway so these aren't issues for it. I don't see how it makes a difference with other start of cleanup things, currently the setting aside is just an unnecessary step. I'm interpreting the wording as meaning it's set aside at the start of cleanup and then immediately returned as "during your Buy phase" isn't a set point for this to trigger.

Good point about when the setting aside actually happens. As currently written, I would think it would happen after your buy phase ends, but before clean up begins (or before night, in games with night phase).

Re: my point about future "At start of your clean up phase" cards: imagine a card* with a clause "at the start of your clean up phase, +$1 next turn per 5 cards you have in play (round down)."  It would make a difference if already set aside or in play. This is likely a minimal edge case that doesn't require over complicating the card, so I agree with you the simpler wording is better. I just like to think about edge case.

(*) not saying this is a good card, just an example of a how it could make a difference.

Similarly, if you had a night card that card about cards in play.

If it's important for some reason to keep this at paying $ during buy phase, it should probably specify, "at the start of your buy phase".

3353

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Kru5h's card ideas

« on: June 24, 2019, 11:00:02 am »

ust curious, would Scheme provide a loophole here? It says "at the start of cleanup" but I'm not if sure "start" means you absolutely have to do it before anything else.

I might change it to just "trash this" instead of setting it aside then returning it. Much simpler text and fewer loopholes. I just hate to see the pile empty so fast, though.

I'm no rules expert but my interpretation is that the Scheme loophole doesn't work because the start of cleanup happens before you discard cards during cleanup.

The precedent for this would be Encampment / Scheme.

In both cases, the card is set aside. They can't be schemed because they are not discarded from play.

(while I agree start of clean up is before discarding, I don't think it would be different if it said at the end of cleanup. If you didn't return it, it would just remain set aside forever).

I feel like the wording could be simplified to "At the start of Clean-up, you may pay $2. If you don't, return this to the supply." It feels more natural to me to have the payment happen in the cleanup rather than in the buy phase and then waiting until cleanup to do the returning. I also see no reason that this has to be set aside.

I think this alternative could work, but think the setting aside is more future proof. (if ever there are cards that do things at start of cleanup)

One thing that seems ambiguous with the current wording: can you play $2 to keep multiple Old Smithies or do you have to pay for each? (I assume the desired effect is the latter)

3354

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 23, 2019, 07:23:01 pm »

There's always last week's runner up, if we need! 

(Mostly kidding, not sure if I'm actually ready to judge any of these yet)

3355

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 18, 2019, 05:22:31 pm »

So, related to my last post, I'd appreciate if people could suggest any other good comparable cards for each of these with which to play test and check cost balance.

So far I've got:

Occult Dealer vs. Junk Dealer
Chapel vs. Apse Chapel (which I've tried before) possibly also vs Cloister (or maybe throw in Monastery here)
Graveyard vs Cemetery.
Archbishop vs Bishop and maybe Grand Market (to see if Archbishop would be worth buying in that case)
Congregation / Blessing vs Remodel

I'm hoping to try some soon and see how it goes.

3356

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Occult Dealer

« on: June 18, 2019, 05:14:04 pm »

Pretty straightforward, now that we have 3 types of spendable tokens, why not a simple card that gives one of each?

Cost wise, I compared to:

• Forager - $3 - which gives +1 Action, +1 Buy, trashes a card and +$X ($1 per differently named treasure).
• Junk Dealer - $5 - +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, trash a card

Since Villagers are usually better than Actions, Worshippers usually better than trash, Coffers usually better than $, and despite the fact that Forager will eventually give more $, it feels stronger than Forager.

At the same time the +1 Card of Junk Dealer is especially valuable, so it feels weaker than Junk Dealer.

Hence, $4. How'd I do?

Hard to say, but there's a good chance that this is as strong or stronger than Junk Dealer. Junk Dealer is weakened by the fact that the trashing is mandatory. Playing a Junk Dealer isn't really a full cantrip, because it still reduces your hand size after the trashing. So playing an Occult Dealer and playing a Junk Dealer both leave you with 1 card fewer in hand.

Great point. (and a good way of thinking about the +1 Card of Junk Dealer).

For example, say I have a hand of 1) Junk Dealer and a Copper vs 2) Occult Dealer and a Copper.

Case 1: play Junk Dealer, trash the Copper. I now have 1 Action, 1 (new) card, and $2
Case 2: play Occult Dealer. I now have 1 Villager, 1 Copper, $1 + 1 coffer, and a worshipper.

So if the new card is a copper, then Occult Dealer is stronger, because you can spend the Coffer and use the Worshipper on the copper and are "strictly better" because you have a villager over the action. Additionally you can choose not to spend either the coffer or the worshipper.

Of course, the new card you draw could be better than a copper, so it's not definite that Occult Dealer will always be stronger.

I'll probably try it at 5, then.

3357

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 18, 2019, 11:18:52 am »

Convent seems pretty useless, to be honest. By the time you're greening, you don't really care if your deck has junk in it. The crucial time to trash is in the beginning, way before you're buying Victory cards. The main edge cases would be Mill or if you want to get rid of some Curses.

Thanks for the honest input!

I was unsure of this one for that very reason. But I liked the idea of having a project that was analogous to:
Academy = when you gain an Action card, +1 Villager
Guildhall = when you gain a Treasure card, +1 Coffer

and so Victory cards where the obvious remaining basic card.

I might keep it just for that reason, but who knows? I wonder if there's a way to make it better while still keeping the parallel quality alive.

So I'll probably make these improvements:
• lower cost
• work when trashing

Convent - Project - $3
When you gain or trash a Victory card, +1 Worshipper

Still may not be worth it, but at least adds more use cases - and if it's the only trashing, you can gain cheap Victory cards, trash them and still have a Worshipper for trashing other cards.

I also considered adding Curse, Ruins, and / or Shelters, but I think that might add too much (it would effectively invalidate cursing attacks, e.g. you'd take the curse with Torturer, then end net +1 Worshipper after your turn)

I've also realized that Road Network could be considered as analogous to Academy and Guildhall, just that it triggers on opponent's gains.

3358

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Occult Dealer

« on: June 17, 2019, 11:12:21 pm »

OK, so while I think over all these recent (and excellent!) suggestions, anyone else got any cool ideas for Worshipper cards?

I have one more:

Occult Dealer



Pretty straightforward, now that we have 3 types of spendable tokens, why not a simple card that gives one of each?

Cost wise, I compared to:

• Forager - $3 - which gives +1 Action, +1 Buy, trashes a card and +$X ($1 per differently named treasure).
• Junk Dealer - $5 - +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, trash a card

Since Villagers are usually better than Actions, Worshippers usually better than trash, Coffers usually better than $, and despite the fact that Forager will eventually give more $, it feels stronger than Forager.

At the same time the +1 Card of Junk Dealer is especially valuable, so it feels weaker than Junk Dealer.

Hence, $4. How'd I do?

3359

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 17, 2019, 10:51:52 pm »

Convent seems pretty useless, to be honest. By the time you're greening, you don't really care if your deck has junk in it. The crucial time to trash is in the beginning, way before you're buying Victory cards. The main edge cases would be Mill or if you want to get rid of some Curses.

Thanks for the honest input!

I was unsure of this one for that very reason. But I liked the idea of having a project that was analogous to:
Academy = when you gain an Action card, +1 Villager
Guildhall = when you gain a Treasure card, +1 Coffer

and so Victory cards where the obvious remaining basic card.

I might keep it just for that reason, but who knows? I wonder if there's a way to make it better while still keeping the parallel quality alive.

3360

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 17, 2019, 10:41:21 pm »

Okay, I've got time for another quick comment. This time on Archbishop/Chalice:

So I really like the addition of an Artifact, but I think taking it should have some kind of condition you need to meet or cost to it. All of the official Artifacts do. None of them simply give you the Artifact for playing a card. Given the theme of trashing it would be nice to see something along those lines.

Also, I'm curious what the no Copper in play clause is getting at? I get that it makes Archbishop harder to gain, but I'm just curious if there is a specific reason you choose this condition to meet.

Huh, it didn't occur to me that none of the official artifacts are non-conditional. Making this conditional fits more with the theme (Archbishops vying for who gets to be the "Pope" and have more power) anyway.

I'll noodle on what that condition could be - what do you think of my initial idea of "If you at least X Worshippers"? So you're forced to choose between spending your Worshippers or saving them to take the Chalice.

Alternatively, another option is the opposite, "if you have at most X worshippers" - making you have to think about getting new ones or spending them quickly.

(and what should X be? this and other cards only give 1 Worshipper at a time, except for Apse Chapel and Graveyard, on gain)

The main reason "no copper in play" was for theme: Archbishop is to Bishop as Grand Market is to Market, so it gets that clause. But it does allow it to cost a little lower( as I think this is overpowered for a regular $6).

It also means you possibly have already trashed a lot of your coppers by the time you get this, which means you'd use your Archbishop gained Worshippers for other cards (or if I do use the condition above, makes it easier to choose to save them).

If that clause weakens the design of the card, I'd consider removing it.

3361

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Congregation / Blessing

« on: June 17, 2019, 10:27:49 pm »

Congregation is priced at $3 in order to enable double Congregation opens. Is this too strong? Should it be $4 instead?

Some cool stuff coming out of this thread! I wish I had more time on my hands to respond to it all, but for now I'll just comment on the new Congregation/Blessing cards.

I might be mistaken, but I believe a forced cantrip card trashers should be priced around $4.5. "+1 Card, +1 Action, Trash a card from your hand." Given that Congregation does not force you to trash a card, trashes at a time when your trashing window is potentially bigger, and it can set you up for an on-demand remodel, I think you're easily looking at a very good $5 cost. Trying it out at $6 might be a safe place to start, but it then in a way becomes stronger as you could "Bless" your Congregations into Provinces.

All in all I think this is a cool concept and it's a nice, clean remodel variant. The pure Reserve certainly seems to work too and adds a nice interaction with other trashers. Another reason I think this should cost $6 as reaching that price point needs to be carefully considered when trashing down.

Also, Congregation reads "+1 Action, +1 Card, ..." when it should be the other way around!

A lot of excellent points. I really wasn't sure what to price it at, but clearly 3 is too cheap.

Looking though some official cards for comparables, I see:

Junk Dealer - $5 - also gives $1
Upgrade - $5 - Cantrip TfB+1
Sauna - $4 - Cantrip - doesn't always trash, but often and can play Avanto for free
Hideout - $4 - gives an extra action, but also a curse if the card you trash is a victory card

I also already have Archbishop at $6*, and was trying to keep most Worshipper-giving cards lower. (though in this case it may still be OK since you're likely getting these for the TfB). And I agree, not sure if I want to enable the TfB to Provinces.

So I may lean towards 5 instead of 6.

Another option is to remove the +1 Card (or the +1 Action).

Is this more interesting as an expensive cantrip or as a cheaper +1 Action?

Also, when you say "adds a nice interaction with other trashers" are there any others besides Sewers? I can't think of what else can trash during Clean-up (and Sewers only because of Worshippers).

3362

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 17, 2019, 03:42:52 pm »

So I really like the addition of an Artifact, but I think taking it should have some kind of condition you need to meet or cost to it. All of the official Artifacts do. None of them simply give you the Artifact for playing a card.

Treasurer does.

Well, the condition is that you choose that option, i.e. you don't necessarily take the Key every time you play it (though you can).

3363

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 17, 2019, 02:23:09 pm »

Here's my pure reaction card - with two choices.

Having just gone through this with my Retriever (albeit on discard instead of gain), this needs to be reworded for the 2nd part.

As it stands:
1. You gain a card X, putting it on your discard pile.
2. You discard Secret Cove.
3. You try to put card X into your hand, but it has been covered by Secret Cove (lose track rule).

Also, you don't need "Choose one:" - it can just has two separate triggers.

3364

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 17, 2019, 12:55:42 pm »

1. When you clean-up, I've also interpreted that as everything being discarded all at once. But then you'd only be able to Scheme one card, no? Or is my interpretation incorrect?

2. I feel like Faithful Hound is the closest example (where Faithful Hound retrieves itself, instead of another card). With this interpretation, if you reveal two Faithful Hounds to a Cellar, you would only be able to set one aside. I hoped to find an official ruling on this, but have not yet.

Hmm, I think that both Scheme and Faithful Hound imply that Retriever would work. Perhaps the reason this works here is that no effect started tracking the discarded cards until after they were already covered up. Effects start tracking at a certain point, and Lose Track applies when a card is moved (or covered up; because covered up is a type of moving; moving from the top of the discard pile to no longer the top of the discard pile).

In the case of discarding multiple cards at once; the second-to-top card in your discard pile was always the second-to-top card of your discard pile from the time that an effect started caring about it. It didn't go from being top-of-discard to no longer top-of-discard. So Lose Track won't apply. Instead, the effect is expecting the card to be second-from-top of discard, and that is in fact where it is; so it can be moved.

Right, so lose track doesn't come into play, because the card neither moves nor is covered up* after it's discarded.

(*) with latest and greatest wording, v0.3



And it's corresponding FAQ:

FAQ
• If you discard multiple cards (e.g. in reaction to Cellar), you can set aside multiple Retrievers to put that number of discarded cards into your hand.
• If you set aside Retriever during an opponent's turn (e.g. in reaction to Rabble), it is discarded during that opponent's turn.

3365

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 17, 2019, 11:24:23 am »

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

I am pretty sure you aren't allowed to "recover" track. The canonical example is Watchtower + Border Village. Gain Border Village. Resolve its on-gain to gain Duchy. React with Watchtower to put Duchy on top of deck. You are not allowed to now also react with Watchtower to put Border Village on deck, because Border Village has been lost track of. It was covered up at a point in time, it doesn't matter that it's not covered up any more.

(In that case you could just resolve the on-gain in a different order to first put Border Village on hand and then gain Duchy if you wanted).

Great example, that case makes sense. So "recover track" is not allowed.

However, that is in cases where the gains are separate actions. With discarding all at once, I'm still unsure if lose track applies. Please bear with me. and a couple of potential examples

1. When you clean-up, I've also interpreted that as everything being discarded all at once. But then you'd only be able to Scheme one card, no? Or is my interpretation incorrect?

2. I feel like Faithful Hound is the closest example (where Faithful Hound retrieves itself, instead of another card). With this interpretation, if you reveal two Faithful Hounds to a Cellar, you would only be able to set one aside. I hoped to find an official ruling on this, but have not yet.

3366

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 17, 2019, 10:51:58 am »

Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis were incorrect. When cards discard other cards from your hand, you would just choose to discard Retriever.

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

This card makes me think of rule questions... like when you discard multiple cards from your hand (Cellar/Warehouse-style), do you do that one at a time or all at once? If the latter, I am unclear on whether you could react to a multiple discard with 2 Retrievers to get 2 cards or if in that case lose-track would apply for the cards that aren't on top of your discard pile.

It's all at once; this has always mattered in terms of giving your opponent info; they only get to see the card you choose to put on top of your discard.

So yes, Lose Track should apply. It seems similar to Tunnel, which already requires you to reveal a card that is lost tack of if you discard multiple Tunnels, but Tunnel's reaction doesn't require you to actually move it; only to reveal it.

Very good points! Seems like two potential issues:

1. Retriever gets discarded on top of the discards and you would lose track of anything below.
2. Discards for cards like Cellar are all at once.

The first can definitely be solved by another rewording: if you first set Retriever aside and discard at a later point (Clean-up, for example), then it won't immediately cover anything up.

Would this also handle the 2nd case, since you would have moved the top card from the discard into your hand?

In other words:
You Discard two cards, A and B, putting A on top B on top of discard pile.
Set aside 1st Retriever, move A to your hand (revealing B now on top of discard pile).
Set aside 2nd Retriever, move B to your hand.

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

3367

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 16, 2019, 07:38:23 pm »

So, I've decided to change my entry. I still think there's some potential for Rabbits so I'll eventually post in my own thread to get more feedback. But I came up with something I like better for the contest.

It's still in the "not too strong but something to consider getting when you have +1 Buy" category.

Retriever



Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

Retriever can be useful to you both during your turns (e.g. When you discard with something like Cellar or Oasis) and other player's turn (e.g. when they attack with Rabble or other cards discard from your deck). Though they won't help with discarding from hand Attacks like Militia or Torturer.

I'm not sure if it's too strong for $0, I also considered $1 or $2.

Just realized the wording here doesn't work - you would discard a card, then discard Retriever, losing track of the initial discard, making Retriever as worded useless.

v0.2, with fixed wording:



Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis are not nearly as useful as I first thought. When cards discard other cards from your hand, reacting with Retriever usually* results in the same effect as if you just discarded Retriever.

(*) an example edge case is if you have 2 Cellars, a Tunnel, and a Retriever in your hand

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

3368

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 16, 2019, 06:36:31 pm »

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.

Oops. I keep thinking this is an Action - Reaction. Anyone else having this problem?

So yes, this is probably fine at $4 as a pure Reaction. I'm even more intrigued with this card now by the way!

Have you considered an alternative wording that would remove the line and possibly any confusion that it is a pure Reaction? Something like:

"Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions, you may put this in play for +1 Card, +1 Action and +$1."

The dividing line definitely gives it the look* of an Action-Reaction (which, as I posted, could be a more interesting card).

(*) I just noticed the reaction background color - nice! I just changed mine as to that.

For just a reaction, I prefer Kudasai's alternative wording.

3369

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 16, 2019, 06:15:44 pm »

So, I've decided to change my entry. I still think there's some potential for Rabbits so I'll eventually post in my own thread to get more feedback. But I came up with something I like better for the contest.

It's still in the "not too strong but something to consider getting when you have +1 Buy" category.


Retriever



Changelog:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - fixed wording so card is not actually useless
v0.3 - fixed wording (again) to enable multiple Retrievers retrieving multiple discards

FAQ
• If you discard multiple cards (e.g. in reaction to Cellar), you can set aside multiple Retrievers to put that number of discarded cards into your hand.
• If you set aside Retriever during an opponent's turn (e.g. in reaction to Rabble), it is discarded during that opponent's turn.


Retriever can be useful to you both during your turns (e.g. When you discard with something like Cellar or Oasis) and other player's turn (e.g. when they attack with Rabble or other cards discard from your deck). Though they won't help with discarding from hand Attacks like Militia or Torturer.

I'm not sure if it's too strong for $0, I also considered $1 or $2.

3370

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 16, 2019, 05:51:33 pm »

I like this Reaction, but I feel it (or the general idea of a village that can't bd drawn dead) would fit better as an Action - Reaction.

3371

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Worshipper Card-shaped things

« on: June 16, 2019, 03:14:45 pm »

So, I've mentioned in some previous posts that I've been working on some Card-shaped things that care about Worshippers. Here they are:



How do you get Chalice? Welcome the new Archbishop:




Notes / Questions:

As discussed in the last several posts, Tithe and Mausoleum, are useless in games without Worshippers. While it felt important to try to fix that for a Kingdom card (and there were additional ways to do this), it feels less so for Events and Landmarks. Regardless, the FAQ will state "don't use in games without Worshippers".

Tithe: 1 Worshipper for $1 feels like the right ratio, similar to Borrow. I've also considered allowing you to do this for more than 1, but that seems too strong.

Mausoleum: This is Parish as a Landmark, so it's no longer tied to a card that can be split unevenly; i.e. everyone gets the opportunity for the same benefit. I'm unsure about this ratio, especially consider Tomb gives 1 VP per trashed card. (so in games with both, you would *always* want to spend your Worshippers) Should it be 1VP per Worshipper?

Convent: This is the parallel to Academy and Guildhall. The synergy is that it clears up a spot in your deck for your new Victory card.

Chalice / Archbishop: The idea here was to still allow Archbishop to gain VPs from Worshipper trashed cards (like with Bishop). It's more powerful in that it can get VPs for multiple cards, but it can be taken away from you. And by using Chalice, I could keep the text on this card simpler. I did have to drop to 1 VP and back down to 1 Worshipper to make this feel balanced.

Thematically, I like that the Archbishops are vying for who gets to be the "Pope" and have more power.

One possible change I'm still considering is to make the Chalice taking be conditional. Possible something like Swashbuckler, "if you have at least 2 Worshippers". Not sure if it's actually needed (would it help or hurt the balance), but I think it would fit the theme even more.

3372

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards: Congregation / Blessing

« on: June 16, 2019, 02:40:24 pm »

I think this would work best as an Event:

+1 Worshipper and during your next Clean-up, when you trash a card, you may gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

Slightly more powerful so it may need to cost more, but it essentially does the same thing. Hopefully I'm not missing some function here that only works as a card.

It's not so much that it loses functionality, but that it changes the purpose of the card, which is to provide TfB for any Worshippers. If it were this event, it always provides you with the Worshipper to use. Additionally, you couldn't get this now, use it later.

That said, I thought of another option:
6. Have card not be in the supply, and create another card that can gain them.

(this option still won't work for landmarks or some events, see next post)

So, let's see if that'll work. In the process, I'm trying something that I haven't seen before: make Blessing a pure Reserve card (making it stronger, as it doesn't now have to be in your hand):




Notes / Questions:

Does a pure Reserve card work? I think so as it seems to work the same as a pure Reaction would, without having to be in your hand. Congregation gains it directly to your Tavern mat, and then when it's called, it returns directly to its pile.

One thing I lose from the original design is the finite aspect - since they were trashed, then you could only "bless" 10 cards (assuming a game without trash gainers). I don't know if that was an essential part of the design, and having infinite is possible more fair for 3+ player games.

I put the "gain to your tavern mat" on Congregation, though I could have put "This is gained to your tavern mat" on Blessing instead. Barring other cards, I don't think this makes a difference.

I changed the wording from "when you remove a Worshipper token from its mat" to "When you trash a card during your Clean-up phase" (thanks for the idea, Kudasai). I thought this was cleaner - though it does make it stronger, as you could spend Worshippers with Sewers, and call 2 Blessings (one on each trashed card).

Congregation is priced at $3 in order to enable double Congregation opens. Is this too strong? Should it be $4 instead?

3373

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: June 16, 2019, 12:30:40 pm »

Mandarin

I may or may not have used regular expressions to solve this.

Ah, I wondered if there were some kind of thing like that.  I checked all the card names one at a time.  (I considered adding the extra challenge of trying to solve it from memory...)

There's actually a FOURTH card, though, that can similarly be completely expressed using the postal abbreviations for US states.  But I doubt any computer program can find this one.

What card am I thinking of?

Did anyone ever solve the fourth card?

ENVY

Explain? I see different parts of it in different states, but no real connection other than every letter appearing somewhere in a state abbreviation.

ENVY = "N - V" = NV

Clever.

3374

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: scolapasta's cards

« on: June 15, 2019, 12:33:43 am »

Blessing should give worshippers somehow, because otherwise it's completely useless in a game without worshippers.

Yes, that's what I was asking about in the "Notes / Questions" section. I also have an Event and a Landmark I'm planning on adding soon (both of which I posted about earlier in the thread) that would be useless in games without worshippers.

I see these options:
1. Change the card to give Worshippers.
2. Have card be part of a split pile and the other card give Worshippers.
3. Do nothing; allow a card or card shaped object to be could be useless in some games.
4. State in rules that this card should not be used in games without Worshippers.
5. Don't design the card.

In an ideal world, the best option is either #1 or #2. In this case, I can't think of a good way to do #1 without changing my purpose for the card. And this feels like a card that should have its own pile, so #2 doesn't work either. (and couldn't even be an option for the Event or Landmark)

#4, while not eloquent, seems strictly better than #3.

So between #4 and #5, I'm leaning towards 4 (note that's what's in the FAQ in the top post), because I think it add an interesting dynamic when used in games with Worshippers.

If this were part of an official expansion, I'd revisit. But as a fan card, I don't see a big issue.

3375

Weekly Design Contest / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: June 14, 2019, 05:07:26 pm »

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

The wiki states (emphasis mine):

Whenever an effect happens to more than one player, or multiple effects involving different players try to resolve at the same time, they are resolved in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is (or the player who last took a turn). This is important particularly with regards to gaining cards: for example, if a player plays Witch, and there's only one Curse left, only the player next in turn order gains a Curse.