Print

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

[Awaclus]

How much these kinds of effects have been explored in fan cards? I think there's a ton of design space here.

Something like:

$3 Action
Gain two cards with a total cost of $4 or less.
_______________
In games using this, Silver costs $1 less, but not less than $0.

You could make pretty cool cards with effects like this.

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I think that that would be a really interesting area to explore, but I think that the reduced-cost Silver could get a little crazy; and what you you do with those Silver enablers in Trader and Masterpiece? Also, how do you take into account Feodum? Because the way I'm looking at it, on a Feodum board using something that makes Silver cheaper would make Feodum a lot more attractive. On the whole I like your idea, and (pardon the redundancy of my earlier statement) think it's really interesting, but there needs to be a lot of things ironed out to keep this from being too swingy or broken.

[SirPeebles]

I don't think cheaper Silvers would cause any problems.  I just think it is too boring.  "In games using this" effects are rather inelegant in my opinion, and it can be obnoxious to keep track of them.  I'm ok with using one when it is the most elegant way of implementing an otherwise compelling effect, but I wouldn't want to see it used just for its own sake.

[Awaclus]

I think that that would be a really interesting area to explore, but I think that the reduced-cost Silver could get a little crazy; and what you you do with those Silver enablers in Trader and Masterpiece? Also, how do you take into account Feodum? Because the way I'm looking at it, on a Feodum board using something that makes Silver cheaper would make Feodum a lot more attractive. On the whole I like your idea, and (pardon the redundancy of my earlier statement) think it's really interesting, but there needs to be a lot of things ironed out to keep this from being too swingy or broken.

The effect is constant for all players, so being swingy or broken aren't issues. The only issue is whether or not it's fun.

And the card in OP was just a quick example, of course it's possible to design much less boring cards.

[Julle]

My try:

$3 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain two cards with the total cost up to the trashed card.
_______________
In games using this, when you trash a Province, gain a Duchy.

[BadAssMutha]

$3 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain two cards with the total cost up to the trashed card.
_______________
In games using this, when you trash a Province, gain a Duchy.

So... you trash a Province, and get what exactly? Just a Duchy? A Duchy and up to a $3? Two cards totaling up to $8 AND a Duchy?

[Awaclus]

$3 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain two cards with the total cost up to the trashed card.
_______________
In games using this, when you trash a Province, gain a Duchy.

So... you trash a Province, and get what exactly? Just a Duchy? A Duchy and up to a $3? Two cards totaling up to $8 AND a Duchy?

You trash a card from your hand. The in games using this effect takes place. Then you continue to play the rest of the card's text like normal. So you gain a Duchy and two cards totaling up to $8. If you use a Remodel to trash a Province, you gain a Duchy and a card costing up to $8. If you use a Chapel to trash a Province, you gain a Duchy.

[LastFootnote]

This sort of effect might be worth exploring, but I think it only works well in some specific cases.

First, the type of effect is rare enough that it should probably be optional. Take "When you discard this from play" effects as an example. Treasury, Herbalist, Alchemist, Scheme, and Walled Village allow you to topdeck cards during your Clean-up phase, but they're all optional. This is nice because you're fairly likely to forget about these effects and just scoop them up when you discard everything in play. If you do forget, you're not breaking any rules. Hermit isn't optional, but at least you only do something if you didn't buy a card that turn, which is more often than not something you do specifically to get a Madman.

Similarly, cards that change the rules of the game simply by being in the Supply should ideally give you optional abilities in case you forget about them. So long story short, "If you trash a Province, gain a Duchy" should perhaps be "If you trash a Province, you may gain a Duchy."

Perhaps more importantly, I think these global effects should ideally involve the Kingdom card that they're on. So I'm not in love with either "When you trash a Province, gain a Duchy" or "Silver costs $1 less." Duchess's ability is especially elegant because if the Duchess pile gets bought out and the rule is no longer visible, it doesn't matter because the rule is moot at that point.

[eHalcyon]

I think that that would be a really interesting area to explore, but I think that the reduced-cost Silver could get a little crazy; and what you you do with those Silver enablers in Trader and Masterpiece? Also, how do you take into account Feodum? Because the way I'm looking at it, on a Feodum board using something that makes Silver cheaper would make Feodum a lot more attractive. On the whole I like your idea, and (pardon the redundancy of my earlier statement) think it's really interesting, but there needs to be a lot of things ironed out to keep this from being too swingy or broken.

The effect is constant for all players, so being swingy or broken aren't issues. The only issue is whether or not it's fun.

And the card in OP was just a quick example, of course it's possible to design much less boring cards.

Just a note -- being swingy or broken can still be an issue even with symmetry. Broken cards would be problematic even though everyone has access to buying them!

[Witherweaver]

It allows for another version of the Catch-22 card, too:

Catch-22
...
------------------
In games using this, you may not buy or gain this card.

[Awaclus]

Just a note -- being swingy or broken can still be an issue even with symmetry. Broken cards would be problematic even though everyone has access to buying them!

Yeah, well, you can't balance Rebuild by adding an "In games using this, Silver costs $1 less". But when all players have access to the effect regardless of what they are buying, I don't think it's a problem as long as it's fun.

[eHalcyon]

Just a note -- being swingy or broken can still be an issue even with symmetry. Broken cards would be problematic even though everyone has access to buying them!

Yeah, well, you can't balance Rebuild by adding an "In games using this, Silver costs $1 less". But when all players have access to the effect regardless of what they are buying, I don't think it's a problem as long as it's fun.

I'm just saying that some effects can be problematic even though it's in effect for all players.  "In games using this, Province costs $0" would be an egregious example.  Saying "everyone gets it" is not a good excuse.  I'm not saying that the Silver concept is broken.  I'm more with Peebles on that one -- probably doesn't make that big of a difference most of the time.

[Awaclus]

I'm just saying that some effects can be problematic even though it's in effect for all players.  "In games using this, Province costs $0" would be an egregious example.

But the problem with this is not that it's not balanced, it's that it's not fun.

[scott_pilgrim]

Maybe something like:

Action - $4
+2 buys
+$2
---
In games using this, all cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

It has obvious synergy with its bottom-half, but is still neither strictly better nor strictly worse than any existing cards.  (I think the bottom half would work fine on Woodcutter, but given that Woodcutter already exists, this has to be different from Woodcutter in case they appear together.)  It also mostly satisfies LastFootnote's suggestion that it shouldn't create opportunities for players to break rules (though this fails with a few TfB cards, for example, players may accidentally draw an extra card with Apprentice).  It does suffer from having its rule continue to persist even when the pile is emptied and it's no longer visible, but I don't expect the pile to empty very often.

[eHalcyon]

I'm just saying that some effects can be problematic even though it's in effect for all players.  "In games using this, Province costs $0" would be an egregious example.

But the problem with this is not that it's not balanced, it's that it's not fun.

It's not fun because it's so unbalanced.  There can be other mechanics that people find enjoyable but are still bad from a balance standpoint.    "Fun" is very subjective anyway.  But again, my point is just that fun should not excuse poor balance.  Yes, consider concepts that are fun to play first, but then proceed to ensure that they don't break the game.

I think my note has come across far more negative than I meant for it to, so I apologize for that.

[LastFootnote]

I'm just saying that some effects can be problematic even though it's in effect for all players.  "In games using this, Province costs $0" would be an egregious example.

But the problem with this is not that it's not balanced, it's that it's not fun.

It's not fun because it's so unbalanced.  There can be other mechanics that people find enjoyable but are still bad from a balance standpoint.    "Fun" is very subjective anyway.  But again, my point is just that fun should not excuse poor balance.  Yes, consider concepts that are fun to play first, but then proceed to ensure that they don't break the game.

I think my note has come across far more negative than I meant for it to, so I apologize for that.

It's a point that needs to be made and I don't think it was too negative. I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way, though. Fun trumps balance, but many cards that are ridiculously powerful tend to not be fun after the first or second play. Or in the case of "Provinces cost $0", not even fun the first time. I think that most reasonable definitions of "balanced" might not include Chapel or King's Court, but they are still worth having because they make the game fun (for many players, anyway), and they aren't strategies by themselves. Two games with Chapel will play out very differently, and likewise with King's Court.

Rebuild is an example of a card whose unbalance saps fun from the game because it is a strategy in itself, and not a terribly interesting one.

[Awaclus]

I'm just saying that some effects can be problematic even though it's in effect for all players.  "In games using this, Province costs $0" would be an egregious example.

But the problem with this is not that it's not balanced, it's that it's not fun.

It's not fun because it's so unbalanced.  There can be other mechanics that people find enjoyable but are still bad from a balance standpoint.    "Fun" is very subjective anyway.  But again, my point is just that fun should not excuse poor balance.  Yes, consider concepts that are fun to play first, but then proceed to ensure that they don't break the game.

I think my note has come across far more negative than I meant for it to, so I apologize for that.

No, it's not at all unbalanced, just like the "draw 5 cards at the end of each turn" rule is not unbalanced. Unlike the "draw 5 cards at the end of each turn" rule, it is unfun.

EDIT: Also, there is no need to apologize. If there is an issue, it needs to be addressed. I just don't think that there is.

[silverspawn]

i really like the idea, because it would bring so much variety into the game. "all cards cost one less" completely changes the balance. there probably shouldn't be too many of them, but one or two...

a few random ideas which may not be good:

Action - 5$ - ?
Reveal your hand. +1$ per card revealed.
------------
In games using this, during your cleanup phase, you may draw 6 cards instead of 5


Victory - 14$ - ?
Worth 10 VP
--------
In games using this, other Victory Cards are worth half as much as normal (rounded up)


Action - 2$ - ?
+1 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand.
--------
In games using this, whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card


Action - 1$ - ?
+1 Action
+1 Card
-----
In games using this, whenever you play an action card with the same name as any action card you have in play, +1$

[Tables]

Something I was thinking last night, is that ideas like these seem like what DXV might have planned for the new Goko Adventures, if we ever get to see them. Obviously not on card effects, but bonuses like these.

[LastFootnote]

Something I was thinking last night, is that ideas like these seem like what DXV might have planned for the new Goko Adventures, if we ever get to see them. Obviously not on card effects, but bonuses like these.

Yeah, I was thinking that too. I wonder what those rules were going to be, anyhow? I'm having a hard time coming up with any ideas, to be honest.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think the general idea is quite interesting. There are some card suggestions worth considering here. Balance is often an issue, though. With self-synergizing cards you have to carefully think about how strongly and reliably their "in games using this" clause affects their actual power. These considerations should be reflected in the card cost. I'll take silverspawn's suggestions as an example (hopefully, I'm not erring on my own):

Action - 5$ - ?
Reveal your hand. +1$ per card revealed.
------------
In games using this, during your cleanup phase, you may draw 6 cards instead of 5

A terminal Platinum for $5? This would elevate Big Money to new splendour, to the point of ridiculousness. Probably more accurately priced at $7, if Bank is any indication. The effect below the dash is interesting, though. I just think the self-synergy here is too bland and powerful.

Victory - 14$ - ?
Worth 10 VP
--------
In games using this, other Victory Cards are worth half as much as normal (rounded up)

It seems overpriced, but I really can't tell how much it should be. Bu I'm pretty sure this is not a very intriguing concept overall.

Action - 2$ - ?
+1 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand.
--------
In games using this, whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4, I think. The big issue with this is imo that it makes many trashers too powerful, because both trashing and card draw are a huge deal. "In games using this, whenever you trash a card, +$1" would not as strong but still worth going for, at a cost of $3 perhaps.

Action - 1$ - ?
+1 Action
+1 Card
-----
In games using this, whenever you play an action card with the same name as any action card you have in play, +1$

This turns cantrips into Peddler+ cards, which MIGHT be okay by itself (not sure here). However, the once again blatant self-synergy makes this card akin to a Conspirator-Peddler that enables copies of itself, so I'd price it at $3.

Another idea from scott_pilgrim:

Maybe something like:

Action - $4
+2 buys
+$2
---
In games using this, all cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

It has obvious synergy with its bottom-half, but is still neither strictly better nor strictly worse than any existing cards.  (I think the bottom half would work fine on Woodcutter, but given that Woodcutter already exists, this has to be different from Woodcutter in case they appear together.)  It also mostly satisfies LastFootnote's suggestion that it shouldn't create opportunities for players to break rules (though this fails with a few TfB cards, for example, players may accidentally draw an extra card with Apprentice).  It does suffer from having its rule continue to persist even when the pile is emptied and it's no longer visible, but I don't expect the pile to empty very often.

I think this card is strictly usually better than Bridge on its own (EDIT: if bridge is not in the kingdom). Yes, the effect is not stackable, but rarely would you play many Bridges in the same turn. It's also not TR-/KC-able but these ae exceptions. In most cases, it's better than Bridge, and too powerful or $4.
Another issue you pointed out yourself; it applies to this style of card in general. There's no real help for considerations with TfB cards here other than to constantly keep this in mind. This might become annoying. More so, it throws balance for many cards out of the window. Consider opening buys, especially with 4/3 which turns into 5/4! This could be fun but it might as well break the game entirely.

[pacovf]

Another issue you pointed out yourself; it applies to this style of card in general. There's no real help for considerations with TfB cards here other than to constantly keep this in mind. This might become annoying.

Go the peddler way: in games using this, during any buy phase, cards cost 1$ less, but no less than 0$.

Also some of these cards work better as reaction cards, rules-wise. It automatically makes them optional, and you don't have to worry about whether there's any left in the supply or not.

[eHalcyon]

You have to consider the effects that these cards would have on the other cards as well.

Action - 2$ - ?
+1 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand.
--------
In games using this, whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4, I think. The big issue with this is imo that it makes many trashers too powerful, because both trashing and card draw are a huge deal. "In games using this, whenever you trash a card, +$1" would not as strong but still worth going for, at a cost of $3 perhaps.

Yes this is close to regular Junk Dealer, but if JD and this card are in the same kingdom, JD draws an extra card as well.  If you want to compare it cost-wise to other such cards, you have to ignore the "in games using this" part.  In that case, this is basically a Copper that trashes from your hand, so $2 might be just fine, relative to other actions.

Action - 1$ - ?
+1 Action
+1 Card
-----
In games using this, whenever you play an action card with the same name as any action card you have in play, +1$

This turns cantrips into Peddler+ cards, which MIGHT be okay by itself (not sure here). However, the once again blatant self-synergy makes this card akin to a Conspirator-Peddler that enables copies of itself, so I'd price it at $3.

Again, you have to consider how it compares without the global effect.  If this is in the same kingdom as any basic $2 cantrip (Vagrant, Pearl Diver), this has a strictly inferior effect and would thus make no sense at a higher cost than those cards.

Maybe something like:

Action - $4
+2 buys
+$2
---
In games using this, all cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

It has obvious synergy with its bottom-half, but is still neither strictly better nor strictly worse than any existing cards.  (I think the bottom half would work fine on Woodcutter, but given that Woodcutter already exists, this has to be different from Woodcutter in case they appear together.)  It also mostly satisfies LastFootnote's suggestion that it shouldn't create opportunities for players to break rules (though this fails with a few TfB cards, for example, players may accidentally draw an extra card with Apprentice).  It does suffer from having its rule continue to persist even when the pile is emptied and it's no longer visible, but I don't expect the pile to empty very often.

I think this card is strictly better than Bridge on its own. Yes, the effect is not stackable, but rarely would you play many Bridges in the same turn. It's also not TR-/KC-able but these ae exceptions. In most cases, it's better than Bridge, and too powerful or $4.
Another issue you pointed out yourself; it applies to this style of card in general. There's no real help for considerations with TfB cards here other than to constantly keep this in mind. This might become annoying. More so, it throws balance for many cards out of the window. Consider opening buys, especially with 4/3 which turns into 5/4! This could be fun but it might as well break the game entirely.

You may be misunderstanding what "strictly better" means.  This is not strictly better for the sole reason that it doesn't stack like Bridge does.  You might say that it is usually better, though I still wouldn't agree.  As with the other cards, the cost reduction here is always in effect without you having to purchase it.  That means it stacks with Bridge.  Playing this card does not reduce cost further while playing Bridge does.  Playing this card is just like playing Woodcutter with an extra buy, which is usually not as good as the cost reduction from Bridge.

Oh, and playing many Bridges in the same turn is not that rare.  It's often the goal whenever Bridge is viable.

[Dsell]

I think this design space is interesting but you have to be really careful with it or else things will get confusing. Baker works so well because the "in games using this" triggers exactly once at the start of the game. It makes a big impact, but it's not much extra to remember. I think having to remember something on a card a bunch of times throughout the game is probably not going to be ideal.

[brokoli]

I think the effect shouldn't change the game too much. For example, something like "whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card" adds a huge change to the game. I would like something like :

"In games using this, whenever you gain a curse or a ruin, you may gain an estate instead (if there are estates left in the supply)".

[silverspawn]

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

[Co0kieL0rd]

@eHalcyon and silverspawn:
I admit you're both right. I try to think of larger concepts but I still don't think big enough, as it seems. But hey, I expect to learn more about meta-game and stuff here, so thanks for correcting me.

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

What if this one is the only trasher in the kingdom? Isn't it a Junk Dealer then, because there's no comparable card around?

[KingZog3]

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

But on its own, it is basically Junk Dealer. +1action, +$1, trash a card. But you draw a card for trashing. You draw after you trash, which matters, but it's still close.

[Co0kieL0rd]

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

But on its own, it is basically Junk Dealer. +1action, +$1, trash a card. But you draw a card for trashing. You draw after you trash, which matters, but it's still close.

Heh, I basically said the same thing

[KingZog3]

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

But on its own, it is basically Junk Dealer. +1action, +$1, trash a card. But you draw a card for trashing. You draw after you trash, which matters, but it's still close.

Heh, I basically said the same thing

Yeah. When started writing my post you hadn't posted yet.

[silverspawn]

The way you phrased it, this is very close to a Junk Dealer, maybe a little worse, so it should be worth $4

well no, because junk dealer is +1$, +2 cards, trash a card from your hand. the "in games using this" effect works for all cards, so it doesn't change the cost of the card it is on.

But on its own, it is basically Junk Dealer. +1action, +$1, trash a card. But you draw a card for trashing. You draw after you trash, which matters, but it's still close.

yea, if there is no other trasher, it's killer for $2, no doubt. it may be a good idea to make the card itself weaker, since the goal is to bring in new strategies. if the card itself is bad but it makes trashing in general stronger, it might make strategies viable that usually aren't. a forager deck with this bonus would be crazy.

[pacovf]

I don't think it is a good idea to put an "in games using this..." effect on a card that drastically changes the power level of some (but not most) cards, including the card itself, because it makes pricing the card very difficult, as showcased with:

Action - 2$ - ?
+1 Action
+1$
Trash a card from your hand.
--------
In games using this, whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card

If you price it at two and it is the only trasher in the kingdom, then you have nearly a junk-dealer for 2$ instead of 5$, which messes with the balance of the game. Junk dealer probably doesn't break the game at 2$, but that's just an example. On the other hand, if Junk dealer is in the kingdom, then Junk dealer is strictly better than this, so it should cost less. What do you do, then, what price do you give to this card?

If I slapped the effect "In games using this, whenever you reveal a card, you might trash or discard it" on scout, I would be against pricing that card at 4$ (as overpriced as scout already is), even though if sage is also in the kingdom it would severely outclass it.

So what you want is an effect that either:
a) doesn't apply to the card itself
b) only applies to the card itself (and then why not put the effect on the card itself if possible?)
c) applies to all (or at least most) cards equally.

So that the card can be priced fairly.

Note that the only official card using the exact phrasing "In games using this, ..." is duchess, every other card discusse here actually reads "setup: ...". Interesting points to consider are embargo and trade route, since they add rules to the game that are in effect even if no example of those cards are currently visible (gaining curses, moving coin tokens around). So a cost-modifying effect would be alright for example, since by the time the pile runs out, most players should have internalized already that the cards' prices are different than usually. Same with Young Witch and the bane, you are expected to remember what card was the bane even though it's not written anywhere.

[silverspawn]

If you price it at two and it is the only trasher in the kingdom, then you have nearly a junk-dealer for 2$ instead of 5$, which messes with the balance of the game.

that's the point

[Awaclus]

I don't think it's a good idea to have effects that just make trashing more powerful, since you pretty much have to go for trashing anyway. Junk Dealer is one of the best $5 cards, it would be ridiculous to have a card as powerful as Junk Dealer at $2, and it is even more ridiculous to give Junk Dealer an extra +1 card. In general, I was mostly thinking of effects that affect all players regardless of what cards they have, because otherwise, most of the time it doesn't matter if it's a "in games using this" effect that has synergy with the top half or just a top half with the synergy built in it and when it matters, it usually just makes things worse.

[pacovf]

If you price it at two and it is the only trasher in the kingdom, then you have nearly a junk-dealer for 2$ instead of 5$, which messes with the balance of the game.

that's the point

I disagree. Changing the rules (and hence the balance and viable strategies) of a given kingdom by virtue of a global effect is not the same as changing the balance of a given kingdom by putting a card so strong for its price that you absolutely have to include it in your strategy.

[dfishman]

With that in mind, if you're having strong "in games using this" effects, do you in fact want them to anti-synergize with their tops? For example,

Monastery Gardens
$4, Victory
Worth 1VP for every 7 cards in your deck (rounded down).
---
In games using this, when you trash a card, +1 Card.

[pacovf]

I don't think either the top or the bottom of the card work very well. The top because it is strictly better than gardens, which matters when gardens is also in the kingdom because it makes them obsolete; the bottom because Awaclus has convinced me that it's too strong an effect while only affecting a small subset of all cards.

But setting that aside for a moment, I find your example of "antisynergy" quite elegant actually! You aren't really making the card any weaker with the "in games using this, ..." effect, you are actually making another incompatible strategy stronger so that it can compete with this. Or rather, your "in games using this, ..." effect changes the rules of the game in such a way that certain strategies become stronger, while the top of the card offers a strong alternative to those strategies.

So yeah, I don't think your precise example works, but if I understood it correctly, I quite like the idea behind it.

[AJD]

Note that the only official card using the exact phrasing "In games using this, ..." is duchess, every other card discusse here actually reads "setup: ...". Interesting points to consider are embargo and trade route, since they add rules to the game that are in effect even if no example of those cards are currently visible (gaining curses, moving coin tokens around). So a cost-modifying effect would be alright for example, since by the time the pile runs out, most players should have internalized already that the cards' prices are different than usually. Same with Young Witch and the bane, you are expected to remember what card was the bane even though it's not written anywhere.

Trade Route's effect isn't equivalent to an "in games using this" effect, any more than City's is. (Baker is a better example of a "setup:" effect that's equivalent to "in games using this".)

[dfishman]

I don't think either the top or the bottom of the card work very well. The top because it is strictly better than gardens, which matters when gardens is also in the kingdom because it makes them obsolete; the bottom because Awaclus has convinced me that it's too strong an effect while only affecting a small subset of all cards.

But setting that aside for a moment, I find your example of "antisynergy" quite elegant actually! You aren't really making the card any weaker with the "in games using this, ..." effect, you are actually making another incompatible strategy stronger so that it can compete with this. Or rather, your "in games using this, ..." effect changes the rules of the game in such a way that certain strategies become stronger, while the top of the card offers a strong alternative to those strategies.

So yeah, I don't think your precise example works, but if I understood it correctly, I quite like the idea behind it.

Yeah, that was the idea. Though I'm not quite sure how possible it is to balance any such card - what happens if the alternative strategy you're boosting isn't available? Essentially, you've got an OP top, without the balancing bottom, and going for the card is likely to be the correct strategy. Even if we ignore the "strictly better than Gardens when they're both there" problem, if there's no trashing in the kingdom then Monastery Gardens is just a super-powered version of an already good card.

I guess you could have the bottom be a detriment to the top, e.g.
Supply and Demand
$6 Victory
Worth 1VP for every 2 Gold in your deck
--
In games using this, Gold costs $8.

(again, demonstration of concept rather than attempt at balanced card!)

But detriments aren't as much fun as boosts.

[pacovf]

Trade Route's effect isn't equivalent to an "in games using this" effect, any more than City's is. (Baker is a better example of a "setup:" effect that's equivalent to "in games using this".)

I was responding more to concerns like:

Perhaps more importantly, I think these global effects should ideally involve the Kingdom card that they're on. So I'm not in love with either "When you trash a Province, gain a Duchy" or "Silver costs $1 less." Duchess's ability is especially elegant because if the Duchess pile gets bought out and the rule is no longer visible, it doesn't matter because the rule is moot at that point.

or

Baker works so well because the "in games using this" triggers exactly once at the start of the game. It makes a big impact, but it's not much extra to remember. I think having to remember something on a card a bunch of times throughout the game is probably not going to be ideal.

Trade route does add an "in games using this" effect, you add these tokens and move them around even if no one ever buys a trade route. Of course then those tokens are completely irrelevant, but that's besides the point. My point about trade route (which admittedly was probably lost in all that text) was that you have to remember what those tokens on top of the province (& co.) do when you buy one of those cards, even if trade route itself isn't visible any more because their pile was bought out. So there are precedents for having to track fiddly stuff, even if that stuff is not explicitly stated anywhere visible anymore (compare with the latest example, band of misfits, which rules it the other way).

Ironically, even though Duchess is the only card with the explicit text "In games using this, ...", I believe it is the card which less represents this kind of effect (of all the cards discussed here), since the spirit of the effect is just to describe that you can gain Duchess for free and the wording of such an effect happens to use those terms, unlike, say, peddler, which does pretty much the same thing. It's more of a price-altering effect than a game-changing effect.

Hopefully that was slightly less confusing, and sorry if I come across as excessively pedantic on the subject.

[Gherald]

Governess
Cost: 5

+$3

Each player (including you) looks at the top 2 card of his deck, and chooses one: he either discards both cards, or puts both cards back in any order.

-----
In games using this, when you gain a Province, you may gain a Governess

[mail-mi]

Governess
Cost: 5

+$3

Each player (including you) looks at the top 2 card of his deck, and chooses one: he either discards both cards, or puts both cards back in any order.

-----
In games using this, when you gain a Province, you may gain a Governess

Baroness
Cost: -$1
+$1
Each player (including you) looks at the top 0 cards of his deck, and chooses one: he does nothing, or he does nothing.
----
In games using this, when you gain an Estate, you may gain a Baroness.

[Co0kieL0rd]

The "In games using this" effect should not plainly synergize with the top part of the text. The card might be interesting if there was no obvious synergy at all. Though some connection should exit, at least merely thematic.
The passive effect has to be balanced out with its active effect as well as with all other cards that might be affected by it. The cards strength must be compared to similar cards and be prized accurately.
If the passive effect would make other cards much stronger, such as "In games using this, whenever you trash a card, you may draw a card", it should also have some passive penalty or something to compensate for it. This is not an elegant solution. Besides, such a card should not have the ability to trash cards, or else we would encounter the issue discussed above.

The problem is, you can't really "penalize" an effect that is active "in games using this". So the effect should either be small (but still meaningful), e. g. "In games using this, at the start of each player's turn, he may look at the top card of his deck, discard it or put it back."
or
be beneficial, but triggered by usually disadvantageous events, e. g. "In games using this, when a player gains a Copper, he may trash X Coppers from his hand and gain a card costing exactly X."