Print

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

[Co0kieL0rd]

Hello and good evening, folks. I came up with an idea of how to do something interesting with Curses. It's definitely a funny and weird concept but I like it a lot and it seemed balanced in the first playtests.

Name:      Juggler
Type:      Action/ Attack
Cost:      $5
Text:      + 2 Cards. Every player (including you) discards a Curse from his hand. If he doesn’t, he gains a Curse, putting it in his hand. You may return a Curse from your hand to the supply. If you don’t, + $2.

So this is a $5-curser who also curses the attacker and gives the other players the option to defend themselves by discarding a Curse. The attacker can either immediately return the Curse to the supply or keep it in his hand for + $2 in addition to the + 2 cards he’s drawn before. If he keeps the Curse in hand and manages to play another Juggler in the same turn, he can discard the Curse so he doesn’t get another one. Since he won’t return this Curse to the supply (because he discarded it), he would get the $2 this time.
The attacked players, on the other hand, might want to keep the Curse they gained in their hand to discard it during their turn when they play Juggler so they don’t gain a Curse and get $2.

This card offers interesting choices each time you play it or defend against it. And while it doesn’t make Curse itself a better card, it certainly gives it some unique way of handling it. It’s all about “juggling” with Curses – moving them from your hand to the supply, into other player’s hands and from there into discard piles. Since you can always return them to the supply, the Juggler’s little game never ends if you don’t want it to.

So what do you think?

[liopoil]

Seems to me that it will usually be better than witch, which is already a very good 5-cost. It's significantly better when you have a curse in hand (a 6 card hand if you play this first), and will also sometimes be better when taking the curse for $2 is worth it, which will also be fairly common. Only drawback is that your opponents can block it with a curse.

[Awaclus]

Only drawback is that your opponents can block it with a curse.

This is a pretty big drawback.

[liopoil]

mountebank has that drawback and it's arguably the best curser... albeit it does also give a copper.

[SirPeebles]

Seems to me that it will usually be better than witch, which is already a very good 5-cost. It's significantly better when you have a curse in hand (a 6 card hand if you play this first), and will also sometimes be better when taking the curse for $2 is worth it, which will also be fairly common. Only drawback is that your opponents can block it with a curse.

Another drawback is that you deal yourself a Curse first.  If there is only one Curse left in the Supply, it won't go to your opponent unless you have a Curse in hand to discard.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Ah, so you see it's not that easy, getting a grip on the card's real strength. Because it all depends where the Curses go, and each player can play that game... but if the majority would argue that + 2 cards, + $2 with the penalty of gaining a Curse (that you can return later) is too strong, I could adjust it + 2 cards, + $1.

EDIT: Actually you cannot return a Curse with Juggler if it was in your hand before you played it, at least not without getting a new one. So every time you take the $2-bonus, you have to accept another Curse in your deck that you cannot get rid of unless there is some trasher available.

[SirPeebles]

Ah, so you see it's not that easy, getting a grip on the card's real strength. Because it all depends where the Curses go, and each player can play that game... but if the majority would argue that + 2 cards, + $2 with the penalty of gaining a Curse (that you can return later) is too strong, I could adjust it + 2 cards, + $1.

Hey now, don't misinterpret us.  Someone claimed that there is just one drawback.  The rest of us recognize this as a challenge to find edge cases, regardless of how inconsequential those edge cases may be in evaluating your card.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Hey now, don't misinterpret us.  Someone claimed that there is just one drawback.  The rest of us recognize this as a challenge to find edge cases, regardless of how inconsequential those edge cases may be in evaluating your card.

Okay, I'm sure there are edge cases. I'm ready to adjust the card if necessary.

I just found an issue myself. If there are no Curses in the supply and most of them are trashed, Juggler will practically always be + 2 cards, + $2. Is this too strong? If yes, should it rather be + 1 card, + 2$ or + 2 cards, + $1? It's also important in which order these bonuses occur.

[LastFootnote]

Rewording: +2 Cards. Each player (including you) may discard a Curse. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse, putting it into his hand. You may return a Curse from your hand to the Supply. If you don’t, +$2.

I'm not a huge fan of how the card fights itself. That's part of what makes cards like Pirate Ship annoying.

Personally, I'd cost this at $4 (to help differentiate it from Witch, Torturer, and Mountebank, all of which share features with it) and then nerf it if necessary. And remember: when trying to fix a card this complex, try fixing it by simplifying it before trying to fix it by making it even more complex. The text already pretty much fills a card at the normal font size.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Rewording: +2 Cards. Each player (including you) may discard a Curse. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse, putting it into his hand. You may return a Curse from your hand to the Supply. If you don’t, +$2.

I'm not a huge fan of how the card fights itself. That's part of what makes cards like Pirate Ship annoying.

Personally, I'd cost this at $4 (to help differentiate it from Witch, Torturer, and Mountebank, all of which share features with it) and then nerf it if necessary. And remember: when trying to fix a card this complex, try fixing it by simplifying it before trying to fix it by making it even more complex. The text already pretty much fills a card at the normal font size.

I didn't write "if he doesn't", to make clear that the following part applies to you as well. I felt the "(starting with you)" clause was necessary in cases where there's only one Curse left. It should be clear that the attacker gains that Curse then.

[LastFootnote]

Rewording: +2 Cards. Each player (including you) may discard a Curse. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse, putting it into his hand. You may return a Curse from your hand to the Supply. If you don’t, +$2.

I'm not a huge fan of how the card fights itself. That's part of what makes cards like Pirate Ship annoying.

Personally, I'd cost this at $4 (to help differentiate it from Witch, Torturer, and Mountebank, all of which share features with it) and then nerf it if necessary. And remember: when trying to fix a card this complex, try fixing it by simplifying it before trying to fix it by making it even more complex. The text already pretty much fills a card at the normal font size.

I didn't write "if he doesn't", to make clear that the following part applies to you as well. I felt the "(starting with you)" clause was necessary in cases where there's only one Curse left. It should be clear that the attacker gains that Curse then.

Things that all players do always happen in turn order starting with you. On a card this wordy, you need to trim all the text you can.

See Oracle for an example of using "he" to refer to each player, including you.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Alright, I changed the wording. Looks better now, and I'm glad I can omit those awkward clarifications.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I kinda like the idea and I think it'd be fine at $4 if you just take off the +2 cards. That also makes the decision whether to keep the curse you get harder because you don't keep the curse, the card won't do anything for you that turn.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I kinda like the idea and I think it'd be fine at $4 if you just take off the +2 cards. That also makes the decision whether to keep the curse you get harder because you don't keep the curse, the card won't do anything for you that turn.

I'm thinking about replacing "+2 cards" with "+1 action". So then you could spam them easily but only every second one would actually hurt your opponents. You might keep all the Curses for + $2 each, so the card would be like a Mystic without the card draw.

[Captain Stupendous]

I'm thinking about replacing "+2 cards" with "+1 action". So then you could spam them easily but only every second one would actually hurt your opponents. You might keep all the Curses for + $2 each, so the card would be like a Mystic without the card draw.

It seems like keeping the curses for +$2 will generally be a bad idea, and would make this pretty weak for $4. Keep in mind that a Mystic without the card draw is basically the same as playing a silver (edge cases notwithstanding...). So is a silver that hands out curses to other players half of the time, and only gives you +$2 if you gain a curse yourself, really worth $4? I really like the idea however, but liked the original version which cost $5 better than this revision. Also, I absolutely love the name, as you are kind of "juggling" the curses, trying to maintain a balance between how many to discard or keep in your hand!

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm thinking about replacing "+2 cards" with "+1 action". So then you could spam them easily but only every second one would actually hurt your opponents. You might keep all the Curses for + $2 each, so the card would be like a Mystic without the card draw.

It seems like keeping the curses for +$2 will generally be a bad idea, and would make this pretty weak for $4. Keep in mind that a Mystic without the card draw is basically the same as playing a silver (edge cases notwithstanding...). So is a silver that hands out curses to other players half of the time, and only gives you +$2 if you gain a curse yourself, really worth $4? I really like the idea however, but liked the original version which cost $5 better than this revision. Also, I absolutely love the name, as you are kind of "juggling" the curses, trying to maintain a balance between how many to discard or keep in your hand!

Thanks for the feedback. I just playtested it with + 1 Action and you're right, it's a little too weak. But the original version seemed a touch too strong for $5. I could try it out as a cantrip for $4. That might be okay.

[Captain Stupendous]

A cantrip might actually be more powerful than +2 cards, if the difference between witch and familiar is any indication.