Print

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

[Lotoreo]

Not sure if something like this has already be proposed, but here are two cards I would find very nice:

Tax Raise:
Type: Action
Costs: 3 gold
Text: Set this card aside. For the rest of the game, all cards cost +1.

Depth collector:
Type: Action, Attack
Costs: 5 gold
Text: When you discard this from play, until the beginning of your next turn, all cards cost +1.

So, I am not sure about the prices, or whether or not the Depth collector should be a duration card (thus only being playable during every second turn). Has anything like this already been proposed?

[Awaclus]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost? Also, Cutpurse's effect is already similar.

[enfynet]

If you read the secret history articles, you will see that Cutpurse was the result of an attempt to raise costs.

[SirPeebles]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost? Also, Cutpurse's effect is already similar.

This isn't too big of a deal, since one could rephrase the card to resolve this issue.

Tax Raise is silly.  Why would I buy and play a card that does nothing but raise prices on everyone?  Sure, there are a few times you may want to raise prices, but this is an awful lot of effort towards such a combo.  But even with Depth Collector (did you mean Debt?) which addresses that, there is still the issue of terribly unfun pins where each player plays two Debt Collectors per turn, so even Provinces cost $8 and hence the game has no means of reaching a conclusion.  There may be ways of fixing this by incorporating gaining into the card, but I'm not sure how compelling it would be.

[silverspawn]

basically, the difference between this and Cutpurse is that this one stacks, which is something you don't want, because pins aren't very fun (with some exceptions). there is some middle ground, but not much. I don't think that increasing cost (of all cards) is worth doing in any way

[GendoIkari]

  But even with Depth Collector (did you mean Debt?) which addresses that, there is still the issue of terribly unfun pins where each player plays two Debt Collectors per turn, so even Provinces cost $8 and hence the game has no means of reaching a conclusion.  There may be ways of fixing this by incorporating gaining into the card, but I'm not sure how compelling it would be.

Yeah, $8 is way too much for a Province.

[GendoIkari]

basically, the difference between this and Cutpurse is that this one stacks, which is something you don't want, because pins aren't very fun (with some exceptions). there is some middle ground, but not much. I don't think that increasing cost (of all cards) is worth doing in any way

It's also MUCH weaker than Cutpurse. Cutpurse costs less, and gives $2 on play. This does nothing but the attack.

[silverspawn]

basically, the difference between this and Cutpurse is that this one stacks, which is something you don't want, because pins aren't very fun (with some exceptions). there is some middle ground, but not much. I don't think that increasing cost (of all cards) is worth doing in any way

It's also MUCH weaker than Cutpurse. Cutpurse costs less, and gives $2 on play. This does nothing but the attack.

I was talking about just the attack (discard copper, make cards 1$ more expensive). But you're right, it's also really weak. That's less of a problem though, you can always tweak a card, but you can't always fix a bad concept

[SirPeebles]

  But even with Depth Collector (did you mean Debt?) which addresses that, there is still the issue of terribly unfun pins where each player plays two Debt Collectors per turn, so even Provinces cost $8 and hence the game has no means of reaching a conclusion.  There may be ways of fixing this by incorporating gaining into the card, but I'm not sure how compelling it would be.

Yeah, $8 is way too much for a Province.

Haha, meant Coppers of course 

[KingZog3]

You could make It only affect action cards. I'm still not a fan of the idea.

[SirPeebles]

You could make It only affect action cards. I'm still not a fan of the idea.

That's less game breaking, but tends to just discourage everyone from buying Actions.  Now, not every match needs to be action heavy, but I still don't feel like a card which merely makes Actions harder to get is a worthwhile addition to the game.  I think that a cost increaser has potential, but the card seems like it will need to be rather complex in order to contribute.

[SK]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost?

I must be missing something. The answer would be $0, yes?

[GendoIkari]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost?

I must be missing something. The answer would be $0, yes?

Not necessarily. It's just as valid to look at it like this:

Poor House starts at $1. Then Highway #1 makes it $0. Then Highway #2 makes it $0 also (because it says not less than $0). Then Tax Raise makes it $1.

[SK]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost?

I must be missing something. The answer would be $0, yes?

Not necessarily. It's just as valid to look at it like this:

Poor House starts at $1. Then Highway #1 makes it $0. Then Highway #2 makes it $0 also (because it says not less than $0). Then Tax Raise makes it $1.

oooh okay thanks

[gambit05]

 I have a related card:

Code: [Select]

Tax (Action)---(2)
While this card is in play,
when you buy an action card,
set aside both cards face up.
As long as the bought card is set aside,
each other player, who buys a card
with the same name, has to pay (1) more,
and you take a coin token.
------------------------------
During your action phase,
you may play the set aside card.
If you do, trash the tax card.

[Awaclus]

I have a related card:

Code: [Select]

Tax (Action)---(2)
While this card is in play,
when you buy an action card,
set aside both cards face up.
As long as the bought card is set aside,
each other player, who buys a card
with the same name, has to pay (1) more,
and you take a coin token.
------------------------------
During your action phase,
you may play the set aside card.
If you do, trash the tax card.

This is political. It should probably be "and each of his opponents takes a coin token".

[pacovf]

Has been proposed and the problem is, if Tax Raise is set aside and there are two Highways in play, how much does a Poor House cost?

I must be missing something. The answer would be $0, yes?

Not necessarily. It's just as valid to look at it like this:

Poor House starts at $1. Then Highway #1 makes it $0. Then Highway #2 makes it $0 also (because it says not less than $0). Then Tax Raise makes it $1.

While I agree on principle that this is a possible way to read it, I would still rule it to cost 0$, because I read the "no less than 0$" as a general rule rather than a part of Highway's effect.
So the way I see it, no matter how you order these, you end up with Poor House costing -1$ (2 Highways, 1 Tax Raise). However, cards can't cost less than 0$, per Highway/Bridge/Princess, so -1$ becomes 0$ for all practical purposes.
Admittedly this is not the way those cards are exactly phrased.

[gambit05]

I have a related card:

Code: [Select]

Tax (Action)---(2)
While this card is in play,
when you buy an action card,
set aside both cards face up.
As long as the bought card is set aside,
each other player, who buys a card
with the same name, has to pay (1) more,
and you take a coin token.
------------------------------
During your action phase,
you may play the set aside card.
If you do, trash the tax card.

This is political. It should probably be "and each of his opponents takes a coin token".

Good point. Thanks!