Print

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

[market squire]

Hi there!
Here is another crazy idea. What do you think about that?



Treaty (Reaction), Cost: $4

When the player to your right discards an Action from play, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside with that action card. Play that Action at the start of your next turn. When you would move it from play, put it on the discard pile of the player to your right instead, then discard this Treaty. When you discard this from your hand, you may reveal it and put it on top of your deck.



I thought about a clause like "you may put this from your hand on top of your deck" for the case that the neighbor didn't play any Actions.

Edit: Small change, first wording:

When the player on your right discards an Action from play, you may set it aside with this treaty from your hand. Play that Action at the start of your next turn. When you would move it from play, put it on the discard pile of the player on your right instead, then discard the Treaty.

2nd Edit: Image.

[Awaclus]

Sucks to be the person on your right when you have this on the turn he reshuffles.

[LastFootnote]

Whoa, that is a cool idea. But I think it has a few issues. First, your right-hand opponent can foil it by building an Action-less deck, which sucks. What if it also let you play Treasures? Second, it's an unfortunate timing for revealing a Reaction. Most players just scoop up their cards when their turn is over. You have to say, "Wait! I want that card!"

Maybe if it were an Action that allowed you to look through that player's discard pile and play a card from it? Of course then you could do it after they gain the card. Also, it loses the charm of being a pure Reaction. Hmmm…

[market squire]

What if it also let you play Treasures?

Sounds like a good fix. Then the topdeck thing isn't necessary as well.

When the player on your right discards a card from play, you may set it aside with this Treaty from your hand. Play that card at the start of your next turn. When you would move it from play, put it on the discard pile of the player on your right instead, then discard the Treaty.

Maybe it should say "Action or Treasure", but there are already so many words.

[Awaclus]

an Action-less deck, which sucks.

Yeah, the deck, that is. I don't think it's worth it to play BMU just because this card is on the board. I'm also not sure about the timing being a problem, there's time to reveal it when your opponent is taking the card he buys from the supply.

[soulnet]

I think you may want to use the wording from BoM and Smugglers. "Play this as if it were an Action card that the player on your left played on their last turn.". It sounds way simpler, it is simpler to manage with physical cards (less moving and less loses-track considerations), it is pretty equivalent (add +1 Action if you want it to be even closer) and it loses the Attack-aspect.

[SirPeebles]

I think you may want to use the wording from BoM and Smugglers. "Play this as if it were an Action card that the player on your left played on their last turn.". It sounds way simpler, it is simpler to manage with physical cards (less moving and less loses-track considerations), it is pretty equivalent (add +1 Action if you want it to be even closer) and it loses the Attack-aspect.

But you don't have access to the text of the card you're mimicking.

[silverspawn]

I think you may want to use the wording from BoM and Smugglers. "Play this as if it were an Action card that the player on your left played on their last turn.". It sounds way simpler, it is simpler to manage with physical cards (less moving and less loses-track considerations), it is pretty equivalent (add +1 Action if you want it to be even closer) and it loses the Attack-aspect.

I've had this idea a while ago, but I dropped it, it didn't seem worth posting anywhere. You might not want to build an engine because of it, which would suck; and if you do build an engine, you're pretty much guaranteed to play villages and draw, so it becomes really good. It felt like a badly designed BoF to me.

this version is different, maybe it's better, but it also has other problems. It's just a reaction, what if you draw it during your turn? also what LFN said.

[market squire]

I think you may want to use the wording from BoM and Smugglers. "Play this as if it were an Action card that the player on your left played on their last turn.". It sounds way simpler, it is simpler to manage with physical cards (less moving and less loses-track considerations), it is pretty equivalent (add +1 Action if you want it to be even closer) and it loses the Attack-aspect.

I like your phrasing for simplicity, but I don't like that you have to remember which cards have been played. Smugglers have the same issue, but it's easier to remember and in most cases there is no complex choice.
I prefer to use physical cards. It adds considertions like, with an even Highway split, you can still get Provinces to cost $0 if you somehow manage to Treaty 3 Highways. But you need those three. With your "virtual" BoM wording, your opponent only needs to play 1 Highway on his turn to make that possible.

It's just a reaction, what if you draw it during your turn?

Now I remember that this was the reason for the "you may put this from your hand on top of your deck" phrase. So my suggestion is still the version from the OP with the topdeck sentence.

[liopoil]

How about:

Treaty (Reaction), Cost: $4

When the player on your right discards an Action from play, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside with that action card. Play that Action at the start of your next turn. When you would move it from play, put it on the discard pile of the player on your right instead, then discard the Treaty. When you discard this from your hand, you may reveal this and put it on top of your deck.

I changed the wording a bit, and added the clause at the end so that it stays a pure reaction but will hit eventually if you want it to.

[silverspawn]

How about:

Treaty (Reaction), Cost: $4

When the player on your right discards an Action from play, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside with that action card. Play that Action at the start of your next turn. When you would move it from play, put it on the discard pile of the player on your right instead, then discard the Treaty. When you discard this from your hand, you may reveal this and put it on top of your deck.

I changed the wording a bit, and added the clause at the end so that it stays a pure reaction but will hit eventually if you want it to.

I got three minor suggestions for the wording

When the player on your right

*to

then discard the Treaty.

*this

you may reveal this and put it on top of your deck.

*it

Aside from that, I still think it sucks that the card does nothing if you draw it, even if it is guaranteed to do something next turn. It's also really strong if it works, if your op plays a smithy, it's a 2lab equivalent, or in other words, you always get the effect +1 action, which is a lot.

[liopoil]

Those first two are still from the OP's wording. Why the third? I think "this" is less ambiguous than "it".

[silverspawn]

Those first two are still from the OP's wording. Why the third? I think "this" is less ambiguous than "it".

i'm not sure what you mean. they are all quotes from your post

the third is

When you discard this from your hand, you may reveal this

that doesn't sound good. If you refer to the same thing twice, use it the second time. when you discard this, .... you may reveal it.

[liopoil]

I copied and pasted from the OP, then added/edited some other wording things. Good point though