Print

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

[Fragasnap]

I had been working on a fan expansion for a time. The expansion was based primarily on revealing cards from decks, which, beyond the difficulty of flavoring that intangible mechanic, got about as fiddly as you can imagine. The cards were largely complex and unwieldy and the few good ideas present weren't worth expanding into even a small set, let alone a larger one. However, some cards still live on as they divorced themselves from the admittedly weak mechanical theme. (By the by, I'm still working with the aforementioned set, but it is low priority).

This started as a card that wanted to transform into an Action from another player's deck. I played around with the idea for a while. I found digging through another player's deck was long-winded and took a lot of words to convey. Such an unreliable card needs to be cheap, but if it is effective, digging around in another player's deck slows the game down a lot. Looking at another player's hand was rather redundant because, not only could it miss entirely, but it would be played as a card that was likely going to be played just next turn which felt rather redundant. This all is, of course, assuming it is still optimal to buy other Action cards when another player can copy them with Orphans rather than simply playing a Big-Money deck.
Furthermore, I wanted it to have a consistent effect. I played with a couple of different effects (namely +2 Cards on one version, +2 Actions on another). A big problem with inconsistent cards like Tribute is that it is sometimes nonterminal, but you won't know until you play it. The fact that this could transform into a Village meant you would be left with a lot of bad feelings when you draw it "dead" with a Smithy. On an inconsistent card, you can't really stand to be so unsure to whether it is terminal or not, so +2 Cards was out. +2 Actions seemed much more promising, but then it became the case that one would often buy Orphans to get the Actions and it transforming into powerful cards was happenstance. No good there either.

When Band of Misfits came around, I took from its wording. Since then, I've tested it a bit and I ultimately have this:

Orphans
Types: Action
Cost: $3
If this is the first Orphans you've played this turn, shuffle the Orphans deck and then reveal a card from it. Choose one: +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1; or play this as if it were the revealed from the Orphans deck this turn and this is that card until it leaves play.Setup: In games using this, make an Orphans deck out the randomizer of each Action in the Supply costing up to $7 other than Orphans.

Orphans
Types: Action
Cost: $3
If this is the first Orphans you've played this turn, shuffle the Orphans deck and then reveal a card from it. Choose one: +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1; or play this as if it were the revealed from the Orphans deck this turn and this is that card until it leaves play.Setup: In games using this, make an Orphans deck out the randomizer of each Action in the Supply costing up to $6 other than Orphans.

Because it started using an extra deck, it really feels more like a promotional card than anything else, so I've started treating it as such. By the by, its FAQ would point out that it should be played as the top Knight if the Knights from Dark Ages are selected (and fails if the Knight pile is empty). It is somewhat wordy, but it works.

The first time you play it you pick a random Action that each Orphans can transform into. Each Orphans you play can be a vanishing Copper with a Buy (bad enough that you don't want to load up on them, good enough that you won't despair when you draw it with a better terminal), but also might transform into something better.

Revealing a card from the Orphans deck is moderately troublesome, but gets the job done fairly quickly. Most importantly, the card is fun to use, even if you'd rather have something more consistent. In a lot of Kingdoms it is a very powerful card because there are a lot of $5 or $6 cards worth playing. In other Kingdoms, it's pretty terrible since it doesn't have any good targets. Trash-for-benefits are notoriously bad for Orphans.

The construction of the Orphans deck has changed since I first started testing it. Originally, it had every Action, but the chance of whiffing totally by drawing Orphans or striking big by drawing Possession was too swingy, so I limited it to Actions costing up to $8 and removed the Orphans card from the Orphans deck. Now that has needed to change: I included $8 cards really just to catch Peddler, but, as if hitting King's Court wasn't funny enough from time to time, now you could hit Prince? No thank you.

So, in case anyone wondered what transforming cards looked like in my head before Dark Ages, this was it.

[GendoIkari]

This sounds weak, and really swingy. In most games, there's usually 3, maybe 4 Kingdom cards that you'll want to use for your strategy. Which means that more than half the time you play it, this card has the ability to become a card that you wouldn't have wanted in the first place. But sometimes it lets you play a turn 3 Goons.

And it's very rare that you'd rather have any of the +1 vanilla bonuses instead of another card. Using it for +1 vanilla bonus is a Ruins; pretty much any card is going to be better than that, unless you hit forced trashing as your other option. So even if the card you hit is something you never would have bought for your deck; you'll likely choose to play that card instead anyway.

Sorry, misread the way the choices worked; thought you were choosing 1 out of 4 options, not 1 out of 2 options.

[Hydrad]

if you play 2 orphans in a turn would they always be the same card. as it says you only shuffle if its the first time you play orphans

[Awaclus]

And it's very rare that you'd rather have any of the +1 vanilla bonuses instead of another card. Using it for +1 vanilla bonus is a Ruins; pretty much any card is going to be better than that, unless you hit forced trashing as your other option. So even if the card you hit is something you never would have bought for your deck; you'll likely choose to play that card instead anyway.

You're getting all of the +1 vanilla bonuses, so it's comparable to a lot of $2 cards at least, and whenever you have more terminals in your hand and you hit a terminal, it's usually good.

[liopoil]

Sounds mostly fine to me. Comparable to candlestick maker, except instead of the coin being a coin token you have the option to have it be a random card. To make it less swingy, I suggest making it only include action cards costing up to 5 except orphans. It's a bit weak, so I think it would be fine at 2.

if you play 2 orphans in a turn would they always be the same card. as it says you only shuffle if its the first time you play orphans

I think this is intentional, though I'm not sure why.

[pacovf]

To make it less swingy, I suggest making it only include action cards costing up to 5 except orphans. It's a bit weak, so I think it would be fine at 2.

I agree with this.

if you play 2 orphans in a turn would they always be the same card. as it says you only shuffle if its the first time you play orphans

I think this is intentional, though I'm not sure why.

[Fragasnap]

In most games, there's usually 3, maybe 4 Kingdom cards that you'll want to use for your strategy. Which means that more than half the time you play it, this card has the ability to become a card that you wouldn't have wanted in the first place. But sometimes it lets you play a turn 3 Goons.

That is the trick to Orphans: With Orphans, you opportunistically use cards you would not otherwise. You really only buy Orphans when there are three to five targets in the Orphans deck (and when the +Buy will possibly be useful). Sometimes, yes, you do get a turn 3 Goons or Witch, but one turn 3 Goons does not win you a Goons-game-- not by a long shot. Anyway, are you really going to take the chance of a turn 3 Goons over a Silver?

Sounds mostly fine to me. Comparable to candlestick maker, except instead of the coin being a coin token you have the option to have it be a random card. To make it less swingy, I suggest making it only include action cards costing up to 5 except orphans. It's a bit weak, so I think it would be fine at 2.

By putting the price at $5, you are removing the $7 cards (probably worth removing from the pool anyway) and $6 cards. The $6 cards that are worth removing for its swingy effect are Grand Market and Goons. Period. Getting a $3 Altar and Hunting Grounds would be nice whenever it happened, but it does not happen frequently and is not all that great when you cannot count on having that with your next Orphans. Also note that the $6 price point also includes Nobles and Border Village which are $6 cards for their Victory points and on-gain respectively, not their Action effects.

I think ridding the Orphans deck of $7 cards would be worthwhile to the stability of the card, but the $6 pool is not generally very strong for the card's natural inconsistency. In my testing it has never had the chance to turn into a $7 card, but it is possibly an issue. A turn 3 Goons may not win you the game, but a turn 3 Forge might. I'll remove $7 cards from the pool.

I have tested Orphans at a price of $2 and since pushed its price up to $3. The problem with putting it at $2 is two-fold. First: It is not a card you want in multiples-- by providing a +Buy and being $2, the card would naturally incentivize buying many copies of itself (which is a pretty deadly beginner's trap for such a fruity card!). Furthermore, at a price of $2, you buy more Orphans that you otherwise would. If you hit $2, you buy Orphans because you can't afford anything else and it isn't awful. Its low opportunity cost means, you buy Orphans more often at a price of $2, allowing its naturally luck-based effect affect the game more.
The opportunity cost at $3 is centric to the card. Orphans is a card you buy because you think it will be, on average, better for your deck than Silver. Your deck isn't Orphans based, it is augmented by Orphans because there are good targets in the Orphans deck.

if you play 2 orphans in a turn would they always be the same card. as it says you only shuffle if its the first time you play orphans

I think this is intentional, though I'm not sure why.

It is intentional that all Orphans can only turn into one card each turn. It is already fiddly enough to reveal 1 card for Orphans, doing it multiple times per turn for your terrible Orphans-centric deck would be awful.

[Thanar]

This is an interesting card with a great pic. Thanks for making it.

One typo to fix: "Setup: Make an Oprhans deck..." should be changed to "Orphans"

Would you be able to post afull-resolution jpg to make printed versions look good?

[GendoIkari]

And it's very rare that you'd rather have any of the +1 vanilla bonuses instead of another card. Using it for +1 vanilla bonus is a Ruins; pretty much any card is going to be better than that, unless you hit forced trashing as your other option. So even if the card you hit is something you never would have bought for your deck; you'll likely choose to play that card instead anyway.

You're getting all of the +1 vanilla bonuses, so it's comparable to a lot of $2 cards at least, and whenever you have more terminals in your hand and you hit a terminal, it's usually good.

Oh man, I totally misread the placements of commas vs semicolons. I thought you had 4 choices... buy, action, coin, or transform.

[Fragasnap]

This is an interesting card with a great pic. Thanks for making it.

One typo to fix: "Setup: Make an Oprhans deck..." should be changed to "Orphans"

Would you be able to post afull-resolution jpg to make printed versions look good?

I was sure I made some kind of stupid mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed in the original post.

I am afraid that 579x892px is the full resolution. You can click on the image in the main post to expand it to that size. I will see later about creating a higher resolution.