Print

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

[LastFootnote]

This is an idea I had inspired by Co0kieL0rd's Poacher card.

Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. +$1. The next time you play an Action card from your hand this turn, you may turn it face down and play it as if it were an Action card with the ability "+3 Cards". It is that card until it leaves play.

It's a village that allows you to play another Action card as a Smithy. Seems exotic. Tough to say whether it would play well. What do you all think?

[XerxesPraelor]

I think it's way too good at $2. Any +buys or strong trashing would make it between lab+peddler in power, and even its vanilla bonus is okay at $2.

[pacovf]

Can you then pay (2) at any time to turn the card around?

Seems interesting, and probably very strong together with (cheap) cantrips. Factory and an extra action card (any!) are the same as lab + peddler. Otherwise it's a copper.

How does this interact with Horn of Plenty? Peddler? Procession?

My mystic abilities tell me that a lot of people are going to shuffle cards the other way around.

EDIT: "You may set aside an Action card from your hand. If you do, +3 cards. At the beginning of your Cleanup phase, discard all set aside cards" is simpler, I think.

[LastFootnote]

I think it's way too good at $2. Any +buys or strong trashing would make it between lab+peddler in power, and even its vanilla bonus is okay at $2.

Well its vanilla bonus is a pretty weak $2 effect if Squire is any indication. And unlike an actual Peddler and Lab, you have to have both cards in hand when you start; with Peddler and Lab, one might draw the other.

That said, it could easily be too strong for $2. Probably it would seem weak at $4, but might be a good $3.

Can you then pay (2) at any time to turn the card around?

I don't understand this question. I think the answer is no?

How does this interact with Horn of Plenty? Peddler? Procession?

Peddler treats it as an Action card because it is one. Procession cares about the cost of the original card because it's back to being itself by the time Procession looks at the cost; Procession on Band of Misfits works the same way. Horn of Plenty is a very good question. I need to either specify that it's a nameless Action card with the ability "+3 Cards" or just say that you can play it as a Smithy (and explain what a Smithy is).

My mystic abilities tell me that a lot of people are going to shuffle cards the other way around.

You can see the future!

EDIT: "You may set aside an Action card from your hand. If you do, +3 cards. At the beginning of your Cleanup phase, discard all set aside cards" is simpler, I think.

Simpler in some ways. But it doesn't cost an Action to set it aside, so you'd also need a "Choose one" on Factory, making it more complex. Also it would work differently with e.g. Throne Room. As written, you can play Throne Room/Throne Room/Factory x2/FauxSmithy x2.

[popsofctown]

Random question: Is there an official Action card that beats BMU on its own using +2 actions.(Nobles can play more than one action a turn, but almost never will in a BM mirror)

[pacovf]

Can you then pay (2) at any time to turn the card around?

I don't understand this question. I think the answer is no?

It's a M:tG joke (morph). 

EDIT: "You may set aside an Action card from your hand. If you do, +3 cards. At the beginning of your Cleanup phase, discard all set aside cards" is simpler, I think.

Simpler in some ways. But it doesn't cost an Action to set it aside, so you'd also need a "Choose one" on Factory, making it more complex. Also it would work differently with e.g. Throne Room. As written, you can play Throne Room/Throne Room/Factory x2/FauxSmithy x2.

Duh, I'm dumb, I forgot about the lost action. Yeah, the extra "choose one" is annoying.

[LastFootnote]

Horn of Plenty is a very good question. I need to either specify that it's a nameless Action card with the ability "+3 Cards" or just say that you can play it as a Smithy (and explain what a Smithy is).

On second thought, I don't think the "nameless" option clarifies anything. It could still be a "differently named card" by virtue of having no name. Maybe I do need to name Smithy directly. Or have it keep its original name and just replace its types and abilities (leaving it face up).

[pubby]

It seems convoluted. What's wrong with, "You may discard an action card. If you do, +3 cards."?

[pacovf]

It seems convoluted. What's wrong with, "You may discard an action card. If you do, +3 cards."?

You can draw the card and play it. Forcing you to put the card in play is a nerf, because it reduces the "payload" of your deck.

Maybe I do need to name Smithy directly.

Eeeeh, I don't like this.

[LastFootnote]

It seems convoluted. What's wrong with, "You may discard an action card. If you do, +3 cards."?

I don't think anything's wrong with it per se, other than it being stronger in general, since you can re-draw and play the Action. It is what I was originally thinking of before I came up with this more exotic version, and it may very well be what I end up with.

[market squire]

So when you play this and a FauxSmithy, you'll get:
+1 Action
+$1
and handsize increased by 1 (i.e. +2 Cards, or rather "-1 Action card, +3 random cards").

This is like Stables, just for Action cards and with +$1. Taking into account the Village option, Factory should cost $5 in my opinion.

I don't think it is very satisfying to smithify your Actions. Well, it encourages you to buy more Actions (as you need a higher Action density to make use of it), but then it won't let you play more.

[Awaclus]

This is like Stables, just for Action cards and with +$1. Taking into account the Village option, Factory should cost $5 in my opinion.

Stables is a substitute for trashing. Usually you don't want to trash Action cards.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Am correct in assuming this idea was also inspired by Asper's Town and Road?

Introducing a morph-like mechanism into the game seems like a cool idea but the card naming is an issue. I don't think plainly naming it Smithy is a good solution because of explanation bla bla. It could say "Play an Action card from your hand [face down] as if it were an Action card with a name of your choice that provides +3 Cards." That's really long, though.

So when you play this and a FauxSmithy, you'll get:
+1 Action
+$1
and handsize increased by 1 (i.e. +2 Cards, or rather "-1 Action card, +3 random cards").

This is like Stables, just for Action cards and with +$1. Taking into account the Village option, Factory should cost $5 in my opinion.

That would be inadequate since you already start with 7 Coppers as Stable targets but 0 Action cards as Factory targets. But if we assume that the average board has enough viable Factory-targets, the card should cost at least $3, possibly $4.

[eHalcyon]

This is like Stables, just for Action cards and with +$1. Taking into account the Village option, Factory should cost $5 in my opinion.

Stables is a substitute for trashing. Usually you don't want to trash Action cards.

And you don't start with 7 Actions in your deck either.



I would specify nameless and clarify in an FAQ whether it works with Horn of Plenty.  I think most people would assume that a "nameless" card does not count for HoP.

[TheOthin]

I don't think it is very satisfying to smithify your Actions. Well, it encourages you to buy more Actions (as you need a higher Action density to make use of it), but then it won't let you play more.

Personally I'd say it sounds like more fun than drawing them when you can't use them effectively or staying away from getting them in the first place for fear of that.

[JacquesTheBard]

It probably combos nicely with ruins and Rats.

[sudgy]

It probably combos nicely with ruins and Rats.

Rats with no trashing is the best.

[GendoIkari]

I just realized that the wording is a bit weird. "The next time you play an action card..." So wouldn't this trigger once you have actually played that card? So what stops you from getting the normal effects of that card? I think it needs a "would play" instead. Of course then it would need some sort of "reveal" clause to prove that it's an action.

I like pacovf's wording. Can't you just change the +2 actions to +1 action, and then have it set aside an action card and draw 3 cards?

[dghunter79]

Danse Macabre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may play an Action from your hand for none of its effects. If you do, +4 Cards and +1 Action.
When you buy this, trash it.
When you trash this, gain 2 cheaper cards of different costs.

I really hate cards with two lines. I also really hate "play an Action from your hand for none of its effects". I'd prefer "discard an Action". I like the idea of a card you cannot buy, and I even like the specific effect you get if you try to buy it. If I were to make such a card, I'd prefer something like, "When you buy this, instead of gaining it, gain two cheaper cards." Boom. One line. Then if you manage to gain it without buying it, it does something cool.

Neat. I executed this idea as above, and I think that's the easiest implementation to understand other than "Discard an Action."

[LastFootnote]

Danse Macabre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may play an Action from your hand for none of its effects. If you do, +4 Cards and +1 Action.
When you buy this, trash it.
When you trash this, gain 2 cheaper cards of different costs.

I really hate cards with two lines. I also really hate "play an Action from your hand for none of its effects". I'd prefer "discard an Action". I like the idea of a card you cannot buy, and I even like the specific effect you get if you try to buy it. If I were to make such a card, I'd prefer something like, "When you buy this, instead of gaining it, gain two cheaper cards." Boom. One line. Then if you manage to gain it without buying it, it does something cool.

Neat. I executed this idea as above, and I think that's the easiest implementation to understand other than "Discard an Action."

Ha, nice! I remember that one. Man, my opinions have changed. I mean, I still don't like cards with two lines, but the "for none of its effects" doesn't seem so bad.

I was actually going to post this updated version:

Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2 or $3
+1 Action. +$1. You may play an Action card from your hand. Instead of doing its on-play ability, you may draw 3 cards.

So the card played retains its name (for Horn of Plenty) and also any "while-in-play" effects it has. This also eliminates Throne Room/Throne Room/Factory/X issues that my original version had.

[LastFootnote]

I just realized that the wording is a bit weird. "The next time you play an action card..." So wouldn't this trigger once you have actually played that card? So what stops you from getting the normal effects of that card? I think it needs a "would play" instead. Of course then it would need some sort of "reveal" clause to prove that it's an action.

I like pacovf's wording. Can't you just change the +2 actions to +1 action, and then have it set aside an action card and draw 3 cards?

The set-aside requires more words to tell you when to discard that card. Also, I want the player to have the option to get that extra +Action by not setting aside a card. Maybe your and pacovf's version plays better, but it is a pretty radically different card. Instead of "village that can turn a card into a Smithy", it's "card that lets you set aside an Action card for non-terminal draw.

EDIT: But, let's see what that version would look like for comparison's sake.

Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. +$1. You may set aside an Action card from your hand. If you do, +3 Cards and discard that Action at the start of Clean-up.

Or, more compellingly:

Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. You may set aside an Action card from your hand. If you do, +4 Cards and discard that Action at the start of Clean-up.

[LastFootnote]

Am correct in assuming this idea was also inspired by Asper's Town and Road?

Not exactly. I realized there was some similarity after the fact, but it wasn't an inspiration up-front.

[pacovf]

I was actually going to post this updated version:

Factory
Types: Action
Cost: $2 or $3
+1 Action. +$1. You may play an Action card from your hand. Instead of doing its on-play ability, you may draw 3 cards.

So the card played retains its name (for Horn of Plenty) and also any "while-in-play" effects it has. This also eliminates Throne Room/Throne Room/Factory/X issues that my original version had.

I prefer this version, I think, but "instead of doing its on-play ability" looks like the unholy union of "when you would" wording and Band of Misfits *shudder*. I'm going to guess that "its on-play ability" (can I say "effect"?) is everything until the first line? So duration cards don't stay, for example.

Note that, as worded, I think that this can't work as a village. You put the card into play doing none of its effects, and then you may draw 3 cards?

The fact that the "instead" is in a different sentence after you play the card is also bothering me.

[LastFootnote]

I prefer this version, I think, but "instead of doing its on-play ability" looks like the unholy union of "when you would" wording and Band of Misfits *shudder*. I'm going to guess that "its on-play ability" (can I say "effect"?) is everything until the first line? So duration cards don't stay, for example.

Correct. The on-play ability is whatever the card does when you play it, including setting up effects for future turns. So a Duration card played this way would not stay out. Unholy union though it may be, it seems the clearest way to communicate the effect. The important thing is that there's no ambiguity.

Note that, as worded, I think that this can't work as a village. You put the card into play doing none of its effects, and then you may draw 3 cards?

Yes, this is ambiguity. Good catch! How about, "You may play an Action card from your hand. You may choose to draw 3 cards instead of doing its normal on-play effect"?

The fact that the "instead" is in a different sentence after you play the card is also bothering me.

I hear you, but there is at least precedent for that (see Library).

[pacovf]

BoM still transforms before having its effect replaced by Factory, right?

Yes, this is ambiguity. Good catch! How about, "You may play an Action card from your hand. You may choose to draw 3 cards instead of doing its normal on-play effect"?

Yeah, I prefer this. I mean, it's grammatically the same, but I think nobody will get confused here.

Despite the Library precedent, I think I like a semicolon instead of a fullstop here.

It looks good! I can't think of any official (nor Enterprise) card that interacts ambiguously with this.