Print

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

[werothegreat]

So, the art.

Amulet: It kind of looks like an item from a 90s 8-bit fantasy computer game.  I like it.

Swamp Hag: Beautiful, but the woman looks too pretty to be, well, a hag.

Hireling: The blue of the picture just kind of clashes with the orange frame, but not in an ugly way - it just kind of holds your eye.

[Minotaur]

I'm assuming that you have to have to reveal Moat when the hag is played, and in that case you're protected during your turn.  If a Moat enters your hand sometime later in your upcoming turn, then sorry - it's too late.

Lighthouse is in play when you buy something if and only if it was already in play when the Hag was played, so no issue there, I don't think.

[Minotaur]

Throne-Hireling... From how previous Durations work, I assume both cards stay in play indefinitely, and you get the two cards each time.  And Procession-Hireling is even crazier, if there's a $7 action on the board that you can gain... and you don't even have to set the Procession aside forever, because it's not stuck to the Hireling.

[eHalcyon]

I'm assuming that you have to have to reveal Moat when the hag is played, and in that case you're protected during your turn.  If a Moat enters your hand sometime later in your upcoming turn, then sorry - it's too late.

Lighthouse is in play when you buy something if and only if it was already in play when the Hag was played, so no issue there, I don't think.

I have no Lighthouse in play.  You play Swamp Hag.  On my turn, I play Lighthouse.  Now Lighthouse is in play when I am buying something, but I will still gain a Curse because it wasn't in play when the Hag was played.

Throne-Hireling... From how previous Durations work, I assume both cards stay in play indefinitely, and you get the two cards each time.  And Procession-Hireling is even crazier, if there's a $7 action on the board that you can gain... and you don't even have to set the Procession aside forever, because it's not stuck to the Hireling.

If you play Procession on a Duration, Procession still stays in play to remind you despite the card being trashed.  Procession-Hireling will keep Procession in play forever.

[Minotaur]

I'm assuming that you have to have to reveal Moat when the hag is played, and in that case you're protected during your turn.  If a Moat enters your hand sometime later in your upcoming turn, then sorry - it's too late.

Lighthouse is in play when you buy something if and only if it was already in play when the Hag was played, so no issue there, I don't think.

I have no Lighthouse in play.  You play Swamp Hag.  On my turn, I play Lighthouse.  Now Lighthouse is in play when I am buying something, but I will still gain a Curse because it wasn't in play when the Hag was played.

Oh, right.  I should've read the actual card.  Thanks.  X-P

[Witherweaver]

SheCanSayNo can't say no to Silvers.

[jaketheyak]

Swamp Hag: Beautiful, but the woman looks too pretty to be, well, a hag.

There is a D&D monster called a Green Hag (or Greenhag, depending on edition) that lives in swamps.
Its natural appearance is that of a twisted, horrible, green-skinned crone.
It has the ability to magically disguise itself as a beautiful maiden in order to lure unsuspecting victims to their deaths.

As with most things D&D, there is considerable pre-existing folklore behind this though, so I'm by no means suggesting this is necessarily where the idea for this card came from.

[polot38]

I actually think amulet looks like (possibly) one of the strongest cards in the game- or at the very least a major trasher. It is like a steward mixed with a JoaT. Let me explain the benefits;

-In big money it can trash estates quickly and gain a ton of silvers. Sure, it can miss the shuffle, but then you could just get an extra one. If you have already trashed your estates, you can gain a ton of silvers, or trash coppers.
-In engines it is also very good. It trashes two cards with every play, and doesn't gum up your deck as much after it is done trashing (if you play it), so i'd prefer it over steward in most cases, especially if you are fighting over villages. Also, the duration effect gives you a better selection of cards to trash; if you play steward, you might do something like trash copper/estate where with amulet you could trash double estate, amulet is less likely to be unable to trash due to not having enough trashable cards in your hand, and amulet doesn't instantly destroy your chances of buying anything on the turn that you play it.

[Beyond Awesome]

I actually think amulet looks like (possibly) one of the strongest cards in the game- or at the very least a major trasher. It is like a steward mixed with a JoaT. Let me explain the benefits;

-In big money it can trash estates quickly and gain a ton of silvers. Sure, it can miss the shuffle, but then you could just get an extra one. If you have already trashed your estates, you can gain a ton of silvers, or trash coppers.
-In engines it is also very good. It trashes two cards with every play, and doesn't gum up your deck as much after it is done trashing (if you play it), so i'd prefer it over steward in most cases, especially if you are fighting over villages. Also, the duration effect gives you a better selection of cards to trash; if you play steward, you might do something like trash copper/estate where with amulet you could trash double estate, amulet is less likely to be unable to trash due to not having enough trashable cards in your hand, and amulet doesn't instantly destroy your chances of buying anything on the turn that you play it.

You also have more cards in your hands vs. trashing with Steward. I'm pretty sure a lot of times the correct opening will be Amulet/Amulet

[Asper]

I don't think this was asked before: If i have Hireling in play and i have no cards (except cards on mats or Durations in play), do i discard Hireling because it won't have an effect? I assume no, just checking.

Edit: Just re-read it, and i guess you can never be sure it won't do anything "for the rest of the game". So it should stay out. Sorry for the dumb question.

[WanderingWinder]

I don't think this was asked before: If i have Hireling in play and i have no cards (except cards on mats or Durations in play), do i discard Hireling because it won't have an effect? I assume no, just checking.

Edit: Just re-read it, and i guess you can never be sure it won't do anything "for the rest of the game". So it should stay out. Sorry for the dumb question.

That it's for the rest of the game doesn't even matter - game doesn't know you won't gain cards on opponents' turn; they just stay out.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think this was asked before: If i have Hireling in play and i have no cards (except cards on mats or Durations in play), do i discard Hireling because it won't have an effect? I assume no, just checking.

Edit: Just re-read it, and i guess you can never be sure it won't do anything "for the rest of the game". So it should stay out. Sorry for the dumb question.

That it's for the rest of the game doesn't even matter - game doesn't know you won't gain cards on opponents' turn; they just stay out.

Heck, even if it DID know you won't gain cards on your opponent's turn, like say in a solitaire game (ok, solitaire games are technically outside of the rules, but still), I would argue that it doesn't know that it won't draw a card for you until the moment that you attempt to draw a card and fail.

This situation already existed with Caravan actually. If you play Caravan with less than 6 cards between your deck and discard pile, it stays out, even in a solitaire game. Actually, if it didn't, then there's a paradox. You discard Caravan, so now there's a card that Caravan should have drawn, so Caravan should stay in play. But if it stays in play, there's nothing for it to draw, so it is discarded....

[pst]

This situation already existed with Caravan actually. If you play Caravan with less than 6 cards between your deck and discard pile, it stays out, even in a solitaire game. Actually, if it didn't, then there's a paradox. You discard Caravan, so now there's a card that Caravan should have drawn, so Caravan should stay in play. But if it stays in play, there's nothing for it to draw, so it is discarded....

The rules tread on a thin line. If they had been slightly different there would have been a paradox, and the universe might have disappeared in a puff of logic!

[Donald X.]

The rules tread on a thin line. If they had been slightly different there would have been a paradox, and the universe might have disappeared in a puff of logic!

Godel's Incompleteness Caravan: Action - Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, this sentence is false.

[markusin]

I just see it as attempting to draw is still considered doing something. If the card draw was conditional on having 6 or more cards across you hand, deck, discard, and play area, then you would discard Caravan on the turn you play it if you had less than 6 cards.

[enfynet]

I just see it as attempting to draw is still considered doing something. If the card draw was conditional on having 6 or more cards across you hand, deck, discard, and play area, then you would discard Caravan on the turn you play it if you had less than 6 cards.

"Do as much as you can" ruling says it stays out even if you have only the cards in your hand. It will still attempt the +1 Card at the start of your next turn.

[Jimmmmm]

I know of one person who'll be excited about Adventures:

If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

[Awaclus]

I know of one person who'll be excited about Adventures:

If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

Yay, there will no longer be a "good" and a "bad" way to win at Dominion!

[GendoIkari]

Prediction: Swamp Hag will be stronger than it should be, because often people will choose not to buy anything to avoid a Curse, even though they should have just bought a card. Similar to how people sometimes discard their hand to Torturer when it would be better to take the curse. Though it will be weaker when buying events is an option.

[AJD]

Though it will be weaker when buying events is an option.

(Or things like Horn of Plenty engines, Highway/Ironworks, etc.)

[scott_pilgrim]

Prediction: Swamp Hag will be stronger than it should be, because often people will choose not to buy anything to avoid a Curse, even though they should have just bought a card. Similar to how people sometimes discard their hand to Torturer when it would be better to take the curse. Though it will be weaker when buying events is an option.

I could see it being the exact opposite, though.  People like to buy things, and I imagine a lot of times people will buy things like Silver when it's not worth it for the Curse, just because they don't want their whole turn to go to waste.  I guess that actually leads to the same conclusion, that Swamp Hag is stronger than it should be, just for the opposite reason.

[Gherald]

Prediction: Swamp Hag will be a card that people will need to get used to and learn how to play optimally.

[Throwaway_bicycling]

The rules tread on a thin line. If they had been slightly different there would have been a paradox, and the universe might have disappeared in a puff of logic!

Godel's Incompleteness Caravan: Action - Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, this sentence is false.

I think that should have been "Goodman's Incompleteness Caravan". Honestly, doesn't anybody here recognize a projectable predicate when they see one?