Print

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

[Destry]

The basic idea is you're building your own card from the parts you supply.

Latest version

Mad Scientist Lab
Cost:
Type: Event
Return a Stitched-Together Monster from your hand to the supply. If you did, put up to two cards other than Stitched-Together Monster from your hand face up on your Monster Mat.
Cards on Monster Mats are returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game before scoring.

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost:
Type: *
This is the cards on your Monster Mat and share their types and abilities.
When played, discard a card from your Monster Mat.
Setup: Add Mad Scientist Lab Event.

The Mad Scientist Lab event allows you to assemble the parts. What's on the menu? A Chancellor? A Peddler? Maybe a Copper or an Estate.

The Stitched-Together Monster is nothing until it has something on the Monster Mat. It could be a super action card, a combination Bridge/Lab/Festival. Or put a Copper and an Silver on the Monster Mat to turn it into a Gold. How about a Copper/Pearl Diver, which can be played either during the action phase or buy phase. (The extra action gained during the buy phase won't do much good unless you have Diadem).

--edited to "Cards on Monster Mats are returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game before scoring."

--older version--
version 4

Mad Scientist Lab
Cost: $2
Type: Event
Put a card other than Stitched-Together Monster from your hand face up on your Monster Mat.
Cards on Monster Mats are not returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game.

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost: $2 Potion
Type: *
This is the cards on your Monster Mat and share their types and abilities.
Setup: Add Mad Scientist Lab Event.

[Destry]

Here's some of the thinking that went into the card.

version 1

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost: Cost of Monster Card 1 + Monster Card 2
Type: Types on Monster Card 1 and Monster Card 2

This card is the two Monster cards with the type, text, and cost combined.
When you play this, play as if each Monster card in either order and each other player gains 2 VP tokens.
---
Setup: Select two cards not in the current kingdom. Those cards are the Monster cards.

The basic idea is simple. It's two cards in one - the cost, text, actions, everything  and you get to play both cards in a single play. (Inspired by jotheonah CopperSmithy in the Bad Card Ideas thread).

And irrevocably broken. Overpowered, over expensive (unless way under priced like Secret Chamber/Poor House). I made a feeble attempt to nerf it by giving the other players victory points on play, but that feels off theme and pasted on. And usually the card would be too expensive. By the time you could reliably afford it, you'd be in the end game. I gave up on it for a while.

version 2

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost: $3
Type: Action*
Choose one:
Return this card to the supply. If you did, add a card from your hand to your Monster Mat.
--or--
Play this as if were the cards on your Monster Mat in any order. This is those cards until it leaves play.
This card shares the type of the cards on your Monster Mat. Cards on Monster Mats are returned to your deck at the end of the game.

Now this is better. The card is functionally still expensive, but now the cost is spread out. To build your monster, you have to buy parts, and keep rebuying monsters. I like the mini-game of competing for monsters. And feels thematic that you could loose control of the monster.

But now it's more like a super Band of Misfits. Instead of being the cards at all times, it's just the sum of its parts while in play.

And what if you put a Stitched-Together Monster on your Monster Mat? Can't let that happen.

version 3

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost: $3
Type: Action*
If there are no Stitched-Together Monsters on your Monster Mat, this is the cards on your Monster Mat and share their types and abilities. You may put this card on your Monster Mat.
Otherwise, return Stitched-Together Monsters on the Monster Mat to the supply, and if you did, set aside a card from your hand face up on your Monster Mat.
Cards on Monster Mats are returned to your deck at the end of the game.

Aagh! Too many words. Solves the problem with putting Stitched-Together Monster on the Monster Mat, but can be better. Maybe splitting it in two.

version 4

Mad Scientist Lab
Cost: $2
Type: Event
Put a card other than Stitched-Together Monster from your hand face up on your Monster Mat.
Cards on Monster Mats are not returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game.

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost: $2 Potion
Type: *
This is the cards on your Monster Mat and share their types and abilities.
Setup: Add Mad Scientist Lab Event.

Much better. At a point where it could be play-tested. Adding a potion cost to Stitched-Together Monster means I can't indirectly put one on the Monster Mat via Band of Misfits or Inheritance. It also delays how fast you can play it. Thematically, it feels like an Alchemy card. (To be honest, I don't feel potions get enough love.)

On the principle of testing the simplest card possible, I removed the requirement to return the Stitched-Together Monster to the supply. I'm tempted to require a Stitched-Together Monster in play for the Mad Scientist Lab. Currently it can be used independent of the Stitched-Together Monster as a highly inefficient trasher. I changed it so the cards are not returned to the decks at the end of the game - putting Provinces on the Monster Mat seemed too powerful otherwise.

I still need to tweak the pricing, and maybe a better name for the event. Starting with a cheap price, just to see how it works out.

[eHalcyon]

It's way too powerful.  Just the VP-multiplying effect is insane (losing the one Province isn't a penalty when you're going to get a large net increase from all the monsters you'll be stockpiling).  Even if you restrict it to only Action cards, I don't think it can be balanced.  Maybe it would be OK if you limited it to 2 or 3 action cards max, maybe with a cost restriction on those action cards.

[Destry]

That's valid - it is a crazy card.

There are some combos - such as Fortress/Feast which would allow you to gain all the cards 5 and under in one turn, unless Bridge is on the table. Then you'd gain all the cards.

Still, I'd like to see if there was a way to make it so it'd be playable on most tables.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Last time someone suggested something like this, what I remember coming out at the end was something that said "Play up to two actions from your mat, in any order. Then return them to your mat." Much less confusing than changing what cards do and or are named/typed.

[GendoIkari]

Last time someone suggested something like this, what I remember coming out at the end was something that said "Play up to two actions from your mat, in any order. Then return them to your mat." Much less confusing than changing what cards do and or are named/typed.

Yeah, this was done pretty recently except I believe it was limited to 2 cards. Don't remember what card it was.

[Gubump]

That's valid - it is a crazy card.

There are some combos - such as Fortress/Feast which would allow you to gain all the cards 5 and under in one turn, unless Bridge is on the table. Then you'd gain all the cards.

Still, I'd like to see if there was a way to make it so it'd be playable on most tables.

Increase the cost of Mad Scientist Lab to $9001. Seriously, though, I don't think that there is a way to fix this. This is more OP than someone with Chuck Norris' and Superman's superpowers multiplied by 10 with none of their weaknesses.

[spiralstaircase]

Perhaps bits should fall off again?  When you play Stitched-Together Monster, one card is discarded, and the others return to your mat?

[Destry]

Perhaps bits should fall off again?  When you play Stitched-Together Monster, one card is discarded, and the others return to your mat?

That sounds good. It should either fall apart or escape.

Latest version

Mad Scientist Lab
Cost:
Type: Event
Return a Stitched-Together Monster from your hand to the supply. If you did, put up to two cards other than Stitched-Together Monster from your hand face up on your Monster Mat.
Cards on Monster Mats are returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game.

Stitched-Together Monster
Cost:
Type: *
This is the cards on your Monster Mat and share their types and abilities.
When played, discard a card from your Monster Mat.
Setup: Add Mad Scientist Lab Event.

This fix addresses the two main issues. It's over-powered if you can just dump VP cards on the Monster Mat, but then you risk losing control of the Monsters. Or you can create a power combo, but then the Monster falls apart and you have to rebuild it.

It looks like the numbers still need to be tweeked. Currently set to what I think are the cheapest costs. I switched it back to cards are returned to decks at end of game since that's the usual behavior.

[eHalcyon]

It still shouldn't allow you to put VP cards on the mat.  Or if you do, it shouldn't be worth VP at all, no matter what's on the mat.

[popsofctown]

It seems like this will be Scrying Pool type overpowered instead of Rebuild type overpowered.  I think there are still ways to tweak the card and make it fill that role even better though.  (like deciding how it should interact with VP, etc.)

[Destry]

It still shouldn't allow you to put VP cards on the mat.  Or if you do, it shouldn't be worth VP at all, no matter what's on the mat.

Why do you say that? I think I messed up the wording a bit, but if it worked as intended, ie each STM is worth the value of Victory Cards on the Monster Mat at the end of the game, what's the problem? If anything, it's a bad strategy.

Take a two player games. If you puts, say, 2 Estate cards on the MM, the value of the STM increases by 2 VP for you. Also for your opponent, since denying the other players VP is the same as gaining them. Since putting the cards on the MM involves returning a STM to the supply, you reduce the total victory points in your deck, and give your opponent more chance to steal them away from you. You're doing all the work for them.

[GendoIkari]

It still shouldn't allow you to put VP cards on the mat.  Or if you do, it shouldn't be worth VP at all, no matter what's on the mat.

Why do you say that? I think I messed up the wording a bit, but if it worked as intended, ie each STM is worth the value of Victory Cards on the Monster Mat at the end of the game, what's the problem? If anything, it's a bad strategy.

Take a two player games. If you puts, say, 2 Estate cards on the MM, the value of the STM increases by 2 VP for you. Also for your opponent, since denying the other players VP is the same as gaining them. Since putting the cards on the MM involves returning a STM to the supply, you reduce the total victory points in your deck, and give your opponent more chance to steal them away from you. You're doing all the work for them.

Not sure what you mean by "also for your opponent"... how are you making STM worth more for your opponent by putting Estates on your own mat?

And forget about Estates... the problem is simply that if you put 2 Provinces on your mat, then suddenly there exists a Victory card that costs and is worth 12 for you. You would never want to buy anything other than STM at that pont.

[Destry]

Let me give a different example. Two player game with the Main set, Workshop, Gardens, Chapel in the set. You go for a Chapel based strategy, your opponents goes for Gardens strategy. You're going for a trim deck where Gardens are worth few points. Do you buy Gardens? Of course, you buy 'em and trash 'em, because any VP you deny your opponent is equivalent to gaining them yourself.

This is a similar situation, except whenever your opponent increases the value of their Gardens, they're returning one to the supply, giving you a chance to keep it from them.

Yeah I do see your point. Still, I think the card can be tweaked enough to keep this from being an automatic strategy without a special rule for Victory Cards. Currently, the opportunity costs make it difficult to buy 2 provinces and put them on the Monster Mat. Making the cards on the MM not return to your deck at the end of the game will blunt the effect slightly.

[Destry]

On second thought, yeah, you're right. That can be a huge strategy.

I'll change it to
"Cards on Monster Mats are returned to the owner's deck at the end of the game before scoring."

Now STM will not be counted as Victory Cards, since the Monster Mat will be empty when scoring."

[eHalcyon]

Depending on the board, no, I usually wouldn't be buying Gardens just to trash them.  I'd be racing to build my engine and end the game before those Gardens get big.

Even if that were a comparable situation though, the Potion cost makes it different.  If you are already going for this card, you'll have Potions to buy it.  If I hadn't gone for it from the start, then doing it just to deny you is a losing strategy.  It's slower (I have to get a Potion or two first) and when I do start buying Monsters, they are going to be much weaker than yours.  Trying to follow your strategy late when it's weaker for me is just a losing proposition.  Either I should focus on what I was doing in the first place or I should have gone for Monsters from the start.  If it counts all VP cards, then the latter is probably the case and the card becomes very centralizing.

[Destry]

Depending on the board, no, I usually wouldn't be buying Gardens just to trash them.  I'd be racing to build my engine and end the game before those Gardens get big.

Of course, everything depends on the board. As a general rule, though, denying your opponent points is a worthwhile tactic, especially in the example I gave above.

Even if that were a comparable situation though, the Potion cost makes it different.  If you are already going for this card, you'll have Potions to buy it.  If I hadn't gone for it from the start, then doing it just to deny you is a losing strategy.  It's slower (I have to get a Potion or two first) and when I do start buying Monsters, they are going to be much weaker than yours.  Trying to follow your strategy late when it's weaker for me is just a losing proposition.  Either I should focus on what I was doing in the first place or I should have gone for Monsters from the start.  If it counts all VP cards, then the latter is probably the case and the card becomes very centralizing.

I agree, that's why I changed the card above so all the cards are on the Monster Mat are returned to the respective decks at the end of the game before scoring, so they cannot be worth any VP. I liked the idea of Stitched-Together Monster could be worth Victory Points at the end of the game, but I don't see a way to make it work (yet).

[eHalcyon]

Depending on the board, no, I usually wouldn't be buying Gardens just to trash them.  I'd be racing to build my engine and end the game before those Gardens get big.

Of course, everything depends on the board. As a general rule, though, denying your opponent points is a worthwhile tactic, especially in the example I gave above.

Even if that were a comparable situation though, the Potion cost makes it different.  If you are already going for this card, you'll have Potions to buy it.  If I hadn't gone for it from the start, then doing it just to deny you is a losing strategy.  It's slower (I have to get a Potion or two first) and when I do start buying Monsters, they are going to be much weaker than yours.  Trying to follow your strategy late when it's weaker for me is just a losing proposition.  Either I should focus on what I was doing in the first place or I should have gone for Monsters from the start.  If it counts all VP cards, then the latter is probably the case and the card becomes very centralizing.

I agree, that's why I changed the card above so all the cards are on the Monster Mat are returned to the respective decks at the end of the game before scoring, so they cannot be worth any VP. I liked the idea of Stitched-Together Monster could be worth Victory Points at the end of the game, but I don't see a way to make it work (yet).

Yeah I was just answering your questions from reply #13; the change you mentioned in #14 mostly addresses that issue.  As a general rule, denying in the way you described is usually not a great tactic, and I explained why.

Anyway, a concern with it now is that the Lab event is arguably way better than Island, because you can stash VP away immediately and for lower cost instead of having to wait a shuffle and hoping the Island collides with a good target.  It's not a dealbreaker (the 2VP on Island still counts for something) but it's something to keep in mind.

[Destry]

Anyway, a concern with it now is that the Lab event is arguably way better than Island, because you can stash VP away immediately and for lower cost instead of having to wait a shuffle and hoping the Island collides with a good target.  It's not a dealbreaker (the 2VP on Island still counts for something) but it's something to keep in mind.

Yeah, that's a concern. I think the current cost, opportunity and otherwise, are balanced. It's not strictly better than Island.

You have to have a STM in hand to return to the supply, and pay the when you buy the MSL event (Man, I need to change these to shorter names) before you can put 2 cards on the MM. It's a one-shot that can't be throne-roomed.

It should put up to two cards on the MM so you can build a worthwhile monster that can be played a couple times before falling apart. Even then it may be too slow. I need to mock up some cards and try it out.

[eHalcyon]

Oops, forgot you had to return a card to the supply to put something on the mat.  Never mind, it's not going to be better than Island.