Print

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

[GeneralRamos]

Cloister

Points of a Duchy given in chip form when you buy it, but itself a dead card in your deck. However, you can get rid of it like Hovel, potentially giving you the points without the deck space.

Labyrinth

Like a Tunnel, except that it gives VP tokens instead of Golds. Favors kingdoms with strong sifting or discard attacks, but still bears 2 points so it isn't dead in a kingdom without.

Latifundia

A VP with exponential point value (1=1; 2=4; 3=9; 4=16; 5=25; 6=36). Caps at 6, though, unlike Duke. Might be better priced at $5.

[Gubump]

Cloister

Points of a Duchy given in chip form when you buy it, but itself a dead card in your deck. However, you can get rid of it like Hovel, potentially giving you the points without the deck space.

I like this one. It doesn't really even need to be a Victory card, it could just be a pure Reaction.

Labyrinth

Like a Tunnel, except that it gives VP tokens instead of Golds. Favors kingdoms with strong sifting or discard attacks, but still bears 2 points so it isn't dead in a kingdom without.

This is probably significantly worse than a Tunnel. +1VP as opposed to "gain a gold" is terrible. It's strictly better than an Estate, though, so I would raise its reaction effect to +2VP and drop its cost to $4.

Latifundia

A VP with exponential point value (1=1; 2=4; 3=9; 4=16; 5=25; 6=36). Caps at 6, though, unlike Duke. Might be better priced at $5.

Speaking of Duke, this is what Duke used to be, but with a cap. The problem with that is that it has to cost enough for it to be hard to get a lot of them, but then it's overpriced when you don't. A cap of 6VP still has that problem. Now, if it had a cap of 3VP, then it would be interesting.

[drsteelhammer]

Cloister sounds awesome,  drawing your deck and replacing your previous cloister sounds pretty neat. May be pretty fun with Bishop. I'm not sure whether it should have an on-buy clause, since otherwise it's pretty game-breaking with Graverobber and Rogue.

Labyrinth sounds cool too, maybe needs a slight buff.

I don't like the Latifunda concept  I think losing the split 3-5 is pretty unrewarding since it costs you 16VP, which is more significant than the Province split! There it's also literally unignorable, which is quite bad for Alt-VP. There is probably no kingdom where you don't want this except some golden deck ones.

[AJD]

I don't think Labyrinth can have the same VP value as Tunnel and the same reaction trigger (discarding) but have different costs. There are no other pairs of Reaction cards that have that relationship, and it's for a good reason—especially since discarding isn't available on all that many boards.

[eHalcyon]

I agree that Cloister is cool, and even though it doesn't have to be a Victory, I think it would be fine with that type anyway.

Labyrinth... is tricky.  Generally speaking, I agree with AJD that it could probably cost $3.  That said, gaining a Gold vs. gaining a VP have different value curves.  The Gold is going to be better most of the time, but if you gain lots, then the VP is more valuable.  I'm not sure what would be the most abusive use of Labyrinth.  Rebuild?  But then the game will end quickly anyway.  Maybe Golem.  Still, $3 or maybe $4 would probably be fine.  $5 sounds too expensive.

I'm not a fan of Latifundia, even with a cap.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think Labyrinth is usually going to be really bad, and then occasionally be brokenly strong.  Also, I think never-ending games might come up too often.  I expect the main use for it is in over-drawing engines.  With cards like Secret Chamber, Vault, Cellar, Storeroom, Warehouse, probably others, you can draw everything, discard a bunch of Labyrinths, re-draw them and repeat to generate a ton of VP.  With a deck of 2 Tacticians and 8 Labyrinths (and possibly the trasher that got you to that point), you can generate 8 VP every turn.  Fortunately in that case the game might still end since if both players go for it they'll split the Labyrinths and have some room in their deck for other cards.  But that's the sort of situation I'm worried about.

But I hope you can make it work out because it's a pretty cool idea.

[wachsmuth]

I'm not sure what would be the most abusive use of Labyrinth.  Rebuild?

8x King's Court - 5x Scheme - 10x Adventurer - 1 Storeroom - 8x Labyrinth is a Golden Deck with Labyrinth that generates about 250 VP every turn. Admittedly not a very realistic engine.

[LastFootnote]

I agree with Gubump that Cloister should be a pure Reaction. It's sort of cute to have it be a Victory card, but it would be better if it didn't have two dividing lines. It could say "When you buy a Cloister or a Victory card…"

EDIT: I like the idea of Cloister, though! I think it's worth testing.

Labyrinth seems like a bad idea. Basically the only reason to buy it is to make a golden deck that doesn't move toward ending the game.

As Gubump points out, Latifundia is not a new idea. Donald tried it, and the cap of 6 VP won't fix the issues he had. But I disagree that a cap of 3 VP would make the card interesting. A formula VP card that caps out at 3 VP is just so unexciting. It's basically: Duchies cost $4 this game.

[GendoIkari]

I'm not sure what would be the most abusive use of Labyrinth.  Rebuild?

8x King's Court - 5x Scheme - 10x Adventurer - 1 Storeroom - 8x Labyrinth is a Golden Deck with Labyrinth that generates about 250 VP every turn. Admittedly not a very realistic engine.

I knew Adventurer was overpowered.

[trivialknot]

The fact that Cloister is a victory card causes it to have a supply of 8 (12) cards in a 2 (3+) player game.  I think that's a desirable property.

[GeneralRamos]

Thanks to all for the feedback. I think I will keep Cloister as a Victory. Overgrown Estate has shown us you don't need to give VP to be a Victory, and I like the interesting interactions that arise from it being one. But mostly, because I like the idea of being able to trash a Cloister from buying a Cloister. The inspiration for this initially came from Farmland. I will definitely consider making it "when you buy" instead of "when you gain." But that of course kills some other interesting card interactions with it.

Labyrinth--yeah, I see the problem with the endless game there. I'm now wondering if it might help to reword it as a Reserve-Reaction. "When you would discard this from your hand, put it on your Tavern mat instead. At the start of your turn, you may call this from your tavern mat for +1 VP token." Still spamable, but slower. I'd have to re-evaluate whether it needs to bear points and what the price should be. It'd give you a modest benefit as a handsize-attack reactor. And I kinda like the idea of trying to come up with a Reaction-Reserve that is not an action, treasure, or victory as well. I welcome thoughts on how to achieve this.

Latifundia--I also understand the problem there. Is the concept salvageable with a cap at 4 pts, and a price of $6? In 2 and 3 player, the competition then is just to get to the split, and if you can get 1 more than that you edge someone out of the optimal points, but it's not directly competing with Duchy. If unsalvageable, I'll just have to come up with another point concept, because I like the name Latifundia too much.

[LastFootnote]

The fact that Cloister is a victory card causes it to have a supply of 8 (12) cards in a 2 (3+) player game.  I think that's a desirable property.

That's a good point, but I don't think it's worth the extra dividing line and the space taken up by the big "0 VP".

[LastFootnote]

I will definitely consider making it "when you buy" instead of "when you gain." But that of course kills some other interesting card interactions with it.

It's already "when you buy" in your images.

For Labyrinth, I guess you could make it an Action/Reserve that did something good when you played it, then gave VP when you called it. Ideally you'd only be able to call it when you did something that advanced the game, like gaining/trashing a specific kind of card.

I don't know that Latifundia is salvageable.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think Labyrinth can have the same VP value as Tunnel and the same reaction trigger (discarding) but have different costs. There are no other pairs of Reaction cards that have that relationship, and it's for a good reason—especially since discarding isn't available on all that many boards.

Can you explain this more? I can see good arguments that is too expensive for Labrynth, but I don't see why it can't cost different from Tunnel; since what you get when you discard it is completely different. For example, what if it gave you a Silver when you discarded it? Then it would have to cost less than so that it isn't strictly worse than Tunnel.

[GendoIkari]

I really like the first 2, though like others said perhaps Labrynth can be cheaper. I like that Cloister is a VP card. Not only because of changing the number that are available, but because it just makes sense; it's designed to give you VP.

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

[LastFootnote]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

[GendoIkari]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

Am I right that no official card has 2 dividing lines?

[GendoIkari]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I'm confused... it costs , because it is strictly better than Duchy.

[LastFootnote]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

Am I right that no official card has 2 dividing lines?

Yes, that's correct. Normally "it hasn't been done on an official card" isn't a good reason not to do something, but I think two dividing lines is both ugly and a sign that the card is more complex than it should be.

[GendoIkari]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I did just realize that my version is slightly weaker... because you can't just trash it normally and keep the 3VP.

[LastFootnote]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I'm confused... it costs , because it is strictly better than Duchy.

Sure. But you're never going to think, "Do I buy this, or Duchy"? I guess that's not a problem if you buy this card significantly earlier than Duchy, which you very well might. But you'd want to playtest to see if that actually happens. If people mostly buy it at the end of the game, it's not providing much gameplay value.

[GendoIkari]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I'm confused... it costs , because it is strictly better than Duchy.

Sure. But you're never going to think, "Do I buy this, or Duchy"? I guess that's not a problem if you buy this card significantly earlier than Duchy, which you very well might. But you'd want to playtest to see if that actually happens. If people mostly buy it at the end of the game, it's not providing much gameplay value.

Is there a reason that the version in the OP doesn't do the exact same thing? It's clearly strictly better than Duchy as written. Just like how Duchy is strictly better than Estate... you buy it if you can afford it.

[LastFootnote]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I'm confused... it costs , because it is strictly better than Duchy.

Sure. But you're never going to think, "Do I buy this, or Duchy"? I guess that's not a problem if you buy this card significantly earlier than Duchy, which you very well might. But you'd want to playtest to see if that actually happens. If people mostly buy it at the end of the game, it's not providing much gameplay value.

Is there a reason that the version in the OP doesn't do the exact same thing? It's clearly strictly better than Duchy as written. Just like how Duchy is strictly better than Estate... you buy it if you can afford it.

No, I wasn't criticizing your version specifically. But your version made me realize this potential issue that both versions have.

[GendoIkari]

If you wanted, you could also simply make it worth 3 VP, and then have a "when you buy a victory card, you may trash this from your hand. If you do gain 3 VP tokens" thing. That way, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate dividing lines, and people wouldn't complain about a VP card that is worth 0 VP.

Yes, this!

For the record, I have no problem with a Kingdom Victory card worth 0 VP. I don't like the two dividing lines, though.

EDIT: You know, looking at it this way, it's not as interesting as it could be, since you're often buying it with $6 or $7 just because it's better than Duchy. I guess it could be worth less VP and give more tokens when you activate it, but then it's pretty close to Distant Lands. Maybe it plays differently enough.

I'm confused... it costs , because it is strictly better than Duchy.

Sure. But you're never going to think, "Do I buy this, or Duchy"? I guess that's not a problem if you buy this card significantly earlier than Duchy, which you very well might. But you'd want to playtest to see if that actually happens. If people mostly buy it at the end of the game, it's not providing much gameplay value.

Is there a reason that the version in the OP doesn't do the exact same thing? It's clearly strictly better than Duchy as written. Just like how Duchy is strictly better than Estate... you buy it if you can afford it.

No, I wasn't criticizing your version specifically. But your version made me realize this potential issue that both versions have.

I guess it's true that there are no cards that are strictly better versions of cards... just like the relationship between and . But when I read the OP, I immediately thought of it as an improved Duchy that just costs more. Though I see how my version makes it a bit more obvious.

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't think Labyrinth can have the same VP value as Tunnel and the same reaction trigger (discarding) but have different costs. There are no other pairs of Reaction cards that have that relationship, and it's for a good reason—especially since discarding isn't available on all that many boards.

Can you explain this more? I can see good arguments that is too expensive for Labrynth, but I don't see why it can't cost different from Tunnel; since what you get when you discard it is completely different. For example, what if it gave you a Silver when you discarded it? Then it would have to cost less than so that it isn't strictly worse than Tunnel.

I think he's saying there are too many boards with no discarding available (or where Tunnel/Labyrinth aren't good enough reason to go for the discarding), and on those boards, Labyrinth is identical to Tunnel but more expensive.  At $5 it's particularly bad because then you would also never buy it over Duchy (though it becomes relevant when Duchies run out I guess).

A card that's identical to Tunnel except that it gives you Silver instead of Gold and possibly costs something else wouldn't exist because it compares unfavorably to Tunnel at $3 but is better than Estate at $2, so I'm not sure what you're saying there.  If the benefit on discard was something really amazing so that you were sure it should cost $5 or more to be balanced on average, I think AJD's concern would still be valid.