Print

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

[scott_pilgrim]

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.

I think it's not just a matter of the difference in cost.  It may turn out that a Duchy+ runs into the same problems as a Silver+, because Duchy is available in every game.  Probably the issues won't be as noticeable since the gap between $5 and $6 is bigger than the gap between $3 and $4, and also because of the role that Duchy normally plays in your deck compared to Silver.  But it's at least something to watch out for.

[LastFootnote]

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.

I don't think it's necessarily a problem for a $6 card to be strictly better than a $5 card. If they're both Kingdom cards, they won't even show up together very often. But for a $6 card that's strictly better than Duchy, it's like, how much gameplay value is this really providing? As an academic exercise it's fine, but as an actual card that you have to buy or print-and-sleeve, it doesn't pass muster.

Now I'm not saying that Cloister definitely has this problem. If it turns out that you want to start on the Cloisters early and buy them throughout the game, that's good gameplay value. But if you just buy them when you would normally buy Duchies, that's probably not worth printing.

[GendoIkari]

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).

Ah yes, this is a good point.

[Gubump]

I guess it's true that there are no cards that are strictly better versions of cards... just like the relationship between and .

Mining Village, Worker's Village, Farming Village, Fortress, Wandering Minstrel (although this one isn't necessarily strictly better since it discards Treasures), Plaza, Port, Walled Village, Scavenger, and Messenger all say hello (they're strictly better versions of $3 cards at $4).

Messenger > Woodcutter & Chancellor
Scavenger > Chancellor
Everything else > Village

[GendoIkari]

I guess it's true that there are no cards that are strictly better versions of cards... just like the relationship between and .

Mining Village, Worker's Village, Farming Village, Fortress, Wandering Minstrel (although this one isn't necessarily strictly better since it discards Treasures), Plaza, Port, Walled Village, Scavenger, and Messenger all say hello (they're strictly better versions of $3 cards at $4).

Messenger > Woodcutter & Chancellor
Scavenger > Chancellor
Everything else > Village

Oh duh. I guess what I said is only true for better-than-Silver cards. Because of what LF said, that Silver is in every game.

[eHalcyon]

I have misgivings about double dividing lines too, but I think this concept is both simple enough and interesting enough to give it a pass.

To avoid this potential "better than Duchy" problem, how about something like this:

Cloister
$6 Victory-Reaction
Worth 1VP
When you gain a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
When you trash this, +3VP tokens.

I think something like this version has already been mentioned, but not put forward explicitly.  So the trick here is that Cloister is more expensive but less valuable than a Duchy.  If the game is going to end soon, you'll prefer the Duchy.  Otherwise, you'll have to decide whether you'll be able to trash it in time for it to matter, either by gaining another Victory card or with a trasher.

It could cost $5 instead, which would make the choice between it and Duchy come up a little more often.  It could be worth 2VP to start, to make the risk worthwhile more often.

[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.

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.

Right. And in general, there are no two Reactions with the same above-the-line text.

[faust]

I have misgivings about double dividing lines too, but I think this concept is both simple enough and interesting enough to give it a pass.

To avoid this potential "better than Duchy" problem, how about something like this:

Cloister
$6 Victory-Reaction
Worth 1VP
When you gain a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
When you trash this, +3VP tokens.

I think something like this version has already been mentioned, but not put forward explicitly.  So the trick here is that Cloister is more expensive but less valuable than a Duchy.  If the game is going to end soon, you'll prefer the Duchy.  Otherwise, you'll have to decide whether you'll be able to trash it in time for it to matter, either by gaining another Victory card or with a trasher.

It could cost $5 instead, which would make the choice between it and Duchy come up a little more often.  It could be worth 2VP to start, to make the risk worthwhile more often.

I don't like this version because Distant Lands exists. The concept of "risky investment" is covered by Distant Lands, and Distant Lands is more exciting than this.

The simple version to solve the Duchy problem is of course to make Cloister as in the OP, but have it cost $4 and make it only give 2 VP.

[eHalcyon]

I have misgivings about double dividing lines too, but I think this concept is both simple enough and interesting enough to give it a pass.

To avoid this potential "better than Duchy" problem, how about something like this:

Cloister
$6 Victory-Reaction
Worth 1VP
When you gain a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
When you trash this, +3VP tokens.

I think something like this version has already been mentioned, but not put forward explicitly.  So the trick here is that Cloister is more expensive but less valuable than a Duchy.  If the game is going to end soon, you'll prefer the Duchy.  Otherwise, you'll have to decide whether you'll be able to trash it in time for it to matter, either by gaining another Victory card or with a trasher.

It could cost $5 instead, which would make the choice between it and Duchy come up a little more often.  It could be worth 2VP to start, to make the risk worthwhile more often.

I don't like this version because Distant Lands exists. The concept of "risky investment" is covered by Distant Lands, and Distant Lands is more exciting than this.

The simple version to solve the Duchy problem is of course to make Cloister as in the OP, but have it cost $4 and make it only give 2 VP.

Hmm, Fair enough.  But I think the risk is different enough.  For comparison, I think my version is "too similar" to Distant Lands in the same way that your version would be "too similar" to Island.

[GeneralRamos]

Wow, never expected Cloister would provoke such a discussion! My expectation would be that, as originally posted, it players would ideally go for it early in order to fuel some early VP without clogging the deck (whenever possible, when cloister is in hand, buy cloister). Clearly in late game when clogging is going to happen anyway, the difference is negligible. Would it be better to make it cost $4 and give 2VP tokens on-buy instead?
I prefer to keep the VP gain on-buy rather than on-trash. I like the idea of it being a hovel for you once you've bought it and got your VP. Makes an interesting passing card for Masquerade. And I'm not much concerned about it having two lines. It's minimal text and simple conceptually.

An alternate version of Labyrinth:

In trying to make a similar VP token gain effect but avoid the infinite spamability of, say, a tiny deck full of Labyrinths and Warehouses, I came up with this. The VP is still potentially limitless, but the speed you can gain it is not enough to allow you to beat your opponent without going for traditional VP.
It's a Reserve-Reaction. (Yeah, I know there's no official card like this.) It reacts to reshuffles. It never clogs your deck (except, say, gaining it through Armory). But you can only call it for points one at a time, and only at the start of your turn. Not sure whether I nerfed it too much or not quite enough.
Rule clarification: Only Labyrinths that are actually in your deck when you shuffle it are subject to Labyrinth's ability. If you have any Labyrinths in your hand or play area when you shuffle your deck, they stay where they are.

[eHalcyon]

I think your original version of Cloister is more interesting than $4 for 2VP, but it's not a big deal either way.  But your "hovel after gain" concept is still mostly intact even if it gives the tokens on trash and is just worth VP normally.

The new version of Labyrinth needs to clarify how the reaction works, probably with a "reveal this from your hand".  Also, from an aesthetic perspective, I think it feels weird for the reaction text to be on the reserve colour and the reserve text to be on the reaction colour.

[GeneralRamos]

Yeah, good point. For the reaction part, I basically used Stash's wording because it is most similar. I posted the modified version of its rules clarification:

Only Labyrinths that are actually in your deck when you shuffle it are subject to Labyrinth's ability. If you have any Labyrinths in your hand or play area when you shuffle your deck, they stay where they are.

But I should probably find a way to word it clearly on the card.

[eHalcyon]

Yeah, good point. For the reaction part, I basically used Stash's wording because it is most similar. I posted the modified version of its rules clarification:

Only Labyrinths that are actually in your deck when you shuffle it are subject to Labyrinth's ability. If you have any Labyrinths in your hand or play area when you shuffle your deck, they stay where they are.

But I should probably find a way to word it clearly on the card.

Ah, well, then I'm not sure it should be a Reaction at all.  Stash isn't a Reaction, after all.

[LastFootnote]

Regarding the Reaction–Reserve Labyrinth: The point of Reserve cards is that you can save them for when you need them. But you pretty much want to call Labyrinth as soon as possible, right? Why is this not just a cantrip Action that makes VP (which is a bad idea, but this is no better)?

[GeneralRamos]

Regarding the Reaction–Reserve Labyrinth: The point of Reserve cards is that you can save them for when you need them. But you pretty much want to call Labyrinth as soon as possible, right? Why is this not just a cantrip Action that makes VP (which is a bad idea, but this is no better)?

Yes, you want to use them as soon as possible. But you can't use them all at the same time. If you have three Reaction–Reserve Labyrinths, when you shuffle they all go to the mat (provided they weren't in hand) but you can only play one each subsequent turn. Unlike an action card producing VP, where you could potentially play them all in one turn.

As to Stash/Reaction, one can certainly make the case it this Labyrinth shouldn't be a reaction. But it seemed like it might warrant the notice given that you may make it do something other than get put in the deck, and that it is optional.

[GendoIkari]

I don't see how saying you can put it on your Tavern mat when you shuffle is sufficiently different from making it an action-reserve that gives +1 action when played. It just makes it a bit stronger, because you'll always hit it at the start of your shuffle.

[trivialknot]

I enjoyed the whole discussion about the problems with a $6-cost Duchy+, and I agree with LFN.  I had also been trying to design a victory card, and I had to change it because of precisely that problem.

If Cloister is a $4-cost 2VP card, then it starts to look similar to Island.  That's not as bad as the comparison to Duchy, because Duchy is always in play and Island usually isn't.  But next to Island, Cloister looks relatively weak, since it's harder to get rid of and doesn't set aside any other cards.  So maybe it would be better if Cloister cost $3.  Alternatively, you could go bigger!  Maybe $7 or $8 for 4VP.

Re: Labyrinth.  Effectively, this is a cantrip that gives you VP.  The main differences are that you get 2 VP per turn maximum, and it's more reliable (never skipping a shuffle and never colliding).

This strikes me as OP.  If a game lasts 15-20 turns, you could get about 20-30 VP from it instead of wasting your time building an engine or whatever.

[AJD]

But next to Island, Cloister looks relatively weak, since it's harder to get rid of and doesn't set aside any other cards.

Is it harder to get rid of? Getting rid of Island but keeping the 2 points is a terminal action; you can get rid of Cloister with any non-terminal trasher or trash-for-benefit, or a buy, and keep the points.

[trivialknot]

But next to Island, Cloister looks relatively weak, since it's harder to get rid of and doesn't set aside any other cards.

Is it harder to get rid of? Getting rid of Island but keeping the 2 points is a terminal action; you can get rid of Cloister with any non-terminal trasher or trash-for-benefit, or a buy, and keep the points.

I was just thinking about the "buy a Victory card" method of trashing, which is usually more opportunity cost than playing an action.  But it's true that you could use another trasher.

On the other hand, is that really the point of the card?  Cloister has two main properties: (a) +2 VP even if you trash it, and (b) you can trash it like a hovel.  I thought the main point was (b), but when there are other trashers (a) is the stronger effect.  We could isolate property (b) like so:

Cloister - Victory/Reaction, $3
2 VP
When you gain a victory card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, trash it and +2 VP.

ETA: I guess GendoIkari already suggested this upthread (but with $6 and 3 VP)

[GeneralRamos]

Two more attempts at alternate versions of Labyrinth:


And another idea that came about while observing the discussion about Island and thinking about Reserve cards:

It effectively Islands a Victory card when you buy it, if you have previously set it on your Tavern mat. Not strictly better or worse than Island, though. It doesn't have the tricky problem of getting Island to align with a Victory card (or whatever). And it can do it multiple times in the course of a game, not only once. But it can't be used to Island cards already in your deck. And it gives no points itself.
Rules clarifications: after you call the Archipelago into play, it is discarded at the end of the turn. When you call archipelago, you may only put one bought victory card on the Tavern mat.

[AJD]

Point of order: Archipelago should be "when you gain", not "when you buy".

[GeneralRamos]

Well, not if I want to restrict it to buying and not gaining in general. Which I did. But I don't have a great reason for so doing.

[AJD]

No, it really has to be "when you gain". "When you buy X, put it somewhere" causes a bunch of rules screwups. Things that happen "when you buy" a card take place before you gain the card you bought.

[GeneralRamos]

Ah, yes, you're absolutely right. It does need to be gain here then.

[Deadlock39]

It is awkward, but if you really want to restrict it, you can probably do this sort of thing:

When you gain a Victory card, if you bought it, you may...