Print

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

[spiralstaircase]

Trench
Action - Reaction - $5
At the start of your next buy phase, +1 buy and +$2 per unused buy.
---
While this is in play, cards cost +$1.
If another player gains a card other than during a buy phase, you may play this card.

Is this fair at $5?  Should it be an attack?  Should it be a duration?

Leper
Action - Attack - $4
Gain a copper and a silver, putting them into your hand.
Each other player gains a curse.  If they do, they gain a Leper.

Does this seem fair at $4?

[Gubump]

Trench
Action - Reaction - $5
At the start of your next buy phase, +1 buy and +$2 per unused buy.
---
While this is in play, cards cost +$1.
If another player gains a card other than during a buy phase, you may play this card.

Is this fair at $5?  Should it be an attack?  Should it be a duration?

Leper
Action - Attack - $4
Gain a copper and a silver, putting them into your hand.
Each other player gains a curse.  If they do, they gain a Leper.

Does this seem fair at $4?

Leper seems fine, except Curse, Copper, and Silver should all be capitalized. Trench has some clarity issues. Here's what I think you're trying to say:

Trench:
At the start of your buy phase, +1 Buy, and +$2 per unused buy you have.
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more (this applies [after/before] cost-reducing effects).
When another player gains a card outside of his buy phase, you may play this from your hand.
Cost: $5
Action - Duration - Reaction - Attack

It should be a Duration and an Attack, but it only works as either if you do the reaction. I added the clause in parentheses because the order for applying cost-reducers vs cost increasers matters for things that cost $0, because if reduction happened first, they would cost $1 after this, but if increasing happened first, the cost would remain at $0 (I suggest increasing applying first).

[spiralstaircase]

It should be a Duration and an Attack, but it only works as either if you do the reaction.

OK, thanks.  I'm not sure I like the idea of it being an attack (If the other player plays Moat, do cards cost different things for different people?) but having it be a Duration makes sense.

I added the clause in parentheses because the order for applying cost-reducers vs cost increasers matters for things that cost $0, because if reduction happened first, they would cost $1 after this, but if increasing happened first, the cost would remain at $0 (I suggest increasing applying first).

Interesting - I hadn't considered that it would be ambiguous.  I'd assumed that they would apply in the order they were played - so if I played Bridge then Trench coppers would cost $1, but if I played Trench then Bridge coppers would cost $0.

[eHalcyon]

The timing of the cost increase is ambiguous because it's a "while this is in play" effect, not something that happens when you play it.  It's an important difference.  Not a fan of cost increasing as an attack in general because it can break the game in certain scenarios, especially with more than 2 players.

The on-play effect might as well just say "per Buy".  Buys don't get used before your Buy phase anyway; there's no difference between "Buy" and "unused Buy" in this context... unless you have some other odd timing in mind for it?

And yeah, the effect does not interact nicely with Moat.

[Asper]

I added the clause in parentheses because the order for applying cost-reducers vs cost increasers matters for things that cost $0, because if reduction happened first, they would cost $1 after this, but if increasing happened first, the cost would remain at $0 (I suggest increasing applying first).

Interesting - I hadn't considered that it would be ambiguous.  I'd assumed that they would apply in the order they were played - so if I played Bridge then Trench coppers would cost $1, but if I played Trench then Bridge coppers would cost $0.

One problem here is that cost-reducers are not consistent. Bridge reduces costs as an on-play effect (above a dividing line), so one could argue it's timed. Trench, Highway, Quarry, Princess and Bridge Troll, on the other hand, are "while in play", so one could argue the check for them being in play "runs in the background" all the time (to use a programmer's metaphor). A similar thing applies to Peddler and Ferry.

I personally would argue order matters for Bridge, but not for the other cards, and this means an already complicated mechanic (seriously, everybody i play with always forgets to gain stuff when upgrading after Bridge, etc) becomes even more complex. Which, in turn, would be a problem even IF there was an official ruling for stuff like this.

[GendoIkari]

Increasing costs on other players' turns as an attack is something that's already been thought of and reworked by Donald. Twice in fact. Cutpurse and Bridge Troll are both essentially versions of that without all the various issues that go along with it.