Print

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

[darkandstormy]

Capital states that "when you discard this from play, take 6 debt"

If, in a game where Bonfire is present, the player buys Bonfire to trash his/her Capital(s), does this mean that Capital was not discarded from play?
(E.g. Gained $3 at the expense of trashing one Capital, or gained $9 + 1 Buy at the expense of trashing 2)

[GendoIkari]

Correct. Similar to cards like Counterfeit, Mandarin, or Herbalist, it’s a good combo for Capital.

[crj]

Correct. Similar to cards like Counterfeit, Mandarin, or Herbalist, it’s a good combo for Capital.

It's legal, but is it really "good"? I'm struggling to see a situation in which using up a buy and $3 so you can trash a $5-cost card to avoid 6 debt would be an attractive line of play!

[Kirian]

Correct. Similar to cards like Counterfeit, Mandarin, or Herbalist, it’s a good combo for Capital.

It's legal, but is it really "good"? I'm struggling to see a situation in which using up a buy and $3 so you can trash a $5-cost card to avoid 6 debt would be an attractive line of play!

If you know you won't shuffle again, it's a net $3 for your next turn.

[werothegreat]

Correct. Similar to cards like Counterfeit, Mandarin, or Herbalist, it’s a good combo for Capital.

It's legal, but is it really "good"? I'm struggling to see a situation in which using up a buy and $3 so you can trash a $5-cost card to avoid 6 debt would be an attractive line of play!

I'm sure someone can finagle something with Graverobbers.  Probably use 2 Capitals, since Bonfire can trash up to 2.

[Awaclus]

Correct. Similar to cards like Counterfeit, Mandarin, or Herbalist, it’s a good combo for Capital.

It's legal, but is it really "good"? I'm struggling to see a situation in which using up a buy and $3 so you can trash a $5-cost card to avoid 6 debt would be an attractive line of play!

It's not a good strategy, but it can be a valid tactical move.

[GendoIkari]

Yeah I really wasn't meaning to comment on the strength of the strategy behind it... I should have said "valid", not "good", in that it is a combo; those other cards do get around the usual drawback of Capital.