Print

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

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

Here's a card I thought of.

Travellers Village
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Next time you would play an Action card this turn, you may play it as if it was another Action card in the supply, costing up to the cost of the played card in $.

What do you think? Is it overpowered? Does it have wording issues?

[gambit05]

Cool!

Do you really need the Village instructions? I would give it at most +1 Action.

For the wording, a first suggestions that probably has to be fine tuned:

For the next Action card you play this turn,
instead of following its instructions, follow those of
a different Action card* in the Supply, costing the
same or less.

*Edit: ...of an Action card with a different name...

Is that roughly what you intended to do with that card? The last bit does not cover Potion costs. So, if it was your intention to include those, you have to change that bit.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

The extra action is helpful if you want to play the second action as a terminal draw, but you're right that it makes it kind of powerful. Also, I would have to come up with a different name for it. I try to use a wording that's similar to that of Overlord. I don't have the Alchemy or Empires expansion, so I don't have too much concern (maybe not as much as I should) of weird cost compatability. There are many cards that have poor interactions with weird cost cards, and most of the cards with weird cost you want to play for their original instructions anyway. That's also why I want to make the changing of the effect optional. I considered a wording like "Instead of following its instructions", but when you put "you may" into it it is unclear if you get any effect at all if you don't want to play another card. "Instead of following it's instructions, you may" can mean either that you may follow its instructions OR that you never follow them.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I also wanted for you to be able to make all of your Action cards into villages, and considered removing the draw, but a cantrip version maybe would be better?

[gambit05]

The extra action is helpful if you want to play the second action as a terminal draw, but you're right that it makes it kind of powerful. Also, I would have to come up with a different name for it.

I mean finding a good name shouldn’t have the highest priority. You could name it Travelling Lodge if you like.

I try to use a wording that's similar to that of Overlord. I don't have the Alchemy or Empires expansion, so I don't have too much concern (maybe not as much as I should) of weird cost compatability.

Just an example of different costs. Village costs $3, Familiar costs $3+Potion. If I interpret your wording and intention correctly, than you could play a Village first and then choose to follow the instructions of Familiar, which is quite a nasty attack card, usually restricted by the need to buy a Potion first. So, in short, you should keep such things in mind.

There are many cards that have poor interactions with weird cost cards, and most of the cards with weird cost you want to play for their original instructions anyway. That's also why I want to make the changing of the effect optional. I considered a wording like "Instead of following its instructions", but when you put "you may" into it it is unclear if you get any effect at all if you don't want to play another card. "Instead of following it's instructions, you may" can mean either that you may follow its instructions OR that you never follow them.

If you want the instructions optional, just delete the part “different name” (“another”), then you can play the same card, just from the Supply (if it isn’t empty).

I also wanted for you to be able to make all of your Action cards into villages, and considered removing the draw, but a cantrip version maybe would be better?

I don’t understand what you mean with this. Why do you want all cards to be Villages. That seems to be an overkill and quite boring too.

How about (without any Vanilla boni):

You may play an Action card from your hand.
Instead of following its instructions, follow
those of an Action card in the Supply,
costing the same or less.

This is more or less what you want I guess (except the Village part, but I totally disagree with that) with some minor differences (e.g. empty pile). If you prevented all kinds of loops with that wording, I don't know.

[faust]

I feel like "play this as if it were another card" comes with potential issues that can be avoided with the current thing such cards do, play cards from the supply. The wording would then be

The next time you play an Action this turn, you may ignore its text, to play an Action costing up to the cost of the played card in $ from the supply, leaving it there.

Also, the phrasing "another Action card from the supply" seems to suggest that you don't want this to allow playing a card as itself (for instance in order to avoid returning Encampment to the supply). however, that wording does not prevent playing Encampment in play as Encampment in the supply, as the two are not the same card. If you want to achieve that, you probably need to include a "differently named".

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I try to use a wording that's similar to that of Overlord. I don't have the Alchemy or Empires expansion, so I don't have too much concern (maybe not as much as I should) of weird cost compatability.

Just an example of different costs. Village costs $3, Familiar costs $3+Potion. If I interpret your wording and intention correctly, than you could play a Village first and then choose to follow the instructions of Familiar, which is quite a nasty attack card, usually restricted by the need to buy a Potion first. So, in short, you should keep such things in mind.

As I interpret the wording, you are able to play a Familiar as a Village, but not the other way around. I guess it's the difference between "Costing up to (cost of the played card in $)" and "Costing up to (cost of played card) in $", and I think that the first interpretation is the most logical one, but I will probably change it to the (slightly more akward but harder to misinterpret) wording of "costing the same or less" anyways.

I also wanted for you to be able to make all of your Action cards into villages, and considered removing the draw, but a cantrip version maybe would be better?

I don’t understand what you mean with this. Why do you want all cards to be Villages. That seems to be an overkill and quite boring too.

What I meant with that was that when I played the other card I wanted for it to always have a possible target in the supply, but now I don't think that it is too necessary. I added it to an early draft of this, which was a Reaction card that let you play cards as other cards in the supply when you revealed it, and the village part was added to that for it to always have an useful target in the supply.

I feel like "play this as if it were another card" comes with potential issues that can be avoided with the current thing such cards do, play cards from the supply. The wording would then be

The next time you play an Action this turn, you may ignore its text, to play an Action costing up to the cost of the played card in $ from the supply, leaving it there.

Also, the phrasing "another Action card from the supply" seems to suggest that you don't want this to allow playing a card as itself (for instance in order to avoid returning Encampment to the supply). however, that wording does not prevent playing Encampment in play as Encampment in the supply, as the two are not the same card. If you want to achieve that, you probably need to include a "differently named".

I do want to be able to play the card as itself, but I don't want for it to be able to ignore trash on play or similar things. The one time I playtested this I played a Research as an Experiment to get rid of it from my deck when I didn't need it anymore. What excactly are the potential issues with playing it as another card? That's what Overlord does.

[faust]

I feel like "play this as if it were another card" comes with potential issues that can be avoided with the current thing such cards do, play cards from the supply. The wording would then be

The next time you play an Action this turn, you may ignore its text, to play an Action costing up to the cost of the played card in $ from the supply, leaving it there.

Also, the phrasing "another Action card from the supply" seems to suggest that you don't want this to allow playing a card as itself (for instance in order to avoid returning Encampment to the supply). however, that wording does not prevent playing Encampment in play as Encampment in the supply, as the two are not the same card. If you want to achieve that, you probably need to include a "differently named".

I do want to be able to play the card as itself, but I don't want for it to be able to ignore trash on play or similar things. The one time I playtested this I played a Research as an Experiment to get rid of it from my deck when I didn't need it anymore. What excactly are the potential issues with playing it as another card? That's what Overlord does.

That's not what Overlord does; the current version of Overlord plays an Action from the supply. This change was made to all the now Command cards; Donald X. explained his reasoning here.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

Here's the new and probably final version:

[GendoIkari]

Here's the new and probably final version:

Although there are a couple ways in which it is different; it would be much cleaner wording and mechanics-wise to use:

+1 Card
Discard an Action or Treasure card from your hand, to play an action or treasure card costing less than it from the supply, leaving it there.

Discarding the card is, in most cases, the same as playing a card but not following its instructions. Of course it is different with while-in-play effects, re-drawing the same card during the same turn, etc. I used "costing less than it" instead of the shorter "cheaper" wording do avoid the ambiguity of whether it is cheaper than Traveller's Lodge, or cheaper than the card you discarded.

[gambit05]

I don't see the point why you included all of the sudden "Treasures". In most cases, it makes no sense to discard a Treasure to play a cheaper one, right?

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I don't see the point why you included all of the sudden "Treasures". In most cases, it makes no sense to discard a Treasure to play a cheaper one, right?

The point is to use a Gold to play a Laboratory or something like that. If you have some IGG's you would probably like to be able to play them as $4-cost actions, or even silver, and if you draw your deck you can play a Smithy as a Silver to get some buying power.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

Here's the new and probably final version:

Although there are a couple ways in which it is different; it would be much cleaner wording and mechanics-wise to use:

+1 Card
Discard an Action or Treasure card from your hand, to play an action or treasure card costing less than it from the supply, leaving it there.

Discarding the card is, in most cases, the same as playing a card but not following its instructions. Of course it is different with while-in-play effects, re-drawing the same card during the same turn, etc. I used "costing less than it" instead of the shorter "cheaper" wording do avoid the ambiguity of whether it is cheaper than Traveller's Lodge, or cheaper than the card you discarded.

With this version you can (if you draw your deck) make an infinite loop of this and Scepter. Play TL, discarding a Gold and playing Scepter to replay TL, drawing the Gold and playing Scepter. Putting cards in play is a safe way of removing loops like this. I do agree that your version is simpler, but I don't know if it's worth it.

I also think that it's pretty clear that "Cheaper" is referring to the card played. You don't assume self-reference unless there are no other options. Maybe I'll change it, just because "costing less than it" is used on Stonemason.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I just realized that you don't even need scepter, you just have to play a Travellers Lodge, discarding a treasure or action card to play TL, redrawing the discarded card, and repeat.