Print

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

[alion8me]

Exhaust v2

Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it. If this is the first time you've bought Exhaust this turn: +1 Buy.

Event
$0

Exhaust v1

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

edit: tweak to make spamming Exhaust more difficult

[Gubump]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

Is it really like that?
Imagine the following scenario: Early phase of a game with 3 players and each player already gained one Musketeer. On each section of the Musketeer mat is 1 token (starting condition).

Now player A plays their Musketeer. More often then not they will choose the Peddler option (i.e. they do not take any of the single tokens from the mat). Player A then adds a token to the mat. If Coffers are clearly more valuable than Villagers or Horses, they will add it to one of the latter sections, say Horses. Then player B plays their Musketeer. Again, it will be often better to use the Peddler option. Where does player B add the token? Villager section I would say. Now player C plays their Musketeer. It could be worth now to take the 2 Villagers (maybe they already had enough $ collected for their purchase). However, if player C doesn’t take any tokens from the mat, where do they add their token now?

In summary, if a certain type of token is clearly more valuable than the others (all of you think it is Coffers) then players will add tokens to the other sections of the mat. At a certain point, several Villagers or Horses should become more valuable than a single Coffers most of the time.

I missed the fact that the mat is communal instead of personal (and I think segura and faust probably didn't realize that either). Ignore my previous comment.

[LibraryAdventurer]

"you may Pass this to the player on your left" (i.e. gain to their hand). Then if you end the game this turn, they get +1VP. Otherwise, they at least have the option/choice to Pass it to the next person instead of keeping it for -2VP.

Passing is not gaining; you cannot Watchtower the card you get passed via Masquerade, for example. With your suggested wording, passing Monkey's Paw would result in it always being worth -2 for your opponent, because they did not gain it at all and therefore did not "gain it after their last turn of the game."

I do agree with you that it's really hard/impossible to track the value of the Monkey's Paws, though. As currently worded, at least, each individual copy can be worth varying amounts of , which is impossible to track in an irl game.

I missed the fact that Passing is not gaining. Thanks. I haven't played with many "when you gain a card" cards before, and if this is intended to interact with those, it adds more confusion. If you keep "Pass", then you have to use and then define something like "Receive". My main reaction for this recommended change to Pass is so you can't give it to someone onto their deck, they have a hand with no actions and buy Duchy, then they draw it into their next hand now worth -2VP and the following player ends the game before they can get rid of it. In the absence of "when you gain a card" reactions, it's a political (target 1 person) attack near the end of the game. In their hand, they can at least give it to the next player once it switches from +1VP to -2VP.
I guess it could just say "the player to your left gains it to their hand".

In most cases, the player to your left will have a chance to get rid of it after gaining it to the top of their deck if they have another turn. I don't think it needs the attack type. I also think it'll be pretty easy to remember if I passed you that Monkey's Paw on the last turn of the game to know it's VP worth.

[faust]

"you may Pass this to the player on your left" (i.e. gain to their hand). Then if you end the game this turn, they get +1VP. Otherwise, they at least have the option/choice to Pass it to the next person instead of keeping it for -2VP.

Passing is not gaining; you cannot Watchtower the card you get passed via Masquerade, for example. With your suggested wording, passing Monkey's Paw would result in it always being worth -2 for your opponent, because they did not gain it at all and therefore did not "gain it after their last turn of the game."

I do agree with you that it's really hard/impossible to track the value of the Monkey's Paws, though. As currently worded, at least, each individual copy can be worth varying amounts of , which is impossible to track in an irl game.

I missed the fact that Passing is not gaining. Thanks. I haven't played with many "when you gain a card" cards before, and if this is intended to interact with those, it adds more confusion. If you keep "Pass", then you have to use and then define something like "Receive". My main reaction for this recommended change to Pass is so you can't give it to someone onto their deck, they have a hand with no actions and buy Duchy, then they draw it into their next hand now worth -2VP and the following player ends the game before they can get rid of it. In the absence of "when you gain a card" reactions, it's a political (target 1 person) attack near the end of the game. In their hand, they can at least give it to the next player once it switches from +1VP to -2VP.
I guess it could just say "the player to your left gains it to their hand".

In most cases, the player to your left will have a chance to get rid of it after gaining it to the top of their deck if they have another turn. I don't think it needs the attack type. I also think it'll be pretty easy to remember if I passed you that Monkey's Paw on the last turn of the game to know it's VP worth.

There are definitely times when it is impossible to tell. Say I pass you a Monkey's Paw and then play 2 Torturers for Bad Omens first and War second. War flips and trashes Monkey's Paw; was it the one that you've just been passed or the one that was already in your deck?

And the reason you give for it not needing to be an Attack doesn't really make sense; by the same argument, Sea Hag wouldn't need to be an Attack in games with trashing.

[faust]

Exhaust

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

I think this makes it too easy to just trash your deck on your final turn to gain a game-deciding advantage. At the very least, it should lose the +Buy.

[Meta]

Exhaust

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

I think this makes it too easy to just trash your deck on your final turn to gain a game-deciding advantage. At the very least, it should lose the +Buy.

How about making it possible to buy a buy by overpaying?

[Holger]

Exhaust

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

I think this makes it too easy to just trash your deck on your final turn to gain a game-deciding advantage. At the very least, it should lose the +Buy.

Yes, or it should be limited to once per turn, or cost at least $2. As is, Exhaust also seriously nerfs Looters as it effectively turns any Ruins into a throned version of itself that trashes itself for free.

[Timinou]

If you remove the +Buy, then I don’t think Exhaust weakens Looters any more than something like Advance or several Ways do.

[silverspawn]

To avoid misunderstandings: you are allowed to look through your draw pile and reveal 3 cards form that? Or draw pile and discard pile? Or draw pile and discard pile and hand?

[segura]

Exhaust

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

I think this makes it too easy to just trash your deck on your final turn to gain a game-deciding advantage. At the very least, it should lose the +Buy.

Yes, or it should be limited to once per turn, or cost at least $2. As is, Exhaust also seriously nerfs Looters as it effectively turns any Ruins into a throned version of itself that trashes itself for free.

I don’t think the Ruins issue is a big one. Way of the Horse is far worse in this respect. I agree though that the card should be nerfed somehow.

[Gubump]

To avoid misunderstandings: you are allowed to look through your draw pile and reveal 3 cards form that? Or draw pile and discard pile? Or draw pile and discard pile and hand?

I can answer this since it was talked about on the Discord. It's only from your draw pile, and you don't get to look at any cards before revealing the 3.

[silverspawn]

Oh, so you get to decide "I'll take the cards at positions #1, #3, and #8 from the top", but without looking at them?

[Gubump]

Oh, so you get to decide "I'll take the cards at positions #1, #3, and #8 from the top", but without looking at them?

Correct.

[fika monster]

Oh, so you get to decide "I'll take the cards at positions #1, #3, and #8 from the top", but without looking at them?

Yes. Given that you misunderstood it, i need to change the wording so thats clear

[gambit05]

I'd nerf the Peddler effect somehow and buff the token taking effect via allowing the player to take the tokens from all sections. This (partly) fixes the "Coffers only" issue that faust mentioned.

What do you mean with taking tokens from all sections?

Well, the current Musketeer only takes your tokens from one section of the mat. Segura's suggestion is to take the tokens from all of them instead.

Yes, I understand that. But what are the intended consequences?

Only allowing you to take tokens from one section of the mat at a time in a way punishes you for varying which section of the mat you add tokens to. Segura believes that this will result in players just stockpiling all their Musketeer tokens on the Coffers section and neglecting the other sections, and that allowing you to take tokens from every section would fix that. I agree with him there.

Is it really like that?
Imagine the following scenario: Early phase of a game with 3 players and each player already gained one Musketeer. On each section of the Musketeer mat is 1 token (starting condition).

Now player A plays their Musketeer. More often then not they will choose the Peddler option (i.e. they do not take any of the single tokens from the mat). Player A then adds a token to the mat. If Coffers are clearly more valuable than Villagers or Horses, they will add it to one of the latter sections, say Horses. Then player B plays their Musketeer. Again, it will be often better to use the Peddler option. Where does player B add the token? Villager section I would say. Now player C plays their Musketeer. It could be worth now to take the 2 Villagers (maybe they already had enough $ collected for their purchase). However, if player C doesn’t take any tokens from the mat, where do they add their token now?

In summary, if a certain type of token is clearly more valuable than the others (all of you think it is Coffers) then players will add tokens to the other sections of the mat. At a certain point, several Villagers or Horses should become more valuable than a single Coffers most of the time.

I missed the fact that the mat is communal instead of personal (and I think segura and faust probably didn't realize that either). Ignore my previous comment.

Well, if it is true that the criticism is based on the assumption that each player has their own mat then it is my fault to not explicitly point out that it is a communal mat. The basic concept is floating around in my head for years now and with that in mind I always saw one single (virtual) mat and just didn't realised that it could be in a different way.

[ConMan]

Billet
Project - $5
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may first play the set aside card, leaving it there.
Setup: Set aside an extra Action Kingdom card costing $3 or less.

[Gubump]

Billet
Project - $5
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may first play the set aside card.
Setup: Set aside an extra Kingdom card costing $3 or less.

Is the fact that this can set aside Treasures or Nights intended?

[Holger]

Exhaust

+1 Buy
Replay a non-Duration Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Trash it.

Event
$0

I think this makes it too easy to just trash your deck on your final turn to gain a game-deciding advantage. At the very least, it should lose the +Buy.

Yes, or it should be limited to once per turn, or cost at least $2. As is, Exhaust also seriously nerfs Looters as it effectively turns any Ruins into a throned version of itself that trashes itself for free.

I don’t think the Ruins issue is a big one. Way of the Horse is far worse in this respect. I agree though that the card should be nerfed somehow.

Yes, you're right, Looters are nerfed harder by WotH than by this card.

As faust suggested, "Exhausting" all your Actions on your last turn essentially gives you a kind of weaker "extra turn" at the end of the game (as you can replay all in-play Actions but no Treasures, and any draw effects are generally useless in the Buy phase). So it's somewhat similar to Fleet IMO. Maybe Exhaust could be also be a Project (that allows you to replay and then trash any in-play Action card during your buy phase for the rest of the game)?
While Exhaust's "extra turn" effect is worse than Fleet's, you can also use it before to trash Action cards that you no longer need, so it might still be fine at $5 (or maybe $4).

[BBobb]

Billet
Project - $5
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may first play the set aside card.
Setup: Set aside an extra Kingdom card costing $3 or less.

Is the fact that this can set aside Treasures or Nights intended?

Also, what happens if the set aside card is a Victory card?
On another note, it should say "you may first play the set aside card, leaving it there.

[ConMan]

Billet
Project - $5
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may first play the set aside card.
Setup: Set aside an extra Kingdom card costing $3 or less.

Is the fact that this can set aside Treasures or Nights intended?

Also, what happens if the set aside card is a Victory card?
On another note, it should say "you may first play the set aside card, leaving it there.

Yeah, as soon as I walked away I realised I needed to fix both those things. I've updated the wording in the original post:

Billet
Project - $5
Once per turn, when you play an Action card, you may first play the set aside card, leaving it there.
Setup: Set aside an extra Action Kingdom card costing $3 or less.

[emtzalex]

EDIT: My card has been updated here.

Birthright - $6
Put a non-Duration Action card from the Supply onto your Birthright mat. At the start of each player's turn for the rest of the game, that player plays the card, leaving it there.
(This stays in play.)

A Prince variant, except that every player gets the bonus. Because of that, you have to design a deck and/or select an Action card that will help you more than it will help your opponent(s), even after foregoing a Gold (or other $6 buy) and despite the fact that each other player gets to use the Action card before you do.

[Commodore Chuckles]

OK, how about this?

[mathdude]

Birthright - $6
Put a non-Duration Action card from the Supply onto your Birthright mat. At the start of each player's turn for the rest of the game, that player plays the card, leaving it there.
(This stays in play.)

A Prince variant, except that every player gets the bonus. Because of that, you have to design a deck and/or select an Action card that will help you more than it will help your opponent(s), even after foregoing a Gold (or other $6 buy) and despite the fact that each other player gets to use the Action card before you do.

I'm curious if you have any other purposes for the "Birthright mat" - is this part of a set of cards you have?  Otherwise, I'm assuming the only reason it's "their" mat is in case they set aside an Action-Victory card instead of just an Action card (or else it could be a communal mat).  Alternatively, couldn't you just say "Put a non-Duration Action card from the Supply on this"?

Would the card allow you to use Command cards, or should they be excluded like Durations?

This card could really slow down the end of the game if each player starts getting multiple cards set aside.  Each start-of-turn would be playing a good handful of cards before they even start their Action phase.  To keep it a little more subdued, would it work better as a project (on purchase, when you place your cube you would also choose the card to set aside for it)?  Or a "once per game" event?

[emtzalex]

I'm curious if you have any other purposes for the "Birthright mat" - is this part of a set of cards you have?  Otherwise, I'm assuming the only reason it's "their" mat is in case they set aside an Action-Victory card instead of just an Action card (or else it could be a communal mat).  Alternatively, couldn't you just say "Put a non-Duration Action card from the Supply on this"?

To be honest, I did not even consider a communal mat. I like to start with mechanics already in the game, and I am not aware of such a communal mat. The reason I did not put it on top of or under Birthright itself is that I wanted to borrow the mechanic from Inheritance of the card staying out of play (so that a player could use a card like Experiment). Inheritance uses a token, but since I wanted to have the possibility of multiple cards, a mat seemed like a pre-existing solution.

Would the card allow you to use Command cards, or should they be excluded like Durations?

My first thought was that it shouldn't, but when I thought about it I changed my mind. My understanding is that the reason Command cards don't play other command cards is that they could, in theory, create loops. This card does not play the selected card on that turn, so even if it uses a Command card, it couldn't create such a loop (as far as I understand it). If there is another reason not to use a Command card, I would appreciate the input.

My initial thinking was that the fact that the other players got to use the card as well means that most of the restrictions of the other cards that play other cards (Command cards, Inheritance, Prince). That might not be correct, and I will have to think more about it.

This card could really slow down the end of the game if each player starts getting multiple cards set aside.  Each start-of-turn would be playing a good handful of cards before they even start their Action phase.  To keep it a little more subdued, would it work better as a project (on purchase, when you place your cube you would also choose the card to set aside for it)?  Or a "once per game" event?

This is something I had not thought of. My inclination is that this is unlikely, as playing this card effectively is hard enough that I don't think multiple players will do it multiple times. I also don't think there will be much incentive to play Action cards with a lot of choices, as that will make it much more likely your opponent can use the card effectively. But I will definitely consider this part and think about reworking it.

[faust]

Birthright - $6
Put a non-Duration Action card from the Supply onto your Birthright mat. At the start of each player's turn for the rest of the game, that player plays the card, leaving it there.
(This stays in play.)

A Prince variant, except that every player gets the bonus. Because of that, you have to design a deck and/or select an Action card that will help you more than it will help your opponent(s), even after foregoing a Gold (or other $6 buy) and despite the fact that each other player gets to use the Action card before you do.

This should either say "that player may play the card" or be an attack. Imagine putting 2 Remakes onto the Birthright mat...

Also I see no reason for this to stay in play; it can just trash itself upon play.