Print

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

[spineflu]

Routes are tokens with a mat

Route
When you gain a card, you may remove a token here to put it into your hand, onto your deck, or trash it.

The design philosophy is that they should be kind of hard to get, since they're real useful for junk avoidance and deck consistency


They can also be given to opponents as a penalty-for-use, rather than just giving +Cards or something

[Xen3k]

I really like the idea behind this. It reminds me of Worshippers but with an entirely different design philosophy and power level. Great idea.

[gambit05]

I like the concept as well. It looks simple and elegant and much better than the Henchman/Mooks/Jobs that you presented a few days ago, which I find quite confusing.

A few comments:

Study: This should be discarded from hand. Is "reveal" necessary?

Accomplice: Playing 5 or more cards is quite a lot for the trigger. Conspirator is quite strong after only 3 cards have been played.

Edit: How about "3 differently named cards"?

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

I think this concept offers a lot of interesting possibilities and your cards seem to go into the right direction without being overly complicated.

[spineflu]

I like the concept as well. It looks simple and elegant and much better than the Henchman/Mooks/Jobs that you presented a few days ago, which I find quite confusing.

A few comments:

Study: This should be discarded from hand. Is "reveal" necessary?

Ah, good catch. I think reveal is necessary because cards from militia are discarded all at once otherwise - no reveal means dumping two studies only gets you 1 Route

Accomplice: Playing 5 or more cards is quite a lot for the trigger. Conspirator is quite strong after only 3 cards have been played.

Edit: How about "3 differently named cards"?

It's a $3 cantrip; I think it should be a dead-ish pile when there aren't other villages or cantrips to enable it, but both of those are very common card archetypes - it will be a rarity to not have anything that works with this. Conspirator is much more difficult to get enabled than this - this works with itself to enable itself. Also this does not care about diversity.

edit: I've thought about it and i'm gonna drop it to $2.

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

Yeah, I agree; that seems to be a side effect of intentionally making it miss the shuffle - the usual wordings keep things moving the usual way. The point comes across though?

I think this concept offers a lot of interesting possibilities and your cards seem to go into the right direction without being overly complicated.

thank you. I'm looking forward to developing these more.

[BBobb]

I like the concept as well. It looks simple and elegant and much better than the Henchman/Mooks/Jobs that you presented a few days ago, which I find quite confusing.

A few comments:

Study: This should be discarded from hand. Is "reveal" necessary?

Ah, good catch. I think reveal is necessary because cards from militia are discarded all at once otherwise - no reveal means dumping two studies only gets you 1 Route

I think it isn't necessary. See Beggar and probably others.

[gambit05]

I like the concept as well. It looks simple and elegant and much better than the Henchman/Mooks/Jobs that you presented a few days ago, which I find quite confusing.

A few comments:

Study: This should be discarded from hand. Is "reveal" necessary?

Ah, good catch. I think reveal is necessary because cards from militia are discarded all at once otherwise - no reveal means dumping two studies only gets you 1 Route

I think it isn't necessary. See Beggar and probably others.

Yes, and I think I know now why you don't need "reveal". It is because the player first discards (as part of the Reaction*), i.e. before Militia's attack.

* You forgot to include the Reaction type.

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

Yeah, I agree; that seems to be a side effect of intentionally making it miss the shuffle - the usual wordings keep things moving the usual way. The point comes across though?

I think what makes the wording looking odd (to me) is the sum of several parts that slightly deviate from the wording used for official cards. Despite that, the instructions are clear.
Anyway, here is an attempt for a better wording:

- The first part: Official cards keep "set" and "aside" together and put "under this" in parentheses.
- The "after shuffle" part: I just realized that I use this condition for some of my Equipment cards. I use: "Directly after shuffling your deck,..." Maybe, "your deck" isn't necessary.
- Last part: "set-aside" instead of set aside; "for" (or "and") instead of "then".

So, altogether it would look like:

Set aside a card from your    hand (under this). Directly after shuffling, discard this and the set-aside card, for +1 Route.

[spineflu]

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

Yeah, I agree; that seems to be a side effect of intentionally making it miss the shuffle - the usual wordings keep things moving the usual way. The point comes across though?

I think what makes the wording looking odd (to me) is the sum of several parts that slightly deviate from the wording used for official cards. Despite that, the instructions are clear.
Anyway, here is an attempt for a better wording:

- The first part: Official cards keep "set" and "aside" together and put "under this" in parentheses.
- The "after shuffle" part: I just realized that I use this condition for some of my Equipment cards. I use: "Directly after shuffling your deck,..." Maybe, "your deck" isn't necessary.
- Last part: "set-aside" instead of set aside; "for" (or "and") instead of "then".

So, altogether it would look like:

Set aside a card from your    hand (under this). Directly after shuffling, discard this and the set-aside card, for +1 Route.

"for" makes it contingent on discarding the set aside card - you still get the Route if you play safehouse from an otherwise empty hand. I did take your advice on the rest of the wording.

[BBobb]

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

Yeah, I agree; that seems to be a side effect of intentionally making it miss the shuffle - the usual wordings keep things moving the usual way. The point comes across though?

I think what makes the wording looking odd (to me) is the sum of several parts that slightly deviate from the wording used for official cards. Despite that, the instructions are clear.
Anyway, here is an attempt for a better wording:

- The first part: Official cards keep "set" and "aside" together and put "under this" in parentheses.
- The "after shuffle" part: I just realized that I use this condition for some of my Equipment cards. I use: "Directly after shuffling your deck,..." Maybe, "your deck" isn't necessary.
- Last part: "set-aside" instead of set aside; "for" (or "and") instead of "then".

So, altogether it would look like:

Set aside a card from your    hand (under this). Directly after shuffling, discard this and the set-aside card, for +1 Route.

"for" makes it contingent on discarding the set aside card - you still get the Route if you play safehouse from an otherwise empty hand.

I think the "for" just makes it contingent on discarding either the set aside card or safehouse itself, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[spineflu]

Safehouse: The wording looks a bit odd.

Yeah, I agree; that seems to be a side effect of intentionally making it miss the shuffle - the usual wordings keep things moving the usual way. The point comes across though?

I think what makes the wording looking odd (to me) is the sum of several parts that slightly deviate from the wording used for official cards. Despite that, the instructions are clear.
Anyway, here is an attempt for a better wording:

- The first part: Official cards keep "set" and "aside" together and put "under this" in parentheses.
- The "after shuffle" part: I just realized that I use this condition for some of my Equipment cards. I use: "Directly after shuffling your deck,..." Maybe, "your deck" isn't necessary.
- Last part: "set-aside" instead of set aside; "for" (or "and") instead of "then".

So, altogether it would look like:

Set aside a card from your    hand (under this). Directly after shuffling, discard this and the set-aside card, for +1 Route.

"for" makes it contingent on discarding the set aside card - you still get the Route if you play safehouse from an otherwise empty hand.

I think the "for" just makes it contingent on discarding either the set aside card or safehouse itself, but correct me if I'm wrong.

right, but 'then' does that unambiguously

[emtzalex]

I like the concept a lot. One thing to watch out for with these is the risk of making it too easy to pile cards. If Potter's bonus wasn't limited to Silver like it is, then with 1 Route token you could pile the Potters (gain one, using the Route to put it in your hand, then getting a Route and an Action and repeating), which I presume is why that restriction is there (or maybe it's just to make it like Sculptor).

As it is currently designed, I do believe it is possible to pile Low Road together with Villa after playing a Low Road, although it would cost $10. You would:

Play a Low Road
Buy a Low Road ($3, $7 left), using the Route token to put it in your hand
Buy a Villa ($3, $4 left), putting it in your hand and returning to your Action phase
Play the Villa (+$1, $5 total)
Play the Low Road
Buy a Low Road ($2, $3 left), using the Route token to put it in your hand
Buy a Villa ($2, $1 left), putting it in your hand and returning to your Action phase
Play the Villa (+$1, $2 total)
Play the Low Road
Buy a Low Road ($1, $1 left), using the Route token to put it in your hand
Buy a Villa ($1, $0 left), putting it in your hand and returning to your Action phase
Play the Villa (+$1, $1 total)
Play the Low Road

At this point both Villa and Low Road are free, so you can repeat the process as many times as there are both of them (and if there are fewer Low Roads, you can keep buying Villas and return to the Action phase). Each time you get both every card costs $1 less and you get $1 more, and you end up reducing the total cost by the number of Low Roads in the pile plus one, and end up with $1 for every Villa in the pile after the second. You also get 2 extra Buys for the last copy each of Villa and Low Road you play. With 8 Low Roads and 8 Villas in the Supply, you could buy 3 Colonies. With just 5 Low Roads and 8 Villas in the Supply you could buy 3 Provinces.

Of course, having $10 is not easy. But if you were able to play a Villa and 2 Low Roads, you would only need $4 more ($5 total) to pile them:

Buy a Low Road ($2, $3 left), using the Route token to put it in your hand
Buy a Villa ($2, $1 left), putting it in your hand and returning to your Action phase
Play the Villa (+$1, $2 total)
Play the Low Road
Buy a Low Road ($1, $1 left), using the Route token to put it in your hand
Buy a Villa ($1, $0 left), putting it in your hand and returning to your Action phase
Play the Villa (+$1, $3 total)
Play the Low Road

Now the cost of all cards are reduced by the Low Road pile +2, and you get +$1 for every Villa after the first. Just 4 Low Roads and 7 Villas in the Supply (or 5 Low Roads and 5 Villas) would get you 3 Provinces, While 7 Low Roads and 7 Villas would get you 3 Colonies.

Given the latter possibility, it might be worth tinkering a bit. I also think a similar combo might be possible with Foreign Currency, Villa, and another discounter (Highway, Inventor, Bridge, etc.), although I haven't quite worked it out.