Print

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

[emtzalex]

What are Heirs? Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1. So in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less. If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp.

This raises multiple questions, most of which I think I know the answer to, but at least one of which I don't.

(1) You said "Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1." Do you mean individual Victory card, or differently named card? That is, if your Victory cards are 4 Provinces and a Duchy and you have 2 Heirs, is that worth 25 (taking 2VP from one Province) or 19 (taking 2 VP from each of the Provinces).

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: You also say "If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp." So it does seem clear that each copy of the highest scoring differently named Victory card is weakened.

(2) You say "in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less." Do you mean " . . . King's Castle will be worth 1 less instead"? Also, am I correct in understanding that Colony is only worth 9VP if you have one? If your highest scoring Victory card is a Province (even in a Colony game), then that is what is reduced.

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: Yes. When you said Colonies were worth 9VP, it was inferred from the context that Colonies would be a player's highest scoring Victory cards.

(3) How does this work with scaling Alt-VP cards like Gardens, Fairgrounds, Vineyard, etc.?

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: When scoring at the end of the game, you see what each such card is worth. If any end up being the highest-scoring VP card(s), that/those are affected by the Heirs.

(4) What happens if two different VP cards tie for the highest? This might happen if you managed to rush the Harems, Nobles, and Islands piles, but it is much more likely to happen using Alt-VP. It is not at all unusual for Fairground to be worth 6 VP (if the player can get 15 differently-named cards, something very possible on many boards). If a player has 2 Provinces, 7 Fairgrounds each worth 6VP, and 2 Heirs, do the Heirs reduce the VP value of (a) the 2 Provinces, (b) the 7 Fairgrounds, (c) all 9 Victory cards (d) either the Provinces or the Fairgrounds depending on some additional criteria (although I am not sure what that would be)? 

This one I genuinely do not know the answer to. I suppose the most obvious answer is (c), but that makes what is already an almost unbearably harsh mechanic even worse. That being said, I don't really have a good way to pick between (a) and (b).

However you deal with ties, the existence of scaling Alt-VP also creates the possibility that increasing your underlying VP could actually result in losing VP. For example, if you have 5 Vineyards, 1 Province, 16 Action cards, you would have 31 VP. If you also had 4 Heirs, you would have 27 VP. If you then bought the Event Populate and gained 7 Action cards, without the Heirs, you would go from 31 VP to 41 VP. However, with the Heirs, you would go from 27 VP to just 21 VP. While this seems like an unlikely scenario, I actually don't think that it is, because I would guess that if you are going to take Heirs, the only viable strategy will generally be to buy 1 Province/Colony, and then try to win with Alt-VP. This puts the player in the position of having to very carefully track the value of their scaling card, as making it go too high could cost them the game.

[mxdata]

Okay, going with a completely different idea, one based on an idea that I had for a fan mechanics contest, that I didn't submit for that contest (editing my original post to include this new entry, but also putting it here separately)

Disappearing Village
Action
$3
+1 Card
+3 Actions
-1 Action per Snow (you can't go below 0 Actions)
Take 1 Snow, then you may discard any number of Action cards, revealed, to lose 1 Snow per card discarded

So, the Snow token, represented with a snowflake icon, reduces the number of Actions given to you by Disappearing Village, almost like an anti-Villager, but only affecting this card (although if this were part of an expansion, there'd probably be at least a few other cards that used it).  The first time you play this, you get +3 Actions, but if you let your Snow tokens build up, it becomes increasingly less useful, netting negative Actions if you have 4 or more Snow tokens (but, as with Poor House and coins, the total Action count can never go negative).  You can get rid of your Snow tokens by discarding Action cards.  The name is a reference to how its village effect gradually disappears if you don't do anything about the tokens

[emtzalex]

Here's my submission:

LOKI'S BARGAIN ACTION +1 Trick Choose one: -2 Tricks; or +3 Cards, +1 Action, discard a card per Trick token you have.

This card uses Trick tokens, which don't do anything by themselves, but which weaken the card each time it is used. The first time you play it, it's a very powerful Lab + Fugitive, providing both sifting and increasing your handsize. Then it's a Forum (keeping your handsize the same). Then it's a Warehouse (decreasing your hand by one). Each version after that reduces your handsize by one more.

When the discarding gets too painful, or when you decide you can afford it (presumably because you already have the Treasure to hit the Buy you want), you can play the card as a terminal Action to move yourself back one version. But because getting the Trick is the first thing that happens, you will always have to discard at least one, and it never will turn into a double Lab.

[fika monster]

No longer my entry, not happy with this
My entry



A laboratory that becomes cumbersome the more you play of it: one is fine, but with two your gonna have to make compromises, as its a municipal laboratory: somethings got to go!

Decided to make its "raven" effect trigger when you have 2 ravens, as if it had been just 1, it would have been a HUGE advantage to a player that gets 2-5, since they get to trash early with a lab.
Later in the game, you should run out of trash and have to discard cards occassionally.

-
"Raven" is supposed to be a symbol, but the card image generator is having problems for me.

But heres an explenation of "ravens"
Ravens are worth -1VP. They decrease by 1 at the end of your turn. So if you end your turn with 1 Raven, the next turn you have 0, and if you end your turn with 2 Ravens, next turn you begin with 1

[spineflu]

What are Heirs? Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1. So in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less. If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp.

This raises multiple questions, most of which I think I know the answer to, but at least one of which I don't.

(1) You said "Each Heir you have reduces the number of points of your highest scoring victory card by 1." Do you mean individual Victory card, or differently named card? That is, if your Victory cards are 4 Provinces and a Duchy and you have 2 Heirs, is that worth 25 (taking 2VP from one Province) or 19 (taking 2 VP from each of the Provinces).

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: You also say "If it's a regular province game, and you get eight heirs, those provinces are worth 0vp." So it does seem clear that each copy of the highest scoring differently named Victory card is weakened.

(2) You say "in Colony games, colonies are worth 9vp if you have one heir; If you run the Castles pile, the King's Castle will be worth 1 less." Do you mean " . . . King's Castle will be worth 1 less instead"? Also, am I correct in understanding that Colony is only worth 9VP if you have one? If your highest scoring Victory card is a Province (even in a Colony game), then that is what is reduced.

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: Yes. When you said Colonies were worth 9VP, it was inferred from the context that Colonies would be a player's highest scoring Victory cards.

(3) How does this work with scaling Alt-VP cards like Gardens, Fairgrounds, Vineyard, etc.?

I THINK THE ANSWER IS: When scoring at the end of the game, you see what each such card is worth. If any end up being the highest-scoring VP card(s), that/those are affected by the Heirs.

(4) What happens if two different VP cards tie for the highest? This might happen if you managed to rush the Harems, Nobles, and Islands piles, but it is much more likely to happen using Alt-VP. It is not at all unusual for Fairground to be worth 6 VP (if the player can get 15 differently-named cards, something very possible on many boards). If a player has 2 Provinces, 7 Fairgrounds each worth 6VP, and 2 Heirs, do the Heirs reduce the VP value of (a) the 2 Provinces, (b) the 7 Fairgrounds, (c) all 9 Victory cards (d) either the Provinces or the Fairgrounds depending on some additional criteria (although I am not sure what that would be)? 

This one I genuinely do not know the answer to. I suppose the most obvious answer is (c), but that makes what is already an almost unbearably harsh mechanic even worse. That being said, I don't really have a good way to pick between (a) and (b).

However you deal with ties, the existence of scaling Alt-VP also creates the possibility that increasing your underlying VP could actually result in losing VP. For example, if you have 5 Vineyards, 1 Province, 16 Action cards, you would have 31 VP. If you also had 4 Heirs, you would have 27 VP. If you then bought the Event Populate and gained 7 Action cards, without the Heirs, you would go from 31 VP to 41 VP. However, with the Heirs, you would go from 27 VP to just 21 VP. While this seems like an unlikely scenario, I actually don't think that it is, because I would guess that if you are going to take Heirs, the only viable strategy will generally be to buy 1 Province/Colony, and then try to win with Alt-VP. This puts the player in the position of having to very carefully track the value of their scaling card, as making it go too high could cost them the game.

1, 2, 3: yes, correct
4: b, the seven fairgrounds. the card with the most copies is affected; if they're tied then the point is moot - you've got three gardens worth 6vp and three provinces? one or the other is reduced, but not both.

[Timinou]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.

EDIT: Updated submission

Thanks to faust and emtzalex for their input.

I was debating whether it should only allow you to play cards costing up $4.  In Shelter games, you would be able to play a $5 cost card from the Supply with Necropolis in Turn 1 or 2, but it's not clear to me that taking 5 debt would always be optimal (maybe if something like Trading Post is in the Kingdom).  In terms of power level, you will only be able to play one Action card per turn as Way of the Octopus, unless there are cards in the Kingdom that allow you to return to your Action phase after your Buy phase [EDIT: or if you are able to get enough cost reduction cards into play e.g. Highways or Bridge Trolls, or Quarries with Black Market or Storyteller]. 

[JW]

Indebted Blacksmith 
Action
+3 cards. If you have no , +3 actions and take .

The first one you play each turn has a powerful effect, but make sure you pay off that debt or you can't get it again the next turn. Update: changed from to

[pubby]

Alternate name: Sin City

Edit: I changed "end your turn" to "discard your hand". It's a small buff, but adds more strategy in how you play with it.

[faust]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.



I was debating whether it should only allow you to play cards costing up $4.  In Shelter games, you would be able to play a $5 cost card from the Supply with Necropolis in Turn 1 or 2, but it's not clear to me that taking 5 debt would always be optimal (maybe if something like Trading Post is in the Kingdom).  In terms of power level, you will only be able to play one Action card per turn as Way of the Octopus, unless there are cards in the Kingdom that allow you to return to your Action phase after your Buy phase [EDIT: or if you are able to get enough cost reduction cards into play e.g. Highways or Bridge Trolls, or Quarries with Black Market or Storyteller].

This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.

[fika monster]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.

This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.

wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossible

[faust]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.

This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.

wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossible

+$ token on Ruins.

Play any Action as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, play Ruins as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, etc.

In fact this combo also works with cards that do not cost $0, since you only take the Debt once playing the card is finished. It's probably not useful this way though.

[Aquila]

Freak - Action Command, $6 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing less than this, leaving it there. If its pile isn't marked, mark it until the end of your turn; when you play a card from a marked pile, get +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

Command a $5 on a cantrip! But you can't play anything else from that pile during your turn, even cards from it in your deck, and they instead become Ruined Villages.
The negative token is the mark, a counter that's literally just for tracking. There could in theory be marks for a positive purpose on a different card, and in theory you could play this without mark tokens, so if this doesn't qualify...very well.

Edit: made a Command as per below post.

[silverspawn]

I'll allow it. However, I think this does allow an infinite loop. I play two highways, then I play Freak. I choose BoM. I choose Freak. I choose BoM. This is possible because the first BoM hasn't finished resolving yet, so there is no counter on it. You may need the Command type and non-Command clause after all. (Edit: substitute 'Captain' for 'BoM'.)

[emtzalex]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.

This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.

wait, how? could you give examples? I thought that since you cant use Way of octopus that that's impossible

+$ token on Ruins.

Play any Action as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, play Ruins as Way of the Octopus, choose Ruins, etc.

In fact this combo also works with cards that do not cost $0, since you only take the Debt once playing the card is finished. It's probably not useful this way though.

To clarify some more obscure points of the rules that apply here:

(a) When there is a Way in the game, and you emulate an Action card using another Action card (i.e. a Command card or Estates after using Inheritance), the emulated card can be played for its normal ability, or using the Way.

(b) The player-specific tokens from Adventures (such as the +1 Card token and the +$1 token) still apply when playing a card using a Way. So if Way of the Otter and Lost Arts are both in play, you can put the +1 Action token on an Action supply pile, and play those cards using Way of the Otter to get +2 Cards (from Way of the Otter) and +1 Action (from the token).

As faust pointed out, if you put your +$1 token on the Ruins pile, then you could play any Action card and use Way of the Octopus. You would play the Ruins (a non-command Action card). First, you would get +$1 from your token. Then, you would have the option to either play the Ruin for its effect or use the Way. You would choose Way of the Octopus again, and choose Ruins again. You could do this as many times as you wanted, and each time you did this you would get +$1, meaning it would give you access to an unlimited amount of money. And because Ruins costs $0, you would never take any Debt.

This would work any time you could get an Action card's cost down to $0 and have any Action card and an Action left over. This would work with Highways (you could even use the last Highway to play Way of the Octopus, because it's in-play effect works even when it is used as a Way), Bridge Trolls (although they require at least one village/Villager), etc.

This would technically work with any of the Adventures tokens, although none of those effects would be as potent. With the +1 Card token, it would allow you to draw your entire deck, which is very good, but doable with existing cards (although perhaps not quite as reliably). Getting an endless number of Buys or Actions is also of limited value (unless you have a Diadem).

As faust also pointed out, this would technically work with any non-$0 costing card, since Way of the Octopus does not assign the Debt until after the Action has resolved, so you could keep replaying it as many times as you wanted before the Octopus-blocking debt arrived. However, as faust also alluded to, this strategy would be of little use. Even if you had the +$1 token, before you could do anything with all of that money (except, perhaps, play Black Market once and buy a card from it), each play of Octopus would finish resolving, and you would get at least as much debt as you had earned $. With the +1 Card token there might be some circumstances in which you could draw your deck, and end the game using gainers/remodelers (or doing some even stranger thing like piling out Rats to end the game) without buying anything.

[Xen3k]

Seedy Village - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Card
+3 Villagers
----
When you discard this from play, if you have any Villagers or actions (not Action cards) remaining, gain a Ruins.

A reusable Acting Troupe Village+, with the catch that you start getting Ruins if you can't use all your actions in a turn. Thankfully you can play those Ruins in the future thanks to all those Villagers this card gives you.

Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.

Edit: Changed the card to be less penalizing as it does not stick around in play all the time. Simplified it to allow players to use Villagers as normal, but the penalty hits if you have either Villagers or actions left. Better than a Village for the same cost if you can put all your actions to use in the same turn you play it.
Thanks to mxdata and faust for the feedback.

Old Version

[mxdata]

Seedy Village - $3
Action - Looter
+4 Villagers
----
While this is in play, you may not use Villagers if you have any actions remaining.
When you would discard this from play, if you have any Villagers, gain a Ruins and leave this in play.

A reusable Acting Troupe, with the catch that you start getting Ruins if you can't use all your actions in a turn. Thankfully you can play those Ruins in the future thanks to all those Villagers this card gives you.

Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.

Hmm ... this would tend to junk up your deck pretty quickly in most games (though the Ruins themselves would be a bit self-limiting, since they'd eat up your Villagers).  However, with some Ways it would be useful.  Way of the Horse would make this extremely strong, and I'd probably want to gain and play a bunch of them.  As long as I make sure to not play all my Villagers, I would be getting a free Horse at the end of each turn for each Seedy Village in play!  It would also be potentially useful in a kingdom that's otherwise full of terminals.  It would be like a +4 Actions card.  But even then,  you'd end up junking your deck since you're not going to be able to use all the Villagers on every turn.  So, it seems to me that games where it's useful would be rare

Maybe make the cost a bit weaker.  How about something like "When you would discard this from play, if you have any Villagers, leave this in play and draw one fewer cards for your next hand"?  That way it still hurts to have unused Villagers, but you don't end up accumulating junk

[Gubump]

I'll allow it. However, I think this does allow an infinite loop. I play two highways, then I play Freak. I choose BoM. I choose Freak. I choose BoM. This is possible because the first BoM hasn't finished resolving yet, so there is no counter on it. You may need the Command type and non-Command clause after all.

If you have two Highways, then Freak costs and BoM costs . Freak can play BoM, which cannot play Freak, same as without cost reduction. There is no infinite loop with Freak + BoM. They both only play cheaper cards, and it is mathematically impossibly for two cards to each cost less than the other. There is, however, a loop with Freak + Captain + cost reduction.

[majiponi]

Jetty (Action, $4)

+2 Cards
+2 Actions

Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.

This can kill one player easily.

play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that

Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.

[faust]

Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.

I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.

On a more general note, I don't think the card needs to be this complicated. The whole restricting when you can use Villagers thing is clunky and not really needed if you give extra penalties for having more Villagers, like so:

+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.

[mandioca15]

Jetty (Action, $4)

+2 Cards
+2 Actions

Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.

This can kill one player easily.

play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that

Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.

That’s a good catch. Will have a think on how to fix this - might come up with another card altogether.

[faust]

Jetty (Action, $4)

+2 Cards
+2 Actions

Return an Embargo token.
------
When you gain this, take 3 Embargo tokens. You can't buy cards while you have any Embargo tokens.

This can kill one player easily.

play Swindler to make your opponent gain Jetty
play another to make your opponent trash that

Maybe gaining a Curse per an Embargo token is better.

That’s a good catch. Will have a think on how to fix this - might come up with another card altogether.

"When you gain this on your turn" would be a reasonable fix I think. There are still ways the opponent could mess with you (e.g. playing a Reaction as Way of the Mouse-Ambassador), but they are signficantly less attainable.

There is still the issue that with any sort of trashing attack, going for Jetty is extremely risky, and that could make the card super swingy and unfun. Another solution that addresses that would be "When you trash this, return all your Embargo tokens" - though I guess that still does not account for Cardinal.

[Timinou]

I have a bit of a wacky idea, but I think it works.



I was debating whether it should only allow you to play cards costing up $4.  In Shelter games, you would be able to play a $5 cost card from the Supply with Necropolis in Turn 1 or 2, but it's not clear to me that taking 5 debt would always be optimal (maybe if something like Trading Post is in the Kingdom).  In terms of power level, you will only be able to play one Action card per turn as Way of the Octopus, unless there are cards in the Kingdom that allow you to return to your Action phase after your Buy phase [EDIT: or if you are able to get enough cost reduction cards into play e.g. Highways or Bridge Trolls, or Quarries with Black Market or Storyteller].

This is going to lead to trivial infinite combos with +card/+action/+$/+buy tokens and Ruins or cost reduction.

Thanks for pointing that out!  I definitely don't want this to lead to infinite loops, whether trivial or non-trivial.

I think the following tweaks should prevent loops, but I'd be grateful if anyone can think of any loopholes:

[faust]

Thanks for pointing that out!  I definitely don't want this to lead to infinite loops, whether trivial or non-trivial.

I think the following tweaks should prevent loops, but I'd be grateful if anyone can think of any loopholes:

Seems to me that if you play this while having Debt, you can still do the $0-cost loop, as the second part is not dependent on having taken Debt.

[Timinou]

Thanks for pointing that out!  I definitely don't want this to lead to infinite loops, whether trivial or non-trivial.

I think the following tweaks should prevent loops, but I'd be grateful if anyone can think of any loopholes:

Seems to me that if you play this while having Debt, you can still do the $0-cost loop, as the second part is not dependent on having taken Debt.

You're right....I think the second sentence needs to say "If you did..." or something like that. 

EDIT: Or I think the following wording should work: "If you have no debt, gain between 1 and 5 debt to play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $ per debt you gained, leaving it there."

[mxdata]

Not really sure if the wording of the below line text actually does what I want it to do. The first half should stop players from using their Villager tokens if they have any actions remaining. The second half intends to keep Seedy Village in play when you would discard it during cleanup and gains you a Ruins as a penalty. I would appreciate any criticism or corrections to this.

I don't think the wording works as intended. The "leave this in play" instruction does not come with a time limit, so I would think it stays in play indefinitely. I don't think there is a strong reason for this to stay in play anyways, it could just give the Ruins and be discarded.

On a more general note, I don't think the card needs to be this complicated. The whole restricting when you can use Villagers thing is clunky and not really needed if you give extra penalties for having more Villagers, like so:

+4 Villagers
When you discard this from play: If you have at least one Villager, gain a Ruins; if you have at least 2 Villagers, gain a Copper.

The main issue I see with getting rid of that restriction is that it makes this effectively a super-Necropolis.  Without that restriction, you can simply choose to spend all your villagers to avoid the penalty, making it no different than a straight-up +4 Actions (well ... unless there's other cards that give you villagers, since in that case you'd also have to get rid of any villagers you'd gotten from those other cards, though if you're getting sufficient villagers from other cards you probably wouldn't bother buying this one anyways).  So, I think keeping the restriction would be good.  But your proposed penalty seems a lot better to me.  Hits you once at the end of the turn, rather than over multiple turns, seems more balanced to me