Print

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

[Accatitippi]

Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I am thinking I will rename this to "Palanquin". Or one of its synonyms: "Litter", "Sedan Chair", etc.

Litter makes me think of cats.
I think the first meaning to come into mind of people hearing "litter" won't often be "Palanquin"; so maybe one of the others is better. 

[ThetaSigma12]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

You could just set Dignitary aside until the start of your next turn.

"When another player plays an attack, you may set this aside. If you did, draw a card and trash a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, discard this"

Or something along those lines.

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard and Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

[pacovf]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

That's clever, but I agree with you that it's not a good solution. "Set aside" is wordy, but it's what I'd go with if I couldn't think of anything better.

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

That's clever, but I agree with you that it's not a good solution. "Set aside" is wordy, but it's what I'd go with if I couldn't think of anything better.

I think it is good enough, just too complex for a single card. It's like doing a single Duration. If someone made a fan expansion with several cards like this, i'd tend to say it's alright. Enterprise is not that expansion, of course, and so that point is probably moot.

[LastFootnote]

Two 3-player Adventures/Enterprise games today. Each included a Landmark, but they didn't end up mattering for determining who won (which is rare, but can happen).


5 Raid
5 Seaway

0 Redistrict
2 Coin of the Realm
2 Jubilee
2 Page
3 Amulet
5 Almoner
5 Bridge Troll
5 Distant Lands
5 Fund
5 Palanquin

This game was interesting in several respects. I was the only one who didn't really go into Travellers; I bought one Page, and it was killed off before it could get to Hero. Alex (to my left) was going for a massive Traveller deck, so he was hitting me with a lot of Warrior attacks, killing one of my two Amulets and several Silvers. But the joke was on him when I put my +1 Buy token on Jubilees and started to gain 6 to 8 cards each turn. The Silver pile ran out, mostly into Alex's deck. Anyway I did end up winning with my Jubilee/Almoner/Bridge Troll deck.

Redistrict wasn't attractive with no Supply cards at $4. I got one at one point, and just ended up trashing it and my last Amulet for a $5 card.

Only I bought Jubilees, and thanks to Seaway I had the run of the pile. My Bridge Trolls made it very easy to replace my lost Jubilees and rack up tokens.

I had 2 Almoners, and they were great, both for the disappearing $ combo with Jubilee, and for sifting through my Silvers. Stephanie (to my right) did occasionally pick up a Copper. Alex eventually bought Almoners as well, though I never gained Coppers from his.

I got a few Funds, since the +1 Buy was nice (before I bought Seaway) and they were Warrior-proof Silvers that let me buy Raid a few times (after I activated them for Silvers in hand, I mean).

Palanquin seems good, possibly better than Terrace was. Stephanie and I both bought them and got use from their token effect.




2 Scouting Party
3 Expedition

3 Charlatan
3 Convoy
4 Duplicate
4 Merchant Village
4 Miser
5 General
5 Lost City
5 Trade Goods
5 Treasure Trove
6 Hireling

No extra buys, but the Charlatan attack still mattered thanks to Miser. Everybody had Misers and early on were often left with $2 after setting aside a Copper. I bought Charlatans early, using them to buy activated Merchant Villages. That worked, but without any +Buy on the board, I was unable to catch up to Stephanie's Treasure Trove.

I got a few Convoys to go with my Merchant Villages, and although they never lined up, the Convoys themselves helped me reach $8 in clutch moments.

General and Trade Goods (and Duplicate) went unbought this game. It was quite a fast game, with Charlatan as the only attack and Lost Cities speeding everybody up.

[LastFootnote]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

[Doom_Shark]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

I would also reword it similarly to scheme, so the bottom half would read:

At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing exactly more than it.

This wording allows the change to let it trash itself and IMO is easier to understand.

[Accatitippi]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

It sounds good to have an end-stage use for Trade Goods, given that they cannot mill Provinces.
The "first play upgrade" is cute, and doesn't look problematic when compared to many other 5c Golds (or Treasure Trove).
So, I'd be all for it.

[werothegreat]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

[LastFootnote]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

Because that would sometimes help them. Which is maybe not reason enough, but there it is. I may try that version someday. As it is we sometimes buy it just for the Throne and Library combos.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

Because that would sometimes help them. Which is maybe not reason enough, but there it is. I may try that version someday. As it is we sometimes buy it just for the Throne and Library combos.

It would also make it a stronger attack when the opponent doesn't have much coin. FWIW, I don't think it needs to give any +buys to be good.

I played a game with Charlatan today. It worked well and it's attack forced several coppers to be bought. But as trivialknot pointed out, it has a rules contradiction with debt. We didn't have the contradiction come up this game, but you might want to make a rule about what happens when someone has debt that they don't pay off while someone else has a Charlatan in play.

[Deadlock39]

My inclination would be to add clarification to Charlatan that players must use all their buys if able. There was already a case where this could contradict rules (that would never actually happen, but whatever) if you play 2 Contrabands and Copper and Curse are named. If you spend all your coins on your first buy, there are no legal buys left.

I think this makes the interaction with Debt interesting because you have the option of buying a card that costs Debt to counter the forced buys. Like in your game, maybe I buy a City Quarter even if it isn't exactly what I want to avoid taking multiple Coppers.

Just my 2c.

[LastFootnote]

Man, good point about debt. The ruling is that you can't buy anything and are therefore "immune" to the attack while you have any debt.

[werothegreat]

Man, good point about debt. The ruling is that you can't buy anything and are therefore "immune" to the attack while you have any debt.

How about just adding an "if they can" to the end?

[Donald X.]

You can give up the sexy phrasing while preserving the functionality in most games, by just giving them the Coppers.

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

If you're willing to have it be discarded at a weird time in games with extra turns, you can simplify it to:

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. At the end of each other player's next turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Wow, Donald X posted in a fan card thread and made a suggestion about a fan card. Truly such a thing is as rare as a good card.

[Donald X.]

Wow, Donald X posted in a fan card thread and made a suggestion about a fan card. Truly such a thing is as rare as a good card.

In fact a card from this thread made it into Empires (it was called Clerk here).

Settlers / Bustling Village: This pile started with the flavor of the card names; nice names for a split pile, with the additional nice idea of having a village that wasn't available right away. It was trouble finding a good card to go in the top slot here; some cards left us just never getting to the village. In the end I used a card Matt made for a homemade set. It was perfect.

I tried a few different bonuses on Bustling Village. There was +$1 per Settlers in play; get your top card if it's an Action per Settlers; there was +VP based on the cards in your hand. Then I tried getting a Settlers from your discard pile and I liked that one. Then Settlers became Matt's card and I like how that ends up, where you play Bustling Village to get Settlers and then Settlers to get Copper.

[Asper]

I think this is mostly because LF and Donald know each other from playtesting, and LF was even lead playtester on Empires. I doubt Donald will comment on (or read, for that matter) other people's fan card threads. Not that i'd mind.

[GendoIkari]

I think this is mostly because LF and Donald know each other from playtesting, and LF was even lead playtester on Empires. I doubt Donald will comment on (or read, for that matter) other people's fan card threads. Not that i'd mind.

He said he read my "you make the card" stuff. But yeah, as a general rule he doesn't read them, for good reason.

[LastFootnote]

You can give up the sexy phrasing while preserving the functionality in most games, by just giving them the Coppers.

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

If you're willing to have it be discarded at a weird time in games with extra turns, you can simplify it to:

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. At the end of each other player's next turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

Charlatan is probably the card of mine that cribs closest to another fan card idea I saw. And that card was basically what you suggest here, except with giving out Curses instead of Coppers. And well, I think I still prefer "mandatory buys" to "penalty for unused buys", mostly due to the fact that "penalty" stacks and "mandatory" doesn't. It seems kludgy to me that if you've been hit by 3 Charlatan attacks, you can either buy a Copper or you can not do that and gain 3 Coppers instead. So "mandatory" has sexy functionality in addition to sexy phrasing, except when it interacts with debt (and extreme edge cases with Contraband or empty Copper/Curse piles). I also mildly prefer debt cards being a defense against Charlatan rather than being especially vulnerable to it.

For me the big question for Charlatan is: does the attack matter enough. As I believe Donald has said, it's best when you buy Attack cards for the attack effect, rather than buying them for something else and then the Attack just incidentally happening. Charlatan's attack is mild enough to make incidental attacks less worrisome, but that in turn places more pressure on the rest of the card to be decent but not automatic. So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.

[math]

Oh man, guys, let's move this portion of the conversation over to the Variants Forum, what do you say?

If debt takes precedence, that could create interesting strategic plays.  For example, if you have $6 and 6 debt, it's probably often best to pay off exactly 5 debt so you don't have to buy a Copper.

[GendoIkari]

So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.

Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.

So if this card didn't have the attack, or it appeared in a Kingdom where +1 buy is either unavailable or not something my opponent is doing for, it would be very rare that I would buy this over silver. What if it cost and gave + now, + next turn? Though that makes it sound really good compared to Merchant Ship.

Oh, and seconded to Wero's suggestion; a simple "if they can" should clear up any rules questions about having Debt, or Contraband stuff.