Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. "Thrown in" perhaps? Like you had an idea for a card but it was too powerful for its price point, so you added "discard a card"? Again, it's just how it looks - much more "fan card"y than usual.

A bit short on ideas but if you had a third card with "discard a card" then maybe a penalty card like "Cell" from my set Pandemonium? That's definitely overcomplicating things.

It just doesn't seem like there are many official cards that have a complicated effect with an unrelated discard as a penalty (referring mainly to mill town here). "Discard a card" in isolation is only on Oasis (not including the options on Hamlet). There are plenty of cards with multiple discards but they all seem a lot more deliberate.

IDK, just thinking out loud here.

[NoMoreFun]

You could do "look at 4, draw 2, put 2 back", but that's a well trodden theme and not too interesting fast or fun.

[LastFootnote]

Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. "Thrown in" perhaps? Like you had an idea for a card but it was too powerful for its price point, so you added "discard a card"? Again, it's just how it looks - much more "fan card"y than usual.

A bit short on ideas but if you had a third card with "discard a card" then maybe a penalty card like "Cell" from my set Pandemonium? That's definitely overcomplicating things.

It just doesn't seem like there are many official cards that have a complicated effect with an unrelated discard as a penalty (referring mainly to mill town here). "Discard a card" in isolation is only on Oasis (not including the options on Hamlet). There are plenty of cards with multiple discards but they all seem a lot more deliberate.

IDK, just thinking out loud here.

Well, Mill Town is that way due to testing. Originally it was just +2 Actions up top. Very quickly it became apparent that it was too weak. But just +1 Card (without discarding a card) is super-swingy. If you're lucky, you get two $5 cards on turn 3 or 4. It sucks that it looks tacked on to you, but it's a very deliberate balancing mechanism.

[LastFootnote]

You could do "look at 4, draw 2, put 2 back", but that's a well trodden theme and not too interesting fast or fun.

I considered that, but I think it's very powerful and slow. Really I want to avoid putting stuff back because it's either slow (tougher decision than what to discard) or meaningless (you're going to play Convoy again and draw them) or, with novice players, both.

[NoMoreFun]

Maybe make convoy cost 3 then. IIRC we discussed the trade token cards and they all more or less make sense without the Trade token effects at their costs.

[LastFootnote]

Maybe make convoy cost 3 then. IIRC we discussed the trade token cards and they all more or less make sense without the Trade token effects at their costs.

It's been a while since I changed it, but I think the biggest reason Convoy costs $4 right now is that Enterprise has too many $3 cards and needs more $4 cards. If Trade Goods ends up testing well, then I replace Craftsman with that, so that's just replacing one $4 card with another.

I'm thinking of changing (and renaming) Domain. People complain that the VP is too swingy and luck-based. The concept is a card that you want several of, but can only get from other players. The original version was a Treasure that gained you a Gold if you lined them up, but that was too many hoops to jump though. Steal one, then collide them before they got stolen back? Not happening in most games. Then there was a similar version that let you search your discard pile and get the bonus if you revealed one. That was super wordy and not that compelling. The VP was a good way to make you want Domains in your deck, but not have to collide them.

But now I'm thinking, maybe it's good enough to just make you want to gain Domains, not necessarily make you want to have multiple. It should work out mostly the same.

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I will probably also change Barrister. Right now I've replaced the Thieves in my main set with Bandits, which is basically Barrister without the Domains. With this new version of "Domain", I may try to create a cheaper version of Barrister, probably one that trashes Domains from others' hands.

Barrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.

[Co0kieL0rd]

But now I'm thinking, maybe it's good enough to just make you want to gain Domains, not necessarily make you want to have multiple. It should work out mostly the same.

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I will probably also change Barrister. Right now I've replaced the Thieves in my main set with Bandits, which is basically Barrister without the Domains. With this new version of "Domain", I may try to create a cheaper version of Barrister, probably one that trashes Domains from others' hands.

Barrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.

I think changing Barrister and Domains is a smart move. You split up the 2 (or 3) concepts the original Barrister had over two cards which works better with your objective of simplicity. However, "gain a Gold", while certainly being a good on-gain effect, seems a little boring to me. Plus you already have Profiteer as a Gold gainer. There's probably lots of compelling alternatives for Domain.
Anyway, an on-gain effect is the right way to go. While it doesn't make Barrister less swingy, Domain becomes more balanced and still desirable. It also opens a new strategic route related to Domains; trash them mid-turn and gain them back with Barrister to harness its on-gain effect multiple times!

[LastFootnote]

However, "gain a Gold", while certainly being a good on-gain effect, seems a little boring to me. Plus you already have Profiteer as a Gold gainer. There's probably lots of compelling alternatives for Domain.

I am certainly open to suggestions! The idea behind "gain a Gold" is that it's both very terse while also being compelling for lots of players. I don't mind having two cards that gain Gold in the set, but I also wouldn't mind having something better there.

[Asper]

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I know this is totally irrelevant since Domain is not in the supply, but it's practically "strictly better" than Cache. I assume you noticed this and don't mind, which is totally reasonable, but i just thought i'd mention it. Maybe you'd want to change the price to 0$ to avoid discussion about why it should be worth $3 instead of 5$ or more. This would also make Domain behave like Copper to most cards besides Barrister, but i'm not sure whether you'd like or dislike that.

[pacovf]

Considering that other players have to trash a pseudo-copper for you to gain Domain, the comparison to Cache is all too apt.

I am not sure this is the way to go for Domain. Maybe another sort of on-gain bonus would win me over, though.

[LastFootnote]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

[Awaclus]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

[LastFootnote]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

I'm well aware, man, but I am spitballing here. "Gain a card costing up to $4" seems awful.

[pacovf]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Part of the problem is that the other players are getting rid of a junk card and you are gaining one (since Domain is basically a Copper). I think it worked before because it was a potentially high yield VP card, so you actually wanted to keep it, despite it holding you down.

I would consider some sort of "when you gain or play this" to help with that (obviously the bonus would have to be made irrelevant in T1 or T2). EDIT: or just on play, but have neo-Barrister gain it to hand.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

It is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.

*EDIT: The attack is comparable to cutpurse, except it's much more likely to miss and do nothing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

It is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.

*EDIT: The attack is comparable to cutpurse, except it's much more likely to miss and do nothing.

Mmh, now I think I dislike the fact that the suggested new version of Barrister only trashes a Domain from players' hands and otherwise whiffs. Maybe it could trash (specifically) a Silver from a hand without a Domain? That might be very frustrating, though, if your opponent trashes your only Silver on T3 so... bad idea

[werothegreat]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

[Awaclus]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

It's most certainly not a Poor House at all. Poor House and Auction are similar in the scenario where you don't really even want a Poor House, not in the scenario where Poor House is actually strong.

[LastFootnote]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

It's Secret Chamber's reaction plus $2. That had occurred to me.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

I'm not at all sure. It still seems weak, actually. I'm thinking of adding a Reaction, but if it's a reaction to attacks, then maybe it's too close to Secret Chamber.

[Co0kieL0rd]

While I personally love blue cards, I'm not sure Auction needs a buff, especially if it makes the card more complicated (I thought you were averse to that). However, I think werothegreat way overestimates its power.

Asper and I occasionally test some Enterprise cards, so we might try this version of Auction eventually. It seems more interesting like this and the reaction doesn't make it necessarily stronger because when you use it, you significantly weaken your current hand as well as other Auctions that might be in it.

By the way, we recently tested Harbor and Floodgate (in different games). Harbor is very strong and helped me, like, three times to secure a Province. It's not too strong, a good $5-cost card. In your overview post, you should emphasise more the power that lies in Harbor's versatility. Floodgate is fun to play with and offers some neat interactions (e.g. with Dungeon and Asper's Sultan).

[LastFootnote]

While I personally love blue cards, I'm not sure Auction needs a buff, especially if it makes the card more complicated (I thought you were averse to that). However, I think werothegreat way overestimates its power.

Simple is good, but Reactions are fun. I think it's nice when you can pair a simple Reaction with a simple Action/Treasure.

Auction doesn't need a buff on the boards where it's good, but I feel like those boards are too few and far between. The Reaction is trying to make it pertinent in more games.

Asper and I occasionally test some Enterprise cards, so we might try this version of Auction eventually. It seems more interesting like this and the reaction doesn't make it necessarily stronger because when you use it, you significantly weaken your current hand as well as other Auctions that might be in it.

Yes, it should be a decent reaction to discard attacks, which normally make you more likely to ignore Auction.

By the way, we recently tested Harbor and Floodgate (in different games). Harbor is very strong and helped me, like, three times to secure a Province. It's not too strong, a good $5-cost card. In your overview post, you should emphasise more the power that lies in Harbor's versatility. Floodgate is fun to play with and offers some neat interactions (e.g. with Dungeon and Asper's Sultan).

Thanks again! I'm very glad that the cards played well. Hopefully I'll be able to get in some more testing of my own soon. I'm looking forward to trying out Trade Goods and Raider (which I may rename Racketeer).

[Asper]

I think the reaction is a neat and interesting thing. There's just one problem, and it really irks me: It removes any doubt that Auction is a superior version of Secret Chamber.

I mean, really, action AND reaction part are much more useful, in that the action is nonterminal and gives a buy, while the reaction is actually meaningful, especially against attacks that would harm the card itself.

Edit: By the way, i'd like to state that i really, really enjoyed playing with Floodgate. It's a clever, simple and strategically interesting card.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I agree with Asper that as an action/reaction like this, Auction feels completely superior to Secret Chamber. It nullifies discard attacks now, which is cool, but I'd raise the cost to $3 again.

[scott_pilgrim]

Doesn't Secret Chamber mostly just get used with Scrying Pool and Tactician though?  Turning cards into coin is mostly only good when you can re-draw those cards later; since you have to wait until after your action phase to play Auction, that's a pretty big drawback compared to Secret Chamber.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I have played a couple games with Auction and it seems just fine as-is (without the reaction). I agree with CookieLord that the reaction would make it want to cost $3.  It's okay for it to not be that good some games because I think there will be more games when it'll be useful.
BTW, We've played a couple games with Trade Goods too and liked it.