Print

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

[Asper]

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game with Pickpocket recently, and we felt it was pretty weak and, sadly, irrelevant. He bought one, trashed my Lucky Coin, and that was it. I lost for a turn but got rid of a Copper. He gained a Gold, but also gained a Copper and was left with a Moat that made me needlessly reveal my hand. None of us had the impression he had gained a reasonable advantage, and actually i even felt he was worse off than me.

If you want to build on Pickpocket's idea, maybe players should exchange more of their starting Coppers for Lucky Coins. Of course, the more you exchange, the more you have to ask why Lucky Coin is there at all, and why Pickpocket doesn't simply trash Coppers to gain Gold. Also i think this is not what you are going for.

[LastFootnote]

I think it won't be so very long now until I get back into working on Enterprise. I've already got big plans to cut some cards, add some others, and tweak a couple of existing ones. In the meantime, here's a card idea based very loosely on GendoIkari's dream; specifically the idea of a card in play collecting tokens.



At first I thought I could simplify it by just setting aside the top card of your deck instead, but then if you draw your whole deck, you'd just get the cards you're buying. So I went back to using Trade tokens to track it instead. You don't get to keep the tokens; they come from the "supply" and go back there at the start of your next turn. In addition to rewarding you for buying cards (like Merchant Guild and Goons), it's a nifty counter to junking attacks.

I have no idea whether it's balanced yet, but I plan to test it once I have the time to test things again (which will hopefully be soon).

[LastFootnote]

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game with Pickpocket recently, and we felt it was pretty weak and, sadly, irrelevant. He bought one, trashed my Lucky Coin, and that was it. I lost for a turn but got rid of a Copper. He gained a Gold, but also gained a Copper and was left with a Moat that made me needlessly reveal my hand. None of us had the impression he had gained a reasonable advantage, and actually i even felt he was worse off than me.

If you want to build on Pickpocket's idea, maybe players should exchange more of their starting Coppers for Lucky Coins. Of course, the more you exchange, the more you have to ask why Lucky Coin is there at all, and why Pickpocket doesn't simply trash Coppers to gain Gold. Also i think this is not what you are going for.

I know it's very late, but thank you for testing it! I think I'm going to cut Barrister/Pickpocket and Domain/Lucky Coin for now. It's a cute idea, but it doesn't seem to be working all that well in practice.

[GendoIkari]

I think it won't be so very long now until I get back into working on Enterprise. I've already got big plans to cut some cards, add some others, and tweak a couple of existing ones. In the meantime, here's a card idea based very loosely on GendoIkari's dream; specifically the idea of a card in play collecting tokens.



At first I thought I could simplify it by just setting aside the top card of your deck instead, but then if you draw your whole deck, you'd just get the cards you're buying. So I went back to using Trade tokens to track it instead. You don't get to keep the tokens; they come from the "supply" and go back there at the start of your next turn. In addition to rewarding you for buying cards (like Merchant Guild and Goons), it's a nifty counter to junking attacks.

I have no idea whether it's balanced yet, but I plan to test it once I have the time to test things again (which will hopefully be soon).

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, its effect isn't too different from: will often just be:

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

[LastFootnote]

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Yes, the thought had occurred to me as well. I am definitely open to having it be "+1 Buy; +$1" instead of "+$2", but I may just test it this way first. There are a lot of ways to gain cards. You can…

• Get +Buy from another source.
• Use workshops to gain cards (requires a village, obviously).
• Buy a card that comes with other cards (Cache, Death Cart, Border Village).
• Get cards handed to you by other players (Witch, Messenger).

And another question is, how often will you buy it even when it just gives +1 Card? Maybe often enough.

Part of it is, it would be nice if it were more different from Merchant Guild. But if it doesn't test well like it is, I am absolutely willing to slap +1 Buy on there.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

[GendoIkari]

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Yes, the thought had occurred to me as well. I am definitely open to having it be "+1 Buy; +$1" instead of "+$2", but I may just test it this way first. There are a lot of ways to gain cards. You can…

• Get +Buy from another source.
• Use workshops to gain cards (requires a village, obviously).
• Buy a card that comes with other cards (Cache, Death Cart, Border Village).
• Get cards handed to you by other players (Witch, Messenger).

And another question is, how often will you buy it even when it just gives +1 Card? Maybe often enough.

Part of it is, it would be nice if it were more different from Merchant Guild. But if it doesn't test well like it is, I am absolutely willing to slap +1 Buy on there.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

I don't know if it would feel like Merchant Guild even if the top were exactly the same. Drawing cards at the start of your next turn is very different from getting coin tokens. But I do see your point.

Is it definitely too strong at if it were +, +1 buy? That doesn't seem clear to me; it would usually still be weaker than Wharf I'd think. I guess a good question is what percentage of games would have ways of gaining multiple cards? Given that you need to be able to play the +buy or workshop-variant while also playing this, meaning if it's terminal, you need a village.

I also like the way this would work with junking attacks.

[GendoIkari]

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

This might be a terrible idea, but what if the gained cards went on this card, to provide the tracking of how many? And then put in your discard at the start of your next turn? That would weaken it, of course, as it would increase the chance of cards missing the shuffle. But perhaps it would weaken it enough that +, +1 buy is then balanced? And it would only matter towards the end of a shuffle anyway.

[LastFootnote]

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

This might be a terrible idea, but what if the gained cards went on this card, to provide the tracking of how many? And then put in your discard at the start of your next turn? That would weaken it, of course, as it would increase the chance of cards missing the shuffle. But perhaps it would weaken it enough that +, +1 buy is then balanced? And it would only matter towards the end of a shuffle anyway.

That doesn't work if you played more than one Merchant Quarter, though; especially if you gained cards between playing them.

[LastFootnote]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

[Haddock]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though.  Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".

[LastFootnote]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though.  Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

[Haddock]

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned. 

That way also there's no confusion as to whether you get to keep the tokens  (not that there was much confusion anyway).

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned. 

That way also there's no confusion as to whether you get to keep the tokens  (not that there was much confusion anyway).

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

[Haddock]

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

Oh yeah obviously.  Um dunno.

Is the main source of tokens a "Pile"?  Or a "Pool"? Or something... 

[LastFootnote]

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

Oh yeah obviously.  Um dunno.

Is the main source of tokens a "Pile"?  Or a "Pool"? Or something...

Well I guess we'd just have to come up with a word since there isn't an official one. I like "pile" except that's a defined term that means pile of cards.

[Asper]

You might want to use "lose". The new penalty tokens from Adventures use that term when removed.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like the basic idea of Merchant Quarter, especially because of the fact that it gives you tokens whenever you gain a card instead of when you buy one. It's not only practially unlike Merchant Guild and Goons, it also feels quite different and rewards a different strategy. Since it works with several other cards that either give +buy or gain cards, I don't feel like it needs a +buy attached to it, design-wise. It's probably weak without any source of gaining and no junking attacks as well, but a board that has neither is a rare occurence. For most cards there are some situations where they don't fit in at all but for Merchant Quarter I don't think that should be the case very often. Still, on an average board, it's probably one of the weaker -cards but that's totally fine as long as the idea is creative and practical.

[gkrieg13]

I think with the +buy, it just becomes too stackable.  It does change strategy in an interesting way with junking attacks and with other gainers.  I feel like it would be very powerful on the right board.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. For my first tests (which will likely be early November) I've decided to go with the wording you see on that mockup, except with "return" instead of "remove" to make it more clear that the tokens go back to the pile. I'm just not so worried about the Procession interaction as long as there's a consistent ruling.

I'm glad the idea of the card has been well-received. Now that I'm allowing myself to add some Duration cards to Enterprise, hopefully I'll have some more fresh, simple Duration ideas soon.

[LastFootnote]

For those who are curious about the future of Enterprise, here's the link to its imgur gallery: http://imgur.com/a/MsJH8

Anything that's in the OP but not in this gallery, I plan to drop. Anything that's in this gallery but not in the OP, I plan to test (but haven't yet at the time of this writing). I plan to try a $2 version of Wanderer (which is why the image is in the $2 area despite it costing $3) and Raider at $4 (same thing). I will test the Reaction version of Auction, but am totally willing to revert back to the Reaction-less version.

Also, now that Adventures is out, here are the galleries for my prototypes.

Cards: http://imgur.com/a/cWM90
Events: http://imgur.com/a/PmUjy

Mostly they just have different art, but you can see that Events had a mauve border during playtesting (and are that color on isotropic). I'd post a gallery of Adventures outtakes, but I removed them from imgur (this was back when they had a 300 image limit per account). Perhaps I will re-upload them someday.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think it would be cool to build a big engine with lots of extra buys and a few Merchant Quarters, then finish every turn by buying a million Copper, and then be able to draw them all with your Merchant Quarters.

[GendoIkari]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. For my first tests (which will likely be early November) I've decided to go with the wording you see on that mockup, except with "return" instead of "remove" to make it more clear that the tokens go back to the pile. I'm just not so worried about the Procession interaction as long as there's a consistent ruling.

I'm glad the idea of the card has been well-received. Now that I'm allowing myself to add some Duration cards to Enterprise, hopefully I'll have some more fresh, simple Duration ideas soon.

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

[LastFootnote]

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

I don't know, "add" seems fine. But, thank you for making me look at Trade Route! I notice that it doesn't specify which kind of token is being used. Now that I know there is precedent for that, I'll remove the word "Trade" from Merchant Quarter.

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

Here I agree with you. Unless and until this sort of thing receives an official ruling, let's say that it works even if Merchant Quarter leaves play.

EDIT: Hmm, I'm coming around on "add" already, GendoIkari. "Put a token here" seems good. What do you think?

[GendoIkari]

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

I don't know, "add" seems fine. But, thank you for making me look at Trade Route! I notice that it doesn't specify which kind of token is being used. Now that I know there is precedent for that, I'll remove the word "Trade" from Merchant Quarter.

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

Here I agree with you. Unless and until this sort of thing receives an official ruling, let's say that it works even if Merchant Quarter leaves play.

EDIT: Hmm, I'm coming around on "add" already, GendoIkari. "Put a token here" seems good. What do you think?

I also missed that Trade Route doesn't specify a token type, how interesting! That sounds like a perfect thing to copy in this case, then. Everyone seemed to just assume that they could use the coin tokens that came with Prosperity for this; so people would assume they can use a Trade Token that comes with Enterprise.

[LastFootnote]

Everyone seemed to just assume that they could use the coin tokens that came with Prosperity for this; so people would assume they can use a Trade Token that comes with Enterprise.

Not quite! The Prosperity rulebook specifies that the Coin tokens are for use with Trade Route. But the Enterprise "rulebook" can just explain that you can use Trade tokens for Merchant Quarter (and any other similar cards).