Print

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

[segura]

^ This seems like a super cool idea, but also very similar to Transmogrify.

Transmogrify is an Upgrade variant, not a Remodel variant.

[Udzu]

^ This seems like a super cool idea, but also very similar to Transmogrify.

Ooh, good point! I liked the idea of deciding what you want to get before figuring out how to get it, which Transmogrify doesn't do. Also making it a Duration rather than a Reserve makes it Throne Roomable, which Transmogrify isn't. But I agree that they are pretty similar, possibly too similar.

[Udzu]

^ This seems like a super cool idea, but also very similar to Transmogrify.

Transmogrify is an Upgrade variant, not a Remodel variant.

It's sort of in between: it's $1 not $2 but it's "up to $1" not "exactly $1".

[NoMoreFun]

Bookkeeper
Action - $4
Draw until you have 7 cards in hand
___________
In games using this, don't discard Actions and Treasures from your hand during Clean-Up (reveal your hand before you discard).

Rules clarification: You still draw 5 cards for your new hand in Clean-Up. Basically if you don't play an Action or Treasure, you get to "Save" it to your next hand for free. This is not optional.

Note: The new wording for Patron only gives you Coffers during an Action phase.

[segura]

^ This seems like a super cool idea, but also very similar to Transmogrify.

Transmogrify is an Upgrade variant, not a Remodel variant.

It's sort of in between: it's $1 not $2 but it's "up to $1" not "exactly $1".

Sure, there are tricks that Transmogrify can do like milling Provinces which Upgrade can not do.

My point was that Transmogrify is most similar to Upgrade (cantrip, with the „draw“ being delayed) whereas your card has nothing to do with Transmogrify (except for being delayed) and more with Remodel (terminal, Coin delta of $2).

[X-tra]

"Up to" makes a big difference when comparing Transmogrify to Upgrade. Upgrade can get rid of Coppers whereas Transmogrify may not. That is a fundamentally big difference between the two cards that pooling them in the same category is dubious at best.

[SignError]

I don’t think “at least $X less than it” is ever used to refer to card costs, so it’s difficult to tell for sure, but I think “at least” might be used incorrectly here.  The closest comparison I could find is Wine Merchant, which says “if you have at least $2 unspent.”  It works with $2 unspent or $3 unspent, or $7 unspent; any number greater than or equal to 2.

But that makes me think that for Pre-Order you could trash a card costing $2 less than it, or $3, less than it, or $7 less than it (e.g. a Copper for a King’s Court), and that’s not what we want.  So maybe it needs to be “costing at most $2 less than it” or “costing up to $2 less than it,” but with things reversed the way they are, it’s tricky to tell for sure.

Edit:  I just thought of the reference card: the removed Saboteur, which uses “a card costing at most $2 less than it.”

Edit2:  But Saboteur wants to gain cards costing less than or equal to the specified amount, while Pre-Order wants to trash a card costing greater than or equal to the specified amount.  So we definitely don’t want to use “at most.”  While “at least” isn’t used this way on any official cards, it should be what we want here.

[silverspawn]

^ This seems like a super cool idea, but also very similar to Transmogrify.

Transmogrify is an Upgrade variant, not a Remodel variant.

It's sort of in between: it's $1 not $2 but it's "up to $1" not "exactly $1".

I mean, I think this is mostly noise from a design perspective. The idea of transmogrify is to let you choose what to trash on a later turn (and then use it right away). Whether it's up to 1$ or up to 2$ or exactly 1$, that stuff impacts power level a lot, but in design space it's just a nudge.

I think the much more relevant objection is what you said initially, you have to choose what card you want ahead of time, so it's not that similar.

[segura]

"Up to" makes a big difference when comparing Transmogrify to Upgrade. Upgrade can get rid of Coppers whereas Transmogrify may not. That is a fundamentally big difference between the two cards that pooling them in the same category is dubious at best.

So you think that Transmogrify is more of a Remodel than an Upgrade variant?

[Kingreaper]

Pilgrim - $4
Action - Liaison

+1 action
Turn your journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face down, +2 favour. If it's face up +2 cards and you may trash a card from your hand.

___________________________________________________________________________
In games using this there is an additional ally. The normal ally applies to you only when your journey token is face up, the additional ally only when it's face down.

1. I assume with this that Plateau Shepherds gives you if and only if your Journey token is face up at the end of the game?
2. Pilgrim is already the name of an existing card.

1 is correct, assuming that Plateau Shepherds was the first Ally (if the second, then it only counts if your journey token is face down). 2 is dang annoying, I've played with the Pilgrim several times and just forgot about it. Will have a think on a new name.

[AJL828]

Forsaken City
Action ($3)

+2 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
---
In games using this, when you discard an Action other than in Clean-up, if you don't have a copy of it in play, you may play it.

FAQ: When discarding multiple cards at once (such as with FC itself), you may choose the order they get played in (provided all discarded cards are not yet in play of course).
Discarding multiple of the same Action will only let you play 1, as the first is already in play by the time you would resolve the second one.

The top looks really bad for $3, but that's when the bottom sticks out to you. It essentially gives Weaver's/Village Green's reaction to anything you don't have in play. If you're able to discard 2 Actions you haven't played yet, this can act as a Lost City! But you'll quickly run out of differently named cards to play, and you always have to discard 2 cards. If anyone has a different wording to get the same idea across, that would be greatly appreciated (since I know the current one is a little long).

EDIT: Slight rewording to clarify that you cannot play multiple of the same Action if they are discarded at the same time.

[Gubump]

With so many good ideas already, hopefully this is competitive enough. I though about modifying Duchy an idea i have employed on more than one Project, but it seams less wordy to just make another card instead.

City Builder
$5 Action
+2 Actions; You may discard a Victory card for +2 Cards.
City Wall costs $1 less with this in play, but not less than $2.
-----------
In games using this, include City Wall in the Kingdom.

City Wall
$5 Action - Victory
+1 Card, +1 Action
------------
2 Victory

update 20230126:
* Added "City Wall costs $1 less with this in play." to make City Builder a more compelling card.
* Added ", but not less than $2." to City Builder to provide a price floor.

Is City Wall also a Kingdom card that could appear in a game without City Builder accompanying it, or can it only be in the game if CB is?

[BryGuy]

With so many good ideas already, hopefully this is competitive enough. I though about modifying Duchy an idea i have employed on more than one Project, but it seams less wordy to just make another card instead.

City Builder
$5 Action
+2 Actions; You may discard a Victory card for +2 Cards.
City Wall costs $1 less with this in play, but not less than $2.
-----------
In games using this, include City Wall in the Kingdom.

City Wall
$5 Action - Victory
+1 Card, +1 Action
------------
2 Victory

update 20230126:
* Added "City Wall costs $1 less with this in play." to make City Builder a more compelling card.
* Added ", but not less than $2." to City Builder to provide a price floor.

Is City Wall also a Kingdom card that could appear in a game without City Builder accompanying it, or can it only be in the game if CB is?

It looks like i did make City Wall generic enough that it could be in any set of ten Kingdom cards, but designed it specifically to be a modified Duchy so as to reduce words on City Builder. City Builder would add City Wall as an 11th Kingdom card.

[Gubump]

With so many good ideas already, hopefully this is competitive enough. I though about modifying Duchy an idea i have employed on more than one Project, but it seams less wordy to just make another card instead.

City Builder
$5 Action
+2 Actions; You may discard a Victory card for +2 Cards.
City Wall costs $1 less with this in play, but not less than $2.
-----------
In games using this, include City Wall in the Kingdom.

City Wall
$5 Action - Victory
+1 Card, +1 Action
------------
2 Victory

update 20230126:
* Added "City Wall costs $1 less with this in play." to make City Builder a more compelling card.
* Added ", but not less than $2." to City Builder to provide a price floor.

Is City Wall also a Kingdom card that could appear in a game without City Builder accompanying it, or can it only be in the game if CB is?

It looks like i did make City Wall generic enough that it could be in any set of ten Kingdom cards, but designed it specifically to be a modified Duchy so as to reduce words on City Builder. City Builder would add City Wall as an 11th Kingdom card.

Well, I realize it would be an 11th Kingdom card, but I'll take that as a no, you cannot have City Wall in the Kingdom without City Builder.

[Gubump]

Forsaken City
Action ($3)

+2 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
---
In games using this, when you discard an Action you don't have a copy of in play other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to play it.

FAQ: When discarding multiple cards at once (such as with FC itself), you may choose the order they get played in (provided all discarded cards are not yet in play of course).

The top looks really bad for $3, but that's when the bottom sticks out to you. It essentially gives Weaver's/Village Green's reaction to anything you don't have in play. If you're able to discard 2 Actions you haven't played yet, this can act as a Lost City! But you'll quickly run out of differently named cards to play, and you always have to discard 2 cards. If anyone has a different wording to get the same idea across, that would be greatly appreciated (since I know the current one is a little long).

Is it intentional that if you discard 2 of the same Action you don't have copies of in play, you can play both of them, since you had no copies in play when they were discarded?

[AJL828]

Forsaken City
Action ($3)

+2 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
---
In games using this, when you discard an Action you don't have a copy of in play other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to play it.

FAQ: When discarding multiple cards at once (such as with FC itself), you may choose the order they get played in (provided all discarded cards are not yet in play of course).

The top looks really bad for $3, but that's when the bottom sticks out to you. It essentially gives Weaver's/Village Green's reaction to anything you don't have in play. If you're able to discard 2 Actions you haven't played yet, this can act as a Lost City! But you'll quickly run out of differently named cards to play, and you always have to discard 2 cards. If anyone has a different wording to get the same idea across, that would be greatly appreciated (since I know the current one is a little long).

Is it intentional that if you discard 2 of the same Action you don't have copies of in play, you can play both of them, since you had no copies in play when they were discarded?

No, I had intended for them to be resolved separately, 1 at a time (which would prevent doubling up on the same action). I’m not sure how to reword it to reflect that though.

[Gubump]

Forsaken City
Action ($3)

+2 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
---
In games using this, when you discard an Action you don't have a copy of in play other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to play it.

FAQ: When discarding multiple cards at once (such as with FC itself), you may choose the order they get played in (provided all discarded cards are not yet in play of course).

The top looks really bad for $3, but that's when the bottom sticks out to you. It essentially gives Weaver's/Village Green's reaction to anything you don't have in play. If you're able to discard 2 Actions you haven't played yet, this can act as a Lost City! But you'll quickly run out of differently named cards to play, and you always have to discard 2 cards. If anyone has a different wording to get the same idea across, that would be greatly appreciated (since I know the current one is a little long).

Is it intentional that if you discard 2 of the same Action you don't have copies of in play, you can play both of them, since you had no copies in play when they were discarded?

No, I had intended for them to be resolved separately, 1 at a time (which would prevent doubling up on the same action). I’m not sure how to reword it to reflect that though.

Even though it sounds like it means the same thing, I believe that "In games using this, when you discard an Action, if you don't have a copy of it in play, you may play it" would check the condition when you'd potentially play the cards rather than when you discard them.

[SignError]

Forsaken City
Action ($3)

+2 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
---
In games using this, when you discard an Action you don't have a copy of in play other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to play it.

... If anyone has a different wording to get the same idea across, that would be greatly appreciated (since I know the current one is a little long).

Is it intentional that if you discard 2 of the same Action you don't have copies of in play, you can play both of them, since you had no copies in play when they were discarded?

No, I had intended for them to be resolved separately, 1 at a time (which would prevent doubling up on the same action). I’m not sure how to reword it to reflect that though.

Even though it sounds like it means the same thing, I believe that "In games using this, when you discard an Action, if you don't have a copy of it in play, you may play it" would check the condition when you'd potentially play the cards rather than when you discard them.

Don't forget the "... when you discard an Action, other than in Clean-up, ..."

You definitely still need that to avoid issues.  Add that, and I think the rewording is much better.  No need to reveal, just like with Trail.

[d4mn13l]

I haven't tested this and it might be very unfun, and even if it works with 2 players, I think it scales very poorly for multiplayer.
Basically the idea is that you can hand out unlimited curses, but they might come back to hurt you.
It's called Loyal Witch because it helps its king (the player) not just cursing the others, but also removing his curses as well.

[segura]

While the potential for unlimited discarding is limited, you don’t want a Militia that can bring you down to zero.

[d4mn13l]

The whole point is that you can't spam it but make sure that that doesn't happen. As I said, I didn't test this, so it could either be really interesting or really bad.

[segura]

The whole point is that you can't spam it but make sure that that doesn't happen. As I said, I didn't test this, so it could either be really interesting or really bad.

I don't think that you got my point: while the limit for hard discarding is mitigated by the fact that everybody is affected and that there are only so many Curses that are ordinarly trashed, you never ever want an unlimited discard attack in Dominion lest somebody gets pinned down.

I mean, you can easily imagine a draw engine with sufficient draw and Buys, 2 Loyal Witches or Chapel and the eternal pin happens: Buy 4-5 Curses and useful things, draw your stuff, trash the Curses. Boom, your turn again. Rinse and repeat.

So it is not even that theoretical ... but even if it were theoretical, don't open up even the faintest possibility for pins!

[LTaco]

I have play-tested this a little and it doesn´t slow games down as much as one might think.

[d4mn13l]

The whole point is that you can't spam it but make sure that that doesn't happen. As I said, I didn't test this, so it could either be really interesting or really bad.

I don't think that you got my point: while the limit for hard discarding is mitigated by the fact that everybody is affected and that there are only so many Curses that are ordinarly trashed, you never ever want an unlimited discard attack in Dominion lest somebody gets pinned down.

I mean, you can easily imagine a draw engine with sufficient draw and Buys, 2 Loyal Witches or Chapel and the eternal pin happens: Buy 4-5 Curses and useful things, draw your stuff, trash the Curses. Boom, your turn again. Rinse and repeat.

So it is not even that theoretical ... but even if it were theoretical, don't open up even the faintest possibility for pins!

I completely forgot that you could simply buy the curses. Oops. Then it's obviously not good. When creating the card, I thought about making it only discard down to two or three cards, but I feel like that would kill the entire point of the card. Maybe it doesn't, but you could still do it.

[anordinaryman]

Bluffs | Action - Victory
+2 Cards
+1 Action
1 VP
In games using this, when any one gains a Victory card, each other player draws up to 6 cards in hand

The image editor made the font all tiny, unfortunately.

I wanted some fun mechanic to turn every victory card into a party of the council-room/lost city sort. So that's the purpose of this card. The top-half is just, some victory card, and something you want in most games. A lab does that. I'm not certain of the cost... I think it could be $5, but maybe it should be $6. If I compare it to lost city, this one seems slightly better (assuming there is another village, you might prefer to have the extra point -- if there is no other village, then you have to get another lost cities in your deck as you need, and then you prefer Bluffs). But maybe not good enough to double the price point. The main reason for $6 is to make it harder to get two in one turn, although I could be convinced to move it back down to $5.

The card name is a hidden pun off of "council bluffs" a city in Iowa.