Print

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

[tlloyd]

Somewhere in the Secret Histories Donald mentioned that he had more ideas for one-shot cards, and that we might see more in the future. I think one-shot cards are very interesting strategically, but it's hard to see how games would work if many or most of the kingdom cards were one-shots. This put in my head the idea of a card that would allow you to recover your one-shots. Rather than another "sift through the trash pile for goodies" card, I envisioned a reaction that would work like a reverse Watchtower -- allowing you to gain cards that had just been trashed.

In order to make the card relevant, though, it has to do something else as well, and it probably needs to ensure that cards get trashed. This could mean one of three things: make it a trash-for-benefit card, make it a trashing attack, or make it a one-shot itself. All are interesting possibilities.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking that there should be a card that allows you to put gained cards directly into your hand, which also is a spin-off of Watchtower. The common connection to Watchtower led me to combine the two ideas as follows:

In plain English the card can react to three different events: (1) if a card from your deck was just trashed, you may gain it (to your discard pile); (2) if you just gained a card, you may move it to your deck; and (3) if you just placed a card on your deck, you may place it in your hand. Obviously in order to keep a trashed one-shot from coming right back into your hand, this card would have to use a reveal-and-discard mechanic.

Notice that this reaction would not allow you to trash incoming curses, so in that respect Watchtower still has a unique function. But it would allow you to snatch back the Colony that just got Sabotaged (you also get to gain a Platinum, because your Colony was in fact trashed, but the Plat can't go on top of your deck if you intend to save your Colony).

If that's all the card does though, then it only serves as a half-watchtower in games without certain trashers or top-decking potential. But I'm already worried that there is no sufficiently concise way to word the reaction component. Also, this card could be terribly confusing with Possession, could make Forge, the Remodel family, and trash-for-benefit cards very powerful, and would completely nerf Saboteur.

As for the name, I'm inclined to go with Magician, as it connotes both bringing the "dead" back to life and sleight of hand with cards. I would welcome any thought on cost, whether an action is necessary and what it should be (I like the idea of a card that is simply a reaction, if it is worth buying), and any other potential problems I may have overlooked (I'm sure there are many).

[LastFootnote]

I had conceived a Reaction card for my one-shot themed expansion that you could discard/set aside when you trashed a card in order to gain a card costing less than the trashed card. I worried that allowing you to gain the same card right back would be too powerful with trash-for-benefit cards like Bishop and Remodel.

I have severe misgivings about a letting you gain arbitrary cards directly into your hand. If it's a specific card like a basic Treasure, fine. But you could probably get up to all sorts of shenanigans by gaining Action cards directly into your hand.

Also, from a practicality standpoint, there's probably not enough room on a card to react to three different events and do three different things.

Cool idea in general, though.

EDIT: I should say, cool ideas in general. You could probably split the effects into two or more cards.

[eHalcyon]

I've thought about a similar idea.  I figure that it should be specified that you it doesn't merely change "trash" to "discard" (a la Possession).  For example, "When you trash a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand.  If you do, you may gain a copy of the trashed card from the Supply."  Otherwise, you risk an abuse case where cards that *should* be trashed like Feast and Embargo could remain in your deck indefinitely.

You can expand on this concept in a few different ways as well.  For example, you could have the Reaction respond to ANY trashed card.  Play Saboteur, trash P2's Colony, both you and P3 reveal Magician and gain a Colony.  Sorry, P2, bad luck.

Or you could have a Reaction that makes it so that opponents gain copies of the card that was trashed... but that would get pretty messy when multiple players have the card in hand and reveal simultaneously. 

[qmech]

I've thought about a similar idea.  I figure that it should be specified that you it doesn't merely change "trash" to "discard" (a la Possession).  For example, "When you trash a card, you may reveal and discard this from your hand.  If you do, you may gain a copy of the trashed card from the Supply."  Otherwise, you risk an abuse case where cards that *should* be trashed like Feast and Embargo could remain in your deck indefinitely.

This is supposed to be a feature, rather than a bug, with the specific intention of helping one-shots.  Using a card from your hand to save a Feast or Embargo doesn't seem overpowered.

It's an interesting idea.  Do you have any example of play you'd like to see this card enable?

[Davio]

You're mentioning Watchtower, but Trader could be another fun example to use.

For instance:
Action - Reaction
[Do something with trash as the main action]

After you trash a card, you may reveal this.
If you do, gain a Silver.


Note that you can't play this card and react at the same time. If you use one copy to trash, you must have another copy to reveal.
Would be fun to use this with Forge: I'll just grab a gazillion Silvers, thank you. 

[tlloyd]

I've been trying to come up with language concise enough to fit on a card. Here's my best attempt so far:

Magician
Reaction ($3)

"When a card is placed on a pile, you may reveal this card from your hand and discard it. If you…
-Trashed a card, gain it (to your Discard pile)
-Gained a card, place it on your deck
-Placed a card on your deck, place it in your hand"

I am pretty sure that the person who trashes a card is always the person who "owned" the card before it was trashed, so this prevents serious abuse with Saboteur, etc. Also, although the wording is a bit awkward, I think it is clear enough that a single reveal-and-discard of Magician does not allow you to trigger all three reactions, thus placing a trashed one-shot right back in your hand.

Some remaining questions:

This is a complete counter to Ghost Ship -- any reason to think that's a problem? (Moat is too, after all).  [EDIT: Nope - not a complete counter to Ghost Ship after all. In fact the only effect it can have is to allow you to discard Magician and only put one card back on your deck.]

In contrast, this does nothing against Militia, since as worded it does nothing in response to discarding a card (as opposed to gaining a card to your discard pile). Should this be changed? If so, how would you word it? Maybe "If you...Gained or Discarded a card, place it on your deck."

Finally, the awkward "when a card is placed on a pile" is potentially problematic, since you can reveal it in response to almost anything on anyone's turn. I tried to mitigate this by making the option "reveal and discard" instead of "you may reveal" followed by "you may discard." In other words, if you reveal it you have to discard it. The only odd feature of this wording then is the fact that you can chuck this card from your hand at will, say in anticipation of a Minion attack. I don't know how significant that bug is or how it could be fixed.

[LastFootnote]

I'm not sure I'd ever buy a pure Reaction card that only worked once before getting discarded.

EDIT: Actually, that's not true. I might if it permanently altered my deck in some way, a la Fool's Gold. It'd have to be better than Fool's Gold's reaction, though. Way better.

[eHalcyon]

This is a complete counter to Ghost Ship -- any reason to think that's a problem? (Moat is too, after all).

I don't think it's a complete counter.  It would change GS from "place X cards on top of deck" to "place X-1 cards on top of deck and discard Magician".  Say you have 5 in hand.  You would place 2 on your deck, then reveal and discard magician to put one of those cards back into your hand.  You still end up with a 5-card hand.

Of course, maybe you could argue some weird timing rule:

Opponent Plays Ghost Ship.
You place one card on top of deck.  You now have 4 cards in hand.
You reveal and discard Magician.  You now have 3 cards in hand and the attack is concluded.
Magician allows you to return the top-decked card to your hand.  You end with 4 cards.

But then you have the effects of each card interwoven with one another.  I think it would make more sense if you only revealed after placing 2 cards on the deck.  Or, if you "interrupt" the attack with the Magician reaction, the attack resumes afterwards so you still have to top-deck one of the cards from your 4 card hand.

[tlloyd]

This is a complete counter to Ghost Ship -- any reason to think that's a problem? (Moat is too, after all).

I don't think it's a complete counter.  It would change GS from "place X cards on top of deck" to "place X-1 cards on top of deck and discard Magician".  Say you have 5 in hand.  You would place 2 on your deck, then reveal and discard magician to put one of those cards back into your hand.  You still end up with a 5-card hand.

Of course, maybe you could argue some weird timing rule:

Opponent Plays Ghost Ship.
You place one card on top of deck.  You now have 4 cards in hand.
You reveal and discard Magician.  You now have 3 cards in hand and the attack is concluded.
Magician allows you to return the top-decked card to your hand.  You end with 4 cards.

But then you have the effects of each card interwoven with one another.  I think it would make more sense if you only revealed after placing 2 cards on the deck.  Or, if you "interrupt" the attack with the Magician reaction, the attack resumes afterwards so you still have to top-deck one of the cards from your 4 card hand.

Yeah, you're right. I was forgetting about the "reveal-and-discard".

[tlloyd]

So I just thought of a possible action to pair with Magician's reaction. How about a reverse swindler?

Magician
Action - Reaction ($4)
"Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card with equal or lower cost."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When a card is placed on a pile, you may reveal this card from your hand and discard it. If you…
-Trashed a card, gain it (to your Discard pile)
-Gained a card, place it on your deck
-Placed a card on your deck, place it in your hand"

Two more questions:
1. Should the action allow you to gain an identical card, or should it be limited to "a different card of equal or lower cost." If the card can be the same, having two magicians in hand allows you to simply gain a copy of any other card you have in hand (although at the expense of playing one magician and discarding the other, along with the target card).

2. If you use the action to trash, should the gaining be mandatory or optional? Turning Curses into Coppers is okay, but usually not as good as getting rid of the curses altogether.

[qmech]

1. Should the action allow you to gain an identical card, or should it be limited to "a different card of equal or lower cost." If the card can be the same, having two magicians in hand allows you to simply gain a copy of any other card you have in hand (although at the expense of playing one magician and discarding the other, along with the target card).

That doesn't sound even close to overpowered, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Here's another take on the reaction mechanics: whenever you do something with a card you may swap that card for one in your hand and do it to the new card instead.

Example interactions: play a Feast, then trash an Estate from your hand instead of the Feast, and put the Feast back in your hand.

Your Province is Swindled, you can trash a Copper from your hand, place the Province in hand, then gain another Province.

You're forced to discard Copper to Cutpurse, you put it back in your hand and discard a Curse.

Gain a Village with Ironworks, discard a card to put it in your hand.

This fits nicely with your proposed upper half and the theme of card manipulation.  It doesn't look obviously overpowered, but as an alternative to reveal-and-discard if it is you could replace the "switch with card from hand" by "look at the top card of your deck and optionally switch", Sea Hag style.

[tlloyd]

1. Should the action allow you to gain an identical card, or should it be limited to "a different card of equal or lower cost." If the card can be the same, having two magicians in hand allows you to simply gain a copy of any other card you have in hand (although at the expense of playing one magician and discarding the other, along with the target card).

That doesn't sound even close to overpowered, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Here's another take on the reaction mechanics: whenever you do something with a card you may swap that card for one in your hand and do it to the new card instead.

Example interactions: play a Feast, then trash an Estate from your hand instead of the Feast, and put the Feast back in your hand.

Your Province is Swindled, you can trash a Copper from your hand, place the Province in hand, then gain another Province.

You're forced to discard Copper to Cutpurse, you put it back in your hand and discard a Curse.

Gain a Village with Ironworks, discard a card to put it in your hand.

This fits nicely with your proposed upper half and the theme of card manipulation.  It doesn't look obviously overpowered, but as an alternative to reveal-and-discard if it is you could replace the "switch with card from hand" by "look at the top card of your deck and optionally switch", Sea Hag style.

That's an interesting idea, and as you say it fits the theme I described. But I worry that it would mess with the mechanics of the game in fundamental ways. For example, if I have a hand of Minion, copper x3, and Magician, could I play Minion but swap in a copper to play that instead? So I play all my copper and then get a new hand with Minion? I would bet there are hundreds of such cases where the reaction you describe would be either too strong or just completely disrupt the standard rules of the game.

[qmech]

For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

[tlloyd]

For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

But that still allows plays like the following:

1. Play Mining Village, +1 card +2 actions, trash it for +2 coin
2. Reveal Magician, trash a copper/curse/estate from hand, place Mining Village back in hand
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until you no longer have/draw a card that you are willing to trash for +2 coin
4. Use your 47* actions to draw and play the rest of your deck
5. Use your 93* coin to buy all the Provinces

*not intended to be a serious estimate

[qmech]

And the top of deck option?

[Deadlock39]

For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

But that still allows plays like the following:

1. Play Mining Village, +1 card +2 actions, trash it for +2 coin
2. Reveal Magician, trash a copper/curse/estate from hand, place Mining Village back in hand
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until you no longer have/draw a card that you are willing to trash for +2 coin
4. Use your 47* actions to draw and play the rest of your deck
5. Use your 93* coin to buy all the Provinces

*not intended to be a serious estimate

This card seems really cool, even if it might not be practical.  I think some of the most broken examples (like this one) can be at least half fixed by making sure the wording causes it to behave like Trader.  In this particular case, trashing a different card instead of the Mining Village would cause the "If you do" clause to fail, and you wouldn't get the +2 coins.  It is still pretty broken since you can trash through your entire deck as 1 shot Villages, but it wouldn't be quite as absurd.

This would also prevent the Swindler reveals a Province, keep it and gain another example brought up before, but it would still be strong to be able to Magician in an Estate when the Swindler hit.

[tlloyd]

For "do something" I was thinking in the senses you described: putting on deck, discarding and trashing.  So you wouldn't be able to use it to turn junk in hand into useful actions.

But that still allows plays like the following:

1. Play Mining Village, +1 card +2 actions, trash it for +2 coin
2. Reveal Magician, trash a copper/curse/estate from hand, place Mining Village back in hand
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until you no longer have/draw a card that you are willing to trash for +2 coin
4. Use your 47* actions to draw and play the rest of your deck
5. Use your 93* coin to buy all the Provinces

*not intended to be a serious estimate

This card seems really cool, even if it might not be practical.  I think some of the most broken examples (like this one) can be at least half fixed by making sure the wording causes it to behave like Trader.  In this particular case, trashing a different card instead of the Mining Village would cause the "If you do" clause to fail, and you wouldn't get the +2 coins.  It is still pretty broken since you can trash through your entire deck as 1 shot Villages, but it wouldn't be quite as absurd.

This would also prevent the Swindler reveals a Province, keep it and gain another example brought up before, but it would still be strong to be able to Magician in an Estate when the Swindler hit.

I'm not sure I follow you. My proposed card recovers the trashed card after it gets trashed, so you still get any bonus that was contingent on the trashing.

[Deadlock39]

I was proposing a change to the card so it works like Trader to make combos like the one you described less crazy.  I guess reading things again, you didn't seem to be explicitly looking for that type of feedback.

I saw it as (and personally thought) "this seems like a really cool mechanic, but it is totally broken in a few situations".  I was thinking of ways to reduce the situations that seem overpowered and thought it might be better if you didn't get to replace things after they were trashed.

[qmech]

Deadlock's comment makes me realise that there isn't so much of a problem with Mining Village, since you don't get the +$2.  It's still a very effective trasher, but more a cool interaction than obviously broken.  As a "worst" case scenario Mining Village doesn't seem so bad.

[tlloyd]

I've tweaked the card a bit, making it (I think) simpler but weaker:

Magician
Action - Reaction ($3)
"Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card with equal or lower cost."
- - -
"When you place a card on a pile, you may reveal Magician from your hand. If you do, put the card into your hand, and put Magician on that pile."

So when you trash, gain or top-deck a card, you reveal Magician and then the two cards switch places. This means
- You can still save your Colony from your opponent's Saboteur (and gain a Platinum for your trouble), but only at the expense of trashing your Magician.
- You can still trash a Colony with one Magician, gain a Colony, and reveal a second Magician to recover the trashed Colony, but once again only by trashing the second Magician.
- In general Magician is much weaker at its intended purpose (strengthening strategies that rely heavily on one-shots), but that might be a good thing, balance-wise.
- Magician does not duplicate Watchtower any longer, but in a very limited sense outclasses it, because you put a gained card right into your hand.
- Two Magicians really could amount to a reverse Swindler, since you could trash the Duchy with one, gaining a new ($5 card), and reveal the second Magician to put the newly gained card right into your hand.
- There is a very odd and potentially interesting reaction with Ambassador (can you put a Magician on top of some other supply pile?) I don't know how serious this bug would be or how to fix it.

I like this version a lot, but I think it's somewhat weak. Would it be better at $4 and make it non-terminal?

[LastFootnote]

I'm still leery of the 'when you place a card on a pile' thing. What if that pile is a Supply pile? Does the Magician go there?

[tlloyd]

I'm still leery of the 'when you place a card on a pile' thing. What if that pile is a Supply pile? Does the Magician go there?

I raised this point in my post, although I don't have a perfect answer. You could change the language to read "non-supply pile" (I just realized there's another crazy combo with Black Market!). That's a bit awkward. You could simply state in the instructions that supply piles don't count. That's not very satisfying. Or you could follow the Hinterlands instructions (I forget which card) and simply state that Magician does not interact with Ambassador.

Or you could just let it happen! Plenty of fan-made cards envision allowing you to block supply piles by putting other cards on top (as Donald originally envisioned Embargo). My card just did it by accident.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry. You edited the explanation into your last post after I started writing my reply.

Anyhow, I don't think I'll ever like the 'put a card on a pile' wording. It just does too much and too much of what it does could be really unbalanced. All that in addition to the fact that it requires a long definition of what constitutes a legal pile.

I like how Watchtower and Trader are really versatile cards, but Magician just seems too versatile to me. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.

[tlloyd]

Sorry. You edited the explanation into your last post after I started writing my reply.

Anyhow, I don't think I'll ever like the 'put a card on a pile' wording. It just does too much and too much of what it does could be really unbalanced. All that in addition to the fact that it requires a long definition of what constitutes a legal pile.

I like how Watchtower and Trader are really versatile cards, but Magician just seems too versatile to me. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.

Sorry to sneak in the edit there. And I appreciate the feedback, even if it's not optimistic. Do you happen to have any ideas for making the card work? I think the idea is worth saving. What if the card simply said "when you place a card in the trash, your discard pile, or your deck"?

[qmech]

Putting cards onto wrong supply piles could be interesting.  Anyone want to knock up an Embargo variant that covers piles with junk cards?