Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting.  It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.

But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?

[Thisisnotasmile]

I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting.  It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.

But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?

Philosopher's Stone sits in the corner crying...

[WanderingWinder]

My bad. It also gives you 2, just like Bank. Knew I forgot something...

[Epoch]

But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?

It could potentially give you money equal to the card's cost.

Which would also make it "not strictly better than Moneylender," since Coppers would give you 0.

[Deadlock39]

But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?

It could potentially give you money equal to the card's cost.

Which would also make it "not strictly better than Moneylender," since Coppers would give you 0.

But strictly worse than Salvager unfortunately...

[DStu]

I think a Super-Moneylender that trashed a "treasure" (as in any card with type "treasure") would be at least interesting.  It solves the issue of drawing Moneylender dead after most Coppers are gone.

But what does it do for you? If it gives +$3, it's strictly better than Moneylender at $4, so it would need to be more expensive. But it's not a very impressive 5. So probably it would have to trash for 2 more than the treasure's face value (HOP, Bank, potion would trash for 2, talisman, quarry, copper, venture for 3, silver, harem for 4, gold, contraband for 5, and platinum for 7) then it would be an interesting 5?

With all these special cards it really also does not feel good against the salvager, because the only cards where it gives more money are copper and silver. Which on the other hand should be the more common case.
So for Copper it is a moneylender, for Silver it is a Salvager +1$ -1Buy.  Compared to Salvager it can't trash Estates in the beginning but coppers for the same net value, while it is mor likely to hit than the salvager, who is on the other hand getting rid of estates instead of coppers. And is not so valuable in the endgame, but probably a little bit more valuable in midgame.
But overall, compared to Salvager I wouldn't say that it would be underpriced at $4. But there is the Moneylender...

[Epoch]

But strictly worse than Salvager unfortunately...

Duh, of course you're right.

You could allow it to trash multiple treasures per turn, but it's probably too close to Salvager anyway.

[Davio]

Well, the problem any Silver related card has over Copper is that you already start with 7 Coppers, but 0 Silvers.

You need to buy Silvers from the Supply. So if there is ever going to be a Big Moneylender, it may take a while to set up a good combo with it.

If there are going to be other Big Money helpers, I think the cards have to do something for every Treasure, not just Silver, like this Moneylender-esque card:

"Interest"
Treasure
Cost: 6 (5?)

+2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure card from your hand, +$ equal to half its cost in coins, rounded down; or reveal a hand with no Treasure.

Copper gives just +2$ in total.
Silver gives +3$.
Gold gives +5$.
Platinum gives +6$.
Harem gives +5$.
Potion gives +4$.
Philosopher's Stone gives +3$.
Loan gives +3$.
Quarry gives +4$.
Talisman gives +4$.
Contraband gives +4$.
Royal Seal gives +4$.
Venture gives +4$.
Hoard gives +5$.
Bank gives +5$.
Diadem gives +2$.
Horn of Plenty gives +4$.
Stash gives +4$.

You can always play this safely as the last Treasure in your hand if you don't want to trash something and then it's just a Silver. It's a handy card for trashing those nifty early game Treasures like Quarry, Talisman, Loan, Potion and of course Copper. I moved it out of the Action phase to differentiate somewhat from Salvager. This also solves the problem of: "It's better than Moneylender, but not a very good action card, since it's worse than Salvager." Making it a Treasure can prove very useful.

However, playing Venture and having to play this with Platinum in hand can have unwanted effects, but this may be solved by playing Venture last. Also if you have this and Bank, you have to think about the order in which you want to play them. So there may be a few problems, but overall I think a card like this has potential.

[Epoch]

Silver Rush
+1 Action
Trash any number of Silvers from your hand.  For each Silver so trashed, gain +2 cards and +$2.
Trash this card.




I was playing around with the idea of a card that let you successfully transition from a silver-heavy early-game into a late-game deck where Silver is a liability.  I think this concept has something going for it, though it'd need some playing around with to get the balance straight.  My concept was, in a few turns, burn all of the Silver in your deck into, say, Golds or high cost Actions or whatever.

[chwhite]

I think the most likely Silver boosters would be:

1) a Silversmith (Each Silver produces $1 more, probably with some other bonus too)
2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.

The first may happen, the second is almost certain to IMO.

[rinkworks]

All this speculation about themes and cards, and none at all about the most important question:  What color is the box going to be?

[guided]

2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.

I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."

[chwhite]

2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.

I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."

Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.

[guided]

Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.

It's not a "silver booster" any more than Bank is a "silver booster", and the topic of discussion with respect to "silver boosters" was whether there might be upcoming cards that specifically name "Silver" and give some bonus related to it. If you were changing the subject, well, that's OK I guess.

[HockeyHippo]

Dice. Hinterlands is the dice expansion.

Is this confirmed? My first impression is that I don't like this idea. Obviously I need to see some of the cards to create my opinion, we'll see.

I think I could see this being good if the dice had only had 2 or 3 options.

I guess it's the same way I feel about tribute, it can be very good, but it can be very bad as well(+4 actions with no actions in hand).

[WanderingWinder]

No, it hasn't been confirmed, and I'm pretty sure it was either a) a wild guess; or b) a joke. I'd be shocked if this were 'the dice expansion', as I don't think there WILL be a dice expansion - maybe a dice spin-off

[HockeyHippo]

No, it hasn't been confirmed, and I'm pretty sure it was either a) a wild guess; or b) a joke. I'd be shocked if this were 'the dice expansion', as I don't think there WILL be a dice expansion - maybe a dice spin-off

Ah, yes it is the gossip thread after all . I just had a feeling that from the confirmations that Donald was doing that it was a legitimate post.

Back to guessing themes/cards!

[AJD]

2) a Victory card which is variable based on the number of Treasure cards in your deck.

I could see this, but it's not Silver-specific at all. What I don't see is anything that specifically says "This card is good if you have Silver, and only Silver. Really, I only mean cards that say 'Silver' on the title line. Don't have any yet? Well maybe you should buy some. Sssiiillllllverrrrrrrr."

I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck is somewhat more likely than one that depends on the number of treasure cards in general in your deck. I mean man, people already have plenty of incentive to buy lots of gold; they don't need a special victory card to tell them to do that.

[guided]

I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck

Just try to imagine how boring this card would be.

I would, but my imagination just isn't big enough.

[PerdHapley]

I think a victory card which depends on the number of silvers in your deck is somewhat more likely than one that depends on the number of treasure cards in general in your deck. I mean man, people already have plenty of incentive to buy lots of gold; they don't need a special victory card to tell them to do that.

Not always... I've played plenty of winning games where Gold wasn't necessary, and some games that ended with the winner having no treasure at all. The only problem I see with a Victory Card that counts the treasure in your deck is that it's interactions with some cards would be absolutely INSANE, but if we can have University/Vineyard I guess we can have Hoard/???.

The thing is, though, if we were going to get a VC that makes your number of treasures matter, wouldn't it have been in Prosperity?

[guided]

I have a much higher win rate without gold (1.45) than with gold (1.31). Effect with: -1.03. Effect without: 2.19.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting we draw any conclusions from this bizarre fact!

[Mean Mr Mustard]

guided, I wonder if the cause of that may be that you do perform better than your average while playing decks that don't use treasure?

[mischiefmaker]

guided's "bizarre fact" is actually not that bizarre:

Player	Effect with	Effect w/out
Dstern	-0.67	1.01
Larry	-2.19	3.80
Obi Wan Bonogi	-0.66	1.55
drg	0.06	-0.19
Captain_Frisk	-0.72	1.66
tat	-0.77	1.33
Celicath	-0.79	1.10
theory	0.48	-1.17
natchez	-0.4	0.45
Blooki	-0.41	0.60

...which suggests that most top players do better than average relative to their opponents, playing strategies that do not involve gold.

[chwhite]

Just because it's not Silver-specific doesn't mean it wouldn't be an incentive to buy some Silver all the same.

It's not a "silver booster" any more than Bank is a "silver booster", and the topic of discussion with respect to "silver boosters" was whether there might be upcoming cards that specifically name "Silver" and give some bonus related to it. If you were changing the subject, well, that's OK I guess.

Well, I thought the subject was more along the lines of "cards that make Silver-based strategies better" rather than the narrower "cards that specifically mention Silver".  And I wasn't the only one- it isn't any less of a "silver booster" than the card people were talking about that trashes any old Treasure for benefit!

I mention it here because its practical implication would likely end up being more pro-Silver than pro-Copper or pro-Gold- assume this card costs 5 or 6: if you're going for it, you don't need Gold as much as you might for a Province strategy, but it's still too expensive to buy with a deck full of Coppers.  Ergo, it would greatly boost strategies such as B-crat and Explorer, which can get to 5 or 6 with regularity while bloating your deck with... Silver.  Though sure, it's also great with Hoard.  That's a much different beast than Bank, which seems to me much more dependent on things like +Card and +Buy for maximum effect*. 
...

Also, I do much better when I can avoid Gold as well; and frankly I'd expect the same of most high-level players.

* My pet theory regarding Bank: Venture is to Adventurer as Bank is to Coppersmith.

[Captain_Frisk]

guided's "bizarre fact" is actually not that bizarre:

Player	Effect with	Effect w/out
Dstern	-0.67	1.01
Larry	-2.19	3.80
Obi Wan Bonogi	-0.66	1.55
drg	0.06	-0.19
Captain_Frisk	-0.72	1.66
tat	-0.77	1.33
Celicath	-0.79	1.10
theory	0.48	-1.17
natchez	-0.4	0.45
Blooki	-0.41	0.60

...which suggests that most top players do better than average relative to their opponents, playing strategies that do not involve gold.

Yeah, same thing applies for colonies and provinces I believe... you buy them no matter what (win or lose)... and when you aren't, you're doing something nifty (hopefully winning)