Print

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

[Rush_Clasic]

Scavenger (5)
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
While this is in play, each Victory card you own is a Copper.

• Scavenger searches the lands for any misplaced money the rich may have let loose from their pockets.
• I'm using the term "own" to describe cards that are in your hand, deck, discard, or in play. It's just shorter than writing it all out. If there's already a term for this in the game, inform me and I'll update my card.
• I swayed between the current version and a slightly different version costing $4. I went with this because the card seems better as a later and less frequent buy. I didn't consider a $6 version, but it might be a good spot for it.

[eHalcyon]

A very similar concept was posted not long ago:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3626.0

As for this one... it is far too similar to Vault.  The main differences I see are:

- +1 Buy
- playing cards vs. discarding them (can matter for things like Philo Stone, Tunnel)
- does weird things to Action-Victory cards (say you have an extra action left and draw a Nobles... now you can't play that Nobles as a Nobles, because it is a Copper)
- can't discard Actions, Curses
- can't discard Coppers for virtual coin (matters for Grand Market)

But it is still mostly just Vault.

[Rush_Clasic]

Vault doesn't let you Mine your Estates into Contraband.
Vault doesn't let you discard a Duchy to Coppersmith.
Vault doesn't let you Herbalist a Nobles back onto your deck.
Vault doesn't let you load up your Bank for big buys.

I see your point: the cards are similar. But Vault can do a lot of things Scavenger can't, and Scavenger... a lot of things Vault can't. There's enough difference that both can exist. My biggest question is whether I should keep it as is, or split "+2 Cards, +1 Buy" into "+1 Card, +1 Action" since it is more of a combo piece than Vault. There's a good chance I should just do that rather than rely on Villages to move things along.

[AJD]

Vault doesn't let you Mine your Estates into Contraband.

Neither can this. Coppers cost $0.

[Rush_Clasic]

Vault doesn't let you Mine your Estates into Contraband.

Neither can this. Coppers cost $0.

(>.<)

Meant into Silver. Got lost in my own comparisons.

[eHalcyon]

Vault doesn't let you Mine your Estates into Contraband.
Vault doesn't let you discard a Duchy to Coppersmith.
Vault doesn't let you Herbalist a Nobles back onto your deck.
Vault doesn't let you load up your Bank for big buys.

I see your point: the cards are similar. But Vault can do a lot of things Scavenger can't, and Scavenger... a lot of things Vault can't. There's enough difference that both can exist. My biggest question is whether I should keep it as is, or split "+2 Cards" into "+1 Card, +1 Action" since it is more of a combo piece than Vault. There's a good chance I should just do that rather than rely on Villages to move things along.

AJD pointed out the Estate->Contraband thing... but it actually introduces a weird rules situation.  Is the Estate treated like an ACTUAL copper ($0 cost) or like a Copper that costs $2, or even a Copper that also has a Victory card typing?  It's non-intuitive.

(PPE: I think this is generally answered now -- Rush meant Silver instead of Contraband.)

What happens if you played some Victory-Action cards before playing Scavenger?  Does the Nobles you used for +2 actions also become a Copper?  If so, does that mean it instantly gives you +$1?  Do you still have the actions from it?  I mean, it should give you the $1 because it is now a Copper in play.  But having a previously-played card change after the fact is a really weird timing issue.  If already-played cards don't change, then that means Herbalist can't topdeck the Nobles unless you play it as a Copper, which is probably not as good as playing Nobles as a Nobles.

It also adds confusion in other ways.  When you play a HoP, will it count your Copper-Estate as just another Copper?  I would assume so, but it makes it just a little bit more difficult to work out, especially for someone who is new to the game, or even new to just the card.

I think this still needs tweaking.

[Rush_Clasic]

AJD pointed out the Estate->Contraband thing... but it actually introduces a weird rules situation.  Is the Estate treated like an ACTUAL copper ($0 cost) or like a Copper that costs $2, or even a Copper that also has a Victory card typing?  It's non-intuitive.

(PPE: I think this is generally answered now -- Rush meant Silver instead of Contraband.)

They're just treated as Coppers, not as some weird hybrid. This card rewrites all other Victory cards you have while its in play.

What happens if you played some Victory-Action cards before playing Scavenger?  Does the Nobles you used for +2 actions also become a Copper?  If so, does that mean it instantly gives you +$1?  Do you still have the actions from it?  I mean, it should give you the $1 because it is now a Copper in play.  But having a previously-played card change after the fact is a really weird timing issue.  If already-played cards don't change, then that means Herbalist can't topdeck the Nobles unless you play it as a Copper, which is probably not as good as playing Nobles as a Nobles.

This is the one situation you bring up that I didn't consider, and the one that threatens to change my card most. My gut ruling would be that the Nobles you already played becomes a Copper in play, available for use later. I don't think that's necessarily unintuitive, but it is messy, and something I'd think about changing.

It also adds confusion in other ways.  When you play a HoP, will it count your Copper-Estate as just another Copper?  I would assume so, but it makes it just a little bit more difficult to work out, especially for someone who is new to the game, or even new to just the card.

That's actually not confusing, or at least, acceptably confusing. Scavenger says outright that they are Coppers; "Copper" is the name of the treasure and is thus the name of the Victory card being rewritten. I could see people asking questions about that, but the answer is an easy one to figure out.



You're definitely right about the awkwardness of the Nobles interaction. I could change it, but it'd be messy. I'd need to find a worthwhile approach. I think, rather, that just letting players use that interaction would be best. It might be a bit broken with Great Hall, though. Hmmm....

[LastFootnote]

You're definitely right about the awkwardness of the Nobles interaction. I could change it, but it'd be messy.

Dude, this card is already messy. Any card that says "While this is in play, Card A is Card B" is going to have a bunch of weird rules questions with unsatisfactory answers. Sorry to be a naysayer, but if I were you I'd drop this idea entirely.

[Rush_Clasic]

Naysaying is great. It keeps me in check!

I reviewed all the cards in all the sets that would interact with this (I think). I found a lot of interactions and they were mostly very intuitive. The Nobles/Great Hall thing I missed cause I was thinking about playing them after rather than before. The question I'd most consider about this card is how much it would hinder further design (that is, if it's acceptable with current designs). That's a question I didn't look much into. Perhaps I should.

[yudantaiteki]

What happens if you played some Victory-Action cards before playing Scavenger?  Does the Nobles you used for +2 actions also become a Copper?  If so, does that mean it instantly gives you +$1?  Do you still have the actions from it?  I mean, it should give you the $1 because it is now a Copper in play.  But having a previously-played card change after the fact is a really weird timing issue.  If already-played cards don't change, then that means Herbalist can't topdeck the Nobles unless you play it as a Copper, which is probably not as good as playing Nobles as a Nobles.

This is the one situation you bring up that I didn't consider, and the one that threatens to change my card most. My gut ruling would be that the Nobles you already played becomes a Copper in play, available for use later. I don't think that's necessarily unintuitive, but it is messy, and something I'd think about changing.

This should not be a problem.  Treasures generate coins when they are played.  The treasures themselves are not directly worth money (so a "copper in play, available for use later" does not make sense in the rules).  So if you play a nobles, then play Scavenger, you have a copper in play, but it cannot generate any money because it's already been played.  It would be in play for purposes of Bank and other cards like that.

This is no less intuitive than trashing Mining Village and still having the +2 actions even though the card is no longer there, or buying Mint and trashing all your treasures but still having coins left over that were generated from those treasures.

[Rush_Clasic]

Considering the responses in this thread, I'd call it less than intuitive. Apparently the rules are clear on how it'd work, and that's a nice feature to have, but I'd still probably put reminder text on the card. Something like:

(Cards already in play don't produce coins when they become Coppers.)

[Morgrim7]

Nice with Tactician. Just spam Great Hall and Nobles, play Scacanger and Tactician. Every turn.

Edit: Wow and Counting House.

[Adrienaline]

Oh god... this would make tunnel strategies suck

[dondon151]

Nice with Tactician. Just spam Great Hall and Nobles, play Scacanger and Tactician. Every turn.

That shouldn't work; this card doesn't retroactively turn GH and Nobles into Coppers that produce $, and you can't play them for $ during the action phase because they're no longer Victory-Action; they Treasure.

[Morgrim7]

Nice with Tactician. Just spam Great Hall and Nobles, play Scacanger and Tactician. Every turn.

That shouldn't work; this card doesn't retroactively turn GH and Nobles into Coppers that produce $, and you can't play them for $ during the action phase because they're no longer Victory-Action; they Treasure.

The Scavenger turns previously played Victories into coppers. So you could play your GHs and Nobles, then play your Scavenger then your Tactician.

[UltimaPenguin]

That shouldn't work; this card doesn't retroactively turn GH and Nobles into Coppers that produce $, and you can't play them for $ during the action phase because they're no longer Victory-Action; they Treasure.

The Scavenger turns previously played Victories into coppers. So you could play your GHs and Nobles, then play your Scavenger then your Tactician.

But you don't get coin from them. If all you did was play 5 nobles, then scavenger, then tactician, you would have zero coin to spend. Although you have 5 coppers sitting in the play area, you've played zero coppers. You don't buy things by counting up the treasure cards in front of you. Rather, treasure cards generate coin as they are played. Like someone mentioned, if you played say two Grand Markets and 7 coppers, you could buy a Mint, trash the 7 coppers, and then still buy another grand market. You no longer have coppers in play, but you still have 6 coin to spend.

Maybe we just don't get what you're trying to do though.

[Morgrim7]

Oh, whoops. Missed the latest post by Rush_Classic.

[Powerman]

Scavenger (5)
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
While this is in play, each Victory card you own is a Copper.

• Scavenger searches the lands for any misplaced money the rich may have let loose from their pockets.
• I'm using the term "own" to describe cards that are in your hand, deck, discard, or in play. It's just shorter than writing it all out. If there's already a term for this in the game, inform me and I'll update my card.
• I swayed between the current version and a slightly different version costing $4. I went with this because the card seems better as a later and less frequent buy. I didn't consider a $6 version, but it might be a good spot for it.

I think it needs to read "While this is in play, each Victory card you own may be played as a Copper."  I get that gets rid of a lot of the intended interactions, it simply seems necessary to make this card at all feasible.

[rinkworks]

I think the question is, is this so much cooler than "Discard any number of Victory cards from your hand.  +$1 for each card discarded" that all the extra complexity and rules wrinkles are worth it?

Obviously that's a subjective call, and I can't answer it for you.  But the complexity is not an insignificant consideration.