Print

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

[zahlman]

[This should probably be in the main V&FC forum... could someone move it for me please?]

This was going to be my $2 card contest entry, until I discovered that I literally didn't notice the contest thread until the submission deadline had passed o_O

Reconnaissance - $2 - Action/Attack
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Either trash it, or put it into your hand. Each opponent either reveals a Reconnaissance, or shows you his hand.

A combination of a mini-Lookout that can't screw you over, and the weakest attack I could think of (and a built-in self-counter mostly for flavour). It can't directly impact your opponents, but sometimes it might make a key decision easier for you, like whether to break PPR. It's a cantrip, but that shouldn't cause a problem because the attack is idempotent.

Thoughts?

[One Armed Man]

It actually seems strong for a $2 and more reasonable at 3, since it replaces itself.

[Schneau]

I think this is probably fine at $2, since you only get the cantrip effect if you don't trash the card. The attack is super-duper weak, which it sort of needs to be for a $2 card. The trashing ability makes this a bit like Loan without Loan's +$1. So, I'd say it's balanced and somewhat interesting.

[Davio]

No tinkering required and a pretty nice card.

[jotheonah]

Very cute, actually! Too bad you didn't get to submit it in time.

[zahlman]

Very cute, actually! Too bad you didn't get to submit it in time.

Seriously... I saw the thread (on the day the ballot was announced), went off to take a bath and think about it, came up with the idea, came back, refreshed the page... and saw the ballot.

Since there's at least some dissent, my arguments for the $2 price point are as follows:

- It probably doesn't break anything on a 5/2 open.
- Precedent certain exists for possible-cantrip-with-minor-benefit $2 cards: Pawn (cantrip or other options that can be very useful situationally); Haven (cantrip + deck smoothing); Pearl Diver (cantrip + minor deck rearrangement). A plain cantrip is usually better than nothing at all (extra cards in your deck that insulate against certain attacks; can power Conspirators; can be KC/TR'd), but you usually aren't going to build an engine that really depends on having them, and you'll sometimes draw them dead. That makes sense for a $2 card IMO.
- You'd probably never want to open with something like this on a 4/3 split, even though you might with some other $2s (Chapel, FG).

(Edit so I'm not constantly replying: Yes, anti-Sea Hag is definitely a use case I had in mind. And yeah, Hamlet is neat. )

[jotheonah]

trashing from the top of the deck is something not many trashers do, and it has a little value added against Sea Hag, for instance, or an early game Spy (if your opponent chooses to leave an Estate on top).

[Schneau]

Very cute, actually! Too bad you didn't get to submit it in time.

Seriously... I saw the thread (on the day the ballot was announced), went off to take a bath and think about it, came up with the idea, came back, refreshed the page... and saw the ballot.

Since there's at least some dissent, my arguments for the $2 price point are as follows:

- It probably doesn't break anything on a 5/2 open.
- Precedent certain exists for possible-cantrip-with-minor-benefit $2 cards: Pawn (cantrip or other options that can be very useful situationally); Haven (cantrip + deck smoothing); Pearl Diver (cantrip + minor deck rearrangement). A plain cantrip is usually better than nothing at all (extra cards in your deck that insulate against certain attacks; can power Conspirators; can be KC/TR'd), but you usually aren't going to build an engine that really depends on having them, and you'll sometimes draw them dead. That makes sense for a $2 card IMO.
- You'd probably never want to open with something like this on a 4/3 split, even though you might with some other $2s (Chapel, FG).

You forgot the most powerful $2 cantrip of them all, Hamlet!

[eHalcyon]

I wonder whether this should be considered an attack.  Not sure.

I think the card itself is fine.  Probably would have voted for it.

[Archetype]

I like it! The theme of the attack is very cool. Too bad people wouldn't have been able to see it if it was submitted.

[Graystripe77]

Forcing others to reveal their hands isn't an attack. Still, a nice-looking card. Me likey.

[zahlman]

Well I mean I don't know... is attacking something that's objectively defined? Putting the word "Attack" on a card has rules implications regardless of what the card actually does. (After all, DXV has decided with Overgrown Estate that Victory cards can be worth 0VP; making it a Victory card makes it interact with things that interact with Victory cards.) And people are already upset that it's *not* there on Masquerade or Possession. I feel like this is an attack in that it's a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by interacting with opponents' hands.

[eHalcyon]

Well I mean I don't know... is attacking something that's objectively defined? Putting the word "Attack" on a card has rules implications regardless of what the card actually does. (After all, DXV has decided with Overgrown Estate that Victory cards can be worth 0VP; making it a Victory card makes it interact with things that interact with Victory cards.) And people are already upset that it's *not* there on Masquerade or Possession. I feel like this is an attack in that it's a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by interacting with opponents' hands.

An attack is something that hurts others, or at least attempts to.  Gaining an advantage for yourself is not an attack -- every card you use is for the purpose of gaining an advantage.

I question whether revealing others' hands is an attack, but I can see the argument going either way.

Having to reveal your hand doesn't hurt you except in edge cases, therefore it shouldn't be an attack.

OR, those edge cases exist, therefore it SHOULD be an attack.  An example edge case -- knowing their hand may influence what you discard to Envoy.

So I can see it going either way.  I think I would lean towards "not an attack" but I'm neutral overall.  It's an interesting question though.