Print

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

[eHalcyon]

...the first $3 curser?

But contrary to Sea Hag this card still does something for you, even when curses are gone.

but it helps your opponents too, usually about the same amount as it helps you.

It helps them more, because they didn't have to play a card to get a free coin token.

[Just a Rube]

A good comparison is duchess. Everyone can benefit from the friendly spy, but Duchess also gives $2 to the person who played it, so s/he on average comes out slightly ahead (assuming he had a free action to spend). Here, once the curses run out your opponents get exactly the same benefit as you, and doesn't need to spend an action.

I wouldn't be completely surprised to see a card that gives out coin tokens to your opponents as well, but it would need to be something akin to Vault, Governor or Council Room, where you benefit more than they do.

[LastFootnote]

You know what? I'm calling it now. No Curse-giver in Guilds.

[sudgy]

You know what? I'm calling it now. No Curse-giver in Guilds.

:O

[Schneau]

You know what? I'm calling it now. No Curse-giver in Guilds.

No way. There was no curser in Dark Ages, and I can't possibly see two straight expansions without one.

[liopoil]

that's only because of ruins! there was cultist and marauder!

[LastFootnote]

I bet we'll see a trashing Attack that gains coin tokens and a overpay Spy attack. That's it.

[Just a Rube]

I've been thinking, we assumed SO was Sojourner renamed to Journeyman at some point. But really, they are very different concepts (a traveler versus someone who is basically a step above an apprentice).

What if the GU was the card that became Journeyman (because it was originally something like "Guildmaster" and was renamed for the same reason "Hinterland" became "Farmland" in Hinterlands).

That would leave SO as "Sorceress" or something of that sort, which seems an appropriate name for a curser.

[NoMoreFun]

Halfwit(ch)
Action - $4
Each player takes a coin token
Each other player may pay 2 coin tokens. If he doesn't, he gains a curse

This is too weak. A lot weaker than Sea Hag, to the point that I would say this one is strictly worse.

The idea is, while the curses are still around, it's pretty much either "+$1, or gain a curse", but the choice comes down to the opponent. In games with no other coin token gainers, if the player saves to coin token to block the curse next time, the attacker is basically getting free money and it isn't a wash. I could make it a 2 coin token wash, and moating costs 3 maybe.

Another fun quirk is that it creates a sort of deadlock if both players go for it, although maybe that's a bit too much FTA.

I should probably add some sort of Vanilla effect.

One thing I hope will be in the expansion is some strong card that gives every other player a coin token, because now there's a way to gain money when it isn't your turn. It probably won't be in here, but a when gain/when trash coin token gainer would also fill a void (the only other alternative is treasure to hand).

[gojaejin]

Maybe a more interesting (and thematic) junker would punish players who save up too many coin tokens, while letting off those with none:

Vandal $5

+2 coin tokens
+1 buy

Each opponent with 3 or more coin tokens chooses one of the following: returns coin tokens until he has no more than 2; or gains a copper for each of his coin tokens above 2, and puts the gained coppers on top of his deck.

Also has a nice interaction with Doctor, and makes Baker all about how much you can get in a single turn.

[ftl]

Well, the problem with that is that there's an obvious way to avoid it - simply spend all your coin tokens to be below 2 spares at all times.

And it's a way that's not only obvious, it seems like it's straightforward and typically pretty good - you want to use your coin tokens fast anyway. So it decreases the number of viable strategies instead of increasing them, since people just won't pick strategies that rely on saving up coin tokens (which are going to be rare anyway).

If you want the 'remove other people's tokens' attack to work, the card also has to itself include a reason to save up large numbers of tokens.

[crj]

Actually, the straightforward "everyone must spend a coin or gain a curse" would be an entirely reasonable mechanism, just underpowered. All current cursers cost at least $4; maybe Guilds has a $3 curser?

The more extreme version would be:

Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token or gain a curse.

That might produce an interesting arms race mechanic in which nobody wanted to have fewer coin tokens than the other players.

[Witherweaver]

Actually, the straightforward "everyone must spend a coin or gain a curse" would be an entirely reasonable mechanism, just underpowered. All current cursers cost at least $4; maybe Guilds has a $3 curser?

The more extreme version would be:

Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token or gain a curse.

That might produce an interesting arms race mechanic in which nobody wanted to have fewer coin tokens than the other players.

This wouldn't really work as it has no way of giving coin tokens.  It's a dead card on a random board with no cards that give coin tokens.

Even if this card gave coin tokens, I'm not sure it would work.  I mean, adding +1 coin token to it would basically amount to "each other player gains a curse," unless they bought it in a previous turn and saved their tokens for defense.  But that wouldn't make a lot of sense.  There could be an on-buy effect of overpaying for coin tokens, so that you can pay more to "charge it up."  That seems like an odd way of attacking, though.

[crj]

This wouldn't really work as it has no way of giving coin tokens.  It's a dead card on a random board with no cards that give coin tokens.

Even if this card gave coin tokens, I'm not sure it would work.  I mean, adding +1 coin token to it would basically amount to "each other player gains a curse," unless they bought it in a previous turn and saved their tokens for defense.  But that wouldn't make a lot of sense.  There could be an on-buy effect of overpaying for coin tokens, so that you can pay more to "charge it up."  That seems like an odd way of attacking, though.

Hmm. True. It'll be interesting to see what the other coin cards are, in fact, given each apparently works in isolation.

Here's a doubly-tweaked version:

Bloated Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token, or discard a treasure, or gain a curse.
Then gain two coin tokens.

[Squidd]

Donald strongly implied in the previews that Butcher is the only card that lets you do anything with your coin tokens during the action phase.

Edit: "Strongly implied," hell. This is flat-out saying it.

Butcher gives you a special use for coin tokens. That's not a theme of the set, that's just Butcher.

[Witherweaver]

This wouldn't really work as it has no way of giving coin tokens.  It's a dead card on a random board with no cards that give coin tokens.

Even if this card gave coin tokens, I'm not sure it would work.  I mean, adding +1 coin token to it would basically amount to "each other player gains a curse," unless they bought it in a previous turn and saved their tokens for defense.  But that wouldn't make a lot of sense.  There could be an on-buy effect of overpaying for coin tokens, so that you can pay more to "charge it up."  That seems like an odd way of attacking, though.

Hmm. True. It'll be interesting to see what the other coin cards are, in fact, given each apparently works in isolation.

Here's a doubly-tweaked version:

Bloated Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token, or discard a treasure, or gain a curse.
Then gain two coin tokens.

Still suffers from the curse (heh) of being really slow.  You have to buy it.  Then play it for coin tokens.  Then play it again to give (possible) curses.  This would only be feasible in an engine, and it seems by that time you've already passed the initial phase of curses being really dangerous.

[WanderingWinder]

This wouldn't really work as it has no way of giving coin tokens.  It's a dead card on a random board with no cards that give coin tokens.

Even if this card gave coin tokens, I'm not sure it would work.  I mean, adding +1 coin token to it would basically amount to "each other player gains a curse," unless they bought it in a previous turn and saved their tokens for defense.  But that wouldn't make a lot of sense.  There could be an on-buy effect of overpaying for coin tokens, so that you can pay more to "charge it up."  That seems like an odd way of attacking, though.

Hmm. True. It'll be interesting to see what the other coin cards are, in fact, given each apparently works in isolation.

Here's a doubly-tweaked version:

Bloated Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token, or discard a treasure, or gain a curse.
Then gain two coin tokens.

Still suffers from the curse (heh) of being really slow.  You have to buy it.  Then play it for coin tokens.  Then play it again to give (possible) curses.  This would only be feasible in an engine, and it seems by that time you've already passed the initial phase of curses being really dangerous.

Actually I would guess it's probably overpowered. You get 2 coin tokens, which is probably strong enough to be very powerful (I would guess too powerful) at $3. That you can possibly do anything else with it pushes it over, even if you won't do that very often.

[Witherweaver]

This wouldn't really work as it has no way of giving coin tokens.  It's a dead card on a random board with no cards that give coin tokens.

Even if this card gave coin tokens, I'm not sure it would work.  I mean, adding +1 coin token to it would basically amount to "each other player gains a curse," unless they bought it in a previous turn and saved their tokens for defense.  But that wouldn't make a lot of sense.  There could be an on-buy effect of overpaying for coin tokens, so that you can pay more to "charge it up."  That seems like an odd way of attacking, though.

Hmm. True. It'll be interesting to see what the other coin cards are, in fact, given each apparently works in isolation.

Here's a doubly-tweaked version:

Bloated Plutocrat
You may discard coin tokens.
For each coin token you discard, every other player must discard a coin token, or discard a treasure, or gain a curse.
Then gain two coin tokens.

Still suffers from the curse (heh) of being really slow.  You have to buy it.  Then play it for coin tokens.  Then play it again to give (possible) curses.  This would only be feasible in an engine, and it seems by that time you've already passed the initial phase of curses being really dangerous.

Actually I would guess it's probably overpowered. You get 2 coin tokens, which is probably strong enough to be very powerful (I would guess too powerful) at $3. That you can possibly do anything else with it pushes it over, even if you won't do that very often.

I was assuming it wouldn't be $3, but I guess that was somewhere in the previous messages that I didn't read all of :/

.. or maybe in that message to which I first responded

[crj]

I was assuming it wouldn't be $3, but I guess that was somewhere in the previous messages that I didn't read all of :/

To be clear, I was suggesting the card could be made either cheaper or more powerful. Not both!

[NoMoreFun]

So everyone in this thread was wrong :/

I'm a bit disappointed that Soothsayer doesn't give each other player a Coin token instead of repeating the same non attack interaction for a 3rd time.

[SirPeebles]

I've been thinking, we assumed SO was Sojourner renamed to Journeyman at some point. But really, they are very different concepts (a traveler versus someone who is basically a step above an apprentice).

What if the GU was the card that became Journeyman (because it was originally something like "Guildmaster" and was renamed for the same reason "Hinterland" became "Farmland" in Hinterlands).

That would leave SO as "Sorceress" or something of that sort, which seems an appropriate name for a curser.

Just a Rube pretty much nailed it.