Print

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

[Grujah]

Treasure 5$
Worth 2
-----
When you gain this during your Action phase, you may put it in your hand.

Action Phase clause is mostly to prevent newbies to play them after buying them and putting them in hand. Though it could make a difference, with Farmland for example.

[LastFootnote]

Interesting concept, but it's pretty rare to gain a $5 Treasure card during your Action phase. I suppose it makes it easy to Remodel Silver without losing $2 this turn, but then you just have an expensive Silver. There's probably something i'm missing.

[Mr Anderson]

This seems to be really weak. The only combo I see is with Feast (weak card) and Altar, which can turn Estates into Silver and Coppers into Silver (the latter does Mine, which is like Feast a weak card). I think it can cost 4$.

[Awaclus]

This seems to be really weak. The only combo I see is with Feast (weak card) and Altar, which can turn Estates into Silver and Coppers into Silver (the latter does Mine, which is like Feast a weak card). I think it can cost 4$.

DXV doesn't think that silver-with-a-bonus can cost $4. I think that this card should be a stronger $5 instead, maybe give it a +buy or something.

[eHalcyon]

This seems to be really weak. The only combo I see is with Feast (weak card) and Altar, which can turn Estates into Silver and Coppers into Silver (the latter does Mine, which is like Feast a weak card). I think it can cost 4$.

It's a silver-with-bonus so it can't cost $4... But the bonus is barely a bonus so it's not worth $5.

I must be missing something too. What's the intended use here? How are you gaining $5 treasures in your action phase?

[SirPeebles]

It could be nice with Taxman, knocking Silvers out of your opponents' hands, while having the choice of either keeping your "Silver" or topdecking it.

[Jack Rudd]

This seems to be really weak. The only combo I see is with Feast (weak card) and Altar, which can turn Estates into Silver and Coppers into Silver (the latter does Mine, which is like Feast a weak card). I think it can cost 4$.

It's a silver-with-bonus so it can't cost $4... But the bonus is barely a bonus so it's not worth $5.

I must be missing something too. What's the intended use here? How are you gaining $5 treasures in your action phase?

Well, there's Highway-Ironworks and the like, but normally I'd much rather have another Highway.

[dondon151]

I'm not sure why Silver-with-a-bonus cards unequivocally can't cost less than $5, especially since this one doesn't even have an on-play bonus.

[scott_pilgrim]

I'm not sure why Silver-with-a-bonus cards unequivocally can't cost less than $5, especially since this one doesn't even have an on-play bonus.

Balance-wise this card is probably fine at $4, but I think the idea is that it's no fun to play with an extra pile of Silvers.  So instead, it's better to make it cost $5 and have a more substantial bonus.

[Mr Anderson]

What about this one?

Treasure 5$
Worth 0$
Take 2 coin tokens.

When you gain this during your action phase, you may put it into your Hand.

Too strong?

[pst]

But costing $5 its ability would be useful so much less often, since it's so much easier to gain a $4 card than a $5 card. If it costs $4 one radical idea to avoid the just-an-extra-pile-of-Silvers situation would be to change not this card, but Silver!

That is, this card would have something like
"As long as this card is in the supply, when you buy a Silver you gain a Gopper."

Then you'd have two rather different "Silvers".

[SCSN]

This seems to be really weak. The only combo I see is with Feast (weak card) and Altar, which can turn Estates into Silver and Coppers into Silver (the latter does Mine, which is like Feast a weak card). I think it can cost 4$.

DXV doesn't think that silver-with-a-bonus can cost $4.

Why not? I think Royal Seal at $4 would still be pretty weak and not at all overpriced.

[soulnet]

In many games is pretty rare to have $3 but not $4, and for $4 you always get the Silver+. This case is different, because if the bonus is only when not buying, there is no real reason to buy it instead of buying Silver. One possibility would be to forbid the buying, but then, it would be dead too many times.

I like the coin giving treasure, but it seems strong even without the "put in your hand".

[SCSN]

In many games is pretty rare to have $3 but not $4

This is simply not true. If it was there would be little point in having $4-cost cards at all.

[soulnet]

This is simply not true. If it was there would be little point in having $4-cost cards at all.

There is little point. There is one point which is to avoid doubling in the opening (except Baker).  There is another one which is to make Spamming it a bit more difficult. Other than that, DXV already said, and I kind-of agree that 2/3/4 cost is not so different. But more importantly, what would be the point of not having 4-cost cards?

EDIT: The original point is, there are many times in which people buy Silver for $4. If there is a Silver+ for $4, you will always buy it over regular Silver if you have $4, therefore making Silver kind-of obsolete many times, and making a pile too likely to be fully consumed for no particularly good reason (especially in multiplayer).

[SCSN]

This is simply not true. If it was there would be little point in having $4-cost cards at all.

There is little point. There is one point which is to avoid doubling in the opening (except Baker).  There is another one which is to make Spamming it a bit more difficult. Other than that, DXV already said, and I kind-of agree that 2/3/4 cost is not so different.

I don't agree with that. While it's sometimes (but far from always) true early on, later in the game when you have multiple buys, whether something costs 2, 3 or 4 makes a big difference.

But more importantly, what would be the point of not having 4-cost cards?

None, which is why I think it's entirely reasonable to have Royal Seal cost $4.

EDIT: The original point is, there are many times in which people buy Silver for $4. If there is a Silver+ for $4, you will always buy it over regular Silver if you have $4, therefore making Silver kind-of obsolete many times,

Silver will still get bought for 3, and why is it a problem that Silver gets bought less on some boards? It also gets bought less when, say, Fishing Village is in the kingdom.

and making a pile too likely to be fully consumed for no particularly good reason (especially in multiplayer).

Now this is a good argument against having a $4 Silver variant, though I'm not convinced it's necessarily a bad thing to have a pile run out quickly on some boards. It alters strategies in not uninteresting ways.

[eHalcyon]

Donald X. has said many times that testing has shown cards that are strictly better than Silver cannot cost $4. 

Regarding an early version of Caravan, Donald X says "Caravan was where I learned that Silver with a bonus couldn’t cost $4." (source)

I'm trying to find where he talks more about why.  The Secret Histories are long though.

Part of the reason really is that $3 and $4 are not all that different; the real break point in pricing is $5.  Certainly there is a difference anyway, and we see that with many cards (e.g. Village and various $4 Village-with-bonus), but a key difference is that Silver is in every game.

Edit:

"Caravan:" Only it's Merchant Ship. This replaced "+$2 +2 Actions" for $4. I can't do "+1 Action +$2 something something" for less than $5 (without a penalty), because you just automatically buy it over Silver in most games.

(source)

[SCSN]

Donald X. has said many times that testing has shown cards that are strictly better than Silver cannot cost $4.

I believe you, but I find "Donald X. said" not much of an argument either for or against something. He also said that playtesting revealed that Rebuild without the +Action would be underpowered, which is clearly not the case.

I think I explained in my previous post why I think a strictly better Silver for $4 is not at all a problem, and the only somewhat convincing argument against it I've heard so far is the pile-emptying, but I think that only means that you don't want to go overboard with creating superior Silvers for $4, in moderation they can add some interesting dynamics.

[SirPeebles]

Donald X. has said many times that testing has shown cards that are strictly better than Silver cannot cost $4. 

Regarding an early version of Caravan, Donald X says "Caravan was where I learned that Silver with a bonus couldn’t cost $4." (source)

I'm trying to find where he talks more about why.  The Secret Histories are long though.

Part of the reason really is that $3 and $4 are not all that different; the real break point in pricing is $5.  Certainly there is a difference anyway, and we see that with many cards (e.g. Village and various $4 Village-with-bonus), but a key difference is that Silver is in every game.

Edit:

"Caravan:" Only it's Merchant Ship. This replaced "+$2 +2 Actions" for $4. I can't do "+1 Action +$2 something something" for less than $5 (without a penalty), because you just automatically buy it over Silver in most games.

(source)

Sure, but I think soulnet makes a good point.  This variant is not any better than Silver when purchased.  The only benefit is when gained during the action phase.  Now, first of all, there are plenty of boards in which this never happens.  In that case, its extra bonus will be worthless, as Fortress and Rats sometimes are.

What are the ways of gaining a $4 treasure, but not a $5?  Workshop/Ironworks/Armory.  Remodeling an Estate.

There are some others.  You could Expand a Shelter, but man, that doesn't happen often, and by the time you have an Expand this is probably fine.  Trashing Catacombs, but this doesn't feel so broken to me either.  Then there are cards like Develop, Upgrade, etc which deal with exact costs, so there are plenty of times when you could gain a Silver but not this variant, or a $5 variant but not the $4 variant.

[eHalcyon]

Donald X. has said many times that testing has shown cards that are strictly better than Silver cannot cost $4.

I believe you, but I find "Donald X. said" not much of an argument either for or against something. He also said that playtesting revealed that Rebuild without the +Action would be underpowered, which is clearly not the case.

I think I explained in my previous post why I think a strictly better Silver for $4 is not at all a problem, and the only somewhat convincing argument against it I've heard so far is the pile-emptying, but I think that only means that you don't want to go overboard with creating superior Silvers for $4, in moderation they can add some interesting dynamics.

Have you playtested terminal rebuild?

FWIW, Rebuild was tested much less. Silver+ cards have been around since the beginning.

[SCSN]

Donald X. has said many times that testing has shown cards that are strictly better than Silver cannot cost $4.

I believe you, but I find "Donald X. said" not much of an argument either for or against something. He also said that playtesting revealed that Rebuild without the +Action would be underpowered, which is clearly not the case.

I think I explained in my previous post why I think a strictly better Silver for $4 is not at all a problem, and the only somewhat convincing argument against it I've heard so far is the pile-emptying, but I think that only means that you don't want to go overboard with creating superior Silvers for $4, in moderation they can add some interesting dynamics.

Have you playtested terminal rebuild?

Only in solitaire. It's still good but less ridiculously overpowered and even more swingy due to possible Rebuild collision.

FWIW, Rebuild was tested much less. Silver+ cards have been around since the beginning.

I know, but I only mentioned it to illustrate that I'm unwilling to take his (or anyone's) word for it. I want to understand why exactly, and I believe all arguments against a $4 Silver+ I've heard so far to be misguided.

[scott_pilgrim]

I really think that it's just a matter of what's fun.  If there was a supply pile of 40 Villages available in every game, I doubt that cards like Worker's Village, Farming Village, etc. would exist.  Perhaps it would be more interesting if the Silver supply pile was swapped out for a stack of 40 of these $4 Silver variants in some games (I don't know how you would determine which games).  Having it as a kingdom card is usually just going to feel like you're using up a kingdom slot to add a very minor rule variation to the game.

[SCSN]

I really think that it's just a matter of what's fun.  If there was a supply pile of 40 Villages available in every game, I doubt that cards like Worker's Village, Farming Village, etc. would exist.  Perhaps it would be more interesting if the Silver supply pile was swapped out for a stack of 40 of these $4 Silver variants in some games (I don't know how you would determine which games).  Having it as a kingdom card is usually just going to feel like you're using up a kingdom slot to add a very minor rule variation to the game.

Now that's a great point. According to that reasoning, Royal Seal shouldn't really exist either, which I'd be perfectly okay with.

[SirPeebles]

One obvious reason to not publish a subtle Silver variant that replaces the Silver pile is that, well, printing 40 cards is expensive.  Maybe this is the sort of thing the the mythical online-only promo could do.  It could just be a card that has an unreasonable number of copies.

[popsofctown]

I think it needs 1 VP to keep it from suffering VPless-tunnel issues.  There's not always a gainer.