Print

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

[LibraryAdventurer]

I don't like having potions as a treasure card, and I don't really care for the majority of the alchemy expansion cards, but I wanted to mod these two cards that so that I could use them without potions:

I just made the University cost $6.

Golem  cost $5 and added this clause: You may only buy this if you discard a curse from your hand. (I thought it was appropriate to have to have something special in order to buy a golem, and this makes a minor use for having a curse without nullifying its penalty)

Do you think this is balanced?

[Davio]

The main reason Potions exist (in my limited view) is to limit the amount of Potion cost cards you can buy.
This sounds a bit weird, but the thing is that when you translate Potion back to a regular coin cost, you take away that limit.

If you have one Potion, you can only get one University per deck cycle (barring cards that modify this, like Herbalist). Without Potion, you can get them much faster.

That being said, I think University is OK at $6, taking Altar as an example. Altar lets you trash a card and gain any card (Duchies for instance), while University gives 2 actions and gets you an Action card. I think this is balanced overall and I still think University will be bought enough to make it worthwile (with Minion, Lab, Hunting Party, Torturer, etc..).

The Golem thing is interesting, but I don't like the "Curse" part as sometimes there is no Curser and would you really buy a Curse just to get a Golem? Well, sometimes you're buying a Potion as well, so maybe. But how about having to discard a Duchy? Or a Province?

[KingZog3]

I also hated Potion as a treasure. But I now appreciate it. You may realize they aren't as bad as you think But University at $6 sounds ok. Your Golem fix I'm not sure about. Davio's suggestion is good, but it's such a good card that I think the Potion card suits it best. It makes it hard to get, while discarding a Victory or Curse just needs any amount of draw, making Golem much easier to get.

[Holger]

Note that Donald X. himself playtested two potion cards at non-potion costs and found them okay: Vineyards at $4 (originally in Base) and Philosopher's Stone at $7 (originally in Prosperity). With University, you're following his "rule" by replacing the Potion cost by a $4 cost increase. I think this "translation" could work for most Alchemy cards, except maybe for the most expensive ones (and Alchemist, of course).

Golem  cost $5 and added this clause: You may only buy this if you discard a curse from your hand. (I thought it was appropriate to have to have something special in order to buy a golem, and this makes a minor use for having a curse without nullifying its penalty)

Essentially, you're just replacing the potion cost by a "curse cost". This may work in the absence of cursers, but it would seriously weaken cursers since they effectively give out (worse) potions.
I think Golem may work at $7 or $8; it's about as good as King's Court IMO (both let you play two more action cards that you don't have in hand "for free").

[Warfreak2]

No way, Golem is nowhere near as good as KC - KC effectively lets you play more action cards than are actually in your deck, never mind your hand, and anyway KC is liable to put everything in your hand, and also lets you choose which actions it plays.

[Awaclus]

No way, Golem is nowhere near as good as KC - KC effectively lets you play more action cards than are actually in your deck, never mind your hand, and anyway KC is liable to put everything in your hand, and also lets you choose which actions it plays.

Outside some special situations, I think I would buy a $7 Golem before buying a King's Court in many action centered games. Golem reliably splits an action and digs out for two action cards - that's level 2 City with a big bonus (you are guaranteed to hit actions) and a small drawback (you can't draw anything that isn't an action + you have to play whichever actions you hit).

[AJD]

No way, Golem is nowhere near as good as KC - KC effectively lets you play more action cards than are actually in your deck, never mind your hand, and anyway KC is liable to put everything in your hand, and also lets you choose which actions it plays.

Also you can KC a KC but you can't Golem a Golem.

[Holger]

No way, Golem is nowhere near as good as KC - KC effectively lets you play more action cards than are actually in your deck, never mind your hand, and anyway KC is liable to put everything in your hand, and also lets you choose which actions it plays.

But KC may be drawn dead with a low action density. The higher the action density, the better KC becomes - it's better than Golem in engines, but Golem is better in BM games and slogs (except with looters). Overall, you may be right that KC would be better at the same price but I don't think it's so clear-cut.

And this begs the interesting question: why didn't KC get a potion cost instead of Golem? It's better in multiples too, due to its stackability...

[Warfreak2]

Yes, you can draw KC alone, but Golem can also whiff by finding two terminals when you didn't want it to, or by drawing it when there aren't any more actions left in your deck/discard. Really I don't think this is a debate - Golem, as you say, is just +Cards/+Actions with a big bonus, but KC stacks attacks, remodel effects, virtual coin. You don't just draw your deck and play every card - you can play three times as many cards as you even have. That's unmatchable in power.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Personally, I hate king's court and never play with it.  (I don't have the prosperity expansion yet anyway (I got Seaside first), and on Goko I usually only play casual games.)  So, if you're saying that Golem is almost as good as king's court, then maybe Golem should be weakened in order to give it a reasonable price.  Then I thought, what if you had to discard a curse whenever you play it instead of when you buy it?  How about this:

Golem
You may discard a curse.  If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two Action cards other than Golem Cards.  Otherwise, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal one Action card other than a Golem Card.  Discard the other cards, then play the Action card(s) in either order.
and maybe: When you gain this, gain a curse.
Then maybe I could price it at $4, or should it still be $5?

[KingZog3]

Golem
You may discard a curse.  If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal two Action cards other than Golem Cards.  Otherwise, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal one Action card other than a Golem Card.  Discard the other cards, then play the Action card(s) in either order.
and maybe: When you gain this, gain a curse.
Then maybe I could price it at $4, or should it still be $5?

I can't tell if it's balanced, but personally I don't like this. I dislike this a lot more that strange potion costs. It self curses you, so you feel bad when you buy it, plus it's essentially worse than Herald because it's not a cantrip, and you have to match it with a Curse to get the full effect meaning you need to have 1 dead card in your hand, and it can still whiff in all the ways regular Golem can whiff.

[eHalcyon]

Golem is almost certainly weaker than King's Court, but that's because KC is so strong.  Doesn't mean that Golem can't cost $7.

I'd prefer leaving Potion cards with Potion costs though.

[dondon151]

If you want to keep the Potion effect on Golem, a cost of $6 on top of "you may not buy this if you don't have any Gold in play" should do in a pinch.

[Awaclus]

Yes, you can draw KC alone, but Golem can also whiff by finding two terminals when you didn't want it to, or by drawing it when there aren't any more actions left in your deck/discard. Really I don't think this is a debate - Golem, as you say, is just +Cards/+Actions with a big bonus, but KC stacks attacks, remodel effects, virtual coin. You don't just draw your deck and play every card - you can play three times as many cards as you even have. That's unmatchable in power.

That certainly is an unique thing about KC, but being unique doesn't automatically mean it's stronger than everything else. I think the consensus in that one thread was that a level 2 city should cost $6 with a buying restriction or $7, and Golem is better than that.

[Warfreak2]

Well, KC is stronger, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean you can't have them be the same price, just there isn't really any room to argue that Golem is as strong as KC, it just isn't.

[Awaclus]

Well, KC is stronger, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean you can't have them be the same price, just there isn't really any room to argue that Golem is as strong as KC, it just isn't.

I agree that KC is stronger, but there is a lot of room to argue that Golem is stronger.

[TheMirrorMan]

About the Golem/KC discussion - Also remember that a KC by itself is useless. Whereas a Golem by itself certainly is not. So if you have a slog going on, Golem will outshine KC I believe.

[KingZog3]

Scout isn't actually worse than say, Ironmonger. Yet it is. They are still the same price. KC is better, but Golem can do things it can't, and there are times I would prefer Golem to KC for sure. So I don't see why it can't cost $7.

[Davio]

Stronger or better is just a weird term to use, because it's not fact that one card is strictly better than the other, because they do different things. If you have a hand of KC and 5 Treasures, you'd rather have had a Golem and if you have a hand of Golem + all of your actions, a KC would have been better.

Let's talk about potential instead.

KC has the potential to swing the game hugely in your favor. The first to KC-Bridge, KC-Torturer, KC-Saboteur is in good shape to get a lock on the game. A single Golem rarely has this big of an effect. But Golem makes up for this by being more consistent, it always plays 2 action card as long as you have them in your deck, whereas KC can be a dud from time to time.

I think Golem is fine at $7 and I think there are plenty of games where I'd rather have a Golem than a KC, although granted, there are probably more games where I'd rather have KC.

[Ritzy]

Nice idea re playing without potions! How about this for a complete 'Chemistry' Expansion Set (Alchemy without thee Potions and Alchemists)?

• Herbalist - $2
• Transmute - $4
• Vineyard - $4
• Apprentice - $5
• Familiar - $5 + to buy this you must first reveal and discard a Curse from your hand
• Apothecary - $5 + to buy this you must have at least one non-Copper in play
• Scrying Pool - $6
• University - $6
• Golem - $6 + to buy this you must have a Gold in play
• Philosopher’s Stone - $7
• Possession - $8

Some comments:

• Transmute here is stronger than the weakish Alchemy card as it can hit Estates in turn 3, and synergises well with trash-for-benefit.
• Familiar's buy restriction might even make using a +Buy on a Curse worthwhile in an otherwise Curse-free board. Maybe.
• Apothecary is slightly weaker than the Alchemy card due to lack of potions. The restriction is mainly to handle 5-2 openings.
• Possession at $8 interacts with Swindler (though not as dangerously as Peddlar).

[silverspawn]

Nice idea re playing without potions! How about this for a complete 'Chemistry' Expansion Set (Alchemy without thee Potions and Alchemists)?

• Herbalist - $2
• Transmute - $4
• Vineyard - $4
• Apprentice - $5
• Familiar - $5 + to buy this you must first reveal and discard a Curse from your hand
• Apothecary - $5 + to buy this you must have at least one non-Copper in play
• Scrying Pool - $6
• University - $6
• Golem - $6 + to buy this you must have a Gold in play
• Philosopher’s Stone - $7
• Possession - $8

Some comments:

• Transmute here is stronger than the weakish Alchemy card as it can hit Estates in turn 3, and synergises well with trash-for-benefit.
• Familiar's buy restriction might even make using a +Buy on a Curse worthwhile in an otherwise Curse-free board. Maybe.
• Apothecary is slightly weaker than the Alchemy card due to lack of potions. The restriction is mainly to handle 5-2 openings.
• Possession at $8 interacts with Swindler (though not as dangerously as Peddlar).

and why would you do that? any reason except "i don't like potions?"

[Ritzy]

and why would you do that? any reason except "i don't like potions?"

Mainly to make it easier to play with just one Alchemy card in a non-Alchemy kingdom. The potion mechanic can result in dead cards if most players decide it's not worth buying a Potion just for the sake of one card.

But partly just for some variation. A $7 Philosopher's Stone presumably plays differently from a $3P one.

[Davio]

The main drawback for the Potion costing cards is the Alchemy proposed range of using 3-5 Alchemy cards per game if you are using at least 1 Alchemy card. The Potion cards were designed with this in mind, but it was definitely a design flaw if you ask me.

Using 3-5 cards from a set with so few cards severely limits the use of other cards not from that set and severely overuses the cards that are from that set. This is why I like Alchemy the least, the cards just don't fit that well if you use a pure random distribution. If you don't adhere to this range, you end up with useless Transmutes or Philosopher's Stones all too often.

Of course you can occasionally get interesting sets, but the Alchemy expansion just wasn't designed to have its cards be included at random.
Cards with regular costs mix and match much better than the Potion-costers. I like sets were the decision whether to go for Potion or not is NOT obvious, but I feel there are more sets where it's either obvious to do so (Familiar, Scrying Pool) or not to do so (Transmute).

So I applaud any attempt to turn Potion-costers into non-Potion costers if only for pure random selection and I think Ritzy provides us with a nice start.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Nice idea re playing without potions! How about this for a complete 'Chemistry' Expansion Set (Alchemy without thee Potions and Alchemists)?

• Herbalist - $2
• Transmute - $4
• Vineyard - $4
• Apprentice - $5
• Familiar - $5 + to buy this you must first reveal and discard a Curse from your hand
• Apothecary - $5 + to buy this you must have at least one non-Copper in play
• Scrying Pool - $6
• University - $6
• Golem - $6 + to buy this you must have a Gold in play
• Philosopher’s Stone - $7
• Possession - $8

Some comments:

• Transmute here is stronger than the weakish Alchemy card as it can hit Estates in turn 3, and synergises well with trash-for-benefit.
• Familiar's buy restriction might even make using a +Buy on a Curse worthwhile in an otherwise Curse-free board. Maybe.
• Apothecary is slightly weaker than the Alchemy card due to lack of potions. The restriction is mainly to handle 5-2 openings.
• Possession at $8 interacts with Swindler (though not as dangerously as Peddlar).

Okay, if you're going down that route, most of these costs are fine. But your buying restrictions on some just feel wrong to me.

Familiar: Usually you would buy this card as fast and play it as often as possible, ideally multiple times consecutively. If you had to have a Curse in hand so that you can buy it, it would be much later that you actually gain your first Familiar and, what's even worse, you need to pick up a Curse (waste a buy) to get a card that gives out Curses. So it's one less Curse for your opponent to gain - a huge deal in a two-player game. But at a cost of $6 the card would be too slow again.
I suggest a penalty each time you play familiar such as "discard a card from your hand" or even "discard 2 cards" to justify the cost of $5.
I made a mistake in my thinking here. The card should be priced at $6 since it's obviously not intended to be bought in the opening turns.

Apothecary: $5 is almost too much, I think. Again, why give it buying restriction that clearly anti-synergizes with the card? I might give you up to four Coppers (not Potions) in your hand at best. So you might even get all your seven starting Coppers in your hand after your first reshuffle (but no Silver, so you cannot hit 8 on that turn), and you have no +buy, AND you might otherwise weaken your next hand with all those Estates. So even at a cost of $5, the only thing that really makes it better than Scout is the +card, and it's a terrible opening buy with 5/2. So it actually should be $4 (without restrictions) to be actually worth it. I made another mistake. The $-boost after your first reshuffle is significant and almost a guaranteed Gold, so it should be priced at $5 at a minimum.

Golem: There have been some good arguments here that Golem might be just as good as KC. There are probably more cases when KC is better, but Golem has some advantages, too. The argument that Golem might play one or two actions that you didn't want is weak because you can easily construct your deck with exactly those action cards that you need (except in a Ruins game). So Golem should be priced at $7 and again have no restriction that doesn't have anything to do with its abilities.

EDIT: Whatever variants you choose, you should playtest them, and adjust when needed.

[LastFootnote]

Apothecary: $5 is almost too much, I think. Again, why give it buying restriction that clearly anti-synergizes with the card? I might give you up to four Coppers (not Potions) in your hand at best. So you might even get all your seven starting Coppers in your hand after your first reshuffle (but no Silver, so you cannot hit 8 on that turn), and you have no +buy, AND you might otherwise weaken your next hand with all those Estates. So even at a cost of $5, the only thing that really makes it better than Scout is the +card, and it's a terrible opening buy with 5/2. So it actually should be $4 (without restrictions) to be actually worth it.

Wow, you have no idea how powerful Apothecary is. I would expect to pay $5 for it, minimum. For one thing, every +1 Card is huge on a non-terminal. Second, pulling all those Coppers into your hand is a giant economy boost. Why the hell would you want to buy Province on turn 3 anyhow? Buy Gold or a power $5 card.