Print

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

[Powerman]

We often talk about simply creating a card with +1 Card / +1 Action.  However, that cannot happen as it is too boring and useless in too many kingdoms.  Pearl Diver comes very close but it isn't simply a cantrip either.

However, which of these "Cantrip+" is the most publishable?  And can it cost $1?  Or does it have to cost at least 2.

The basic card is:

Cantrip Plus
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
_________
Bonus Ability being voted on.

[cluckyb]

A pure peddler variant isn't publishable due to the overlap with the peddler.
+1 card +1 action +$2 is also fairly boring and duplicates Conspirator too much.
+1 card + 1 action +$3 is too powerful to even be a $7 so no go there.
The ones with on trash abilities are pointless in a game without trashing so isn't publishable. (everything with an on-trash ability is also somewhat useful on its own)

So the only one that remains is "When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand"

As far as pricing it goes, i think $2 is reasonable. Without good trash support, I could see myself buying it if I had a spare buy to give over a lot of other $2s. Cost $1 cantrips seem like a bad idea for balance with stuff like Vineyards. But a 1 shot trasher that gives no benefit isn't worth $3.

[LastFootnote]

None of the bonuses make for a feasible card by themselves. The on-trash ones are useless when there's no trashing and the on-gain one is going to be bought for the trashing alone and then ignored.

[ahyangyi]

+$1 can be priced at $4. But it overlaps with both Peddler and Tournament, and is less fun than either.
+$2 can be priced at $6, of course. Boring? So is Bazzar, Festival and Market. Grand Market is as boring once you buy it. But we don't really need more vanilla cards anyway.
+$3 is just impossible to balance.

The ones with on trash abilities are often useless. If you love Rats you might like these, though.

The on-gain one is OK, I think. But it's not the kind of very lovable card either.

[Awaclus]

+$1 can be priced at $4. But it overlaps with both Peddler and Tournament, and is less fun than either.
+$2 can be priced at $6, of course. Boring? So is Bazzar, Festival and Market. Grand Market is as boring once you buy it. But we don't really need more vanilla cards anyway.
+$3 is just impossible to balance.

A pure peddler variant isn't publishable due to the overlap with the peddler.
+1 card +1 action +$2 is also fairly boring and duplicates Conspirator too much.
+1 card + 1 action +$3 is too powerful to even be a $7 so no go there.

The options with the $s in them are not for the bonus, they are for the cost.

[SirPeebles]

None of the bonuses make for a feasible card by themselves. The on-trash ones are useless when there's no trashing and the on-gain one is going to be bought for the trashing alone and then ignored.

I think that's ok for the on-gain one.  I often buy Mint, Inn, or IGG for the on-gain.  I'll frequently look to TfB them away as soon as possible, or just straight up trash the Mint.

Also, you buy a Great Hall just for the the VP usually, and then it just sits there cantripping.  I'd be happy spend spare buys on trashing, or gaining these with Hermit for effectively twice the trashing.

[enfynet]

I picked the $2 "On-gain" version. I'm not a huge fan, but I see how it could have a purpose.

[SirPeebles]

The options with the $s in them are not for the bonus, they are for the cost.

Oops.  I wish I could take back my vote then.

[Morgrim7]

The "Trash a card from hand", and cost=$1

[Powerman]

I agree that the most interesting bonus is the trashing one.  However, that leads to some interesting questions.

Would the bonus be better suited to be triggered on-buy or on-gain?  Would the bonus be better or worse if the trashing were mandatory instead of having the "may" clause?

[Awaclus]

Would the bonus be better suited to be triggered on-buy or on-gain?  Would the bonus be better or worse if the trashing were mandatory instead of having the "may" clause?

Of course it would be better if it was optional, at least in terms of power.