(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Architect.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5BlackKnight.jpg) |
The Servant's Quarters card could be discarded by any discard-for-benefit card on your turn for some nice combos. Discard it to secret chamber, vault, horse traders, HAMLET, etc, and draw a card. Let's see, a deck made of SQ and Hamlet. Play hamlet, discard a SQ for +1card and +action. Not bad.
I think the Pauper's Feast would be more worth it if it also gave +1 Action (And would help differentiate it from Feast further). May be a little overpowered with Golem/KC/TR, though that could be said of many cards. The others look okay to me, but it's more out of the game currently being starved for more Reaction cards.
Bailey feels strictly superior to Moat, as it has the same effect and is nonterminal, at the cost of being able to draw one fewer card. One fewer card isn't that much of a penalty in exchange for being nonterminal, as it means you can buy as many as you want without clogging your deck.
(Play Village, play Tactician, discard Servant's Quarters, draw Laboratory, play Laboratory, draw Tactician + one other card, play Tactician.)Or even easier:
Still, the card needs to be usable on ANY board, not just these. And if all you get is +1 Card, then that is strictly worse than nothing. Maybe add a +1 Buy onto it? I'd still be worse than Herbalist, but at least then there would be situations you'd want one.Don't think that has to be the case. On how many boards is Moat usefull? If the on-Discard-feature is powerfull enough when it triggers, and if it also triggers on Adventurer etc you would have interactions with certanily 25* cards + attacks, which should be enough to have an interaction on most random boards.
BaileyAlso here it's only strictly superior in games without Attacks and with Pawn. Without Pawn it doesn't matter. I think the boards without Attacks where I even feel I should consider thinking about Moat are less common than having no Pawn.
This one's fine. A weaker Pawn in exchange for attack immunity is a fair trade. But it's unfortunate that in non-attack games, which are common, Pawn is strictly superior. If you can offer a nuance that Pawn doesn't, that would improve the card. It doesn't even have to be something particularly good, just something slightly different.
QuoteStill, the card needs to be usable on ANY board, not just these. And if all you get is +1 Card, then that is strictly worse than nothing. Maybe add a +1 Buy onto it? I'd still be worse than Herbalist, but at least then there would be situations you'd want one.Don't think that has to be the case. On how many boards is Moat usefull?
QuoteBaileyAlso here it's only strictly superior in games without Attacks and with Pawn.
This one's fine. A weaker Pawn in exchange for attack immunity is a fair trade. But it's unfortunate that in non-attack games, which are common, Pawn is strictly superior. If you can offer a nuance that Pawn doesn't, that would improve the card. It doesn't even have to be something particularly good, just something slightly different.
But my opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that you don't want cards at the same cost that are strictly superior to others at the same cost under ANY circumstance. "Usually superior" is fine. Inevitable anyway, but fine. Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks. Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category.In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?
In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?No: Diadem ;) But, the point stands. There are cards that will in rare circumstances be dominated by some other card, and that's OK. But a card that is dominated any significant fraction of the time is IMO a bad card.
In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?No: Diadem ;)
In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions or Tournament, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?
... and of course by "any circumstances" you mean "any board", as Witch is strictly worse than Rabble/Ghostship or at most equal to Moat while more expensive once that all curses have run out.
...are Reaction cards with the same reaction effect as Moat that are otherwise either plain cantrips (+1 Card +1 Action)...
So the situation in which Market or Treasury is strictly superior to Bazaar is very unlikely to happen to any given player, but in the 2612290+ games that have been played on Isotropic since December, it has probably come up somewhere around 95 times.Probably more, as in the beginning there were less cards. On the other hands, you ignore people vetoing on Posession etc., which are mostly terminals.
=> Pr(no terminals, Bazaar and Market or Treasury) ~ 0.00003657 or 1 in 27343.
Mixing Choice AND Reaction can be fun.
Example:
When an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this card once and...
Let the attack happen and gain a Silver, put it on your deck; or you are unaffected by the attack and must discard one card.
Options can be tweaked of course, Silver is often a somewhat harmless middle card that doesn't tilt the game too much either way.
I know the wording is a bit awkward and the mechanics may be too, but it seems like fun to be able to choose whether to be attacked and get a bonus or not be attacked and get a penalty.
It also brings up a rule issue though. If you play Adventurer, reveal a Servant's Quarters, you draw a card and that card happens to be a treasure card, does that also count as one of the two treasure cards that Adventurer tutors for, or since it was not the Adventurer that directly drew the card, could you still keep tutoring for two more treasures?The Adventurer searches for two more Treasures. The Servant's Quarters draws the card before the Adventurer has the chance to reveal it.
It also brings up a rule issue though. If you play Adventurer, reveal a Servant's Quarters, you draw a card and that card happens to be a treasure card, does that also count as one of the two treasure cards that Adventurer tutors for, or since it was not the Adventurer that directly drew the card, could you still keep tutoring for two more treasures?The Adventurer searches for two more Treasures. The Servant's Quarters draws the card before the Adventurer has the chance to reveal it.
Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks. Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category. Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory. Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.
Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks. Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category. Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory. Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.
None? Because I think a case could be made that Ghost Ship, at the very least, is always strictly superior to Counting House...
Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks. Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category. Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory. Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.
None? Because I think a case could be made that Ghost Ship, at the very least, is always strictly superior to Counting House...
That's not even close to true. In fact it's quite easy to think of situations where you'd rather the Ghost Ship in your hand was a Counting House instead. Say there's one Province left, and your hand is Silver-Silver-Estate-Estate-X. There are four Coppers in your discard pile, and only Provinces in your draw pile. Counting House wins the game. Ghost Ship doesn't.
What you're talking about is a card that is superior more often than not. "Strictly superior" means something different. If Card A is "strictly superior" to Card B, it means there is NEVER a situation where Card B is preferable.*
(*...Although in the domain of Dominion, we seem to allow for exceptions such as differing costs possibly being better suited to some particular use of Forge, Salvager, etc, and a few other side-effect uses like this.)
As was previously pointed out, on a board with no terminals or Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because the extra actions on Bazaar are never needed. I suppose another example is Conspirator being strictly inferior to Militia, Cutpurse, and Navigator on a board with only terminals. But these are extremely rare situations.
trash paupers feast choose 1 trash up to 2 other cards costing less than 2
or gain a card costing up to 3 (the old paupers feast with an added choice)
as how its worded now its more like a workshop than a feast
Ambassador is a weak card, weaker than most, but there are instances where it is useful.(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/funny-pictures-kitten-is-confused.jpg)
Yes, either our OP is as noobish as he claims in the thread title, or he is a clever troll!
ChaosRed: Ambassador is the strongest 4/3 opening card in the 2p game. Yes, stronger than Chapel.
For anybody who's ignorant of the proper use of "strictly": It means what it says! "Strictly", as in, in every possible circumstance, always. If there is one impossibly rare and contrived case where Y is better than X, then X is not "strictly better" than Y. Period! If you say "strictly better" when you just mean "better" (or even "much better" or "usually better"), you're adding the word "strictly" to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means.
For anybody who's ignorant of the proper use of "strictly": It means what it says! "Strictly", as in, in every possible circumstance, always. If there is one impossibly rare and contrived case where Y is better than X, then X is not "strictly better" than Y. Period! If you say "strictly better" when you just mean "better" (or even "much better" or "usually better"), you're adding the word "strictly" to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means.
... and man, if you're going to argue that it's OK to do that, at least do it from some kind of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist standpoint rather than pretending that the people speaking this way really know what they're doing.
Yes, either our OP is as noobish as he claims in the thread title, or he is a clever troll!
Just reading that post made me want to go propose a board with some village and an ambassador. Nothing better than a game where the opponent finishes with 15+ coppers.I played a game just this morning (too early to find a link) where I opened Walled Village/Ambassador into a 2nd Ambassador against my opponents Potion/Silver into Familiar. The Walled Village was perfect for this strategy. My opponent caught on to my 2 Ambassadors and picked up 2 but it was too late. They ended up with more than 10 Coppers, maybe 14? It was fun.
ChaosRed: Ambassador is the strongest 4/3 opening card in the 2p game. Yes, stronger than Chapel.
Here's the variant I had in mind.
Careful with your terminology, though. "You gain the number of cards discarded" means, technically, that if I discard two cards, I can take two cards from the supply piles and put them in my discard pile. Cellar's wording, "+1 Card per card discarded," is presumably what you're after.
Summon
Wooden Bridge
some more thoughts
i would really suggest changing bailey and servants couriders reaction because as you havn't already noticed there is no reaction with the same effect. also as people have stated a nonterminal reaction is something you have to be aware of.
But I don't think a +1 Action on a Reaction card is so terrible. What am I missing?Have you ever come across a Lighthouse deck? The characteristics of such a deck are:
Shyster looks like it would be very strong in combination with Outpost.
I appreciate the feedback on Silver Vein. I like Cabal @ 4, it makes it one of the few "marquee" cards in the set, but I can certainly see the argument that it should be worth 5. I read Donald X's comments and they are, (of course) right on the money (forgive the pun).
I could alternatively give it a value of 1$ and then add, "this card is worth an additional 1$ if there is silver in play", or perhaps the same general effect but with copper. Alternatively, I could make it worth just 1$, and 1VP, but then add "you may trash this card and any treasure card in your hand, if you do, gain a Dutchy". I like the idea of "an additional 1$ in play if there is silver in play", as it is thematic. There's a reason I named the expansion "Silver Lining".
As for the Silver Vein, my overvalue on this card comes from the other cards in the set that help you gain and copy Silver, but rink has taught me to never judge cards first and foremost, on their singular abilities, (make no assumptions about the board). I think for Silver Vein, I could help it feed itself, "At the end of your turn if there are no Silver cards in play, gain a Silver" and then remove the governor. It's a dangerous slope though, once you acquire multiple veins, they'd all fire...so technically a hand of 5 Silver Veins would draw 5 cards, which increments 1VP for each card or a +5 VP turn. Then again, acquiring the silver, also slows down acquiring it, so it might be balanced. It would require a lot of play testing.
This discussion, is precisely why I made this thread. To learn about the game, to be able to judge value of cards more accurately and to get feedback from advanced players on design and approach. I can't thank you guys enough. I wish there was some kind of app, where I could buy you guys a beer at your local watering hole, because I am very grateful indeed.
For that modification to work, (and I think it's got huge potential to be broken, but maybe you could find a way to make it work), you'd need a way to play victory cards, which isn't currently possible.
For that modification to work, (and I think it's got huge potential to be broken, but maybe you could find a way to make it work), you'd need a way to play victory cards, which isn't currently possible.
You are referring to the "Silver Vein" mechanic right? Yeah I'd have to reword it, the idea is if at the end of your turn during clean up, if no silver had been played, you'd gain a Silver.
Perhaps the phrase should be:
At the end of your turn, if there is no Silver is in your hand or in play, gain a Silver.
I see, I guess I could trigger it when it is discarded in clean up...or alternatively I could add +1$ to it, make it a Victory - Treasure card. Looking for a way to feed itself, so that it can slowly acquire silver. I like the idea of the balance being if you don't have silver in hand or in play, you get one...but as you acquire silver, the effect becomes harder to fire.
Servant's Quarters seems pretty functional, though it's obviously very similar to Moat. (probably superior?) I'm not sure how much it contributes, from the sound of it you only have it around because you feel it needs to be. I bet you can get an alternative reaction that can fit better.
Pauper's Feast is cool, just for the ability to trash your trasher. That's narrow sure, but cool. Gaining a 4-cost on trash is less cool and also a tad narrow (mostly important in certain openings) but has merit. All in all, two sort-of narrow options make for a card that brings something to most boards.
Bailey is auto-veto'd for being a cantrip moat. It totally trivializes attacks, as why wouldn't you just buy a boatload of them? Heck, it even gives you +Buys and costs $2 to enable just that. No cantrip reactions; keep those guys terminal.
Excursion is really narrow, even if this set has boatloads of hybrid victory cards. All the other uses are super obscure.
Villa seems kinda weird. My first reaction was "what's this +1 coin doing here?" My second was "Why don't you just discard the victory card(s) for +Card(s), wouldn't that be cleaner?" My third was "Oh, wait that let's you chain Villas--except wait, you don't want to do that in the first place because you are still losing cards."
Bribed Official... steals a high value Treasure from their hand and into yours? From *all* players? Or gains you a Silver/Potion in hand? I've gotta be missing something, because this is pants-on-head crazy powerful.
Shyster seems really strong for a non-terminal $4 attack. I mean, we're looking at a Spy level of power here. This guy ain't exactly Torturer or Montebank, but he's still spammable and unlike say Spy, his sting really stacks with that spam.
Cabal is strange. I believe Donald mentioned in the Intrigue Secret History about testing Harem values and having just really terrible success with 1 value versions. Bottom line is, no one wants Copper, so you are looking at Cabal only as a potential strict alternative to Silver. If there is a good opening $3 out, then that's easy. Otherwise, it's easy the other way. So there's really no decision making added by the card, just interactions with certain targeting cards? Meh, I'm not sold.
Silver Vein is more interesting. I can't even begin to figure this one out, despite its relative simplicity. Hilarious combo with SC/Vault. It's probably like Gardens, where it's dominant if enabled and dubious if not. (And that's okay! If it isn't like that, you need to nerf it until it is.)
Interesting that you consider the early trashing too powerful though. I would agree, I put it in there, because I love density and tend to gravitate to cards that help me trash my deck.I think it's probably okay if you just make it so that you can't pick more than one of the options. Then it's really on a similar level with moat.
What do you think of this? I think I'll keep the current choices, but just limit the choice to just one. +1 Buy or +1 Card or Trash one card. I agree this still makes it a great utility card, and becomes useful (if not spectacularly useful) at all stages of the game. A mild trasher early in the game, or an additional buy late, during the middle stages the reaction power and just fishing for that next card in your deck has utility, without burning the opponent's barn down.
I'd pick it over Moat of course, which perhaps demonstrates it still has too much juice, even if it has just one of the three options.
rink, I'll reread your section on reaction cards, as I am still clearly struggling with a strong, but well-balanced reaction card worth 2 points. I wanted one with options, that fully defended the attack, that's the gimmick I'm looking for, but clearly the options I choose are too strong. I really wanted a Pawn/Moat hybrid, but I keep overreaching for it.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/2Bailey5.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/2Bailey5.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Bribery2.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Bribery2.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster4.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster4.jpg) |
Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in on top of your deck, discard the rest.
Yeah it is, and it isn't Terminal and it is only 3. Of course you MUST trash with Lookout, mine you have the option, but you must activate the option to gain a card. Looking at Lookout as a guide:
Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in your hand, discard the rest.
I'll keep it terminal though, don't you think?
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4FoolsChoice2.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab.jpg) |
This card would have supplemental rule clarification (like other cards sometimes do), which would explain that piles do not have to have equal number of cards, there must be at least one card in the pile (or it isn't pile)I'm pretty sure Fact or Fiction lets you split 5-0, not that I have any idea why anyone would want to.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4FoolsChoice3.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab3.jpg) |
(Well, now you are planning on changing this completely, but I am going to go ahead and post anyway.)
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab4.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Township.jpg) |
Township: first off, you want to put the +card before the +action, just for consistency. Also, it's wildly too powerful. It's a menagerie that hits on having a victory card in your hand instead of needing a totally unique hand. This is just much much easier thing to make hit. switch it to just 1 extra card, and it might be balanced.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Township2.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Auction.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Gypsy.jpg) |
Another thing to watch out for is that, although trashing two cards is more powerful than one, it's significant that Trading Post requires you to trash two, rendering it unplayable even in some instances when you have a Curse in hand. I'm sure Trading Post is still more powerful on balance, but it's important to keep in mind that Auction is not strictly inferior at trashing.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Bribery3.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab6.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4DeathTaxes.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4DeathTaxes.jpg) |
1) You mean "put a Copper/Curse from their hand on top of their deck", or?
2) Silver in hand is a lot stronger than the silver on top from the Bureaucrat, obvious comparison here is Explorer, which is $5, of course not considered as the strongest $5, but $5. Explorer can gain you a Gold in hand, but most of the time doesn't. And it does not attack. But I anyway think that, when you want to have it Bureaucrat-like, want a Silver on top of the deck, so I'll wait your answer before thinking further if in this form it is $4.
My thought was gaining a Silver can be a pain, as it widens your deck. Useful sometimes, but eventually clogs you up, so gaining the card was useful at first, but tiresome later on.
Bandit
ACTION-ATTACK $4
---
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand. If it has 5 or more cards, he places one card with the lowest cost on top of his deck.
But there are a lot of combinations of these various features, and I'm not confident I could say what the best mix really is without playtesting.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5ChurchBell.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5ChurchBell.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Lycanthrope.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Lycanthrope.jpg) |
So if you were to say force the other players to discard the silver, and then only give them a curse if they couldn't and reveal a hand containing no silvers, then it would be fine, though still usually weaker.
The way you have it worded, the opponent gets to choose whether or not to take the curse even if they can discard silver.So if you were to say force the other players to discard the silver, and then only give them a curse if they couldn't and reveal a hand containing no silvers, then it would be fine, though still usually weaker.
That is how the card works, perhaps I need to update the text? If you have no Silver at all to discard, you get the Curse. You either get a Curse, or you reveal a Silver and discard it. Either way, the opponent loses, (although sometimes doesn't lose as much as a straight Witch, because losing a Silver for a turn isn't a big deal).
The way you have it worded, the opponent gets to choose whether or not to take the curse even if they can discard silver.
If you update the wording, I'd pretty much be fine with it except that it's so similar to witch.
The proper way to word this card would be to compare it to Torturer's wording. As such it should say:No! This is exactly what we need to avoid. If we give them the choice, it's strictly worse than witch. As such, it should be worded something like:
Each other player chooses one:
he discards a Silver card or he gains a Curse card
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Lycanthrope2.jpg) |
While I still disagree with the comparison with Witch makes the card bad. A Fishing Village is better than Village, period.I have bought village over fishing village. It is very rare(and quite possibly was incorrect), but it can happen. Being strictly worse is not a good thing.
While I still disagree with the comparison with Witch makes the card bad. A Fishing Village is better than Village, period.
Your point is to make sure the card is worded such that, even if the curses are out, you still must discard a silver if you have at least one in your hand? Do I understand that right?
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Lycanthrope3.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite.jpg) |
Unless you end up trashing the Sprite, how is it different to making it Action - Victory and worth 1 VP? Seems a bit odd to have a source of VP tokens that is only likely to get you two or three for the whole game.
Unless you end up trashing the Sprite, how is it different to making it Action - Victory and worth 1 VP? Seems a bit odd to have a source of VP tokens that is only likely to get you two or three for the whole game.
Many cards interact with only Victory cards or differently with Victory cards, like the new Crossroads, Scout, and Jester to name a few. That's the difference.
I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at the OP. It seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this and coming up with some interesting ideas which are obviously generating heaps of discussion.
(*This is actually not quite true: on a board with no terminals and no Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because Bazaar's extra actions are never useful without terminals or Diadem. Obviously this is an extraordinarily rare situation. I think I thought of one other equally rare situation, but I've forgotten it now. The point is, there aren't any two official cards that always or even somewhat frequently have this problem.)
(*This is actually not quite true: on a board with no terminals and no Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because Bazaar's extra actions are never useful without terminals or Diadem. Obviously this is an extraordinarily rare situation. I think I thought of one other equally rare situation, but I've forgotten it now. The point is, there aren't any two official cards that always or even somewhat frequently have this problem.)Quarry is strictly worse than silver when there are no actions out, and you don't have cards that care about cost or how many different cards you have in play. So basically no actions and no Horn of Plenty and no Fairgrounds. How frequent is that? Not very.
It's not that compelling I agree, but do you think the card is still worth 5? Or does it need more to make it a compelling and competitive buy on the board? One thought I had was to give it the ability of gaining another +1VP if you trashed the card. I like the idea of a Sprite helping you when it arrives and when you get rid of it.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite3.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite5.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Druid.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Druid.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite6.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Sprite6.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Druid2.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Druid2.jpg) |
.. You put the "if you do" in, but said you didn't want to. :-P
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Rummage.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Rummage.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster5.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster5.jpg) |
Okay moved the Druid and Sprite to beta-testing (after the final minor-modification pointed out by New).
Here are two 4-pointers. These replace 4-pointers that were rejected or needed modification after play testing:
Shyster...well do I have the costing right? Seems like a weak Curse attack to me, but its advantage is when the curses run out it can spam copper. Costs you a Silver every time, so it won't hold up to the 4-cost Witches. But given it goes with the theme of the expansion, what are your thoughts? I had debated make it a +2$, since this essentially helps defer the cost of losing a Silver.
Rummage...lots of cards in the set need Silver to fire or defend, so this is a simple way to get them. It's essentially a +4$ terminal play for 4 bucks, so its pretty strong (assuming the cards in the discard pile). The expansion needed some card draw and rather than create a Smithy hybrid, I went with this card instead.
Shyster is much weaker than Sea Hag. The cursing is conditioned on having Silver in hand. You trash a Silver, which usually is a good card in a cursing game. And because of the trashing, it's -1coin in total in contrast to 0 of the Sea Hag. It can hand out Copper, so it's not strictly weaker, but I doubt I will buy it for $4. I even doubt I will buy it for free, except there really is a card that can give me lots of Silvers and get rid of curses I might get, like TradeRoute or Trader.
For some reason, designing a well-balanced Curse attack at 4$ is really hard for me.That's because Curse attacks are very strong, and usually too strong to work at $4. The two $4 Curse attacks we already have, Sea Hag and Young Witch, both have severe vulnerabilities: Sea Hag grants no benefit to the Attacker and puts the Curse on the deck, where it can be dealt with by Upgrade, Lookout or Masquerade. Young Witch requires you to put a Moat-substitute in the game, in addition to any other defences the victim may have.
Sea Hag grants no benefit to the Attacker and puts the Curse on the deck, where it can be dealt with by Upgrade, Lookout or Masquerade.
Shyster 1
Shyster 2
Shyster 3
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster6.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Ravage2.jpg) |
Ravage seems strange to me. It basically will mill out the Estate pile? I can't see it having any other effect, besides trading coppers for curses if the opp is unlucky. I can't imagine that any 2 cost is worse than having an estate.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Shyster6.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Ravage3.jpg) |
3 or more means that a person with three cards in hand has to discard down to 2 which is ridiculously good when chained or in combination with any other discard-down-to-3 card (it will prevent BM from ever buying Province...)
...or he gains a copy of the discarded card.
Tunnel looks like quite a strong counter to this one.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Architect.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5BlackKnight.jpg) |
Jester does not gain VP cards for the active player. It only gives out the Curse. It would be ridiculous if it could gain you a Province and Curse your opponent (or give them a Curse and an Estate).
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Emporium.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/5Argent.jpg) |
Very cool cards! I think Ravage is indeed too strong at 4, but wasn't the point of it to have a second 4 cost attack?
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may place one of them on your Emporium mat. Discard the rest.
Looks like two potentially solid cards here. Emporium is an interesting mix of stuff, tough to predict exactly how it will play, or if it's priced right. I think it's probably a good card, just not sure if it's a $5-cost or not. Thinking it through: If what you draw isn't anything you'd want to set aside, it kind of hurts. "+2 Actions, +1 Buy" is only about a $2-cost card on its own. Worse, if you didn't want to Island-away one of the two cards you drew, the cycling effect probably hurt you -- because you've probably just skipped over two cards you'd rather have had the chance to use.
Argent is a tough call. You may have noticed that WW had a similar card in his Conquest set. It was essentially the same card without the penalty and priced at $3. I playtested that, and it turned out to be overpowered even as a $5 card. But your version has an interesting penalty attached to it. I'm not convinced it's enough -- because when you use this card at all, you're probably working as hard as you can to increase your Silver density anyhow, and if you're successful at that, the penalty won't matter. But it's worth trying. In particular, try benchmarking it in a BM+X strategy, experimenting with buying different numbers of copies before switching to pure money.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5BlackKnight2.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/6Paladin.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5BlackKnight2.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/6Paladin2.jpg) |
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/5BlackKnight2.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/6Paladin3.jpg) |
The harshest of the variants, but perhaps the most balanced. Now you must discard a very specific card to activate the gain. And the discard removes 2$ from your hand. So essentially you get a buy of a 5$ card for 2$ this way.I think you forgot a "when you do", also in front of "gain a Silver". Otherwise you do everything, and skip what you can't do. So if you can't discard a Silver, you gain anyway. Also, I think technically it's also a Reaction because of the "when you discard this other than", see Tunnel.
I think you forgot a "when you do", also in front of "gain a Silver". Otherwise you do everything, and skip what you can't do. So if you can't discard a Silver, you gain anyway. Also, I think technically it's also a Reaction because of the "when you discard this other than", see Tunnel.
By the way, the third variant, as written, does not require that you discard Silver in order to activate the gain -- it just requires you to discard a Silver if you've got one.
At the "start" of the game, before greening, you basically have a University for $6, that will give you 2vps later. Without the actions. With the additional possibiliity to give you a Silver in the situations where Tunnel gives you a Gold. Not sure, but does not need to be overpowered. For building my deck, I usually would prefer a Gold. Probably also Nobles/Harem. Might work.
I'm a little bit more concerend with the end-game power. You could gain a Duchy+1VP, the card already is worth 2VP, so that's a Province. 2 Paladins in your deck which both can grap a Duchy towards the end, and you can efford to lose the Provinces 5-3. And you still have 4 cards in hand, which might buy Duchies also.
I think "Discard a card" is a good thought. Why the "If it is a Victory card..." clause, though? Seems unnecessary to reward the accumulation of victory points with more victory points.