No. 2 Horses plus handgaining one equals an increase of draw power by 3.This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.It increases it by 2
I happen to agree that sea hag is a fine design, but I think talking about power level is looking at the wrong spectrum. Cards generally aren't fun or unfun base solely on power level. If you doubt this, just look at donate.Well, sure, but how fun a card is lies in the eyes of the beholder.
2) It is really, really, good. You need to buy it in the opening or else you will drown in curses.That is a general statement about junkers; Sea Hag is not more mandatory than any other one.
It's not bad as in weak, however it does have design issues, since it doesn't produce resources and can take over games.What is "take over games" supposed to mean?
I’d do a straightforward Tunnel variant with fixed 2VPs because I prefer player scale invariant cards. But this just boring me.Is it worth too many VPs? Should I bring it back to 4/-1 instead of 5/-2?Bale (for Harvest):Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).
Bale (for Harvest):Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).
Again, that is the very point of the Heirloom: to make a very weak card decent and viable.I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.
I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)
Again, that is the very point of the Heirloom: to make a very weak card decent and viable.I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.
I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)
I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
Imps are just so goodWhich interesting decision is taken away? Be concrete, what would you do with the Heirloom that you would not do otherwise (except getting Tormentor more often which is not about decisions but the power level of the card).
Maybe I wouldn't exactly say that it's strong generically. I'd say it's strong to open with because of Imps, pretty strong early, ok overall, and well-designed because getting imps is hard. With the modification, it's very strong at every point and pretty boring.
the powerlevel question seems noncentral though; the point is that it takes away interesting decisions.
It also makes Tormentor much stronger, and it's plenty strong already.What makes you assume that Tormentor is strong?
I disagree, putting a token on a landscape is quite simple and straightforward.Isn’t it obvious? You always do as much as you can. If there is 1 VP on a Landmark, you just take 1 instead of 2.I just think that adding to landmarks is weird and outside of the rules and shouldn't be touched. It should stick to just adding to gathering piles. You'd also need lots of explanation in the rulebook...
And if you put a VP on a Landmark that does not interact with VPs on it, well, then it does not interact with it.
I think the problem with Thief and Copperfield isn't powerlevel but swinginess.I like to add that this is not academic: I once had Locusts on my Pasture and it hurt.
Since copperfield is strong, I expect that the card will just be extremely frustrating since you can lose 10 VP if it gets stolen. Not fun.
Rewarding Thief for hitting Coppers is a good idea. Being able to steal the entire payload is a terrible idea. The fix seems obvious: make Copperfield unaffected by Thief. (How to do this, I'm not sure, but there are several ways.)
That is a quite brilliant point about Ironmonger.“Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around, so that’s what it should cost.”
Ironmonger also shows that this averaging-the-effects method doesn't necessarily make you arrive at a correct price. Depending on what it reveals, Ironmonger is either a Village+ (), a Peddler+ (
), or a Lab+ (
), which averages out to
When you just get to directly choose which effect your card has, then it has to cost at least as much as the maximum "effect-cost." In the case of Wager, you could just choose to always use the Lab- (is probably worth
Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.
I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village.
A quick idea of a Forge variant for a late entry.This is strictly better than Forge yet massively cheaper. Scripted opening.
Smelting Pot
Cost
Trash at least one card from your hand. You may gain any number of differently named cards whose total cost is not greater than the total cost of the cards trashed.
I am so terribly sorry to post this so late, but I was still not satisfied with my entry, so I narrowed it to this:First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Now, regardless if there still are some small hiccups with Wager V3, I'll leave it as is.
