Yeah I thought I made that obvious. Part of why Possession is hated (or at least why I hate it) is because you can end up sitting around forever while your opponent takes multiple turns. Especially when Throne room variants are involved. Outpost is much MUCH less hate-able, but my point was that it is even not fun to watch your opponent take two turns in a row with outpost. It isn't uncommon to get a full turn out of your 3 card turn. Possession just takes the not fun part of Outpost and magnifies it. A lot.I don't get why you're bringing Outpost into this.My guess: because opponent taking a turn then you taking a turn is more fun than opponent taking two turns then you taking two turns, in terms of how long you sit around twiddling your thumbs.
Isn't Possession more expensive?
QuoteOil Painting
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP + 1 VP per Project you have bought.
-
Setup: Add a Project to the kingdom.
Clarification: The added Project is in addition to any other Landscape cards in the kingdom. So if there are two Events before adding the Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 3VP. If there are two Projects before adding the extra Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 5VP.
I thought about that and I'm okay with how it is. I think it's kind of a fun interactionLooking at Villa, it should probably be "If it's your Buy phase". Also, Treasures should say "When you play this".Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.Mould should say "that you don't have in play", since now other people might have Treasures in play on your turns (Capitalism + Caravan Guard).]
Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter. I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it. Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.
] 
I am open to suggestions for how to improve the wording of Smelter.
In the latest I have noticed something that I can't help but think is a bit odd: People are starting to ignore Chapel more and more, and not in case of other strong trashers as Donate or Cathedral, just the other game some fella chose Ratcatcher instead. I don't think that they're ignorant players who don't know the true strength of Chapel (in this case they did pretty good anyway, lost only in the very end so no newb there I don't think) but I can't really wrap my head about this. I wished I could log it better, but I feel like at least five times recently I have seen Chapel ignored without a good reason. Is there just a streak of experimental plays I have been met against or is thee possibly something going on in the meta-view of the card?
To make this a legit thread and not only a confused rant: Have you been noticing some new trends in the style of playing or in the valuation of cards that you find odd/incorrect or perhaps interesting even for expert levels? Not really talking of things like the overvaluation of Pirate Ship in P2 or similar that has been known for ages but rather tings that is relatively new.
Flag Bearer + Changeling
Don't like junking your deck with terminal silvers? Well change them to something else then, and still get the Flag!
BraggartThe power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced. Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.
Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)QuoteBraggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.
Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?
Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.
How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.
Bureaucrat is a weak gainer with an a moderate handsize attack. It's a poor card overall. If you are playing Base Set only, it is a goid pick in Gardens vs Gardens, though.
Braggart, however, has better gaining, but a horrible attack. Copper junking is not as bad. Copper always gives you $1 if you draw it and a hand of 5 Coppers is not the worst hand, because you can at buy powerful actions and Duchies.
However Bureaucrat's attack is much more nasty. It can force you to return your Copper to your deck again and again, letting you play with 4 usable cards only. Given your opponent has a 15 card deck, the Copper only weakens every third draw. Bureaucrats topdecking can be repeated much easier and slows the opponent's deck more down. Unlike Curse and Estate, Copper is not a dead card and it is even better than most Ruins (Ruined Market is an edge case). That is the point.
I also submitted a Copper junker, but my card comes with a handsize attack and it has an ability to prevent most pins which also prevents the 5 Copper hand.
If I thrown room my inventor I get a $4 cost card and a $5 cost card correct?
Well, up to $4 and $5 respectively. You can still pick a cheaper card if you like.
My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.
Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards
Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.
Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour
All these words spent in this thread and still no one has reminded Seprix that Warrior trashing Warrior is far more swingy than anything the Peasant line does.
I gotta get some more Capitalism games under my belt for sure.Although it still technically could be different with a few things. Capitalism being the first that comes to mind. With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording. But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.
This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +
.
Lol I can't figure out Capitalism
Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "
Although it still technically could be different with a few things. Capitalism being the first that comes to mind. With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording. But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.
This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +
I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion."Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing. I guess I should have taken some wording from there.I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.
How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?
This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.
Actually I was thinking about it wrong. This would be the same. I was thinking that the -1 token would be once per turn, but now I see that if you played 5 peddlers in a row you'd just be getting it and returning it over and over. Thanks for the suggestion.
