Print

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

[GendoIkari]

GendoIkari is correct. The "may/otherwise" on Bookkeeper is not there to provide an interesting decision, but rather to make it so the card doesn't whiff. Unlike Mountebank, the "main" attack of Bookkeeper is meant to be the one you may choose to do: putting a Copper on your deck. The Copper gain clause is there so that Bookkeeper still attacks when the target has no Copper in his discard pile (unless the Copper pile runs out). It's fewer words than making the target reveal a discard pile with no Copper. And if the decision turns out to be an interesting one more often than Mountebank's decision, great.

There is something weird about this though.... if the Copper pile does run out, then the "main attack" stops working, because they can choose to gain a copper and fail instead. This is weird because the "main attack" shouldn't be affected by an empty copper pile. Maybe it's just because of Mountebank, but to me, the main attack here is gain a Copper, and there is a Mountebank-like clause that allows you to Bane the attack.

[LastFootnote]

GendoIkari is correct. The "may/otherwise" on Bookkeeper is not there to provide an interesting decision, but rather to make it so the card doesn't whiff. Unlike Mountebank, the "main" attack of Bookkeeper is meant to be the one you may choose to do: putting a Copper on your deck. The Copper gain clause is there so that Bookkeeper still attacks when the target has no Copper in his discard pile (unless the Copper pile runs out). It's fewer words than making the target reveal a discard pile with no Copper. And if the decision turns out to be an interesting one more often than Mountebank's decision, great.

There is something weird about this though.... if the Copper pile does run out, then the "main attack" stops working, because they can choose to gain a copper and fail instead. This is weird because the "main attack" shouldn't be affected by an empty copper pile. Maybe it's just because of Mountebank, but to me, the main attack here is gain a Copper, and there is a Mountebank-like clause that allows you to Bane the attack.

The question here is: how likely is the Copper pile to run out? If it barely ever happens, then I won't worry about it. If it's happening all the time, then I'll tweak (or scrap) it.

[Fragasnap]

Attacks that give players choices are naturally weak because, even if both effects hurt, the player will always choose the option that hurts him less.

This is incorrect.  Attacks that give the targets choices are naturally weaker, which is not the same as being naturally weak.  Torturer is still strong, despite giving other players a choice.  But for something more drastic, consider the following:

Lose-Lose
$3 - Action-Attack
+$3
Each other player chooses one: he discards 4 cards, or he gains 4 Curses.

My point isn't that Lose-Lose is weak because it gives players options. My point is that Lose-Lose is weaker than a Lose-Lose that does one or the other without giving players choices.

Though thinking about this has brought a question to mind: If Copper junking is so problematic and this choice is causing a problem, why does it Copper junk at all? Why not just top-deck a Copper? I think that would be simpler and more interesting.

[Awaclus]

Though thinking about this has brought a question to mind: If Copper junking is so problematic and this choice is causing a problem, why does it Copper junk at all? Why not just top-deck a Copper? I think that would be simpler and more interesting.

But weaker.

[TheOthin]

In that case cleaning out your Coppers would make it harmless.

[LastFootnote]

OK, so new wording:

Bookkeeper
Types: Action–Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. +$2. Each other player looks through his discard pile. He may reveal and put a Copper from it on top of his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a Copper.

Does that look valid?

[GendoIkari]

OK, so new wording:

Bookkeeper
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. +$2. Each other player looks through his discard pile. He may reveal and put a Copper from it on top of his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a Copper.

Does that look valid?

I assume you still meant for this to be an attack?

[GendoIkari]

On issue with the card as a whole... it's a purposefully weak attack, but on top of a boring effect (Woodcutter). You compare the attack to Bureaucrat, and I agree. But at least Bureaucrat does something interesting, if weak. I just wonder if there's something more interesting that could be put on top.

[eHalcyon]

You've got the vanilla ordering backwards; it should be "+$2, +1 Buy".

[LastFootnote]

I assume you still meant for this to be an attack?

Yes, thanks! Edited.

You've got the vanilla ordering backwards; it should be "+$2, +1 Buy".

Nope, I have it right. Check any published card you please.

On issue with the card as a whole... it's a purposefully weak attack, but on top of a boring effect (Woodcutter). You compare the attack to Bureaucrat, and I agree. But at least Bureaucrat does something interesting, if weak. I just wonder if there's something more interesting that could be put on top.

I wouldn't say the attack is "purposefully weak". The idea is to have it be worth going for more often than not. Maybe it is too weak, though.

It's interesting how "+$2" is not noteworthy, but when you add "+1 Buy" suddenly it's "boring" because of its association with Woodcutter. It's a strange phenomenon.

[GendoIkari]

I wouldn't say the attack is "purposefully weak". The idea is to have it be worth going for more often than not. Maybe it is too weak, though.

It's interesting how "+$2" is not noteworthy, but when you add "+1 Buy" suddenly it's "boring" because of its association with Woodcutter. It's a strange phenomenon.

That is interesting! I think for me, the thing is that +$2 is just a standard bonus to add on to whatever a card is meant to otherwise do. So Bookkeeper without the +buy seems like primarily an attack with +$2 tacked on to make it not too weak.

Whereas +1 buy, +$2 no longer seems like a bonus to tack onto a card, but rather the base of the card itself. So when I see Bookkeeper as it now is, I think of it as a Woodcutter with an attack added on to make it stronger / more interesting.

[eHalcyon]

Whoa, Buy comes first?   

Now I wonder if I've always had this wrong, or if I somehow got turned around recently.  Dude.

[GendoIkari]

Whoa, Buy comes first?   

Now I wonder if I've always had this wrong, or if I somehow got turned around recently.  Dude.

[Awaclus]

[popsofctown]

I didn't read the whole thread, but the option to put a copper from your hand on top of your deck would be interesting, since that's even worse than from discard.

[pacovf]

I didn't read the whole thread, but the option to put a copper from your hand on top of your deck would be interesting, since that's even worse than from discard.

Isn't that just a stronger cutpurse?

[GeoLib]

I didn't read the whole thread, but the option to put a copper from your hand on top of your deck would be interesting, since that's even worse than from discard.

Isn't that just a stronger cutpurse?

I think he's suggesting it as an additional option, not a replacement.

[GendoIkari]

I didn't read the whole thread, but the option to put a copper from your hand on top of your deck would be interesting, since that's even worse than from discard.

That would be interesting; but would make it both weaker and more complex. But interesting definitely; just to see the times when the player chooses from hand.

[popsofctown]

I didn't read the whole thread, but the option to put a copper from your hand on top of your deck would be interesting, since that's even worse than from discard.

That would be interesting; but would make it both weaker and more complex. But interesting definitely; just to see the times when the player chooses from hand.

Yeah, if the power level pans out where you don't want it any weaker than you might not want it.

If you want to keep the copper pile from running out too much then it will help with that.

[LastFootnote]

I tried this version in a game last night (I haven't printed out images with the updated wording yet, but the functionality is the same). I was the only one who bought it and I won, for what that's worth. I used the +1 Buy at least once. For whatever reason, despite no real trashing, my opponents usually had no discard pile when I played it, so it mostly handed out Coppers. Anyway it seemed fine, if unremarkable. Not so exciting but maybe a serviceable filler Attack card. I'll run some tests later against BM-Smithy to see how it stacks up.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I smirked at your notion that once a card looks like Woodcutter+, it appears boring^^ Also I've never thought of Goons as a Woodcutter variant (just joking here).

Now Bookkeeper has a lot of double letters in its name offers an interesting attack concept and seems solid as it is. But what do you think about other options such as either top-deck a Copper from your hand or gain a Copper, like popsofctown suggested? Also, as a vanilla bonus, what about +2 Cards? That seems reasonable to me, too. I don't know how much you are falling for your current version but I'd suggest trying different things and see what's actually the most fun.

I assume Bookkeeper is intended to be an addition to Enterprise in which it would fit nicely since it "cares about Treasures", especially Copper, allowing some exciting interactions with Clerk, Mill Town, etc.