Print

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

[plasticbrain]

Inheritance strikes me as very strong in combination with Watchtower and Trader and weak in their absence. This may or may not be the effect you are looking for.

The thing about your wording on Rats is that (a) it is a special-case rule, and special-case rules are annoying, and (b) it shuts down a lot of interesting interactions it might have with other kingdom cards.

(But, congratulations! You've managed to create a card that will be bought from the Black Market even less frequently than Treasure Map!)

the "special case' text on Rats doesn't really shut down many interactions. only ones that would have you gain it in other ways than buying it. like Workshop and... what?

and Inheritance doesn't work with Watchtower and Trader because of its "If you do... " text. right?

EDIT: i'm thinking of replacing Miracle with this card, or just adding this card. it was inspired by the Juggler thread and i really like it. what do you think?

Wheel of Fortune - Action - 4$
Reveal the top card of the Fortune deck. Gain a copy of that card. Shuffle the Fortune deck.
(Before the game, make a Fortune deck out of 3 copies of Gold, 2 copies of Duchy and 1 copy of Curse.)

and yet another go at the Rats...

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. If a player would gain a Curse, he may gain a Rats instead."

[Jack Rudd]

Inheritance strikes me as very strong in combination with Watchtower and Trader and weak in their absence. This may or may not be the effect you are looking for.

The thing about your wording on Rats is that (a) it is a special-case rule, and special-case rules are annoying, and (b) it shuts down a lot of interesting interactions it might have with other kingdom cards.

(But, congratulations! You've managed to create a card that will be bought from the Black Market even less frequently than Treasure Map!)

the "special case' text on Rats doesn't really shut down many interactions. only ones that would have you gain it in other ways than buying it. like Workshop and... what?

Ironworks, University, Upgrade, Swindler, Saboteur, Develop, Black Market, Border Village, Haggler, Remodel, Expand, Remake. It's quite a list.

and Inheritance doesn't work with Watchtower and Trader because of its "If you do... " text. right?

Inheritance with Watchtower usually becomes: Gain a Curse and trash it immediately, Gain a Duchy and trash it unless it's late in the game, Gain a Gold and top-deck it.
Inheritance with Trader becomes either: Gain a Silver, or: Gain a Curse, a Gold and a Silver.

[plasticbrain]

Inheritance strikes me as very strong in combination with Watchtower and Trader and weak in their absence. This may or may not be the effect you are looking for.

The thing about your wording on Rats is that (a) it is a special-case rule, and special-case rules are annoying, and (b) it shuts down a lot of interesting interactions it might have with other kingdom cards.

(But, congratulations! You've managed to create a card that will be bought from the Black Market even less frequently than Treasure Map!)

the "special case' text on Rats doesn't really shut down many interactions. only ones that would have you gain it in other ways than buying it. like Workshop and... what?

Ironworks, University, Upgrade, Swindler, Saboteur, Develop, Black Market, Border Village, Haggler, Remodel, Expand, Remake. It's quite a list.

well, i've realized that nobody's going to buy a Curse anyway, so i've dumped that idea. thanks for playing

Inheritance with Watchtower usually becomes: Gain a Curse and trash it immediately, Gain a Duchy and trash it unless it's late in the game, Gain a Gold and top-deck it.
Inheritance with Trader becomes either: Gain a Silver, or: Gain a Curse, a Gold and a Silver.

with Watchtower: if you trash the Curse with Watchtower, then you can't gain the Gold&Duchy. you have to at least gain the Curse and then you can use Watchtower on either the Gold or Duchy, if you wish (possibly trashing the Duchy and putting the Gold on top of your deck) if you use the Watchtower on the Curse, you'll only gain a Silver.
with Trader: either Gain a Silver; or gain a Curse, a Gold and a Duchy (you can trader either of the last two for a Silver each)
i think these possible interactions are fair on a 5$ card. there are certainly stronger interactions on existing cards.

[Jack Rudd]

with Watchtower: if you trash the Curse with Watchtower, then you can't gain the Gold&Duchy. you have to at least gain the Curse and then you can use Watchtower on either the Gold or Duchy, if you wish (possibly trashing the Duchy and putting the Gold on top of your deck) if you use the Watchtower on the Curse, you'll only gain a Silver.

You are wrong. Watchtower reacts to "if you gain", not "if you would gain". You do gain the Curse - and so Inheritance's clause is triggered - but you can then immediately trash it.

[Jack Rudd]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. If a player would gain a Curse, he may gain a Rats instead."

Is that red text a global rule for Rats games, or a rule for if a Rats has been played this turn? Either way, it breaks the Cursing attacks and Embargo.

[plasticbrain]

You are wrong. Watchtower reacts to "if you gain", not "if you would gain". You do gain the Curse - and so Inheritance's clause is triggered - but you can then immediately trash it.

gotcha. thanks. i still think that's a fair interaction, if you happen to have those cards.

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

[Jack Rudd]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

That looks like a playtestable idea. It's still far too strong for a $1 card, mind; I'd test it at $5 and see how it goes.

[plasticbrain]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

That looks like a playtestable idea. It's still far too strong for a $1 card, mind; I'd test it at $5 and see how it goes.

look, nobody's gonna buy a card that does nothing for 5$. the 1$ price is necessary to tempt people into buying the first one. especially in non-Cursing games.
but i am gonna playtest this, as i have been playtesting all these cards.

[Jack Rudd]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

That looks like a playtestable idea. It's still far too strong for a $1 card, mind; I'd test it at $5 and see how it goes.

look, nobody's gonna buy a card that does nothing for 5$. the 1$ price is necessary to tempt people into buying the first one. especially in non-Cursing games.
but i am gonna playtest this, as i have been playtesting all these cards.

People buy Cities all the time when all they're getting out of them is a Village effect - it's a calculated investment for when they become VillageLabs. This card is subject to the same sort of dynamic.

[Jimmmmm]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

That looks like a playtestable idea. It's still far too strong for a $1 card, mind; I'd test it at $5 and see how it goes.

look, nobody's gonna buy a card that does nothing for 5$. the 1$ price is necessary to tempt people into buying the first one. especially in non-Cursing games.
but i am gonna playtest this, as i have been playtesting all these cards.

People buy Cities all the time when all they're getting out of them is a Village effect - it's a calculated investment for when they become VillageLabs. This card is subject to the same sort of dynamic.

I think that because of the discard-after-two clause it's not worth $5. Keep in mind that the third one goes back to being a regular old cantrip. Assuming you can get them together, every two is worth a Village and a Lab, so depending on how often that will tend to happen,  I'd say it should be worth either $3 or $4.

Actually, come to think of it, this card is broken. Think of a deck containing four Rats and the Diadem. Play and discard Rats 1 and 2. Play and discard Rats 3 and 4. You now have Rats 1 and 2 in your hand again, and 3 actions. Repeat as many times as you like. You now have limitless $. Of course, you're still limited by how many buys you have, but an infinite source of anything is not a good idea. In fact, it's probably never going to be a good idea to be able to discard a card after you play it such that it's possible to play it again. Certainly not a cantrip. But even if it's not, it'll still be possible to have enough card drawers and/or spare actions to play a card again and again and again in one turn.

A fix for this would be to set aside every two Rats and discard them at your next clean-up phase, or to only give you the second card and action if there are an even number of Rats in play. Both of these would require some clunkier wording, but would be equivalent to the current version other than not allowing you to play each card more than once per turn (or, you know, thrice if you KC it, but you know what I mean).

[plasticbrain]

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card per Rats in play, +1 Action per Rats in play, "If there are 2 Rats in play, immediately put them into your discard pile. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

is this better? i dropped 'instead' so you gain the Curse AND a Rats. it is meant to be global.

That looks like a playtestable idea. It's still far too strong for a $1 card, mind; I'd test it at $5 and see how it goes.

look, nobody's gonna buy a card that does nothing for 5$. the 1$ price is necessary to tempt people into buying the first one. especially in non-Cursing games.
but i am gonna playtest this, as i have been playtesting all these cards.

People buy Cities all the time when all they're getting out of them is a Village effect - it's a calculated investment for when they become VillageLabs. This card is subject to the same sort of dynamic.

I think that because of the discard-after-two clause it's not worth $5. Keep in mind that the third one goes back to being a regular old cantrip. Assuming you can get them together, every two is worth a Village and a Lab, so depending on how often that will tend to happen,  I'd say it should be worth either $3 or $4.

Actually, come to think of it, this card is broken. Think of a deck containing four Rats and the Diadem. Play and discard Rats 1 and 2. Play and discard Rats 3 and 4. You now have Rats 1 and 2 in your hand again, and 3 actions. Repeat as many times as you like. You now have limitless $. Of course, you're still limited by how many buys you have, but an infinite source of anything is not a good idea. In fact, it's probably never going to be a good idea to be able to discard a card after you play it such that it's possible to play it again. Certainly not a cantrip. But even if it's not, it'll still be possible to have enough card drawers and/or spare actions to play a card again and again and again in one turn.

A fix for this would be to set aside every two Rats and discard them at your next clean-up phase, or to only give you the second card and action if there are an even number of Rats in play. Both of these would require some clunkier wording, but would be equivalent to the current version other than not allowing you to play each card more than once per turn (or, you know, thrice if you KC it, but you know what I mean).

first of all, i'm sure there are many 'broken' 5 card 'comboes' already in the game. secondly, how do Rats 3&4 assure that Rats 1&2 are in your hand? they don't. why does being efficient when you have 4 or more of them in your deck make them broken? in my playtesting, there are other things you want to buy in the early game rather than "waste" your single buy on a Rats. a player would have to commit to Rats from the get go for this scenario to even be a possibility. yes, when they went up to 3 they were broken. but only going up to 2, i think you guys are giving them too much credit.

[Jimmmmm]

Combos, or efficiency, or cost, or whether or not you want to buy it, or how good the card is, or any amount of playtesting has nothing to do with it being broken. It's broken because it's possible to get an unlimited number of actions. It's broken with or without Diadem, but Diadem is an example of how you can use it to get an unlimited number of coins.

[Jack Rudd]

in my playtesting, there are other things you want to buy in the early game rather than "waste" your single buy on a Rats. a player would have to commit to Rats from the get go for this scenario to even be a possibility. yes, when they went up to 3 they were broken. but only going up to 2, i think you guys are giving them too much credit.

Who says you only have a single buy? There are many cards you can buy on turns 1 and 2 that give you +Buy.

[plasticbrain]

Combos, or efficiency, or cost, or whether or not you want to buy it, or how good the card is, or any amount of playtesting has nothing to do with it being broken. It's broken because it's possible to get an unlimited number of actions. It's broken with or without Diadem, but Diadem is an example of how you can use it to get an unlimited number of coins.

ok, it took me a while to puzzle out what you guys meant. i see now that Rats can be broken IF you buy a ton of them right at the start. you could have just said that.
so, i need to fix my broken Rats...

Rats – Action – 1$
+1 Card, +1 Action, "If there are an even number of Rats in play, +1 Card, +1 Action. While Rats are in the supply, if a player gains a Curse, he may gain a Rats."

^apparently, this is the only way they'll work the way i want them to. i was really attached to the "... per Rats in play" text, but there seems to be no simple way to make it work. i think this eliminates the final major problem with these critters. let me know...

[Jimmmmm]

Okay, that's an improvement. Now about the cost. I don't see whole $1 gap thing as an issue. In this case, since it's a cantrip, it usually improves Upgrade/Remake since Rats will usually be better than nothing.

What you're saying will be true in some cases. But with some handsize-increasing and/or trashing, it will often be relatively easy to be playing multiple Rats quite regularly. Also, there are plenty of other cards that often "don't do anything". Menagerie, Village,  Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Shanty Town, just off the top of my head. I suppose it's most directly comparable with Fool's Gold. It doesn't really matter that the first one does nothing, because if you're playing with a plan, you're not going to buy exactly one.

As I've said before, if you can get them going, they're worth somewhere between a Village and a Lab (probably less though, as you'll often play an odd amount). I would say they're better than the likes of Pearl Diver, because there will be times when you REALLY want even the minimal extra actions you can get from Rats.

So I would probably price them around the $3 or $4 range. But hey, if you particularly want them to be $1, I don't think it would be game-breaking, just a little underpriced. And of course if you think that's the price that would bring the most enjoyment to the game, then that's the best reason for any sort of decision like this.

[plasticbrain]

so, from the beginning, i wanted the Rats card to do 3 things: 1) be weak enough to justify a 1$ cost, 2) be strong enough in multiple to convince players to buy them, and 3) interact with Curses somehow. after a lot of thought, and a lot of versions, i think i've finally found something that satisfies all 3 conditions...

Rats – Action-Attack – 1$
+1 Card, +1 Action, "If this is the third time you played a Rats this turn, each other player gains a Curse."

also a proposed addition to Inheritance to keep it from being abused...

Inheritance – Action – 5$
“You may not reveal Reaction cards while this in play. Gain a Curse. If you do, gain a Duchy and a Gold. Otherwise, gain a Silver."

[rinkworks]

so, from the beginning, i wanted the Rats card to do 3 things: 1) be weak enough to justify a 1$ cost, 2) be strong enough in multiple to convince players to buy them, and 3) interact with Curses somehow. after a lot of thought, and a lot of versions, i think i've finally found something that satisfies all 3 conditions...

Rats – Action-Attack – 1$
+1 Card, +1 Action, "If this is the third time you played a Rats this turn, each other player gains a Curse."

Your first two conditions are usually going to be mutually-exclusive.  The very fact that a card could be powerful in multiples is why it probably can't cost $1: because $1 makes it easy to pick up with extra buys -- not necessarily even because the player wants to pursue a strategy with that card but because, hey, extra buy.  Why not pick one up?  This is especially true if the $1 card is a cantrip, because they usually can't harm your deck at all.

That said, I think this is probably the best you can do with a $1 cantrip that satisfies your conditions.  I don't like how its harmlessness means people will buy these with extra money/buys just because, rather than because they specifically want to pursue a Rats strategy.   But that's the only drawback I can identify now, and it's probably the best revision so far.

Inheritance – Action – 5$
“You may not reveal Reaction cards while this in play. Gain a Curse. If you do, gain a Duchy and a Gold. Otherwise, gain a Silver."

It's better without the special case rule.  For one thing, it's ineffectual.  If you have Inheritance and a Watchtower in hand, one card says "You may not reveal..." and the other says, "You may reveal...."  Who's to say Inheritance's rule is the one that takes precedence?  Obviously that's what you intend, but who's to say Watchtower's permission doesn't override Inheritance's restriction?

Basically you never want to throw in special case rule changes like this.  You want to make the card work within the rules.  In this case, I think you're find without any finagling.  True, that means this is a powerhouse combo with Watchtower, but that's okay.  It's not like Cache says, "When you gain this, gain two Coppers, and you may not reveal Trader to turn them into Silvers when you do."  And Tactician doesn't say, "You can't play this if you have Black Market in play."  Cool combos like that make the game interesting, and usually such a combo won't be available anyway.

[Qvist]

For me a cantrip can't be a $1 card.
If you compare Rats to Pearl Diver, which are the most basic cantrips and are $2 cards. Rats seems superior to me than those two.
So it's at least a $2 card.

[plasticbrain]

For me a cantrip can't be a $1 card.
If you compare Rats to Pearl Diver, which are the most basic cantrips and are $2 cards. Rats seems superior to me than those two.
So it's at least a $2 card.

Pearl Diver lets you do something every time it's played, so it's like cantrip+. but Rats just cantrips unless you manage to play 3 on one turn. so it's 'less' than Pearl Diver in most cases. i priced it at 1$ precisely because i want folks to pick it up with extra buys. the idea that players will pick them up 'just because', as rinkworks pointed out, means that getting to 3 on a turn will actually be harder (in other than 2 player games) and that suits me just fine.

[Jimmmmm]

There are many decks where it's going to be possible to be playing three Rats just about every turn. I mean sure, the power of this pales in comparison to something like Familiar, but do you really want to make a $1 card which has the potential to allow someone to hand out the majority of the Curses? Pearl Diver lets you do something every time you play it, but it doesn't do something every time you play it, ie it often doesn't let you do something useful, and once it's useless it's useless until your next shuffle. When Rats does something, it does something really powerful now.

[Octo]

Chapel + Rats says hello. The cantrip nature means you'd be able to trash shit loads too without conflict. Load 'em up with curses ASAP - gg. God forbid there's some pawns about for cycling +buys.

[plasticbrain]

Chapel + Rats says hello. The cantrip nature means you'd be able to trash shit loads too without conflict. Load 'em up with curses ASAP - gg. God forbid there's some pawns about for cycling +buys.

if Chapel is in the game, who's gonna be worried about curses? you could get rid of them faster than the Rats could give them out

[Jimmmmm]

Chapel + Rats says hello. The cantrip nature means you'd be able to trash shit loads too without conflict. Load 'em up with curses ASAP - gg. God forbid there's some pawns about for cycling +buys.

if Chapel is in the game, who's gonna be worried about curses? you could get rid of them faster than the Rats could give them out

That's quite often not true. In a Chapel game, the more you get Cursed, the longer it's going to take you to rebuild after trashing all your Coppers.

[DStu]

As I understand it, Rats does something at exactly one time during your turn, namely when it's the third time you played it. So when you play it for the fourth time, you don't hand out curses. Five is right out.

[Jimmmmm]

Yep so three or more Rats in a slim deck is roughly equivalent to one Familiar.