Print

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

[jackelfrink]

Leprechaun
$2
Action

+1 card
+1 action
If this is the 11th time Leprechaun has entered play this turn, put the gold pile into your hand.

[pst]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So when I'm buying Ruined Market, but you return Ruined Village, I get nothing. You rascal! Neither that nor the corresponding Knight thing should be very common though, so it seems to me it wouldn't be so very annoying.

[Anders Gabrielsson]

Copper Thief
$1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck. You may trash any Copper revealed. +$2 for each Copper you trash this way.

[Witherweaver]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So when I'm buying Ruined Market, but you return Ruined Village, I get nothing. You rascal! Neither that nor the corresponding Knight thing should be very common though, so it seems to me it wouldn't be so very annoying.

Well, plus, if I play Torturer and you choose a Curse and the Curse pile is depleted, I can return one from my hand so you gain it.  This applies to any junker.  Also, it can prevent your opponent from three-piling to end. 

[AJD]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So when I'm buying Ruined Market, but you return Ruined Village, I get nothing. You rascal! Neither that nor the corresponding Knight thing should be very common though, so it seems to me it wouldn't be so very annoying.

Well, plus, if I play Torturer and you choose a Curse and the Curse pile is depleted, I can return one from my hand so you gain it.  This applies to any junker.  Also, it can prevent your opponent from three-piling to end.

Actually the "would gain" condition isn't satisfied in that scenario.

[Witherweaver]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So when I'm buying Ruined Market, but you return Ruined Village, I get nothing. You rascal! Neither that nor the corresponding Knight thing should be very common though, so it seems to me it wouldn't be so very annoying.

Well, plus, if I play Torturer and you choose a Curse and the Curse pile is depleted, I can return one from my hand so you gain it.  This applies to any junker.  Also, it can prevent your opponent from three-piling to end.

Actually the "would gain" condition isn't satisfied in that scenario.

Huh, I assumed "would gain"  happened before checking if it were possible.

[Compynerd255]

public void javaVillage(){
this.deck.drawCard(1);
this.remainingActions += 2;
}

Yes, Java looks a lot like C++, but I tasted both and Java is much simpler... but unfortunately (?) C++ is more widely used.

Code: [Select]

public Class Java extends Card{
int cost=4;
CardType[]={CardType.ACTION, CardType.VICTORY}
int vPWort=2;

public void play(){
putOnJavaMat(this);
Card revealedCard=revalFromHand(1);
if(revealedCard!=null){
putOnJavaMat(revealedCard);
}
}

On the same note, I'll just throw in a C# example:

Code: [Select]

public class Moat : Card
{
  private Game game;
  private Player owner;
  public Moat(Game game) : base(game)
  {
     Type = CardType.Action | CardType.Reaction;
     Cost = 2;
     this.game = game;
  }
 
  public override void OnGain(Player player)
  {
    owner = player;
    owner.OnAttack += Game_OnAttack;
  }

  public override void Play()
  {
     owner.DrawFromDeck(2);
  }

  private async void Game_OnAttack(object sender, OnAttackEventArgs e)
  {
     bool revealed = await player.OfferRevealAsync(this);
     if (revealed)
       e.Unaffected = true;
  }
}


[GendoIkari]

On the same note, I'll just throw in a C# example:

Code: [Select]

public class Moat : Card
{
  private Game game;
  private Player owner;
  public Moat(Game game) : base(game)
  {
     Type = CardType.Action | CardType.Reaction;
     Cost = 2;
     this.game = game;
  }
 
  public override void OnGain(Player player)
  {
    owner = player;
    owner.OnAttack += Game_OnAttack;
  }

  public override void Play()
  {
     owner.DrawFromDeck(2);
  }

  private async void Game_OnAttack(object sender, OnAttackEventArgs e)
  {
     bool revealed = await player.OfferRevealAsync(this);
     if (revealed)
       e.Unaffected = true;
  }
}


Something I can read!

[sudgy]

...Making the play function in the card itself is so much easier than what I was doing...  Why didn't I think of that...

[ConMan]

Copper Thief
$1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck. You may trash any Copper revealed. +$2 for each Copper you trash this way.

That's, actually, kind of interesting. Should it be an attack? 99 times out of 100 it would be beneficial to the other players, and yet ... And the opportunity cost of playing it is a tricky one - a massive money boost early in the game, versus helping your opponents thin their decks, although it probably needs a massive nerf to stop you getting up to $10 in a 6 player game.

[sudgy]

Copper Thief
$1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck. You may trash any Copper revealed. +$2 for each Copper you trash this way.

That's, actually, kind of interesting. Should it be an attack? 99 times out of 100 it would be beneficial to the other players, and yet ... And the opportunity cost of playing it is a tricky one - a massive money boost early in the game, versus helping your opponents thin their decks, although it probably needs a massive nerf to stop you getting up to $10 in a 6 player game.

If any coppers were trashed this way...

[SirPeebles]

Copper Thief
$1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck. You may trash any Copper revealed. +$2 for each Copper you trash this way.

That's, actually, kind of interesting. Should it be an attack? 99 times out of 100 it would be beneficial to the other players, and yet ... And the opportunity cost of playing it is a tricky one - a massive money boost early in the game, versus helping your opponents thin their decks, although it probably needs a massive nerf to stop you getting up to $10 in a 6 player game.

If any coppers were trashed this way...

Well, you'd want to trash as few as possible, so you would end up choosing one opponent's Copper to trash, which is rather political (and risky, if they reveal one player at a time)

[SirPeebles]

Philosopher's Tome
$3?  Treasure

When you play this, count your deck and discard pile.

Note:  The ? in the price means that you need to ask a question and pay three coin when you buy it.

[markusin]

Philosopher's Tome
$3?  Treasure

When you play this, count your deck and discard pile.

Note:  The ? in the price means that you need to ask a question and pay three coin when you buy it.

Philosopher
$0? - Action

Count your deck and discard pile. Ask a question. Count your deck and discard pile again.

[Witherweaver]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So with help from SirPeebles and GendoIkari, the wording I wanted is something like:

"When another player buys a card or is instructed to gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply."

[SirPeebles]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So with help from SirPeebles and GendoIkari, the wording I wanted is something like:

"When another player buys a card or is instructed to gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply."

If your opponent buys Sir Martin, and then I reveal this card and return Dame Natalie to the Knights pile... does my opponent not gain a card since the Sir Martin he bought is no longer on top?

[Witherweaver]

Annoying Technical Card
$3 - Reaction
When another player would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply.

So with help from SirPeebles and GendoIkari, the wording I wanted is something like:

"When another player buys a card or is instructed to gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply."

If your opponent buys Sir Martin, and then I reveal this card and return Dame Natalie to the Knights pile... does my opponent not gain a card since the Sir Martin he bought is no longer on top?

I would say so.

[Polk5440]

Robinson Crusoe
$3 -- Action

Trash a Merchant Ship from your hand. If you do, gain an Island, a Native Village, and a Gold.

Setup: Put Merchant Ship, Island, and Native Village in the Kingdom.

[Warfreak2]

If your opponent buys Sir Martin, and then I reveal this card and return Dame Natalie to the Knights pile... does my opponent not gain a card since the Sir Martin he bought is no longer on top?

I would say so.

The equivalent scenario for Ruins makes it political in multiplayer games; If I play Cultist with this and a Ruins in my hand, 90% of the time I can choose who doesn't get attacked.

[eHalcyon]

If your opponent buys Sir Martin, and then I reveal this card and return Dame Natalie to the Knights pile... does my opponent not gain a card since the Sir Martin he bought is no longer on top?

I would say so.

The equivalent scenario for Ruins makes it political in multiplayer games; If I play Cultist with this and a Ruins in my hand, 90% of the time I can choose who doesn't get attacked.

Not sure about this. The opponent is instructed to gain a Ruins card, not a specific one. I don't think it would get interrupted.

[SirPeebles]

Animal farm
Each player reveals his hand. Any player who has more cards costing $4 than cards costing $2, or the same number, trashes his hand.

now, everybody who will search Orwell "animal farm" -mov*ie will find this message ^^

Wow, just got it now.

Edit:  I mean, the joke in the tiny text.

[Witherweaver]

If your opponent buys Sir Martin, and then I reveal this card and return Dame Natalie to the Knights pile... does my opponent not gain a card since the Sir Martin he bought is no longer on top?

I would say so.

The equivalent scenario for Ruins makes it political in multiplayer games; If I play Cultist with this and a Ruins in my hand, 90% of the time I can choose who doesn't get attacked.

Not sure about this. The opponent is instructed to gain a Ruins card, not a specific one. I don't think it would get interrupted.

I think that's probably right.  Though your opponent tries to buy that Ruined Market on the top, you can return a Ruined Village and he fails to gain the Ruined Market.. and then you can laugh at him. 

Notably, in the Knights scenario, would the player be out the $5 (or $4 for Sir Martin) they spent on the Knight?  The "buy" is complete so the coin gets spent, it's only the gain that is interrupted.

[Warfreak2]

Not sure about this. The opponent is instructed to gain a Ruins card, not a specific one. I don't think it would get interrupted.

Thinking about it more, I think it gets interrupted whether or not the Ruins you return is the same - it's the Lose Track rule, which can tell that an identical card isn't the particular card you were trying to track (e.g. that whole gaining Inn with Watchtower mess). "A Ruins" isn't a card, any more than "a card costing up to $4" is; I resolve the "OK, I gain a Ruins, that means I gain a Ruined Market" part before the would-gain kicks in, just like I choose what to gain with Armory before revealing a Trader.

[Witherweaver]

Not sure about this. The opponent is instructed to gain a Ruins card, not a specific one. I don't think it would get interrupted.

Thinking about it more, I think it gets interrupted whether or not the Ruins you return is the same - it's the Lose Track rule, which can tell that an identical card isn't the particular card you were trying to track (e.g. that whole gaining Inn with Watchtower mess). "A Ruins" isn't a card, any more than "a card costing up to $4" is; I resolve the "OK, I gain a Ruins, that means I gain a Ruined Market" part before the would-gain kicks in, just like I choose what to gain with Armory before revealing a Trader.

Though with the wording, it's "When another player is instructed to gain a card," so it seems like it would kick in once you read "Gain a Ruins" before you actually try to gain the ruins.  So maybe it actually happens before you identify the card to gain.  Buying would be different, since you identify it first, buy it, resolve when-buys (when the other clause of this card would fire), then try to gain it.

[mail-mi]

Not sure about this. The opponent is instructed to gain a Ruins card, not a specific one. I don't think it would get interrupted.

Thinking about it more, I think it gets interrupted whether or not the Ruins you return is the same - it's the Lose Track rule, which can tell that an identical card isn't the particular card you were trying to track (e.g. that whole gaining Inn with Watchtower mess). "A Ruins" isn't a card, any more than "a card costing up to $4" is; I resolve the "OK, I gain a Ruins, that means I gain a Ruined Market" part before the would-gain kicks in, just like I choose what to gain with Armory before revealing a Trader.

Though with the wording, it's "When another player is instructed to gain a card," so it seems like it would kick in once you read "Gain a Ruins" before you actually try to gain the ruins.  So maybe it actually happens before you identify the card to gain.  Buying would be different, since you identify it first, buy it, resolve when-buys (when the other clause of this card would fire), then try to gain it.

OR it's a bad card idea.