Print

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

[ehunt]

Change the cultist on trash line to:
When you trash this, discard down to three cards in hand.

[Awaclus]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

[ehunt]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

[LastFootnote]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

Because that's no fun? On-trash penalties are pretty pointless because often they won't come into play, and when they do it's because you're getting hit by a trashing attack. So why make the attack more harsh? I'm not seeing the upside.

I don't buy Cultist for the on-trash bonus, but I use Cultist's on-trash bonus frequently.

[Chris is me]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

I mean you probably never buy Cultist FOR the +3 Cards while trashing, but it makes certain other cards, like Apprentice, Forager, Salvager, Procession, etc. a lot better. Why take that away, it's not helping the card enough that it becomes overpowered, but it's still a neat thing to play with.

It would be a penalty that would basically never trigger. Only if you trash at the end of a big engine turn would it be a penalty. Most times your hand would be Trasher / Cultist / money / money / money anyway.

[Asper]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists ve often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

I mean you probably never buy Cultist FOR the +3 Cards while trashing, but it makes certain other cards, like Apprentice, Forager, Salvager, Procession, etc. a lot better. Why take that away, it's not helping the card enough that it becomes overpowered, but it's still a neat thing to play with.

It would be a penalty that would basically never trigger. Only if you trash at the end of a big engine turn would it be a penalty. Most times your hand would be Trasher / Cultist / money / money / money anyway.

And here i was thinking Cultist WAS overpowered. Sure, Ruins don't give -1VP, but that's why Cultists are chainable. Forgive my ranting, but i don't see why the actual bonus is there, really. It's not like it was necessary to make sure Cultist can compete with Witch. Even IF it was a tad weaker without that bonus (which i doubt), boy, there's a lot of space you can fall from Witch before you arrive at Explorer. They don't all need to be the best $5 ever. What the on-trash does is water down the clear concept and make the card more complex, though.

[Flip5ide]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

Because that's no fun? On-trash penalties are pretty pointless because often they won't come into play, and when they do it's because you're getting hit by a trashing attack. So why make the attack more harsh? I'm not seeing the upside.

I don't buy Cultist for the on-trash bonus, but I use Cultist's on-trash bonus frequently.

What's an example of a "trashing attack"..? Governor? Masquerade? Possession? None of these really fit the bill.

[LastFootnote]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

Because that's no fun? On-trash penalties are pretty pointless because often they won't come into play, and when they do it's because you're getting hit by a trashing attack. So why make the attack more harsh? I'm not seeing the upside.

I don't buy Cultist for the on-trash bonus, but I use Cultist's on-trash bonus frequently.

What's an example of a "trashing attack"..? Governor? Masquerade? Possession? None of these really fit the bill.

Swindler, Saboteur, Knights, Rogue.

[Flip5ide]

This hardly affects the card's strength at all. You don't trash Cultists very often anyway.

Exactly. The number of games where you buy cultist for the on trash bonus is zero. So why not make it a penalty?

Because that's no fun? On-trash penalties are pretty pointless because often they won't come into play, and when they do it's because you're getting hit by a trashing attack. So why make the attack more harsh? I'm not seeing the upside.

I don't buy Cultist for the on-trash bonus, but I use Cultist's on-trash bonus frequently.

What's an example of a "trashing attack"..? Governor? Masquerade? Possession? None of these really fit the bill.

Swindler, Saboteur, Knights, Rogue.

Oh, duh. I was thinking of an in-hand trasher. Drawing from the top of the deck usually factors in a decent amount of luck and probably won't affect someone's purchase of a card, positively (+3 cards when trashed) or negatively (disc. down to 3).