Print

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

[eHalcyon]

Charnel
$2 - Action
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
+3 Cards
While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

This idea came from a cheeky answer to a design challenge, but the more I think about it the more I think it's actually kind of interesting.

I think the $2 cost is justified by comparing it to Courtyard.  Courtyard has an advantage in that it top-decks after drawing, giving you more options and more control.  Charnel has a potential advantage when combined with other draw, including more copies of itself.  You won't draw back the card you just top-decked so your subsequent draws let you see more cards, and you have a greater ability to set up your next turn.

As written, you still use the top of the deck when you look at or reveal cards from the top.  This could be confusing, but it also creates several interesting interactions (e.g. Wandering Minstrel, Wishing Well, Ironmonger, just to name a few).  Is the confusion worth it?

Thoughts?

[Burning Skull]

It might be pretty useful if it's really "not your Dominion day" and all your good cards happen to be the last ones in your deck for several games in a row.

[popsofctown]

Do you discard cards from play during cleanup before drawing to 5?

[Awaclus]

Do you discard cards from play during cleanup before drawing to 5?

Yeah, otherwise the Coppers you play on turn 2 would miss the reshuffle.

[pacovf]

Somewhat related, I always thought it was weird that there is no card that puts cards on the bottom of your deck, instead of the top. There are some cool shenanigans you would be able to pull off with such a card. Maybe Adventures will change that.

[sudgy]

Couldn't you just put a card on the bottom of the deck and draw normally?

[eHalcyon]

Couldn't you just put a card on the bottom of the deck and draw normally?

That doesn't let you set up your next turn, but only the last turn of that shuffle.  Bottom-decked cards are also more likely to miss the reshuffle, making you want to put junk there.  Also, doing that would remove the interactions with cards that reveal or look at the top of your deck.

[pacovf]

Couldn't you just put a card on the bottom of the deck and draw normally?

That doesn't let you set up your next turn, but only the last turn of that shuffle.  Bottom-decked cards are also more likely to miss the reshuffle, making you want to put junk there.  Also, doing that would remove the interactions with cards that reveal or look at the top of your deck.

On the other hand, you can setup a mega-turn more easily by putting cards on the bottom of your deck than on top, because you can do it over multiple turns. But this is a completely different idea than the card in the OP.

[XerxesPraelor]

That's one of the main themes of my expansion, but I don't know if it would be interesting enough without the possibility of combos.

[eHalcyon]

I submitted variations of this concept to two mini-set design contests.

Intrigue:

Undertaker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Actions and put any number of cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck; or +2 Cards.
While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

and Seaside:

Diving Bell
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
+2 Cards
+1 Action
While this is in play, when you would draw from the top of your deck, draw from the bottom instead.

I think Undertaker is actually a bit awkward to use, but I like the idea of Diving Bell a lot, even more than the card in the OP.  Being non-terminal should make it easier to combo and actually set up your next hand.  I also think it's interesting that you may be tempted to use it as a sort of Lab and try to improve your current hand, but then you'll be hurting your next turn.

There's some discussion in the Adventures contest thread, but it's more appropriate here.

I didn't think they were problematic, just not pretty. And Trader is already causing us Blue Dogs. In general it does the same weirdness the -1 Card token does, like ignoring Farming Village. Which is okay if there's no other way or the concept is just too good to not do it because of this, but it's still a negative thing. Thinking of which, can i lose my -1 Card token and still draw from the bottom of my deck? As far as i know not. But i can choose.

Another thing is that the card tells me to draw cards. It's already in play, so i guess i should draw from the bottom... But, why does it stand below there, i already drew these 2, what to do now? The timing is obvious to experienced fan card analyzers like us, but it's confusing when compared to official cards. A similar issue is why i made my "Minister" (which gains according to cost and reduces cost) not "while in play". Of course, using a "this turn" wording isn't really a better option for Diving Bell.

Yeah, I guess I just don't see Blue Dogs as common enough to be a problem.  -1 card token would still penalize you as normal, IMO.

As for the +2 cards on the card itself, yeah it would be from the bottom.  I think the coin on Storyteller is similarly confusing (and we saw that come up recently) but still worth it.  If it's particularly problematic, it could just say specify "from the bottom", and then the +1 action can go on top like it normally would be (somebody pointed that our as a flaw, but I moved it down because I think the vanilla bonuses look better together; not sure if there is precedence one way or the other).

Edit: missing a link!

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like Diving Bell and I intend to print it out to use at home.
(I had Charnel on my list of cards to print also, but hadn't printed it yet. I like Diving Bell better, which means it's more likely that I'll actually print & use it sometime soon.)

[Asper]

I think my problem is that "draw from the bottom of your deck" seems contradictory. Either you draw a card, or you put the bottom card of your deck into your hand. When i read Diving Bell, i immediately assumed it would put the bottom card of your deck into your hand, which lead me to say you can choose to ignore the -1 card token (you'd draw, and instead choose to do something else).

Storyteller is sequential and below average design in my opinion. The fact it appears to give you coins and instead removes them alone kills it for me. Either way, simply specifying the target might be fine.

[Accatitippi]

What about a direct honest "flip your deck"?

    Charnel
    $2 - Action
    Put a card from your hand to the bottom of your deck.
    +3 Cards
--------------------
    While this is in play, keep your deck upside-down.

FAQ: while your deck is upside down, for all purposes the "normal" top becomes the bottom and vice versa. The top card of your deck is visible to all players.

[AdrianHealey]

What about a direct honest "flip your deck"?

    Charnel
    $2 - Action
    Put a card from your hand to the bottom of your deck.
    +3 Cards
--------------------
    While this is in play, keep your deck upside-down.

FAQ: while your deck is upside down, for all purposes the "normal" top becomes the bottom and vice versa. The top card of your deck is visible to all players.

That's a great idea, imo.

[eHalcyon]

I think my problem is that "draw from the bottom of your deck" seems contradictory. Either you draw a card, or you put the bottom card of your deck into your hand. When i read Diving Bell, i immediately assumed it would put the bottom card of your deck into your hand, which lead me to say you can choose to ignore the -1 card token (you'd draw, and instead choose to do something else).

Storyteller is sequential and below average design in my opinion. The fact it appears to give you coins and instead removes them alone kills it for me. Either way, simply specifying the target might be fine.

Well, it already states clearly that it's still "draw" and not "put into your hand".  I think my interpretation is natural, but if not, it could be "put into your hand" instead.  In that case, it would always ignore the -1 card token and the token would just remain on top of your deck.

I personally like the way Storyteller is done!

What about a direct honest "flip your deck"?

    Charnel
    $2 - Action
    Put a card from your hand to the bottom of your deck.
    +3 Cards
--------------------
    While this is in play, keep your deck upside-down.

FAQ: while your deck is upside down, for all purposes the "normal" top becomes the bottom and vice versa. The top card of your deck is visible to all players.

I think this is a fun idea that's worth exploring, but there are some potential issues that would have to be worked out.  Most notably, there is the practical issue that you may accidentally reveal cards below the top card.  Either you disallow that and put onus on the players to be extra careful about it, or you allow it and introduce a cumbersome dimension to the card where it's in your best interest to carefully examine and memorize the order of the rest of your deck.

Compared to the original draw-from-bottom concept, a deck flip gives you (and other players) persistent information about the top of your deck, but you lose the funkiness of drawing and revealing/looking from different directions, which changes some of the combos.  I said earlier that some of my favourite interactions were Pearl Diver, Wishing Well and Ironmonger.  So let's consider those...

Pearl Diver: Normally, you use it to move good cards to the top of your deck.  If you ever find a bad card, you prefer leaving it there so that it misses the reshuffle and doesn't hinder your next turn. 

If Diving Bell is in play, PD is more similar to Spy.  If you play multiples, the inspected card will be drawn by the next card or it will be put on top of your deck for the next turn.  Either way, you never get stuck revealing the same card repeatedly because you want to leave it where it is.

If Charnel2 is in play, PD plays similarly.  If you run into a bad card at the "bottom" of your deck, you may want to move it on top so it won't be there at the start of your next turn.  So that's nice.

Wishing Well: Normally, you make a guess.  If you've tracked well (or if you're lucky), you guess right and draw an extra card.  If you guess wrong, the next Wishing Well draws so you're guessing once more.

If Diving Bell is in play, WW becomes more like Mystic.  If you guess wrong, your next WW won't draw that card so you'll be able to guess it immediately.

If Charnel2 is in play, you always know what the next card is, which means that you never have to guess -- Wishing Well simply becomes a Lab.  Actually, it's better because you can optionally guess wrong and leave the card undrawn if you prefer that. 

Personally, I prefer the Diving Bell version.  Charnel2's buff to WW just seems like a huge jump in power, such that it could be really swingy depending on whether you get one in play early or late in the turn.  But I can see why some people would think it more fun just to have the guaranteed draw.

Ironmonger: Cantrip, and then you get some light sifting and a random bonus.  Good and simple.

With Diving Bell in play, Ironmonger can be a lot more consistent.  If you reveal a card that gives you the bonus you want, you can just leave it on top and get that for all future Ironmongers that turn.  I think that's really cool.

With Charnel2... it plays like normal.

Overall, Charnel2 combos slightly with any card that specifically cares about the first card of your deck, since you know what card it is before you play.  It'll also interact with cards that care about the bottom of your deck, since the bottom will be the top next turn.

Diving Bell is similar, minus the revealed top card, but it also interacts with cards that put cards on top (e.g. Courtyard) and is generally more useful for setting up your next turn.  Since that's the effect I'm most interested in, I prefer using draw-from-bottom.  But I think the deck flip effect would be a cool direction for other design goals.