Print

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

[LibraryAdventurer]

It's time for fan cards the use the new mechanics!
I had the idea for this card earlier, but it didn't seem good as a reaction. So when I saw how the reserve mechanic works, I thought that would be perfect for my Illusionist card.

Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the end of that turn.

Combos with Scout!

EDIT: Update with current version of the card:

Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time an action card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All of your copies of that card use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved.

[dondon151]

Would this counter Mountebank? Call it to add the Curse type to your Coppers, or something.

[enfynet]

Does Mountebank refer to Curse (name) or Curse card (type)?

[GendoIkari]

This anti-combos with scout. You change the type of an action to victory so that scout will pick it up, but now it's not an action, so you can't play it. It should probably add the type instead of replacing the old one.

And it's an issue with curses, because everywhere that "Curse" is used, there's no rules clarification if it's a curse the card or curse the type.

[XerxesPraelor]

As written, this anti-combos with scout. You change the type of an action to victory so that scout will pick it up, but now it's not an action, so you can't play it. It should probably add the type instead of replacing the old one.

And it's an issue with curses, because everywhere that "Curse" is used, there's no rules clarification if it's a curse the card or curse the type.

FTFY

[LibraryAdventurer]

Let's try to make this clearer:

Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the end of that turn. (You may not use the curse type.)

I wonder if I can still fit that on the card...

[GendoIkari]

So with this, you can play any action as a treasure during your buy phase. Not sure if this would cause any rule issues.

[LibraryAdventurer]

"All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile appear to other cards as the chosen type until the end of that turn." ?

[pacovf]

Does Mountebank refer to Curse (name) or Curse card (type)?

Name. It says "Discard a Curse", not "Discard a Curse card".

[pedroluchini]

How about:

...you may call this to name a card and name a type. All copies of the named card acquire the named type until the end of your turn.

Is there a particular reason you want to restrict this effect to the player's own cards?

[Asper]

How about:

...you may call this to name a card and name a type. All copies of the named card acquire the named type until the end of your turn.

Is there a particular reason you want to restrict this effect to the player's own cards?

"Each other player gains a Curse card."
Last in order calls this as it's his turn and gains a Province.

Also i would stick closer to inheritance. "All your copies of that card gain that type."

Edit: I think it still causes a bit too many rules confusions, though. More than Inheritance, probably.

[pacovf]

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

[qmech]

What is a "Silver card"?

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

People bring up this objection all the time, but we now have Inheritance/Pirate Ship (and already had Guilds/Pirate Ship).  I don't think it's a big deal.

[popsofctown]

Can't you just go simpler?

"Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this.  If you do, all cards gain all types except Curse until end of turn."

[pacovf]

What is a "Silver card"?

Oh, I hadn't noticed this. This raises more questions than it answers...

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

People bring up this objection all the time, but we now have Inheritance/Pirate Ship (and already had Guilds/Pirate Ship).  I don't think it's a big deal.

What's the Inheritance/Pirate ship problem?

Can't you just go simpler?

"Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this.  If you do, all cards gain all types except Curse until end of turn."

This is going to be so, so confusing.

[LastFootnote]

Can't you just go simpler?

"Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this.  If you do, all cards gain all types except Curse until end of turn."

This is a cool idea, but it allows you to play all of your Action cards as Treasures, effectively giving you infinite Actions that turn.

Really this whole concept is not worth it, sadly.

[AJD]

What's the Inheritance/Pirate ship problem?

The Inheritance / Pirate Ship problem is, Pirate Ship says you get +$1 per coin token you've taken "with Pirate Ship". If you use Inheritance on Pirate Ship, then some of those coin tokens are going to have been taken with Estates, not with Pirate Ship, but you have no way of tracking which is which. Donald has ruled that we should disregard that and read it as if it says "per coin token on your Pirate Ship mat" (and read the rest of the card as if it tells you to put the coin tokens you get on your Pirate Ship mat, which we were already doing anyway).

[AJD]

(And there's already precedent for what Pirate Ship does being different that what the card says, since the card says "take a Coin Token" same as Baker and so on, but you can't use the tokens you collect with Pirate Ship in the same way you can use the tokens in Guilds.)

[GendoIkari]

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

Where are you getting this rule that "Curse" means "The card named Curse", while "Curse card" means "A card with the Curse type"? As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules like that. In fact, Spice Merchant seems to prove this wrong. It says "trash a Treasure", not "trash a Treasure card."

Anyway, lots of times in the past people have tried to create fan cards with the Curse type, and they have always been rejected as a bad idea because it's undefined in the rules how this would interact with cards that refer to "Curse".

[xyz123]

Would you be allowed to specify a dual type card?

Could this lead to some weird interactions where you count victory cards as actions or treasures so you can play them? It would be another different card to power up Hall of Plenty. Another treasure card to power up Bank. Another action card to reduce the cost of Peddlers, etc.

[Asper]

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

Where are you getting this rule that "Curse" means "The card named Curse", while "Curse card" means "A card with the Curse type"? As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules like that. In fact, Spice Merchant seems to prove this wrong. It says "trash a Treasure", not "trash a Treasure card."

Anyway, lots of times in the past people have tried to create fan cards with the Curse type, and they have always been rejected as a bad idea because it's undefined in the rules how this would interact with cards that refer to "Curse".

I think it's the kind of rules issue that Donald would just wipe away, saying "And that's how it is.". Like he did with Duration Attacks. Or cards that gain from the trash. Declare it is that way, and ta-dah! It works.

I do agree with LastFootnote though, the Actions-as-Treasures thing is really broken and ugly.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Wouldn't this wording help?
I know it's probably getting too wordy, but I can figure a way to reduce the words once I find a good way to restrict it.

"All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile appear to other cards as the chosen type until the end of that turn." ?

This would prevent playing actions as treasures since they only appear to other cards as the chosen type.

[GendoIkari]

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

Where are you getting this rule that "Curse" means "The card named Curse", while "Curse card" means "A card with the Curse type"? As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules like that. In fact, Spice Merchant seems to prove this wrong. It says "trash a Treasure", not "trash a Treasure card."

Anyway, lots of times in the past people have tried to create fan cards with the Curse type, and they have always been rejected as a bad idea because it's undefined in the rules how this would interact with cards that refer to "Curse".

I think it's the kind of rules issue that Donald would just wipe away, saying "And that's how it is.". Like he did with Duration Attacks. Or cards that gain from the trash. Declare it is that way, and ta-dah! It works.

I do agree with LastFootnote though, the Actions-as-Treasures thing is really broken and ugly.

I'm not sure what you mean. What duration attacks or gaining from trash rules did Donald have to come up with? With "curse" vs "curse card", it's simply an issue of using 2 different wordings to mean the same thing. Just like "silver" vs "silver card", or "treasure" vs "treasure card".

[Asper]

"Each other player gains a Curse card."

I just noticed that this sort of precludes any future card with the Curse type: only Witch, Sea hag, Embargo and Torturer refer to "Curse cards", all other cursers just instruct you to gain a "Curse".

(if a card with the Curse type was added, those four cards would leave you a choice as to which card you gain; all others would force you to gain plain ol' Curse).

Where are you getting this rule that "Curse" means "The card named Curse", while "Curse card" means "A card with the Curse type"? As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules like that. In fact, Spice Merchant seems to prove this wrong. It says "trash a Treasure", not "trash a Treasure card."

Anyway, lots of times in the past people have tried to create fan cards with the Curse type, and they have always been rejected as a bad idea because it's undefined in the rules how this would interact with cards that refer to "Curse".

I think it's the kind of rules issue that Donald would just wipe away, saying "And that's how it is.". Like he did with Duration Attacks. Or cards that gain from the trash. Declare it is that way, and ta-dah! It works.

I do agree with LastFootnote though, the Actions-as-Treasures thing is really broken and ugly.

I'm not sure what you mean. What duration attacks or gaining from trash rules did Donald have to come up with? With "curse" vs "curse card", it's simply an issue of using 2 different wordings to mean the same thing. Just like "silver" vs "silver card", or "treasure" vs "treasure card".

I'm referring to card ideas that were greatly discouraged in the past, only to be implemented by Donald later. People (including me) said that there shouldn't be Duration Attacks, because their interaction with Moat was weird. People said there shouldn't be kingdom cards for $8, or $7 even, because those would compete with Province or close an important strategical gap. People said that gaining cards from the trash was a bad idea because it would make the game last forever... Or something.

Donald did those, and whenever something was unclear (plausible from the rules, but maybe confusing), he just said how it's done, and then nobody questioned it anymore. He didn't so much come up with new rules, just explain how certain things interact.

So i think if somebody wants to do his own Curse card, he should just go for it. Make clear thatt "Curse" and "curse card" both refer to a type (similarly to how "Treasure" and "Treasure card" both refer to a type) and all rules problems are solved. Unless Donald comes up with something different, but hey, any fan card can be killed by official cards - and if it is because they are too similar.

[eHalcyon]

The thing about Duration Attacks wasn't that the rules are unclear about how they should work, just that it can be confusing for some and difficult to track, so fan card designers should be careful about it.  Donald tested and decided it was worth any confusion.  Cool.

Price gap arguments were stupid.

I don't think any of those changes actually required removing past rules.  Adding new Curse-type cards would.  Suppose we have:

Cuss
Cost: $0
Type: Action-Curse
+1 Buy
Worth -2VP

OK, first you have to decide what it means when cards say "Curse" vs. "Curse card".  The easiest solution is to say that they all refer to the card type rather than the specific card, otherwise all the junkers arbitrarily change in value and balance relative to each other.  If the meaning of the terms is kept consistent, at least all the Cursing cards will remain in balance compared to each other.  This is a fine change.

Now you have to rewrite what it means for setup.  You have to put a specific number of Curses in the Supply depending on the number of players.  But what about Cusses?  Do they count as Curses for this, or is that setup rule specifically referring to the specific Curse card?  If the latter, how does Cuss even enter this game?  If Cuss is in this game, do you put in fewer Curses to compensate?  These questions are not trivial to answer.

Now when I play a Witch, do you get a Curse or a Cuss?  From the new ruling, either should work, but if both are available, who chooses which type you get?  Other cards specify for similar circumstances, but none of the existing attacks do.

And of course, it also really throws off the balance of a big class of cards.

A fan could certainly go for it anyway, but this is a lot more problematic than Duration-Attack or $1 card.

[Deadlock39]

I don't really think it is as bad as you feel it is.

I think that defining the answers to the questions is something that isn't that complicated, and can be done by the creator of a Curse type fan card in the same way Donald would if he made an official one.

I think the most logical ruling would be to say all cards that refer to Curses refer to the type and not the specific card (so all cards that give them out behave the same).  The rest of the questions could be handled in just about any way in my opinion.  Either replace the default Curses, or add them on top.  You probably need to have a number of them divisible by 1 less than the number of players so they get passed out evenly, but play testing can probably figure that type of question out.

If you do decide to have two types of Curses in the game, clarifying is a good idea, but "gain a X" is well defined with in the game.  If a card says you gain a Curse, then I think the player doing the gaining would choose. I guess there is a lack of precedent for making your opponent gain something with multiple options, but there is clear precedent for choosing from a set of options for the active player.  (Specifying would be an exception.  Workshop doesn't say Gain a card costing up to $4 that you choose.)

Just my 2 cents.

[eHalcyon]

Swindler is a precedent that specifies who chooses.  Other attack cards specify for other things too, like Oracle. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be done.  I'm saying that there are a significant number of hurdles.

Also, didn't Donald say somewhere that he would never make another Curse-type card because of the confusion that would arise?

[Deadlock39]

It is a precedent for specifying who chooses, but (in my opinion?) it is specifying because it is going against the default of the player gaining the card choosing.

Certainly.  I am just saying that I think the hurdles are less significant.

It's very possible he did.  It definitely doesn't feel like it fits well in Dominion, but don't think fan cards always have to fit inside the mold. There was also a time when $7 cards were seen as outside the realm of Dominion.  I think it would be pretty easy to define the rules for how a Curse type card would work. I think the real challenge would be coming up with a Curse type card that is any good.



I meant to mention in my last post that throwing off the balance of Cursing cards doesn't really seem like an issue at all to me.  Isn't throwing off the balance of other cards kind of what the most interesting Dominion cards do?  Do strong trashers not throw off the balance of Cursing cards already?

[GreyICE]

Edit - was off topic.

[enfynet]

Swindler is a precedent that specifies who chooses.  Other attack cards specify for other things too, like Oracle. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be done.  I'm saying that there are a significant number of hurdles.

Also, didn't Donald say somewhere that he would never make another Curse-type card because of the confusion that would arise?

Someone has been reading the Secret Histories again, hasn't he?

The real easy option is that you could make a new "Curse" and just use those instead of the -1VP "Curse" that came with the game. Now nothing changes. (This would not allow multiple piles of Curses though.)

[LibraryAdventurer]

Why are we talking about new curse cards?
I'd like to figure a way for my Illusionist idea to work, please take the tangent elsewhere.

[GreyICE]

Sorry 

I'd just borrow the inheritance wording, and hybrid it with the Coin of the Realm a little. 

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this and name Action, Victory, Treasure or Curse.  Until end of turn, any time a card references the named card type, you may choose any other card type.  That card type is considered the named card type for the resolution of the action."

Solves the "how can you play money" but is a bit technical.  If you were okay with change:

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this.  While this is in play, any time a card you play names Action, Treasure or Victory, you may treat it as if it said any or all of Action, Treasure, and Victory.  This may allow you to play actions during your buy phase.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I'd just borrow the inheritance wording, and hybrid it with the Coin of the Realm a little. 

"Whenever you could play an action, you may call this and name a card type.  Each card of that type gains the type of your choice"

I don't think that solves the problem of being able to play actions in the buy phase.

How about this:

Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)

I actually played with this card today. I had to explain what the card does of course (I printed it worded as it was in the OP), but the card works nicely once it's explained. I just need to come up with a wording that won't need additional explaination.

[eHalcyon]

Why are we talking about new curse cards?
I'd like to figure a way for my Illusionist idea to work, please take the tangent elsewhere.

Spin-off thread here!

The conversation arose because your initial version of the card could add the Curse type to other cards.

[GreyICE]

Yeah, I updated the wordings a bit. 

I think replacing "type" with "Action, Treasure, or Victory" works perfectly fine.  It doesn't really future-proof the card, but I think that's okay. 

[eHalcyon]

How about this:

Illusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All copies of that card in your deck, hand, or discard pile use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)

I actually played with this card today. I had to explain what the card does of course (I printed it worded as it was in the OP), but the card works nicely once it's explained. I just need to come up with a wording that won't need additional explaination.

I can use this to Mint Colonies, right?

And I can also use this to play Actions with Venture?  Or to play Victory and Treasure cards with Golem?

Instead of naming your deck, discard and hand, you could probably get the same meaning by saying "all of your copies".

[enfynet]

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play.

$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.

I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.

[eHalcyon]

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play.

$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.

I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.

That has unintended side effects that also cause accountability issues (unless you mean for BoI to transform all copies of a card to a specific Action card).  For example, I play Ironmonger which draws a card and then reveals the next card to consider its type.  Let's say I reveal a Province.  I could now call BoI to make that Province a King's Court.  Now my Province remains on top of my deck and I get +1 action from Ironmonger.  I play some cantrip and draw Province, which is still King's Court as long as BoI remains in play.  Now I can play my Province-as-KC, which would not have been possible with Illusionist.

[enfynet]

Is that so bad? Should we set aside a card like Inheiritance so tracking is easier?

[eHalcyon]

Is that so bad? Should we set aside a card like Inheiritance so tracking is easier?

Whether it's bad or not (and yes, I think it's pretty bad ), it's a huge difference from the original.

Also note that this version only allows you to change cards into Action type, which is more limited than the original too.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I can use this to Mint Colonies, right?

And I can also use this to play Actions with Venture?  Or to play Victory and Treasure cards with Golem?

Instead of naming your deck, discard and hand, you could probably get the same meaning by saying "all of your copies".

Ok then, I'll do this:

llusionist
$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time an action card considers the type of another card(s), you may call this to change the effective type of a card by adding a type or replacing the card's type. All of your copies of that card use the chosen type until the initial card is resolved. (You may not use the curse type.)

That prevents playing an action with Venture. You can still Mint a Colony, but that's fine. I definitely want to prevent playing actions in the buy phase, but I won't change the card for one rare interaction that's a bit overpowered. Playing Victory and treasure cards with Golem/TR/KC is weird but not as confusing as actions in the buy phase or really overpowered like Minting a colony.

What if you did it slightly differently and used the BoM wording?

$4  Action - Reserve
+$2. Put this on your tavern mat.
-
Any time a card considers the type of another card, you may call this to change the card of your choice to an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. It is that card until this card leaves play.

Yeah it's definitely weird language, but I think it fits (most of) what you are trying to do.

That's really not what I want at all. It ruins the Scout combo for one thing. I just want to change the card's type.

I also used plenty of "this is" and "it is" and "choice" and "choose" to get all the Blue Dogs barking at the wall.

That's sounds like a great way to make cards for the bad ideas thread...

[enfynet]

Well obviously you can vary that function, but like mentioned before: What happens when an Action is played as a Treasure in the Buy phase? So limiting to Action cards seems like the right direction to go, with a twist to how it alters cards so they remain useful.

[GreyICE]

Is there anything wrong with playing an Action with Venture?  It's slightly weird, but it overall makes sense, as long as people understand you can't play actions during the buy phase unless instructed to by a card.  There's two cards right now that let you play treasures during the Action phase, so it's not unprecedented. 

The issue is more "all actions are cantrips by being played as treasure", not interactions with Venture.

[eHalcyon]

How about:

Illusionist
$4 - Action-Reserve
+$2.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
When you play an Action, you may call this, to name a card and a card type.  All of your copies of that card have the chosen type until the Action is resolved.


Note that I am following the official comma usage.

I think this simplifies it a lot.  It narrows the window of use to the Action phase and doesn't have any extra complications like having to forbid Curse type.  Is there a time when that matters now?  With the existing cards, I don't think so.

This wording does make certain combos weaker.  If you want to bring it back up, you could instead have the condition be "Any time while you are resolving an Action [you played]".  The "you played" is extraneous but can help limit potential confusion (e.g. "does it count as me resolving an Action when you play Noble Brigand and I have to reveal cards from my deck?").

Another issue to consider is that this Reserve card can actually be dead on many boards.  It's not really worse than Conspirator in that regard, but still.

Also, since it is now so limited, I think $4 is probably too expensive.



@GreyICE, if a Treasure allows me to play e.g. Village during my Buy phase, can I then play more action cards?  Village gave me +actions, after all.  The answer is no, but many people would find that unintuitive and confusing.

[LastFootnote]

I'm referring to card ideas that were greatly discouraged in the past, only to be implemented by Donald later. People (including me) said that there shouldn't be Duration Attacks, because their interaction with Moat was weird. People said there shouldn't be kingdom cards for $8, or $7 even, because those would compete with Province or close an important strategical gap. People said that gaining cards from the trash was a bad idea because it would make the game last forever... Or something.

Donald did those, and whenever something was unclear (plausible from the rules, but maybe confusing), he just said how it's done, and then nobody questioned it anymore. He didn't so much come up with new rules, just explain how certain things interact.

I can't speak for everybody else, but I have tried to be consistent in saying there there shouldn't be cards that attacked other players on your next turn. And I still believe this. Duration Attacks that attack players on the turn you play them and then have a non-attack effect on your next turn are fair game; no tracking issues there.

Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods are in between: they attack each other player on their next turn. This isn't as bad as attacking players on your next turn because usually the Moat or Lighthouse will still be around as a reminder. It's still a tracking issue, but way milder, and it worked out. There was a point during the creation of the set where Donald wanted a "big, slow Attack named Giant". It was then that I trotted out my usual spiel about how attacking on your next turn was bad tracking-wise. Donald agreed, but as it turned out he was planning on using the Journey token for the slowness anyway.