Print

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

[Seprix]

Hi there. I'm going to try my hand at making my own cards, but instead of posting specific 'sets', I will likely post card ideas that are a bit raw and a decent starting point with a sort of theme, and then whittle down and introduce things down until I think they're good enough. Once that happens, I'll add them to the post below as a nice looking shiny card. Anyways, I already have some ideas, and I'll post them.

[Seprix]

<finished cards>

[Seprix]

First theme: The "Rebalancing" of Potion Cost Cards & Various new uses

Ideas I will try to explore: Potion not always being a dead card, Potion only cost cards that are useful, More Potion cost cards, Cards that allow extra options in interactions with Potion cards

Potter - Action;

+
+ Buy
You may put your deck into the discard pile. You may discard a Potion from your hand. If you do, gain card costing up to $.

(Chancellor Variant that gives you the opportunity to use your Potions for something! I might have this card gain Duchies instead, might be fun.)

Acolyte - Action;

+
+ Buy

If you buy an Action card at the end of your turn, trash this card.

(buying events or Black Market buys obviously do not apply, and you can buy VP and Treasures with no problem. This card is designed to help BM, though it might be able to be made stronger as a result of the Potion cost delay. You cannot regain it from the trash as a result of it's Potion cost, stopping Graverobber + Engine for example. Will tinker, but fun idea I think. $4 might even be too weak, I might spike it up to $5.)

More to come, just some ideas for now.

[GendoIkari]

Acolyte wording needs some work. You don't buy cards "at the end of your turn". Unless you meant that that's when you trash the card. Either way, why not just:

_____________
While this is in play, if you buy an action card, trash this.

[LastFootnote]

Acolyte wording needs some work. You don't buy cards "at the end of your turn". Unless you meant that that's when you trash the card. Either way, why not just:

_____________
While this is in play, if when you buy an action card, trash this.

Small correction. But yes, this is definitely the way to go.

[faust]

Potter is interesting. My first thought was that it would be too weak, but then I thought about how it would play in a Gardens rush, and that would actually be pretty strong I believe. Though I imagine that it's hard to balance this ot so that it's not crazily overpowered in a Gardens rush and at the same time not a complete dud on boards without other Potion costs (and without Gardens).

Acolyte... I'm not a big fan of cards that help BM, but this may have enough other nice interactions to be worth it. With gainers, you can still build an engine. It's also a very good pickup once you're engine is running and you only want to green. In fact, It may be a bit too strong in that case, especially with other Potion costs around. It also slightly combos with Philosopher's Stone.

[faust]

I gotta say I like the fact that Potter is the first card that makes it a viable strategy to empty the Potion pile.

[faust]

But a card that works well with Potions should obviously be called Snape, not Potter.

[shmeur]

But a card that works well with Potions should obviously be called Snape, not Potter.

10 Points to Faustindor!

[Seprix]

A card idea based on this post. I think it's cute enough to share.

Basically, it's this:

Say you play what Haddock says before, with the Snake Charmer and the Snake. The Snake Charmer hands out Snakes, and they're bad and forced played. Here's where my idea comes in. They're forced played, so why have them do anything bad at all? If they're in your hand at the start of your turn, they get played before you do anything else, so it's almost like a discarding attack forever in your deck. Obviously if you draw the card it does nothing but give +1 Action. It's like Ruined Village, I guess. Just shooting this idea out for now, might expand on it. I like it. It's cute.

[Ghacob]

Seprix, friend, welcome to junking 101: Confusions

[Seprix]

+2 Actions

I will be writing more cards here very shortly.

[Seprix]

Some card ideas:

Queen's Chamber -Action
$4

You may play an Action card. If you do, return it to your hand.

Guardian - Action
$6
Choose two: +$1, + Buy, + Action, +1 Card.
You may discard any number of cards. For each card you discard, choose one: $1, or +1 Action.

Rebels - Action - Attack
$4
+$2
+$1
Each other player gains a Copper.
If a player reveals a Reaction, that player gains a Curse, putting it into his hand.
If a player reveals a Reaction, +$1.

Racketeer - Action- Attack
$4
+1 Card
+$1

Each other player gains two Forgeries.

Forgery - Treasure
$0*
+$1
When you play this, return this to the Supply Pile.

Politician - Action
$5
+$4
+ Buy

Gain 4 Forgeries.



Some ideas.

[tristan]

About Queen's Chamber, while there might be situations in which you'd rather postpone the second execution of an Action card you'd most of the times wanna play it immediately if it saves an Action like Throne Room does.
In short, it is too weak relatively to Throne Room.
I like your ideas about the one-shot Copper. About the Copper junker, I think that it is a great idea to do one but I do not like the anti-Reaction part at all. Just seems a bit antithetical to the general idea of Reactions which are in general not that superstrong compared to junking so I see no reason to make a junker that disincentivizes players from going for Reactions in his presence.

[Seprix]

Just seems a bit antithetical to the general idea of Reactions which are in general not that superstrong compared to junking so I see no reason to make a junker that disincentivizes players from going for Reactions in his presence.

1. They can react to other attacks that are not Rebels and be fine.
2. Moat, Watchtower, and Trader at the very least block the curse. There's a hilarious interaction I discovered there where you can give infinite curses with Rebels and Trader turns them all into Silvers.

Yeah, I'll probably revamp Rebels, and ditch the Reaction clause. I instead added some thing about if the Copper Pile is empty, you get a fancy bonus. Probably won't usually come into play, and is probably mostly useless.

[Marcory]

Could you instead give Rebels a bonus when someone plays a Reaction?

For example, 'If another player plays a reaction while this is in play, +1 Card' or some such.

[Seprix]

Could you instead give Rebels a bonus when someone plays a Reaction?

For example, 'If another player plays a reaction while this is in play, +1 Card' or some such.

That is a lot better, I think. Since a card draw on a Terminal is probably undesirable, I made it give money instead. The more Reactions you reveal, the more money I'd potentially get.

[tristan]

Could you instead give Rebels a bonus when someone plays a Reaction?

For example, 'If another player plays a reaction while this is in play, +1 Card' or some such.

That is a lot better, I think. Since a card draw on a Terminal is probably undesirable, I made it give money instead. The more Reactions you reveal, the more money I'd potentially get.

This is even more crazy, not to mention that it scales badly (from a terminal Silver to a terminal Gold and then a terminal +4$ are pretty huge jumps). You get on average double extra coins in a 3P than in a 2P game.
Again, reactions are usually weaker than attacks so I fail to see why they should be nerfed or why there should be a reaction to a reaction. This is just the mirror image of a reaction that hurts the attacker and nearly as bad.

[Seprix]

Could you instead give Rebels a bonus when someone plays a Reaction?

For example, 'If another player plays a reaction while this is in play, +1 Card' or some such.

That is a lot better, I think. Since a card draw on a Terminal is probably undesirable, I made it give money instead. The more Reactions you reveal, the more money I'd potentially get.

This is even more crazy, not to mention that it scales badly (from a terminal Silver to a terminal Gold and then a terminal +4$ are pretty huge jumps). You get on average double extra coins in a 3P than in a 2P game.
Again, reactions are usually weaker than attacks so I fail to see why they should be nerfed or why there should be a reaction to a reaction. This is just the mirror image of a reaction that hurts the attacker and nearly as bad.

I don't think it's as bad as you say it is. The whole curse thing is bad, but if I gain a dollar, it's not terrible for the revealer. He can decide to gain a copper instead, which really isn't all that terrible in the end game. I could modify the price, or make Rebels only give +$1 coin instead initially.

[tristan]

Could you instead give Rebels a bonus when someone plays a Reaction?

For example, 'If another player plays a reaction while this is in play, +1 Card' or some such.

That is a lot better, I think. Since a card draw on a Terminal is probably undesirable, I made it give money instead. The more Reactions you reveal, the more money I'd potentially get.

This is even more crazy, not to mention that it scales badly (from a terminal Silver to a terminal Gold and then a terminal +4$ are pretty huge jumps). You get on average double extra coins in a 3P than in a 2P game.
Again, reactions are usually weaker than attacks so I fail to see why they should be nerfed or why there should be a reaction to a reaction. This is just the mirror image of a reaction that hurts the attacker and nearly as bad.

I don't think it's as bad as you say it is. The whole curse thing is bad, but if I gain a dollar, it's not terrible for the revealer. He can decide to gain a copper instead, which really isn't all that terrible in the end game. I could modify the price, or make Rebels only give +$1 coin instead initially.

Ehm, junkers are rarely bad in the end game. ^^
If Rebels were an unconditional Copper it most definitely be too weak. I am not saying that it is too strong right now but the increase from terminal Silver to terminal Gold and then terminal +4$ is sharper than you seem to think.
You might wanna try to seek another way to balance this card.

[Seprix]

It could cost $3 instead, to give out a Copper.

[tristan]

It could cost $3 instead, to give out a Copper.

I'd simply playtest the vanilla terminal silver Copper junker at a price of 4$ and then see whether it is too weak or too strong.

[Marcory]

On second thought, the "give a bonus for a reaction" thing is broken, for a bunch of reasons:

-You can reveal the same Reaction card multiple times, with no accountability mechanism to prove whether you have, say, multiple Secret Chambers in the same hand

-It can be political: you can play kingmaker in a multiplayer game by choosing to reveal or not reveal a reaction and thereby give or not give the Rebel the ability to buy the last Province

-Practically, it might case some serious AP, especially in multiplayer

The only way it might work is if you have 'If anyone revealed a reaction when you played this, +X"

[tristan]

On second thought, the "give a bonus for a reaction" thing is broken, for a bunch of reasons:

-You can reveal the same Reaction card multiple times, with no accountability mechanism to prove whether you have, say, multiple Secret Chambers in the same hand

Why should you do that? It only helps the opponent.
Also note that the card doesn't say that each other player has to play Reactions. It is just a kind of reaction to a Reaction.

[Seprix]

Some Event idea I've had:

Expansion- Cost: $0
Once per game: Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the card you trashed.

A fun one shot Expand. You could burn it now, or use it later to mill/get provinces.