Print

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

[Gubump]

Two more attempts at alternate versions of Labyrinth:


And another idea that came about while observing the discussion about Island and thinking about Reserve cards:

It effectively Islands a Victory card when you buy it, if you have previously set it on your Tavern mat. Not strictly better or worse than Island, though. It doesn't have the tricky problem of getting Island to align with a Victory card (or whatever). And it can do it multiple times in the course of a game, not only once. But it can't be used to Island cards already in your deck. And it gives no points itself.
Rules clarifications: after you call the Archipelago into play, it is discarded at the end of the turn. When you call archipelago, you may only put one bought victory card on the Tavern mat.

I like the $4 version of Labyrinth more, because unlike the $3 and original versions, it doesn't allow infinite VP gaining, as its trigger requires something that pulls the game closer to its conclusion.

[tristan]

Cloister
$6 Victory-Reaction
Worth 1VP
When you gain a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
When you trash this, +3VP tokens.

This is the most interesting interesting version of the card as it includes a risk. I also think that it is more interesting/reisky than Distant Lands as trashing / buying Victory cards is less "ordinary" than spending an action.

[tristan]

Why is this not just a cantrip Action that makes VP (which is a bad idea, but this is no better)?

The card is significantly different (you could argue that duration cards are overpowered but e.g. Caravan vs. Lab implies a price discount of 1$ for a delay of just one turn whereas this card implies an average delay of several turns) from a cantrip VP token gainer as you gotta wait for the reshuffle and as you cannot call more than one copy per turn.
This is enough to eliminate the "buy nothing, only play cantrip VP token gainers" strategy which everybody fears when it comes to cards that provide nothing but VPs.

[XerxesPraelor]

VP gain doesn't matter as much when it comes compared to money, or especially compared to cards. With laboratory, you can chain and maybe draw your entire deck. With money, it's better to have it early so you can get stronger cards sooner so the positive feedback loop gets faster. With VP, it makes literally no difference when you get it.

[tristan]

With VP, it makes literally no difference when you get it.

This is obviously wrong. Games do not go on forever so it does make quite a difference whether a card grants you VP tokens when you play it or whether a card only grants you VP tokens after you shuffled your deck and called it, with the limitation that you can call only maximum one card per turn.

If there is a cantrip VP token gainer you might wanna try to thin out your deck as much as possible, ideally with only the cantrips remaining. The extreme case would be a deck of only 10 cantrips. This generates 10 VP per turn.
A deck with 10 Labyrinths on the other hand only generates 2 VP per turn.

Doesn't mean that the parameters (price of 4$ and 2VP) are necessarily right (or that the card is a great idea in the first place). But the design of the card definitely avoids the main problem of cantrip VP token gainers.

[LastFootnote]

With VP, it makes literally no difference when you get it.

This is obviously wrong. Games do not go on forever so it does make quite a difference whether a card grants you VP tokens when you play it or whether a card only grants you VP tokens after you shuffled your deck and called it, with the limitation that you can call only maximum one card per turn.

If there is a cantrip VP token gainer you might wanna try to thin out your deck as much as possible, ideally with only the cantrips remaining. The extreme case would be a deck of only 10 cantrips. This generates 10 VP per turn.
A deck with 10 Labyrinths on the other hand only generates 2 VP per turn.

Doesn't mean that the parameters (price of 4$ and 2VP) are necessarily right (or that the card is a great idea in the first place). But the design of the card definitely avoids the main problem of cantrip VP token gainers.

Yeah, you make good points. I thought it was sort of a wonky way to limit the +VP, but maybe it's not so bad.

[Roadrunner7671]

I know I'm late to the party, but I think Cloister is good as a victory card, and I think I know why it was originally made that way.

[GeneralRamos]

Yeah, I think I've pretty much settled on keeping Cloister as originally written, despite the amount of (quite interesting!) debate around its price and relation to Duchy, and the alternate orderings of trashing, +VP gain, etc.

Labyrinth I'm still keeping in limbo for now, though I'm leaning for the moment to the $4 version I posted last. But I'm waiting to see where eHalcyon's game ending thread goes.

[XerxesPraelor]

With VP, it makes literally no difference when you get it.

This is obviously wrong. Games do not go on forever so it does make quite a difference whether a card grants you VP tokens when you play it or whether a card only grants you VP tokens after you shuffled your deck and called it, with the limitation that you can call only maximum one card per turn.

If there is a cantrip VP token gainer you might wanna try to thin out your deck as much as possible, ideally with only the cantrips remaining. The extreme case would be a deck of only 10 cantrips. This generates 10 VP per turn.
A deck with 10 Labyrinths on the other hand only generates 2 VP per turn.

Doesn't mean that the parameters (price of 4$ and 2VP) are necessarily right (or that the card is a great idea in the first place). But the design of the card definitely avoids the main problem of cantrip VP token gainers.

I didn't see the (limit one per shuffle) limitation. You're right, that part does make a difference.