Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Ok, so 3 of our ideas got more support than the rest. Here's the runoff between those. As before, remember that we're looking at general mechanics/ideas here, so don't worry about specific numbers or balance yet.

The poll will close Tuesday evening, EST.

[scott_pilgrim]

I thought about voting Bravo because it is really cool, but I started thinking about how crazy the tracking would get, especially if you have lots of Bravos in your deck.  If you Bravo a Bravo, you're already pretty confused, and then since our reaction reacts to gaining, things will get even more hectic if you still have Bravos in hand during the gain (not to mention other players potentially interrupting, since it reacts to any player gaining).

Any Throne Room variant in combination with Bravo is really a nightmare to track.

[GendoIkari]

I like India, but I believe it needs a few updates:

1. "If the trashed card is an action, +1 action." Can probably just be removed completely. It's already sometimes non-terminal due to being able to play the gained card. And if there is a reward for trashing an action, +1 action feels pretty small. Trashing actions (except Ruins) is way worse than trashing other cards.

2. With a single Fortress in hand, you can gain the entire India pile all at once. This could be fixed by making it "exactly" instead of "up to", as long as it doesn't cost exactly more than Fortress (or more if we decide that instead).

[eHalcyon]

I like India, but I believe it needs a few updates:

1. "If the trashed card is an action, +1 action." Can probably just be removed completely. It's already sometimes non-terminal due to being able to play the gained card. And if there is a reward for trashing an action, +1 action feels pretty small. Trashing actions (except Ruins) is way worse than trashing other cards.

2. With a single Fortress in hand, you can gain the entire India pile all at once. This could be fixed by making it "exactly" instead of "up to", as long as it doesn't cost exactly more than Fortress (or more if we decide that instead).

Hmm, this comment just helped me realize that India is really similar to Transmogrify.  They both allow you to trash a card and gain a card that you may get to play that turn.  The differences:

- Transmogrify is a Reserve, which both helps (easier to line up with target) and hurts (can only use at start of turn, every other turn at most).
- Transmogrify is always non-terminal.
- Transmogrify is up to $1 more, whereas this is exactly $2 more (or something else).
- India can act as a village, unless the conditional +1 action is removed.
- India is less flexible (action gets play immediately, non-actions don't go into hand).

I don't know if the differences are enough.  That said, not being a Reserve does change its play quite a bit, and there's still the reaction to come.

[spiralstaircase]

2. With a single Fortress in hand, you can gain the entire India pile all at once. This could be fixed by making it "exactly" instead of "up to", as long as it doesn't cost exactly more than Fortress (or more if we decide that instead).

If we're only trying to avoid the Fortress combo, we could make it:

Set aside a card. Gain a card worth up to $2 more than it. If the set aside card is an action, +1 action. If the gained card is an action, play it. Trash the set aside card.

[enfynet]

Fortress ends up back in your hand. Unless set-aside land waits for you to resolve the next action, which would be weird.

[spiralstaircase]

Fortress ends up back in your hand. Unless set-aside land waits for you to resolve the next action, which would be weird.

That's my understanding of cards which tell you to play a card - you play them when it says to, and then do the things it says after that later.  Is that incorrect?  Assuming it's right, we'd end up with this:

 * Play India 1
  * Set aside Fortress
  * Gain India 2
  * Get +1 action
  * Play India 2
   * Fortress cannot be set aside, so set something else aside, and do the rest of India 2 with it.
  * Trash the set-aside Fortress.  Fortress returns to hand.

So each Fortress would only get you one more India, same as any other $3+ card in hand.  You could half-empty the pile, which is probably still a bit iffy, but you couldn't fully empty it.
 
 
 

[enfynet]

Procession is the closest example, right? I don't think anything has "set-aside" land until another Action happens.

[GendoIkari]

Fortress ends up back in your hand. Unless set-aside land waits for you to resolve the next action, which would be weird.

That's my understanding of cards which tell you to play a card - you play them when it says to, and then do the things it says after that later.  Is that incorrect?  Assuming it's right, we'd end up with this:

 * Play India 1
  * Set aside Fortress
  * Gain India 2
  * Get +1 action
  * Play India 2
   * Fortress cannot be set aside, so set something else aside, and do the rest of India 2 with it.
  * Trash the set-aside Fortress.  Fortress returns to hand.

So each Fortress would only get you one more India, same as any other $3+ card in hand.  You could half-empty the pile, which is probably still a bit iffy, but you couldn't fully empty it.

Not sure what you mean by "half-empty the pile". You could still empty the entire pile with 2 Fortresses in hand, which may or may not be a problem. And the wording is awkward in a way that would make casual readers go "wait, why does it set it aside before trashing it"? Interestingly, the new wording would kill off the interaction with Graverobber and Rogue.

[spiralstaircase]

Procession is the closest example, right? I don't think anything has "set-aside" land until another Action happens

That or Prince, I guess.

Not sure what you mean by "half-empty the pile"

I hold one, I gain four.  So there's at most five left.  The pile is half empty.  (I'm a glass-half-empty kinda guy)

You could still empty the entire pile with 2 Fortresses in hand, which may or may not be a problem.

Good point.  The original Fortress integration also may or may not be a problem :-)

And the wording is awkward in a way that would make casual readers go "wait, why does it set it aside before trashing it"? Interestingly, the new wording would kill off the interaction with Graverobber and Rogue.

Yeah.  Probably not worth it.

[GendoIkari]

In a pretty close race, India has won! We'll tweek wording and balance and such in a later step. Next will be open submissions and discussions around the reaction half. New thread will be in the morning.