Print

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

[beri]

Joust (Action – $0*)
+1 Action
Choose one: +3 Cards; +2 Cards +$1 +1 Buy
Trash this.

Setup: add an extra Kingdom card pile. Cards from that pile cost $1 more. When you buy (gain?) one, gain a Joust.
*This is not in the supply.

Should it always come with a specially designed card that synergise well with it or be left as is for better variance?
Maybe it would need a "Trash this. If you do, choose…" clause.

[teamrocketgrunt]

1. Did you consider an Overpay-Effect for the 11th Kingdom Card ("Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile. You may overpay for cards from that pile. For each (1) you overpayed, gain a Joust") or did you not phrase it intentionally because you don't want players to gain more than one Joust per buy? Incidentally, you could make it a "Young Witch" Setup clause: "Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing (5) or more to the Supply. You may overpay for cards from that pile. For each (1) you overpayed, gain a Joust". I think that might balance out the overpay a bit.

2. I think you should add the "If you do" that you mentioned.

3. I think "+2 Cards, +1 buy" might be sufficient as the second choice.

[beri]

1. Did you consider an Overpay-Effect for the 11th Kingdom Card ("Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile. You may overpay for cards from that pile. For each (1) you overpayed, gain a Joust") or did you not phrase it intentionally because you don't want players to gain more than one Joust per buy? Incidentally, you could make it a "Young Witch" Setup clause: "Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing (5) or more to the Supply. You may overpay for cards from that pile. For each (1) you overpayed, gain a Joust". I think that might balance out the overpay a bit.

2. I think you should add the "If you do" that you mentioned.

3. I think "+2 Cards, +1 buy" might be sufficient as the second choice.

1) I did but as you said, the idea was to limit Joust to 1 per Buy. However with a card costing at least 5 it would be decent. I also wanted to make the price increase compulsory, to make Joust a slight game changer.
3) Thought so at first, then I added +$1 because I thought +3 Cards was just much better. Dunno…

[AdrianHealey]

Excellent concept imo

[faust]

1) I did but as you said, the idea was to limit Joust to 1 per Buy. However with a card costing at least 5 it would be decent. I also wanted to make the price increase compulsory, to make Joust a slight game changer.

You can do that by simply say "You may overpay for cards from that pile. If you do, gain a Joust." I allows paying a Potion, and interacts weirdly if the chosen card is an overpay card itself, but should otherwise be fine.

[GendoIkari]

One possibly problem I see is that if the chosen pile is normally , Joust becomes a lot more expensive than it is otherwise, because of how much larger the gap from to is.

Also, Joust is going to feel much stronger when the chosen pile is a Cantrip, or just non-terminal, vs being a terminal.

[beri]

One possibly problem I see is that if the chosen pile is normally , Joust becomes a lot more expensive than it is otherwise, because of how much larger the gap from to is.

Also, Joust is going to feel much stronger when the chosen pile is a Cantrip, or just non-terminal, vs being a terminal.

The gap from 5 to 6 is large too and the gap due to Joust should be somehow large, either a 4-5 / 5-6 / 6-7 gap or being attached to a non-cantrip.

Regarding Cantrips, it’s true. Would a +2 on price if the card is a cantrip work, legally speaking?

[GendoIkari]

One possibly problem I see is that if the chosen pile is normally , Joust becomes a lot more expensive than it is otherwise, because of how much larger the gap from to is.

Also, Joust is going to feel much stronger when the chosen pile is a Cantrip, or just non-terminal, vs being a terminal.

The gap from 5 to 6 is large too.

Regarding Cantrips, it’s true. Would a +2 on price if the card is a cantrip work, legally speaking?

You would need some awkward wording that would probably end up using non-official Dominion terms. "Cantrip" isn't an official word. Neither is "non-terminal" or "terminal". You could try to refer to "if the card provides at least 1 action when played", but then what to do with cards like Conspirator.

[tristan]

3. I think "+2 Cards, +1 buy" might be sufficient as the second choice.

Hardly. As Lab is more often than not better than Market the current version is fine. Buy might only be chosen over Card in a Kingdom without extra buys.

[Accatitippi]

I like it, and I think that having it work on any card is cool, 3-4 is smaller than 4-5, but hey, the board is the same for all players. On some boards it will be cheaper than others, but being a one-shot I doubt this will break kingdoms.
My suggestions are making the effect on gain (because it's cooler, and I don't see a power problem, and on gain is easier rules-wise too). Also, I'm not a big fan of "choose one" effects that offer similar-ish options. I'd just keep the +2 Cards, +1 Coin, +1 Buy. Or +3 Cards, +1 Buy.
I like a +Buy here. We don't have a one-shot +Buy, and this one is very cool.

[tristan]

I like it, and I think that having it work on any card is cool, 3-4 is smaller than 4-5, but hey, the board is the same for all players. On some boards it will be cheaper than others, but being a one-shot I doubt this will break kingdoms.
My suggestions are making the effect on gain (because it's cooler, and I don't see a power problem, and on gain is easier rules-wise too). Also, I'm not a big fan of "choose one" effects that offer similar-ish options. I'd just keep the +2 Cards, +1 Coin, +1 Buy. Or +3 Cards, +1 Buy.
I like a +Buy here. We don't have a one-shot +Buy, and this one is very cool.

Totally agree about on gain. I think that the choice is good here though. On average two Labs are better than Lab and Market but you might opt for the latter because you need the extra buy.