Print

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

[AdrianHealey]

What would happen if a card that read this is throne roomed:

"If you have...
One x in play, gain a copper in your hand.
Two x in play, gain a silver in your hand.
Three or more x in play, gain a gold in your hand.'

Do you get two coppers or a silver and a copper?

If the former: how should it be frased to get a copper and a silver when throne roomed?

(Fictional example, this is not actually a card we are testing.)

[GendoIkari]

What would happen if a card that read this is throne roomed:

"If you have...
One x in play, gain a copper in your hand.
Two x in play, gain a silver in your hand.
Three or more x in play, gain a gold in your hand.'

Do you get two coppers or a silver and a copper?

If the former: how should it be frased to get a copper and a silver when throne roomed?

(Fictional example, this is not actually a card we are testing.)

2 Coppers, why might you think differently?

The phrasing you want for the other is "if you have played 2 ____ this turn gain a Silver".

See Conspirator vs Peddler. And Donald stopped using the Conspirator wording in favor of the Peddler wording because Conspirator is bad for tracking. Don't choose a worse wording for a card just to make it a little stronger when combo'd with Throne Room.

[AdrianHealey]

That was my hunch, but I needed to be sure. Thanks.

And, well, I'd be happy to pm you the card, but we really don't want the 'copper/copper' wording. It's pretty important it's the 'copper/silver' wording. So I guess the Conspirator wording we'll have to do. I don't think there will be much tracking issues, unless, maybe, in entire throne room/king's court chains. But then, more than ever, we want the conspirator wording (the copper/silver).

[Deadlock39]

Well, you don't really want the card to depend on Throne Variants to be worth using, so there should be a reasonable way to get multiples in play without them. Then you can just do that before you Throne it.  It seems unlikely using the messier wording is worth it for this interaction.

[AdrianHealey]

It isn't dependent on throne room variants to be worth using; the card is simply way too strong if it can be throned like that.

[pedroluchini]

I think Crossroads is a better comparison, in this case: "If this is the first time you played X this turn, <whatever>."

As a side-effect, the card behaves differently when played as an Estate with Inheritance.

[schadd]

it would be cool if it were a duration

[AdrianHealey]

Haha, maybe. But it isn't.

[NoMoreFun]

I think Crossroads is a better comparison, in this case: "If this is the first time you played X this turn, <whatever>."

As a side-effect, the card behaves differently when played as an Estate with Inheritance.

"If this is the first time you played an X this turn, gain a Copper
If this is the second time you played an X this turn, gain a Silver
Otherwise, gain a Gold"

This works with Throne Room, isn't particularly hard to track, and the card is very strong with Inheritance instead of useless without real copies of X in play.

[AdrianHealey]

Euh, when this is inherited, you'll get nothing from those estates, right? Because estates are not X?

[NoMoreFun]

Euh, when this is inherited, you'll get nothing from those estates, right? Because estates are not X?

The version in your OP won't add to the X tally, so if you don't have any X in play, inhertied versions does nothing.

The version I posted, since playing an Estate is not the first or second time you play an X, you gain a Gold

[Deadlock39]

It isn't dependent on throne room variants to be worth using; the card is simply way too strong if it can be throned like that.

This comment doesn't quite make sense in the context of this discussion.  The change being discussed here would make this card stronger with throne variants, not weaker.  Does the effect on your actual card get weaker instead of stronger like your example does? 

[AdrianHealey]

The first time you play it, you get what you want. The second time it's not super, but ok. The third time and any time after that: you get something you 99/100 don't want.

But if you could throne room the first effect, the card probably is too strong (slightly more accurate: creates games that probably aren't super much fun.)

Maybe I should gave turned the fictional order around: gold, silver, copper to more carefully create something similar in terms of desirability what happens.

So first time: gold, second time: silver, third time: copper.

And I am pretty sure I want the card that does not give you two golds when throne roomed. But there is some discussion among the designers atm.

[eHalcyon]

If you're working with other designers, seems like a great situation to play test. FWIW, I'm having trouble seeing why it would be too strong. It seems nice to be rewarded for lining up the combo. But if it's really a problem, Crossroads wording is probably the way to go.

[AdrianHealey]

We'll see what comes out of playtesting.