Print

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

[Kahryl]

Festival is like a Bazaar that draws a copper with a +buy nailed to it.

Fishing Village is like a Village that draws a lazy silver with a +action nailed to the lazy end.

Silver (even lazy) is way better than copper, +actions are way better than +buys.

[Qvist]

Tribute should reveal 3 cards and let you choose two.

Tribute should rather not have the "differently named card" clause. That is really swingy and frustrating.

[Kahryl]

Tribute should reveal 3 cards and let you choose two.

Tribute should rather not have the "differently named card" clause. That is really swingy and frustrating.

That was my first solution for it, but it kind of goes against the theme of the set.

On the other hand, Cornucopia is supposed to reward you for selecting a lot of different cards.. Tribute instead PUNISHES you for selecting different cards by making it more powerful in the hands of opponents.

[petrie911]

Tribute should reveal 3 cards and let you choose two.

Tribute should rather not have the "differently named card" clause. That is really swingy and frustrating.

I suppose the idea is that a first turn Tribute buy would regularly generate +$4, and if not that, +$2/+2 Cards.  Which is really, really good.

On the other hand, I suppose it'd hardly be the first game-changing first turn $5 buy.

[Tables]

Scout should look at the top 6 cards of your deck, not the top 4.

Fishing village should be $4.

Adventurer should be $5.

Merchant ship should get the +buy, not Wharf (I'm glad I'm not the only one who's thought that..)

Horn of Plenty should be worth $1.

JoaT's spy effect should happen last.  JoaT is too strong not because of the power of individual effects but because of the self-synergy.

Farmland should be worth 3VP.

Torturer should only discard 1 card if you choose that option and already have <5 cards in hand.  Donald says the attacks are designed not to stack within a turn and the "gain a curse in hand" seems to be an attempt to do this, but Torturer still stacks like crazy.

Harvest should reveal 5 cards.

Tribute should reveal 3 cards and let you choose two.

Jester should not let you gain more than one card.

Develop should let you choose whether to put cards on the deck or not.

IMO of course!

I disagree with a lot of these:

Fishing Village at $4 is something I considered and almost put alongside Ambassador at $4. I'm not too I agree with it now. Firstly it means there are no $3 durations (meh), but also... what would really change? Not grabbing two FV's with $6, occasionally?

I don't think HoP needs $1. It's a niche card currently, but it's not so weak as to need a whole $1 boost (that's a seriously large boost, BTW, just think of the difference between Copper and Silver, or Silver and Gold). There's the neatness of it being a treasure therefore giving >=$1, but then again, we already have a treasure that can give 0 (Philosopher's Stone)

If you want to change Jack, bear in mind it's designed as a post-attack repairer. Drawing cards, then trying to get rid of the top-deckked junk you've been left with defeats the idea. It makes it weaker, yes, but defeats the idea. I considered the following I'd have tried if I were designing Jack myself:
"Look at the top card of your deck: Discard it or put it back. Then choose 2 (the choices must be different): Gain a Silver, OR Draw until you have 5 cards in hand, OR you may trash a non-treasure card from your hand."

So you get the top deck clearing (Jack's weakest effect in general... I suspect) for free, then choose two of the other three. So unless you're getting hit by lots of different attacks (discard, deck order mess-up, trashing and junking), it still fulfils the original intent, while being generally weaker in non-attack games.

Farmland at 3VP would be less interesting. You'd almost always take it over a Duchy, reducing the interesting strategic space around the card.

Torturer... it'd make the card nicer. But it would be awkward to word. And I'm not convinced it's necessary.

Harvest revealing 5 cards... actually, I quite like that! I expect it would gain you about $0.75 more and make the card reliably about $3-4 with a chance of being a bit more or less, rather than generally $3 and occasionally $2 or $4.

Tribute I agree with what others have said. Let it just compute both cards regardless of their names.

Jester... what, you can choose one to gain, but everyone else has to gain a copy of it. Far too targetted. Everyone reveals a King's Court. Result? Everyone but someone you choose gains a KC. If you want to change this, better change Noble Brigand and Thief too.

Develop I also like the idea of. Develop needs a little something to jump start it, since it's such a cute little card.

[Kahryl]

Nice feedback.  I like your JoaT fix better than mine.

As for Jester, my idea was more that for every card, you can either make the opponent gain a copy, or add it to the set that you can gain a copy "from".  Then after you've made a decision for each opponent, you choose a card from that set.  That way it's not targeted.  How do you word this succinctly?  I have no idea, which is why I was vague 

[WanderingWinder]

Tribute getting to double-count would be really strong.

[GendoIkari]

Nice feedback.  I like your JoaT fix better than mine.

As for Jester, my idea was more that for every card, you can either make the opponent gain a copy, or add it to the set that you can gain a copy "from".  Then after you've made a decision for each opponent, you choose a card from that set.  That way it's not targeted.  How do you word this succinctly?  I have no idea, which is why I was vague 

+$2
Each other player discards the top card of his deck. If it's a Victory card he gains a Curse. Otherwise you may choose to have him gain a copy of the card. You may gain a copy of one of the discarded cards that is not a Victory card.

This wording should work; I'm pretty sure it's what you're looking for. The only difference is that this allows you to gain a copy of a card that you also gave your opponent a copy of. But the situations where you would want that option are rare enough that I don't think it makes the card more powerful.

[Kahryl]

Nice! I've never run into a scenario where I wanted us both to have a card.  Although I have quite often run into a scenario where I want neither of us to have it, which your wording also makes possible.

Still, the restriction on how many cards you can gain is a hit to Jester's power.  Making it more flexible like that is a good consolation buff.

[chwhite]

Nice! I've never run into a scenario where I wanted us both to have a card.  Although I have quite often run into a scenario where I want neither of us to have it, which your wording also makes possible.

Still, the restriction on how many cards you can gain is a hit to Jester's power.  Making it more flexible like that is a good consolation buff.

You're running, say, Embassy-BM and your opponent is working on a slow-building Conspirator chain that has him/her behind for now but potentially able to explode for multiple Provinces to catch up, if they can just get rid of those last couple Treasures and draw their entire deck consistently.

You flip over a Silver.

[WanderingWinder]

You're playing for a big gardens deck, your opponent isn't. Or you're playing for almost any strategy that wants copper. Your opponent is playing some more traditional rush for provinces/colonies, or especially an engine. You flip a copper.

[Kahryl]

Nice! I've never run into a scenario where I wanted us both to have a card.  Although I have quite often run into a scenario where I want neither of us to have it, which your wording also makes possible.

Still, the restriction on how many cards you can gain is a hit to Jester's power.  Making it more flexible like that is a good consolation buff.

You're running, say, Embassy-BM and your opponent is working on a slow-building Conspirator chain that has him/her behind for now but potentially able to explode for multiple Provinces to catch up, if they can just get rid of those last couple Treasures and draw their entire deck consistently.

You flip over a Silver.

Indeed. And in the reverse case, most recently:

My Jester hit a lot of his coppers, I gave him the coppers.
He buys a Counting House.
My Jester hits the Counting House.

[WanderingWinder]

Conversely there's also lots of situations where you'd like neither of you to get it, if you're playing different strats. It will hurt you but help them.

[jotheonah]

Torturer should only discard 1 card if you choose that option and already have <5 cards in hand.  Donald says the attacks are designed not to stack within a turn and the "gain a curse in hand" seems to be an attempt to do this, but Torturer still stacks like crazy.

To me this reads: Rather than being Torturer, Torturer should be a different card that I like more.

The whole point of Torturer is the stackability of it, and the fact that it makes your opponent choose between losing (potentially) his or her whole hand and gaining a curse.

BTW, what do people think of my Counting House fixes? Viable? Today I played a game where I tried buying a second CH to mitigate my bad luck and they were both in my first hand after the reshuffle. Oy vey.

[petrie911]

It'd be nice if Forge's gain were optional.  It'd make the card a little better, but I don't think it'd be a huge deal.  Forge is already a bit underpowered for cost.

Also, it's been touched on before, but Masquerade should probably read "Then, if you passed a card, you may trash a card from your hand."

Would Mandarin be too much if it allowed you to choose which treasures go back on the deck when you buy it?

Thief's trashing should be optional.  It'd make the card better, but it kind of needs the help.