Print

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

[Xen3k]

You left the cost off of Work Order.

Thanks! I think I got it fixed everywhere.

[LibraryAdventurer]

...a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions.
Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

[LordBaphomet]

...a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions.
Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

Yes, thank you. I still think that it's just awkward to look at, but if it does provide villagers then its fine.

[Carline]

Also, a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions. Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

It does give actions, in the form of villagers. At worst this is a cantrip.

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

Yes, thank you. I still think that it's just awkward to look at, but if it does provide villagers then its fine.

It can even be a Village, if you saved a Token from previous playing.

This is the idea, you can convert your Victory Points into money or Actions whenever you need, but you have to try to manage to convert the least possible quantity of them to keep the points. Many times, convert would help you to save your turn, get a good card in the right moment or buy more VPs this turn than you spent in conversion.

The VPs can't be converted into cards, so draw it is a fixed feature of the card. Any time you want to play more Actions after it, it's possible.

I made other image with different art and name to fit my Venus expansion. The card is the same.

[gambit05]

EDIT: Revised submission:

This is not about whether your cards are balanced or make sense, but about the readability of Trickster, which is painful with all those parentheses. What about:

+1 Coffers If it’s your turn: When you gain or play an Action card giving you VP or Coffers, you may exchange them for an equal number of tokens of the other type. If it is not your turn and another player gains or plays such an Action card they have to exchange the gained tokens for the other type.

Was that the intention of your instructions? It is still quite long, and it still uses some unusual phrases (exchanging tokens), but at least, it is much easier to read.

Edit: I am still not sure whether I fully understand the instructions, but is "if it's your turn" and "if it's not your turn" even necessary? Could it be just "When you..." and later then "when another player..."? Not exactly sure what happens in dependency of who's turn it is.

[Timinou]

EDIT: Revised submission:

This is not about whether your cards are balanced or make sense, but about the readability of Trickster, which is painful with all those parentheses. What about:

+1 Coffers If it’s your turn: When you gain or play an Action card giving you VP or Coffers, you may exchange them for an equal number of tokens of the other type. If it is not your turn and another player gains or plays such an Action card they have to exchange the gained tokens for the other type.

Was that the intention of your instructions? It is still quite long, and it still uses some unusual phrases (exchanging tokens), but at least, it is much easier to read.

Edit: I am still not sure whether I fully understand the instructions, but is "if it's your turn" and "if it's not your turn" even necessary? Could it be just "When you..." and later then "when another player..."? Not exactly sure what happens in dependency of who's turn it is.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that the wording was too confusing and it shouldn't necessarily depend on whose turn it is.  I've revised the wording quite a bit, so hopefully it is clearer now.

I've also revised Fool's Wager.  A card that gives you $4 is probably too radical (let alone one that you start with), and I'm not sure it can be properly balanced.  I've changed it to give you $3, similar to Cursed Gold, but instead of gaining a Curse, you lose 1 Coffers or take 4 in debt.   

[gambit05]

The wording is much better. Now you have some problems with the concept.

1) Most games will only have Trickster as a source of one of the two types of tokens.
2) The Attack means in this case converting Coffers to VP. Not too bad for the opponent in most cases.
3) The connection between Trickster and Fools's Wager looks quite constructed and loose. In the case that my Coffers were all converted to VP tokens, I would still have the option to not play Fool's Wager.

What about skipping Fool's Wager, and include Debt tokens for conversion for Trickster? I wouldn't probably convert all Coffers and/or VP tokens, but just one.

[silverspawn]

Preventing you from playing an effectively-silver is a pretty big attack though. I think the card is okay now. I agree it's not super cohesive-feeling.

[gambit05]

Preventing you from playing an effectively-silver is a pretty big attack though. I think the card is okay now. I agree it's not super cohesive-feeling.

True, but that was only the worst case scenario. If a player manages to keep a few Coffers they will only benefit from later Attacks.

[GendoIkari]

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

[Timinou]

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

You're right - I didn't think of that.  It's not just that you can choose who to attack, but this could actually become a kingmaker by choosing to give a player VP instead of Coffers. 

I'll have to think about how best to modify this.  I appreciate everyone's feedback!

[silverspawn]

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

[Timinou]

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

I think the issue is that in some cases the attack isn't much of an attack at all.  I'm thinking of making it so that instead of exchanging for an equal number of tokens of the other type, it would be one less of the other type.  So for example, if someone Tricksters your Trickster, they could choose to let you gain +2 Coffers as normal, or +1 VP instead.   I might also remove the choice element again and make it automatic...I'll have to think about it some more.

[silverspawn]

I think the issue is that in some cases the attack isn't much of an attack at all.

Also true for Spy or Rabble or Torturer or many others.

[GendoIkari]

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

I think you're right that Spy is a good comparison for that point. Maybe the "political" criticism only applies top cards that would force you to choose a player to hurt, and not give the option to hurt all players? I do feel like kingmaking could be an issue here; especially if a newer player is using the card, and then a player who should have won ends up losing because the novice inadvertently (or purposefully?) helped the third player. Still also true with Spy, a novice player may discard a player's Coppers...

[silverspawn]

I think you're right that Spy is a good comparison for that point. Maybe the "political" criticism only applies top cards that would force you to choose a player to hurt, and not give the option to hurt all players?

Yeah, I think that's essentially it. Or even more generally, cards that introduce a tradeoff between [hurting one person] and [something else]. That's not really the case here, you just have separate choices for each player and can optimize them independently, as it is with other attacks that involve a choice.

[TheAgileBeast]

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

[GendoIkari]

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

Probably too easy to have the only winning strategy be to play as many of these as you can forever and never end the game.

[Xen3k]

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I agree with GendoIkari above me. I think it is still a really interesting idea. Perhaps have it trash a copy of the cheapest Victory card from the supply whenever you play it? This would actually turn it into a card that promotes fast pile-out games. Just the thoughts I had when I saw your idea.

[Timinou]

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I have a couple of questions on this:
- Does this convert only the VP tokens of the player who gains the card or everyone's? 
- Exiling this from the supply using Camel Train, Transport, or Invest wouldn't be considered "gaining", right?

In any case, think it's a bit too swingy if the effect is triggered by gaining this during another player's turn through Swindler or Messenger. 

[segura]

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I think that this is a decent attempt at nerfing the card that you normally should not do. But I doubt that it is enough. With gainers you will simply not play your Monoliths until you have gained the last one that you want. If your deck can deal with those cards (that are quasi-dead between having gained the first and the last monolith) you are potentially then in the degenerate "I don't buy green but only play Monoliths" zone that will endure until Alice has a large enough VP token advantage over Bob and Charlie and then she will pile out.

[silverspawn]

I have a couple of questions on this:
- Does this convert only the VP tokens of the player who gains the card or everyone's? 
- Exiling this from the supply using Camel Train, Transport, or Invest wouldn't be considered "gaining", right?

Only the player who gains it/yes it wouldn't.

[Timinou]

The wording is much better. Now you have some problems with the concept.

1) Most games will only have Trickster as a source of one of the two types of tokens.

2) The Attack means in this case converting Coffers to VP. Not too bad for the opponent in most cases.

3) The connection between Trickster and Fools's Wager looks quite constructed and loose. In the case that my Coffers were all converted to VP tokens, I would still have the option to not play Fool's Wager.

What about skipping Fool's Wager, and include Debt tokens for conversion for Trickster? I wouldn't probably convert all Coffers and/or VP tokens, but just one.

I've revised both Trickster and Fool's Wager in my original post.  I think the new versions partially address the issues you've raised, albeit not completely.

With regards to the first point, I don't think I will be able to address this limitation unless I completely reimagine Trickster.  That said, I think this limitation also exists for other types of cards as well (e.g. certain Reaction cards).  The initial idea was to allow for interactions with other cards that give out VP tokens or Coffers, so it's a necessary evil in this case, IMO.

[majiponi]

Greedy Fairy
cost $2 - Action
+2 Buys
Choose one: +1 Coffer; or remove any 2 tokens you have, to duplicate a token you have.


From Heart of Crown.  Covert 2 Coffers to 1vp, or Convert 1 Debt and your -$1 token to 1 Coffer is awesome.

[Carline]

Greedy Fairy
cost $2 - Action
+2 Buys
Choose one: +1 Coffer; or remove any 2 tokens you have, to duplicate a token you have.


From Heart of Crown.  Covert 2 Coffers to 1vp, or Convert 1 Debt and your -$1 token to 1 Coffer is awesome.

I think if the Kingdom doesn't have a source of others tokens than Coffers, the second option would be useless;