Print

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

[silverspawn]

I suspect the Overpay effect is pretty busted even without support. Will-O'-Wisps are really good. Mass Druid + Will-O'-Wisp is a legit stategy whenever Swamp's gift is set aside, and this gets them much more quickly.

[fika monster]

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?

Or this?

[Timinou]

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

[GendoIkari]

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost or less" with "costing less than this."

[silverspawn]

I think that version is pretty good. I think the wording can be improved into

"Look at the top 5 cards of your deck. You may reveal any number of Action cards costing less than this from them. Discard the others, then play the revealed cards in any order."

This is almost exactly as long as the card is right now. You can get it to be shorter if you just replace '3$ or less and isn't a Magician' with "less than this", but the grammar isn't quite right. (I think you need 'any number of' rather than 'any' and 'aren't copies of Magician' rather than 'isn't a Magician'.)

Below the line wording is good.

[fika monster]

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost or less" with "costing less than this."

How is this? i just added the text silverspawn suggested

[Timinou]

I think that version is pretty good. I think the wording can be improved into

"Look at the top 5 cards of your deck. You may reveal any number of Action cards costing less than this from them. Discard the others, then play the revealed cards in any order."

This is almost exactly as long as the card is right now. You can get it to be shorter if you just replace '3$ or less and isn't a Magician' with "less than this", but the grammar isn't quite right. (I think you need 'any number of' rather than 'any' and 'aren't copies of Magician' rather than 'isn't a Magician'.)

Below the line wording is good.

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you are suggesting "Look at..." rather than "Reveal...".  Aside from not triggering Patron's effect if it's in your deck (which is a non-issue), I'm wondering if there is an accountability issue (e.g. a player discarding Ruins or an Action card that they don't want to play that turn for whatever reason)?

EDIT: Just saw that the revised wording doesn't force you to play all the Action cards costing less than it.

[silverspawn]

One reason is that official cards tend to 'look at' rather than 'reveal' unless there is a reason to reveal. The other is that, if you start by revealing all of them, you have to set aside. Which is not terrible, but feels cleaner to me this way.

EDIT: Just saw that the revised wording doesn't force you to play all the Action cards costing less than it.

I thought that the original version didn't either, but looking at it now, I guess it's clear. Either way, I don't think that's a major consideration.

[Meta]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:


Edit: Improved formatting

[BBobb]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost should generally be more powerful than cards that cost (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost ?

EDIT: I meant Bandit Camp for all the times I say Band of Misfits

[LittleFish]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost should generally be more powerful than cards that cost (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost ?

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

[spineflu]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:

First, welcome to the forum!

Second, you can resize images by putting a width in the opening tag, like so:

Code: [Select]

[img width=250]imagehost/image_url.jpg[/img]If you're ever curious how another poster did something, you can use the "Quote" button to see the bb-markup for how they did it.

Lastly, your card needs... idk. something. I'm a huge fan of potion-cost cards and Rauberbande is overpriced considering what it does. Like $4 is probably a reasonable price for a Woodcutter+, as is; If you want to keep it as a potion cost card, consider either boosting the power level (give like, +2 Cards in addition to the other benefits, or "When you buy a card, gain a Spoils"). Remember the general notion behind potion-cost cards is you want to buy a lot of them for your deck - even if I did want a woodcutter+, I'd consider that a less critical card to have in bulk than like, cards that draw lots of cards, or cards that enable me to play lots of cards.

[spineflu]

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost or less" with "costing less than this."

How is this? i just added the text silverspawn suggested

two quick critiques and a format note:
first - $6 for a will-o-wisp seems like a lot. $8 for an imp is quite a lot. Consider dropping the price to $4 and make it gain a spirit costing up to the amount you overpaid, not "less than" the amount you overpaid? that way you can do will-o-wisp for $5 or $4+potion, imp for $6, ghost for $8, which seems like the right price point (and if people want to do dumb stuff like overpay $10 for a will-o-wisp, then they can.)

second - five cards is a lot. even the better sifters/preppers like cartographer only do four cards; border guard when lantern'd only does 3 (and you're probably going to be able to play one). considering you're going to play them immediately you should probably reduce that, which will make that price drop to $4 easier to justify. If you're going to keep it as "play all costing less than this", i'd go with three cards; If "play a card costing less than this," four cards.

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

[silverspawn]

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

This is a pretty amusing mistake. I also immediately thought about Band of Misfits when I saw the card. It might even be how I would have translated it, had I thought about it. Band of Robbers is more accurate of course, but doesn't sound as good.

I propose Band of Bandits to maximally mix up everything.

[silverspawn]

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

[BBobb]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost should generally be more powerful than cards that cost (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost ?

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

No definitely not…… I would never screw up that badly………… (Yeah I meant Bandit Camp)

[spineflu]

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

I think the buy-in cost is too high - if you have $8, the consensus correct move is buy a province, right? (ignoring context about current pile position), and the power (five cards, play the cheap actions) too strong. A smaller version of each is more sensible. In general, the high buy-in cost is going to cause swing, with the rich getting richer because they can play it more often.

It's like the Familiar feelsbad problem - both players open silver/potion, player A can buy a familiar turn 3, use it turn 5; player B gets a copper, 3 estates, and the potion turn 3, can't afford familiar, and then it sucks to suck until turn 5 at least, right? meanwhile player A can hit them with cantrip curses and split the curse pile in their own favor.

This is doubly exacerbated if Magician is the only "village" in the game.

So to directly answer your question: i think the effect is too strong, and also i think it's priced wrong (esp. in consideration of its overpay effect).

[Timinou]

I propose Band of Bandits to maximally mix up everything.

Banditenbande does sound cool! 

[Timinou]

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

I think the buy-in cost is too high - if you have $8, the consensus correct move is buy a province, right? (ignoring context about current pile position), and the power (five cards, play the cheap actions) too strong. A smaller version of each is more sensible. In general, the high buy-in cost is going to cause swing, with the rich getting richer because they can play it more often.

I agree on both points.  I didn't notice that fika monster increased the cost to $5.  With the new version, it would be difficult to take advantage of the overpay mechanic, so then it raises the question of why have it in the first place?

Regarding the amount of cards: you could end up discarding 5 cards from your deck without finding any suitable Action cards.  This could end up being quite good if it helps you cycle through your deck faster and discard a lot of junk, or on the other extreme, it could make you discard a bunch of strong cards. On average, you'll probably end up discarding both good and bad cards, but I think it would be a good idea to try and limit the potential for extremes.  I think it would be less swingy if you only looked at 3 or 4 like you suggested, and I think it would still be fun to play with.  Without playtesting, I think looking at the top 3, and playing any Actions costing $3 or less would be a good balance. 

[Meta]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
When you buy a card this turn, take a spoils.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

This way, it'll be useful to own multiple Bands of robbers in order to gain exponentially more spoils, or if it's the only card with +Buy.
I'll have to do some playtesting to see if +2 Buys is too op, otherwise I think this is a good buff.

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:

First, welcome to the forum!

Second, you can resize images by putting a width in the opening tag, like so:

Code: [Select]

[img width=250]imagehost/image_url.jpg[/img]If you're ever curious how another poster did something, you can use the "Quote" button to see the bb-markup for how they did it.

Lastly, your card needs... idk. something. I'm a huge fan of potion-cost cards and Rauberbande is overpriced considering what it does. Like $4 is probably a reasonable price for a Woodcutter+, as is; If you want to keep it as a potion cost card, consider either boosting the power level (give like, +2 Cards in addition to the other benefits, or "When you buy a card, gain a Spoils"). Remember the general notion behind potion-cost cards is you want to buy a lot of them for your deck - even if I did want a woodcutter+, I'd consider that a less critical card to have in bulk than like, cards that draw lots of cards, or cards that enable me to play lots of cards

Thanks for the tips regarding formatting

Edit: revised wording in the card translation, according to the 2019 errata

[silverspawn]

It's like the Familiar feelsbad problem - both players open silver/potion, player A can buy a familiar turn 3, use it turn 5; player B gets a copper, 3 estates, and the potion turn 3, can't afford familiar, and then it sucks to suck until turn 5 at least, right? meanwhile player A can hit them with cantrip curses and split the curse pile in their own favor.

This is doubly exacerbated if Magician is the only "village" in the game.

So to directly answer your question: i think the effect is too strong, and also i think it's priced wrong (esp. in consideration of its overpay effect).

I see what you mean, but I'm not buying it. Familiar is maximally simple (just buy potion+x, usually x=silver, and hope, no decisions involved), and maximally bad if you miss it. I don't think Magician is particularly bad on either of those metrics. I can think of a ton of cards that are worse there, like Altar, Margrave, Vampire, Witch, Mountebank, Cultist -- really most junkers and trashers that cost 5$. Magician seems less swingy than Prince (you can get different things for 6$, 8$, and 11$), and Prince isn't particularly swingy.

[spineflu]

i don't agree re: Prince not being particularly swingy - maybe at a higher level, when people can better get deck control to only ever have prince collide with cards it can set aside - but from where i play, it's super swingy, especially if you botch the collision, especially if you botch the early $8 to get a prince. Treasure Map is generally thought of as being swingy and you've only gotta make one real collision to proc that.

I get what you're saying about the buy-in cost at $6/$8/$10 ($11? i'm assuming you meant $10) but you don't think it'd be better at $5/$6/$8? I think it makes way more sense at $5/$6/$8.

Also, like, can you clarify how you're coming to your conclusion that Magician is not that swingy?

[BBobb]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

This way, it'll be useful to own multiple Bands of robbers in order to gain exponentially more spoils, or if it's the only card with +Buy.
I'll have to do some playtesting to see if +2 Buys is too op, otherwise I think this is a good buff.

I would word it as "this turn, when you buy a card, gain a Spoils." Donald X. has moved away from while in play triggers to this turn triggers. Also, as from the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks (or something like that), the "from the Spoils pile" is implied. It is no longer necessary to put.

[silverspawn]

($11? i'm assuming you meant $10)

Ah, yes. I was calculating up for 6$ (because you need 6$ for the wisp?), but yeah, 10$ gets the ghost.

Also, like, can you clarify how you're coming to your conclusion that Magician is not that swingy?

Tbh, I don't see any argument for it being swingy that doesn't apply as much and more to a ton of official cards. Take Altar, for example. Isn't everything you've written at least as true about Altar as it is about Magician? And you can substitute something like a third of all cards costing 6$+ in this question.

[Meta]

I would word it as "this turn, when you buy a card, gain a Spoils." Donald X. has moved away from while in play triggers to this turn triggers. Also, as from the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks (or something like that), the "from the Spoils pile" is implied. It is no longer necessary to put.

The german wording is based on the HiG version, as it's my prefered version, and I won't change it.
I will change the english version though. (It's currently based on Bandit camp and Goons)