Print

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

[spineflu]

($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.

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

[silverspawn]

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

But surely the fact that you get two cards rather than one isn't what matters; what matters is how much impact it has on the game. And I don't see this card + a wisp having as much impact as an Altar. Or a Forge. Or a Margrave. Or a KC. Or a Prince.

[spineflu]

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

But surely the fact that you get two cards rather than one isn't what matters; what matters is how much impact it has on the game. And I don't see this card + a wisp having as much impact as an Altar. Or a Forge. Or a Margrave. Or a KC. Or a Prince.

i think if you hit 3+ cards that magician hits, its very comparable to KC

[silverspawn]

I don't disagree that it's comparable to KC (both are best later in the game, too). Is that bad? I like KC.

[pubby]

I like the rubberband card, but dislike the potion cost. In general, potion cards should be something you want a lot of, and rubberband isn't that. $5 makes more sense IMO.

[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

Thanks for the feedback everyone. i chose to reduce the cost 1 by one, and make it look at top 3 cards like someone suggested. Also, some minor formatting fixes.


THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

[faust]

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

[Meta]

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
When you buy a card this turn, take a spoils.

If this is the only card in the game with potion costs, this card costs 6$.

Action

Illustration: stolen

I like the rubberband card, but dislike the potion cost. In general, potion cards should be something you want a lot of, and rubberband isn't that. $5 makes more sense IMO.

I think 5 is too cheap, as you could be able to buy it T1, but this way you only have to buy potions with multiple potion cards in game which should make it more viable.

[MrFrog]

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

[gambit05]

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

A bit shorter wording: "....During Clean-Up draw 1 card less; then put one of the Wishes into your hand."

[spineflu]

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

A bit shorter wording: "....During Clean-Up draw 1 card less; then put one of the Wishes into your hand."

TTS would let you do this. Or you do comparisons where one person doesn't buy it but others do, make sure it's fair.

[Timinou]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. i chose to reduce the cost 1 by one, and make it look at top 3 cards like someone suggested. Also, some minor formatting fixes.


THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

Is it possible to overpay by 0 to gain a will o'wisp?  I actually don't think an automatic will o'wisp gain would be that strong with the new version. 

Just a minor formatting comment if you make any further changes: "Spirit" should be capitalized as per the official cards.

[silverspawn]

No, you're not allowed to overpay cards by $0. This matters for Stonemason; you can't buy it for 0$ and get two Laboratories if you have 5 Highways in play.

[MrFrog]

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

Before playing I was afraid this would be an issue, but in reality it is very unlikely that all four players buy the event in the same round, and usually you don't want to buy it two turns in a row, so the Wishes come back to their pile quite quickly.

[fika monster]

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

Noted. Hows this?

[Timinou]

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid. 

[fika monster]

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid.

what if i gave it "play the revealed card, or gain a Wisp"?

[Timinou]

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid.

what if i gave it "play the revealed card, or gain a Wisp"?

That would fix the issue I mentioned, but at the expense of making it even wordier.  Then there’s the issue of balance.  This would basically be like a Scrying Pool that doesn’t trip up on Treasures, Curses, or Victory cards. 

[fika monster]

I think i decided to just ditch the current concept. heres my new Submission: Medium, a treasurer but spirit and exile



with its artifact

[segura]

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

[silverspawn]

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

I cannot argue with the utterly broken part, but maybe if it cost 8$? (Or $7?) Regardless, I would cut the gaining-from-exile option.

[fika monster]

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?

[gambit05]

I would start simple. Then it is helpful to look at the wording of official cards and to avoid random capitalisation of words.

A simple start would be:
"Exile an Action card from your hand. Gain a cheaper Spirit from one of the Spirit piles."

Then one can think whether "from one of the Spirit piles" is really necessary. It is the official wording of Exorcist, but wording changes over time and tends to get shorter.

More importantly, concept-wise, one can also think about whether allowing to Exile Treasures, which would then be "Exile a non-Victory card..." 

If that all looks interesting, you may add more or, usually better, leave it as it is and think about the cost.

[Timinou]

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?

I would suggest limiting the situations when you would be able to take the Artifact.  It should either be on gain, or as an option when you play the card, but not both.  I mean, the Artifact does have an expiry date because of the limited number of Will-o'Wisps (Silver gaining is nice, but wouldn't be the reason for getting the Artifact), but it's quite strong to be able to gain a Will-o'Wisp each turn.  Being able to also take the Artifact upon trashing Medium seems like overkill, and I'm not sure it is needed.

[segura]

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

I cannot argue with the utterly broken part, but maybe if it cost 8$? (Or $7?) Regardless, I would cut the gaining-from-exile option.

Doesn't work as you get it far too late in the game. High costs, i.e. beyond $5, doesn't work for (pure) trashers or Exilers (note that the two $7 trashers from Prosperity are also gainers).