Print

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

[Builder_Roberts]

Durations:


Night Cards:


Reserve Cards:


Treasure Cards:


"Choose one" cards:


"Discarder" cards:


'Until you reveal' cards:


Misc. Cards:


Landscapes:

Paths: Like Ways, but for Treasures.


Events:

FAQ: Designate uses the Liaison token; when the Liaison token is in play, you include an Ally, as you would when any other Liaison is in play.

Projects:


Ways:

[Builder_Roberts]

Updated to include more cards.

[emtzalex]

Clockwork Steed looks bad compared to Caravan,being a twice delayed Lab.

It's also vulnerable to handsize attacks in a way Caravan is not.

Faerie Ring is overpowered. We know how strong Druid is with Swamp and this is nonterminal.

It also costs double what Druid does (and--with rare exceptions--always requires the bigger half of your opening split, while Druid always takes the smaller), doesn't provide +Buy, and doesn't trigger the WoWs when it's revealed. The fact that it eventually turns into a potential source of payload certainly is a big benefit, but I'm not sure it's obviously busted.


Here are a few of my own thoughts:

For the cards that say "Do this twice: Choose one: ..." I think you could just say "Chose two:... (You may choose one option twice)." While it's probably longer, imo it's less awkwardly worded.

Small Bazaar feels a bit too strong to me, especially when compared with Town (which I already think is one of the stronger villages). Although you lose Town's +Buy on the money option, you get the +1 Card and (more importantly) you get to see the card you drew before having to decide if you want Actions or $. This lets players draw without a risk of terminal collision, then take the $ if they didn't draw an Action card.

Hidden Village would have some real challenges in terms of accountability for IRL games. Basically, if you had one in your deck you would have to look at each card you drew before combining them with the rest (to see if it was a HV). Otherwise, your opponent(s) couldn't be sure you weren't attempting a slight-of-hand to play an HV you already had in hand.

The "On your next turn..." language in Seawall is a bit awkward. I'd phrase it as something like "At the start of your turn, put the set-aside cards into your hand, then set aside two cards from your hand."

[Builder_Roberts]

The cost is irrelevant. I would gladly pay $4 for SwampDruid.
The fact that this is stronger than Platinum once the Whisps are gone is very relevant.

I feel you're overestimating getting a whole bunch of spirits in play. there are only 12 wisps. You make a fair point, but I think it's balanced.

Clockwork Steed looks bad compared to Caravan,being a twice delayed Lab.

It's also vulnerable to handsize attacks in a way Caravan is not.

This was actually a 3-cost. I let my feelings during playtesting get ahead of my common sense. I'll change it back.

Here are a few of my own thoughts:

For the cards that say "Do this twice: Choose one: ..." I think you could just say "Chose two:... (You may choose one option twice)." While it's probably longer, imo it's less awkwardly worded.

Funny story- that was the initial wording I used for those cards! I was told it was really awkward with Elder and was generally confusing. Additionally, you are correct, that wording is longer.

Small Bazaar feels a bit too strong to me, especially when compared with Town (which I already think is one of the stronger villages). Although you lose Town's +Buy on the money option, you get the +1 Card and (more importantly) you get to see the card you drew before having to decide if you want Actions or $. This lets players draw without a risk of terminal collision, then take the $ if they didn't draw an Action card.

Sure, but in playtesting it was just nice to have. that +buy on Town is a lot more important than you'd think. The lack of  risk of collision is something I personally enjoy. It's objectively worse than bazaar, so it's gotta be 4.

Hidden Village would have some real challenges in terms of accountability for IRL games. Basically, if you had one in your deck you would have to look at each card you drew before combining them with the rest (to see if it was a HV). Otherwise, your opponent(s) couldn't be sure you weren't attempting a slight-of-hand to play an HV you already had in hand.

In irl testing (which is where I do all of mine) There absolutely was accountability. If you play this from your hand, you're playing it 'wrong'. you do need to look at the cards as you draw them, but before you put them in your hand. It was a little annoying to switch to, but not a huge problem. I'm not hugely defending this though, because it is a change in playstyle that I don't think many would be comfortable with.

The "On your next turn..." language in Seawall is a bit awkward. I'd phrase it as something like "At the start of your turn, put the set-aside cards into your hand, then set aside two cards from your hand."

Combining the two parts is very weird. People assume you set aside cards and then put them right back into your hand.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Builder_Roberts]

Did you ever play with SwampDruid?

Yes, I have. It was overshadowed by way better draw, more expensive cards, and generally being attached to druid. Swamp druid is good when there's a bunch of good 0-2 cost cards. We never saw more than 3 willow-wisps together at once. In fact, I'm considering lowering the price of Faerie ring, because at least swamp druid has two other modes that might be good.

[Builder_Roberts]

You seem to miss that your entire starting deck as well as the Wisps are cards that trigger Wisps. Consistent Wisp gaining is very strong because Whisps self-synergize. Trashing becomes less relevant.

And you seem to miss the fact that you need at least 5 wisps in your starting hand (and no other cards) to draw that starting deck! Wisps do self-synergize, yes, but assuming you have any cards that are higher cost than 2 (which Faerie ring costs 4) you need that many more wisps! Trashing is less relevant, but in no way is it replaceable. As you gain other cards, you'll be 'junking' your deck, making wisps far less effective.

Your card would already be decent as Night card but with the payload option it becomes utterly crazy.
As I already pointed out, the only other two official build-up cards are terminal and feature a very slow build-up. Your card is non-terminal and gains conditional Labs, or rather Peddler-Labs.

A 4-cost night that's just "gain a Willow-wisp" would be so horribly weak. Even druid has more things it can do, and it costs 2, which means it actually works well with the wisps!
Again, wisps aren't as good as you're making them out to be. For what you're talking about, you'd need at least 5 wisps, plus another wisp for every card costing more than 3 you gain!
Faerie ring works best with decent trashing and draw which willow-wisps are not! Those "conditional labs" you're talking about are the weakest spirit for a reason!

So, yeah, willow wisps are not that great. Faerie ring provides incentive to play wisps, but not the means. They require support, and aren't the one-card wins you seem to be making it out to be.

[Gubump]

Did you ever play with SwampDruid?

Yes, I have. It was overshadowed by way better draw, more expensive cards, and generally being attached to druid. Swamp druid is good when there's a bunch of good 0-2 cost cards. We never saw more than 3 willow-wisps together at once. In fact, I'm considering lowering the price of Faerie ring, because at least swamp druid has two other modes that might be good.

Faerie Ring also has another mode that might be good, and is pretty likely to be better than several existing Boons. I agree with you that segura is overestimating the card, but I also think you're underestimating it. I think it looks fine at .

On a completely unrelated note, Lodestone needs to say "(or reveal you can't.)", as there's no accountability for if you have no Treasures in your discard pile.

[Builder_Roberts]

Lodestone needs to say "(or reveal you can't.)", as there's no accountability for if you have no Treasures in your discard pile.

Thanks, I'll change that!

[Builder_Roberts]

Added several more cards, Paths, and an Event.

[BryGuy]

I'm not done reviewing, but what purpose does the last sentence in Eclipse attempting to accomplish? I don't see why it is there.

[Builder_Roberts]

I'm not done reviewing, but what purpose does the last sentence in Eclipse attempting to accomplish? I don't see why it is there.

You mean "if it's a night card, +1 Action"?
Eclipse can be played in either your night or action phases. It allows you to play Action cards in your night phase and Night cards in your action phase. The +1 Action is to replicate the non-terminal nature of Night cards, even when they are played in a different phase.

[MrHiTech]

Lodestone is very close to strictly better than Venture, as it:

1. Makes $2 instead of $1
2. Lets you pick the Treasure instead of giving a random one.

The only time it's worse is if you don't have any Treasures discarded. In a BM deck, that's pretty unlikely.

Also, it should stipulate that you can't play a Lodestone, as that would let you play a Lodestone, which plays a Lodestone, etc, and gives you +$2 for each. This is OK with Venture as it is a) subject to randomness, so you can't chain them with 100% accuracy and b) only makes $1 per card.

Finally, why does it make you reveal you can't play a Treasure rather than just saying "you may"?

[Builder_Roberts]

Lodestone is very close to strictly better than Venture, as it:

1. Makes $2 instead of $1
2. Lets you pick the Treasure instead of giving a random one.

The only time it's worse is if you don't have any Treasures discarded. In a BM deck, that's pretty unlikely.

Also, it should stipulate that you can't play a Lodestone, as that would let you play a Lodestone, which plays a Lodestone, etc, and gives you +$2 for each. This is OK with Venture as it is a) subject to randomness, so you can't chain them with 100% accuracy and b) only makes $1 per card.

Finally, why does it make you reveal you can't play a Treasure rather than just saying "you may"?

The main point is to be an upgrade of Venture. Venture was taken out of Prosperity because it was too weak. Lodestone is my take on a fix for that.

Taking balance out of the picture for a moment - You absolutely should be able to chain lodestones as that was the most fun part of venture.

That's a good point about the "you may play a treasure from your discard pile". If I do get around to updating these, I'll do that.

[BryGuy]

How did you get the cards to post? I can't seem to post cards.

The Duration cards appear fine. As an aside my favorite Duration cards are the ones that give an Action on the next turn.

The Night cards appear fine. I might use Transform and Piggy Bank for a planned set.

The Reserve cards appear fine, although i'm not a fan of using an activation that is obviously occurring. I'd rather see effects that you can control like "After playing your third Action card" to get something that would make sense like another Action.

The choice cards appear fine. I would be nice if one of them included "Other players may receive the unchosen choice."

The discard cards appear fine.

The until cards appear fine.

I commented on your paths in that thread.

[Builder_Roberts]

11/12/2022 - Added 19 more cards, deleted Hidden Village.

[exfret]

11/12/2022 - Added 19 more cards, deleted Hidden Village.

Why delete it entirely? Now I don't even know what the conversation was about.

[Builder_Roberts]

11/12/2022 - Added 19 more cards, deleted Hidden Village.

Why delete it entirely? Now I don't even know what the conversation was about.

Oh, just looked, there was a conversation about that. huh. Well, here it is:

I deleted it cause it became annoying to play with in virtual games.

[exfret]

Clockwork Steed looks bad compared to Caravan,being a twice delayed Lab.

It's also vulnerable to handsize attacks in a way Caravan is not.

This was actually a 3-cost. I let my feelings during playtesting get ahead of my common sense. I'll change it back.

I think playtesting supersedes vague comparisons to other cards. Seems more like a 4 cost anyways considering that two are like a hireling.

[exfret]

Clockwork Steed looks bad compared to Caravan,being a twice delayed Lab.

It's also vulnerable to handsize attacks in a way Caravan is not.

This was actually a 3-cost. I let my feelings during playtesting get ahead of my common sense. I'll change it back.

I think playtesting supersedes vague comparisons to other cards. Seems more like a 4 cost anyways considering that two are like a hireling.

EDIT: Not to mention that you have another card that gives you a coin instead of a card and costs more. Generally, I'd rather have extra cards.