Print

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

[faust]

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?

With recent errata, the "when you buy" trigger has been mostly removed and replaced by "when you gain" (or sometimes "when you gain a card you bought"). The buys are sad; noone pays attention to them anymore!

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them. Also note that the official Overpay mechanic is still tied to buying, so any Overpay card would be a valid entry for this contest.

[Udzu]

If anyone's interested, here's DXV's rationale for getting rid of the "when you buy" triggers (and the related changes to Overpay).

[JW]

Isolated Village
- Action
+1 Card and +2 Actions.
You may spend a Villager to trash a card from your hand.
_________________
Overpay: Gain a Villager per $1 overpaid.

Note: I will not have time to do the next contest, so in the event that I win please have the runner up do so.

[SignError]

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them.

I agree that we shouldn’t use any “when you buy,” because those have all been eliminated or re-worded.  But how does everyone feel about “when you gain… in your buy phase” or “when you gain… if you bought it”?

Because those still exist in the game, I feel like those can be fair game, assuming there is a reason to only count buys. For example, Hoard needs the “if you bought it” wording to prevent loops, but Port is fine working with any gain.

[faust]

Weekly Design Contest #166: Who still cares about buying?
Note that you should keep to the spirit of the errata, and avoid direct "when you buy" triggers unless there is a very good reason to have them.

I agree that we shouldn’t use any “when you buy,” because those have all been eliminated or re-worded.  But how does everyone feel about “when you gain… in your buy phase” or “when you gain… if you bought it”?

Because those still exist in the game, I feel like those can be fair game, assuming there is a reason to only count buys. For example, Hoard needs the “if you bought it” wording to prevent loops, but Port is fine working with any gain.

I think "in your buy phase" does not have sufficient emphasis on buys to qualify. "If you bought it" does. It is however worth noting what Donald X. had to say about those clauses in the post linked above:

Let's be clear: "When you gain a card you bought" is awful. It's not "yeeha, just what I've always wanted"; it's, "this is my least bad option, oh well, I take it." Other things you can do in these cases, e.g. "once per turn," were more of a change; despite how it may look, I was trying to minimize changes.

[Augie279]

It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Do "when you gain without buying" triggers (such as the joke Christmas Landmark Tree) qualify for this contest?

[SignError]

"If you bought it" does. It is however worth noting what Donald X. had to say about those clauses in the post linked above:

Let's be clear: "When you gain a card you bought" is awful. It's not "yeeha, just what I've always wanted"; it's, "this is my least bad option, oh well, I take it." Other things you can do in these cases, e.g. "once per turn," were more of a change; despite how it may look, I was trying to minimize changes.

I definitely agree with Donald X.’s assessment that “gain… bought” isn’t the best wording. But I think the point of the errata is that when comparing it to “when you buy,” “gain… bought” is the lesser of the two evils.  Otherwise he would have just left cards like Hoard as “when you buy.”  It really is nice that all the old “when buy” triggers have the same timing as the rest of the “when gain” triggers.

[4est]

Bargainer is a Woodcutter with a Haggler-like reaction that lets you discard it to gain a cheaper card than one you or someone else purchased. Unlike Haggler, this can gain other VP cards, but it usually only works once per turn since you have to discard it. On your own turns, it can sort of function like Charm where you can decide if the the +$2 and Buy is worth more vs. the Haggler reaction. On other people's turns, if it's in your hand, you can sneak in a free gain (they buy Province, you nab a Duchy on the house).

[majiponi]

Handicraft City
cost $3+ - Event
Gain a card costing up to $4.
Overpay: +1 Villager per $1 you overpaid.

[IlstrawberrySeed]

Bargain Market
———
+1 card
+1 action
+2 buys
+(2)
Each other player may discard a card to draw a card.
-
Once per turn (even if you discard multiple), when you discard this from play, each other player may gain a non-victory card costing up to (1) per leftover buy. If any player does, you may gain a card costing up to (3).
———
{4}
———
Action

A cheap market that gives +(2) and +2 buys, at the cost of sifting opponents and letting them gain cards based on your wasted buys. Do you flood yourself with coppers? I thought about not having the sifting, and couldn’t think of a better wording for the once per turn. Would rather have it be at the end of buy phase, but that increases the length by a long shot.

[CaptainReklaw]

Painter:

+2 Cards
This turn all Victory cards are also treasures worth $1
-
Overpay: Gain an Estate per $1 overpaid.


If anyone has an idea for a good way to reword this so it makes Harem and Pasture give one more $1 without making multiple painters stack, I'd like to hear it.

[Gubump]

Painter:

+2 Cards
This turn all Victory cards are also treasures worth $1
-
Overpay: Gain an Estate per $1 overpaid.


If anyone has an idea for a good way to reword this so it makes Harem and Pasture give one more $1 without making multiple painters stack, I'd like to hear it.

"If this is the first time you've played a Painter this turn, then this turn, Victory cards are also Treasures, and when you play a Victory card, you first get +."

or alternatively, you don't even need to give Victory cards the Treasure type:

"At the start of your Buy phase this turn, play any number of Victory cards from your hand, then + per Victory card played."

[NoMoreFun]

Appraiser
Action - $5
+$3
The next time you gain a card this turn, if...
...you bought it, put it onto your deck;
...it's an Action, +1 Buy;
...it costs less than this, +1 Action

[faust]

It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

Do "when you gain without buying" triggers (such as the joke Christmas Landmark Tree) qualify for this contest?

I would say that this qualifies.

[Udzu]

Wine Merchant variant (with a hint of Galleria):

[Builder_Roberts]

Well, for certain cards, there's no practical difference between a "when buy" trigger and a  "when gain" trigger; especially when the card cares about treasures in play.
Here's Mythryl, it's Mint but it's connected to an actually good card.

Mythryl - Treasure - $7
$4
-
When you gain this, trash any non-duration treasures you have in play.

[SignError]

Night Market - $5
Night - Duration - Attack

+1 Buy
+$1

Return to your Buy phase. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card. Until then, when any other player gains a card they bought, they skip to their Night phase.

Night Market does everything that Market does.  It can safely be drawn dead by terminal draw, and it provides its draw at the start of the turn when it is most useful. However, the fact that it is stuck in play for 2 turns makes it weaker than Market and most other sources of +Buy. So it has an Attack that partially nullifies the other sources of +Buy.

Much like Haunted Woods and Swamp Hag, it needs the "gains a card they bought," otherwise it would be too oppressive.  Even "gains a card in their Buy phase," would shut down cards like Supplies far too much.

[nagdon]

Two independent submissions:

• Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
• Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.

Edit: as noted below, Old Bridge is my submission for this contest, but I leave Con Artist here because why not.

[faust]

Two independent submissions:

• Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
• Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.

Only one submission is allowed per participant. Please specify which of these should be judged.

[nagdon]

Ok, then I choose Old Bridge (if the "cannot buy" effect fulfills the "cares about buying" goal).

[emtzalex]

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

To clarify, you are looking for something that cares about buys rather than Buys (the resource that you start your turn with one of, can get more of through the vanilla +Buy effect, and spend during your Buy phase to buy cards)? In other words, submissions from WDC 102 that spent/cared about Buys would not qualify for the challenge.

[nyxfulloftricks]

Gift Horse - $5
Action - Duration - Attack

Each other player gains a Horse and a Copper onto their deck.

Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy, +$1 and when you gain a card, if you bought it, gain a Horse onto your deck.

I was feeling like making a card dealing with horses this week, so here is Gift Horse. A "subtle" attack card that sets you up for future turns. I am unsure whether this card's power level is at more of a $4 or $5 so I'm willing to change on that. Overall I had fun with this week's submission and I hope you all enjoy it too. Just remember, don't look your gift horse in the mouth!

[Snes]

Two independent submissions:

• Con Artist is a relatively strong source of +Cards and trashing, but becomes problematic when the player starts greening and doesn't want to trash provinces.
• Old Bridge is a cost reduction card that only costs $1, but (as far as I see) does not break the game immediately, mostly because you cannot buy an Old Bridge after playing an Old Bridge.

Edit: as noted below, Old Bridge is my submission for this contest, but I leave Con Artist here because why not.

I feel like the "can't buy 0" rider on Old Bridge is really only there to justify the card costing $1.  It will almost never come up when trying to buy any other card, and just because you can't stack copies of a card doesn't mean it's balanced.  Candlestick Maker and Ducat are both comparable to this (being non-terminal cards that give +1 Buy), and they both cost $2.  Herbalist is also similar, and it doesn't even replace the action.  I think you're undervaluing the bridge effect.

I also don't get the flavor.  "Old Bridge" conjures to mind a rickety bridge that can't take too much weight, yet this card says that it can't take too little wight?

[Augie279]

An Innovation Treasure because why not. Better than Gold if you buy a terminal Silver (or even just regular Silver) but not strictly so. Costs $6 because buying one with one in play effectively makes this cost $4. (Compare buying Spices with its own Coffers)

[faust]

Therefore, your challenge today is to design a card or card-shaped object that cares about buys. It could do things upon buying stuff, or care about the number of buys, or maybe about the number of things bought by some player.

To clarify, you are looking for something that cares about buys rather than Buys (the resource that you start your turn with one of, can get more of through the vanilla +Buy effect, and spend during your Buy phase to buy cards)? In other words, submissions from WDC 102 that spent/cared about Buys would not qualify for the challenge.

Either is fine for me. Buys relate to buys after all, and it's best to be generous. However it wouldn't be enough to simply submit a card with +Buy.