Print

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

[MrZNF]

Hi all, I am quite new to the forums and probably none of you will know me (maybe from Isotropic, but anyway).
I saw a fan-card idea in a topic just now called "Hot Potato" which was a curse/action. Which got me thinking: Why are there no such cards being thought of more? Curse/action, curse/reaction, treasure/reaction, treasure/duration, etc. Sounds like so many fun cards can be invented and maybe it would be possible to create a cool new kind of expansion from it.
If there already is a topic about this, I'd like to see it, but otherwise here is a place for thinking up cards with non-existent cardtype-combinations.

I'll start of with a couple:

Double Silver
$5 Treasure/Duration:
Worth $2

(This would needs pollishing, as right now it's just better than Merchant's Ship)

Amulet
$5 Treasure/Attack:
Worth $2
---
Each Other player gains a curse

I would love to see some good idea's come from this topic that could become the next Tunnel (one of my favourite cards, because it is so unique)

[Tables]

Both of those are pretty much almost strictly better than cards at their price point. Double Silver as you say, and Amulet makes both Witch and Mountebank look mediocre (And they're the strongest $5's in the game).

But there's no reason we won't see more unique typings in the next expansion - treasure/attack is a possibility, anything/duration is unlikely (Donald said he won't make any more durations or something along those lines), action/treasure is another unlikely but plausible one. Reaction/X are possible (we have action/reaction, treasure/reaction and victory/reaction). And it's possible we'll see something like action/reaction/attack or the like.

[rspeer]

If you add another -VP card besides Curse:

• It's very likely to be inherently unbalanced (see rinkworks' guide)
• You can't call it a Curse (even as a type) without making lots of cards horribly ambiguous. "Curse" currently refers to both the card and the type that contains only that card, and other cards are designed around that fact. Adding a new Curse that isn't named "Curse" would be about as insane as adding a new Action card named "Treasure".

Fool's Gold already is a Treasure/Reaction.

[petrie911]

I had a treasure-attack from the set I made.

Grand Line $5
Treasure-Attack
$2
If this is the first time you've played a Grand Line this turn, each other player gains a copper.

Because you can play unlimited treasures per turn, you really need this clause to not completely overwhelm the opponent.  Even so, Grand Line here is a very strong card.  A cursing version would almost certainly need to cost $6.

[Davio]

For a Treasure/Duration, something like this may be nice:

Interest - $5
Treasure - Duration

+$1, At the start of your next turn: +$2.

While it starts off as a regular Copper, the fact that you get twice as much on your next turn and can always play it makes it a decent card.
Mint and Mandarin would still have an effect on this card (trash it or put it back).

The current $5 Treasures are all Silver+ or hampered Golds, so this may fit in nicely.

[AJD]

For a Treasure/Duration, something like this may be nice:

Interest - $5
Treasure - Duration

+$1, At the start of your next turn: +$2.

While it starts off as a regular Copper, the fact that you get twice as much on your next turn and can always play it makes it a decent card.
Mint and Mandarin would still have an effect on this card (trash it or put it back).

Hmmm. What would happen, rules-wise, if you played Interest and then bought Mint or Mandarin on the same turn? Clearly you would trash/top-deck the Interest... but would you still get the $2 on the next turn? I think you would: although it happens later, the delayed effect of a Duration card is an on-play effect rather than a while-in-play effect. So the act of playing Interest now guarantees you the $2 on your next turn, even if the Interest card is removed from play between now and the start of that turn. (Herbalist could also do this.) Seems like this could be difficult to track! No wonder there aren't any Treasure-Durations.

[DStu]

Hmmm. What would happen, rules-wise, if you played Interest and then bought Mint or Mandarin on the same turn? Clearly you would trash/top-deck the Interest... but would you still get the $2 on the next turn? I think you would: although it happens later, the delayed effect of a Duration card is an on-play effect rather than a while-in-play effect. So the act of playing Interest now guarantees you the $2 on your next turn, even if the Interest card is removed from play between now and the start of that turn. (Herbalist could also do this.) Seems like this could be difficult to track! No wonder there aren't any Treasure-Durations.

I could agree that from the current wording of the rules you can come to this ruling, but I think it's safe to assume that if something like this would be possible (or common), there would be a rule that Duration cards only do something as long as they are 'in play'. E.g. "The TR stays in play to remind you that you are getting the effect of MS twice on that turn" would be a little bit pointless if there might even be Durations that don't stay in play to remind you that you get their effect once.

Scheme btw also scratches this problem, 1/4 of the text of this card is dedicated to it I would say.

[GendoIkari]

For a Treasure/Duration, something like this may be nice:

Interest - $5
Treasure - Duration

+$1, At the start of your next turn: +$2.

While it starts off as a regular Copper, the fact that you get twice as much on your next turn and can always play it makes it a decent card.
Mint and Mandarin would still have an effect on this card (trash it or put it back).

Hmmm. What would happen, rules-wise, if you played Interest and then bought Mint or Mandarin on the same turn? Clearly you would trash/top-deck the Interest... but would you still get the $2 on the next turn? I think you would: although it happens later, the delayed effect of a Duration card is an on-play effect rather than a while-in-play effect. So the act of playing Interest now guarantees you the $2 on your next turn, even if the Interest card is removed from play between now and the start of that turn. (Herbalist could also do this.) Seems like this could be difficult to track! No wonder there aren't any Treasure-Durations.

Yeah, you would definitely get the effect. The Duration cards really only stay out as a reminder; they don't need to be out for their "next turn" effect to happen.

[MrZNF]

For a Treasure/Duration, something like this may be nice:

Interest - $5
Treasure - Duration

+$1, At the start of your next turn: +$2.

While it starts off as a regular Copper, the fact that you get twice as much on your next turn and can always play it makes it a decent card.
Mint and Mandarin would still have an effect on this card (trash it or put it back).

Hmmm. What would happen, rules-wise, if you played Interest and then bought Mint or Mandarin on the same turn? Clearly you would trash/top-deck the Interest... but would you still get the $2 on the next turn? I think you would: although it happens later, the delayed effect of a Duration card is an on-play effect rather than a while-in-play effect. So the act of playing Interest now guarantees you the $2 on your next turn, even if the Interest card is removed from play between now and the start of that turn. (Herbalist could also do this.) Seems like this could be difficult to track! No wonder there aren't any Treasure-Durations.

Yeah, you would definitely get the effect. The Duration cards really only stay out as a reminder; they don't need to be out for their "next turn" effect to happen.

Is this really true? I remember playing a scheme on a (new) Merchants Ship and not getting the effect the next turn. Why would there be a difference between (old) and (new) action cards on Isotropic otherwise.

[DStu]

Is this really true? I remember playing a scheme on a (new) Merchants Ship and not getting the effect the next turn. Why would there be a difference between (old) and (new) action cards on Isotropic otherwise.

When you scheme a (new) Duration, it does not get discarded, so Scheme will not work the way you expected. You get the effect next turn, because Scheme does not touch the card at all...

[Davio]

This is because Iso tries to stay as close to the original rules as possible without making assumptions.

The rules don't say you strictly can't (try to) topdeck a new duration. The rules only say that when you choose the new duration, it doesn't make it to the top of your deck; only cards that you would discard from play are actually put on top. Next turn if you play a Scheme, you can succeed in topdecking the old duration.

I don't understand why you would ever choose to try to topdeck a new duration - as the effect of Scheme itself is already optional, maybe there will be interactions with later sets? - but Iso just makes a habit of sticking to the rules as closely as it can.

This Iso awkwardness also happens with multiple reveals of Moat and being able to reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Silver.

[AJD]

Is this really true? I remember playing a scheme on a (new) Merchants Ship and not getting the effect the next turn. Why would there be a difference between (old) and (new) action cards on Isotropic otherwise.

When you scheme a (new) Duration, it does not get discarded, so Scheme will not work the way you expected. You get the effect next turn, because Scheme does not touch the card at all...

To clarify a bit, the Scheme card specifically stipulates that it doesn't work on new duration cards. (I.e., you can try to Scheme a new duration card, but it'll fail.) There's no such stipulation on the Herbalist card, so if there were a Treasure-Duration, Herbalist would have to work on it barring any indication to the contrary.