Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Man, I just had this crazy idea for a Laboratory variant.

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+ 1 Action. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards until no 2 of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

EDIT: On second thought, it's probably too powerful for $5. But I wonder if it's worth buying at $6?

[eHalcyon]

Why do you think it is too powerful?  It's useful but not amazing if you are building an action-heavy engine because then you can only grab one Action out of the four.  Similarly, it might let you pick out a Gold in a BM deck but that's just one card.  Or are you counting dual-type cards as distinct from others, e.g. "Action-Attack" is different from "Action-Duration"?

[qmech]

Early on it's likely to be +2 cards, chosen from 4; later it will likely be +3.  With the sifting I think it is too strong at $5.  It sounds interesting at $6: a super-Cartographer.

[Dsell]

I like the idea of a card that rewards you for building a particular kind of deck (in this case a hybrid money/action deck...perhaps one that can handle some greening early?). Those are the cards that have decks built around them (hunting party, menagerie come to mind). But because I think you could build a deck around it, it probably is too strong for 5, but perhaps not appealing enough at 6? Idk for sure, definitely worth some playtesting.

[LastFootnote]

I like the idea of a card that rewards you for building a particular kind of deck (in this case a hybrid money/action deck...perhaps one that can handle some greening early?). Those are the cards that have decks built around them (hunting party, menagerie come to mind). But because I think you could build a deck around it, it probably is too strong for 5, but perhaps not appealing enough at 6? Idk for sure, definitely worth some playtesting.

Thanks. If I'm lucky, it'll work out at $5. If it doesn't, the next two things I'd probably try are:

Convocation Type-A
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+ 1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards until no 2 of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

Convocation Type-B
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+ 1 Action. Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards until no 2 of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

[eHalcyon]

It still sounds fine at $5, but I'm probably underestimating something.  Probably the fact that you are also cycling faster, which is good early game, and it helps you clear green cards...

If that is part of its strength, maybe you could try a version where you put cards back on top of the deck instead of discarding them?  Except then it wouldn't stack with itself as well, since playing it a second time would reveal some of the same cards you already saw.

Still looking for clarification regarding hybrid cards.  For example, if you reveal

Harem (Treasure-Victory)
Island (Action-Victory)
Horse Traders (Action-Reaction)
Fool's Gold (Treasure-Reaction)

Can you keep all four?  I would assume not...

[LastFootnote]

It still sounds fine at $5, but I'm probably underestimating something.  Probably the fact that you are also cycling faster, which is good early game, and it helps you clear green cards...

If that is part of its strength, maybe you could try a version where you put cards back on top of the deck instead of discarding them?  Except then it wouldn't stack with itself as well, since playing it a second time would reveal some of the same cards you already saw.

More than the cycling, it's the fact that you get a decent selection to choose from. Compare it to Laboratory. With Convocation, it's pretty unlikely that all 4 cards are going to share a type, so you'll nearly always get at least 2. Hence, it's likely to be better than Lab most of the time. It's not the end of the world. Hunting Party is nearly always better than Lab too. Still, it might be enough better that I need to nerf it.

Still looking for clarification regarding hybrid cards.  For example, if you reveal

Harem (Treasure-Victory)
Island (Action-Victory)
Horse Traders (Action-Reaction)
Fool's Gold (Treasure-Reaction)

Can you keep all four?  I would assume not...

Sorry for not clarifying this earlier! You have to discard until no two cards share a single type. So in your example, you'd get to keep the Harem and the Horse Traders or the Island and the Fool's Gold.

[Dsell]

More than the cycling, it's the fact that you get a decent selection to choose from. Compare it to Laboratory. With Convocation, it's pretty unlikely that all 4 cards are going to share a type, so you'll nearly always get at least 2. Hence, it's likely to be better than Lab most of the time. It's not the end of the world. Hunting Party is nearly always better than Lab too. Still, it might be enough better that I need to nerf it.

There are a few cases where HP is arguably not quite as good as Lab (as a BM enabler; or if you've already got one platinum in hand, so it skips over 3 platina to find your colony, which means faster cycling during greening...etc. Also gives you much less control over reshuffles.) It seems like where HP is better than Lab, though, Convocation is a lot better than Lab. It's pretty easy to put together a deck that makes HP really, really good and I think the same would be true for Convocation too. The cycling makes it almost like a Cartographer+Lab with an occasional downside of being forced to discard a lesser action. That also could make it super appealing in extremely green decks, which is fun. I really like the idea but I don't think I can agree with eHalcyon that the original works at five. I think I like both Type-A and Type-B, and they probably address some issues while keeping the original idea totally intact.

[eHalcyon]

Mm, thanks for clarifying.  I think I prefer version A better ($5, look at 3).  Looking at 5 cards is nice but it also makes controlling reshuffle so much harder.

[LastFootnote]

Mm, thanks for clarifying.  I think I prefer version A better ($5, look at 3).  Looking at 5 cards is nice but it also makes controlling reshuffle so much harder.

True. I think I'm leaning toward B, though. Type A is very similar to Laboratory. Type B just seems more dramatic and interesting. I've bought Labs with $6 before, so maybe it'll work. Although, Lab and Hunting Party are usually better en masse, and it's much more costly to get a bunch of $6 cards.

Maybe I can keep it at $5 and 4 cards by giving it some other small penalty.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry to necro this thread, but it seemed silly to start another thread about the same card.

I've been playing this version of Convocation for a while (eHalcyon had it right!):

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards one at a time until no two of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

It's popular, and pretty comparable to Hunting Party power-wise. It may be a bit too strong. The problem is that nobody can understand what it does until I explain it to them. So I'm trying to make a simpler version. How does this seem?

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal cards from your deck until you've revealed two that share a type. Discard one of those two and put the rest into your hand.

Usually weaker. Occasionally stronger. Do you think it's any easier to parse?

[Sidsel]

By 'type' you mean 'treasure', 'vp', curse or 'action'? So Nobles and Dutchies are the same type?

[LastFootnote]

By 'type' you mean 'treasure', 'vp', curse or 'action'? So Nobles and Dutchies are the same type?

Yes, Nobles and Duchy share the Victory type. So if you revealed both, you'd probably discard the Duchy.

Crap, that's an issue, though. What if you reveal Ironworks, Duchy, Nobles, in that order? Perhaps the last card should always be discarded/topdecked. Ugh.

[GendoIkari]

Sorry to necro this thread, but it seemed silly to start another thread about the same card.

I've been playing this version of Convocation for a while (eHalcyon had it right!):

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards one at a time until no two of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

It's popular, and pretty comparable to Hunting Party power-wise. It may be a bit too strong. The problem is that nobody can understand what it does until I explain it to them. So I'm trying to make a simpler version. How does this seem?

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal cards from your deck until you've revealed two that share a type. Discard one of those two and put the rest into your hand.

Usually weaker. Occasionally stronger. Do you think it's any easier to parse?

This sounds really weak to me... I'd think it would be pretty common for the top 2 cards of your deck to both be treasure, or both be action... in fact close to 50% of the time in your average deck that hasn't started greening yet. And in that case, this is just a cantrip with no benefit.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry to necro this thread, but it seemed silly to start another thread about the same card.

I've been playing this version of Convocation for a while (eHalcyon had it right!):

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards one at a time until no two of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

It's popular, and pretty comparable to Hunting Party power-wise. It may be a bit too strong. The problem is that nobody can understand what it does until I explain it to them. So I'm trying to make a simpler version. How does this seem?

Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal cards from your deck until you've revealed two that share a type. Discard one of those two and put the rest into your hand.

Usually weaker. Occasionally stronger. Do you think it's any easier to parse?

This sounds really weak to me... I'd think it would be pretty common for the top 2 cards of your deck to both be treasure, or both be action... in fact close to 50% of the time in your average deck that hasn't started greening yet. And in that case, this is just a cantrip with no benefit.

Fair enough. Can anyone think of a better way to word the original card?

EDIT: How about this?

+1Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If all 3 share a type, discard 2 of them. If only 2 share a type, discard one of those 2. Put the rest in your hand.

[qmech]

Fair enough. Can anyone think of a better way to word the original card?

I'm not sure I really believe this suggestion:  "Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.  Choose one Action, one Treasure, and one Victory (or Curse?) from the revealed cards and put them into your hand.  Discard the other revealed cards."

It also changes the intent.

[SirPeebles]

+1Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If all 3 share a type, discard 2 of them. If only 2 share a type, discard one of those 2. Put the rest in your hand.

What happens when the revealed cards are Action, Victory, and Action-Victory?

[LastFootnote]

+1Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If all 3 share a type, discard 2 of them. If only 2 share a type, discard one of those 2. Put the rest in your hand.

What happens when the revealed cards are Action, Victory, and Action-Victory?

Yeah, I realized that after posting. I could do this, I guess.

+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If all 3 share a single type, discard 2 of them. If any 2 share a type, discard one that shares a type. Put the rest in your hand.

Perhaps the necessary wording is too complex to make the card worth doing.

[SirPeebles]

I feel like you might want to just take a different approach that gives roughly the same effect.

"+1 Action.  Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put one Action card in your hand.  Put one Treasure card in your hand.  Put one Victory card in your hand.  Discard the rest."

You may be able to clean up that wording, but something along those lines feels close to original spirit.  I would caution against saying "Put one Action, one Treasure, and one Victory card in your hand; discard the rest." since it is a little ambiguous whether or not choosing Nobles counts as two of the cards or whether it is a loophole that permits drawing a second Action.  I would go for a wording that encourages dual types rather than discouraging them, since dual type synergy is fun.

[LastFootnote]

I feel like you might want to just take a different approach that gives roughly the same effect.

"+1 Action.  Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put one Action card in your hand.  Put one Treasure card in your hand.  Put one Victory card in your hand.  Discard the rest."

You may be able to clean up that wording, but something along those lines feels close to original spirit.  I would caution against saying "Put one Action, one Treasure, and one Victory card in your hand; discard the rest." since it is a little ambiguous whether or not choosing Nobles counts as two of the cards or whether it is a loophole that permits drawing a second Action.  I would go for a wording that encourages dual types rather than discouraging them, since dual type synergy is fun.

I may have to go this direction. Wordy, but simpler. It can't pull Curses into your hand, which is something I liked in the earlier version, but as you say, it does work better with dual types. Probably a good tradeoff there.

Any particular reason your version has 4 cards rather than 3?

[SirPeebles]

I feel like you might want to just take a different approach that gives roughly the same effect.

"+1 Action.  Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put one Action card in your hand.  Put one Treasure card in your hand.  Put one Victory card in your hand.  Discard the rest."

You may be able to clean up that wording, but something along those lines feels close to original spirit.  I would caution against saying "Put one Action, one Treasure, and one Victory card in your hand; discard the rest." since it is a little ambiguous whether or not choosing Nobles counts as two of the cards or whether it is a loophole that permits drawing a second Action.  I would go for a wording that encourages dual types rather than discouraging them, since dual type synergy is fun.

I may have to go this direction. Wordy, but simpler. It can't pull Curses into your hand, which is something I liked in the earlier version, but as you say, it does work better with dual types. Probably a good tradeoff there.

Any particular reason your version has 4 cards rather than 3?

Nah, just to match your original card.  But if you think 3 is better, go with 3.