Print

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

[gman314]

Margrave is very much like playing both Council Room and Militia on the same turn. If you play village, Council Room and Militia, you'll be at 7 cards, your opponents will all have 3 cards from a choice of 6, you'll have two buys and you'll have +$2. If you play Margrave instead, you'll have 7 cards and two buys and your opponents will all have 3 cards from a choice of 6.

So, I've come up with a card which combines Council Room and Ghost ship in a similar way. You end up with (almost) the same hand size as if you played village, Council Room, Ghost ship and your opponents end with the same damage done, but the penalty is not getting Ghost ship's +2 cards. So, the card would be:

+3 cards
+1 buy
each other player draws a card and then places cards on top of their deck until they only have 3 cards in hand.

This is strictly better than Ghost ship, but what would be a good price point? $6, or $7?

[heron]

I really don't like this card.

But that's mainly because I don't like ghost ship.
However, a major complaint I have is that it is too similar to ghost ship: It's like ghost ship, with +1 Card +1 Buy.
The fact that your opponents draw a card doesn't really matter; it's like half of a secret chamber reaction.
I mean, do you really want draw a card just to put it back on your deck?
Margrave is significantly different that militia because it has majorly different vanilla bonuses and also, that card that you drew can be discarded.

In short, drawing a single card beforehand doesn't significantly weaken a ghost ship attack.

However, if you're determined to make this card a reality, I would price it at 7.

[eHalcyon]

Something pretty neat about Margrave is that it doesn't stack well.  If you play KC-Margrave, you're giving your opponent the best 3 cards out of 8, and that might mean a Gold-Gold-Silver province buy or giving them a better chance of lining up engine components.  That doesn't happen with a Ghost Ship variant.

[werothegreat]

Now this is just silly.  If you chain this, your opponent will just be picking up and putting back the same card from and onto their deck several times.  That doesn't do anything except cause exercise.

[eHalcyon]

Now this is just silly.  If you chain this, your opponent will just be picking up and putting back the same card from and onto their deck several times.  That doesn't do anything except cause exercise.

They might change their mind. 

[rinkworks]

The thing about Margrave's attack allowing a card draw is that it provides opponents with an opportunity to filter/cycle, which mitigates the attack.  That same feature on a Ghost Ship card won't typically provide much benefit at all, if any.  On occasion, sure, but usually it'll just mean one more card to put back, more AP, and no different outcome from the attack had it not had the card draw.  On Margrave, it's always different, because opponents cycle a weak card.

I think the card would have to be priced around $8, since adding a card onto an existing card (Ghost Ship, in this case) would typically boost the cost by about $3.  You could get away with $7, except that you're also adding a buy -- which is often a throwaway feature on a card but less so on one that also provides you with a lot of extra resources with which to make use of that buy.  The extra card draw is probably irrelevant insofar as the price is concerned.

[yudantaiteki]

Maybe if they get to discard one and put the rest back it might be a little less powerful?

[popsofctown]

Then it's too much like Margrave.

This concept is hard to salvage.

[gman314]

Good point about the stacking. It was just an idea for a combination of concepts without any real thought put into it. Maybe a clause like that on Sea Hag which discards the top card(s) could make stacking provide more than exercise.

[popsofctown]

I thought of this too, the trick is a non-wordy phrasing for it.

[gman314]

Yeah. It's turned into a very wordy card very quickly.