Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

Since it is worded 'may', you can choose to take nothing

[Jimmmmm]

Right, of course. I missed that bit.

[rinkworks]

Soldiers' Village
$4 - Action
+2 Actions.  When you play this card, you may reveal the top three cards of your deck.  If you do, discard two, put the other one back on top, then, +1 Card.

.
.
.
At the same time, $5 feels too expensive, even with the (dubiously) stronger 4-card version.  I say "feels" rather than "is."  Maybe it's actually fine at $5.  Heck, if it means drawing a Silver instead of a Copper -- which seemed to happen quite often in my testing -- then it's effectively a Bazaar.  Actually it's still better, because you got to skip past the Copper.

Playtesting this a little more, $5 feels more like the right price.  I'd probably almost always buy this in preference to a Bazaar.

One thing that sold me was that it turns out that this is the BEST enabler for Conspirator engines.  The main problem with Conspirator engines is that, since you only get +1 Card for each activated Conspirator, you need a really trim deck.  With Soldiers' Village (villages in general being the best way to kick Conspirator chains off in the first place), you can leap over green cards and treasures and pluck out the next Soldiers' Village or Conspirator, whichever one you need next.  I'm sure it also allows Market and Grand Market decks to be looser, too.

[Jimmmmm]

Soldiers' Village $4

+2 Actions

When you play this card, you may reveal the top three cards of your deck.  If you do, discard two, put the other one back on top, then, +1 Card.

Is there a particular reason this is worded this way? Would "If you do, discard two, put the other one in your hand" be exactly the same but more succinct?

[danshep]

The other consequence of that 'may' wording is that if you only have 1 or 2 cards left in your deck, you cannot retrieve them with soldier's village.

Frankly, I don't think the may wording really belongs on the card, but otherwise I like it as a $5 cost village.

[rinkworks]

I agree with the rewording.  I think just "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck.  Put one of them in your hand and discard the rest." suffices.

[Fangz]

Planner's shack
$3
+1 card
+1 action
You may set aside an action card. Play it automatically at the start of your next turn. This does not consume an action.

[rinkworks]

My brother and I playtested this last night.

Ruined Village
$3 - Action
+1 Card, +1 Action
This may be played in your action phase even if you have no actions remaining.

In effect, it's very similar to a vanilla Village if you change the play order.  Instead of Village->Terminal->Terminal, you'd play Terminal->Ruined Village->Terminal.  It's weaker than Village in that you can't play multiples in a sprawling tree (although by reordering the actions you play, you might be able to get the same effect).  But it's stronger in the sense that it cannot be drawn dead.  For example, if you play a Smithy and draw a Ruined Village, it's perfectly playable.

[chesskidnate]

ruined village is probably worth 4-5 and I like the idea

[Lailoken]

Ruined Village is an interesting idea, but it would be even more interesting if you could only play it when you had no actions left:

Ruined Village
If you have no more actions
+1 Card, +1 Action

I would guess that if you could play Ruined Village any time, not only when you were out of actions, then it would be spammed like crazy because it would give you actions exactly when you needed them.  By limiting it to only when you didn't have any more actions, then it would be a little less powerful.

Alternatively, you could say:

Ruined Village
+1 Card
If you have no more actions
+1 Action

Not sure what kind of card it would be, though—it doesn't make much sense to call it an Action if it doesn't use up an action to play, but then it doesn't make much sense not to call it an action.  Perhaps it could be a reaction (if an extremely unorthodox one) ... you're "reacting" to your lack of actions.

Anyway ... I like your idea!

Another idea would be to have a Peddler-like village, maybe called a Fair, that costs 1$ less for each unused action you have.  So if you ended your turn with 8+ unused actions, you could buy out all the Fairs in one go (assuming you had the buys).  Like Peddler, they would also build on each other, because they would give you +2 actions which you could use to discount your future Fairs.  It would turn the game into a bit of a village fest, though ...

Fair
+1$
+2 actions
Costs $1 less per unused action in this turn.

I think it would be a little too powerful if it were +1 Card, +1$, +2 Actions.

[hoff]

Logging Village
$2 - Action
+3 Actions

[jonts26]

Logging Village
$2 - Action
+3 Actions

I've always thought that a +3 action card would be fun to have (Fishing village not withstanding). I think this would make an interesting card but the problem with a +3 action card, especially one that doesn't give +card, is that the reason to buy +3 actions would be to require fewer of them in your deck than a traditional village, but you would still need just as many or more to ensure you draw them with terminals.

[guided]

I think Logging Village is actually a brilliant idea, though perhaps $3 is the right cost. Needs playtesting. I think Donald once said that +3 actions is one of those "either priceless or worthless" effects, but I'm not sure I agree in the case of a card that does absolutely nothing else.


Here's a somewhat obvious one:

Village Latrine
$0 - Action
+2 Actions
Discard one card.
Village Latrine does not count toward the supply pile limit for ending the game.

[greatexpectations]

re: the logging village idea...

how about making the 3rd action a choice? so, you would get +2 actions, but then you could choose either +1 card or +action.  or perhaps choose between +action this turn or +action next turn.

or for that matter, just make an upgraded pawn that gives you +1 action and then the usual pawn 'choose two'.

[guided]

how about making the 3rd action a choice? so, you would get +2 actions, but then you could choose either +1 card or +action.

Then it would need to cost at least $4. Possibly $5.

I like it at a plain-vanilla +3 Actions, myself, but after more thought I'm entirely convinced it should cost more than $2.

[jonts26]

I like it at a plain-vanilla +3 Actions, myself, but after more thought I'm entirely convinced it should cost more than $2.

I don't see why it would cost more than 2. I won't say it's strictly inferior to fishing village, but it does sort of the same thing but doesn't provide money.

[guided]

I don't see why it would cost more than 2. I won't say it's strictly inferior to fishing village, but it does sort of the same thing but doesn't provide money.

It's unequivocally not "strictly inferior" to Fishing Village. But even putting the word "strictly" aside, consider for example that it's much better than FV at building a draw engine that consistently draws most of the deck - FV provides roughly 2 actions per shuffle in that case instead of 3. In any case, not every $3 card needs to be as good as the best $3 nonterminal in the game And "+3 Actions" is so much better than Native Village as to put it on another cost tier I think.

[Diving Pikachu]

Since Hinterlands has shown us just how unexplored the Reaction mechanic was (and probably still is), these next three villages explore the potential of reactions that aren't focused upon attacks.

Ghost Village $4
(Action-Reaction)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

A Cursing Reaction Village!? Before Hinterlands I could never have conceived of such a wild thing but here it is... As for the price, I am surer than sure that $4 is perfect. Mining Village, Worker's Village, and Walled Village are all marginally better than the vanilla Village, and have the same price. Young Witch and Sea Hag are both $4 cursers with severe drawbacks too. I wonder, though, if the discarding mechanic is too situational to be the this-is-why-this-village-costs-4 gimmick. As for Ghost Village's interaction with Militia and Torturer, I hope that this card's opportunistic cursing doesn't scare players off too badly from using those attacks, because those attacks remain strong and detrimental to the Ghost Village user. Plus, the player cursing with Ghost Village has to lose an entire village in the process!
***


High Street or Market Street $4
(Action-Reaction)
+1 card
+2 Actions
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal and discard it. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2

So, this village can turn into a non-terminal Woodcutter that you don't have to worry about drawing dead. Is that too powerful for $4? The fact that this is a village means that you'd probably have actions to spare anyways. It works well with most draw cards (and Walled Village, OMG), but clashes with Minion, Watchtower, and cards that need you to discard. It stays a regular village when you try using it with KC, TR, and Golem, as well. Anyways, at first I actually wanted to name this Cathedral, because I had in mind the ancient Roman ruins and aqueducts that Medieval folk would often cannibalize for stones to build their own structures... So.. if you don't use the Cathedral, you can recycle the stone masonry for something else... Okay, now, it doesn't sound as fitting anymore... O.o
***


Gypsie Camp $5
(Action-Reaction)
+2 Actions
Name 1 card before revealing the top 4 cards of your deck. You may put one revealed copy of the named card into your hand, if you find any. You may discard one revealed card as well. Put the remaining cards on top of your deck in any order. Either shuffle the remaining cards into your deck, or discard them.
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

So, this card's reaction is kinda a bit like both of the previous ones'. It curses, but only when you keep it until the Buy Phase. It's much more reliable of a curser than Ghost Village, which demands a higher price. So to make it a $5 village, I have it draw its one card with sort of a Navigating Wishing Well effect. Is it too hard to use? Should more cards be revealed? Should it always give you at least one card, even if you guess wrong? I dunno, really.
***

[Diving Pikachu]

Planner's shack
$3
+1 card
+1 action
You may set aside an action card. Play it automatically at the start of your next turn. This does not consume an action.

This is so enticing, and it seems fair when compared with Fishing Village, but it would make a Tactician deck unstoppable.

[jonts26]

How so? You certainly wouldnt want to set a tactician aside. Starting my turn by discarding my hand doesn't sound very enticing.

[Davio]

How so? You certainly wouldnt want to set a tactician aside. Starting my turn by discarding my hand doesn't sound very enticing.

I think he means: Play this, set aside preferred action card for next turn, play Tactician.
Next turn: Play preferred action card, still having (up to) 10 cards, 2 Actions and 2 Buys.

This could "save" some hands in which Tactician collides with a juicy terminal, but then you'd also need to have this in hand. It could also be done the other way around, if you'd want to deal out that last Curse and play Tactician the next hand automatically.

I think it could be very nifty with Tournament. If you have multiple in hand and no Province, but your opponent does, so the rest doesn't have any effect, just set them aside.

[Titandrake]

Here's a card I came up with recently. Hopefully it's not a repeat.

Hidden Village
Cost: $4
+1 Card
Reveal your hand. +1 Action for each action card in your hand.

Rewards heavy action density, when used in multiples you get an obscenely high amount of actions. I wouldn't be surprised if optimal strategy was to pick up a decent number of these and just buy pure actions, forgoing money as much as possible. Overlaps with scrying pool a lot.

[rinkworks]

Ghost Village $4
(Action-Reaction)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

Slick.  Unfortunately, I haven't played with Tunnel yet, so I'm still not sure how that particular Reaction point plays.  Seems like this ought to work, but whether $4 is the right price point or not, I don't know.  Maybe it is, since if you're discarding it for any reason, that (usually) means you're not playing it and also reaping the Village effect.  Plus, obviously in many situations it will be difficult or impractical or maybe even impossible to activate its cursing effect.

Tunnel is a good lesson here, I suppose.  2 VP for a $3 card is already a great deal, and somehow the fact that it gains Gold doesn't increase the price, like, at all.  So maybe something as strong as a cursing attack shouldn't raise the price of a Village much when it's tied to the same mechanic.

As a side-note, it's interesting to me that you could use this multiple times per turn.  With multiple plays of a digging card (Hunting Party, Adventurer, Golem) that can't find what it's looking for, you could activate the same Ghost Village over and over again.  Lots of Cellars in a thin deck could do that too.  (This is enough of an edge case that it probably shouldn't change the cost any -- I'm just making the observation.)

High Street or Market Street $4
(Action-Reaction)
+1 card
+2 Actions
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal it. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2

This feels like one of those cards where it's easy to reason it out to a $4 price point, but then playtesting makes it clear it should be $5.  I'm not saying that this is definitely one of those cards, but I've had that happen to me before, particularly in cases where the true hidden power of the card is not in any individual thing it does but in its versatility.  This card is either a Village or a Woodcutter, but the fact that you can make it either one, depending on what you need, feels pretty powerful.

One suggestion:  I'd change "reveal" to "discard," to prevent any confusion over whether a player may reveal it any arbitrary number of times (the usual rule for reaction cards) and get the Woodcutter bonus each time.  This is particularly an issue if someone is holding multiple copies of the card in his hand at the time -- is he revealing multiples, or the same one multiple times?  With a discard instead of a reveal, the confusion goes away.

Lastly, although it's a good observation that it isn't great with Minion and the other cards you mention, I guess it's not really any different than Minion skipping by your Treasure cards.   Since this is basically a Treasure card if you don't use its Village powers, that seems apt.  But I greatly prefer the way you've constructed this card to the Action-Treasure hybrid of many fan cards.  (Your card is roughly equivalent to an Action-Treasure card reading: "If you play this as an Action, +1 Card, +2 Actions.  If you play this as a Treasure, +1 Buy, +$2.")  I'm not completely sure why Action-Treasure feels wrong to me, but it does.

Gypsie Camp $5
(Action-Reaction)
+2 Actions
Name 1 card before revealing the top 4 cards of your deck. You may put one revealed copy of the named card into your hand, if you find any. You may discard one revealed card as well. Put the remaining cards on top of your deck in any order.
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

A bit too complicated for my taste, but I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.  My fear is that it's undercosted.  With a choice of 4 cards, you'll probably guess one right, and there will also almost always be one you want to discard.  So you get some cycling, some top-deck-ordering, usually replace the card in your hand, AND the option to dispense with all that and curse instead?  Maybe $5 is still fine, but there's enough going on here that I can't really anticipate it.

If this were my card, though, I'd want to simplify it a bit and boil the card down to its basic essence.  (Unless there's some synergy between the different components I'm not seeing.)  Maybe make it a $4 Village, get rid of the cursing, and pick either cycling or top-decking but not both.  That seems like a decent Wishing Well/Village cross.  Alternately, if you wanted to keep both the cycling and top-decking, do it in a more structured way, like mandatorily discarding one card and top-decking the rest.  I realize it's not usually a great game design idea to remove choices from the player, but this card is so flexible already that imposing some constraints might improve the card.

By the way...

Should it always give you at least one card, even if you guess wrong? I dunno, really.

...if you go this route, note how unexpectedly powerful a simple Village+cycling combo is.

[Diving Pikachu]

One suggestion:  I'd change "reveal" to "discard," to prevent any confusion over whether a player may reveal it any arbitrary number of times (the usual rule for reaction cards) and get the Woodcutter bonus each time.  This is particularly an issue if someone is holding multiple copies of the card in his hand at the time -- is he revealing multiples, or the same one multiple times?  With a discard instead of a reveal, the confusion goes away.

I had meant to write "reveal and discard". That it was otherwise is just a gross oversight on my part.

Lastly, although it's a good observation that it isn't great with Minion and the other cards you mention, I guess it's not really any different than Minion skipping by your Treasure cards.   Since this is basically a Treasure card if you don't use its Village powers, that seems apt.  But I greatly prefer the way you've constructed this card to the Action-Treasure hybrid of many fan cards.  (Your card is roughly equivalent to an Action-Treasure card reading: "If you play this as an Action, +1 Card, +2 Actions.  If you play this as a Treasure, +1 Buy, +$2.")  I'm not completely sure why Action-Treasure feels wrong to me, but it does.

I hadn't realized that the reaction was essentially a treasure. I was only thinking of it as a non-terminal. But I agree with you that Action-Treasure cards just seems like a line not to ever cross. It's a bit aesthetically displeasing to have the two main resources of the game be stuck onto one card.

A bit too complicated for my taste, but I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.  My fear is that it's undercosted.  With a choice of 4 cards, you'll probably guess one right, and there will also almost always be one you want to discard.  So you get some cycling, some top-deck-ordering, usually replace the card in your hand, AND the option to dispense with all that and curse instead?  Maybe $5 is still fine, but there's enough going on here that I can't really anticipate it.

My reasoning was this: the guess-one-of-four could be difficult to use with black market or the variety-dependent cornucopia cards, and in effect discourage all but spammers to use it. It could also encourage counting (which not all people can do quickly enough), or freezing up when trying to even guesstimate how much of what is left in the deck. Therefore the discard-one and deck-ordering portions were to give an aspect of the card where it's much easier to make the optimal decision and not slow down the game.

If this were my card, though, I'd want to simplify it a bit and boil the card down to its basic essence.  (Unless there's some synergy between the different components I'm not seeing.)  Maybe make it a $4 Village, get rid of the cursing, and pick either cycling or top-decking but not both.  That seems like a decent Wishing Well/Village cross.  Alternately, if you wanted to keep both the cycling and top-decking, do it in a more structured way, like mandatorily discarding one card and top-decking the rest.  I realize it's not usually a great game design idea to remove choices from the player, but this card is so flexible already that imposing some constraints might improve the card.

Since I'm getting into a lot of unexplored territory with these three cards, perhaps I crammed too many ideas into too few cards... I wonder if these reactions could be better attached to some different actions... As for Gypsie Camp being all over the place and giving too much control, perhaps I can make it this:

Gypsie Camp $5
(Action-Reaction)
+2 Actions
Name 1 card before revealing the top 4 cards of your deck. You may put one revealed copy of the named card into your hand, if you find any. Either shuffle the remaining cards into your deck or discard them.
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

[rinkworks]

Gypsie Camp $5
(Action-Reaction)
+2 Actions
Name 1 card before revealing the top 4 cards of your deck. You may put one revealed copy of the named card into your hand, if you find any. Either shuffle the remaining cards into your deck or discard them.
If you start your Buy Phase with this card in your hand, you may reveal it. If you do, each other player gains a Curse card.

I think I like top-decking better than shuffling, just for the manual labor.  But although that re-introduces some decision-making, I think it reads a lot clearer now.  Toss them all, or put them all back.  Simple.  Kind of like Navigator, I guess.