Print

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

[pst]

Sure we like choices and options, but I have some untested ideas about cards that force you to do stuff or restrict your options.

Shopaholic

One is a card giving +3 Buys but with the restriction that when when you have it in play you have to keep buying cards as long as there are cards you are allowed to buy. (So in normal cases you'd keep buying Copper once you're out of coins. Watch out for having Copper Contrabanded! Or Embargoed!)

Of course it's good when you actually want Copper, but otherwise it's supposed to be a mixed blessing. I don't think the drawback would be enough to be interesting with "only" +2 Buys.

Stash like cards

There could be more cards like Stash, that you can recognize from both sides, and that you may put where you want when shuffling. That everyone knows when they are in your hand opens up some new possibilities. Here are three:

Easy Come, Easy Go
Action/Victory (4 VP)
Action: Trash this card.
If you have a <card name> in your hand when you are allowed to play an action you have to play it immediately.

Extra VP to be bought at the end, but that you have to be very cautious about. Do you dare to buy it before your last shuffle?

Not only do you lose your precious victory card, but also the opportunity to play another action. Other bad actions could be considered, like gaining a Curse.

Colliding Worlds
Action
Action: (something awesome, but:)
"You are not allowed to play this from your hand if you have more than one of them in your hand".

This could have a really good action, since you can only handle a few of them in your deck anyway. You'll have to space them out with enough distance when shuffling. I added "from your hand" so Golem isn't a problem, but I don't know how to word this so it's clear what would happen if you play Throne Room from TR + 2×this card.

(A clearer but more complicated restriction that is similar enough would be "if you don't have an action card in play you may not play this if you have more than one of them in your hand".)

Discard Me
Action/Attack
Action: +$3. Each other player discards 1 card
(or something else; the important is that this card itself should be a discarding attack)
"If you have this in your hand when you may discard a card you must discard this if possible."

Not only when you have to discard, but any time you may, so when you're Tortured you can't choose the Curse if you have this in your hand, for instance, and you must discard when opponents are Vaulting. The interesting stuff is supposed to happen in combination with other cards that are about discarding, but of course it has to be a discarding attack itself, so that its special ability always is relevant.

It should be good enough so that it hurts when you thus aren't allowed to play it. (This card against itself will be a little like when your opponent Hags your own Hag.)

[qmech]

Interesting suggestions.

A Shopaholic would sometimes be very strong, with the right kind of engine and no other source of Buy.  It would take along time to get to the point where you could productively use 4 Buys if there were no other sources, so the benefit could probably be relaxed to +2 Buys without it being too strong.  If there were other sources of Buys then Shopaholic would have to have serious other advantages to make it attractive.

A general problem with the alternate backs if you want to make physical cards: once you can identify cards from both sides it becomes more difficult to shuffle fairly.

Easy Come, Easy Go might be swingy, but has enough tactical considerations to keep it viable.  For Colliding Worlds wording you could try "Reveal your hand.  If you did not reveal a Colliding Worlds...".  Or variations mimicking other mechanisms, such as Cutpurse/Bureaucrat: "Discard a Colliding Worlds (or reveal a hand with no Colliding Worlds). ..."  If the action was too strong then you might just buy one and accept that that's your lot (which is a valid part of the strategy space that this card opens up).  You point out that Discard Me has a built in Hag-on-Hag: is this a good thing?  I'd also stay away from mandatory discards (although that was only an example).

[pst]

Thanks for your comments!

A Shopaholic would sometimes be very strong, with the right kind of engine and no other source of Buy.  It would take along time to get to the point where you could productively use 4 Buys if there were no other sources, so the benefit could probably be relaxed to +2 Buys without it being too strong.  If there were other sources of Buys then Shopaholic would have to have serious other advantages to make it attractive.

I guess you're right about +2 Buys being enough. And I hadn't thought about it easily becoming uninteresting if there is another source of +Buys. Not sure what to do about that.

A general problem with the alternate backs if you want to make physical cards: once you can identify cards from both sides it becomes more difficult to shuffle fairly.

They'd all be like Stash in that you may place them where you want when shuffling. That's not so fun with Easy Come, Easy Go, since you'd probably put them together (at the bottom of your deck).

For Colliding Worlds wording you could try "Reveal your hand.  If you did not reveal a Colliding Worlds...".

Yes, that makes it easier that you are allowed to play it. It's just that the good stuff doesn't happen. If it has the Stash propery you wouldn't have to reveal your hand since everyone can see if you have it, and it could be just "Action: If you don't have a CW in your hand <good stuff happens>."
Then I don't really like it that if you play Village from Village+CW it doesn't get very much worse if you draw a CW. Then you'd just play it once without effect and then play it with effect.

So now I think it should have a negative effect when it doesn't have a positive effect. Probably the Stash idea isn't very good here, and it's better with the reveal mechanism, so

Action: Reveal your hand. If you have a CW bad stuff happens. Otherwise good stuff happens.

You point out that Discard Me has a built in Hag-on-Hag: is this a good thing?

I think it could be fun in a frustrating way. Ah, now I've drawn the good card. Hope I get to play it this time! Arrrghh, no, I had to discard it again! (Good drawing makes it much better so you increase the chance of getting it in your hand during your turn.)

I'd also stay away from mandatory discards (although that was only an example).

Right. It could be any optional discard, since those with Discard Me in their hands would be forced to discard it then anyway. Like "Your opponents must discard one card or gain a Copper".

[qmech]

Not sure how I missed that you're free to manipulate the shuffle.  As you say, that changes how Easy Come, Easy Go plays, but maybe not in a bad way (it just rewards more precise estimation of when the game will end).

Yes, for Colliding Worlds I was thinking about alternatives that wouldn't need the identifiable backs.  Again, if you can choose where to put them when you shuffle it would play very differently from how I imagined, and you could easily handle more of them that if they were being distributed at random.

I think it could be fun in a frustrating way. Ah, now I've drawn the good card. Hope I get to play it this time! Arrrghh, no, I had to discard it again!

Have you ever played with Possession?

[pst]

Again, if you can choose where to put them when you shuffle it would play very differently from how I imagined, and you could easily handle more of them that if they were being distributed at random.

Absolutely. The origin of the idea was "what else could you use identifiable cards for", but it could be done without. One reasons against it is that it could take too much time to spread them out exactly as you want when shuffling.

I think it could be fun in a frustrating way. Ah, now I've drawn the good card. Hope I get to play it this time! Arrrghh, no, I had to discard it again!

Have you ever played with Possession?
[/quote]

Yes, isn't it fun? :-)
But I don't think it would be as frustrating as Possession.

[eHalcyon]

An interesting variant you could try is to have a single copy of each kingdom card that has a different backing, allowing you to use it as with a Stash effect.  You can do this by including the randomizers, which have a different back border colour.  I'm not sure how differently this would play it... I suppose you would probably just put the card on top every reshuffle.

[pst]

... a single copy of each kingdom card that has ...

Generally I think there's room for new kinds of cards where not all cards are the same:

• An action card that has one card being less powerful than the others on the top. Would you get it if you think your opponent will get the better card under it then?
• A victory card where the top cards are worth more. Would you green a little earlier?
• Some card with identical text but different digits 0-9 used as some kind of priority
• Cards with versions that complement each other in some way. Maybe the top four cards are cursing attacks, but the rest in the pile is some other kind of attack (so you still want it after the curses are gone), and that attack could be fueled by curses so you may trash a curse when you play it and that will make the attack stronger.
  
• ...

Note that Horn of Plenty and Fairgrounds talk about "differently named cards", so such a card wouldn't be a super enabler for those. (Menagerie and Hunting Party on the other hand talk about "duplicate cards".)

[theory]

... a single copy of each kingdom card that has ...

Generally I think there's room for new kinds of cards where not all cards are the same:

• An action card that has one card being less powerful than the others on the top. Would you get it if you think your opponent will get the better card under it then?
• A victory card where the top cards are worth more. Would you green a little earlier?
• Some card with identical text but different digits 0-9 used as some kind of priority
• Cards with versions that complement each other in some way. Maybe the top four cards are cursing attacks, but the rest in the pile is some other kind of attack (so you still want it after the curses are gone), and that attack could be fueled by curses so you may trash a curse when you play it and that will make the attack stronger.
  
• ...

Note that Horn of Plenty and Fairgrounds talk about "differently named cards", so such a card wouldn't be a super enabler for those. (Menagerie and Hunting Party on the other hand talk about "duplicate cards".)

These are some very interesting ideas.

[pokeman7452]

... a single copy of each kingdom card that has ...

Generally I think there's room for new kinds of cards where not all cards are the same:

• An action card that has one card being less powerful than the others on the top. Would you get it if you think your opponent will get the better card under it then?
• A victory card where the top cards are worth more. Would you green a little earlier?
• Some card with identical text but different digits 0-9 used as some kind of priority
• Cards with versions that complement each other in some way. Maybe the top four cards are cursing attacks, but the rest in the pile is some other kind of attack (so you still want it after the curses are gone), and that attack could be fueled by curses so you may trash a curse when you play it and that will make the attack stronger.
  
• ...

Note that Horn of Plenty and Fairgrounds talk about "differently named cards", so such a card wouldn't be a super enabler for those. (Menagerie and Hunting Party on the other hand talk about "duplicate cards".)

These are some very interesting ideas.

Indeed, a whole new class of "Variable" type cards. What color should they be? I think red is the only card color left. I need to work on a "Victory - Variable" template.