Print

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

[Morgrim7]

<Cardname>
$3 5
+$2
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, you may gain a card costing one more instead. After the gained card is placed in the discard pile, return this to your hand.

[HiveMindEmulator]

These stack too well since you aren't required to use actions to get the Bridge effect. If it works at all, it would have to cost $5.

[dondon151]

In the spirit of Trader, the wording should be "When you would gain a card."

[Qvist]

These stack too well since you aren't required to use actions to get the Bridge effect. If it works at all, it would have to cost $5.

I don't agree. This is almost strictly inferior than Highway. 5 Highways in hand. I play them all and have 5 new cards in hand. All cards cost $5 less.
I have 5 [Card]s in hand. I play none, but all cards cost $5 less. So this is basically "+1 Action While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0." It's missing the +1 Card from Highway. Yes, I can play one of this cards to get +2$, so I can get a Gold with 5 [Card]s, but that doesn't make it better. The only benefit over Highway is that you have a defense against many attacks (trash curses and coppers, get better cards against Swindler/Saboteur). But still I think, this shouldn't cost more than $4.

BTW: I really like the card Morgrim.

PS: What is if I have Royal Seal in play or a Watchtower in hand and put the gained card on top of the deck? The last sentence should be rewritten, but I don't know how to change "After the gained card is placed in the discard pile".

PPS: And it should read: "costing exactly 1$ more than it instead."

PPPS: If there's no card for $7 and I buy a Gold and have 2 [Card]s in hand, I cannot gain a Province, right? This makes it even worse.

[FishingVillage]

PS: What is if I have Royal Seal in play or a Watchtower in hand and put the gained card on top of the deck? The last sentence should be rewritten, but I don't know how to change "After the gained card is placed in the discard pile".

What if I reveal a Trader to get a Silver instead? The gained card on [this card] is never referencing the Silver from Trader I think, so [this card]… never comes back?

It might be better to just let it come back to hand at the start of the next turn, though this means it can't be used for more than one instance of gaining, which makes it weaker (but is less of a rules nightmare (and gaining something else can be a big deal (and Horse Traders' reaction is one use only but is apparently pretty good at just +1 Card (and I think this is better)))).

But yeah I hope it allows going into a price range with no existing card, even if I won't gain anything. That way I can "gain" $1 cards instead of Curses.

[Grujah]

Some kinda-broken combos.

Clearing Border Village in one turn:
Grujah buys a Border Village.
... gaining a Torturer.
... Grujah reveals a <Morgrim>
...... gaining a Border Villliage instead. (this goes to discard, <Morgrim gets returned>)
.........gaining a Torturer.
.........Grujah reveals a <Morgrim>
.............gaining a Border Villliage instead.

Etc.

Even worse with Cache. You need a Trader and two <Morgrim>s in hand.

Buy a Cache.
Get 2 coppers, Reveal trader, make em both Silvers.
Reveal <Morgrim> on one silver to get a 4, than again to get a non-Cache $5. This goes to discard, <Morgrim>s back in hand.
You reveal two times again to turn Silver into Cache. Cache goes to discard, <Morgrim>s back in hand. Two coppers on a way.
Repeat!

Similar IGG thing could be made.

 

[FishingVillage]

Some kinda-broken combos.

Clearing Border Village in one turn:
Grujah buys a Border Village.
... gaining a Torturer.
... Grujah reveals a <Morgrim>
...... gaining a Border Villliage instead. (this goes to discard, <Morgrim gets returned>)
.........gaining a Torturer.
.........Grujah reveals a <Morgrim>
.............gaining a Border Villliage instead.

Etc.

Even worse with Cache. You need a Trader and two <Morgrim>s in hand.

Buy a Cache.
Get 2 coppers, Reveal trader, make em both Silvers.
Reveal <Morgrim> on one silver to get a 4, than again to get a non-Cache $5. This goes to discard, <Morgrim>s back in hand.
You reveal two times again to turn Silver into Cache. Cache goes to discard, <Morgrim>s back in hand. Two coppers on a way.
Repeat!

Similar IGG thing could be made.

 

Yeah just by these two examples I think it should be reworded to only return next turn, not after each instance of gaining is complete. This and Haggler could be funny to see in action.

[Schneau]

I created a card with very similar basic idea a while back:

Sorcerer
$4 - Action-Attack-Reaction
Each other player gains a Curse card.
--
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, set this card on the table with the card you would gain on top of it. If you wish, you may then gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card on top of this card. After gaining (or not) the other card, return this card to your hand and the one on top of it to the supply.

I think this has the same basic meaning as Morgrim's wording, though it makes it more obvious that you can get rid of Curses but not gain something costing $2 by revealing 2 of these. I came up with mine before Hinterlands came out, but I agree that it will have issues with Border Village and Cache. I don't see an immediate solution.

[Qvist]

Hand: Silver, 3x <Morgrim>

Play Silver, Buy Duchess, Gain Duchy instead, gain Duchess, gain Duchy instead, ..., gain Duchess, gain Duke instead. Nice: 8x Duchies and 1x Duke

[Morgrim7]

Would this fix it?
When you are about to gain a card, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, everything costs $1 less.

[Grujah]

Would this fix it?
When you are about to gain a card, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, everything costs $1 less.

Everything costs 1 less for how long?

[Morgrim7]

Would this fix it?
When you are about to gain a card, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, everything costs $1 less.

Everything costs 1 less for how long?

Until the end of your turn.

[razorborne]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

[Morgrim7]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

Then maybe "At the beginning of you turn, you may reveal this. If you do, all cards cost $1 less until the end of your turn."

[Titandrake]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

Then maybe "At the beginning of you turn, you may reveal this. If you do, all cards cost $1 less until the end of your turn."

Hm. This does remove the reaction ability though, so it's not quite the same card. It is simpler though.

[Morgrim7]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

Then maybe "At the beginning of you turn, you may reveal this. If you do, all cards cost $1 less until the end of your turn."

Hm. This does remove the reaction ability though, so it's not quite the same card. It is simpler though.

Yes it is a reaction. It just reacts to the beginning of your turn.

[Titandrake]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

Then maybe "At the beginning of you turn, you may reveal this. If you do, all cards cost $1 less until the end of your turn."

Hm. This does remove the reaction ability though, so it's not quite the same card. It is simpler though.

Yes it is a reaction. It just reacts to the beginning of your turn.

I meant the reaction on an opponent's turn. My interpretation was that when you would gain a Curse, you would gain a card costing exactly $1 instead, but no such card exists, so you don't gain anything. Or if it was up to $1 more instead of exactly $1 more, then you gain a Copper, which is still better.

[Morgrim7]

I don't think that'll trigger in time to change the card you're getting. also really bad as a reaction to your opponent's attacks, since it gives them a free bridge. just have it do the original thing, but only come back at the start of your next turn. or discard it, whichever.

Then maybe "At the beginning of you turn, you may reveal this. If you do, all cards cost $1 less until the end of your turn."

Hm. This does remove the reaction ability though, so it's not quite the same card. It is simpler though.

Yes it is a reaction. It just reacts to the beginning of your turn.

I meant the reaction on an opponent's turn. My interpretation was that when you would gain a Curse, you would gain a card costing exactly $1 instead, but no such card exists, so you don't gain anything. Or if it was up to $1 more instead of exactly $1 more, then you gain a Copper, which is still better.

Then maybe: "At the start of your turn, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, everything costs one less until the end of your turn. During your opponents turn, when you would gain something, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, you may gain a card costing exactly one more instead. At the start of your turn, return this to you hand."
I was also thinking of this: "…return this to your hand and +1 Buy."

[razorborne]

why do you want to make everything cost less instead of just the replacement gain? it would work much smoother that way, and would work as a defense as well as just an attack.

[Morgrim7]

why do you want to make everything cost less instead of just the replacement gain? it would work much smoother that way, and would work as a defense as well as just an attack.

Read the thread.

[razorborne]

why do you want to make everything cost less instead of just the replacement gain? it would work much smoother that way, and would work as a defense as well as just an attack.

Read the thread.

you mean the continuous revealing thing? that can be solved by setting it aside until your next turn instead of returning it right away. or by discarding it. I addressed that in my last post, I'm not sure why you thought I missed it. also, your current version needs that anyway, since otherwise you can keep revealing it over and over to make everything cost 0.

When you would gain a card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a card costing up to $1 more, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

based off an amalgamation of Trader and Horse Traders' wordings. I went with "up to" in that example so you couldn't negate a curse entirely, just shift it to a copper. but you can change that if you want.

[Morgrim7]

why do you want to make everything cost less instead of just the replacement gain? it would work much smoother that way, and would work as a defense as well as just an attack.

Read the thread.

you mean the continuous revealing thing? that can be solved by setting it aside until your next turn instead of returning it right away. or by discarding it. I addressed that in my last post, I'm not sure why you thought I missed it. also, your current version needs that anyway, since otherwise you can keep revealing it over and over to make everything cost 0.

When you would gain a card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a card costing up to $1 more, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand.

based off an amalgamation of Trader and Horse Traders' wordings. I went with "up to" in that example so you couldn't negate a curse entirely, just shift it to a copper. but you can change that if you want.

I like that. A lot.

[razorborne]

actually, slight problem with that wording. if you use it in response to an opponent's attack it'll work fine, coming back and letting you use it as normal. but if you use it during your turn, you set it aside, then it comes back on your next turn. it's pretty much a bridge that lasts forever and costs no actions. with that in mind, it's a simple fix:


When you would gain a card, you may discard this. If you do, instead, gain a card costing up to $1 more.

switching to a discard model lets you only use it once per draw, which makes it weak when used on your turn (equivalent to a copper but slightly more limiting) but it's still strong against things like Ambassador, Swindler, and Saboteur, or alongside things like Workshop, Ironworks, or Feast.

[Morgrim7]

actually, slight problem with that wording. if you use it in response to an opponent's attack it'll work fine, coming back and letting you use it as normal. but if you use it during your turn, you set it aside, then it comes back on your next turn. it's pretty much a bridge that lasts forever and costs no actions. with that in mind, it's a simple fix:


When you would gain a card, you may discard this. If you do, instead, gain a card costing up to $1 more.

switching to a discard model lets you only use it once per draw, which makes it weak when used on your turn (equivalent to a copper but slightly more limiting) but it's still strong against things like Ambassador, Swindler, and Saboteur, or alongside things like Workshop, Ironworks, or Feast.

Oh, wait. I want to be able to reveal it more than once per turn.

[razorborne]

that leads to the problem with the border villages, among other things. there's just no way to avoid that without a million words.

the bridge option lets you do that (effectively) but is much less interesting because it can't interact with opponents' stuff. but a reaction that functions differently based on whether it's in your starting hand or you draw it later is a neat idea.