Print

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

[Grujah]

As this cannot go to rinkwork's contest:
(maybe not even a new idea..?)

Illicit Goods
$3 Action
+2$
----------------------
Setup: Add an additional kingdom card pile costing $5 or more.
You cannot gain cards from that pile unless you have a Illicit Goods card in play.

[zahlman]

Gray Market? This seems like it'd be worse than Black Market most of the time. You can't manipulate the extra buy phase, and you only have one card to choose from. On the up side, it's fairly guaranteed to be a good one...

[ChocophileBenj]

Like Young witch, it really depends of the added card : strong if it is mountebank, weak if it is explorer.

If the added "forbidden" card is an $5 action, and what about gaining the card. Can you remodel a silver into a <forbidden card> or gain it from university ?

And talking about mountebank as the added card (also works with witch and somewhat ill-gotten gains), it leads a bit to the same problem as familliar : you need $3 plus a specific card to buy it (EDIT : when the forbidden card costs $5, so in most of the cases), so the probability of getting it or not is the same, and there are already a graat luck factor on getting $3P on turns 3-4 when familiars...
Otherwise, if it is a good non-cursing card (h.party, festival, goons), I'm afraid it could lead to kinda slow games.

But it's still a better and more interesting idea than this damn black market. The concept is good !!!

[Grujah]

Changed to gain.

My idea was this: You need to decide if $5+ is vital enough to justify buying a otherwise crappy terminal. With wharf - is it? Like, you will be drawing it dead and you'll be slow to gain wharves. But if wharf actually has a good support like FV? Well.. Probably.



Maybe add +1 Buy and make it a 4 to be somewhat useful if you get a crap $5+.

[Archetype]

Cool idea, I really like it. Reminds me of that "Glided" card idea from a while ago

Its like BM except your choices are much more focused.

It can, like Benji said, be very swingy, depnding on the chosen card, but it isnt as swingy as some other actual cards  so I think you are fine.

To make it so that the chosen card isnt always bad, do what the Glode card did and have the option of playing it as a Gold.

[jonts26]

So the wording is very vague. Do you mean to say that the bonus card is only available for purchase if illicit goods is in play, or that while illicit goods is in play, you can only buy from the bonus card pile. I would guess the former as the latter would be stupid.

[zahlman]

The card gives you +$2 unconditionally, and also grants the right to gain from the 'illicit' pile.

[Grujah]

Cool idea, I really like it. Reminds me of that "Glided" card idea from a while ago

Its like BM except your choices are much more focused.

It can, like Benji said, be very swingy, depnding on the chosen card, but it isnt as swingy as some other actual cards  so I think you are fine.

To make it so that the chosen card isnt always bad, do what the Glode card did and have the option of playing it as a Gold.

You mean like:
choose one (+3$) or
(+2 and you can gain cards from Illicit Pile)
?

Dunno. Don't really like it. Compare it with Mandarin.., it is stronger than Mandarin.

[Grujah]

So the wording is very vague. Do you mean to say that the bonus card is only available for purchase if illicit goods is in play, or that while illicit goods is in play, you can only buy from the bonus card pile. I would guess the former as the latter would be stupid.

the former. Reworded.

[Archetype]

Cool idea, I really like it. Reminds me of that "Glided" card idea from a while ago

Its like BM except your choices are much more focused.

It can, like Benji said, be very swingy, depnding on the chosen card, but it isnt as swingy as some other actual cards  so I think you are fine.

To make it so that the chosen card isnt always bad, do what the Glode card did and have the option of playing it as a

You mean like:
choose one (+3$) or
(+2 and you can gain cards from Illicit Pile)
?



Dunno. Don't really like it. Compare it with Mandarin.., it is stronger than Mandarin.

Illicit Goods
Cost:4
+2$
.         
Setup: Add an additional kingdom card pile that costs 5 or more.
You can only gain cards from that pile if this card is in play.
Cards from that pile can either be played normally or as a treasure worth 3$

[AJD]

How does this interact with Jester?

("Unless you have this card in play" isn't quite right; you could have a different copy of Illicit Goods in play, not necessarily this card.)

[jonts26]

I would imagine if jester flipped the extra card and tried to gain it himself, it would just fail and no one would gain anything. Just like if the pile was empty, you can't gain what you aren't allowed to.

The exception being if the player played illicit goods and then a jester, then I guess he would be able to gain it.

[AJD]

I wonder if a more precise way to describe the effect of this card, with less danger of rule paradoxes, would be:

Setup: Choose an additional kingdom card pile costing $5 or more.
While this card is in play, add that pile to the supply.

(This has a slightly different interaction with Ambassador, but I think the card can live with that.)

[rinkworks]

To avoid rule quandaries, I would recommend NOT adding the additional card to the supply.  Because if you've got one card telling you you can't gain it and another one telling you you must (e.g., Upgrade a Gold when Expand is the additional kingdom pile and no other $7 cards are in the supply) then you've got two rules telling you two different things with no way to reconcile which one "wins."

But that doesn't mean the exact same idea can't still work.  The Prize cards, for example, aren't in the supply when Tournament is.  Nor is the Black Market deck.  They're just kinda there, waiting for a card to give a player special access.

So I'd say something like this:

Illicit Goods
$3 - Action
+$2
--
While this is in play, you may buy or gain goods cards as if they were in the supply.
--
Setup: Set aside an additional kingdom card pile costing $5 or more.  Card from this pile are goods cards.

I really love the idea, by the way.


Edit:  Ninja'ed!  By a mere 55 minutes!

Edit 2:  I think this version protects you against Ambassador.  The extra pile is never part of the supply, so cards returned with Ambassador DON'T go back to the pile.  And as other players can't gain from the pile, only you, they don't get copies.

[Grujah]

To avoid rule quandaries, I would recommend NOT adding the additional card to the supply.  Because if you've got one card telling you you can't gain it and another one telling you you must (e.g., Upgrade a Gold when Expand is the additional kingdom pile and no other $7 cards are in the supply) then you've got two rules telling you two different things with no way to reconcile which one "wins."

But that doesn't mean the exact same idea can't still work.  The Prize cards, for example, aren't in the supply when Tournament is.  Nor is the Black Market deck.  They're just kinda there, waiting for a card to give a player special access.

So I'd say something like this:

Illicit Goods
$3 - Action
+$2
--
While this is in play, you may buy or gain goods cards as if they were in the supply.
--
Setup: Set aside an additional kingdom card pile costing $5 or more.  Card from this pile are goods cards.

I really love the idea, by the way.


Edit:  Ninja'ed!  By a mere 55 minutes!

Edit 2:  I think this version protects you against Ambassador.  The extra pile is never part of the supply, so cards returned with Ambassador DON'T go back to the pile.  And as other players can't gain from the pile, only you, they don't get copies.

Yeah, this is probably the better wording.

Maybe replace "you" with "all players" so you can still ambassador/jester them away? If that is, at all, good and/or necessary?

[AJD]

Illicit Goods
$3 - Action
+$2
--
While this is in play, you may buy or gain goods cards as if they were in the supply.
--
Setup: Set aside an additional kingdom card pile costing $5 or more.  Card from this pile are goods cards.

Yeah, this is probably the better wording.

Maybe replace "you" with "all players" so you can still ambassador/jester them away? If that is, at all, good and/or necessary?

You still can't Ambassador them with Rinkworks' wording, even changed to "all players".

I have no opinion on whether Rinkworks' wording, Rinkworks' wording with "all players", or something based on my wording would be better; which one you use depends on how you want it to interact with Jester, Swindler, Saboteur, Ambassador, and maybe a couple other cards I'm forgetting. I don't think it substantially affects the strength of the card; just go with whichever interaction with those cards you like the best.

[Grujah]

It works if you have Illicit goods and than play Amby 

[rinkworks]

If you change "you" to "all players" then Ambassador gets weird.  I'm pretty sure what would happen is this:

(1) You reveal the goods card from your hand, but since the goods card is NOT part of the supply, you can't return any copies of it.  So whatever copies of the goods card you have in your hand stay there.
(2) Other players nevertheless gain copies, because Illicit Goods is in play and that allows all players to gain copies of that card as if it were in the supply.

[Grujah]

If you change "you" to "all players" then Ambassador gets weird.  I'm pretty sure what would happen is this:

(1) You reveal the goods card from your hand, but since the goods card is NOT part of the supply, you can't return any copies of it.  So whatever copies of the goods card you have in your hand stay there.
(2) Other players nevertheless gain copies, because Illicit Goods is in play and that allows all players to gain copies of that card as if it were in the supply.

Yeah, this is an ok behavior. Not being able to return a $5 of higher card isn't that bad. It's not like people will often ambassador them (if ever).


One thing that came to my mind, if this is not in the supply, than it doesn't count towards 3 piling?

That is:
my wording - counts,
AJD's - doesn't count? It triggers only on the end of the turn, when card are not in the play anymore, right?
rinkworks' - doesn't count.

[rinkworks]

One thing that came to my mind, if this is not in the supply, than it doesn't count towards 3 piling?

That is:
my wording - counts,
AJD's - doesn't count? It triggers only on the end of the turn, when card are not in the play anymore, right?
rinkworks' - doesn't count.

Good thinking, raising that question.  I would agree with all of your conclusions.

[Drab Emordnilap]

And talking about mountebank as the added card (also works with witch and somewhat ill-gotten gains), it leads a bit to the same problem as familliar : you need $3 plus a specific card to buy it (EDIT : when the forbidden card costs $5, so in most of the cases), so the probability of getting it or not is the same, and there are already a graat luck factor on getting $3P on turns 3-4 when familiars...

But with this card, if I draw */C/C/E/E, I can at least buy a $4, unlike Familiar games.

[Grujah]

Do you guys think this would be better like this (+2$, cost 3$) or giving it +buy and raising to 4$ as to make it more interesting if chosen 5+ is not that great/vital? I see ups and downs of both.

[One Armed Man]

I like making it a Woodcutter, since it makes the card not a pointless terminal silver when you don't want the goods card. Also, you can use it to buy 2 FG or something when you cannot afford a card costing $5 or two 3-cost cards when you can't afford a card costing $7.