Print

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

[Qvist]

While thinking about the +Buy card for the contest, I came up for a neat idea. But it was too weak for a main bonus, so it needed some form of +Actions or +Cards as additional bonus. But I couldn't decide. Often it depends in which kinds of decks the effect fits best. But it was nice in engines and BM. Also I wasn't sure of the power level. I couldn't decide between +2 Actions, +1 Card +1 Action or +2 Cards which isn't the same power level but I could adjust the cost.

Either way, I thought this decision could be made into a card itself - which I obviously won't submit. As you may know I like decision cards like Pawn. What about:

Unnamed Action $3
----------------------------
+1 Buy
Choose 2: +1 Card; +1 Action

You often buy Pawn only because of the (unterminal) +Buy and it doesn't hurt in most decks.
This is even a better option if you want the +Buy badly. It's very similar to Pawn, but I think it plays very differently.
You could use it as Hamlet-variant if you choose +2 Actions.
You could use it as Market without money for +1 Card, +1 Action
And you could use it as Terminal Drawer for +2 Cards.

What do you think? Is it balanced? Is it too boring?

[Eevee]

It's terrible for big money, but I like it. Fun engine-y card, seems reasonable at $3.

[Schneau]

Having options definitely makes this a reasonable to strong $3 card. The options sort of make me think of Nobles, since you can take 2 Actions or 2 Cards (one less than Nobles). But, in this case you could also take a cantrip. I like it!

[rinkworks]

Yup, this one looks like it should work fine.

[Davio]

It's a cute card and I think it's okay, to me though, it's not very exciting.

Now there's nothing wrong with "not exciting", I would call Worker's Village not very exciting although it's a perfectly fine card. It's just that I don't think I would vote for it in a contest and this may be the reason it wasn't submitted?

If this would have been in Intrigue, it would have been fine and I wouldn't argue about it, but it's not a card I'm hoping to expand on the currently available 200 cards with.

Hmm, after having typed 2 paragraphs I'm still having trouble conveying the message "I like it, but it doesn't stand out" without sounding so negative. I don't want to be negative about a good card.

Hopefully you catch my drift.

[Rush_Clasic]

I think decision making cards live and die on how interesting, how time-consuming, and how complex the choices are. This is clearly interesting, and I think the choices are probably quicker to figure out than on Pawn. (I LOVE that Pawn exists, but man does it make the game drag along at times.) The difference between needing a cantrip, a village, or just more cards is easier to see than the need between cards and coins, so this side-steps one of the bigger hurdles in the Pawn learning-curve.

I think it's a neat card and very printable. I'd add "(You may pick the same choice twice.)" It's an easy enough thing to misinterpret, especially with the standard on other cards being to choose separate choices.

[Qvist]

Thanks for your positive feedback.
Yes, I didn't submit it because I feared no-one would vote for this "boring" card.
And Davio agrees, so it might have been the right decision. Let's see.
I thought about adding (You may pick the same choice twice.), but I think it complicates the card more than it helps because it's a such simple card which don't need much text. And if you won't be allowed to pick the same choice twice, the card wouldn't make sense anyway.

[AJD]

Thanks for your positive feedback.
Yes, I didn't submit it because I feared no-one would vote for this "boring" card.
And Davio agrees, so it might have been the right decision. Let's see.
I thought about adding (You may pick the same choice twice.), but I think it complicates the card more than it helps because it's a such simple card which don't need much text. And if you won't be allowed to pick the same choice twice, the card wouldn't make sense anyway.

I just think it would be clearer phrased as "choose one: +2 cards; +2 actions; or +1 card and +1 action".

[Rush_Clasic]

Thanks for your positive feedback.
Yes, I didn't submit it because I feared no-one would vote for this "boring" card.
And Davio agrees, so it might have been the right decision. Let's see.
I thought about adding (You may pick the same choice twice.), but I think it complicates the card more than it helps because it's a such simple card which don't need much text. And if you won't be allowed to pick the same choice twice, the card wouldn't make sense anyway.

I just think it would be clearer phrased as "choose one: +2 cards; +2 actions; or +1 card and +1 action".

Actually, that's probably the best approach. I honestly don't think it's clear enough to leave it without extra text, the same way it wasn't clear enough on Pawn.

[Qvist]

Thanks for your positive feedback.
Yes, I didn't submit it because I feared no-one would vote for this "boring" card.
And Davio agrees, so it might have been the right decision. Let's see.
I thought about adding (You may pick the same choice twice.), but I think it complicates the card more than it helps because it's a such simple card which don't need much text. And if you won't be allowed to pick the same choice twice, the card wouldn't make sense anyway.

I just think it would be clearer phrased as "choose one: +2 cards; +2 actions; or +1 card and +1 action".

Yeah, maybe you're right. But I like the shorter version.

[Polk5440]

Thanks for your positive feedback.
Yes, I didn't submit it because I feared no-one would vote for this "boring" card.
And Davio agrees, so it might have been the right decision. Let's see.
I thought about adding (You may pick the same choice twice.), but I think it complicates the card more than it helps because it's a such simple card which don't need much text. And if you won't be allowed to pick the same choice twice, the card wouldn't make sense anyway.

I just think it would be clearer phrased as "choose one: +2 cards; +2 actions; or +1 card and +1 action".

Yeah, maybe you're right. But I like the shorter version.

I like it a lot. With the clarification that you can double up on your choices (although, otherwise it would not be a good card), I would have approval voted this one, I think.

[popsofctown]

It seems powerful enough without +buy.  It lets you double up on either of the most powerful choices of Pawn.  That's 3$ on its own.

[Polk5440]

It seems powerful enough without +buy.  It lets you double up on either of the most powerful choices of Pawn.  That's 3$ on its own.

That's interesting. I was thinking: +2 Cards: worse than Moat ($2 card). +2 Actions: Worse than Native Village ($2 card). +1 Card +1 Action: worse than Pearl Diver ($2 card). Choice makes everything better, so together they might be a weak $3? +Buy moves it up to strong $3?

Are you thinking it is a problem to open two of these, so it should be $4?

[O]

weak 4 / strong 3 zone.

[Schneau]

I think it would be a fine $3 as-is. It is almost strictly worse than Worker's Village (the only option that's "better" is +2 Cards). True that options make it more powerful, but I doubt it would be too strong as a $3 card.

[rinkworks]

I'm pretty sure $3 is just fine.  +2 Cards is not so hot, and +2 Actions without draw is a terrible way to get a Village effect.  Steward and Squire each offer these exact choices amongst stronger alternatives (trashing for Steward, Silver-gaining and a bonus +$1 for Squire) at the same or cheaper prices.  It therefore follows that a $3 card can offer these choices amongst weaker alternatives and still have room for a flat +1 Buy.

The possibilities break down roughly like this:

+2 Cards, +1 Buy - That's probably a balanced $2 card, but it would not be a popular one.
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy - Probably too strong for a $2 card but strictly weaker than Market Square at $3.
+2 Actions, +1 Buy - Not strong enough for a $2 card.

That adds up to a $3 card in my book.  Certainly it would be a pretty terrible $4 card.  Of course there's another test here, the real separator between the $3 and $4 cost tiers:  is it unbalancing to open with 2 copies of it?  Pretty sure you'd be fine:  playing two Copies in a row either leaves you:

* Down two cards, with 3 Actions and 2 Buys.
* Down one card, with 2 Actions and 2 Buys.
* Same handsize, with 1 Action and 2 Buys.
* Up a card, with 0 Actions and 2 Buys.

Those seem far, far shy of overpowered for a combined effect on turns 3-5.