Print

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

[AJD]

So werothegreat suggested the card name "Quacksalver" over in this thread, and I decided a card named "Quacksalver" would have to be paired with a card called "Quicksilver". Here's what I came up with:

Quacksalver
Action-Attack: $4
Each other player trashes a Silver from his hand (or reveals a hand containing no Silver). If he does, he gains a Quicksilver from the Quicksilver pile, putting it into his hand. You may gain any or all of the trashed Silvers.

Quicksilver
Treasure: $0*
Worth $2
When you play this, return it to the Quicksilver pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

...So essentially it's a Thief that can only steal Silver, but searches five cards rather than two and doesn't cycle your opponent's deck for them. It's even kind of thematic: the phony doctor takes your money and in exchange gives you a vial of a mysterious fluid that turns out to be mercury (which, despite being highly toxic, was actually used as a medicinal agent for centuries).

Thoughts? Is searching 5 cards overpowered for a Thief variant like this, even if it can't take Gold? If the Quicksilver pile is empty this becomes much more dangerous.

[eHalcyon]

I like it.

I can't think of anything else to say.

[werothegreat]

It should incentivize Silver-gaining somehow.  If Quacksalver's out, I'm just not going to buy Silver, at least beyond the first turn or so, depending on the board.  Make it a choice: Either gain one or two Quicksilvers to hand, giving everyone else a Silver, or do the attack.

[eHalcyon]

It should incentivize Silver-gaining somehow.  If Quacksalver's out, I'm just not going to buy Silver, at least beyond the first turn or so, depending on the board.  Make it a choice: Either gain one or two Quicksilvers to hand, giving everyone else a Silver, or do the attack.

Interesting point, but I think "depending on the board" are the key words.  Some boards you just have to buy Silver, and then this is strong.

Giving everyone else Silver doesn't make opponents any more likely to buy Silver on their own.  If gives you targets to hit, but it really doesn't hurt opponents anyway -- they still get to use Quicksilver, and if you had given them that Silver in the first place then stealing it back doesn't leave them any worse off than they would have been.

Gaining two Quicksilver to hand would be way too strong -- might as well say +$4.  Even gaining one Quicksilver is equivalent to making it +$2, except in edge cases (e.g. Counterfeit; when Quicksilver are all gone).

[werothegreat]

It should incentivize Silver-gaining somehow.  If Quacksalver's out, I'm just not going to buy Silver, at least beyond the first turn or so, depending on the board.  Make it a choice: Either gain one or two Quicksilvers to hand, giving everyone else a Silver, or do the attack.

Interesting point, but I think "depending on the board" are the key words.  Some boards you just have to buy Silver, and then this is strong.

Giving everyone else Silver doesn't make opponents any more likely to buy Silver on their own.  If gives you targets to hit, but it really doesn't hurt opponents anyway -- they still get to use Quicksilver, and if you had given them that Silver in the first place then stealing it back doesn't leave them any worse off than they would have been.

Gaining two Quicksilver to hand would be way too strong -- might as well say +$4.  Even gaining one Quicksilver is equivalent to making it +$2, except in edge cases (e.g. Counterfeit; when Quicksilver are all gone).

Would you buy a $4 Action that said "+$4, every other player gains a Silver."?

[AJD]

It should incentivize Silver-gaining somehow.  If Quacksalver's out, I'm just not going to buy Silver, at least beyond the first turn or so, depending on the board.

I see your point, but Noble Brigand and Thief don't do anything to incentivize Silver-gaining. And really, I'm not sure if it's necessary for cards like these to incentivize Silver-gaining—the fact that their presence in a kingdom disincentivizes Silver gaining could be a strong enough influence on the game, since it biases people against going Big Money. (And Quacksalver has a wide enough search space that those first-turn Silver gains could be enough to feed it, and break down the victim's early economy!) I dunno.

Also note that someone using Quacksalver makes themself a good potential victim for Quacksalver; this might make the card not worth buying as well.

Make it a choice: Either gain one or two Quicksilvers to hand, giving everyone else a Silver, or do the attack.

Interesting. Effective terminal +$4, everyone else gains a Silver is an interesting card concept itself (compare Baron and Death Cart as other cheap sources of big terminal coin with restrictions or penalties), and it does synergize well with the attack. The attack seems much weaker in comparison, though, on first glance, for the reasons eHalcyon points out.

[eHalcyon]

Would you buy a $4 Action that said "+$4, every other player gains a Silver."?

As always... depends on the board.  But I think I would.

[HiveMindEmulator]

This is definitely an interesting card, but the problem is that it requires printing 20 cards instead of just 10, and I'm not sure it's interesting enough to warrant that. It seems like the kind of thing that will rarely ever be bought, and that fills a role too similar to Noble Brigand. It will be good against heavily Silver-reliant strategies, giving a last-player advantage in these games, and in games where it's easy to not rely on Silvers beyond the initial use of getting to $5, it will be totally worthless.

[One Armed Man]

I happen to think it is interesting enough to warrant it, at least as much as Urchin/ Mercenary is. Good job!

[HiveMindEmulator]

I happen to think it is interesting enough to warrant it, at least as much as Urchin/ Mercenary is. Good job!

I think Urchin/Mercenary is underrated, and is actually potentially very useful a fair amount of the time -- more often than Quacksalver as written for sure.

That said, the idea is really cute with the names and everything, so maybe if there were other cards that cared about Quicksilver and/or if there were some other way to make the card better, it would work.

[One Armed Man]

The implication that we are working with the element mercury limits the names we can use for cards, so I will use placeholders for now. Also, this is really easy to do.

QS1
2
Action
Discard any number of cards from your hand. Gain a Quicksilver for each discarded card.

QS2
5
Action-Attack
+$2
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand gains a Quicksilver, placing it in their hand, then places cards from thier hand on the top of their deck until they have 3 cards in their hand.

QS3
5
Trash up to 3 cards from your hand. Gain a Quicksilver.

[AJD]

I kind of agree with you, HiveMindEmulator—cards in the Thief family aren't usually all that useful, and it seems like a lot to demand a whole extra stack of cards for. (And I wouldn't necessarily limit it to 10 Quicksilvers without extensive multiplayer playtesting—the likelihood of the Quicksilver stack ever getting depleted changes the power level of this card a lot.) I like the idea of having other cards that could use Quicksilver, though—just as there are three kingdom cards that use Spoils, there could be a few more that use Quicksilver.

That said, I am very pleased with both how well-received and seemingly balanced (as far as we can tell without playtesting) this card is and how thematic its effect is for a card idea that was basically based on a silly pun.

[HiveMindEmulator]

(And I wouldn't necessarily limit it to 10 Quicksilvers without extensive multiplayer playtesting—the likelihood of the Quicksilver stack ever getting depleted changes the power level of this card a lot.)

With this as the only way of getting them, I don't think you'll really ever need all 10, since they go in hand and will likely be used immediately.

[werothegreat]

How about:

Quacksalver
Action - $4

EDIT: +$1

Each other player (EDIT: with more than four cards in hand) reveals their hand and trashes a Treasure from it that you choose.  If a Copper was trashed, +$3.  Each player that trashed a card that wasn't a Copper gains a Quicksilver, putting it in their hand.  Each player that revealed a hand with no Treasures gains a Copper.

EDIT: Quicksilver gets a line, under which says "When you trash this, return it to the Quicksilver pile."

[AJD]

How about:

Quacksalver
Action - $4

EDIT: +$1

Each other player (EDIT: with more than four cards in hand) reveals their hand and trashes a Treasure from it that you choose.  If a Copper was trashed, +$3.  Each player that trashed a card that wasn't a Copper gains a Quicksilver, putting it in their hand.  Each player that revealed a hand with no Treasures gains a Copper.

EDIT: Quicksilver gets a line, under which says "When you trash this, return it to the Quicksilver pile."

Among other things, that seems too political for a Dominion attack. If I want +$3, I have to trash some copper, but I don't want to trash more copper than necessary—so how do I decide which opponent to trash copper for, if they all have comparable hands?

[AJD]

Hmm, a problem with this might be that it's weaker when stacked in multiplayer—the first play trashes people's Silver, and the second play means there will be less Silver remaining to find. Of course lots of Attacks are weaker when stacked and it's just fine, but that's because you still get the benefit—Margrave still gives you +3 cards even when it's just helping your opponents cycle. But it would suck to be Player 2 and want to play Quacksalver right after Player 1 played Quacksalver—Players 3 and 4 have already had their Silver trashed, so you have much less chance of actually finding any for you to gain.