Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

Antechamber
Cost: 5
Action
Play an action card from your hand. If you do, +3 cards.

The idea is to make the draw better, but have it be a bit weaker than being "non terminal". You'll need a deck with a lot of actions to get the chain started. The best way to think of it is as a throne room, except instead of playing an action twice, it plays that action and a smithy.

[Qvist]

I make it short. I like it. I think $5 is fine for it.

[Davio]

Perfectly fine.

[ipofanes]

A Stables for Actions, plus the effect of the "discarded" action card.

I would rate it stronger than Stables in the late game. Much much stronger. At the same time being a poor opener. This lube in your engine shines in draw-your-deck decks, discarding terminals in lieu of cantrips and villages. I wonder if it even could be priced at 6$, making it a situational card for engines.

[GendoIkari]

As long as you have a single non-terminal in hand, this card is +1 action, +3 cards... I'm not sure if having the restriction of "only works if it collides with another action" is enough to balance it out... then again, I trust the opinions of all the people who said it's fine more than my own.

[DStu]

As long as you have a single non-terminal in hand, this card is +1 action, +3 cards... I'm not sure if having the restriction of "only works if it collides with another action" is enough to balance it out... then again, I trust the opinions of all the people who said it's fine more than my own.

It's also +1 action +3cards with a Terminal. And maybe a bit to well self-synergizing. But then on the other hand, you have Cultist, which can be chained by the same methods, and gives out Ruins. (and has -1card of course)

[Qvist]

It's not exactly +1 Action, +3 Cards if you have an action card in hand.
That would be:
"Reveal your hand. If you have an Action card in hand, +3 Cards. Play an Action card."
The difference is that you can play your terminal action and draw 3 cards, but can still draw Actions dead.
In the other version you draw first 3 cards and possibly play a village to play your terminal afterwards either way.

[GendoIkari]

As long as you have a single non-terminal in hand, this card is +1 action, +3 cards... I'm not sure if having the restriction of "only works if it collides with another action" is enough to balance it out... then again, I trust the opinions of all the people who said it's fine more than my own.

It's also +1 action +3cards with a Terminal. And maybe a bit to well self-synergizing. But then on the other hand, you have Cultist, which can be chained by the same methods, and gives out Ruins. (and has -1card of course)

Well with a terminal instead of a non-terminal, it's +1 not-quite-action, +3 cards. It gives you another action, but that action is limited to playing only what's in your hand, and after everything is played, you have no more actions. If you have a non-terminal, then it's a real +1 action; because after all is said and done, you have an action left over to play anything you want.

[PurplePotato]

I really like this. In my mind it's kinda a throne room variant, with the difference that instead of playing the action a second time, you play a smithy. Which got me thinking. You could use a similar idea where instead of playing the action a second time you play a vanilla cantrip, giving you a $2 village:

Village Green
$2 - Action
Play an action card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, +1 Action.

[popsofctown]

I like PurplePotato's card better.

Antechamber seems kinda swingy for swing's sake.  Throne Room is swingy, but there's a decent reason that it's swingy, the card kinda doesn't work unless there is a card for it to refer to, and play twice.  You could add an "if you don't" clause to Throne Room to fix that, but then that's complexity that isn't worth it.

This card's effect doesn't refer to the targetted card to figure out what it should do, it is just "reveal an Action card, if you do, superlab".  It is more like Baron than Throne Room in that way.

By swingy I mean, it's random, to be clear.  And it's okay for cards to be random as long as they add something to the game in doing so.  Swindler adds this cool question of whether Bureacrat or Coppersmith sucks harder.  Throne Room adds this cool effect you can't really have without the collision requirement.  Baron adds this question of whether you want to trash your Estates or not.. but I'm not a huge fan of Baron and would say Baron is kinda treading into that zone of "adding lots of randomness for not much in return".  But at least with Baron I can Watchtower Estates onto my deck actually buy Estates sometimes and that's cool.  This encourages you to buy Action cards for collision.  Like Donald X commented about the idea of a Feodum that counted Golds, "Man, I already want lots of Golds", that's not interesting.  I already want lots of Action cards.

I like Purple Potato's card more because it's at a price point where missing/hitting collisions isn't as tragic or triumphant, you don't lose games because Duchesses collide you lose the game because Witches collide.

If the philosophy of the card you are trying to do is "A lab that fails dependent on deckbuilding considerations", I would say to make it more interesting by asking you to do something you wouldn't normally be inclined to do.  Buying Action cards for your Lab deck is something you'd be inclined to do already.  Buying Silver, maybe not.  "+1 Card, +1 Action.  You may reveal a Copper, if you do, +1 Card, you may reveal a Silver, if you do, +1 Card".  Something like that.  Or use Duchies and Estates.
If you really want it to count an Action card, make it a special kind of Action card you wouldn't normally buy, like a 2$ Action selected in a bane-ish style or an Action card whose supply pile contains 8 or more copies or whatever criteria that makes things more interesting than "Buy rule: Province > Antechamber >Caravan > Terminal Silver, bot.execute"