Print

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

[blobbob]

Con Artist
Action - $3
+$2
Each player draws 1 cards then selects and simultaneously reveals 1 card from their hand.  The card(s) with the highest cost are trashed.  Each of the cards that are not trashed are discarded and the owner gains a copy of that card.

[zahlman]

Needs to have an Attack type. And I suspect that in practice, it might as well read "+$2. Trash a Silver. If you do, each opponent gains a Copper or an Estate (their choice)". That's (a) weak (since it doesn't hurt as much as a Curse, and the vanilla +$2 just covers the lost Silver); (b) even worse than Sea Hag in terms of slowing down the game.

But maybe it would be good in combination with Trader, or something.

[blobbob]

In early game it would be like a weaker Masquerade, generally you would want to reveal your estates unless you or your opponent are willing to trash a silver to junk each others deck.  It is suppose to have interesting interactions with a lot of microstrategy in mid-late game where you don't know what your opponent will reveal.  It also gets more complicated in cursing games on the decision that if you both reveal 0 cost cards, your curse will get trashed but you run the risk of you opponent revealing something more expensive and gaining another one.  The point was a card that isn't TOO volatile, where you try to predict what your everyone else does with good/bad outcomes if you play it right/wrong.

The +$2 is just the thematic benefit as with Swindler and Mountebank.

In terms of it being an attack, it could go either way since it won't really cause any big ruling issue if someone blocks and it would have more interesting decisions on whether or not you decide to reveal that Moat.  The only reason that it isn't an attack is because it changes the interactions too much when blocked. (IGG could easily be on on-buy attack and Masq could be one as well)

[AJD]

(IGG could easily be on on-buy attack and Masq could be one as well)

IGG couldn't be an on-buy attack because there's no rules for on-buy attacks. The Reaction cards say "plays an Attack card". For gaining something to somehow qualify as playing something makes no sense rules-wise; neither does letting people reveal Horse Traders when you just want to play your nice $5 Copper-gaining copper.

[eHalcyon]

Masquerade wouldn't really make sense as an Attack because it isn't intuitive what happens when one player blocks it.  Does someone still pass them a card?  Do they pass a card?  Are they skipped entirely in the passing process?

Con Artist seems really weak to me.  What benefit does it get you over your opponents?  If you draw it without Estates, you end up letting opponents trash their Estates and junk you with Copper.  If you reveal an Estate, it's just as likely that your opponent gets to trash an Estate for free.  The effect is symmetric, like Duchess.  That makes it extremely weak.

Some ways to make it better would be to switch it to +3 Cards, so you have a wider selection over your opponents (who only get +1 Card).  Or make it an actual attack that only affects players with more than 3 cards in hand and don't let them draw a card.  Or ensure that you can never be junked by your own play.

[blobbob]

It does seem kind of weak in early game.  Maybe if all opponents simultaneously reveal first and then you reveal after seeing all the other cards.  In early game it wouldn't make too big of a difference, if estate is revealed you can trash a silver to junk their deck or trash both players estates.  It will have a much bigger impact in mid-late game and would heavily depend on what kingdom cards are in play.