Print

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

[sylas]

both Supplant and Demagogue weren't really working so i've altered them.

SUPPLANT, $3, Action-Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action
Each player (including you) returns a card from his hand to the Supply and gains a differently named card with the same cost that he chooses, putting it into his hand.

despite this being an Attack card, a lot of the time it will be beneficial to other players as well as yourself, hence the low cost.


DEMAGOGUE, $2, Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Play one, discard one, and put one on top of your deck.

[enfynet]

Supplant should specify that the replacement card is one that "you choose" (see Swindler)

[Jack Rudd]

DEMAGOGUE, $2, Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Play one, discard one, and put one on top of your deck.

Again, playing an arbitrary card has an undefined effect unless it has type ACTION or TREASURE.

[enfynet]

DEMAGOGUE, $2, Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Play one, discard one, and put one on top of your deck.

Again, playing an arbitrary card has an undefined effect unless it has type ACTION or TREASURE.

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Set aside any Actions and discard the rest. Play one Action and put the rest on top of your deck in any order.

[sylas]

Supplant should specify that the replacement card is one that "you choose" (see Swindler)

wouldn't that be too powerful? if he returns anything other than a Curse, he'd gain a Curse.

[enfynet]

Supplant should specify that the replacement card is one that "you choose" (see Swindler)

wouldn't that be too powerful? if he returns anything other than a Curse, he'd gain a Curse.

I guess if you allow cards to cost less. I must have missed that part when I read it on my iPod. Even still, it does need to specify WHO chooses what the replacement card is. (And how many times are people going to just exchange a card for the card they returned? This does nothing to "attack" the other players at that point. In fact, it does nothing at all.)

[sylas]

the effect is that it forces other players to swap a card in their hand for a 'different one' whether or not they want to. it is more beneficial to you since you are just improving your hand but other players may not want to change the hand they have. the 'attack' isn't a powerful one. it's sometimes even beneficial. but as it affects other players' hands, it must be listed as an attack, right? the 'He' in the effect line refers to whoever returned the card. this semi-advantageous effect for other players is why it costs so little. it might even be a cost $2.

i think it may sound better if instead of 'value of the returned card', i put 'value of the card he returned.'

[enfynet]

the effect is that it forces other players to swap a card in their hand for a 'different one' whether or not they want to. it is more beneficial to you since you are just improving your hand but other players may not want to change the hand they have. the 'attack' isn't a powerful one. it's sometimes even beneficial. but as it affects other players' hands, it must be listed as an attack, right? the 'He' in the effect line refers to whoever returned the card. this semi-advantageous effect for other players is why it costs so little. it might even be a cost $2.

i think it may sound better if instead of 'value of the returned card', i put 'value of the card he returned.'

+1 Card, +1 Action
Each player (including you) returns a card from his hand to the Supply and gains a differently named card with the same cost that he chooses, putting it into his hand.

[sylas]

cheers. that does sound better worded like that (card modified). do you think it works as a card though, or is it weak?

[Jack Rudd]

cheers. that does sound better worded like that (card modified). do you think it works as a card though, or is it weak?

It's bizarrely swingy when Peddler is involved. Mind you, so is Swindler.

[eHalcyon]

both Supplant and Demagogue weren't really working so i've altered them.

SUPPLANT, $3, Action-Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action
Each player (including you) returns a card from his hand to the Supply.
He gains a different card from the Supply and gains a differently named card with the same cost that he chooses, putting it into his hand.

despite this being an Attack card, a lot of the time it will be beneficial to other players as well as yourself, hence the low cost.


DEMAGOGUE, $2, Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Play one, discard one, and put one on top of your deck.

How do you intend Supplant to work?  He returns one card and gains two cards?  You wrote:

- He gains a different card from the Supply
- AND gains a differently named card with the same cost that he chooses, putting it into his hand.

There are some ambiguations here.  The first gain is not qualified.  From a literal reading, your attack could have me to return a Curse and gain a Colony.  Colony is a different card from the Supply.

The second gain says "differently named card with the same cost" but it doesn't say whether it should be the same cost as the card returned or the card I just gained.  So maybe instead of taking a Colony, I would have returned a Curse and taken an Expand (different card) and a Bank (differently named card with same cost as the Expand).

I have to assume that you made a mistake in phrasing, because letting the opponent gain two cards from one will benefit them more often than not.  Further conversation in the thread suggests that it was indeed an error and the intended effect is enfynet's suggestion in #58.

That said, it is still an extremely weak attack.  It is entirely symmetrical and may hurt you as much as your opponents!  You say in #57 that you are improving your hand, but you aren't improving it any more than your opponents.  What if you don't want to change your hand either?  You can choose not to play Supplant, but then it is just a dead card in your hand.



Demagogue feels very weak.  Issues with non-playable cards aside (i.e. revealing 3 Estates or something), this is semi-terminal minor filtering.  I say semi-terminal because you will generally have no idea if you will even find something worth playing.  It's more likely that you'll have a better terminal in your hand that you should play instead.  Demagogue might be OK as a niche card for decks composed mainly of cantrips.

[enfynet]

It looks like he simply put my wording after his without removing his ambiguous text before it.

[eHalcyon]

It looks like he simply put my wording after his without removing his ambiguous text before it.

Yes, I noted that!

[enfynet]

I know he originally said "up to" the cost of the returned card. I think it works better as same cost. It's pretty weak (maybe even $2) but it could get annoying if you've got good hand.

[sylas]

i have no idea what happened there. i even Previewed it first before posting and it looked fine. it is now corrected. 

i was thinking $2 cost myself, but i'll see how it works out after playtesting.

[sylas]

another whacky idea i'm going for. if it's not balanced i hope at least it is interesting. again, pardon my wording.

SIEGE, $5, Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours, discards his hand and draws cards equal to one less than his previous hand. You gain 1VT per hand discarded this way.

[Asper]

another whacky idea i'm going for. if it's not balanced i hope at least it is interesting. again, pardon my wording.

SIEGE, $5, Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours, discards his hand and draws cards equal to one less than his previous hand. You gain 1VT per hand discarded this way.

Does "discards his hand and draws cards equal to one less than his previous hand" mean he draws one card less? If yes, this stacks too much. The more often you play it, the more you can be sure your opponents will discard their cards. If you gave them a choice to discard and draw new cards, while removing the attack type, that would be something different. Also the idea of adding the costs up is interesting but might cause a long pause. And getting + 1 VT without pushing the game to end is generally a bad idea...

[sylas]

yeah i had a think on it and agree the +VT is bad. it's now changed but i kinda like the adding up bit so i'd prefer to keep that part at least.

SIEGE, $5, Action-Attack-Looter
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours gains a Ruins, then discards his hand and draws 4 cards. You may trash a card from your hand.

[RTT]

If there are no Ruins in the Supply, he gains a Curse instead.

You could make it a Looter and then there have to be ruins in the supply.

I Like the new version. Its an interesting interaction and now it cant wipe out the oponents turn.

[Asper]

yeah i had a think on it and agree the +VT is bad. it's now changed but i kinda like the adding up bit so i'd prefer to keep that part at least.

SIEGE, $5, Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours gains a Ruins, then discards his hand and draws 4 cards. If there are no Ruins in the Supply, he gains a Curse instead.

Interesting... Opponents keep their hand if they have really good cards and get to draw 4 new if they have bad cards in hand... Actually this has some helpful effect, too. Still, the more Ruins you have, the more you will get...

I kinda like it this way, but RTT is right, making this a Looter would make Ruins always available and remove the need for the Curse clause. I think that that clause makes the card too strong, too - even if there were Ruins at the start, after they are all gone this would begin giving out Curses. Donald originally wanted to do something like this with Cultist, and he referred to that as a "Nightmare Card".

By the way, if you make this a Looter, you could make the vanilla bonus (+2Cards) a bit stronger. Especially as the interaction can be helpful sometimes and not always will hit opponents. How about an additional card, buy, (optional) trashing, reaction, gain... Trashing and gain probably fit the theme best, as they push your average card cost.

[Awaclus]

Interesting... Opponents keep their hand if they have really good cards and get to draw 4 new if they have bad cards in hand... Actually this has some helpful effect, too. Still, the more Ruins you have, the more you will get...

It is also worth noting that the 4 new cards will be getting worse and worse the more this card gets played, which means the cycling is usually bad here.

[sylas]

Looter it is, and added an optional Trash card in hand. (Trash and gain feels too powerful unless i made Siege $6)

just played an interesting game with this. it's not as powerful as a Minion, Witch, or Marauder, and yet it acts as a bit of them all. Provinces were the best defence against this. strange thing is, on many occasions we had to decide whether to play other Actions in hand or keep them to boost the 'Attack Strength' of Siege. if we played other Actions instead before playing Siege, we'd be Attacking with very little. the Attack Strength ranged from as little as 2 to a monstrous 23! a player even managed to 'Defend' against the 23. a bit of a double edged sword in the end but it was fun to play. having to add up wasn't a problem and was no slower than having Swindler or Saboteur played.

[sylas]

...if you make this a Looter, you could make the vanilla bonus (+2Cards) a bit stronger. Especially as the interaction can be helpful sometimes and not always will hit opponents. How about an additional card, buy, (optional) trashing, reaction, gain... Trashing and gain probably fit the theme best, as they push your average card cost.

re-thinking this, which version looks better?

current version

SIEGE, $5, Action-Attack-Looter
+3 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours gains a Ruins, then discards his hand and draws 4 cards.


or this maybe?

SIEGE, $6, Action-Attack-Looter
+3 Cards
Each player (including you) reveals his hand and totals the cost of his Action and Victory cards.
Each other player whose total cost is lower than yours gains a Ruins, then discards his hand and draws 4 cards.
You may trash this card immediately. If you do, gain a cheaper card.

[Asper]

I'd say the current version is better.
By the way, i did not mean you should give it trash and gain, just that either one could fit well.

[eHalcyon]

Why have it trash at all?  Cards do not have to do so, so much.  The heart of this card is that it attacks based on the average value of your deck and your opponents' decks.  The trashing is tacked on and just adds extra power that isn't necessary.  This is already a fairly consistent junking AND a discard attack, since it comes with card draw to give you more cards.

If you are adamant about the trashing, I would suggest putting the trashing option before the attack so that it adds some tension -- do I trash my Estate, lowering my hand value by $2 and potentially blocking my own attack, or do I keep this junk card to have better odds of junking my opponents?  Making the trashing mandatory would also help limit the extra power.

But I think it would be better to remove the trashing stuff entirely and leave it with just the attack.  If it is too weak (maybe your opponents will usually have higher value hands simply because you are playing your $5 while theirs are still in their hands?) then I would just increase the +2 Cards to +3 Cards.