Print

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

[Asper]

So yeah, if you look at Swamp, what do you think? Is it a 1$ or a 0$? Also, if it is a 1$, does anybody see strange interactions? I checked Haggler, and that works. Also note that you can gain a Swamp instead of a Ruins, Copper or Curse.
What do you think of the card besides that?

[RTT]

It could also be  2$  ... 2 actions + 2buys if you need them isn´t to bad, look at squire there you get  only one of that.

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$


I like the idea of gainig it instead of a curse or a copper(with cache it may be nice) it will harm you deck as well if you have all 10 but not as much as a curse.

with the +2 Buys on Buy effect it can be simply piled out if it cost 0$ or the costs are reduced. play 1 bridge and discard 4 cards while buying this. maybe thats not intended.

[LastFootnote]

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

That doesn't matter. Copper is pretty much strictly better than Curse, yet they both cost $0.

[RTT]

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

That doesn't matter. Copper is pretty much strictly better than Curse, yet they both cost $0.

But its also better than necropolis... does that matter?

[Jimmmmm]

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

It's actually not strictly better than any of the Ruinses.

Sorry, this is kind of what we do here at f.ds. Welcome to the forums!

[Brando Commando]

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

That doesn't matter. Copper is pretty much strictly better than Curse, yet they both cost $0.

But its also better than necropolis... does that matter?

I think the "strictly better than" is meant to avoid cards that are always weaker than another kingdom card. So if two $4 cards are similar, but one is strictly better than the other, the weaker $4 is probably never going to be bought (corner cases, anyone?) until the stronger $4 is sold out.

This makes the game less elegant and I assume that's why DXV has avoided it. But the same kind of test doesn't work for curse and copper, because buying them is more of a part of a specialized strategic decision, and I think Curses cost $0 mostly because they have to have a cost, not because that's a good cost for them based on playtesting or something. Copper is $0 so you can bootstrap yourself out of having nothing in your deck whatsoever (or something to that effect), not because it's strictly better or worse than Curse. It's okay if a kingdom setup makes it unlikely you'd want to buy one or the other.

Likewise, since you can't buy Necropolis anyway, it shouldn't matter much whether Swamp is strictly better or worse than Necropolis.

So, I think the question to ask is: Will the presence of this card in the Supply mean that some other kingdom card will never be bought because it would not be logical to? Don't worry about Curse, Copper, or cards you can't buy anyway.

[SirPeebles]

Why does it have that "if in the Supply" clause?  Simply stating that you gain the card means that you gain from the supply.  Is it so that can't continue avoiding Curses by opting to fail to gain Swamps?

Personally, I think it would be nice for Swamp to be an Action-Victory worth 0 VP.  Mostly for flavor reasons of being worthless land (at least in the eyes of short-sighted economically motivated humans), but also to let it interact with attacks like Bureaucrat, Fortune Teller, and Rabble.

[Asper]

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

That doesn't matter. Copper is pretty much strictly better than Curse, yet they both cost $0.

That's what i thought.

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

That doesn't matter. Copper is pretty much strictly better than Curse, yet they both cost $0.

But its also better than necropolis... does that matter?

I don't know... You cannot buy Necropolis, so i thought it shouldn't. I did try to make it not stricly better, though, which is why you are forced to discard a card.

It could also be  2$  ... 2 actions + 2buys if you need them isn´t to bad, look at squire there you get  only one of that.

its striktly better than all ruins so it should not be 0$

I like the idea of gainig it instead of a curse or a copper(with cache it may be nice) it will harm you deck as well if you have all 10 but not as much as a curse.

with the +2 Buys on Buy effect it can be simply piled out if it cost 0$ or the costs are reduced. play 1 bridge and discard 4 cards while buying this. maybe thats not intended.

I am aware of it. There was the idea to make it say "...or buy this for 1$...", or "...or buy this first in your buy phase...", but i think the fact you can swamp yourself with Swamps is... fitting? Still, in a Goons game i felt that 0$ was not enough, as it basically meant "You may swamp yourself. If you do: +1 VT, +1 Buy per card in your hand."

2$ is too expensive, as it harms the on-buy effect too much. I wanted people to have a reason for getting this even without Cursers or Looters. Also compare to Hamlet. Swamp is mostly a Hamlet that forces you to discard one card for an action and doesn't draw one for a buy, leaving you no choice and giving you a second, often useless buy.
EDIT: I'm aware Hamlet is a pretty good 2$ - still, i think Swamp is not as good as any specific 2$ and not strictly better than Poorhouse or Necropolis.

Why does it have that "if in the Supply" clause?  Simply stating that you gain the card means that you gain from the supply.  Is it so that can't continue avoiding Curses by opting to fail to gain Swamps?

Personally, I think it would be nice for Swamp to be an Action-Victory worth 0 VP.  Mostly for flavor reasons of being worthless land (at least in the eyes of short-sighted economically motivated humans), but also to let it interact with attacks like Bureaucrat, Fortune Teller, and Rabble.

It actually was a Curse once - people didn't like it. And yes, the clause is there so nobody can avoid gaining a Curse. I'm german, so i only know the (sometimes poorly translated) german instruction books - with regard to the english original rules maybe it's unneccessary.

[SirPeebles]

If I buy a Silver, but then reveal a Trader to gain a Silver instead, can I gain a Swamp instead?

Edge case:  Curses and Vineyards are gone.  I played 2 Contrabands and 2 Talismans.  My opponent knows that I'm building a Vineyards deck and will go for the remaining Swamps to three pile, so the Coppers and Swamps are proscribed.

[Asper]

If I buy a Silver, but then reveal a Trader to gain a Silver instead, can I gain a Swamp instead?

Edge case:  Curses and Vineyards are gone.  I played 2 Contrabands and 2 Talismans.  My opponent knows that I'm building a Vineyards deck and will go for the remaining Swamps to three pile, so the Coppers and Swamps are proscribed.

Thanks for those, i knew there were cases i didn't think of. First question: I think the "gain instead" cuts the connection between the bought card and the gained one, so yeah, i think you should be able to gain a Swamp.
EDIT: This is much tougher than i thought... I still think you should be able to gain Swamp, but it's more like a feeling than anything. You gain the Silver because of Trader, not because of your buy... If it doesn't work out, i'll make it say "If you would gain a card costing 0$...". I don't like that as much, though, as it (sometimes) kills options like your second example.

Second question: Is your question aiming at the loose-track rule? I don't know for certain, but i think Swamp should not "loose track" of the card bought only because another card is gained inbetween. It is not moved somewhere different, is it? If we stick to Donalds principle of making cards as easy to understand as possible, i'd say you need to gain the card you originally bought. So: Buy any up-to-4 card, gain two Swamps instead of the duplicates from Talisman, and then gain the card you bought and that you may not Swamp.

[Asper]

Personally, I think it would be nice for Swamp to be an Action-Victory worth 0 VP.  Mostly for flavor reasons of being worthless land (at least in the eyes of short-sighted economically motivated humans), but also to let it interact with attacks like Bureaucrat, Fortune Teller, and Rabble.

Maybe that's a nice idea after all... I'll see how the card looks as a worthless Victory. My only concern is that it's unnecessary most of the time and will make the card look more confusing - it was difficult enough for me to come up with a simple enough wording. Also it makes the card even stronger if i think of Silk Road, Ironworks, etc.

[LastFootnote]

Could you please put the card's info into your post. I can't seem to access the attachment anymore.

EDIT: Ah, I still have access to the image on my phone.

There is a clause in the wording that seems unnecessary, and one that I know is unnecessary.

1. Why do you need the "you did not buy" clause? Is there some issue with letting this happen when you gain a card from buying it?

2. "Discard a card from your hand" should just be "discard a card". When you discard a card, the hand is assumed to be the source unless otherwise stated. See the wording on Beggar for an example.

[Asper]

Could you please put the card's info into your post. I can't seem to access the attachment anymore.

EDIT: Ah, I still have access to the image on my phone.

There is a clause in the wording that seems unnecessary, and one that I know is unnecessary.

1. Why do you need the "you did not buy" clause? Is there some issue with letting this happen when you gain a card from buying it?

2. "Discard a card from your hand" should just be "discard a card". When you discard a card, the hand is assumed to be the source unless otherwise stated. See the wording on Beggar for an example.

1. The first reason was that i didn't want people having to make the decision every time they buy something. Also, if the card was to cost 1$, you could buy a Copper for 0$ and gain a card costing 1$, instead. I didn't want that, either.
EDIT: Other reasons are on-buy effects and the possibility to buy another card and gain Swamp instead to avoid the discarding (with a Reaction as the only card in your hand).
2. Thanks for pointing this out. That's a translation thing again and i'll fix it.
EDIT: Fixed.

[SirPeebles]

1. The first reason was that i didn't want people having to make the decision every time they buy something. Also, if the card was to cost 1$, you could buy a Copper for 0$ and gain a card costing 1$, instead. I didn't want that, either.
2. Thanks for pointing this out. That's a translation thing again and i'll fix it.

People are already making a decision when they buy something, and it is a natural place for such a pause for thinking.  Moreover, I don't think it would be very common to buy something for the purpose of gaining a Swamp instead.  It's really the mid turn reaction to gaining that would cause the more disruptive decision making, particularly if it's during an opponent's turn.

[LastFootnote]

1. The first reason was that i didn't want people having to make the decision every time they buy something. Also, if the card was to cost 1$, you could buy a Copper for 0$ and gain a card costing 1$, instead. I didn't want that, either.
2. Thanks for pointing this out. That's a translation thing again and i'll fix it.

People are already making a decision when they buy something, and it is a natural place for such a pause for thinking.  Moreover, I don't think it would be very common to buy something for the purpose of gaining a Swamp instead.  It's really the mid turn reaction to gaining that would cause the more disruptive decision making, particularly if it's during an opponent's turn.

Agreed. If you don't want people to be able to do the "Buy a Copper and gain a Swamp" trick, just make Swamp cost $0.

[Asper]

1. The first reason was that i didn't want people having to make the decision every time they buy something. Also, if the card was to cost 1$, you could buy a Copper for 0$ and gain a card costing 1$, instead. I didn't want that, either.
2. Thanks for pointing this out. That's a translation thing again and i'll fix it.

People are already making a decision when they buy something, and it is a natural place for such a pause for thinking.  Moreover, I don't think it would be very common to buy something for the purpose of gaining a Swamp instead.  It's really the mid turn reaction to gaining that would cause the more disruptive decision making, particularly if it's during an opponent's turn.

I see your point, guys. It's just that gaining a 1$ for 0$ isn't something i like. Still i admit that you'll mostly pay the 1$ for its on-buy effect, anyway, at least that's what i believe... Hmm... And it would spare me the Travelling Salesman Trader Problem.

On the other hand, it lets you trigger on buy effects without gaining the card, even withouth using a Reaction. Also, if you want to buy a Swamp and keep the (only) card in your hand (a Watchtower for topdecking it, for example), you could buy a Copper and avoid the discarding this way. Actually, you could do this all the time, adding confusing whenever you actually want to get additional buys.

The one case where "that you did not buy" may be confusing is Trader, and only if you do something that doesn't make sense at all.

About the pause in opponents turns, i think Secret Chamber is far worse than Swamp could ever be. It's probably worse with Looters or Swindler than with Cursers, but still i think it's not too bad.

1. The first reason was that i didn't want people having to make the decision every time they buy something. Also, if the card was to cost 1$, you could buy a Copper for 0$ and gain a card costing 1$, instead. I didn't want that, either.
2. Thanks for pointing this out. That's a translation thing again and i'll fix it.

People are already making a decision when they buy something, and it is a natural place for such a pause for thinking.  Moreover, I don't think it would be very common to buy something for the purpose of gaining a Swamp instead.  It's really the mid turn reaction to gaining that would cause the more disruptive decision making, particularly if it's during an opponent's turn.

Agreed. If you don't want people to be able to do the "Buy a Copper and gain a Swamp" trick, just make Swamp cost $0.

That's why i made this thread, for you guys to help me find the best cost. The problem with 0$ is basically emptying the pile, especially with Goons Bridge.

[eHalcyon]

The wording on your card is more complicated than necessary.  Just put it as:

"While this is in the Supply, when you would gain a card, you may gain this instead."

"In games using this" and "if this is in the Supply" feel redundant.  You can drop one or the other.  To be safe about avoiding curses even after Swamp is piled out, you can just use the latter.

You don't have to specify "a card you did not buy".  If a player buys a card, it doesn't matter if he has the option to gain Swamp instead -- if he really wanted it, he could have just bought it directly.  The only time it might matter is if you make Swamp cost $1 and the player has $0, but that's such a minor thing it is worth leaving the complexity off of the card.

Is it to prevent Goons abuse?  Still not needed -- the extra +Buy is an on-buy effect, not an on-gain, and it is also limited by card discarding.

Peebles' edge case with Contraband is interesting, but I think it's OK to opt for simplicity on the card.





Oh, and I see LastFootnote already mentioned the wording stuff.





What on-buy effects are you worried about?  Mint, Noble Brigand, Farmland -- I'd usually prefer having them in my deck rather than Swamp.  I think these are the only on-buy effects (not counting things like Goons, Haggler); everything else is on-gain.

[Asper]

"While this is in the Supply, when you would gain a card, you may gain this instead."

Thanks for the better wording, i see it's easier to understand.

Is it to prevent Goons abuse?  Still not needed -- the extra +Buy is an on-buy effect, not an on-gain, and it is also limited by card discarding.

Actually Bridge, as pointed out by RTT, is much worse. A pile emptying itself is not good.

I did another version for 0$ now, which makes it more useful on-buy but cannot be emptied with a Bridge in play (older one could). I also removed the discard condition, so there is now no reason at all(?) to buy something else if Swamp is in fact desired. As an action, it now is actually inferior to Necropolis every time it's played after the first. It's still useful in games without enough buys (like Bank games), Jack, Library, Watchtower, other Terminals (esp. terminal draw), and of course, Cursers or Looters.

See post 1 for it.

EDIT: Btw it can not trigger Tunnel on buy, anymore. I guess building a Tunnel under a Swamp is not that good an idea after all...

[SirPeebles]

It's not only Trader.  If Alice possesses Bob (which she does so often in my circle...), then Bob could buy something, and then when Alice gains it she could opt for a Swamp instead.

[Asper]

It's not only Trader.  If Alice possesses Bob (which she does so often in my circle...), then Bob could buy something, and then when Alice gains it she could opt for a Swamp instead.

I don't think i get what you mean. If i buy Silver, reveal Trader and gain Silver instead of Silver, i see the old wording is not clear. But with Posession Alice never bought anything, but gains cards, so she could of course gain Swamp instead. or is this about on-buys again?

I see the newer version is more simple than the old one, so i'll just keep it this way. Do you think "If you play or buy this the first time this turn" is clear? Probably not. What would be a better wording? I don't actually care if you get 2 buys when having Swamp in play and buying Swamp (a total of +4 buys, which was what i intended), but i want it to be clear, of course. Any ideas? "If you play this or buy this the first time this turn" would make it an only slightly better card, and i could deal with it.
EDIT: Changed it a bit, again

[Drab Emordnilap]

"In games using this" and "if this is in the Supply" feel redundant.  You can drop one or the other.  To be safe about avoiding curses even after Swamp is piled out, you can just use the latter.

Can you? I don't know if there's precedent for cards triggering from the supply without having "In games using this".

[eHalcyon]

"In games using this" and "if this is in the Supply" feel redundant.  You can drop one or the other.  To be safe about avoiding curses even after Swamp is piled out, you can just use the latter.

Can you? I don't know if there's precedent for cards triggering from the supply without having "In games using this".

No precedent, but I think the wording reads fine. Is there any cards that triggers from the supply other than Duchess? I'm not counting cards with pre-game setup.

[SirPeebles]

"In games using this" and "if this is in the Supply" feel redundant.  You can drop one or the other.  To be safe about avoiding curses even after Swamp is piled out, you can just use the latter.

Can you? I don't know if there's precedent for cards triggering from the supply without having "In games using this".

Well, it's a bit redundant on Duchess.  It says that you may gain a Duchess, which means from the Supply.  If Duchess isn't in the Supply to start with, then you would just fail to gain the Duchess anyhow.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Well, it's a bit redundant on Duchess.  It says that you may gain a Duchess, which means from the Supply.  If Duchess isn't in the Supply to start with, then you would just fail to gain the Duchess anyhow.

If Duchess said simply "When you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Duchess", then I would contest that ability would only work after playing a Duchess. Card text is, by default, operated when you play the card.

Also, I'm pretty sure that after you played Duchess once, since there's no duration for the effect (like "while this is in play" or "This turn"), that the effect would last for the rest of the game. Also, Duchess would never get cleaned up from play, since cards aren't cleaned up until they will have no more effects in the future.

So, yeah, I don't think that phrase is redundant at all! But I'm a literalist when it comes to game rules.

[SirPeebles]

Well, it's a bit redundant on Duchess.  It says that you may gain a Duchess, which means from the Supply.  If Duchess isn't in the Supply to start with, then you would just fail to gain the Duchess anyhow.

If Duchess said simply "When you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Duchess", then I would contest that ability would only work after playing a Duchess. Card text is, by default, operated when you play the card.

Also, I'm pretty sure that after you played Duchess once, since there's no duration for the effect (like "while this is in play" or "This turn"), that the effect would last for the rest of the game. Also, Duchess would never get cleaned up from play, since cards aren't cleaned up until they will have no more effects in the future.

So, yeah, I don't think that phrase is redundant at all! But I'm a literalist when it comes to game rules.

But when-trash effects don't require the card to be played.  It doesn't say "In games using Hunting Grounds, ..."