Print

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

[zahlman]

Another take on the "investing" idea, influenced by Pirate Ship.

War Chest - Treasure - $5?

When you play this, choose one: put a Treasure from your hand onto your War Chest mat; or +1 Buy.
Then, this is worth $1 for each Treasure on your War Chest mat.

[RTT]

i think it is pretty powerfull because it is a tressure card an dont need an action to use, so multiple uses are so much easier then pirate ship.

you opponents cant defend against this strategie unlike at pirate ship (not buy treasures, reaction cards)

and it even provides the + buy you desperatly need if you get this much money.

and you can pseudo trash your coppers instead of thrashing your oponents coppers and helping him sometimes.

Overall its very strong it might be possible without the +buy and as an terminal action for 5 i think.

it even has similarity to forager but only you benefit from the trashing and it counts all treassures not only the different.

[Tables]

First time you play this, you trash a copper for $0 essentially. Second time, you do it for $1, then for $2, then for $3 and so on. Eventually you'd need to start putting silvers on the mat but whatever, you can still even just play it for the +buy.

The main issue I can see is that it's far too strong a strategy to itself. The most powerful thing it combos with is more War Chests (probably), and with 2-3 of them going through your deck, you'd easily get a card giving obscene amounts too quickly. But it's REALLY hard to judge - in a quick game, it's probably bad, as it won't get up to value quick enough. But in a slow game, it'd be incredibly strong. I think that swing is probably too much, and I think it leans towards the latter too often.

[Awaclus]

The +1 Buy is too much, I think.

[SirPeebles]

Definitely seems too strong.  As a treasure, you can buy up lots of these in a terminal draw BM game and be double provincing by the end, if the game even lasts that long. 

The thing is, it builds up AND gives money at the same time.  And it's easier for it to hit, since it looks at your hand rather than just blindly at two cards.  It's clearing Coppers out of your own deck rather than your opponent's.  And it's a treasure, so you can always play them, even after terminal draw or a strong terminal attack. Even without the +buy it would be too strong, but with the +buy option to make use of that hand full of $7 treasures?  Hell, you get should get penalized for not placing a treasure on your mat, not given such a valuable in context reward.

[SirPeebles]

I feel like I came across as too harsh.  It seems like a good start, even though it definitely has some issues to address.  One path essentially leads to Forager (make it an action to lessen synergy with terminal draw, share your war chest mat to make it less dominant (at which point, just use the trash pile), and count names of treasure so that it can't be so inflated by Copper.  Still, Forager is nonterminal and gives you that +buy.  And as long as the trash pile is being used, why not let it trash non treasures too?)

[ahyangyi]

First time you play this, you trash a copper for $0 essentially. Second time, you do it for $1, then for $2, then for $3 and so on. Eventually you'd need to start putting silvers on the mat but whatever, you can still even just play it for the +buy.

The main issue I can see is that it's far too strong a strategy to itself. The most powerful thing it combos with is more War Chests (probably), and with 2-3 of them going through your deck, you'd easily get a card giving obscene amounts too quickly. But it's REALLY hard to judge - in a quick game, it's probably bad, as it won't get up to value quick enough. But in a slow game, it'd be incredibly strong. I think that swing is probably too much, and I think it leans towards the latter too often.

If it's too strong, can we just change it to $6 or even $7? After all, Bank is there at $7, and this does not look so much stronger than Bank.
And, is it really more swingy than Bank or say, Treasure Maps?

[cluckyb]

I think its stronger than a Bank. Look at all the things it does:

1) Trashes your copper like a loan but doesn't get in the way when you're done trashing copper
2) Gets more powerful the more stuff you trash like a Forager, but doesn't force you to keep trashing late game
3) Treasure that gives + buy like Counterfiet or Contraband, without the negative effects of Counterfit and Contraband
4) Grows like pirate ship, except you have more control and can speed it up by buying new ones. Plus its a treasure, so you don't need to waste an action to get the benefit.

[RTT]

without the + buy it could be ok at 7 but then it would grow to slow because you get it a lot later and your opponent can buy provinces soon after that.
at 7 only maybe usefull in colony games. + edge cases

or as i said dont make it a treassure but a terminal action. then its maybe 6$ or 5$

[BiggerOil]

Maybe it should be worth $1 for each differently named treasure?

[Awaclus]

Maybe it should be worth $1 for each differently named treasure?

That wouldn't be very powerful.

What about each treasure on the mat increases the amount of $ War Chest is worth by half of the cost in coins of the treasure? So a Copper wouldn't do anything, Silver would increase it by $1 and Gold would increase it by $3. Would be awkward to word, though.

[heron]

I think that worth one per differently named treasure would be fine, really, and could keep the cost at $5.

[Hks]

Well, isn't that a little too similar to Forager?
... But when I think about it... It's a lot less risky, your opponent can't exploit it you trash treasures for it to become more valueble. It can't trash other cards than treasures. Just needs playtesting, I guess.