Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"

"Two or less" is better.

"If you have no more than 2 cards in hand,"

[Asper]

Why can't you just say "less than 3 cards"

"Two or less" is better.

"If you have no more than 2 cards in hand,"

That's the Walled Village wording, isn't it? I guess i could use that...

[One Armed Man]

Grand Vizier now prevents yourself from using the newly acquired gold, except by itself (and optionally with a random card from the deck).
Hand: GV GV Copper Copper Estate. Play GV, trash Copper&Estate, Play GV, Gain Gold to hand, discard Gold and Copper to draw a random card & give opponent Copper to hand.

Hand: GV Warehouse Copper Copper Estate. Play Warehouse, draw Copper Estate Silver. Discard Silver, Copper, Copper. Play GV, You now have 3 cards in hand, so only trash 2 estates.

Hand: GV Copper Copper. You have been hit with Militia. Play GV, gain Gold to hand, trash 2 coppers, buy $3 cost.

Hand: GV Hamlet Copper Copper Estate. Play Hamlet, draw copper, discard 2 coppers. Play GV, gain gold to hand, trash copper estate, buy $4 card.

Hand: GV Hamlet Silver Silver Estate. Play Hamlet, draw copper, discard 2 Copper&estate. Play GV, gain gold to hand, discard 2 silvers, draw something, buy $3+something card.

[Asper]

EDIT: I see you changed your post. The Hamlet example would leave me with only one Gold in hand, wouldn't it?
I don't know, is your point that the card is too weak? If yes, see the alternate version below (you may choose both or none of the options, there).

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Choose one:
Trash 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card and each other player gains a Copper;
Or: If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand. Otherwise, gain a Copper;
4$ Action

[Asper]

That's it. If noone can actually show me this is overpowered, i will keep it like this.

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may choose one:
Trash 2 cards from your hand;
Or: Discard 2 cards. If you do: + 1 Card and each other player gains a Copper;
4$ Action - Attack

(The "exactly" instead of "no more than" is mostly for taste reasons, but it also keeps you from trashing with your first GV if you have two of them in hand, which makes the card a teeny bit weaker.)

[eHalcyon]

Be careful with Copper junkers.  Due to pile size, copper junking is very difficult to balance.  Mountebank comes with a Moat and Ambassador is naturally limited because regular use will have you return your coppers until you run out of that fodder.  I'm not sure if the discard penalty here is enough to cover it.  I think it might.

Your wording is still not great.  The "or" should not be capitalized and is not followed by a colon.  Also, ending the sentence after "discard 2 cards" makes that seem like the end of the choice, so the "if you do" is ambiguous in what it applies to.  Oh, and there shouldn't be a colon there either.

Since it is a choice, I'm not sure you need the "if you do" there at all.  The only purpose for it is to prevent you from attacking when you only have fewer than 2 cards in hand.

So like this:

Grand Vizier
$4 - Action-Attack
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure card costing up to $6 and put it in your hand.  You may choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard 2 cards, +1 card and each other player gains a Copper.




It is just very complicated and fiddly, I think.  It has a bunch of moving parts that don't seem to fit together.  I see that they do work together, in that one GV can enable the second to gain Gold, but it just doesn't feel cohesive to me.  Sorry this is an unclear criticism.

[Asper]

Grand Vizier
$4 - Action-Attack
+1 Action
If you have exactly 2 cards in hand, gain a Treasure card costing up to $6 and put it in your hand.  You may choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard 2 cards, +1 card and each other player gains a Copper.

It is just very complicated and fiddly, I think.  It has a bunch of moving parts that don't seem to fit together.  I see that they do work together, in that one GV can enable the second to gain Gold, but it just doesn't feel cohesive to me.  Sorry this is an unclear criticism.

Thank you very much for your wording, eHalcyon. I really appreciate that. Your critique about the moving parts is also quite fitting, i'm afraid. It's just not clear enough what the card actually does... Well, at least i learned something about how to do choices here

Maybe what i need to do is something much more simple:

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

Now it's much more clear what the card does - it's a deck improver. Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution.

[LastFootnote]

Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.

You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.

The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.

[eHalcyon]

Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.

You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.

The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.

I think it means "never more than 8 cards", which would result in a negative cost.  A minimum on the Treasure cost would make more sense, perhaps.  I'm not fond of using an actual variable X in the wording, but it's hard to find something better.

[LastFootnote]

Grand Vizier
$4 - Action
+ 1 Action
Gain a Treasure card costing up to 8$ - X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand, but never more than 8.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

Thanks to OneArmedMan for the 8-X solution. Maybe i should rename the card, though - without an attack, it's not the same.

You don't need the part that says, "buy never more than 8." Since you can never have negative cards in your hand, the gained card will never cost more than $8.

The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.

I think it means "never more than 8 cards", which would result in a negative cost.  A minimum on the Treasure cost would make more sense, perhaps.  I'm not fond of using an actual variable X in the wording, but it's hard to find something better.

Grand Vizier
$4 — Action
+1 Action. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $8 – $1 per card in your hand. You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

If you have more than 8 cards in your hand, you just wouldn't gain a Treasure. I think it's fine.

[Asper]

Grand Vizier
$4 — Action
+1 Action. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $8 – $1 per card in your hand. You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.

If you have more than 8 cards in your hand, you just wouldn't gain a Treasure. I think it's fine.

I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.

If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action

The card is looking very interesting, by the way. I like this new, simplified version. I wonder if it would be more interesting if you didn't restrict the gain to Treasures.

Thank you. I believe that gaining other cards but treasures would make this too strong for a 4$, and i'd like to keep it at that cost. Just imagine how many GVs you could gain, not to mention playing Festival and GV to gain another Festival...

If i really were to improve this, i'd add "If you trash this, each other player gains a Copper".

[LastFootnote]

I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.

If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:

I've been making fan cards for a while, and I have some advice for you: don't sacrifice the elegance and clarity of a simpler wording simply to make sure the card works exactly the way you originally intended in an edge case that will barely ever matter. I'd say your wording is less clear, if anything. I understand that you originally intended that the card would always gain at least a Copper, but is that really so important? How often is somebody going to buy a Grand Vizier and then build a deck that draws up to 9 cards before playing it?

Bear in mind that there is precedent for a card telling you to gain a card costing less than $0. When you play Develop and trash a $0 card, you must attempt to gain a card costing –$1, which will always fail.

[enfynet]

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a Victory Card. If you have 2 or less cards in your hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action

What do you want this card to do? Do you want it to trash cards? Gain cards? Maybe a description of the desired function will give us a better idea of how to build the card rules.

[Asper]

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a Victory Card. If you have 2 or less cards in your hand, gain a Treasure Card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
$4 Action

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
Gain a treasure card costing from 0$ to 8$-X$, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.
4$ Action

What do you want this card to do? Do you want it to trash cards? Gain cards? Maybe a description of the desired function will give us a better idea of how to build the card rules.

It is meant to reward a small handsize. That's the only important point. I wanted to make a card that makes players go for a reverse strategy to "draw your whole deck". It's as simple as that. Well, not exactly. It should also combo with itself and have some regular use. It's gone a long way and evolved a lot during this thread, that's why it always looks different. But yeah, small handsize - that's what it's all about.

EDIT: Did i mention it absolutely must be able to gain Harem?

I like your wording, but i don't know if players would assume the lowest you can go was 0$, which means you would have to gain a Copper. Actually i intended that.

If i use "From 0$ to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand", i'm not sure it's understood. A variable is not very elegant, but might be a bit clearer:

I've been making fan cards for a while, and I have some advice for you: don't sacrifice the elegance and clarity of a simpler wording simply to make sure the card works exactly the way you originally intended in an edge case that will barely ever matter. I'd say your wording is less clear, if anything. I understand that you originally intended that the card would always gain at least a Copper, but is that really so important? How often is somebody going to buy a Grand Vizier and then build a deck that draws up to 9 cards before playing it?

Bear in mind that there is precedent for a card telling you to gain a card costing less than $0. When you play Develop and trash a $0 card, you must attempt to gain a card costing –$1, which will always fail.

Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.

The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.

[LastFootnote]

Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.

The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.

That's fair. What if you made the gain optional?

[Asper]

Don't assume i'm not grateful for your remarks and consideration, i truly am. I will take your point into consideration, but as it's my card, and as it's a point of view whether drawing many cards and wanting to trash some of them is an "edge case", i will feel free to use a wording you don't regard elegant. I myself make fan cards since about 4 years now, and my english causes me to make wording errors that would never happen in my native language, especially as i don't know the english cards by heart.

The thing is: As pointed out, the card exists to rewards small handsize. That's its whole point. But with your wording, a 9 card hand is suddenly better than an 8 card hand. And i don't like that, simply because it goes against the cards main concept.

That's fair. What if you made the gain optional?

That's a good solution. "You may gain a Copper" is strictly better than "Gain nothing"
I know it's pedantic, sorry...

I'll just have to see if it doesn't make the card even stronger - i'm concerned it might be too good for plain old 4$ right now, but i'll find out playtesting. Probably i'm comparing it a bit too much with Steward...

So:

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
You may gain a treasure card costing up to 8$ - 1$ per card in your hand.
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
4$ Action

[LastFootnote]

That's a good solution. "You may gain a Copper" is strictly better than "Gain nothing"
I know it's pedantic, sorry...

That's cool. Honestly, I like the version that just gains Gold if you have no more than 2 cards in your hand. It neatly avoids all this stuff, and it's what you usually want to do with the card anyway.

[soulnet]

A non-terminal Silver gainer that trashes 2 from hand (optionally!) seems incredibly powerful. Probably better than JoaT in many situations. I think the idea is cute, but seems overpowered at $4. Note that Trading Post is quite similar but much less flexible, and it costs $5. I think this is would be a better opening than Remake in almost any board, and Remake is already one of the best $4 cards. And its flexibility for later is incredible.

[enfynet]

I agree. I think the card should return to the basic premise. Buy a few of these to trim your deck with the "You may trash" part, chain them with the +Action, and gain Gold (or other) by running your hand down. I also liked that it gained directly to your hand.

[Asper]

I thank you all for your feedback, but oops, it's 03:09 in the morning again in Germany, so i'll look here again tomorrow...
If someone remembers a version of the card where he'd say "that's it" or wants to give making one a try, way to go.
Good night and thank you all

EDIT: If the only good solution is "make it cost 5$", then so shall it be. But i'd rather make it worse, as i want it to be something you can open with.

EDIT 2: Last try (for tonight):
Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
Choose one: Trash 2 cards from your hand; or discard a card.
4$ Action

[eHalcyon]

How would that one rewording have made Grand Vizier stronger with 9 or more cards?  It just means that players wouldn't gain any Treasure card at all.  That is better than having to gain a Copper, but not that much better.  It would still reward small hand sizes.

The point that this is $4 for strong non-terminal trashing is really good.  Even without the treasure gaining, just +1 action, trash 2 cards might be too strong for $4.  Gaining Gold just makes it way better.  Hm.

[Asper]

How would that one rewording have made Grand Vizier stronger with 9 or more cards?  It just means that players wouldn't gain any Treasure card at all.  That is better than having to gain a Copper, but not that much better.  It would still reward small hand sizes.

The point that this is $4 for strong non-terminal trashing is really good.  Even without the treasure gaining, just +1 action, trash 2 cards might be too strong for $4.  Gaining Gold just makes it way better.  Hm.

Yes, but that's allready enough. I am willing to change anything else on the card, but not that Lower handsize = better GV.
It's pedantic, i know, but after all, that's the point of the card. If i can't make it work, that's okay, too.

What if i reduce the trashing and offer other choices, for example to save the Gold for the next turn?

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may trash a card from your hand.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Copper.

EDIT: Actually i'm close to giving up on it right now...

[enfynet]

I like the required trashing more than the optional trashing.

[LastFootnote]

Well, if we boil the concept of 'gainer that gets better the fewer cards you have in hand', I think it'd look something like this:

Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $7 – $1 per card in your hand.

That seems reasonable to me. By default it gains cards costing up to $3. If you get hit by a Militia, it gains a card costing up to $5. It can't gain Provinces because that would be too crazy with Warehouse, Hamlet, Cellar, etc.

[Asper]

Grand Vizier
+ 1 Action
If you have no more than 2 cards in hand, gain a treasure card costing up to 6$ and put it in your hand.
You may trash a card from your hand.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Copper.

I don't know. All i can say is that this worked nicely when i playtested it today. Oasis/Grand Vizier could beat Fools Gold/Market on a Board with constant Pillaging and Medium as another possible handsize-reducer. It won, but close. Considering that there was a cheap and good enabler that helped it as well as an attack that hit other strategies far worse, i think that's okay. Without an enabler and/or with junkers, GV would probably have lost. Required trashing might be a bit too tough, i think. But i'll keep playtesting and we'll see.

Actually i must admit i'm rather confident about it at the moment

LastFootnote, your idea is nice, but i don't know. I think there are enough Workshops allready. I know i brought it up myself, but only gaining something good once in a while seems more interesting to me. It's a stronger reason to go for a completely different strategy than usual, and that's important for me. I feel that, as reducing your handsize does not happen that easy (especially when the card itself is terminal), your card will be a Silver gainer most of the time...

EDIT: I'll try the mandatory trashing later today. As trashing will be the only real effect of the card if it does not gain a Gold, that might just be okay. Also it gives you a reason to trash other GVs late in the game
I'll update the card if this turns out a good idea.