Print

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

[SirPeebles]

Here's another take on a Werewolf card that combines some mechanics I've thought about.

Villager
$2 Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy

---
When you would gain Curse, you may reveal this card.  If you do, trash this card and gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile instead.

Werewolf
$0* Action-Attack

+2 Cards

Each other player discards down to three cards and gains a Curse.
---
If you play a Silver while this card is in play, trash this card.
(This card is not in the Supply)

So clearly, Werewolf is a powerful attack.  However, it takes a bit of time to gain one, and if you want to keep it around you essentially need to find a Silver-free deck strategy (generally this would nudge the game in a more interesting direction, IMO).  Furthermore, Villager is like a partial bane to Werewolf, absorbing the incoming Curses and producing more Werewolves.  But since the discard attack happens before the Curse gain, this would relegate your opponent to a 2 card hand.

Now, Villager itself may be worthwhile as a $2 cantrip buy even without interest in Werewolf.  The main reason I gave it the +buy bonus is so that you have a spare buy to spend on a Curse to turn a spare Villager into a Werewolf.  At $2, you can't gain the Villager back from the trash to absorb more Curses.

What do you think?

[LastFootnote]

Interesting. You forgot to specify where you reveal the Villager from, though. Here are my rewordings:

Villager
$2 Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy

---
When you would gain a Curse, you may trash this from your hand.  If you do, instead, gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile.

Werewolf
$0* Action-Attack

+2 Cards

Each other player discards down to three cards in hand and gains a Curse.
---
While this is in play, when you play a Silver, trash this.
(This is not in the Supply)

Personally, I'd have it trigger on actually gaining the Curse, not "would" gaining it, so the Curse stays in your deck. Otherwise extra buys just become Werewolves too easily.

[Graystripe77]

+1 Card/Action/Buy on a 2 cost seems a bit too much. Other than that, I like the idea. Like Footnote said though, you should probably still gain a curse.

[SirPeebles]

Hmm, I really like that Villager is sort of a one-shot bane against versus Cursers, and would like to keep that aspect.  The first few Werewolves might be nice to gain, but unless you having Fishing Villages or something, there's really a limit to how many Werewolves you want in your deck.  Of course, you can always play a Silver to clear out unwanted ones.

Perhaps it would be better to strip the "+1 Card" from Villager.  Then the idea of buying them all as defense is a bit less attractive.  Still, I wanted Villager to be of at least some use even if no one has interest in Werewolves, e.g. there is Hunting Party with Lighthouse.

[One Armed Man]

Maybe +1 Action, +1 Coin, +1 Buy as a base ability? With the other way, it bumps elbows with Market Square too much.

[Asper]

Hmm, I really like that Villager is sort of a one-shot bane against versus Cursers, and would like to keep that aspect.  The first few Werewolves might be nice to gain, but unless you having Fishing Villages or something, there's really a limit to how many Werewolves you want in your deck.  Of course, you can always play a Silver to clear out unwanted ones.

Perhaps it would be better to strip the "+1 Card" from Villager.  Then the idea of buying them all as defense is a bit less attractive.  Still, I wanted Villager to be of at least some use even if no one has interest in Werewolves, e.g. there is Hunting Party with Lighthouse.

"If you would gain a Curse during another players turn", maybe? No Embargo Bane, but well...

EDIT: I see in games without cursers this would be pointless...

[brokoli]

I love the concept ! Probably one of my favorite fan cards ideas.

[SirPeebles]

OK.  I tweaked things a bit.  Mostly changed Villager, but I decided that Werewolf might be better with a coin bonus rather than a drawing bonus.

Villager
$1 Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action

You may play a Villager from your hand.  If you don't, gain a Villager.

---
When you would gain Curse, you may reveal this card from your hand.  If you do, trash this card and gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile instead.

Werewolf
$0* Action-Attack

+ $2

Each other player discards down to three cards and gains a Curse.
---
If you play a Silver while this card is in play, trash this card.
(This card is not in the Supply)

This Villager is a bit more Village-like.  Essentially, if you have multiple Villagers they begin to function like a Village after the first.  However, if they aren't busy being productive, then they get busy being reproductive, and you get more Villagers.  From your perspective as King, the common Villagers reproduce like, well, Rats.  This is nice, since aside from the reaction, Villagers are worthless self-gaining cantrips until their density grows large enough.  The cost is $1 to imply thematically that they are lowly commoners, but also so that they don't become  trash-for-benefit fodder in the way Rats are.  Of course, Villagers become attractive in Gardens and Vineyard games, but that's fine in my opinion.

So this Villager doesn't give you a +buy, but still gives you a way to gain more of itself and build up density, which is nice since they aren't worth much individually and are spent when turned into Werewolves.

In some cases, you might even prefer to keep your Villager stack for the +actions rather than spend them on Werewolves.

The main reason for giving the Werewolves +$2 is to ensure that there is a virtual coin option to help the Silver-free deck get off the ground.

On the Silver mechanic.  Thematically, the idea of Silver trashing Werewolf is fun.  Many other Werewolf cards I've seen have tried to use Silver to trash an opponent's Werewolf.  The problem with this is it encourages players to get more Silver, which has a tendency to push games towards big money, and also makes the decision to play a Werewolf needlessly risky and agonizing.  By having your own Silver trash your own Werewolf, this reverses the incentive structure.  It is now less risky to play your Werewolf, and the incentive pushes players away from Silver.  This generally means away from big money, although it also adds value to alternative treasure strategies.

Rules Question:  Mechanically, one reason that I went with "when you gain... gain instead" is so that gaining a Curse will only trigger a single Villager.  I didn't want someone trashing a hand full of Villagers in reaction to a single Curse.  Does the "when you gain..." language work the way I think it does?  In particular, I believe that if I have two Traders in hand when my opponent plays a Witch, I don't get to gain two Silvers.  That's correct, right?

[eHalcyon]

The Villager pile will run out very quickly.  If you play one, you are guaranteed to gain at least one more that turn.

The wording on Werewolf does not match official cards.  I think it should be:

"While this is in play, when you play a Silver, trash this."



I believe your understanding of "when you gain" vs. "when you would gain" is correct.  Two Traders would not grant you two silvers in place of a single Curse.



I think I prefer the theme of having Silver be a bane to the Werewolf attack.  But that would be a powerful bane, making the attack hard to balance... you would want it to be stronger to make it worthwhile despite the good bane, but then it becomes massively swingly when you just happen to catch them in a silverless hand.

[ednever]

Great card (usually I'm not a fan of fan made cards)

A few thoughts:
- having the werewolf draw is a nice synergy with getting actions from villagers
- you will go through the villager pile super fast. Maybe you need to play two villagers to get a free villager? (Has some sex connotations...). Even so, you may want a 20 card pile.
- having silver destroy your ww makes sense and I like it. Having it be the bane as well is good. If you do that you could make the ww even better: discard, curse, draw and +$2...
- think about the order of activity on the ww. Do you want the curse before or after the discard? If before then you could reveal and trash a villager, THEN discard a card; vs discard two cards, then trash a villager. I think the former is more fair - 2 card hands suck...

Ed

[Archetype]

I think Villager needs to have a +Buy so that it can get the Curses needed to turn them into Werewolves.

A cross between the original and updated version

Villager
Cost: 2$
Action

+1 Card
+1 Buy

You may play a card costing 2 coins or less from your hand.
---
When you would gain Curse, you may reveal this card from your hand.  If you do, trash this card and gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile instead.

Helps with playing additional Villagers as well as Werewolves.

Nice idea by the way! Cool how when the Villagers are Cursed by Werewolves they morph into Werewolves themselves.

[cluckyb]

Villager
$1 Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action

You may play a Villager from your hand.  If you don't, gain a Villager.

---
When you would gain Curse, you may reveal this card from your hand.  If you do, trash this card and gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile instead.

Yeah that version of Villager is broken. If I have two villagers and a WT, I can play villager 1, top deck villager 3; play villager 2, draw villager 3, top deck villager 4; play villager 3, draw villager 4, top deck villager 5...

The "you may play a card costing 2 or less" could work. Without giving an extra action it isn't too broken. It depends a lot on the amount of surrounding $2 support though. Just chaining villagers isn't all that useful that way. So maybe "+1 Card + 1 Action, you may play a villager from your hand" (no gain option).

So instead of a Lab only for playing Cultists, its a Village only for playing more Villagers.

[SirPeebles]

Villager
$1 Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action

You may play a Villager from your hand.  If you don't, gain a Villager.

---
When you would gain Curse, you may reveal this card from your hand.  If you do, trash this card and gain a Werewolf from the Werewolf pile instead.

Yeah that version of Villager is broken. If I have two villagers and a WT, I can play villager 1, top deck villager 3; play villager 2, draw villager 3, top deck villager 4; play villager 3, draw villager 4, top deck villager 5...

The "you may play a card costing 2 or less" could work. Without giving an extra action it isn't too broken. It depends a lot on the amount of surrounding $2 support though. Just chaining villagers isn't all that useful that way. So maybe "+1 Card + 1 Action, you may play a villager from your hand" (no gain option).

So instead of a Lab only for playing Cultists, its a Village only for playing more Villagers.

Gah!  I somehow tricked myself into thinking that I had quashed this Watchtower combo by not allowing to get both the Village effect and the gain simultaneously, but as you've pointed out I didn't think that one through properly.