Print

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

[Asper]

Did somebody try something like this before? Not that it would surprise me.

Charter
6$, Treasure - Attack
2$
When you play this, each other player gains a Copper.

[LastFootnote]

Did somebody try something like this before? Not that it would surprise me.

Charter
6$, Treasure - Attack
2$
When you play this, each other player must gain a Copper.

Attacks that consistently give Copper tend not to be a good idea because the number of Coppers in the Supply varies so much with the number of players.

[Asper]

Did somebody try something like this before? Not that it would surprise me.

Charter
6$, Treasure - Attack
2$
When you play this, each other player must gain a Copper.

Attacks that consistently give Copper tend not to be a good idea because the number of Coppers in the Supply varies so much with the number of players.

Hmm, i see what you mean. On the other hand, 6$ is expensive enough to not be played thousands of times. I guess many other attacks don't work with a Treasure, as that would slow down the game a lot...

[ahyangyi]

Hmm. Adventurers help charters, but being hit by charters makes adventurers shit again.

[soulnet]

I like it, although I think it might be hard to balance. With good engine, the first player to be able to play 2 or 3 of this consistently will probably bury the rest in Copper, wich is a relentless attack because it never stops and completely clogs up engines, so its not THAT much better than receiving Curses (it may very well be worse, in a board with good engine possibilities, because of the amoun of Copper available for attacking).

Notice that Ambassador also snowballs pretty hard, but it is terminal and requires other cards in hand to work, while this one is pretty automatic and is better than a non-terminal because you cannot draw it dead.

On BM it seems it would be pretty ok, quite comparable to Cache. For terminal drawing BM, it would be pretty good I guess.

[Asper]

Of course it would be much easier to balance if there was a Bane, especially if the bane is more likely to save you the more you allready got hit. I didn't find a good one yet, and as a treasure card Charter asks for something easy and fast... So no "Discard two, draw one, reveal your hand, open the door, get on the floor, everybody do the Dinosaur"...

[popsofctown]

Did somebody try something like this before? Not that it would surprise me.

Charter
6$, Treasure - Attack
2$
When you play this, each other player must gain a Copper.

Attacks that consistently give Copper tend not to be a good idea because the number of Coppers in the Supply varies so much with the number of players.

No.  Sorry, but I get irritated when fan cards get attacked for flaws that Donald/Jay have introduced into the game, not the fan.

Base Dominion comes with 50 Coppers, and then Intrigue rules introduced take-it-or-leave-it, pretty unstandardized guidelines to how many treasures to actually play with.  Ideal design for Dominion is more or less to never run out of coppers except in some sort of special case like an infinite loop.  This had to be weighed against the actual practicality of putting 1,000 coppers in a box of base Dominion.

Pretty sure I've heard it reported many a time that playing 4 player Mountebank without Intrigue coppers can consistently drain the Copper pile.  This drastically exacerbates the first player advantage that is already a huge problem in those sort of games.  Interacts-with-copper cards should be held to a 100 Copper standard, or possibly 150 with the release of base cards.  Holding them to "I need to be able to throw this in a box of base and go" standard is not fair.

[popsofctown]

I have no idea why I took this so seriously, but sorry.  It is just opinions about fan cards.

[RTT]

how about a bane if you reveal a hand of 2/3 coppers you are unaffected by the attack.

[Morgrim7]

how about a bane if you reveal a hand of 2/3 coppers you are unaffected by the attack.

I think this is good for three. With this bane it should cost $5, I believe.

[ahyangyi]

What about let the duchy to be the bane?

Duchy is the card you can always hope for when you are attacked by a copper giver.

[Morgrim7]

What about let the duchy to be the bane?

Duchy is the card you can always hope for when you are attacked by a copper giver.

Nah. Gotta be Copper. Duchy doesnt make any sense.

[soulnet]

What about let the duchy to be the bane?

Duchy is the card you can always hope for when you are attacked by a copper giver.

The thing is contradictory. If you are going for Duchies, then you WANT the Copper. I would use Copper or maybe Treasures in general, although this points so hard towards BM that I don't really like it (if you have high probability of having many Coppers in hand, then you are definitely not running a smooth engine, MAYBE an HP+X or some Stables thing, but that's it).

[Asper]

In fact i shortly thought about Estates as the bane, but just like soulnet i came to the conclusion that victory-banes are actually contradictory to the card.
I like RTT's idea, but i'm not absolutely sure whether 3 Coppers might not be a bit much. If i attack with Militia, there's almost no chance to escape the attack, except if you only keep Coppers in hand. So what about a reversed version that says "Each other player may reveal a hand with at most 2 cards other than Copper in it. If he does not, he gains a Copper."? Too complicated?

[mail-mi]

Adding in my two cents, what about a mallitia type attack? Undoes the non terminal thing, doesn't deal with coppers.

[Morgrim7]

Adding in my two cents, what about a mallitia type attack? Undoes the non terminal thing, doesn't deal with coppers.

I dont see a problem with it. A Silver with this ability would cost $4?

[mail-mi]

Adding in my two cents, what about a mallitia type attack? Undoes the non terminal thing, doesn't deal with coppers.

I dont see a problem with it. A Silver with this ability would cost $4?

No mallitia is already 4 and terminal. Silver 5 or maybe copper 3 or 4.

[soulnet]

I dont see a problem with it. A Silver with this ability would cost $4?

Probably $5. Besides the fact that there should be no Silver+ for $4, it would be way more powerful than Militia itself that already costs $4.

 For $5, it would be hard to amass a lot for terminal draw + BM (or you would need to pass on some Golds, which is terrible for BM). $5 Silver equivalents tend to not be very good for engines, because you probably need to pass on important engine components. But, getting just one of these could be very nice for an engine, to get extra Attack at small cost (less than $1 in treasure, and no consumed action). I like it that seems better for engines than for BM, while being a Treasure.

[Asper]

Militia is okay, but there allready are many of that. Militia, Urchin, Mercenary, Torturer, Goons... Not even counting Cutpurse, Pillage and Ghost Ship here.
Also it's very close to the original, i feel it lacks the bit of "Specialness". I might be wrong, but i'd like the Copper-giving a bit more, as it isn't there nearly as often yet. What do you think about a combination where the discard works as the "bane"?

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand chooses one: He discards a Copper; or he gains a Copper may discard a Copper. If he does not, he gains a Copper.

Edit: Fixed wording mistake.

[mail-mi]

Militia is okay, but there allready are many of that. Militia, Urchin, Mercenary, Torturer, Goons... Not even counting Cutpurse, Pillage and Ghost Ship here.
Also it's very close to the original, i feel it lacks the bit of "Specialness". I might be wrong, but i'd like the Copper-giving a bit more, as it isn't there nearly as often yet. What do you think about a combination where the discard works as the "bane"?

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand chooses one: He discards a Copper; or he gains a Copper.

I would almost always choose discard a copper, because l8r in the game I will have no coppers in hand.

[Asper]

Ah crap, i did the wording wrong. What i meant is this:

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper. If he does not, he gains a Copper.

[LastFootnote]

Ah crap, i did the wording wrong. What i meant is this:

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper. If he does not, he gains a Copper.

The wording is a bit ambiguous. If I only have 3 cards in hand, do I gain a Copper, or am I immune to the attack?

[Asper]

Ah crap, i did the wording wrong. What i meant is this:

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper. If he does not, he gains a Copper.

The wording is a bit ambiguous. If I only have 3 cards in hand, do I gain a Copper, or am I immune to the attack?

I think as the first sentence only talks about players with 4+ cards, the concurring "he" clearly relates to them. Actually, trying to do a clearer wording led me to the wording above when i didn't notice how it changed the card. Maybe it can be made more clear by connecting the two sentences?

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper, gaining a Copper if he does not.

Edit: So yes, with only three cards in hand you are immune.

[mail-mi]

What $ is it worth?

[GendoIkari]

Ah crap, i did the wording wrong. What i meant is this:

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper. If he does not, he gains a Copper.

The wording is a bit ambiguous. If I only have 3 cards in hand, do I gain a Copper, or am I immune to the attack?

I think as the first sentence only talks about players with 4+ cards, the concurring "he" clearly relates to them. Actually, trying to do a clearer wording led me to the wording above when i didn't notice how it changed the card. Maybe it can be made more clear by connecting the two sentences?

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack
When you play this, each other player mit 4 or more cards in hand may discard a Copper, gaining a Copper if he does not.

Edit: So yes, with only three cards in hand you are immune.

I see no reason to limit it to players with 4 or more cards in hand... That seems to only make sense on cards that make you discard. Why should you be immune to this attack just because you were militiad earlier?