Print

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

[StrongRhino]

I had an idea about two new knights.
One would be a looter, and the other would give you spoils.
Then maybe you would only play with 10 of the 12 knights, or all 12.
What do you think?

[SirPeebles]

What would the Looter do?  Presumably it would interact with the Ruins in some way?

[popsofctown]

Looter Knight is probably a bad idea.  If it dishes out ruins, it will be overpowered.  If it interacts with ruins in some other way like Death Cart, it will be awkward to make it work with just the one copy.

Gaining a spoils with a Knight is cool though, that will probably work out for you.  One reason Donald didn't do that is because of the surprise setup factor, "oh, one of the knights gains spoils, we gotta get the spoils stack out of the box", but since it will be a card you made yourself that will not be a drawback for you .

[One Armed Man]

Both of those require getting things out of the box. Knights setup is complicated enough.

[NoMoreFun]

"Each other player gains a Ruins, putting it in his hand"
"Gain a Spoils, putting it on top of your deck"

Those 2 seem balanced for Knights.

[SirPeebles]

One of the main defenses against a junker is to get one of your own -- not only so that your opponents' decks are slowed down too, but so that fewer junk cards make it into your own deck.  If Dame Looter is on the board, and there are no Cultists or Marauders, then whoever gets Dame Looter gets to shove all ten Ruins into her opponent's deck (in a two player game).

Edit:  This is similar to the issue with Followers.  But even then, Followers has a self junking effect with Estates.  That causes a larger VP differential in the end, but at least keeps deck compositions more balanced in the mean time, barring edge cases like Crossroads, Baron, and Scout.

[Archetype]

One of the main defenses against a junker is to get one of your own -- not only so that your opponents' decks are slowed down too, but so that fewer junk cards make it into your own deck.  If Dame Looter is on the board, and there are no Cultists or Marauders, then whoever gets Dame Looter gets to shove all ten Ruins into her opponent's deck (in a two player game).

Edit:  This is similar to the issue with Followers.  But even then, Followers has a self junking effect with Estates.  That causes a larger VP differential in the end, but at least keeps deck compositions more balanced in the mean time, barring edge cases like Crossroads, Baron, and Scout.

But there is Black Market which could turn into the same thing.

But I see your point. If the top knight was not Dame Looter, no one would buy it. If they did, it might reveal the looter for their opponent to grab and then the only way to counter it would be to just piledrive knights and hope you can trash the looter.

[SirPeebles]

While Donald didn't put down hard and fast rules on how to compose your Black Market deck -- presumably because not everyone owns/carries every set and every promo -- there are plenty of conventions one can follow that puts multiple junkers in there.

[popsofctown]

I think the promo cards are to some degree or another allowed to break design rules.  They are cards that were unfit for standard sets somehow.  If Governor was in my box of Hinterlands I would be a little bit perturbed.

[StrongRhino]

Looter Knight is probably a bad idea.  If it dishes out ruins, it will be overpowered.  If it interacts with ruins in some other way like Death Cart, it will be awkward to make it work with just the one copy.

You're probably right, it would be too broken with it being the only one out.
But as no more fun said, maybe you could put it in their hand like torturer? That would be easier to get rid of. Maybe you gain ruins for getting it or something?

EDIT: Thinking about it, maybe a looter knight wouldn't work. But I do want 2 more knights, so I can have another Dame and Sir,

[Mr Anderson]

I think a looter knight could work. Consider "Gain a Ruins (to hand), each other player gains a curse (to hand)." This is similar to Followers and does not only damage your opponent's deck but also your own. Do you think this could work/would be bought by someone?

Edit: You only use ten ruins if the knight is the only looter in a multiplayer game. Maybe add a clause that you may play a Ruins from your hand, or would that be too strong? I guess it will, comparing it to other Knights.

[One Armed Man]

One of the main defenses against a junker is to get one of your own -- not only so that your opponents' decks are slowed down too, but so that fewer junk cards make it into your own deck.  If Dame Looter is on the board, and there are no Cultists or Marauders, then whoever gets Dame Looter gets to shove all ten Ruins into her opponent's deck (in a two player game).

Edit:  This is similar to the issue with Followers.  But even then, Followers has a self junking effect with Estates.  That causes a larger VP differential in the end, but at least keeps deck compositions more balanced in the mean time, barring edge cases like Crossroads, Baron, and Scout.

There is always the possibility for: "Trash a Ruins from the supply. Each other player gains a Ruins, putting it in his hand."

[popsofctown]

Anderson's idea is pretty workable, actually.
I'd price it at 3 or 4$.  The difference between a ruins and a curse is minor.

[SirPeebles]

Anderson's idea is pretty workable, actually.
I'd price it at 3 or 4$.  The difference between a ruins and a curse is minor.

It looks workable to me, except that I really dislike having a special case rule that changes the number Ruins you play with.  What if Death Cart is in the kingdom?  Or what if Cultist is in the Black Market deck?

[Awaclus]

I think a looter knight could work. Consider "Gain a Ruins (to hand), each other player gains a curse (to hand)." This is similar to Followers and does not only damage your opponent's deck but also your own. Do you think this could work/would be bought by someone?

Edit: You only use ten ruins if the knight is the only looter in a multiplayer game. Maybe add a clause that you may play a Ruins from your hand, or would that be too strong? I guess it will, comparing it to other Knights.

What about "Gain and play a Ruins, then each other player gains a curse to his hand"? You couldn't choose which Ruins you play.

[popsofctown]

Oh, yeah, I don't like the special setup rule either.

Just make it "If no one gained a curse this way, play a Ruins from your hand twice" if you want to offset the "used up Sea Hag" problem.

[ahyangyi]

What about this:

Dame Looter

Each other player gains a Ruins and put it on the top of his deck.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If a Knight is trashed by this, trash this card.

Action - Attack - Knight - Looter - $5

[GendoIkari]

What about this:

Dame Looter

Each other player gains a Ruins and put it on the top of his deck.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If a Knight is trashed by this, trash this card.

Action - Attack - Knight - Looter - $5

I don't like it. So the net effect is that it's a Knight that only searches 1 instead of 2 to trash. I don't like that on one hand, it really should just say that, but on the other hand, the other wording would make it less consistant with other Knights. But as it is, it just seems like an awkward trick to change the attack.

Then there's issues with the attack only attacking one thing to begin with. It's probably too weak, and definitely too swingy. Then there's cases where searching only 1 instead of 2 can actually be worse for the person being attacked. Sir Martin revealed Goons and Silver? I trash the Silver. If you had played Dame Looter instead, I would be forced to trash the Goons.

[ahyangyi]

What about this:

Dame Looter

Each other player gains a Ruins and put it on the top of his deck.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If a Knight is trashed by this, trash this card.

Action - Attack - Knight - Looter - $5

I don't like it. So the net effect is that it's a Knight that only searches 1 instead of 2 to trash. I don't like that on one hand, it really should just say that, but on the other hand, the other wording would make it less consistant with other Knights. But as it is, it just seems like an awkward trick to change the attack.

Then there's issues with the attack only attacking one thing to begin with. It's probably too weak, and definitely too swingy. Then there's cases where searching only 1 instead of 2 can actually be worse for the person being attacked. Sir Martin revealed Goons and Silver? I trash the Silver. If you had played Dame Looter instead, I would be forced to trash the Goons.

Yes, I agree you with all your points. Swingy, and the general awkward looking of having two effects that comically cancel each other.

Then what about this?

Dame Looter

Each player may trash an Action card from his hand.
Each other player gains a Ruins, putting in his hand.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If a Knight is trashed by this, trash this card.

Action - Attack - Knight - Looter - $5

If some of you are concerned about this being the only card giving out ruins, what about giving an option for everyone to trash the ruins afterwards? This extra ability helps others more than you when this is the only Looter, but helps everyone equally when there's other Looters. Could this solve the problem?

[jbrecken]

If the problem of making a Looter Knight is that it might be the only one in the kingdom, make her go home after she rides out and loots everyone:

Dame Looter

Each other player gains two Ruins.
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.  If a Knight is trashed by this, trash this card.

When this card is discarded from play, return it to the Knights pile.

Action - Attack - Knight - Looter - $5

Only giving out one ruin seemed too weak for a $5 one-shot, so I kicked it up to 2.

[popsofctown]

If you return the Dame, she goes on top of the stack.  Having the same knight repeatedly present itself as a possible purchase breaks the spirit of knights.

If you trash her, my concern is 1 is too few and 2 is too many.

[StrongRhino]

If you return the Dame, she goes on top of the stack.  Having the same knight repeatedly present itself as a possible purchase breaks the spirit of knights.

If you trash her, my concern is 1 is too few and 2 is too many.

Maybe she could go on the bottom of the pile?

[eHalcyon]

If you return the Dame, she goes on top of the stack.  Having the same knight repeatedly present itself as a possible purchase breaks the spirit of knights.

If you trash her, my concern is 1 is too few and 2 is too many.

Maybe she could go on the bottom of the pile?

If she goes on the bottom, then in many cases it is the same as trashing her as she will not come up again.  Unless you're piledriving Knights every game...

[brokoli]

Do not forget that knights trash a card costing more than $3, so a ruin-giver Knight somehow anti-synergize since ruins cost $0.
This is why I think a simple looter knight "each other player gain a ruin" could work, otherwise it could be "each other player gain a ruin on top of his deck, then each other player reveal the top card of his deck, etc..."

[eHalcyon]

Do not forget that knights trash a card costing more than $3, so a ruin-giver Knight somehow anti-synergize since ruins cost $0.
This is why I think a simple looter knight "each other player gain a ruin" could work, otherwise it could be "each other player gain a ruin on top of his deck, then each other player reveal the top card of his deck, etc..."

Yeah, but you might still be holding the only junker on the board, which is powerful...