Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

I made a topic a while back on this, but I thought I'd make a new topic for the final versions, with a new mechanic

There are 6 Trinkets, and only one copy of each. At the start of games using them, you randomly replace ONE copper with a Trinket.

All of them are "better" than Copper, and the initial advantage you get may play into the kind of strategy you ultimately pursue.

Without further ado, the cards:

Rare Coin
Treasure/Trinket - $4
Worth $1

Toy Bridge (credit to dondon151)
Treasure/Trinket - $0
Worth $0
---
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, to a minimum cost of $0

Key to the City
Treasure/Trinket - $0
Worth $1
+$1 for each empty supply pile

Bell
Action/Trinket - $0
+2 Actions
+$1

Dagger
Treasure/Reaction/Trinket - $0
Worth $1
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may trash this. If you do, you are unaffected by that Attack.

Trinket Box
Treasure/Victory/Trinket - $0
Worth 1VP for every 2 treasures other than Copper, Silver and Gold in your deck (rounded down)
---
Worth $1

Note that there are many games in which a particular Trinket is useless. I doubt that there will be many boards in which only one is useful however, and none of them are going to win games on their own.

EDIT: Changed the rules on how many you get, and a few other minor changes.

[math]

Interesting idea.  Here are my first impressions of the cards.

Locket: This is way overpowered in 2-player games without trashing.  If you get it, you automatically start out with a 3VP lead over your opponent.  Making it a flat 1VP would probably be a better idea.

Dagger: Does it have to block the attack?  Since you want to trash Copper anyway, it seems as if you could just be able to trash it to an Attack and it would be good enough.

Rare Coin: This is amazing with Upgrade or Remake; trash it and get a $5 action.  It's similar to Rats in that regard - very powerful with trash for benefit, no use otherwise.

Key to the City: A copper that might turn into a silver later.  You won't want to drain a pile just to upgrade this, though.

Bell: Similar to Squire in an engine (without the +Buy option), mostly a copper otherwise.  Bad in terminal draw BM.

Toy Bridge: Nice if you can get +Buy, or with other cost reduction.

[popsofctown]

Why not draft Trinkets, with Player 1 choosing last?

[KingZog3]

Why not draft Trinkets, with Player 1 choosing last?

That could work. I like the idea, but my concern is that it adds unfairness in some set-ups. I might get Rare Coin on a good TfB board, and my opponent would get Bell when there are tons of villages. I think there should be enough copies that each player can choose any Trinkets they like, no more than 1 copy of each. That way it's fair and balanced depending on the set-up.

[RTT]

I think trinkets make forager kind of unplayable. Or just to strong. otherwise I like the Idea

[dondon151]

Other cost reduction cards suggest that the proper wording should be "but not less than $0" instead of "to a minimum of $0." Only Poor House uses the latter wording.

[GendoIkari]

I like the idea a lot, but I'm worried that with different players receiving different Trinkets, there can easily be an unfair advantage for one player over another; depending completely on what else is on the board.

Rare Coin
Treasure/Trinket - $4
Worth $1

As already mentioned, sometimes 100% the same as Copper, sometimes really good.

Toy Bridge (credit to dondon151)
Treasure/Trinket - $0
Worth $0
---
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, to a minimum cost of $0

Same as above... though it's more common to have at least some option of +buy. I like this one, basically a Silver if you buy 2 cards.

Key to the City
Treasure/Trinket - $0
Worth $1
+$1 for each empty supply pile

Needs "when you play this" type wording. The bonus isn't nearly enough to make a player try to empty a pile if they wouldn't otherwise, but it still works out just fine if you keep it to the end of the game.

Bell
Action/Trinket - $0
+2 Actions
+$1

Probably the most powerful Trinket. Interesting that it's an Action and not a Treasure. But completely unfair if it's a board that would be great for an engine except there's no Villages; the player who gets this probably automatically wins. Especially if there's something like TR or KC.

Dagger
Treasure/Reaction/Trinket - $0
Worth $1
---
When another player plays an Attack, you may trash this. If you do, you are unaffected by that Attack.

Needs "from hand" wording. I would like it better if you discarded it instead of trashed it. Trashing is weird because it can be really good (free Copper trash), but maybe you don't want to trash it because it's stopping attacks.

Locket
Treasure/Victory/Trinket - $0
Worth 1VP for every Trinket in your deck
---
Worth $1

I agree with above; should just be a flat 1 VP. Also the only Trinket which has some sort of use in every game.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I feel like Bell should just be +1 Action, +$1. Being disappearing money instead of treasure differentiates it in a reasonable number of circumstances without being crazy good.

[soulnet]

I feel like Bell should just be +1 Action, +$1. Being disappearing money instead of treasure differentiates it in a reasonable number of circumstances without being crazy good.

It would be worse than Copper in a huge number of cases, though, because you may draw it dead. Drawing non-terminals dead I think is important more often than one you need disappearing money.

[SirPeebles]

If there are no other villages, then Bell is not about to make an engine deck work, just as Necropolis does not single-handedly permit an engine.  In fact, it's similar to why +3 actions is not so amazingly better than +2 actions;  yes, you need a lot of villages to support a large number of terminal actions, but even if you had access to a "+ unlimited actions" uber-village, you would still need to obtain enough of them to acheive sufficient village density so that you can reliably begin your turn with one in hand.

Bell is actually better in a kingdom with villages, since it's effectively giving you a one village lead from the start towards a feasible strategy. 

[soulnet]

If there are no other villages, then Bell is not about to make an engine deck work, just as Necropolis does not single-handedly permit an engine.  In fact, it's similar to why +3 actions is not so amazingly better than +2 actions;  yes, you need a lot of villages to support a large number of terminal actions, but even if you had access to a "+ unlimited actions" uber-village, you would still need to obtain enough of them to acheive sufficient village density so that you can reliably begin your turn with one in hand.

Bell is actually better in a kingdom with villages, since it's effectively giving you a one village lead from the start towards a feasible strategy.

Well, having the only village is also good if you can get a thin deck. Being able to double-Curse or double-Amb while the opponent single-Curses you back can be huge. Also, if there is Scheme in the table, you can keep topdecking that Bell.

I agree though that Bell is most likely to be better with Villages, where the engine is feasible, than the edge cases in which it shines without. I think it would be best when there is good engine material, but the only villages are expensive (Festival,  Bazaar, maybe KC) because having 1 village against 0 of your opponent for a while and still be able to stock up on those yummy actions instead of having to throw some Treasures in can be really good.

[soulnet]

PS: I think Bell will REALLY be deciding in Kingdoms without other Villages or multipliers but with engine possibilities. Specifically, trashing & Highways & terminal +Buy (like Woodcutter). In a Kingdom with Highway, Woodcutter and Chapel, having the only Village probably means you won.

[Asper]

I don't think giving players different Trinkets is a good idea. There will always be those that work with the board, and those that don't. The number of constellations in which you can draw a set of - say - three Trinkets, 4 Coppers and Estates/Shelters during your first two turns is high enough already. My suggestion is to chose those you like most and give them to each player. I like Key and Dagger, but Bell and Toy Bridge seem too strong to me and change the game very much. Also Bell is Necropolis+1$.

[math]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

[Tables]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

I was thinking of this, but then you get an issue that a lot of cards caring about different names start to become crazy. Tribute is now very strong. Harvest gives you $3 almost guaranteed, and $4 usually. Menagerie is ridiculously overpowered (especially with shelters!). Hunting Party is now probably worse than Lab (skipping over useful cards like silvers to find your trinkets). Really the big issue there I think is Menagerie.

[SirPeebles]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

I was thinking of this, but then you get an issue that a lot of cards caring about different names start to become crazy. Tribute is now very strong. Harvest gives you $3 almost guaranteed, and $4 usually. Menagerie is ridiculously overpowered (especially with shelters!). Hunting Party is now probably worse than Lab (skipping over useful cards like silvers to find your trinkets). Really the big issue there I think is Menagerie.

Forager is an issue too.  Maybe Fairgrounds.

[Tables]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

I was thinking of this, but then you get an issue that a lot of cards caring about different names start to become crazy. Tribute is now very strong. Harvest gives you $3 almost guaranteed, and $4 usually. Menagerie is ridiculously overpowered (especially with shelters!). Hunting Party is now probably worse than Lab (skipping over useful cards like silvers to find your trinkets). Really the big issue there I think is Menagerie.

Forager is an issue too.  Maybe Fairgrounds.

Yeah, I wasn't aiming for comprehensiveness but this is true. Those are likely bigger issues in fact. A possible answer is to call all the cards 'Trinket' and have something else not in the name that tells you what it is. But then you need to do something about Bell (or Tribute gets confused)

[werothegreat]

Horn of Plenty loves these, especially Toy Bridge.

[eHalcyon]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

I was thinking of this, but then you get an issue that a lot of cards caring about different names start to become crazy. Tribute is now very strong. Harvest gives you $3 almost guaranteed, and $4 usually. Menagerie is ridiculously overpowered (especially with shelters!). Hunting Party is now probably worse than Lab (skipping over useful cards like silvers to find your trinkets). Really the big issue there I think is Menagerie.

Forager is an issue too.  Maybe Fairgrounds.

Yeah, I wasn't aiming for comprehensiveness but this is true. Those are likely bigger issues in fact. A possible answer is to call all the cards 'Trinket' and have something else not in the name that tells you what it is. But then you need to do something about Bell (or Tribute gets confused)

Just call them Trinket and forget the secondary name.  They can still have different effects and artwork, even different types.  As long as they all share the same name, it won't mess with cards like Harvest and Menagerie.

[GendoIkari]

Another idea could be to give each player 6 Trinkets and one Copper.  This would eliminate any problems that arise from different players having different Trinkets.  Oh, and if you did this, Locket would definitely need to be only 1VP.

I was thinking of this, but then you get an issue that a lot of cards caring about different names start to become crazy. Tribute is now very strong. Harvest gives you $3 almost guaranteed, and $4 usually. Menagerie is ridiculously overpowered (especially with shelters!). Hunting Party is now probably worse than Lab (skipping over useful cards like silvers to find your trinkets). Really the big issue there I think is Menagerie.

Forager is an issue too.  Maybe Fairgrounds.

Yeah, I wasn't aiming for comprehensiveness but this is true. Those are likely bigger issues in fact. A possible answer is to call all the cards 'Trinket' and have something else not in the name that tells you what it is. But then you need to do something about Bell (or Tribute gets confused)

Just call them Trinket and forget the secondary name.  They can still have different effects and artwork, even different types.  As long as they all share the same name, it won't mess with cards like Harvest and Menagerie.

I don't like that at all... 2 cards with the same name but different effects? Though I can't think of anything in the game that it actually breaks, it just seems to mess with the entire concept of what the name of a card means, in any card game.

[SirPeebles]

You could have mechanic such

Rare Coin
Treasure/Trinket - $4*
Worth $1

Shuffle this card into the Trinket pile.  Gain a card from the Trinket pile.

(This is not in the Supply)

The point being that this would help to mitigate the issue with players having different Trinkets.  Possibly it would lead to you not playing your Trinket when you have "the good one", which could be a fun trade off too.

[soulnet]

The point being that this would help to mitigate the issue with players having different Trinkets.  Possibly it would lead to you not playing your Trinket when you have "the good one", which could be a fun trade off too.

That's a really nice idea, although it misses the point of adapting your strategy to the Trinkets you have. Its kind of swingy also, but fun.

[eHalcyon]

I don't like that at all... 2 cards with the same name but different effects? Though I can't think of anything in the game that it actually breaks, it just seems to mess with the entire concept of what the name of a card means, in any card game.

It's a little radical, I admit, but DA did a lot of radical things too.  I think it helps in many more ways than it would hurt.

[SirPeebles]

Personally I think Tables and eHalcyon's idea is the nicest, but then Tribute does cause problems when it comes to Bell and Locket since Tribute implicitly assumes that cards with the same names have the same types, at least among Action, Treasure, and Victory.  Dagger's Reaction type isn't particularly a problem.

[eHalcyon]

Personally I think Tables and eHalcyon's idea is the nicest, but then Tribute does cause problems when it comes to Bell and Locket since Tribute implicitly assumes that cards with the same names have the same types, at least among Action, Treasure, and Victory.  Dagger's Reaction type isn't particularly a problem.

Hm, fair point about Tribute.  It would probably need an FAQ stating what would happen... I would say, you get to choose which Trinket to trigger the bonus.  So say you reveal a Trinket Action and a Trinket Treasure, you can choose either +2 actions or +$2.