Print

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

[mail-mi]

Consider:

Some name $-2
+1 action
+1 buy
Action

You could use an extra buy on this to give yourself an extra $2. Once in your deck, it can be used to get other Some Names for more +$2s. But, beware, you could end up getting too much.

FAQ for all you edgecasers:

If you trash it with Apprentice, you would have to discard 2 cards.

IF you trash it with Salvager, you would get +1 buy, -$2 (to a minimum of 0).

If you play a Bridge or a Highway, the cost would be increased to $0 (cuz they say to a minimum of $0)

Thoughts?

[dominator 123]

Consider:

Some name $-2
+1 action
+1 buy
Action

You could use an extra buy on this to give yourself an extra $2. Once in your deck, it can be used to get other Some Names for more +$2s. But, beware, you could end up getting too much.

FAQ for all you edgecasers:

If you trash it with Apprentice, you would have to discard 2 cards.

IF you trash it with Salvager, you would get +1 buy, -$2 (to a minimum of 0).

If you play a Bridge or a Highway, the cost would be increased to $0 (cuz they say to a minimum of $0)

Thoughts?

The edge case is probably the reason there isn't a negative cost card. Should probably say:

Some name $0
+1 action
+1 buy
When you buy this, +$2.

Even then, this card is very overpowered (Strictly better than ruined village and market). Should not have self synergy, and should actually be more punishing:

Some name $0
+1 action, return this to the Some name pile.
When you gain this, +$1, +1 buy and put this on top of your deck

[Just a Rube]

Even then, this card is very overpowered (Strictly better than ruined village and market). Should not have self synergy, and should actually be more punishing:

Surely being strictly better than Ruins isn't a concern? After all, we already have a $0 card that's strictly worse than any Ruins (Curse) and one that's almost (ignoring Vineyards/Scrying Pool) strictly better than Ruined Village or Ruined Mine (Copper).

Ruins are supposed to be mostly junk; if a card is worth buying, it needs to be better than junk.

[dominator 123]

Even then, this card is very overpowered (Strictly better than ruined village and market). Should not have self synergy, and should actually be more punishing:

Surely being strictly better than Ruins isn't a concern? After all, we already have a $0 card that's strictly worse than any Ruins (Curse) and one that's almost (ignoring Vineyards/Scrying Pool) strictly better than Ruined Village or Ruined Mine (Copper).

Ruins are supposed to be mostly junk; if a card is worth buying, it needs to be better than junk.

You don't normally want to buy a $0 cost card, but you would buy this, making it overpowered.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I don't think that's the case. Copper is strictly better than curse, but they both cost $0. Ruins don't cost $0 because they're worth $0, they cost $0 because that's as low as they go.

[Tables]

If you trash it with Apprentice, you would have to discard 2 cards.

This isn't how +cards works. If you're ruling this, then implicity I'd say that I should be allowed to discard -3 cards with Cellar (and thus draw 3 cards) and then draw -3 cards, discarding 3. Well... maybe that's not entirely accurate, but drawing and discarding are not opposites.

The easiest way to avoid this issue, and the general issue with having a negative cost, is to have it be an on gain effect.

Some name $0
+1 action
+1 buy
---
When you gain this, +$2.
Action

This interacts a little differently with a few cards, sure, but it's almost always a simplification, which is a good thing. I seriously doubt the power gain from being able to remodel it into $2's and the like is a concern.

[GeronimoRex]

If you trash it with Apprentice, you would have to discard 2 cards.

This isn't how +cards works. If you're ruling this, then implicity I'd say that I should be allowed to discard -3 cards with Cellar (and thus draw 3 cards) and then draw -3 cards, discarding 3. Well... maybe that's not entirely accurate, but drawing and discarding are not opposites.

The easiest way to avoid this issue, and the general issue with having a negative cost, is to have it be an on gain effect.

Some name $0
+1 action
+1 buy
---
When you gain this, +$2.
Action

This interacts a little differently with a few cards, sure, but it's almost always a simplification, which is a good thing. I seriously doubt the power gain from being able to remodel it into $2's and the like is a concern.

I think this version works, and would be an interesting card to have on the board... makes for some possible early jumps to $6-$7 cards that would be unlikely otherwise. Also seems rat-like in some ways in that it encourages you to draw more of itself in future turns b/c of the +buy. Might even be worth tweaking it to emulate the Rats-mechanic in a 20-card-pile cantrip:

Mouse, $0 (Action)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Mouse
--------
When you gain this, +$2.

[eHalcyon]

Mouse would be way too strong. Early on they are activated Conspirators. When the pile runs out, they are still cantrips so they don't really hurt your deck. Rats are dangerous because they trash everything; Mice are harmless.

Tables' card works because it is not cantrip and having too many does harm your deck so you need to be careful about when to pick one up. Is the bonus $2 now worth the weak card in deck?

[GeronimoRex]

Mouse would be way too strong. Early on they are activated Conspirators. When the pile runs out, they are still cantrips so they don't really hurt your deck. Rats are dangerous because they trash everything; Mice are harmless.

Tables' card works because it is not cantrip and having too many does harm your deck so you need to be careful about when to pick one up. Is the bonus $2 now worth the weak card in deck?

You're completely right -- wasn't thinking. Try it without the +1 card and I think it's better--basically becomes a ruin when the pile runs out.

[SirPeebles]

Mice is too strong for the reasons eHalcyon mentioned.  But perhaps more troubling, what does it mean to gain coins when it is not your turn?

[AJD]

But perhaps more troubling, what does it mean to gain coins when it is not your turn?

There are two possible ways to take this:

"When you gain this, take two coin tokens."

"When you gain this on your turn, +$2."

[jbrecken]

You don't normally want to buy a $0 cost card, but you would buy this, making it overpowered.

The easy way around that would be to change the cost, and increase the extra money proportionally:
Some name $3
+1 action
+1 buy
When you buy this, +$5.

[SirPeebles]

You don't normally want to buy a $0 cost card, but you would buy this, making it overpowered.

The easy way around that would be to change the cost, and increase the extra money proportionally:
Some name $3
+1 action
+1 buy
When you buy this, +$5.

You are fixing a problem that's not real!

[GeronimoRex]

But perhaps more troubling, what does it mean to gain coins when it is not your turn?

There are two possible ways to take this:

"When you gain this, take two coin tokens."

"When you gain this on your turn, +$2."

Or you could fix it as:

Mouse, Action, $0
----
When you buy this, +$2, +1 Buy. You may not buy more than one Mouse per turn.

That would guarantee that the extra money would only happen on your turn, and I think it keeps with the goal of the card, which is to be a dead card that you can purchase on your turn if you need a $2 bump on that turn's purchase.

However, the card feels inelegant this way -- has to be a better solution out there.

[GendoIkari]

If you trash it with Apprentice, you would have to discard 2 cards.

This isn't how +cards works. If you're ruling this, then implicity I'd say that I should be allowed to discard -3 cards with Cellar (and thus draw 3 cards) and then draw -3 cards, discarding 3. Well... maybe that's not entirely accurate, but drawing and discarding are not opposites.

Someone should make a card that works that way actually.+1 action, Discard -3 cards, then draw -3 cards. Might need to cost $3 though.