Print

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

[GeronimoRex]

I'm sure there are other fan cards that use this mechanic, but I like the idea of Action cards that increase the cost of cards as a way to aid TfB and Bishop strategies.

It seems like the biggest challenge with such cards is how to avoid them being dead card in kingdoms that lack TfB or Bishop.

I've developed two attempted solutions that have some synergy together. One buffs a weak Village with a Feast-like self-TfB as a secondary effect. The other has a self-Bishoping option to allow it to support TfB/Bishop strategies as well as being a central to some alterate strategies.



Downtown, $3 (Action)
+2 Actions
While in play, all card costs are increased by $1.
----------------
When discarded from play, you may trash this for a card costing up to $1 more.



Effectively, if there are other villages vying for space and no TfB or Bishop options, this still allows you to buy it and turn it into a $4 card with an extra action thrown in to prevent early game collision... this should be enough to make this viable on any board. I thought about this as a cantrip, but it seemed like it would stack too quickly and could make Bishop or TfB dominant.



Inflation, $4 (Action)

+1 Buy
+$1
While in play, all card costs are increased by $1.
--------------------
When discarded from play, you may trash this; if trashed, +VP tokens equal to half its cost in coins, rounded down.



So you could always spend an action to trash the card for 2VP... if you have extra actions and can put two in play, they'd both be worth $6, and trashed for 3 VP each. Four in play, they'd be worth 4VP each. If you ended up playing all 10 at once and trashing them together, they'd be worth 7VP each.

Play note for KC/TR -- played multiple times, card costs increase by $1 per play; each Inflation card can only be trashed for tokens once, so KC/Inflation would produce a +$3 increase in costs; assuming no other cards are played, the +$3 increase would give the option to trash the inflation for 3VP tokens.

However, a hand of KC/KC/Inf/Inf/Inf could be played in that order, increasing costs by $9 and each of the separate Inflations could be trashed at a value of 6 VP Tokens each. That's not an impossible hand, but enough of an edge case not to consider the card broken. KC/KC/3X-anything is pretty ridiculous.

In a game without Villages/TfB or Bishop, where it can't stack, it will still often be worth buying to self-trash for the 2VP, especially if your deck doesn't have other terminal actions.

Thoughts?

[scott_pilgrim]

Downtown is really, really weak.  It's basically a one-shot Workshop that's non-terminal, at the cost of everything being more expensive this turn.  Workshop is already pretty weak and it's not a one-shot.  Of course, you don't have to trash this for a $4, but in most cases you would want to, because it's not worth paying $1 extra just to get 2 actions.  It does interact with TfB, which I think was your goal, but it's really a dead card on boards without TfB.  And more importantly, on boards with TfB, it's not so great that I would generally be willing to get it.  Sure, it means I can draw an extra card from Apprentice, maybe get an extra VP from Bishop, and Salvager gets an extra coin; but that's about it.  Almost all TfB cards care about the cost of the trashed card, with a reward of gaining a card with some cost relative to the trashed card.  Even in the three cases where it is helpful, it's not very good; Salvager's extra $1 is only enough to make up for the price increase, so it probably shouldn't even count.  You can think of Apprentice's extra card as making this into a cantrip, which clearly isn't worth it.  And the extra point you might get from Bishop, well now we're talking about one combo that this card has, which isn't really that great, and you're making the card basically just for that one combo.  Stacking these doesn't help, because you need at least 3 of them to make a 2 VP difference off of Bishop, and you're basically killing the rest of your turn at that point.

Inflation might be a little better but really, I don't think it combos with TfB cards like how you want it to.  The extra buy probably does nothing most of the time since costs are increased, and the +$1 cancels with cards costing 1 more, so basically you would only be playing the card to trash it.  If you can get an engine going that can play like 6 of these, then they're pretty good; that's 5 VP each.  But that's going to be way too hard to do most of the time, and they'll probably just end up being a slightly worse Island (since they get you 2 VP that doesn't stay in your deck).

If you want to get interesting interactions with TfB, you might want to have some cards have their prices increase but not others.  That way, the trashers that reward you with some gain can actually benefit from these cards as well.

[Asper]

Downtown, $3 (Action)
+2 Actions
While in play, all card costs are increased by $1.
----------------
When discarded from play, you may trash this for a card costing up to $1 more.

Technically this card is still in play when being trashed (see processioned Band of Misfits as Fortress). Therefore it lets you gain a card costing up to 5$ (Or doesn't it?). This is an one-card edge-case, and will lead to confusion with new players. I dislike that honestly.

Also you play a Highway and a Downtown. What does Copper cost? Don't say we resolve them in order, as we don't. "In play" is a condition, not an event. So do we -1$(to not less than 0$) first or +1$?

Third, this is an attack. Without an attack type, it's unfair. With one, what do you do if someone reveals a Moat? How do you track it? How do you if someone plays Minion and the Moat player gets a new hand (for example because his Moat hand was so bad)?

Fourth, i think this is the third "Raise the costs card" i read this week. All i saw until now lost the race to Cutpurse.

[scott_pilgrim]

Third, this is an attack. Without an attack type, it's unfair. With one, what do you do if someone reveals a Moat? How do you track it? How do you if someone plays Minion and the Moat player gets a new hand (for example because his Moat hand was so bad)?

Why would this be an attack card?  It doesn't even affect other players.  Okay, maybe it does if you follow up with a Knight, but then Knights just trash their $2's and miss their $6's, that's probably better for other players.  I think you are confused because you expected it to be the duration price increaser, which it's not.

[eHalcyon]

Downtown, $3 (Action)
+2 Actions
While in play, all card costs are increased by $1.
----------------
When discarded from play, you may trash this for a card costing up to $1 more.

Third, this is an attack. Without an attack type, it's unfair. With one, what do you do if someone reveals a Moat? How do you track it? How do you if someone plays Minion and the Moat player gets a new hand (for example because his Moat hand was so bad)?

This one is not an attack because it doesn't affect opponents -- it's only around on your own turn.

I think the best way to implement a cost increaser would be to counterbalance it with virtual coin and make it matter with +Buy.  So something like:

Toll Bridge
$5 - Action
+2 Buys
+$4
All cards cost $1 more this turn.

If you don't use the +Buys, this is a terminal Gold which seems generally alright at $5.  If you use one extra Buy, then it was a Woodcutter.  Use both extra Buys and it was an inflexible Squire.

In general, that's pretty weak.  But potential combos with TfB give it a niche.  Of course, sometimes you'll just really want a terminal Gold, or even a Woodcutter or Squire for +Buy if it's the only source available.

The most annoying thing is giving a satisfactory ruling on how it interacts with cost reduction.  I think it would make the most sense to base it on order of play.  Bridge reduces costs, then Toll Bridge raises it back up.  If I play 2 Bridges and then a Toll Bridge, Copper would cost $1.

[SirPeebles]

"While in play..." should go below the line.

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

Similarly, you state that with TR/KC that costs will go up $1 per play.  No, they won't.

Lastly, why do you keep separating Bishop and TfB?  Bishop is an instance of TfB.

[Asper]

Third, this is an attack. Without an attack type, it's unfair. With one, what do you do if someone reveals a Moat? How do you track it? How do you if someone plays Minion and the Moat player gets a new hand (for example because his Moat hand was so bad)?

Why would this be an attack card?  It doesn't even affect other players.  Okay, maybe it does if you follow up with a Knight, but then Knights just trash their $2's and miss their $6's, that's probably better for other players.  I think you are confused because you expected it to be the duration price increaser, which it's not.

Oops, exactly. I automatically assumed it to be a Duration and didn't even bother to look at the type. Given it only affects your own turn it puzzles me even more why you'd want to make such a card.

Well, my first two points still hold.

[Asper]

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

This is not true. Cards are in play when they are discarded, which is why Band of Misfits can copy Hermits on-discard-effect. As they are also in play when trashed (as said before) both cards are in play when trashed, and so they cost 1$ more.

The most annoying thing is giving a satisfactory ruling on how it interacts with cost reduction.  I think it would make the most sense to base it on order of play.  Bridge reduces costs, then Toll Bridge raises it back up.  If I play 2 Bridges and then a Toll Bridge, Copper would cost $1.

To repeat myself, "While this is in play" is a condition, not an event. Therefore, it cannot be resolved "in order of play". One can argue for Bridge and actually i'd side with you, there. But Highway/Downtown are two conditions that cause trouble when mixed.

[scott_pilgrim]

"While in play..." should go below the line.

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

Similarly, you state that with TR/KC that costs will go up $1 per play.  No, they won't.

Lastly, why do you keep separating Bishop and TfB?  Bishop is an instance of TfB.

Actually, TR/KC will stack if he leaves the "While in play" clause above the line.

[SirPeebles]

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

This is not true. Cards are in play when they are discarded, which is why Band of Misfits can copy Hermits on-discard-effect. As they are also in play when trashed (as said before) both cards are in play when trashed, and so they cost 1$ more.

I don't think that's quite what it happening with Band of Misfits.  Firstly, in the FAQ Donald simply states quite stubbornly "If you use Band of Misfits as a card that does something during Clean-up, such as Hermit, it will do that thing during Clean-up," as though he has no patience for the details of what occurs during Clean-up.  Second, Band of Misfits says "... until it leaves play" rather than "While this is in play...", which I think leaves room for Donald to rule as he pleases on border line cases.  I mean, it appears to me that you could argue that Band of Misfits reverting to its old self is an event triggered by leaving play.

"While in play..." should go below the line.

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

Similarly, you state that with TR/KC that costs will go up $1 per play.  No, they won't.

Lastly, why do you keep separating Bishop and TfB?  Bishop is an instance of TfB.

Actually, TR/KC will stack if he leaves the "While in play" clause above the line.

The line is just for organization.  It doesn't impact what the card does.

[scott_pilgrim]

"While in play..." should go below the line.

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

Similarly, you state that with TR/KC that costs will go up $1 per play.  No, they won't.

Lastly, why do you keep separating Bishop and TfB?  Bishop is an instance of TfB.

Actually, TR/KC will stack if he leaves the "While in play" clause above the line.

The line is just for organization.  It doesn't impact what the card does.

By default, text on cards happens when you play them. It's true that there's a difference between "right now, set something up to happen later" and "at a certain time which from your perspective when you first see this will be in the future, do something." The dividing line lets you know that some stuff doesn't happen when you play the card (except it's missing on Harem, and the German version of Seaside puts it on duration cards even though they are the former case). Scheme does something when you play it, where that thing is to set up something to happen later. Similarly Bridge does something when you play it, but Highway does something while it's in play.

You couldn't just add a line to Scheme. Then the bottom half would have nothing specifying its scope - it could apply from the start of the game, with no Schemes ever bought or played. It would have to be like, "At the start of Clean-up, if this is in play, ..." Herbalist limits its scope by requiring itself to be discarded.

I don't think the dividing line is in the rules anywhere, but I think the FAQs are clear for all of the cards with them. The dividing line should be in the rules; I don't deny it.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/744463/diffrence-between-scheme-and-herbalist-when-throne

[Warfreak2]

I think the "it's still in play when it's trashed" thing doesn't apply here because you trash it when you discard it, at which point it's no longer in play. Instead, there would be the confusing Hermit-like interaction with Scheme, can I topdeck it and then fail to trash it but gain a card anyway?

There's also a problem if you have more than one of them in play; are both discarded at once, letting you gain two $4 cards? Or do you discard one of them, gain a $5 card, then discard the other and gain a $4 card? To my knowledge, the only clean-up phase effect where this matters at the moment is Alchemist/Herbalist, and all that means is you have to put the Potion back last, which isn't reallly going to cause any arguments.

And then there's the problem of whether or not it commutes with Bridge; does Bridge then Downtown make Coppers cost $1? It should - but Downtown then Bridge leaves Coppers at $0 for sure.

How much does a Peddler cost if I play four Market Squares and then one of these?

[GeronimoRex]

If you want to get interesting interactions with TfB, you might want to have some cards have their prices increase but not others.  That way, the trashers that reward you with some gain can actually benefit from these cards as well.

Great feedback. Thanks for the help -- clearly I didn't think through enough scenarios or playtest before posting.

I really appreciate the advice you and others have provided. Will work on both and repost soon.

[GeronimoRex]

And then there's the problem of whether or not it commutes with Bridge; does Bridge then Downtown make Coppers cost $1? It should - but Downtown then Bridge leaves Coppers at $0 for sure.

How much does a Peddler cost if I play four Market Squares and then one of these?

I would assume that the value of all "in-play" cost-reduction/cost-gain cards would be resolved cumulatively, regardless of order--meaning that if you played Bridge, Bridge, Inflation, and then Quarry as part of your buy phase, then Inflation +$1 would cancel out the Bridge -$1 cost effect.

Similarly, with Peddler, in the buy phase, Peddler would have a base cost of $9, but five actions would be in play, making the cost $0.

However, I agree that it's best to avoid confusion when possible, so it may be that cards that add cost to the cards on the board is a space that isn't viable for card development.

[Warfreak2]

Bridge's cost-reduction effect is immediate; the wording on Downtown is equivalent, so it would also be immediate. You play a Bridge, Copper still costs $0. Then you play Downtown, Copper's cost would be increased by $1, it was $0, so now it costs $1. You could reasonably assume otherwise, of course, and that is somewhat my point.

[SirPeebles]

Downtown isn't immediate, it's "While in play".

[Warfreak2]

Downtown isn't immediate, it's "While in play".

Well spotted - Toll Bridge is the immediate one. Downtown has the question of whether it commutes with Highway, which is more thorny; I suppose two "while in play" clauses could be resolved in whatever order you choose, but this feels very odd because these particular clauses aren't things that happen, but continuous effects which don't occur at particular times.

[GeronimoRex]

See if these address most of the issues... I want to find a way to make a Village/TfB-enabler work.

Uptown v1, $4 (Action)
+2 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card of equal cost.
------
While in play, the cost of any card being trashed is increased by $1.


Uptown v2, $5 (Action)
+2 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
------
While in play, the cost of any card being trashed is increased by $1; +1 card when a card is trashed.

[scott_pilgrim]

See if this addresses most of the issues... still would like to find a way to make a Village/TfB-enabler work.

Uptown, $4 (Action)
+2 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card of equal cost.
------
While in play, the cost of any card being trashed is increased by $1.

This is actually really interesting.  I would guess it's weak, maybe it could cost $3 or have a different vanilla bonus.  It still has the problem of interacting with Bridge/Highway/Princess, but I don't think that's possible to fix, without just creating an explicit, separate ruling on that, so if you're okay with that then I wouldn't worry about it.

The big problem with something like this is that, even though we probably all intuitively know what you mean by a "card being trashed", there are bound to be cases where we can't really tell whether a card "is being trashed" or it "has been trashed" or "is about to be trashed", etc.  Even in the most general case, with something like Remodel, I trash the card (let's say it's a Curse), so while it's being trashed it costs $1.  But then as soon as it hits the trash pile, it seems like its cost should be $0 again, and then when I read the next sentence on Remodel and try to "gain a card costing up to $2 more than it", "it" is now $0, so I don't get the $3 I wanted.  Maybe you could argue around that, but I don't know, it seems like it would at the very least cause a lot of confusion.

What if you made it "While this is in play, the cost of all cards in the trash is increased by $1."  (You could also use Graverobber to dig out the prizes that someone trashed for some reason.)  Maybe you would have to do something like "While this is in play, the cost of all cards in the trash and all cards being trashed is increased by $1."  But a bunch of other people are probably going to post saying that that doesn't work either, and then they will end up deciding that it's impossible to word this card right.

[GeronimoRex]

What if you made it "While this is in play, the cost of all cards in the trash is increased by $1."  (You could also use Graverobber to dig out the prizes that someone trashed for some reason.)  Maybe you would have to do something like "While this is in play, the cost of all cards in the trash and all cards being trashed is increased by $1."  But a bunch of other people are probably going to post saying that that doesn't work either, and then they will end up deciding that it's impossible to word this card right.

I'm finding that the most challenging part of fan cards is getting the wording right. Especially when the intention is likely clear to all players, but the edge cases make it impossible to find perfect words. I feel like this sometimes happens with the published cards -- they aren't always clear, but that's what the descriptions in the manual are for.

At some point, I think an interesting idea may be worth braving the grammar police. But I'd still rather get it right if I can.

Thanks for your feedback.

[GeronimoRex]

There seem like there are other interesting TfB Villages if I quit trying to power up the other TfB cards...

Uptown v3, Action ($4)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may trash a card from your hand; if you do, +1 card and each other player draws a card.

I like cards that help your opponents, as long as they help you more.

[Warfreak2]

How about "each other player may discard a card from their hand; if they do, they draw a card"? It's a village, so you probably intend to play a lot of them, increasing their handsize is going to be really bad.

[Asper]

Also, Downtown/Inflation will not still be in play when it is discarded, so it will not raise its own cost at that time.  Of course, with multiple cards there will be some staggered cost increase.

This is not true. Cards are in play when they are discarded, which is why Band of Misfits can copy Hermits on-discard-effect. As they are also in play when trashed (as said before) both cards are in play when trashed, and so they cost 1$ more.

I don't think that's quite what it happening with Band of Misfits.  Firstly, in the FAQ Donald simply states quite stubbornly "If you use Band of Misfits as a card that does something during Clean-up, such as Hermit, it will do that thing during Clean-up," as though he has no patience for the details of what occurs during Clean-up.  Second, Band of Misfits says "... until it leaves play" rather than "While this is in play...", which I think leaves room for Donald to rule as he pleases on border line cases.  I mean, it appears to me that you could argue that Band of Misfits reverting to its old self is an event triggered by leaving play.

The problem is that Donald won't rule on fan cards. You make a distinction between "not in play" and "leave play".Without assuming that distinction, the Band of Misfits/Hermit interaction is 1:1 the same as Downtown. Band of Misfits as Hermit gets discarded, then trashed, and stays Hermit all the time, because it has not left play (as a processioned Fortress, it doesn't when trashed, either). If this equals being in play, Downtown costs one more as it is trashed.

You don't think this is the case. I do. And while i admit Donald is a bit stubborn about BoM, at the very least it is unclear what Downtown will actually cost. Even if i was ultimately wrong, i think i have some valid points. So in any case, the card causes arguments, which speaks against it.





Edit: A possible way to avoid that problem (without the part in braces it's TR-able):

Downtown, $3, Action
+2 Actions
At the start of your cleanup phase(, if this is in play,) you may gain a card costing up to 1$ more than this. If you do, trash this.
----
When this is in play, all card costs are increased by $1.