Print

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

[Powerman]

Swamp
$0 Action
Choose one: Trash this; or +1 action, return this to the supply

Basically it's a one time piece of junk in your hand.  If you spend an action it's gone forever.  You can non-terminally return it to the supply, but then it can keep coming back.  Swamp is not a kingdom pile, it is like Ruins or Curses.  It comes in when any Swamper is in the supply.  Ways to get / give Swamps:

Bog Master
$5 Action-Attack-Swamper
+3 Cards
Each other player gains a Swamp

Infestation
$2 Action-Attack-Swamper
+$2
Each player (including you) gains a Swamp

Vitality
$4 Action-Swamper
+2 Actions
You may gain a Swamp on top of your deck.  If you do, search through your discard, and place one card from your discard into your hand.

Internment
$5 Treasure-Swamper
Worth $3
When you play this, you may reveal a Swamp from your hand.  If you do not, gain a Swamp.

Refuge
$3 Action-Reaction-Swamper
Discard any number of cards from your hand.  Draw until you have 5 cards in your hand.
_____________
When you would gain a card, you may reveal Refuge.  If you do, gain a Swamp instead.

Finch
$5 Action-Attack-Swamper
+4 Cards
Reveal any number of Swamps from your hand.  Each other player gains that number of Swamps.
_____________
When you gain this, gain 2 Swamps.

Thoughts?

[StrongRhino]

There should be a "swamper" type to know when it's in the supply, al la looter.
And oh god, not more junking. It's bad enough on a Cultist/Witch board already.

[gman314]

The Swamp shouldn't say "Trash this from your hand" because when you play it, it isn't in your hand. It should just say "Trash this card."

Other than that, I really like the concept. I feel like having one-time junking helps fix the problem that exists in balancing all the "blood money" cards, because this way, you're assuming a solution to the problem in a way that those ones don't. A lot of them get imbalanced when you can just trash the Curses you get but with Swamp you can assume that the Swamp will get trashed.

However, I agree with StrongRhino that this basically provides the opportunity for too much junking in certain games, especially with the attacks.

[Powerman]

Good call both of you.  I'm not too concerned about interaction with having all 3 junks right now.

[StrongRhino]

It is a nice concept, basically one shot junk.
I really like Refuge.
Again, the only problem is the triple Junker games.

[ashersky]

Again, the only problem is the triple Junker games.

That's an easy fix!

Swamp
$0 Action
You may reveal one curse and one ruin from your hand.  If you do, trash them.
Choose one: Trash this; or +1 action, return this to the supply

[StrongRhino]

Again, the only problem is the triple Junker games.

That's an easy fix!

Swamp
$0 Action
You may reveal one curse and one ruin from your hand.  If you do, trash them.
Choose one: Trash this; or +1 action, return this to the supply

Ooh, good idea. It might be a good idea to put an "up to" in there as well.

[Asper]

Your original Swamp is a Ruined Chapel. If you want it, the easiest way is to just make the other cards Looters and add it as a sixth Ruins.

[enfynet]

Hmm...

"Trash a Curse or Ruins from your hand." Could be an interesting ruined chapel? You wouldn't use it to clean out your starting deck, and only trashes other junk cards. 

[Powerman]

Your original Swamp is a Ruined Chapel. If you want it, the easiest way is to just make the other cards Looters and add it as a sixth Ruins.

Except, these cards would play much much differently if they could give any ruin.

[cluckyb]

Finch
$5 Action-Attack-Swamper
+4 Cards
Reveal any number of Swamps from your hand.  Each other player gains that number of Swamps.
_____________
When you gain this, gain 2 Swamps.

It would be hard to word this properly.

If you are playing a four player game and there are 4 swamps left and you reveal 3 swamps, the "fair" thing would be for the next player to get two swamps and the other two guys to get one swamp.

Based on this wording, the next player gets 3 swamps, the other guy one swamp and the other other guy 0 swamps and given attacks are always "Attack the next guy, then attack the next guy, and so on" I'm not sure how to fix it.

[eHalcyon]

Finch
$5 Action-Attack-Swamper
+4 Cards
Reveal any number of Swamps from your hand.  Each other player gains that number of Swamps.
_____________
When you gain this, gain 2 Swamps.

It would be hard to word this properly.

If you are playing a four player game and there are 4 swamps left and you reveal 3 swamps, the "fair" thing would be for the next player to get two swamps and the other two guys to get one swamp.

Based on this wording, the next player gets 3 swamps, the other guy one swamp and the other other guy 0 swamps and given attacks are always "Attack the next guy, then attack the next guy, and so on" I'm not sure how to fix it.

For each Swamp revealed, each other player gains a Swamp.

[enfynet]

Make sure they're revealed simultaneously, else you might have a situation of "did they already reveal X card?"

[Warfreak2]

That won't do - "reveal any number of swamps" is atomic. A la Develop, it could be something like:

Do this any number of times: set aside a Swamp from your hand, each other player gains a Swamp.
Return the set-aside Swamps to your hand.

There's an ambiguity problem in that someone could argue you have to return the set-aside Swamps as part of the "do this any number of times" loop. I think a newline ought to be clear enough, but perhaps somebody could make it clearer.

[eHalcyon]

That won't do - "reveal any number of swamps" is atomic. A la Develop, it could be something like:

Do this any number of times: set aside a Swamp from your hand, each other player gains a Swamp.
Return the set-aside Swamps to your hand.

There's an ambiguity problem in that someone could argue you have to return the set-aside Swamps as part of the "do this any number of times" loop. I think a newline ought to be clear enough, but perhaps somebody could make it clearer.

Eh?  I don't see the problem.

"Reveal any number of Swamps from your hand.  For each Swamp revealed, each other player gains a Swamp."

The first action is atomic; you reveal any number and you reveal them all at once, only once.  You can't reveal the same one more than once.  There's no issue here.

"For each" in the next line will deal out a single Swamp to each player per Swamp revealed.  So if I reveal 3 Swamps, one goes to each other player, then a second goes to each other player, then a third.  If the Swamps run out, then it works out fairly.

[Asper]

Your original Swamp is a Ruined Chapel. If you want it, the easiest way is to just make the other cards Looters and add it as a sixth Ruins.

Except, these cards would play much much differently if they could give any ruin.

May be. But it adds so little to do another kind of junker only to give out a card that is essentially a ruins (the newer version, as enfynet stated, makes a good Ruined Chapel too). On boards with only Swampers, they are Looters that give only one kind of ruins. On boards with Looters or, even more, Cursers, they are weak. If i play Swampers and my opponents Cursers, i will help them kill the curses they give each other and keep mine (only goes for newer version).

And how many of them do you want to make? 50? I'm a real life player and 50 times the same non-basic card seems boring to me.

It is interesting to see the name Swamp used for another 0$ card since i made one myself, though. The uses are quite similar, so don't get me wrong and think i'm against the concept as a whole - i just don't like that a new type of attack is introduced for it.

[HiveMindEmulator]

If you want to avoid the problem of having 3 junk piles, you can give Swamps type Ruins, and specify that they go on top of the Ruins pile (if there is one).

[Warfreak2]

"For each" in the next line will deal out a single Swamp to each player per Swamp revealed.  So if I reveal 3 Swamps, one goes to each other player, then a second goes to each other player, then a third.  If the Swamps run out, then it works out fairly.

I think that's an interpretation that only programmers will find intuitive; a "foreach" loop. The more obvious interpretation would be that "for each X, Y" and "Y for each X" are equivalent in the English language - the sentence as a whole sets up some things to happen to each player, and per the rules, they are resolved in player order. Perhaps for the sake of brevity, your wording is fine and the "FAQ" for the card would clarify it.

[Powerman]

How would this wording deal with interaction with other junk?

Swamp
$0 Action-Swamp
Choose one: Trash this or a card from your hand; or +1 action, return this or a card from your hand to the supply

I don't like it so much, but it might be necessary?