Print

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

[LastFootnote]

I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.

I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.

[market squire]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.
When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).

[Asper]

I think Obligations is maybe too similar to Torturer. Otherwise I have no problem with it.

I don't think the +1 Buy solves River's "too weak without villages" problem. But I can understand how you might think the Reaction version is too automatic. Luckily, I have another wonderful solution! What if River weren't a Kingdom card at all? What if it were a card like Madman, Mercenary, or the Prizes, which you could optionally pick up if you fulfilled certain conditions? Then it wouldn't take up a Kingdom card slot on the boards where you didn't want it.

If you go for this solution, probably River should just be [+3 Cards; Put this into your hand]. No Reaction or +1 Buy necessary. It could be +2 Cards rather than +3 Cards, but my assumption is that it'll be non-trivial to get a River, so it should be on the strong side.

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

Anyhow, i'm still preferring a kingdom card variant. Maybe i'll try the last version i posted (the one with a buy) at $2. For Village engines, the problem isn't affordability, but whether you find the right balance, anyhow. Getting a lot of Rivers isn't the problem. Getting the right amount is, i think. Games without Villages would be the ones to really profit: Alchemists, Conspirators, Lab, Stables and many other nonterminals can produce/draw nice amounts of coin without spare actions and often enough could profit from a cheap buy to finish the chain.

[Asper]

I sent Asper the template just now, but I also mocked up River just for fun (I might test it myself eventually). So I thought why not post my version of it.



It has two exotic concepts, but it really is a dead simple card.

Why not make it an Action/ Treasure?

River (Action-Treasure) $3
+2 Cards
Return this to your hand.
When you play this as Treasure, it is worth $1.

This would be possible here because you'd always know whether you played it as Action or as Treasure.
The effect is "Spend X Actions to draw X+1 times 2 cards, +$1." Totally okay for $3 or $4. Sure it makes Villages stronger, but i don't think that's a bad idea. Village + Smithy is also like one card that says +3 Cards +1 Action. But you have to gamble whether you draw them together! River is even more of a gamble because you need only one for the draw, so you have the choice to buy few (and draw less reliable) or to buy more Rivers (and have those almost-dead doubles in hand).

The Reaction effect (originally created for another terminal draw, Jeweler) is specifically to get an Action-Treasure functionality while avoiding the rules confusion and/or weird wordings this makes necessary.

[pacovf]

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.

[Asper]

Hmm... A Bandit Camp variant would be the obvious choice.

Some Village, Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may gain a River.

If you want to go that route, I think a hermit variant is better:

Lake Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you discard this from play, if you did not buy any cards this turn, return this to the supply and gain a River from the River pile.

This would require a lot of finetuning, of course.

Lake Village is a cute name. How about another clause, though:



Now you even BUY River with Actions
The really great aspect about this is that it solves the "no-Village" problem while keeping my beloved vanilla River the same <3

[TheOthin]

River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?

[Asper]

River being a non-Supply card gained with a village seems good, but "conditional get it for free" seems odd. Madman and Mercenary seem like the most comparable cards, and they require trading the original for it. Maybe an optional "when you discard this, you may return it to the Supply; if you do, gain a River"?

The clause may not be perfect yet (or rather, it certainly isn't), but i'd prefer to not have Lakeside Village return to the supply. One thing i don't like about Hermit/Madman is that there's no noticeable connection between the cards. Urchin/Mercenary have the same theme, but they are still vastly different and don't feel like they belong in the same deck. River and Lakeside Village (or however the name will be) belong in the same deck, and support each other. So you wouldn't want to remove one for the other. When you gain Mercenary, chances are you're not missing Urchin at all - actually, removing it makes sense. You'd miss the Village if you gain River, though. Also, i don't see why you shouldn't do something only because there is no precedent.

That's not saying the idea can't have other problems.

Edit: I considered Lakeside Village to be more of a mashup between Walled Village and Bandit Camp, actually.

[pacovf]

I think the point of the village going back to the supply is more about making the combo harder to achieve than to remove a card you don't need from your deck (and also, it is cute thematically, but names can be changed later).

Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

Basically the question is, how hard should it be to get a river once you have the village? Especially now that the combo is always available? The village really wants to draw a card to help River draw your deck, but it shouldn't cost more than $5 because you want a lot of them, so we are looking at a $4 cost village, which really isn't much of an increase compared to the vanilla village. How hard it is to gain a River should reflect that.

Of course, I believe River to be a very strong card, so something like TheOthin's suggestion seems good to me. You are paying $4 for a mining village-feast mix that can only gain one kind of card, seems reasonable to me. However, if you think that River is still worth somewhere around $3 even if villages are guaranteed to be in the kingdom, that is going to look like too harsh a condition for you.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I love ancillary cards and fancy special stuff so I'm in favour of this Lakeside Village+River combo! Although on first look I would agree with pacovf that it seems too easy to get Rivers. After all, it's a strong card that you keep (unlike Madman) and that's gonna be useful the entire game (unlike Mercenary). And just opening with a Lakeside Village would be a guaranteed River after the second reshuffle.
Returning the Village to get a River seems fine, balance-wise. You could still get it easily AND buy a new Lakeside Village before the second reshuffle and you're good to go. There are probably other reasonable ways to do this so continue looking for alternatives.

[werothegreat]

You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.

[cactus]

I like the left, but with an added "otherwise." As is, if there's ever a way to increase the cost of cards in the middle of a turn, then you can play a card 5 times. And fan cards or new official cards could do that some day.

Yes, that's better. I have looked through the pages and was sure i had it there at some point, but it turns out i never had. Good catch.

Edit: Ah, no, i just assumed there wouldn't be such cards because of the rules confusion with Highway. Anyhow, it's still probably better.

I agree that making cards more expensive is unlikely for the reason you state, but making a card cheaper until sometime other than end of turn seems possible.

Well, it could also happen if you did a card that only makes some cards cheaper. There even is a precedent with Quarry.

I'm leaving for now, it's pretty late here. Anyhow, here's my latest take on Parliament. I reordered it so the $4 option comes first. Now the bonus scales up, and "otherwise, if it costs less" seems a lot less weird than "otherwise, if it costs $4" in my opinion.


Thanks for the tips and considerations

Point of interest (maybe for some, anyway):

The painting you've used for Parliment is a painting by Tom Roberts of the opening of the first Parliment of the commonwealth of Australia which took place on Melbourne in 1901 in the Royal Exhibition Buildings. Not far from where I live and across the road from where I work. :c)

[werothegreat]

You could always have Lakeside Village trash another card to get the River.  It's like they're building canals or something.

Actually, I rescind this idea: you gain a River if you have an unused Buy that turn.  Less thematic, but probably more balanced.  Have a wording like "When you discard this from play, if you have any unused Buys, you may use one to gain a River."

[TheOthin]

Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?

[Asper]

Your condition is cute, but doesn't seem like much of a condition at all?

About names, there'll be something. Maybe "Post Office" and "Runner"? That would go a bit into the direction i imagined earlier before the card's name was set to River. But for now we got an image, and images are nice, and the name can be changed when the card itself is somehow set on.

You are right about this. I don't like the idea of trashing it, but probably i need another condition.

I thought about an Overpay: "Gain a River from the River pile per $ you overpayed" Doesn't seem that exciting to me, though. Besides, Overpay isn't exactly my favourite mechanic...

Alternatively, a restricted on-gain: "When you gain this, you may put a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, gain a River from the River pile." This does allow a few cute options, but you still have to spend $4 on each River you want to get (as you get only one per LV). Also, at the start of the game, this means either wasting a possible $5 turn for a Village and River, or using a $4 turn and harming your next one. On the other hand, hey, there may be some combos here, but i don't mind that.

Hmm. You know, Black Market allows outright buying non-Supply cards. Perhaps this could access River (and only River) through that type of mechanic, even if it was relegated to the Buy phase?

That's something i considered: "While this is in play, you may buy River cards from the River pile during your buy phase.". It's not bad, but i'm a bit worried that River would end up costing $3*/$2* or something like that, and that would make it look like Peddler, a supply card. If it costs $0*, on the other hand, it looks a bit strange that you'd "buy" it. I mean, it neither costs something (like BM cards) nor is it in the supply (like other buyable $0s are).

werothegreat's idea isn't bad either, though i wouldn't have it "spend" the buys. Diadem doesn't "spend" your actions, either. Sure, there is only one Diadem (edge case: Counterfeit), but you don't want to gain massive amounts of River, anyway. The only thing i don't like about the option is that it doesn't really feel different from Hermit. On some boards, it's going to be the same.

[popsofctown]

The +buy makes River busted with Villages without making it stronger without villages.

[popsofctown]

I really would prefer to see River as a standalone pile though, because it's a cool card. That's not mutually exclusive with making a pile that brings it into play specifically.

I think letting you trash it for 1-2$ whenever you play it would be enough to let it keep up in BM games.  It would allow you to use it early on as your terminal and switch over to high quality 5$ terminals later.

Or to make it look super elegant, "+2 cards: Put this in your hand, anywhere in your deck, or the trash pile."

[LastFootnote]

I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]

[Asper]

I like the unused Actions idea, but I would require more Actions and try to make it so that you can't get one River per Lakeside Village you played that turn. Perhaps an on-play ability. [+1 Card; +2 Actions; If you have at least 4 Actions (Actions, not Action cards), you may gain a River]

I thought about something like this, though i somehow wanted to put the clause first. "If you have at least one unused action..." Of course, yours won't be nearly as confusing.

Speaking of confusion, today i wondered whether counting unused actions wasn't a bit unelegant, considering Rivers wording  tries to avoid exactly that.

Another idea i had: Simply having to choose between gaining River and the Village bonus. But that feels a bit unsatisfying.

Yet another was allowing the gain only when you played LV and allready had three cards in play. That's very similar to Conspirator, of course - except River itself doesn't count.

I'm seriously considering the topdecking restriction on gain. It harms you at the start, because you'd return an Estate or sacrifice a $5 opening. Later on, you might want to use it on an Action you couldn't play. But, you know, top-decking an action while gaining a Village is nice, problem's just that you gain even another card that spends those actions you obviously didn't have enough of. You could play it? Well, you just didn't. You might even use the effect on a River you allready played this turn. This, too, sounds better than it is, though, as you'd spend $4 and gain another River in the process.

[Asper]

This is what i'm (probably) going to try:



The question here is how good Town/Road is. It's a question that i still think i can't answer. If it isn't sufficient to beat most strategies, which i assume, i'm okay with this being an easily available "combo". Unless you want to drown in Roads, you'd need other Villages to reduce the Road/Village ratio, and well, that's a lot of Villages to buy. If you buy Town for the Village itself, you just got another terminal that you might not actually want.

I might cost it at $5 or do the requirement, but for now it's hard to judge. I'll playtest once i get a chance

Either way, i like the name "Town"

[Asper]

I just playtested Town in the most pathetic imaginable way, solo with four versions of me. Anyhow, as i mentioned, i'm not a very good player, so i decided to have each player follow a distinct strategy:
A: Town/Big Money
B:Town/Engine
C:Big Money
D: Town-less engine

The board was: Poor House, Candlestick Maker, Oasis, Fortune Teller, Town, Horse Trader, Stables, Haggler, Torturer, Upgrade

I think the comparison was harmed because there were no Villages besides Town, which meant that for the Town-less player a lot of strategies were impossible, e.g. Torturer chains. Interestingly, theTown-engine had very poor buying power overall and went in last with 18 VP, while Town/BM won with 27. Big Money and the town-less "engine" both got 21, which alone should be esufficient to show that a lot of this was because of me being awful at building engines. I admit i didn't even have a plan for how either engine should look like, so i bought silly amounts of Candlestick Makers and Oasis' for both... You may laugh at me.

Anyhow, it was obvious that Road was a card you were very happy to have at the right moment - starting your hand without one but with Towns meant "Play Town... Drat! A Copper! Okay, one more chance... Noooo! Another Copper!!! Why meee?", while having a hand without Towns was basically dead (not so much for Town/BM, though).

If you ask me what this test showed, it's that i need a better player than me. I had the feeling that the cards were pretty strong, though that may be because my "engines" were awfully built.

Edited for typing errors.

[pacovf]

Town/Road is an engine-y card, so I don't think 4p, with Town as the only village, is the best way to test it...

With that being said, I don't like this version of Town. The interesting part of Road was to balance how many of them you wanted in your deck. Now you don't get to choose, you get as many as you have villages, which is fairly horrible. Town is effectively a no-draw village, because each one of them (aside from the first) will have to compensate for a dead Road in your deck. And a no-draw village is very poor support for Road.

I think the gain has to be either optional or conditional.

EDIT: Thinking about it a little bit more, another option would be to keep the compulsory gain, and replace the top part of town with "+2 cards, +2 actions, discard two cards", for better synergy with road and extra combos.

[TheOthin]

The thing about the draw two, discard two is that it's the same on-play effect as Inn, just with a different on-gain effect.

[pacovf]

Indeed! But in both cases, it's the on-gain effect that is interesting. So it's sort of like saying that Cultist and Ghost Ship are the same, because they both draw two cards.

Something to note is that, if you go with the compulsory on-gain effect (which I am not convinced is the right way to go), you can make Road be the supply card, instead of Town.

Fun puzzle: when would it make a difference which of the two cards is in the supply, and which is a zero-cost extra pile?

[LastFootnote]

I agree with pacovf. Specifically, I think it would be far better to have a conditional gain for Road. I'd like to see something like this:

Town
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.
When you gain this, you may discard a Province. If you do, gain a Road from the Road pile.

Road
Types: Action
Cost: $0*
+3 Cards. Put this into your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

This way Road is a powerful card you really want to shoot for and you have some better control over how many you gain.

By the way, the reason I keep using "Put this into your hand" instead of "Return this to your hand" in my examples is that there's no guarantee Road was in your hand when you played it. It might have been played by Golem or Herald.