Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Not to let this get sidetracked, I have a new card here.

Economist – Action/Reaction - $3
+$1
+1 Buy
When another player plays an action card, you may reveal your hand and discard this card. If you revealed the same card they played, discard it and +5 cards.

GendoIkari is right; reacting to playing an Action card is no good. In addition to that, this could get crazy very fast. Let's say you have two Economists in your deck. Drawing 5 cards could easily let you pick up another economist and copy of the played card. Then when you discard them, the next 5 cards might pick up the first Economist (or the second). It's potentially an infinite loop until you draw your deck, though it's not guaranteed. If nothing else, this slows the game down even more.

There's a reason that Horse Traders is set aside rather than discarded.

[eHalcyon]

Almanac still has the timing issue, and since it now doesn't have a bottom-deck clause, it has an extra issue in that it will grant infinite coin tokens.  You can reveal reactions as many times as you want, after all.

Wait, isn't Almanac's timing similar to Tunnel's? And you can't reveal Tunnel multiple times during one discard of it.

After you discard it though, it's gone.  This card isn't gone, it's still in the place from which you are allowed to reveal it.

It is gone after you reshuffle.

Yeah. In fact, I think Tunnel might be evidence that Almanac's wording is ok. Tunnel tells you to reveal it "when you discard it". A completely literal meaning says that you get to dig through your discard pile to find it, since it might not even be on top. Basically Tunnel would seem to break lose-track. But it's been commonly interpreted for logic and practicality as revealing "as you discard." Almanac seems almost identical. The wording says "when you shuffle", but in practice that would be "as you're beginning the shuffling process." Either way, didn't Donald say that Tunnel was essentially an exception to the "may reveal multiple times" rule? I would think Almanac falls in that same exception.

Eh, maybe you guys are right, but it sounds way stranger to me with reshuffling than with discarding.  "When you discard" is naturally interpreted as "as you discard".  But with the reshuffle, you still have to go dig through the discard to find the Almanac.  With Tunnel you might technically have to do the same thing (discard multiple cards and Tunnel is not on top) but it just feels natural.  With Almanac, the timing doesn't flow.  I mean, here's what it says:

In games using this, when you re-shuffle your deck, you may look through your discard pile and reveal this card. If you do, gain 3 coin tokens.

OK, so I'm about to reshuffle.  So I get to look through my discard now.  But if I'm about to reshuffle, haven't I already picked up my discard pile?  Is it still my discard pile?  OK, I can look through it and reveal an Almanac.  Now where is that Almanac card?  Still in my discard pile?  Can't I reveal it again?  Can I reveal another, separate Almanac card?  Can other players even tell if I'm revealing a different Almanac or the same one?  I mean, I could reveal them all at once, but technically you don't do that with reactions -- you reveal them one at a time.  And they are in my discard pile, which other players can't look through.  So how long am I in this about-to-shuffle limbo?

I mean, I can grok how it is meant to be played, but I feel that it doesn't match up with the rules in a natural, unambiguous fashion the way that Tunnel does.  I guess it's just me?  There is probably a different way to phrase it so that it is clearer though.

[GendoIkari]

I agree, it's especially not clear where the Almanac is while it's revealed. But I just realized this is more like Stash than Tunnel. Stash doesn't use "in games using this"'does it? And yet somehow the rule functions even though it's not a reaction or an effect if playing the card. So couldn't Almanac be just like Stash? No need to be a reaction, no need to have "in games using this." Simply "when you shuffle, you may put this on the bottom if your deck. If you do..." Also, it should technically have a different back for this.

[XerxesPraelor]

Cool, that's an interesting solution. I was trying to figure out how to fix the other recent-er card, and came up with:

At the beginning of  another player's buy phase, you can set aside this and another card from your hand. Next turn discard them. If the other card is in-play, draw 4 cards.

[sudgy]

Not to let this get sidetracked,

That's hard on this forum...

[AJD]

Tunnel tells you to reveal it "when you discard it". A completely literal meaning says that you get to dig through your discard pile to find it, since it might not even be on top. Basically Tunnel would seem to break lose-track.

(The out is that the lose-track rule doesn't disallow you from revealing a card that's been lost track of, just moving it. But of course overall you're right that the practical way of dealing with Tunnel is "as you discard" and nothing bad happens because of it.)

[Mr.Oatmeal]

New form of almanac:
Almanac - Victory/Reaction - $3
Worth 1 VP
In games using this, when you re-shuffle your deck, you may look through your discard pile and reveal this card. If you do, gain 3 coin tokens

Almanac has been changed to coin tokens rather than VP to differentiate it from monument. Comments on it?

I think we're all having the wrong conversation about Almanac.
Whatever gets decided about its reshuffle wording, it is extremely overpowered for its price.  It is a gold in coin tokens (which is even better) for only $3. Think about it.   Every time through your deck, it gives you 3 to spend whenever you want to. It doesn't matter that when you draw it it's a dead card, because it already gave you the money. It even opens the door for TFB if you are nearing the end of the game and won't shuffle again. Since you got rid of the bottom-decking it to start, it doesn't even miss more shuffles than a gold would.

This card would still be more powerful than a gold with a vp point tacked onto it (which would obviously cost more than 6).
This card would even still be strictly better than a silver if it gave only 2 tokens and the price stayed. (Edge case with mine, mint, taxman...)

[Warfreak2]

Not strictly better, for the same reason that Caravan isn't equal to Laboratory. That said, a deck which draws and discards the same Almanac five times per turn would not be very hard to build, so it's definitely in the "Wharf isn't strictly better than Counting House" realm.

[Awaclus]

Not strictly better, for the same reason that Caravan isn't equal to Laboratory.

Caravan isn't equal to Laboratory because it's delayed and it misses reshuffles more. Well, this doesn't miss reshuffles more, in fact it probably misses reshuffles less often because you can discard it with cyclers. And it isn't delayed - on the contrary, you'll always have the tokens available in the first hand after the reshuffle. I'm not sure if I'm missing another reason why Caravan is inferior to Lab, but I don't really see how this is not strictly better than a Gold for the same reason that Caravan isn't equal to Laboratory.

It actually isn't strictly better, but that's for a different reason. You get nothing when it misses the reshuffle.

[Mr.Oatmeal]

It actually isn't strictly better, but that's for a different reason. You get nothing when it misses the reshuffle.

It misses the shuffle exactly the same way that a gold would. 
If you the bottom card of your deck is a gold, you get 3 coins that last turn, then nothing from that card until your next reshuffle. 
If the bottom card of your deck is the Almanac, it previously gave you 3 coin tokens when it got shuffled and landed at the bottom of your deck, and it again won't give you anything until your next reshuffle. 

and it costs 3...

Maybe I was mistaken in using the phase "strictly better" but I still think this card is way overpowered. 

[GendoIkari]

It actually isn't strictly better, but that's for a different reason. You get nothing when it misses the reshuffle.

It misses the shuffle exactly the same way that a gold would. 
If you the bottom card of your deck is a gold, you get 3 coins that last turn, then nothing from that card until your next reshuffle. 
If the bottom card of your deck is the Almanac, it previously gave you 3 coin tokens when it got shuffled and landed at the bottom of your deck, and it again won't give you anything until your next reshuffle. 

and it costs 3...

Maybe I was mistaken in using the phase "strictly better" but I still think this card is way overpowered.

So basically it sounds like the argument is that it works just as well as the following card:

Treasure - $3
When you play this, take 3 coin tokens.

I made it a treasure since Almanac cannot be drawn dead with Smithy. It is just slightly worse than that because you don't get those coin tokens until you shuffle, meaning it's like the above treasure if you happen to always draw it near the bottom of your deck.

So yeah, I think you're right.

[XerxesPraelor]

I guess making it down to 2 coin tokens would keep it from being too powerful. Would that be too bad then? It seems similar to woodcutter or silver to me, and too delayed to be better than silver most of the time?

[pst]

Revolution – Action/Attack - $5
+$2
Name a card in the supply. Each other player gains a copy of it. You gain a card costing up to $2 more that is not a victory card.

I like it, partly for the same reasons as I like Swindler. You'll have to adapt to having cards in your deck that you didn't really want there, but that are not just worthless junk, but actually can be useful. Maybe it would be even better if the victory card exception is for all the gained cards, and not just your own? "Duchies for you, King's Court for me!" just wouldn't make as fun a game as if you had to give out a "real" 5 in that case.

Fun situations:
"Peddlers for you, Platinum for me!"
(in 4-player game) "Sir Martin for you, except you two don't get anything; Border Village and some more interesting knight for me"

[GendoIkari]

I guess making it down to 2 coin tokens would keep it from being too powerful. Would that be too bad then? It seems similar to woodcutter or silver to me, and too delayed to be better than silver most of the time?

I think the problem is that originally it sounded like an interesting and new way to do a pure reaction, but the more it's discussed and analyzed, the more it seems that it doesn't do anything unique as a reaction that it wouldn't do if it were just played as a regular card instead. I think that's because the thing it reacts to is something that happens exactly once each shuffle, and it doesn't need to be in your hand during that event. This means that you get to use it once per shuffle, which is exactly what you get to do with a regular action or treasure card.

[Awaclus]

I guess making it down to 2 coin tokens would keep it from being too powerful. Would that be too bad then? It seems similar to woodcutter or silver to me, and too delayed to be better than silver most of the time?

I think the problem is that originally it sounded like an interesting and new way to do a pure reaction, but the more it's discussed and analyzed, the more it seems that it doesn't do anything unique as a reaction that it wouldn't do if it were just played as a regular card instead. I think that's because the thing it reacts to is something that happens exactly once each shuffle, and it doesn't need to be in your hand during that event. This means that you get to use it once per shuffle, which is exactly what you get to do with a regular action or treasure card.

The mechanic could still be interesting, if it was an action card that did something instead of being a victory card: You get two effects per reshuffle, but at different times. Though that would be somewhat similar to Duration cards, but still different enough IMO.

[GendoIkari]

I guess making it down to 2 coin tokens would keep it from being too powerful. Would that be too bad then? It seems similar to woodcutter or silver to me, and too delayed to be better than silver most of the time?

I think the problem is that originally it sounded like an interesting and new way to do a pure reaction, but the more it's discussed and analyzed, the more it seems that it doesn't do anything unique as a reaction that it wouldn't do if it were just played as a regular card instead. I think that's because the thing it reacts to is something that happens exactly once each shuffle, and it doesn't need to be in your hand during that event. This means that you get to use it once per shuffle, which is exactly what you get to do with a regular action or treasure card.

The mechanic could still be interesting, if it was an action card that did something instead of being a victory card: You get two effects per reshuffle, but at different times. Though that would be somewhat similar to Duration cards, but still different enough IMO.

Agreed. Though you would have the issue of it being double-unlucky when it misses the reshuffle. Though if you also allowed it to be revealed from your hand, you would get to make an interesting choice of whether to use the action or the reaction when it misses the shuffle.

[XerxesPraelor]

So the main problem is not that it's too powerful, which can be fixed through tweaks, but that it doesn't fulfill the concept I had in mind. I can just take that one out.

Here's another one which I don't want to take out: it supposed to be a super-typical example of the cards in this expansion.

Secret Council – Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard any number of cards.
The player to your left names a card. Reveal your hand. If the card named is in your hand, put it on the bottom of your deck. Otherwise, +$3.

Also, a cheap curser:

Superstitious Village
Action - $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may trash a card from his hand. If he doesn't, he gains a curse, putting it in his hand.

[eHalcyon]

So the main problem is not that it's too powerful, which can be fixed through tweaks, but that it doesn't fulfill the concept I had in mind. I can just take that one out.

Here's another one which I don't want to take out: it supposed to be a super-typical example of the cards in this expansion.

Secret Council – Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard any number of cards.
The player to your left names a card. Reveal your hand. If the card named is in your hand, put it on the bottom of your deck. Otherwise, +$3.

Also, a cheap curser:

Superstitious Village
Action - $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may trash a card from his hand. If he doesn't, he gains a curse, putting it in his hand.

Don't know if Secret Council is balanced, but I like the concept a lot.  At its base it is only draw 2, which is quite weak.  Then you can discard for no direct benefit, which is generally useless but can sometimes be good for combos (e.g. Tunnel, Menagerie engine).  Then you get a big benefit that can be blocked, but you can make it harder to block by that previous discarding.  It's also nice that this benefit usually won't stack very well.  Very neat idea.

Superstitious Village is very odd and I'm not sure how it would play.  It's a village variant at the same price point as Village itself, but it has both benefits and drawbacks.  The drawback is that it lets others trash down.  The benefit is that it gives Curses once opponents are trashed.  But then it mitigates itself again by putting that Curse into their hands.  Overall, I don't think this concept would play well.  At $3 they are easy to stack, and they are villages so you often want a lot for an engine anyway.  So then your opponents get a bunch of free trashing and develop thin decks.  And suddenly they don't have things to trash anymore and you are handing out Curses... except that it goes into their hand and then they probably trash them right away when you play your next SV.  This is the key thing -- putting Curses into their hand is really weak because you'll just help them trash it right away (you're likely to play multiple SVs in a turn), and that's on top of an already weak start.  But if you don't put it into their hands then SVs become a bit swingy -- if you play a bunch when they have a particularly good hand, suddenly this is a potion-less Familiar.  Very dangerous.  But between putting it in their hands and not, I think "not" is more likely to work out.

[Warfreak2]

My point was that you don't get the three tokens when it's in your hand, you get it when you reshuffle. On the other hand, unless you gain it with Armory (or stupidly reveal Watchtower), you will reshuffle before it's in your hand anyway, so it's actually more like Gold is the Caravan and Almanac is the Lab. (Damn!)

[Minotaur]

Enlightenment baffles me flavorwise. Unless you mean it as "to make something less heavy"! Then I suppose taking the most expensive (essentially) card out of people's hands fits. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant when choosing Enlightenment as the name.  I tend to stay away from non-noun card names as there are very few cards published that are not people, places, or things. Enlightenment is more of a concept than a tangible/physical thing, and is much tougher to represent on a card (how do you buy Enlightenment? and how does it attack someone?).  What about something like Enlightened One, or Enlightened Cleric? If you make it a person, it's easier to fathom how it can be bought/acquired and sent over to enemy territory to unburden or clear the minds of of those that oppose you.  Was clearing minds of their most heinous and elaborate thoughts and intentions what you were thinking of with Enlightenment?

I can see how this could be "enlightenment" by some points of view. Taking your big expensive things and putting them away. Shunning the material.

As a mechanical concern, playing this card too much could set up a mega turn in some cases. If they're not going to get to shuffle anyway, then cool, but it sounds dangerous otherwise. It should usually hurt because it slows them down, but if they put two King's Courts and a Torturer down there...

[Witherweaver]

Here's another one which I don't want to take out: it supposed to be a super-typical example of the cards in this expansion.

Secret Council – Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard any number of cards.
The player to your left names a card. Reveal your hand. If the card named is in your hand, put it on the bottom of your deck. Otherwise, +$3.

It's intentional that the opponent sees the top card discarded?  Did you consider setting aside face down and discarding afterwords, or does that not give enough information to your opponent?  Also, your opponent always has information on how many cards you discard, right?  He just can't see any but the top one?