Print

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

[popsofctown]

This came up with the gamble discussion, but we seem to lose lots and lots of real estate on cards due to dominion not maintaining a rulebook rule of "If a card instructs you to play an Estate, just ignore the instruction, because that's stupid", so every card has to specify (I suspect you don't have a balance concern about this playing Nights)

It's a shame!

[popsofctown]

More reliably hurt your opponent: "+1 Action. Each player reveals the top card of their deck.  For the highest cost among actions and treasures, play then discard one of those cards and opponents discard the rest."  Attractive when 5$ actions are king, not as attractive when you will hit a mixture of 5$ actions and golds.  It could be much more surgical but it would cost words.

Hacky terse: "+1 Action.  Each other player discards the top card of their deck.  Play such an Action or Treasure. Discard the card you played, return the others."


Accomplishing both goals seems unfathomable to me (To shorten it I had to backslide one of the goals), those are my cracks at each.

[mxdata]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

[popsofctown]

I believe that is correct.

[GendoIkari]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

[popsofctown]

I think this is confusion against the old "lose track rule".  The old "lose track" rule would make it whiff, right? 

This stuff is tricky.

[GendoIkari]

I think this is confusion against the old "lose track rule".  The old "lose track" rule would make it whiff, right? 

This stuff is tricky.

No... Lose Track also never stopped you from playing a card; only from moving it. See Throne Room + Feast... you can play the Feast a second time even though it has been lost track of. In fact I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for renaming "Lose Track" to "Stop Moving" is specifically because people kept making the mistake of thinking that Lose Track would stop you from playing a card.

[mxdata]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

So, then, you would have a card that's being played by two different people?

[GendoIkari]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

So, then, you would have a card that's being played by two different people?

Yeah. And I don't see any issue with it. So long as playing the card doesn't move it to your in-play area, I don't see any rules complications that come from this really. No more so than any version of playing a card without moving it to in-play. The fact that the same card is also played by someone else wouldn't seem to be a problem.

Although, for this version of Pirate Ship; I think it should specify non-Duration. Playing a Duration without moving it to in-play is just not good in general.

*Edit* Just realized that this would just stay in play if it plays a Duration card anyway, like a Command card. So it shouldn't matter much.

[segura]

I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

It is a weak Attack, but after one or several plays the Attack effect can be like that of Fortune Teller.

[NoMoreFun]

Tracking would be a nightmare on that version of Pirate Ship. I think it would be good for at least 1 attack in the game to trash Copper (to make players think twice about over-thinning theor deck in games with good trashers), it should just compensate players for the way it helps in most games.

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Action or Treasure, then discards the rest. +1 Coffers if any Treasures were trashed, +3 cards if any Coppers were trashed.

[faust]

Tracking would be a nightmare on that version of Pirate Ship. I think it would be good for at least 1 attack in the game to trash Copper (to make players think twice about over-thinning theor deck in games with good trashers), it should just compensate players for the way it helps in most games.

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Action or Treasure, then discards the rest. +1 Coffers if any Treasures were trashed, +3 cards if any Coppers were trashed.

Well, this is way too strong. It's a nonterminal Knight for $3.

[faust]

How about:

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $4

+1 Action
Each each player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure and discards the rest. If all cards trashed this way are Coppers, +$3.

[LastFootnote]

How about:

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $4

+1 Action
Each each player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure and discards the rest. If all cards trashed this way are Coppers, +$3.

I like that, except it has the Gladiator problem of being confusing when no Treasures are hit. Do you get the +$3 or don't you? By strict logic, I think you do. But it's not clear to the average person, I bet.

Also if it's a trashing attack, I wouldn't make it non-terminal anymore.

All that said, I like it better than the one I posted, which as people note has issues with Durations.

[LastFootnote]

I forgot to do this one:



A simpler version of Ill-Gotten Gains that maintains the trash-for-benefit potential and the $5 cost. No idea how this would play, but it seems reasonable to me. Let me know if you disagree.

[D782802859]

I think Donald has stated that he'd like to change IGG's above-line text to +$2, but this also works.

[LastFootnote]

I think Donald has stated that he'd like to change IGG's above-line text to +$2, but this also works.

I believe he said that he would make it worth $2 and cost $6. Hinterlands already has two $6 cards, which is why I opted for this instead. I guess making it $6 would be another combo for Farmland, which might be good? Even with that, I'd rather have it at $5.

[LastFootnote]

Now I’m thinking maybe this gives IGG rushes too much of a boost.

[popsofctown]

I don't really see how that version is going to accomplish the version of leaving IGG near its current power level but disincentivizing rushes, which I would assume is the goal.

I kind of think you could fix IGG just by adding 5 more of them to the supply.

[kru5h]

Embargo could be an Action/Night card so that you can play it AFTER you buy your card for the turn, but then you don't get the +2 money from it.

[NoMoreFun]

Research's setting aside and missing shuffles makes it not all that fun.

IMO

Research
Action - $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 it costs.

The horses could be top decked but without the duration type and setting aside it's a big buff.

[Gubump]

Research's setting aside and missing shuffles makes it not all that fun.

IMO

Research
Action - $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 it costs.

The horses could be top decked but without the duration type and setting aside it's a big buff.

Research is easily my least favorite card in Renaissance, but this change would make me like it a lot better.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I don't like artifacts (except Lost in the Woods)

Border Guard
$2 Action
+1 Action.
Look at a number of cards from your deck equal to the number of Border Guards you have in play. Put one in your hand and discard the rest.
-
If you have any unspent coin at the end of your buy phase, you may put this on top of your deck. If you do, discard all other Border Guards you have in play.

Treasurer and Swaskbuckler could lose the part about the artifacts and still both be fine. I just won't use Flagbearer IRL.

[LastFootnote]

You could just excise the Artifact abilities out of Border Village entirely. That's how it originally was. "+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the other." It no longer activates Patron, for what that matters. (It mattered a lot to me at the time, since there were precious few ways to activate Patron in Renaissance.)

EDIT: I enjoy Artifacts in real-life games, except Lost in the Woods! Lost in the Woods just makes Fool way too complex. I'd be interested in testing Fool as a one-shot and maybe moving Lucky Coin to Bard.

[LastFootnote]

I don't really see how that version is going to accomplish the version of leaving IGG near its current power level but disincentivizing rushes, which I would assume is the goal.

That's not my goal at all. The idea is just to make the card simpler. I wouldn't mind disincentivizing rushes, but that isn't the point of the change. I do worry my change makes rushes stronger, though, which I'd like to avoid.