Print

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

[Davio]

Has the reverse Embargo ever been conceived?

Minister - $2 Action
Trash this card. Put your Minister token on top of a Supply pile. - When you buy a card from that pile, +1 VP.
---------
Setup: Every player gets a different Minister token.


So basically you can just pick a pile with cards that you'll buy a bunch off and get an extra 4 or 5 VP from buying those cards (if you split them evenly). Only you get the VP token, but other players can choose the same pile and get their own tokens.

I think it can provide interesting strategic decisions like Embargo does. You sacrifice some early cash to set up a longer game plan. And of course if your opponent sees you uhm... Ministering Spies, he can fight the split, but for no gain of his own until he gets his own token on it.

The way it's worded right now, you could buy and play another Minister to move your token to a different pile, but that's okay, I think.

Thoughts?

[LastFootnote]

Has the reverse Embargo ever been conceived?

Minister - $2 Action
Trash this card. Put your Minister token on top of a Supply pile. - When you buy a card from that pile, +1 VP.
---------
Setup: Every player gets a different Minister token.


So basically you can just pick a pile with cards that you'll buy a bunch off and get an extra 4 or 5 VP from buying those cards (if you split them evenly). Only you get the VP token, but other players can choose the same pile and get their own tokens.

I think it can provide interesting strategic decisions like Embargo does. You sacrifice some early cash to set up a longer game plan. And of course if your opponent sees you uhm... Ministering Spies, he can fight the split, but for no gain of his own until he gets his own token on it.

The way it's worded right now, you could buy and play another Minister to move your token to a different pile, but that's okay, I think.

Thoughts?

This seems like a missed opportunity for a non-attack interaction. I think there should be one marker that works for everybody. It's still better for you than it is for other players because you can choose to put it on whatever you were going to buy that turn anyway. If you built a deck of Markets and have 6 buys near the endgame, you could slap this on Copper and rake in the points.

If you do decide to make it a global marker, I have more advice. I tried to create my own Embargo-like card with a single marker and although it's not currently in my set, I learned a few things about it from feedback and testing. The big thing is, since there's only one marker and it's not cumulative, the card really shouldn't be a one-shot. Also, it should really give some resources or you're benefitting your opponents more than yourself.

Minister
Types: Action
Cost: $3 or $4
+1 Buy. +$2. You may move the minister token to any Supply pile.
When a player buys a card, he gets +1 VP if the minister token is on that pile.

Setup: Put the minister token on the Curse pile.

[popsofctown]

I think it works better as a selfish card.  It's hard to break symmetry so much that the other player won't just buy whatever pile you enhanced.  Giving a card the Harem treatment is pretty big.  Only Big Money/Dead draw or something will be totally unable to buy from the buffed pile, but even then they can go lighter on the terminals to prepare for a possible incentivized Harvest purchase in the near future, or whatever. 

I think there's enough interaction already due to pile control, as Davio suggested.  If it's stackable like Spy, you can buy them to deny it.  If it's not stackable, buy one or two, if your opponent totally loads up on them then punish him with green cards for having an overly terminal deck. 

[LastFootnote]

I think it works better as a selfish card.  It's hard to break symmetry so much that the other player won't just buy whatever pile you enhanced.  Giving a card the Harem treatment is pretty big.  Only Big Money/Dead draw or something will be totally unable to buy from the buffed pile, but even then they can go lighter on the terminals to prepare for a possible incentivized Harvest purchase in the near future, or whatever. 

I think there's enough interaction already due to pile control, as Davio suggested.  If it's stackable like Spy, you can buy them to deny it.  If it's not stackable, buy one or two, if your opponent totally loads up on them then punish him with green cards for having an overly terminal deck.

Yeah, you're probably right. If nothing else, it would be cool to test both versions and just keep whichever one is more fun.

[Davio]

I think I like the selfish version because it might open up alternative strategy routes for the player going that way.

Putting this on Copper is funny, but you're punishing yourself with Coppers while loading up on Victory tokens, so it could make for nice asymmetric games.

Big Money could use it to put on Province for some extra oomph and engines can use it for catch-up on Duchies later or something like that.

I'm not quite sure on what kind of extra bonus to slap on, Embargo has +$2 of course, so you could give this +3 cards, I dunnow.

[soulnet]

+Buy would be nice, but maybe too good. I think moving the token is good enough, when the pile runs out or because it is too expensive. I.e., you have +1VP wharves, that are emptied or almost, and then move to Copper to load up on VPs in the endgame. It seems like moving the token at least once would be reasonable.

[Ozle]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

[LastFootnote]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

[popsofctown]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

Yeah I think he was talking about your version.  The thought crossed my mind too, mostly as a way to let it cost 3$ and not be strictly better than Woodcutter.

[LastFootnote]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

Yeah I think he was talking about your version.  The thought crossed my mind too, mostly as a way to let it cost 3$ and not be strictly better than Woodcutter.

The fact that your opponents can also take advantage of the VP might make it not strictly better than Woodcutter anyway.

[scott_pilgrim]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

Yeah I think he was talking about your version.  The thought crossed my mind too, mostly as a way to let it cost 3$ and not be strictly better than Woodcutter.

The fact that your opponents can also take advantage of the VP might make it not strictly better than Woodcutter anyway.

No, the original is strictly better than Woodcutter, assuming that you are rational.  You can always choose not to move the token, and then it's equivalent to Woodcutter, but since you have a choice, it's better.  The set-up rule would make it different from Woodcutter, but it would still be strictly better, which you wouldn't want, for the same reason you wouldn't make a card that cost $4 and said "Choose one: +2 cards or +3 cards; Set-up: Estates are worth an additional VP this game".  It would make the game different than how Smithy would make it, but you would never buy Smithy when that card is on the board, in the same way that you would never buy Woodcutter when your card is on the board.

[GeoLib]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

Yeah I think he was talking about your version.  The thought crossed my mind too, mostly as a way to let it cost 3$ and not be strictly better than Woodcutter.

The fact that your opponents can also take advantage of the VP might make it not strictly better than Woodcutter anyway.

No, the original is strictly better than Woodcutter, assuming that you are rational.  You can always choose not to move the token, and then it's equivalent to Woodcutter, but since you have a choice, it's better.  The set-up rule would make it different from Woodcutter, but it would still be strictly better, which you wouldn't want, for the same reason you wouldn't make a card that cost $4 and said "Choose one: +2 cards or +3 cards; Set-up: Estates are worth an additional VP this game".  It would make the game different than how Smithy would make it, but you would never buy Smithy when that card is on the board, in the same way that you would never buy Woodcutter when your card is on the board.

Except that it doesn't give you +buy and is a one shot...

(The original that is. LastFootnote's version does look strictly better than woodcutter)

[Davio]

I like my original version in that it's basically an investment.

You're saying: I'm delaying my early development a bit and instead I plan to reap some rewards in the future from a pile of my choosing. And of course you can immediately do that on the turn you play this card.

I kept the original stale as I wasn't sure what kind of resources (like $2 or +X cards) it would need to make it good. Maybe it doesn't need any, Sea Hag and Saboteur have none either and this does have one, albeit a delayed one.

I costed it at $2 like Embargo, because it plays like a reversed one. But Embargo also hits the one playing it, so that's why it gives +$2 I think. You wouldn't buy Embargo as often if it just put a token on a pile without given something in addition. You might still buy this without an extra resource just to set up lots of tokens. And you might buy it again to put your token on a different pile and get even more tokens.

But it's hard to say something definitive without decent playtesting and for that I just don't have the time. I just like to launch ideas on here and let you guys run with it.

[scott_pilgrim]

What if you HAD to move it to a different pile each time you played the card?

If it's a one-shot that just moves your token, that's not going to make much of a difference. Presumably you're not going to buy a second one unless you want to move your token.

Yeah I think he was talking about your version.  The thought crossed my mind too, mostly as a way to let it cost 3$ and not be strictly better than Woodcutter.

The fact that your opponents can also take advantage of the VP might make it not strictly better than Woodcutter anyway.

No, the original is strictly better than Woodcutter, assuming that you are rational.  You can always choose not to move the token, and then it's equivalent to Woodcutter, but since you have a choice, it's better.  The set-up rule would make it different from Woodcutter, but it would still be strictly better, which you wouldn't want, for the same reason you wouldn't make a card that cost $4 and said "Choose one: +2 cards or +3 cards; Set-up: Estates are worth an additional VP this game".  It would make the game different than how Smithy would make it, but you would never buy Smithy when that card is on the board, in the same way that you would never buy Woodcutter when your card is on the board.

Except that it doesn't give you +buy and is a one shot...

(The original that is. LastFootnote's version does look strictly better than woodcutter)

Yeah, I meant LastFootnotes's version.  I think all of the confusion just came from which version everyone was talking about.

[LastFootnote]

I apologize for suggesting such a radically different version in the first response to the topic.

And you're right, my version is strictly better than Woodcutter at $3 as long as the moving is optional. Good call, scott_pilgrim, pops, and Ozle. But enough about my version.

Davio, I do like your original version. As you said, it is basically an investment. The fact that you have to buy the cards after announcing your target means that it's still interactive because others can try to deny you the card. Unless the card is Silver, I guess. Dang, Silver seems like a really good target for this. Well, if it turns out to be problematic, it could be limited to Kingdom cards or Action cards or something.

[heron]

I think it would be interesting if each player could move their own minister token, but the one's which are already in the supply are communal they give everybody vp tokens.

[eHalcyon]

IIRC I made a thread about an Embargo-like card where instead of giving out Curses it would give out coin tokens.  Too lazy to go find it.

To add further confusion...

What if it were exactly like Embargo (infinite tokens that are never removed) except that the tokens would give players VP instead of Curses?

[Asper]

I like how (with the original) you can put your token on an unpopular card (that you work with) with other players having to decide whether they buy them to steal your VP or leave them alone. A token on Goons is likely to net you less points than one on, say, Spy.

Congrats, Davio - you found the solution to the problems i encountered when i wanted to do exactly that: A card that can push unpopular cards.

[blueblimp]

This seems a little related to Great Hall in that VP tokens are kinda like Great Halls, and the volume of tokens obtained from this card will be about half a pile's worth, about the same as you can get from GH. I like the idea but I worry that, like GH, it often won't do much to influence the strategy in the kingdom apart from occupying a pile. It's definitely good enough to be worth buying almost every game (a $2 card that eventually amounts to 4 or more VP is worth buying), but the total VP its presence offers (~4 VP per player, maybe ~10 VP sometimes) is pretty small compared to something like Fairgrounds (~16 VP per player typically, ~24 VP sometimes).

[Davio]

Well, of course, if it turns out too strong or too weak, it can be easily tweaked through the variables on the card. I was mostly curious about the idea.

Would love to see this playtested; put your token on Scout and rake in the points!

[LibraryAdventurer]

This seems a little related to Great Hall in that VP tokens are kinda like Great Halls...

VP tokens are very different from Great Halls IMO, especially in games with any cards like Ironworks, Ironmonger, Tribute, Peddler, or even Conspiritor.  Great Halls can be trashed by attacks or remodeled into duchies.  VP tokens significantly change the original concept of the game.

Anyway, I kinda like Davio's card idea. (I like it better than most other fan-made token-using cards I've seen.)  It might be a good idea to disallow putting it on copper.  I'm imagining someone using gardens or goons while ministering coppers and stocking up on +buy cards.

[Awaclus]

This seems a little related to Great Hall in that VP tokens are kinda like Great Halls...

VP tokens are very different from Great Halls IMO, especially in games with any cards like Ironworks, Ironmonger, Tribute, Peddler, or even Conspiritor.  Great Halls can be trashed by attacks or remodeled into duchies.

Though, in a game without such cards (and terminal draw etc), VP tokens aren't at all different from Great Halls.

[GeoLib]

This seems a little related to Great Hall in that VP tokens are kinda like Great Halls...

VP tokens are very different from Great Halls IMO, especially in games with any cards like Ironworks, Ironmonger, Tribute, Peddler, or even Conspiritor.  Great Halls can be trashed by attacks or remodeled into duchies.  VP tokens significantly change the original concept of the game.

Anyway, I kinda like Davio's card idea. (I like it better than most other fan-made token-using cards I've seen.)  It might be a good idea to disallow putting it on copper.  I'm imagining someone using gardens or goons while ministering coppers and stocking up on +buy cards.

I think blueblimp's point was more that the vp from this card, like that from great hall, isn't large enough to significantly alter the game.

[Davio]

Well, the main thing why Great Hall's points don't matter that much is because you have to spend time to actually gain those GH's, which means you're not building up your economy as fast which makes it harder to get better cards.

Let's say you put this on Market or something and you end up losing the split 4-6. Well, you have a 4 VP lead at this point, but you also still have those Markets. Do 2 Markets make up for a 4 VP lead? I don't know, but it's at least interesting.

And as I said, you can simply add something like "Gain a Silver" to this card, so you get something back for your delayed economy building if it proves to be too weak.