Print

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

[Asper]

I know Donald doesn't like political cards, and i personally am not a fan of political games, either (Catan, yuk!). But if we had a card that deliberately centers around the theme of politicalness (so obviously that everyone notices it), would that change things? For example:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each other player, choose one he may do (choices must be different):
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card; Take a coin token;

The vanilla bonus is just a placeholder, and maybe not a good one. I just wanted it to be terminal (because some of the bonuses stack and some don't). The fact that it lacks a 5th bonus so that in 6-player games someone will get nothing is intentional 

Edit: Card wording.
Edited again to better working version.

[Jimmmmm]

I think this is okay. It's kind of like Swindler - you choose the best choice for you (ie the worst choice for them) for each opponent. Sure, you could choose to help some and hurt others, but there are plenty of other cards that allow you to do that. I think the really political cards are the ones where you have to choose someone to attack, or I guess choose someone to help. That's where you get arguments about who's winning, who deserves to be attacked etc.

Edit: Just noticed the "choices must be different". Yeah, that makes it political.

[sudgy]

It doesn't work in 6+ player games.  I think, that with the current wording, the first four players will get the bonuses and the last guy won't.

[liopoil]

It doesn't work in 6+ player games.  I think, that with the current wording, the first four players will get the bonuses and the last guy won't.

that's intentional he said. also, what's the "+" for? you can't play dominion with more than 6 people, right.... ?

[Awaclus]

It doesn't work in 6+ player games.  I think, that with the current wording, the first four players will get the bonuses and the last guy won't.

If you're playing a 6+ player game, you brought it upon yourself and deserve it.

[sudgy]

It doesn't work in 6+ player games.  I think, that with the current wording, the first four players will get the bonuses and the last guy won't.

that's intentional he said. also, what's the "+" for? you can't play dominion with more than 6 people, right.... ?

Oh.  I know iso let you play up to 8.

Still, with the way it is currently worded, you can't choose who gets nothing.

[Asper]

It doesn't work in 6+ player games.  I think, that with the current wording, the first four players will get the bonuses and the last guy won't.

that's intentional he said. also, what's the "+" for? you can't play dominion with more than 6 people, right.... ?

Oh.  I know iso let you play up to 8.

Still, with the way it is currently worded, you can't choose who gets nothing.

Oh, you are right. Good catch, i will fix that.

Edit: Fixed so that you can choose who gets nothing. Wording could still be better, though.

[ta56636]

I think the problem is not when you can make a decision based on the state of play in this game (assuming every player prefers to do his best rather than deliberately nobble someone), however towards the start of the game, with no clear leader, the logic action is to give the worst option to the perceived best player - effectively making it a handicapped (as in golf handicap) game.

[Awaclus]

I think the problem is not when you can make a decision based on the state of play in this game (assuming every player prefers to do his best rather than deliberately nobble someone), however towards the start of the game, with no clear leader, the logic action is to give the worst option to the perceived best player - effectively making it a handicapped (as in golf handicap) game.

Actually you would give the worst option to the player who went first.

[eHalcyon]

Make it even more political.

Backroom, Action, 4$
Take 3 coin tokens.

For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card.  The other players may give any number of their own coin tokens to influence your decision.

[Asper]

Make it even more political.

Backroom, Action, 4$
Take 3 coin tokens.

For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card.  The other players may give any number of their own coin tokens to influence your decision.

This is awesome
I love it! (Though i'm not sure whether the benefits are good enough to normally give a coin token for them.)

[Awaclus]

Make it even more political.

Backroom, Action, 4$
Take 3 coin tokens.

For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card.  The other players may give any number of their own coin tokens to influence your decision.

This is awesome
I love it! (Though i'm not sure whether the benefits are good enough to normally give a coin token for them.)

They are good enough, but the difference in their power levels isn't big enough. Chancellor is obviously the worst effect, but the others are pretty close to each other in power. I suppose you could pay a coin token if you're the player with an advantage to get the trashing or the Silver or the +1 card instead of chancellor in some situations, but if you're getting a Silver anyway, you probably don't want to pay a coin token to trash something instead.

[GendoIkari]

I know Donald doesn't like political cards, and i personally am not a fan of political games, either (Catan, yuk!). But if we had a card that deliberately centers around the theme of politicalness (so obviously that everyone notices it), would that change things? For example:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card;

The vanilla bonus is just a placeholder, and maybe not a good one. I just wanted it to be terminal (because some of the bonuses stack and some don't). The fact that it lacks a 5th bonus so that in 6-player games someone will get nothing is intentional 

Edit: Card wording.

Um, in the current wording (I never saw what it was originally), in a 2 player game this gives you +2, while it gives your opponent ALL of the bonuses.

*Edit* I can see that I may be incorrect, because of the word "different", implying that you can't choose the same opponent multiple times. But this isn't straight-forward or clear. I first read "different" to just mean that you have to choose an opponent, not yourself. Also, it seems very awkward for the only thing stopping your only opponent from getting all of them to be the fact that once he's gotten one, the "do as much as you can" rule kicks in and you can't give that opponent another one. Why not just say "each other player" instead?

[eHalcyon]

Make it even more political.

Backroom, Action, 4$
Take 3 coin tokens.

For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card.  The other players may give any number of their own coin tokens to influence your decision.

This is awesome
I love it! (Though i'm not sure whether the benefits are good enough to normally give a coin token for them.)

Benefits could be modified, of course.  I had another idea, but I couldn't think of an elegant way to word it.  It would work one of two ways.  Everyone can offer you coin tokens to influence how you assign the bonuses, but after you make your decision then they can refuse to give you the coin tokens.  That, or after everyone has paid you the coin tokens then you can choose not to listen to them and assign bonuses any way you want.  So you make your backroom dealings but you can be a lying cheat and break those promises, but that will mean people are less likely to cooperate with you in the future.

Not sure if such a mechanic would be worth the card space for the text though.

[Asper]

I know Donald doesn't like political cards, and i personally am not a fan of political games, either (Catan, yuk!). But if we had a card that deliberately centers around the theme of politicalness (so obviously that everyone notices it), would that change things? For example:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card;

The vanilla bonus is just a placeholder, and maybe not a good one. I just wanted it to be terminal (because some of the bonuses stack and some don't). The fact that it lacks a 5th bonus so that in 6-player games someone will get nothing is intentional 

Edit: Card wording.

Um, in the current wording (I never saw what it was originally), in a 2 player game this gives you +2, while it gives your opponent ALL of the bonuses.

*Edit* I can see that I may be incorrect, because of the word "different", implying that you can't choose the same opponent multiple times. But this isn't straight-forward or clear. I first read "different" to just mean that you have to choose an opponent, not yourself. Also, it seems very awkward for the only thing stopping your only opponent from getting all of them to be the fact that once he's gotten one, the "do as much as you can" rule kicks in and you can't give that opponent another one. Why not just say "each other player" instead?

"For each other player" was the first wording:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each other player, choose one he may do (choices must be different):
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card;

It had the problem that in a 6-player game the player to your right would never get anything, as "for each other player" is resolved in turn order.


Sadly i just noticed that the current one has an unwanted effect, too: "For each of the following" has arguably to be resolved in the order of the listing, so you would always have to give away the first benefit first. In a 2-player match, this would mean that the other player will always gain a Silver. I guess it's no problem if you put Chancellor last (or first).

Also you could probably instead use the "for each other player" wording combined with an additional 5th benefit. That benefit can't be awful (because naturally you'd always give it in a 2-player game), but i guess something strong like "take a coin token" would work (you'd always give it to the poor guy who you think won't win, anyhow). So:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each other player, choose one he may do (choices must be different):
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card; Take a coin token;

What's better?

[GendoIkari]

I know Donald doesn't like political cards, and i personally am not a fan of political games, either (Catan, yuk!). But if we had a card that deliberately centers around the theme of politicalness (so obviously that everyone notices it), would that change things? For example:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each of the following, choose a different one of the other players who may do it:
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card;

The vanilla bonus is just a placeholder, and maybe not a good one. I just wanted it to be terminal (because some of the bonuses stack and some don't). The fact that it lacks a 5th bonus so that in 6-player games someone will get nothing is intentional 

Edit: Card wording.

Um, in the current wording (I never saw what it was originally), in a 2 player game this gives you +2, while it gives your opponent ALL of the bonuses.

*Edit* I can see that I may be incorrect, because of the word "different", implying that you can't choose the same opponent multiple times. But this isn't straight-forward or clear. I first read "different" to just mean that you have to choose an opponent, not yourself. Also, it seems very awkward for the only thing stopping your only opponent from getting all of them to be the fact that once he's gotten one, the "do as much as you can" rule kicks in and you can't give that opponent another one. Why not just say "each other player" instead?

"For each other player" was the first wording:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each other player, choose one he may do (choices must be different):
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card;

It had the problem that in a 6-player game the player to your right would never get anything, as "for each other player" is resolved in turn order.


Sadly i just noticed that the current one has an unwanted effect, too: "For each of the following" has arguably to be resolved in the order of the listing, so you would always have to give away the first benefit first. In a 2-player match, this would mean that the other player will always gain a Silver. I guess it's no problem if you put Chancellor last (or first).

Also you could probably instead use the "for each other player" wording combined with an additional 5th benefit. That benefit can't be awful (because naturally you'd always give it in a 2-player game), but i guess something strong like "take a coin token" would work (you'd always give it to the poor guy who you think won't win, anyhow). So:

Politician, Action, 4$
+3$
For each other player, choose one he may do (choices must be different):
Gain a Silver; Put his deck in his discard; Trash a card from his hand; Draw a card; Take a coin token;

What's better?

Ah I see. Yeah, I think adding a 5th benefit works much better. It's really awkward force a player to go through each of the 4 options in a 2 player game, and have them see "nope, can't follow this instruction" for the other 3 choices.