Print

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

[SirPeebles]

I was trying to come up with pure VP card that could push players toward new strategies.  This is one idea I came up with.  The wording could use some work.  It could provide an alternative to competing over key splits.

Commonwealth
$5 Victory

Worth 1 VP per copy of the player to your right's most plentiful card in his deck (excluding Copper, Curse, and Province).

The wording is confusing.  The point is, if the player to your right has 7 Minions, this card would be worth 7 VP (unless he had even more than 7 copies of some other card).

[LastFootnote]

Very cool idea. I get that you're trying to make it a pure Victory card, but what if it gave you a way to trash cards from your deck, either as an Action or an on-gain effect? That way you wouldn't have to exclude Copper or Curse.

[Ozle]

What if the person to your right is Zimbabwe?

[SirPeebles]

Very cool idea. I get that you're trying to make it a pure Victory card, but what if it gave you a way to trash cards from your deck, either as an Action or an on-gain effect? That way you wouldn't have to exclude Copper or Curse.

I think it is better to exclude Copper and Curse anyhow.  The idea is that your opponent does not stock up on lots of a useful card.  Your opponent already doesn't want Copper and Curse.

I did think that it would be interesting to give it some sort of on-gain or on-play Masquerade effect, except that Masquerade already exists.  Or maybe a reaction which causes an opponent to gain a second copy of a card when they buy one (you'd discard your Commonwealth on reveal, of course).

Edit:  One issue with that Reaction idea is that in a multiplayer game you are fiddling around with the composition of just one opponent, which is political.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think the concept is cool in 2-player games, but I can imagine it being really frustrating with 3+ players.  Al rushes Minions, so Bob gets Commonwealths, and now you're stuck without any Minions, and they crush you because Al's got an awesome engine going, and Bob's got all these points from Commonwealth, and if you try to compete for Minions Al will just pick up some Commonwealths of his own to make matters worse; and Commonwealths won't be worth many points for you (except maybe they will because Bob is getting lots of Commonwealths, but if you extend the example to 4-player then you could definitely get stuck).

Also, even if it trashes I agree it should exclude Copper and Curse.  It would be awful to get hit hard by Mountebank, then just have it rubbed in as your opponent picks up Commonwealths to score a billion points off your Coppers.  I guess if it trashed a lot of cards you could make up for it, but I think it's a lot more elegant to just leave it as is, and then it's function is just a pure victory card.

[SirPeebles]

I think the concept is cool in 2-player games, but I can imagine it being really frustrating with 3+ players.  Al rushes Minions, so Bob gets Commonwealths, and now you're stuck without any Minions, and they crush you because Al's got an awesome engine going, and Bob's got all these points from Commonwealth, and if you try to compete for Minions Al will just pick up some Commonwealths of his own to make matters worse; and Commonwealths won't be worth many points for you (except maybe they will because Bob is getting lots of Commonwealths, but if you extend the example to 4-player then you could definitely get stuck).

Also, even if it trashes I agree it should exclude Copper and Curse.  It would be awful to get hit hard by Mountebank, then just have it rubbed in as your opponent picks up Commonwealths to score a billion points off your Coppers.  I guess if it trashed a lot of cards you could make up for it, but I think it's a lot more elegant to just leave it as is, and then it's function is just a pure victory card.

Yeah, I'm really not sure what the dynamic would be like a 3 player game.  Probably your best bet in that case would be to go for Minions too.  That way Al gets fewer, so his engine is less powerful and Bob's Commonwealths are less valuable.  There are already complicated dynamics in 3 player games, where you can really get hosed based on your opponents' respective strategies.

[silverspawn]

isn't that similar to fairgrounds? get lots of different cards/don't get a lot of copies of one card

you're not excluding silver. it's crazy in JoaT decks or with feodum

[Awaclus]

it's crazy in JoaT decks or with feodum

No, it's crazy against those. It's your own fault if you piledrive Silvers in a game with Commonwealth.

[SirPeebles]

isn't that similar to fairgrounds? get lots of different cards/don't get a lot of copies of one card

you're not excluding silver. it's crazy in JoaT decks or with feodum

Excluding Silver would encourage people to play BM against Commonwealth.  That is something I was trying to avoid.

[Dsell]

I feel like the $5 price point is too low for this, at least in 2 player. Does any 2 player deck exist where this would be worth less than a duchy? In BM you have at least 3 silver/gold/duchy (although again, why would anybody pick up duchy over this? Even if you split the Commonwealths AND it was the most plentiful card in each deck they'd be worth 4 apiece) and in engines you almost always have at least 3 copies of key components. The only games where I see this not being better than duchy are menagerie/fairgrounds/black market games, and only maybe.

It also gives a big middle finger to feodum and makes duke games really interesting (although it's almost definitely better than duke at $5 too).

All that said, I really like the concept. I think some sort of on-gain or some other way to let the opponent shave off some of their more plentiful cards would make it even better.