Print

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

[market squire]

Hi,
I am still making cards in the German Dominionblog forums but now I decided to post a few of them here to get more feedback on the most promising cards.

Here is a card with a "stack those Ruins" rule:

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Play any number of Ruins from your hand.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
He may discard a Ruins.In games using this, at the start of each players clean-up phase, he reveals his hand and places any revealed ruins on top of his deck.




It makes Ruins nastier but also gives a possibility to handle them.
Originally I named it Ritualist (as it has some parallels to Cultist), but maybe some of you have better name suggestions. Maybe I'll create a nice photoshop thing for it when I get to find a good picture.

What do you think of it?


Edit: GeoLibs Version adopted.
First Version:

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Choose one: Each other player gains a Ruins;
or play any number of Ruins from your hand.In games using this, when a player discards a Ruin that he did not play this turn, he puts it on top of his deck.

[KingZog3]

It gives the possibility of essentially stopping the game. You can play Ruins, but with say all non-terminal Ruins I could end up just having 4 ruins on my deck every turn.

[market squire]

Sure, a player who isn't prepared may get stuck quite fast. You can think of it as if ever ruin says efficiently: "-1 card. put this on top of your deck; or -1 action +[ruin bonus]". Which means villages are quite helpful to get rid of it (but also Ritualists themselves). I have not tested it yet.

[KingZog3]

I think that even if its not too strong, it probably won't be fun just because it'll make games so long.

[GeoLib]

It also has an accountability issue, since you discard your hand all at once

[silverspawn]

it's going to get really crazy in 3+ player games that use cultist... but it's an interesting concept.

[Kirian]

I think that even if its not too strong, it probably won't be fun just because it'll make games so long.

That.  Ruins are already bad enough; why design a card that makes them actively worse?  And creates an accountability problem.

[market squire]

I didn't think about the accountability issue. It would need an extra rule that says you have to show every card that is discarded.

The concept is to force players to play the ruins because their effects are otherwise barely used.
Making Ruins worse is not that bad in my opinion because it is nice to play multiples with a Ritualist.
What about giving every player 2 Actions each turn?

[soulnet]

What about giving every player 2 Actions each turn?

That will seriously unbalanced all other cards. Terminals become a LOT stronger compared to non-terminals. I think the proper nerf would be to just topdeck a single Ruins every turn, unless you have none, or to give the opponent's a way to sift Ruins. You could have +1 RuinAction for everyone or something like that. I am not finding right now the best way to do it, but I would explore those options.

[silverspawn]

I didn't think about the accountability issue. It would need an extra rule that says you have to show every card that is discarded.

The concept is to force players to play the ruins because their effects are otherwise barely used.
Making Ruins worse is not that bad in my opinion because it is nice to play multiples with a Ritualist.
What about giving every player 2 Actions each turn?

if you're trying to balance a huge change to the game with another huge change, that's generally problematic. it might help the ruins problem, but it would totally screw with the game in the meantime

[market squire]

or to give the opponent's a way to sift Ruins.

This sounds the most promising.

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Play any number of Ruins from your hand.
Each other player gains a Ruin.
He may put a Ruin from his hand on his discard pile.
In games using this, when a player discards a Ruin that he did not play this turn, he puts it on top of his deck.

[GeoLib]

How about:

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Play any number of Ruins from your hand.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
He may discard a Ruins.
In games using this, at the start of each players clean-up phase, he reveals his hand and places any revealed ruins on top of his deck.

I think that's a little cleaner. It makes sifters another way to deal with the backlog of ruins, too.

[silverspawn]

How about:

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Play any number of Ruins from your hand.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
He may discard a Ruins.
In games using this, at the start of each players clean-up phase, he reveals his hand and places any revealed ruins on top of his deck.

I think that's a little cleaner. It makes sifters another way to deal with the backlog of ruins, too.

regardless of how good the card is, your wording is much better. note that ruins doesn't have a singular in dominion, it's "a ruins" not "a ruin". you did that right of course, I'm just pointing it out.

the difference between the two versions are manual discard effects like secret chamber/vault/cellar

[market squire]

How about:

Ritualist (Action-Attack-Looter), Cost: $4
Play any number of Ruins from your hand.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
He may discard a Ruins.
In games using this, at the start of each players clean-up phase, he reveals his hand and places any revealed ruins on top of his deck.

I think that's a little cleaner. It makes sifters another way to deal with the backlog of ruins, too.

I'm fine with this. Intitially I thought that a change on Cartographer etc sounds nice, but now I prefer that discard effects counter the Ruins stacking. Maybe I'll try it out someday.