Print

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

[soulnet]

Maybe this could work out:

Graveyard - Action/Victory - $4
Each other player gains a Curse.
---
Worth 1 VP per Curse in the Supply.

There is plenty of room to wing it, but often VP cards counting Curses are discredited from the go. I did not find anything clearly broken with this one yet, so, do you?

[silverspawn]

I think it either needs to be "for each" or "per", not "per each".

well, it's the best card to count curses I've ever seen, that's for sure. But... if you don't want a junker on the board, this is... a colony? I mean both players can buy it, but no-one has a reason to early on, it'll just be a worse Hag. And in the end, it's probably going to stay at 10 VP. Or... 20 VP in 3player. 30VP in 4 player? Do you start playing it, even if you bought it late? Probably depends on the board.

[Awaclus]

I think it either needs to be "for each" or "per", not "per each".

well, it's the best card to count curses I've ever seen, that's for sure. But... if you don't want a junker on the board, this is... a colony? I mean both players can buy it, but no-one has a reason to early on, it'll just be a worse Hag. And in the end, it's probably going to stay at 10 VP. Or... 20 VP in 3player. 30VP in 4 player? Do you start playing it, even if you bought it late? Probably depends on the board.

But if you don't want a junker, then the odds are that you also don't mind buying Curses with your extra buys (if you have any), so you can always do that to make your opponent's Graveyards worth less VP. Depending on how heavily he commits to them, a Curse might even be better than a Province.

[soulnet]

I think it either needs to be "for each" or "per", not "per each".

well, it's the best card to count curses I've ever seen, that's for sure. But... if you don't want a junker on the board, this is... a colony? I mean both players can buy it, but no-one has a reason to early on, it'll just be a worse Hag. And in the end, it's probably going to stay at 10 VP. Or... 20 VP in 3player. 30VP in 4 player? Do you start playing it, even if you bought it late? Probably depends on the board.

You are right on the wording, I edited the OP.

My thinking is: The player that has (or foresees that he will have) the bad end of the split has more reason to play it, so he probably will. In a slog when to start buying it or playing it is quite a decision. In BM, I don't know, I suppose there is usually a reason to buy it ahead of Duchy, but it can easily end up being worth 0 VP.

I see the scale problem in multiplayer, but also, Curses deplete faster in multiplayer, and there will usually be more than just one player that wants to deplete the pile to stop the one that is ahead on this, so I think it may even be alright. It is possible that the formula for the VP needs adjustment by the number of players, but I have no intuition at the moment. I think the multiplayer dynammics are strange because there is some cooperative thing regarding some players going for it and some ignoring it.

But if you don't want a junker, then the odds are that you also don't mind buying Curses with your extra buys (if you have any), so you can always do that to make your opponent's Graveyards worth less VP. Depending on how heavily he commits to them, a Curse might even be better than a Province.

Sure, there are scenarios in which you probably don't want the card. Most likely, slogs with better Cursers. But it is not that usual to have an engine so powerful that buying extra Curses and trashing them immediately has no opportunity cost. And yes, in those cases, you probably just ignore the card.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think this is really political in multiplayer.  In 2-player, I decide whether I want to play it based on how many Graveyards I have (or expect to have) vs. how many Graveyards you have (or how many I expect you to have).  But in multiplayer, I have to decide whose points I'm most worried about.  Do I want to play it, so I can catch up to the guy with all the Graveyards, or not play it to pull ahead of the guy who's ignoring them?

[soulnet]

I think this is really political in multiplayer.  In 2-player, I decide whether I want to play it based on how many Graveyards I have (or expect to have) vs. how many Graveyards you have (or how many I expect you to have).  But in multiplayer, I have to decide whose points I'm most worried about.  Do I want to play it, so I can catch up to the guy with all the Graveyards, or not play it to pull ahead of the guy who's ignoring them?

Is that really that much more political than playing Mountebank against a Gardener or a Trader/Feodum player and a guy going for Colonies?

[ThaddeusB]

Neat idea. No idea if it work out, but sounds fun.

Re: multiplayer - it should always start at 10 VP and go down 1 per "set" of curses given ( 1 VP per curses / ( players - 1)). That will make wording a pain, but it's the only way it makes sense.

[Holger]

Neat idea. No idea if it work out, but sounds fun.

Re: multiplayer - it should always start at 10 VP and go down 1 per "set" of curses given ( 1 VP per curses / ( players - 1)). That will make wording a pain, but it's the only way it makes sense.

The card would be better if it didn't scale with the number of players, but when one player has a Moat etc., or there are conditional cursers like Mountebank, there are incomplete "sets" of curses given out. To make your suggestion work, you have to round down (or up) the number you give, which might be too annoying.

[soulnet]

This is a different idea that may also work, and it scales better in multiplayer, but does not look as much fun:

Graveyard - Action/Victory - $6
Each other player gains a Curse.
---
Worth 2VP per set of cards without Curses among the following: other players' decks, your deck, trash, supply.