Print

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

[market squire]

In the Dark Ages, we got that beautiful pile of Spoils but only 3 ways to use it...
What do you think of new Spoils cards like from the Dark Ages contest or these:


HERO (Action) $4
+$1
+1 Buy
Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.
___________________
While this is in play, Spoils produces $1 more and is not put back on the Spoils pile when played.


VETERAN (Action) $4
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a number of Spoils from the Spoils pile equal to its cost in coins.
___________________
When you trash this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile.


DUNGEON (Action) $5
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards.
_____________________
While this is in play, when you play an Attack card, gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.


SPOILAGE (Action-Attack) $5
Gain 3 Spoils from the Spoils pile.
Each other player gains a Curse and a Spoils from the Spoils pile.


AMBUSH (Action-Duration) $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
The next time an opponent buys a Victory card, gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.

[enfynet]

Wouldn't Ambush need a clause for revealing? Or while-in-play?

[silverspawn]

hero might be fine, although I would cut the "not put back" part. Correcting other cards is something dominion cards don't do, it feels wrong (at leas to me).

Dungeon is probably OP, even without the bottom part. looks a lot better than cartographer, which is the closest match. Also gaining spoils by playing Attacks seems kind of arbirtary.

spoilage looks very forced to me. don't try that.

ambush is cool though. I'd cut the restriction, but phrase it differently.

+1 card
+1 action
---
While this is in play, when another player buys a Victory card, gain a spoils from the dubildiu

[silverspawn]

Well, reading that sentence now, I see that it makes perfect sense to gain spoils by playing attacks thematically. I guess that was the idea? But mechanically, it's still weird.

[LastFootnote]

I like Dungeon's bottom. The top might be too strong, but it's tough to say. I also like the idea of Ambush. Probably it should have an on-play effect that actually does something for you, though.

Wouldn't Ambush need a clause for revealing? Or while-in-play?

No. It stays in play until another player buys a Victory card. Then you gain a Spoils and discard the Ambush at the end of that player's turn.

[Awaclus]

Correcting other cards is something dominion cards don't do, it feels wrong (at leas to me).

Moat?

[silverspawn]

Correcting other cards is something dominion cards don't do, it feels wrong (at leas to me).

Moat?

I don't think Moat corrects other cards. It just says they don't affect you.

The only cards I can think of that kind of do this are ones who use the "would" phrasing, which is trader and possession. and, well, using would isn't great. the wording in this case didn't use would, but it looks like the same to me.

it feels wrong, but maybe it's fine and that's just me.

[TheOthin]

It kinda does. Something like Witch says "each other player does this" and Moat says no, actually they don't.

But I do think it's a bit of a different story for a card to have a simple, blanket omission from a whole class of cards introduced at the same time than for a card to say "ignore this one specific line from a card from a past set".

[heron]

I mean, you could just do "when you play a spoils, gain a spoils from the spoils pile" if you prefer.

I like the cards a lot, except Spoilage.
Dungeon looks OP, Spoilage looks weak and has no immediate effect which is boring.

Also what happens to ambush. When do you discard it?

[Awaclus]

Also what happens to ambush. When do you discard it?

In the clean up phase of your opponent who bought the Victory card.

[market squire]

Dungeon is probably OP, even without the bottom part. looks a lot better than cartographer, which is the closest match. Also gaining spoils by playing Attacks seems kind of arbirtary.

Well, reading that sentence now, I see that it makes perfect sense to gain spoils by playing attacks thematically. I guess that was the idea? But mechanically, it's still weird.

Cartographer is a very good comparison that I wasn't aware of. Dungeon is 2 less cards to cycle through (5 vs 3) and has mandatory discarding, but the big advantage is that you can also cycle your hand. It would be powerful without the bottom part, but that is intended (games without attacks). The question is whether it is too strong in games with attacks.
Maybe the bottom should not be tagged on a sifting card (which is stronger in junking Attack games) but on an effect that is weaker in attack games, maybe just a $5 Peddler?

I also like the idea of Ambush. Probably it should have an on-play effect that actually does something for you, though.

What I thought was, it could be a strong on play effect (say, Peddler or Lab) but then the burden for the oppenents not to buy Victories would be too big...


The idea of Spoilage is, you want to play it when there are only 3 or less Spoils in the pile.

[popsofctown]

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

[LastFootnote]

The idea of Spoilage is, you want to play it when there are only 3 or less Spoils in the pile.

But if it's the only Spoils-giving card, then you have to depend on others to play it first, right? And regardless, you won't have much control over how many are in the pile when you get it into your hand.

[GendoIkari]

Wouldn't Ambush need a clause for revealing? Or while-in-play?

No. It stays in play until another player buys a Victory card. Then you gain a Spoils and discard the Ambush at the end of that player's turn.

I don't think this is right. Durations stay in play until the cleanup phase of the last turn in which they do something. Nothing on the card here says which turn is the last turn it will do something. The first time another play buys a victory card is simply the first turn (after the time you played it) that it does something. It's not the last turn that it does something. The last turn it does something is the last turn that another player buys a victory card. Nothing in the duration rules, or the card text, lets you know that you should discard the card when it first does something for you.

*Edit* Just saw that I'm wrong... I missed "the next time" on the card text, thought it was just "when"... I suppose this changes it. It can't do anything past "the next time an opponent buys a victory card", thus it is done doing stuff at that point.

However, I do still think that even though Duration card rules technically allow for this sort of thing, custom Duration cards would be much better off following the pattern of every other real Duration card and simply having a this-turn and a next-turn effect. This card could be reworked as a reaction instead.

[scott_pilgrim]

Wouldn't Ambush need a clause for revealing? Or while-in-play?

No. It stays in play until another player buys a Victory card. Then you gain a Spoils and discard the Ambush at the end of that player's turn.

I don't think this is right. Durations stay in play until the cleanup phase of the last turn in which they do something. Nothing on the card here says which turn is the last turn it will do something. The first time another play buys a victory card is simply the first turn (after the time you played it) that it does something. It's not the last turn that it does something. The last turn it does something is the last turn that another player buys a victory card. Nothing in the duration rules, or the card text, lets you know that you should discard the card when it first does something for you.

When it's played, it sets up an event, which will trigger "the next time an opponent buys a victory card".  Then it sticks around until it's done resolving that event, which could be a while.  As soon as that event is complete, it's done its job, and it can be discarded the next time a clean-up phase happens.  It's the same as normal durations, except instead of "next turn", it's "next time an opponent buys a victory card".

It works the way it does because of the "next time" wording; it's something that only happens once.  If it were instead something like "whenever an opponent...", that probably wouldn't work.

Edit: Looks like you figured it out as I was posting.

[market squire]

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

Why? This should be too weak in games without Attacks (Bazaar). Maybe okay for $4. But I'd prefer something simple, maybe a $4 Woodcutter, or, as I said, a $5 Peddler?
It could also be a Treasure worth $2 that gives you Spoils per Attack cards in play for $5. (Edit: No - this is Silver in non-attack games)

The idea of Spoilage is, you want to play it when there are only 3 or less Spoils in the pile.

But if it's the only Spoils-giving card, then you have to depend on others to play it first, right? And regardless, you won't have much control over how many are in the pile when you get it into your hand.

I thought it might add some tactical depth to the decision whether to play Spoils or not. But maybe that isn't resonable.
Also, I really wanted an Attack that has something to do with Spoils (for the theme).

I thought of a friendly version of Spoilage first. Something like that:

SPOILAGE (Action) $5
Gain 3 Spoils from the Spoils pile.
Each other player may gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile. If he does, he gains a Copper.

My very first version was something very crazy - distributing all the Spoils to all players (with less Spoils available in 2-3player games).

However, I do still think that even though Duration card rules technically allow for this sort of thing, custom Duration cards would be much better off following the pattern of every other real Duration card and simply having a this-turn and a next-turn effect. This card could be reworked as a reaction instead.

The rules work for it, so why not? It might feel strange for new players, but I think they'd get used to it quickly.
A reaction would work as well, but I prefer the Duration version; I suppose it adds more tension.

[scott_pilgrim]

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

Why? This should be too weak in games without Attacks (Bazaar). Maybe okay for $4. But I'd prefer something simple, maybe a $4 Woodcutter, or, as I said, a $5 Peddler?
It could also be a Treasure worth $2 that gives you Spoils per Attack cards in play for $5. (Edit: No - this is Silver in non-attack games)

But all of those are also strictly worse than existing cards in games without attacks (Woodcutter, Market/Treasury/Highway, Silver).  If you make it a village it's kind of nice, because then you can play more terminal attacks.  But maybe it's too similar to Bandit Camp that way.

BTW, it's okay to have a card that's strictly worse than another on a given board, like Fortress or Conspirator.  But a board without attack cards is probably common enough that it's at least a concern.  On the other hand, maybe it's uncommon enough that you get a board with Bazaar and no attack cards that it's okay, as long as the effect is still reasonable by itself.

[GendoIkari]

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

Why? This should be too weak in games without Attacks (Bazaar). Maybe okay for $4. But I'd prefer something simple, maybe a $4 Woodcutter, or, as I said, a $5 Peddler?
It could also be a Treasure worth $2 that gives you Spoils per Attack cards in play for $5. (Edit: No - this is Silver in non-attack games)

I like the +3 cards / discard 2 cards because the extra sifting will increase the chances of finding an attack card to play.

But remember, +2 cards +1 action discard a card is too strong for $4. +3 cards +1 action discard 2 cards is probably a fair amount better than that, plus you have the Spoils gaining. So it might be too strong.

Another thing you could do with it is to make it a (weak) attack. That way it will always have a way to trigger itself.

[popsofctown]

I'd switch Dungeon's top to +1 card, +2 Actions, +1$, discard a card.

Why? This should be too weak in games without Attacks (Bazaar). Maybe okay for $4. But I'd prefer something simple, maybe a $4 Woodcutter, or, as I said, a $5 Peddler?
It could also be a Treasure worth $2 that gives you Spoils per Attack cards in play for $5. (Edit: No - this is Silver in non-attack games)

But all of those are also strictly worse than existing cards in games without attacks (Woodcutter, Market/Treasury/Highway, Silver).  If you make it a village it's kind of nice, because then you can play more terminal attacks.  But maybe it's too similar to Bandit Camp that way.

BTW, it's okay to have a card that's strictly worse than another on a given board, like Fortress or Conspirator.  But a board without attack cards is probably common enough that it's at least a concern.  On the other hand, maybe it's uncommon enough that you get a board with Bazaar and no attack cards that it's okay, as long as the effect is still reasonable by itself.

Moat is strictly worse than Courtyard if there are no attacks.

And roughly by a sift's worth amount too.