Print

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

[Flip5ide]

Diplomat
$5
Action - Duration
---------------------
Discard a card.
+1 Action
+3 cards
+$1
At the end of your turn, pass this card to the player on your left.
+1 card +1 action [for the player to your left]
---------------------

Basically I just threw some random vanilla stuff together with an arbitrary price because I was interested in the idea of passing an essentially one-shot card to the player to your left when you are done with your turn, where they will receive an advantage on their ensuing turn. I'm just looking for a practical application of the idea.

[LastFootnote]

I don't understand how this is supposed to work. You pass the card to the player on your left, so it goes into their hand. But then they also get +1 Card; +1 Action next turn on top of that?

[Captain Stupendous]

The way I understand it as working is that you play it for its extremely powerful ability, then instead of discarding you pass it to the player to your left and leave it on the table so that the duration ability will activate at the start of their next turn. Then they'll discard it normally at the end of their turn and have an opportunity to play it themselves for the super powered top portion, etc. Obviously the wording will need some cleaning up to more accurately reflect this, but I think it makes sense.

I could be completely wrong of course; that's just how I interpreted it as working.

I can't comment much on the card itself right now, although my gut instinct would be to say its too weak, and by that I mean the bonus for the other player is too strong to make me want to buy it. But I'll need to think about it more.

[market squire]

I guess the wording should be:

(...)
At the start of the next player's turn,
pass this card to him, leaving it in play,
and +1 card +1 action for him.

It's hard to make a good wording. You could go with "move this to his play area" which is odd, or "he gains this, leaving it in play". I think passing seems like the right term for what you do here.
(Edit: Just what Captain Stupendous said...)

On the card itself:
The idea sounds interesting. But you have to change the effects so that it is not a card you will play in every situation. Otherwise it sounds like noone buys this because it'd be "common property".
Maybe you can give the left player a penalty (or at least, a condition) if he wants this card to go into his deck?
Then the Duration type wouldn't even be necessary:

Diplomat (Action) $5

+3 Cards
+1 Action
The player to your left may trash a Treasure from his hand.
If he does, pass this to him.

This way it goes into his hand, so th Diplomat would travel a lot faster then...

[Flip5ide]

I was thinking it goes in front of the player on your left and then gets discarded into his discard pile

Another thought:

+2 cards
+1 Action
+1$
---------
-2VP
---------
[Pass this card to the player on your left who receives +1 card at the beginning of their turn. This card is discarded into their deck the next turn.]

I had no idea how to word it whatsoever but I thought it would be an interesting Old Maid/Masquerade functionality.

[theblankman]

I was thinking it goes in front of the player on your left and then gets discarded into his discard pile
...
I had no idea how to word it whatsoever but I thought it would be an interesting Old Maid/Masquerade functionality.

How's this?

Diplomat - $5
Action - Curse
+2 cards, +1 action, +1$ or whatever the on-play effect ends up being.
At the start of the player to your left's next turn, that player gains a Diplomat and draws a card.
When you would discard this from play, return it to the supply.
----
-2 VP

It uses common Dominion vocabulary.  Returning it to the supply at your discard phase usually means there's one for the opponent to gain (edge cases: Procession, maybe Scheme and/or Prince?).  This version interacts weirdly with Possession, but whatever, so do a ton of official cards. 

I initially threw in the Curse type just because it's negative VP, then started thinking that having another pile with the Curse keyword could be interesting in itself.  When cards like Witch say, "Each other player gains a Curse," do they refer to the name or the card type?  Could you choose to gain a Diplomat instead of a regular Curse when an opponent plays Witch?  Discard a Diplomat to block Mountebank?  You'd have to specify that in the card's FAQ/clarification.  I'd be tempted to say yes, you can substitute Diplomat for Curse, just to see if it counters Torturer as hard as I think it might.

[GendoIkari]

You say those things are interesting, but in fact they are just confusing and not defined in the rules of Dominion at all. Having another card with the type Curse is just a bad idea.

[Flip5ide]

I was thinking it goes in front of the player on your left and then gets discarded into his discard pile
...
I had no idea how to word it whatsoever but I thought it would be an interesting Old Maid/Masquerade functionality.

How's this?

Diplomat - $5
Action - Curse
+2 cards, +1 action, +1$ or whatever the on-play effect ends up being.
At the start of the player to your left's next turn, that player gains a Diplomat and draws a card.
When you would discard this from play, return it to the supply.
----
-2 VP

It uses common Dominion vocabulary.  Returning it to the supply at your discard phase usually means there's one for the opponent to gain (edge cases: Procession, maybe Scheme and/or Prince?).  This version interacts weirdly with Possession, but whatever, so do a ton of official cards. 

I initially threw in the Curse type just because it's negative VP, then started thinking that having another pile with the Curse keyword could be interesting in itself.  When cards like Witch say, "Each other player gains a Curse," do they refer to the name or the card type?  Could you choose to gain a Diplomat instead of a regular Curse when an opponent plays Witch?  Discard a Diplomat to block Mountebank?  You'd have to specify that in the card's FAQ/clarification.  I'd be tempted to say yes, you can substitute Diplomat for Curse, just to see if it counters Torturer as hard as I think it might.

I am leaning toward agreeing with GendoIkari on the curse part, but I think the wording you added works very will with the common Dominion actions and vocabulary.

[theblankman]

Yeah like I said, the Curse type was initially just cause the card had negative VP, and I started thinking about its implications later.  Maybe it should have the Victory type instead, which would just produce a different set of interactions (with stuff like Ironmonger, etc).  Meanwhile every expansion has had new rules, so if this were part of an expansion and had the Curse type, you'd only need a single line in the expansion rulebook to go either way:
- The word "curse" in card text refers to any card with the type "Curse," not just the card named "Curse," OR
- The word "curse" in card text refers to the card named "Curse," not other cards with the type "Curse." 
Although in the latter case it'd be simpler to just not give it type Curse, I think this is no more confusing than some other things that are already in Dominion, like the afore-mentioned Possession.  Also the root of the problem isn't the idea of giving another card the Curse type, it's that the word "Curse" is both a card name and a card type. 

I'm glad you like the action wording in any case