Second, there are no Treasure Durations yet, and as Trustworthy mentions, there's no reason for it to be one. It's allready a Victory -Attack and a Victory - Duration. It's novel enough.
I'd argue that an Duration attack that attacks players buying VP cards is fine. I also think a Victory- Attack is okay (i mean, i tried myself at one). I don't think it should be combined into one card. Look of the card aside, it just feels like you combined two already sufficiently interesting and complex concepts.
I don't see the reasoning here. Why don't you think they should be on the same card? I don't think making it an action would make it less complicated.
You are introducing three new type combinations at once, and at least two of them completely without need. The question is, what's the card's concept? I can't see it. If it was an Victory-Action-Attack, i'd see it. If it was a Treasure-Duration, i'd see it. If it was a Victory-Duration, well, i don't even see where this sub-combination has any relevant effect on the card. But actually, to me, it looks like a Duration attack that has Treasure and Victory types slapped on it. And why do i mind that? Because it's wasted potential.
The Treasure part doesn't follow the Treasure pattern, for example. Treasures are worth coins and don't just say +
. Actions do that. Diadem does it too, but only in addition to its value. I see why you avoided that though. The fact that Treasures don't just state to produce money, but instead claim to be "worth" it makes them a strange choice for the Duration type. Even though they technically don't create money any different than actions do, new players will get confused by something being worth something, twice, at different times. You can do something twice. But can you be something twice? I know it's just nomenclature, but it's something new and special. You don't just take special things and slap them on top of other things. You can absolutely do a Treasure-Duration, but treat it as something cool you can do, not as if it was a +Buy or whatever you just put somewhere so it gets nicer.
For the same reason, i don't see why doing a Victory-Attack isn't enough and it has to be a Duration too. Again, the problem isn't the Attack-Duration. We allready have that, and i actually think your Attack would be a nice card without the VP and Treasure type. But as pointed out before, you are also creating a Duration-Victory card. There's so much you could do with such a combination too - a Victory card that you play and that stays out until you buy the next one, so it doesn't clog your deck. Or a Victory card that waits for the shuffle to return. Or whatever. But no, instead you just slap it on there. It's another novel type combination wasted. I mean, why does the card even give VP? Just so that it'll interact with itself? In that case, i'd rather just have it spell out that it does, or better, just scrap that part.
It's a bit like putting all the ingredients you like on a single Pizza: You can't tell what kind of Pizza it is anymore, it gets heavy and overloaded, and the taste of individual ingredients becomes undetectable. You could have had two better pizzas with those ingredients instead.
This metaphor doesn't help your arguement at all. I like surpreme pizza and disagree the pizza would be better with the toppings on separate pizzas. (except that two pizzas are better than one anyway...)
Mmmm... Onion-Salami-Chester-Bacon-Korn-Garlic-Bologna-Spinach-Egg-Ham-Tomato-Mozzarella-Gorgonzola-Tuna-Pizza. My favourite.
At least you agree two good pizzas are better than one good pizza. Think of it like this: You could have created a Treasure-Duration, a Victory-Duration, a Victory-Attack and an Action-Attack-Duration, the last of which is essentially what this card feels like. That's three additional, interesting card concepts you could create. But instead you use those new type combinations, and make basically nothing of them.
Author
Topic: A Treasure-Victory-Duration-Attack (Would this attack work?) (Read 9108 times)