Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All

Author Topic: my cards  (Read 47520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #125 on: October 16, 2015, 06:15:30 am »
0

- Settlement - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Take an Action token.
--------------------------
You can play an Action token during your Action phase to get +1 Action.


Here is another idea I am playing around with. I find it pretty tricky to come up with a new Village, there are after all already so many, but if you play with some fan cards you gotta make sure that the Village density during randomizing does not get too low, hence my motivation to do a Village.
The idea is fairly simple, it is like a vanilla Village but you can postpone the extra Action to whenever via a token. Not the most exciting thing in the world and perhaps a pretty stupid idea as it reduces randomness ... and not just pointless randomness. Iny my opinion not drawing your village when you need it despite feeling that you have a decent village density in your deck (or more generally, not drawing cards that match) and the resulting mild frustration are an essential game feeling of Dominion.
On the other hand Coin tokens did not ruin the game via getting rid of the "I have 7$ !!!" frustration.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #126 on: October 16, 2015, 08:16:10 am »
0

As usual, eHalcyon is the voice of reason. Ah well, i guess i lose nothing by it.

Of course prices cannot be negative. But I fail to see why negative coins should be a problem.
Asper made the point that people should always be able to buy Copper so one could easily FAQ Armada and add the little rule that if Armada leads to a total sum which is negative it is automatically put to 0 at the beginning of your Buy phase.

If you do it at the start of your buy phase, Treasures are (usually) unaffected by Armada. You might find a wording that triggers between playing your last Treasure and buying a card, but then you could also just have Armada's entire -$3 delayed until then, with the same lower bound of $0 Poor House has. It would have the same effect without the Poor House or Storyteller interaction.
Logged

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #127 on: October 16, 2015, 10:05:07 am »
+2

All cards that reduce the price of cards make sure they can't go negative; all cards that use the -$1 token make sure people can't go into negative money; Poor House, the only card to give negative coins, makes sure they can't go below 0; negative numbers are not seen on any card.
Of course prices cannot be negative. But I fail to see why negative coins should be a problem.
Asper made the point that people should always be able to buy Copper so one could easily FAQ Armada and add the little rule that if Armada leads to a total sum which is negative it is automatically put to 0 at the beginning of your Buy phase.
The idea of the card is after all not to prevent people from buying Copper but a simple trade-off between cash and cards and the resulting incentive to either buy the card fairly lately (when you have good enough cards that are able to compensate for -3) or to forsake buying expensive cards for a few turns and use an engine with spammers and gain cards and so on.

The thing, you can reverse engineer the principles of dominion by looking at the cards that have been designed. So, for example, why does Poor House not let your money go below $0? It can't be to make it better when you have lots of treasure in hand, because in that case you just wouldn't play it. The only sensible reason is that negative numbers are for some reason not good. The -1 Card and -$1 tokens are another example - the way they work is very similar to negative cards or coins, but they are designed so that that never happens.

Since all of Dominion has been designed purposely to not have negative numbers, it makes sense to stay with that trend.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #128 on: October 16, 2015, 12:13:58 pm »
+2

- Settlement - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Take an Action token.
--------------------------
You can play an Action token during your Action phase to get +1 Action.


Here is another idea I am playing around with. I find it pretty tricky to come up with a new Village, there are after all already so many, but if you play with some fan cards you gotta make sure that the Village density during randomizing does not get too low, hence my motivation to do a Village.
The idea is fairly simple, it is like a vanilla Village but you can postpone the extra Action to whenever via a token. Not the most exciting thing in the world and perhaps a pretty stupid idea as it reduces randomness ... and not just pointless randomness. Iny my opinion not drawing your village when you need it despite feeling that you have a decent village density in your deck (or more generally, not drawing cards that match) and the resulting mild frustration are an essential game feeling of Dominion.
On the other hand Coin tokens did not ruin the game via getting rid of the "I have 7$ !!!" frustration.

The idea is fine and something that I (and probably many others) thought of when Guilds' coin towns were revealed (along with Buy tokens, of course). I personally think that Coin of the Realm covers the same concept better (saved action for when you need it) in that it doesn't require extra tokens and works somewhat differently than coin tokens, thus being unique and more interesting.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #129 on: October 16, 2015, 12:17:28 pm »
0

- Settlement - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Take an Action token.
--------------------------
You can play an Action token during your Action phase to get +1 Action.


Here is another idea I am playing around with. I find it pretty tricky to come up with a new Village, there are after all already so many, but if you play with some fan cards you gotta make sure that the Village density during randomizing does not get too low, hence my motivation to do a Village.
The idea is fairly simple, it is like a vanilla Village but you can postpone the extra Action to whenever via a token. Not the most exciting thing in the world and perhaps a pretty stupid idea as it reduces randomness ... and not just pointless randomness. Iny my opinion not drawing your village when you need it despite feeling that you have a decent village density in your deck (or more generally, not drawing cards that match) and the resulting mild frustration are an essential game feeling of Dominion.
On the other hand Coin tokens did not ruin the game via getting rid of the "I have 7$ !!!" frustration.

The idea is fine and something that I (and probably many others) thought of when Guilds' coin towns were revealed (along with Buy tokens, of course). I personally think that Coin of the Realm covers the same concept better (saved action for when you need it) in that it doesn't require extra tokens and works somewhat differently than coin tokens, thus being unique and more interesting.

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #130 on: October 16, 2015, 12:32:29 pm »
+1

By the way, I think having straight up negative coin is fine as long as it is clear how it works (which it wasn't when Armada was first posted, which is why I asked).  Interaction with cards like Poor House and Storyteller need to be explained, and whether you're allowed to buy $0 cards while below $0 (the basic rules suggest you can't, but that is economically nonsensical; the rules were written with the idea that going negative would never happen; it's a design principle that Copper can always be bought).

The biggest issue is that it will be confusing to many people who will consider Bridge, Poor House, etc. and assume, not unreasonably, that it means you can never go below $0.  Dominion doesn't have a concept of debt in the rules but it does say that you resolve the card as best you can when you play it.  If a card tells me to discard and I have nothing left in hand, I just don't discard.  It doesn't save the discard until I draw again later (e.g. in the same turn with Golem).  So a reasonable interpretation of -$3 is to just pay $3 immediately if possible, but only down to flat broke 0 and ignore it otherwise.

If you don't mind the potential for confusion and clarify all those interactions, I think it's fine to test.  A close comparison would be Embassy.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 12:34:41 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #131 on: October 16, 2015, 12:54:51 pm »
0

There are some things that apply differently to fan cards than to official cards.  The use case for a fan card is often, you print it up, you bring it to play with your friends, and you use it.  Stuff like negative coin may not be worth the overhead if it's a published game where the rulebook is expected to work alone to explain how the rules for it work, but since the use case for a fan card very often involves the human that designed the card being present giving a verbal explanation and answering direct questions, higher complexity and rules ambiguity is tolerable.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #132 on: October 16, 2015, 12:55:34 pm »
0

The idea is fine and something that I (and probably many others) thought of when Guilds' coin towns were revealed (along with Buy tokens, of course). I personally think that Coin of the Realm covers the same concept better (saved action for when you need it) in that it doesn't require extra tokens and works somewhat differently than coin tokens, thus being unique and more interesting.
I totally agree that Coin of the Realm is more interesting as its trade-off is harsher: it is Village-ifying terminals at the cost of being a Copper whereas Settlement has weaker benefits (just one action) and weaker "costs" (at least in the middlegame you'd rather want a cantrip than a Copper).

Another option of the card I consider. being inspired by Co0kieL0rd's Mediator is:

- Settlement - Action-Reaction

+1 Card
+1 Action
覧覧覧覧覧
When another player gains a card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, return this to your hand at the start of your next turn and if the other player gained
... an Action card, gain an Action token.
... a Treasure card, take a Coin token.
... a Victory card, +1 .




Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.


The biggest issue is that it will be confusing to many people who will consider Bridge, Poor House, etc. and assume, not unreasonably, that it means you can never go below $0.  Dominion doesn't have a concept of debt in the rules but it does say that you resolve the card as best you can when you play it.  If a card tells me to discard and I have nothing left in hand, I just don't discard.  It doesn't save the discard until I draw again later (e.g. in the same turn with Golem).  So a reasonable interpretation of -$3 is to just pay $3 immediately if possible, but only down to flat broke 0 and ignore it otherwise.

If you don't mind the potential for confusion and clarify all those interactions, I think it's fine to test.  A close comparison would be Embassy.
Concerning Bridge, I think one has to differentiate between prices and coins. Bridge reduces the price of cards and negative prices make no sense whereas negative coins make sense as they reduce current coins and future coins you get via playing Treasures. The card would be fairly pointless if it just reduced current coins down to zero as it'd then be a super-strong card for Big Money.
As I already said, I think it makes sense that at the end of calculating your total coins you convert a negative total into zero. Or in a hypothetical FAQ (as popsofctown said, I am the only guy who will ever use this card so I can explain it to my friends) I could write something like "Each Armada reduces your total amount of coins by 3, down to a minimum of zero." or something like this.

« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 12:57:45 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #133 on: October 16, 2015, 01:09:33 pm »
0

There are some things that apply differently to fan cards than to official cards.  The use case for a fan card is often, you print it up, you bring it to play with your friends, and you use it.  Stuff like negative coin may not be worth the overhead if it's a published game where the rulebook is expected to work alone to explain how the rules for it work, but since the use case for a fan card very often involves the human that designed the card being present giving a verbal explanation and answering direct questions, higher complexity and rules ambiguity is tolerable.

When fan cards are shared here though, it opens up the possibility that other groups will try it out.  In that case, the ambiguities should be addressed.

@tristan, I was just explaining why a FAQ is necessary and how people may reasonably get confused.  I would actually clarify on the card itself that it's possible to go below $0 with this card, just like how Bridge, Highway, Quarry and Princess clarify that they can't reduce costs below 0.  Then your FAQ can explain the interactions with Copper, Poor House, Storyteller, and whatever else may come up later.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #134 on: October 16, 2015, 01:15:30 pm »
0

There are some things that apply differently to fan cards than to official cards.  The use case for a fan card is often, you print it up, you bring it to play with your friends, and you use it.  Stuff like negative coin may not be worth the overhead if it's a published game where the rulebook is expected to work alone to explain how the rules for it work, but since the use case for a fan card very often involves the human that designed the card being present giving a verbal explanation and answering direct questions, higher complexity and rules ambiguity is tolerable.

When fan cards are shared here though, it opens up the possibility that other groups will try it out.  In that case, the ambiguities should be addressed.


I wish I could agree this happens very much at all.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #135 on: October 16, 2015, 02:20:10 pm »
0

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.

Yes, it is. And it's a damn shame. But that doesn't matter (unless you're just trying to replace Walled Village).
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #136 on: October 16, 2015, 04:06:40 pm »
0

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.

Yes, it is. And it's a damn shame. But that doesn't matter (unless you're just trying to replace Walled Village).
Well, you made the comparison between the two cards. If you say that it doesn't matter now how strong they are that is fine with me.
Not that I get what the two cards do have in common besides slightly reducing (benchmark being a basic Village) the optimal village density.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #137 on: October 16, 2015, 04:07:52 pm »
0

When Tristan didn't post for a while, I thought his account got deleted.

What now?
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #138 on: October 16, 2015, 04:08:36 pm »
0

The point is that if Walled Village and Settlement appear on the same board, there is never a reason to buy Settlement over Walled Village.

And also, a game that involves Walled Village does not feel sufficiently different from a subsequent game involving Settlement.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #139 on: October 16, 2015, 04:12:03 pm »
+1

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.

Yes, it is. And it's a damn shame. But that doesn't matter (unless you're just trying to replace Walled Village).
Well, you made the comparison between the two cards. If you say that it doesn't matter now how strong they are that is fine with me.
Not that I get what the two cards do have in common besides slightly reducing (benchmark being a basic Village) the optimal village density.

They basically do the same thing; topdecking a village you didn't really get to use is mostly identical to getting a +1 Action token. When you play it, you draw a card to replace it and get +2 Actions, but if you don't use that second Action, it's like getting +1 Action and saving the other one for later (because you topdeck it again).

The difference is that Walled Village only works if you have no more than one other Action card in play. Your version works with any number of Action cards as long as you don't use up the extra Actions they provide.

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #140 on: October 16, 2015, 04:12:27 pm »
0

The point is that if Walled Village and Settlement appear on the same board, there is never a reason to buy Settlement over Walled Village.

Other way around.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #141 on: October 16, 2015, 04:16:02 pm »
0

The point is that if Walled Village and Settlement appear on the same board, there is never a reason to buy Settlement over Walled Village.

Other way around.
Yeah, I meant to say what meant said to say meant and said to meant.

I've had trouble with words lately, posted an inverse in GD yesterday too.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #142 on: October 16, 2015, 04:36:41 pm »
0

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Well, it can hardly cost 3 as it is superior to Village and it can hardly cost 5 as it is definitely not that strong. So it has to remain at 4 and if it is thus a unintentional quasi-substitute for Walled Village I do not consider the violation of the "do not design cards which are superior to existing cards at the same price" as a serious crime in the case of Walled Village.
Despite not being mechanically as similar to Walled Village as Settlement Port is also virtually always superior to Walled Village.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 04:39:08 pm by tristan »
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2015, 04:40:32 pm »
0

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Well, it can hardly cost 3 as it is superior to Village and it can hardly cost 5 as it is definitely not that strong. So it has to remain at 4 and if it is thus a unintentional quasi-substitute for Walled Village I do not consider the violation of the "do not design cards which are superior to existing cards at the same price" as a serious crime in the case of Walled Village.
Despite not being mechanically as similar to Walled Village as Settlement Port is also virtually always superior to Walled Village.
You should never design a card that is strictly better than another card at the same price point. Even though Settlement isn't strictly better than Walled Village, there would be little reason to pick up a Walled Village over a Settlement.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #144 on: October 16, 2015, 04:50:13 pm »
+1

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Well, it can hardly cost 3 as it is superior to Village and it can hardly cost 5 as it is definitely not that strong. So it has to remain at 4 and if it is thus a unintentional quasi-substitute for Walled Village I do not consider the violation of the "do not design cards which are superior to existing cards at the same price" as a serious crime in the case of Walled Village.
Despite not being mechanically as similar to Walled Village as Settlement Port is also virtually always superior to Walled Village.
You should never design a card that is strictly better than another card at the same price point. Even though Settlement isn't strictly better than Walled Village, there would be little reason to pick up a Walled Village over a Settlement.
I know the design principle and I happily violate it in this case as Walled Village is such a weak card. Despite lacking mechanical similarities I cannot imagine a board in which a player would pick Walled Village instead of Port and yet I think it is fine that DXV made Port after Walled Village.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #145 on: October 16, 2015, 04:51:19 pm »
0

According to the Secret History of Scavenger/Chancellor, DXV kinda hints that he is somewhat ok with doing a strictly better card personally, but that he knew a lot of his fans were much more annoyed by it than he was.

And when the card in question is Google's favorite promo ehhh iunno
Logged

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #146 on: October 16, 2015, 04:56:37 pm »
0

There are some things that apply differently to fan cards than to official cards.  The use case for a fan card is often, you print it up, you bring it to play with your friends, and you use it.  Stuff like negative coin may not be worth the overhead if it's a published game where the rulebook is expected to work alone to explain how the rules for it work, but since the use case for a fan card very often involves the human that designed the card being present giving a verbal explanation and answering direct questions, higher complexity and rules ambiguity is tolerable.

When fan cards are shared here though, it opens up the possibility that other groups will try it out.  In that case, the ambiguities should be addressed.


I wish I could agree this happens very much at all.

It would be nice if it happened more, but it does actually happen. I've played with quite a few of asper's and LF's cards, and LA has too.
Logged

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #147 on: October 16, 2015, 04:58:23 pm »
0

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.

Yes, it is. And it's a damn shame. But that doesn't matter (unless you're just trying to replace Walled Village).
Well, you made the comparison between the two cards. If you say that it doesn't matter now how strong they are that is fine with me.
Not that I get what the two cards do have in common besides slightly reducing (benchmark being a basic Village) the optimal village density.

They basically do the same thing; topdecking a village you didn't really get to use is mostly identical to getting a +1 Action token. When you play it, you draw a card to replace it and get +2 Actions, but if you don't use that second Action, it's like getting +1 Action and saving the other one for later (because you topdeck it again).

The difference is that Walled Village only works if you have no more than one other Action card in play. Your version works with any number of Action cards as long as you don't use up the extra Actions they provide.

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.

Maybe it should just be a replacement. I mean, noone really likes Walled Village very much anyways.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #148 on: October 16, 2015, 04:59:49 pm »
0

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Well, it can hardly cost 3 as it is superior to Village and it can hardly cost 5 as it is definitely not that strong. So it has to remain at 4 and if it is thus a unintentional quasi-substitute for Walled Village I do not consider the violation of the "do not design cards which are superior to existing cards at the same price" as a serious crime in the case of Walled Village.
Despite not being mechanically as similar to Walled Village as Settlement Port is also virtually always superior to Walled Village.
You should never design a card that is strictly better than another card at the same price point. Even though Settlement isn't strictly better than Walled Village, there would be little reason to pick up a Walled Village over a Settlement.
I know the design principle and I happily violate it in this case as Walled Village is such a weak card. Despite lacking mechanical similarities I cannot imagine a board in which a player would pick Walled Village instead of Port and yet I think it is fine that DXV made Port after Walled Village.
Any board with no trashing and a junking attack, yet an engine seems better. Walled Village makes you actually reliable. Or, you can do Smithy/BM but have 3-4 Smithies and 1-2 Walled Villages. You can keep top decking your Walled Villages until you connect them with your Smithies. Also, if you don't want someone to three pile, Walled Village would be a better buy than Port. With lots of discard attacks you want less cantrips, which Port is. In a slog it would be better, as it would let you wait until you had a turn with Workshop/Trader/Ironworks collision. There are probably more, but I think you get the idea.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1346
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #149 on: October 16, 2015, 05:00:14 pm »
0

Agreed. Also Settlement is almost strictly better than Walled Village.
Walled Village is a pretty weak 4.

Yes, it is. And it's a damn shame. But that doesn't matter (unless you're just trying to replace Walled Village).
Well, you made the comparison between the two cards. If you say that it doesn't matter now how strong they are that is fine with me.
Not that I get what the two cards do have in common besides slightly reducing (benchmark being a basic Village) the optimal village density.

They basically do the same thing; topdecking a village you didn't really get to use is mostly identical to getting a +1 Action token. When you play it, you draw a card to replace it and get +2 Actions, but if you don't use that second Action, it's like getting +1 Action and saving the other one for later (because you topdeck it again).

The difference is that Walled Village only works if you have no more than one other Action card in play. Your version works with any number of Action cards as long as you don't use up the extra Actions they provide.

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.

Maybe it should just be a replacement. I mean, noone really likes Walled Village very much anyways.
I like the Walled Village.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All
 

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 22 queries.