Print

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

[eHalcyon]

Can you think of any game ending conditions we could add to the rules which would open up new design space?

I've thought of one in particular: The game ends if, at the end of a turn, any player has 100+ VP tokens.

The number is arbitrary; the purpose is to open up design space around +VP cards.  With +VP cards, there is always a concern that it could cause a stagnant game that doesn't progress towards an end.  It's already a rare possibility with official cards, Bishop-Fortress being the standout combo for this.  But if this game end condition were added, even a cantrip +VP card could possibly work.

What do you think of this potential fix?

[tristan]

In my experience Goons lead most often to a lot of VPs, after Fortress and Monument. Monument only leads to a lot if there is TR or KC on the board and as you already pointed out, Bishop is only abusive in combination with Fortress.
So we have two rare combos (which are IMO still interesting to play) plus the Goons thingy (which is IMO not but that is a problem of the card being overpowered). Hardly enough to warrant a VP token cap.

I think that you first question is interesting though. Set collection is an obvious (but probably boring) way to introduce an alternative way to win (not a game ending trigger though). Something like an expensive Kingdom card that says "if you have a copy of all cards in the supply in your deck you immediately win the game". Needs an extra clause that says that the player who thinks that he has won the game can check for it at the end of his turn via revealing all his cards and if he failed to meet the winning condition he is out of the game.
As I said, set collection is probably boring and it also changes the game (too) radically but I do not see a mere third game ending trigger.

[Davio]

You could use tokens and place them on certain (kingdom, not basic) piles to use those piles for end game conditions, for instance:
- Piles with a token on them do not count toward the 3 empty piles end game condition
- Game also ends when all piles with tokens have been depleted (would be 1/2 instead of 3, for instance 2 tokens on Scout and Thief)

Extra setup rule: At the start of the game, the 2nd player places a token on a kingdom pile, then the 3rd/1st player, etc...

[GeneralRamos]

Bonus points for completing some set mission. Such at x points if you have no Golds at the end of the game.

[faust]

I'm not particularly excited about cantrip +VP. It's not a design space I want to explored so badly that I would introduce a new win condition. Also, keeping track of the VP tokens the whole time would be fiddly.

I like the general idea of playing with game ending conditions. I'm not sure if a general new condition should be introduced and always be applied, you can probably do most of them via events. The token idea Davio suggested would work nicely as a "move the token" Event.

I wonder if it's viable to have a condition that avoids pin games, as these are sometimes problematic. Like, "at the start of your turn, if you have no cards in hand, you may end the game". Also works as an event:

Pin Avoider
$0 Event
If you have no cards in hand and no cards in your play area, end the game.

[Haddock]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

[Accatitippi]

I'm not particularly excited about cantrip +VP. It's not a design space I want to explored so badly that I would introduce a new win condition. Also, keeping track of the VP tokens the whole time would be fiddly.

I like the general idea of playing with game ending conditions. I'm not sure if a general new condition should be introduced and always be applied, you can probably do most of them via events. The token idea Davio suggested would work nicely as a "move the token" Event.

I wonder if it's viable to have a condition that avoids pin games, as these are sometimes problematic. Like, "at the start of your turn, if you have no cards in hand, you may end the game". Also works as an event:

Pin Avoider
$0 Event
If you have no cards in hand and no cards in your play area, end the game.

I like the idea of a game ending event checking for some unusual situation. This one is not realistically abusable (Distant lands/island/native village/+vp plus ratcatcher/Raze could possibly do the trick) but for something more viable:

Emigrate - Event 0$
Reveal a hand of 5 Victory cards (and nothing else) to end the game.

A problem might be kingmaking, but I believe that it's less than your average multiplayer PPR situation. Maybe swinginess too (not much more than getting a key 8 hand, I think).

Slightly more on topic:
I can't think of any general rule change, but I can come up with rules that could be applied single kingdom cards, like ending the game when a specific pile runs out, or there are X cards in the trash, or X differently named cards in the trash.

[GendoIkari]

I've had at least 1 great game with Goons where both scores were well over 100, and there were a lot of good tactics involved in making sure you were the one to be able to pile out with the lead. The 100 vp suggestion would have stopped that from being a great game.

[scott_pilgrim]

I've had at least 1 great game with Goons where both scores were well over 100, and there were a lot of good tactics involved in making sure you were the one to be able to pile out with the lead. The 100 vp suggestion would have stopped that from being a great game.

I thought what eHalcyon was suggesting (though maybe I'm wrong since no one else seems to have thought this) was to have a card that added a game-ending condition because it opens up some new possibilities for that card.  Like:

Some Card - Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1
In games using this, the game ends at the end of a turn when any player has 100 or more VP tokens.

I don't think the cantrip VP card is exciting enough to make it worth doing, but there are probably some other interesting ideas that would be a lot better with a rule like that.

Adding the rule in every game would be unnecessary because it won't even do anything in most games, and in the cases where it matters, as you said, it will fairly often just lead to a disappointing ending.  But attaching it to a new card opens up some new possibilities that we probably would have dismissed in the past because they lead to unending games.

[GendoIkari]

I've had at least 1 great game with Goons where both scores were well over 100, and there were a lot of good tactics involved in making sure you were the one to be able to pile out with the lead. The 100 vp suggestion would have stopped that from being a great game.

I thought what eHalcyon was suggesting (though maybe I'm wrong since no one else seems to have thought this) was to have a card that added a game-ending condition because it opens up some new possibilities for that card.  Like:

Some Card - Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1
In games using this, the game ends at the end of a turn when any player has 100 or more VP tokens.

Yeah, I just for some reason thought he was talking about a new rule in general; nevermind.

Assuming that your broken VP image is because of my Chrome extension; I've just fixed it in the last update.

[werothegreat]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

You also always have the option to resign.

[eHalcyon]

I thought what eHalcyon was suggesting (though maybe I'm wrong since no one else seems to have thought this) was to have a card that added a game-ending condition because it opens up some new possibilities for that card.

I meant a general rule addition, not one attached to a specific card.  The intent is to open up design possibilities that are too problematic with the official rules.  My example is +VP, which inherently has the potential problem of stagnant unending games.  Having a game end condition tied to VP tokens would alleviate that.  Yes, this specific rule would do nothing in games without a VP token card, but I think it would be valuable both to avoid the extra text on multiple cards that would benefit from it as well as to retroactively fix those rare broken cases with Bishop/Fortress and Monument.

In my experience Goons lead most often to a lot of VPs, after Fortress and Monument. Monument only leads to a lot if there is TR or KC on the board and as you already pointed out, Bishop is only abusive in combination with Fortress.
So we have two rare combos (which are IMO still interesting to play) plus the Goons thingy (which is IMO not but that is a problem of the card being overpowered). Hardly enough to warrant a VP token cap.

So, the point is to open up new design space.  The existing +VP cards certainly don't warrant this rule addition, since they were designed to work without the rule.  Bishop needs to trash cards so it naturally leads to a game end anyway; the problem only really comes up with Fortress.  Monument is rarer because it only really comes up with KC-Monument AND strong trashing, already rare.  Even in that situation, Monument produces enough coin that you'll usually buy a Province or Colony anyway.  Goons is the least problematic of the bunch, because you only get +VP from it by pushing the game to an end.

But with a new game end condition tied to number of VP tokens, it would (hopefully) allow things that would be bad design with the official rules.

I'm not particularly excited about cantrip +VP. It's not a design space I want to explored so badly that I would introduce a new win condition. Also, keeping track of the VP tokens the whole time would be fiddly.

That was just an example.  What got me thinking about this was the lengthy discussion on Labyrinth in this thread.  It applies equally to pretty much any +VP fan card.

I've had at least 1 great game with Goons where both scores were well over 100, and there were a lot of good tactics involved in making sure you were the one to be able to pile out with the lead. The 100 vp suggestion would have stopped that from being a great game.

As I said, the 100 was just an arbitrary number.  It could as well be 500 or 1000.

Bonus points for completing some set mission. Such at x points if you have no Golds at the end of the game.

Fine, but not at all what I'm asking about.

Yeah, I just for some reason thought he was talking about a new rule in general; nevermind.

No, you were right the first time.  I'll try to clarify the general question:

There are some aspects of (fan) card design that most of us now take for granted.  For example, non-terminal +VP is usually a bad idea because it can lead to a stagnant game state.  My assertion is that this could be fixed by adding a new general rule, i.e. a game end condition tied to VP tokens.

Are there other problems with my idea that I haven't seen?

What other "closed" card design spaces could be opened up with a new general rule?

This latter question is difficult because it requires going back to look at old assumptions.

[Witherweaver]

A "Shoot the Moon" type of card, where you can win if you have all the Curses, and the Queen of Spades.

[Accatitippi]

There are some aspects of (fan) card design that most of us now take for granted.  For example, non-terminal +VP is usually a bad idea because it can lead to a stagnant game state.  My assertion is that this could be fixed by adding a new general rule, i.e. a game end condition tied to VP tokens.

Are there other problems with my idea that I haven't seen?

What other "closed" card design spaces could be opened up with a new general rule?

This latter question is difficult because it requires going back to look at old assumptions.

I see what you mean, but rather than changing the ruleset, which gives problems to the game balance, why not just attach those rule changes to the specific cards, like it has been done until now?

[Limetime]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

You also always have the option to resign.

The rules never say you can resign

[Accatitippi]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

You also always have the option to resign.

The rules never say you can resign

Oh noes, then I'm still stuck in that one game I started playing in 1969!

[GendoIkari]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

You also always have the option to resign.

The rules never say you can resign

Oh noes, then I'm still stuck in that one game I started playing in 1969!

Always play in an all-night diner, that's my advice.

[eHalcyon]

There are some aspects of (fan) card design that most of us now take for granted.  For example, non-terminal +VP is usually a bad idea because it can lead to a stagnant game state.  My assertion is that this could be fixed by adding a new general rule, i.e. a game end condition tied to VP tokens.

Are there other problems with my idea that I haven't seen?

What other "closed" card design spaces could be opened up with a new general rule?

This latter question is difficult because it requires going back to look at old assumptions.

I see what you mean, but rather than changing the ruleset, which gives problems to the game balance, why not just attach those rule changes to the specific cards, like it has been done until now?

Like it's been done in fan cards, you mean?  No official cards alter game-end conditions, unless I'm forgetting something.

The main reason is simplicity.  There are potentially lots of different +VP cards that would work and be interesting, and to put this rule on each of them would use up valuable space and also hinder other design possibilities if you want to follow the "only one dividing line per card" convention.

The second reason applies to this VP token rule, which is that it would retroactively apply to the existing +VP cards and improve game balance by mitigating those rare cases where they end up in an unending game.  As it is, either somebody resigns or (IRL) you just call it a draw.  That's fine, but a rule like this could be more satisfactory for those situations without hindering the game otherwise.

[Witherweaver]

That would have to be in every game to be worth anything. Fullblown pins are so rare, the chances of getting a board with pin possibilities and this would be negligibly small.

You also always have the option to resign.

The rules never say you can resign

Oh noes, then I'm still stuck in that one game I started playing in 1969!

Always play in an all-night diner, that's my advice.

Game ending condition: Spilling ketchup on the cards is an automatic loss.

[LastFootnote]

Are there other problems with my idea that I haven't seen?

Well the obvious one is that different VP token cards can get tokens at a wildly different rate. A number that's a reasonable maximum for one such card might still lead to unreasonably long games with other such cards.

If the rule had been in place since the beginning (or since Prosperity), then cards could be designed with that maximum in mind.

What other "closed" card design spaces could be opened up with a new general rule?

This latter question is difficult because it requires going back to look at old assumptions.

Nothing jumps to mind.

[LibraryAdventurer]

A "Shoot the Moon" type of card, where you can win if you have all the Curses, and the Queen of Spades.

Queen of Spades
Victory - Treasure
Cost $6?
Worth $2?, +1 Buy
-
At this end of the game, if you have all the curses, this is worth 50VP. Otherwise, this is worth -10 VP.

[tristan]

Goons is the least problematic of the bunch, because you only get +VP from it by pushing the game to an end.

Sure. But if you are concerned about players getting too many VPs from VP tokens and wanna cap it Goons is an obvious candidate which would warrant such a cap as among the three official card it is the one which on average leads to most VP tokens.
Does not mean that I think that the cap is necessary but if you introduced a cap you should be aware that among the three official VP token gaining cards it would weaken Goons on average the most (which IMO wouldn't be a big thing as Goons is overpowered).

Now if you wanna try out cantrip VP token gainers (personally I do not see much merit in that) you can do that (my uneducated guess is that a pure one would probably cost 5$) and you will soon see how much VP tokens such a card generated on average which would be the basis for a maximum value of VP tokens. Obviously in decks with non-terminal and terminal VP token gaining cards such a cap would make the latter weaker.
As others have said, I think it would make more sense to put the extra game ending trigger on the card. Only so much cantrip VP token gaining variants one can come up with.

Or if you wanna do non-terminal VP token gainers you simply nerf them directly instead of via a cap. Asper's Hospital comes to mind. After all the problem of a cap is that if a card is so strong that it will generate on average create such a huge load of VP tokens all players will go for it anyway and the only tricky decision is to balance how much of them you need in order to (nearly) reach the maximum of VP tokens.

[Davio]

A "Shoot the Moon" type of card, where you can win if you have all the Curses, and the Queen of Spades.

That would only work with the Ace of Spades, I've seen that card for sure on Goko, but never in my deck!

[NoMoreFun]

Throwing a few ideas out there

Redeemer
Action - $5
+2 cards
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If both trashed cards were Curses, the game ends immediately.
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Curses.

Corruption
Event - $20
Gain the Curse pile and end the game

Collector
Action - $5
+6 Cards
Discard cards from your hand until you can reveal a hand with no more than 1 copy of any card
If you have 10 cards or 1 card remaining in your hand, end the game.

Boom Town
Action/Attack - $3
+2 Actions
+1 Card
Each player (including you) with 4 or more cards in his hand either discards a card, or draws a card (you choose)
If any player has more than 10 cards in his hand, the game ends immediately

[Witherweaver]

A "Shoot the Moon" type of card, where you can win if you have all the Curses, and the Queen of Spades.

Queen of Spades
Victory - Treasure
Cost $6?
Worth $2?, +1 Buy
-
At this end of the game, if you have all the curses, this is worth 50VP. Otherwise, this is worth -10 VP.