Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: And Intrigue-ish card  (Read 1124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
And Intrigue-ish card
« on: September 19, 2016, 04:38:03 am »
0

Illusionist
Types: Action-Attack
Cost:

Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up).
If it's face down, +2 Actions.
If it's face up, +1 Card and each player reveals the top card of his deck.
Pool them and put a non-Victory card of them into your hand.
Put the other cards into the discard piles of each other player; one card per player.

This is clearly inspired by cards like Masquerade and Swindler. As it is not strong early in the game Debt costs are IMO justified and I worried that in Kingdoms with gainers (the Coin cost I considered was 4) you might too easily get too many of them. I made it split up cantrips (+2 Actions, next time you play it +2 Cards; with the second card being the best selection out of the top cards of all decks) before I chose the Debt costs so the Journey token thingy might be unnecessary and overcomplicate the card.
One rule issue arises when a player has his entire deck in his hand. This probably only happens in a few Chapel games so I don't worry about it and if it happens one of the players will simply not get a card. Of course the card is explicitly political (while you cannot get Victory cards you can shift Victory cards to the weakest player) which is not an issue for me as my gaming group doesn't mind political games (they have more of an issue with run-away leader games which are no perceived as fun and which are amended by such political cards) so if you dislike political Dominion cards this is obviously not for you.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9004
  • Respect: +9807
    • View Profile
Re: And Intrigue-ish card
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2016, 09:46:31 am »
0

"Pool them and put a non-Victory card of them into your hand." This is somewhat confusing to me... do you mean basically "choose a revealed non-Victory card and gain it, putting it in your hand"?

What happens if all victory cards are revealed? You would fail to gain anything, but then have 1 extra revealed card sitting around that you weren't instructed to put in a discard pile.

The problem I see, once you just accept that you're wanting to add politics, is the swinginess. It's one thing for the leader to be able to be punished for being in the lead; but it's very random where one play of the card could turn someone's Province into a Curse, and the next turns their Silver into a Copper. Swindler has this in a much smaller degree.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: And Intrigue-ish card
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2016, 04:10:21 pm »
0

So I guess this required the extra rule that, if only Victory cards have been revealed, you gotta take the VP card with the lowest value in the case of unconditional VP cards and any card in the case of conditional Victory cards.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7237
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10087
    • View Profile
Re: And Intrigue-ish card
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2016, 04:29:51 pm »
+1

So I guess this required the extra rule that, if only Victory cards have been revealed, you gotta take the VP card with the lowest value in the case of unconditional VP cards and any card in the case of conditional Victory cards.

It would be better if players who revealed Victory cards were just exempt. "Each player who revealed a non-Victory card sets it aside; put one of those cards into each such player's discard pile."
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: And Intrigue-ish card
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2016, 02:06:51 pm »
0

So I guess this required the extra rule that, if only Victory cards have been revealed, you gotta take the VP card with the lowest value in the case of unconditional VP cards and any card in the case of conditional Victory cards.

It would be better if players who revealed Victory cards were just exempt. "Each player who revealed a non-Victory card sets it aside; put one of those cards into each such player's discard pile."
Given that the card is explicitly designed to be political and mess with the score: nope.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7237
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10087
    • View Profile
Re: And Intrigue-ish card
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2016, 02:36:23 pm »
0

So I guess this required the extra rule that, if only Victory cards have been revealed, you gotta take the VP card with the lowest value in the case of unconditional VP cards and any card in the case of conditional Victory cards.

It would be better if players who revealed Victory cards were just exempt. "Each player who revealed a non-Victory card sets it aside; put one of those cards into each such player's discard pile."
Given that the card is explicitly designed to be political and mess with the score: nope.

I just meant it would be cleaner. Having a special rule in place in case everybody reveals a Victory card is stupid cumbersome. The version I suggested is still plenty political.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 21 queries.