Print

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

[Asper]

Roving Bandits - $5 Action-Attack-Looter-Reaction-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, each other player gains a Ruins, and if they don't, discards a card and draws up to 4 cards in hand.
-
When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this from your hand, to instead gain that Gold.

Two players react with this at once, who gets the Gold? Better they gain their own Gold and let the buyer keep theirs. I feel either this would never be bought for $5 because there's no definite benefit to the buyer or it would because the Attack is imbalanced hitting twice in one play.

This is a good point; my ruling is that you go in turn order, so the first player to the left of the one gaining the Gold is the first one with the opportunity to use their Bandits. The second person could then trash their Bandits to take the Gold from that player, though, so perhaps I should adjust the wording:

"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

I don't like that. If I know I'm not the only player with this card, it comes down to a game of chicken. Should I react, or wait a few more minutes to see wheather somebody else does so first? The obvious solution to this is to not strip the first gainer of their Gold at all.

[CPiGuy]

Roving Bandits - $5 Action-Attack-Looter-Reaction-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, each other player gains a Ruins, and if they don't, discards a card and draws up to 4 cards in hand.
-
When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this from your hand, to instead gain that Gold.

Two players react with this at once, who gets the Gold? Better they gain their own Gold and let the buyer keep theirs. I feel either this would never be bought for $5 because there's no definite benefit to the buyer or it would because the Attack is imbalanced hitting twice in one play.

This is a good point; my ruling is that you go in turn order, so the first player to the left of the one gaining the Gold is the first one with the opportunity to use their Bandits. The second person could then trash their Bandits to take the Gold from that player, though, so perhaps I should adjust the wording:

"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

I don't like that. If I know I'm not the only player with this card, it comes down to a game of chicken. Should I react, or wait a few more minutes to see wheather somebody else does so first? The obvious solution to this is to not strip the first gainer of their Gold at all.

Using the later wording, I would rule that if A gains a gold, and B and C both trash bandits, they both get a Gold, and A trashes their Gold. I would also keep the ruling that this goes in turn order -- each person has one opportunity to trash or not trash their Roving Bandits (but I don't know why B wouldn't reveal it even if they thought C also had a Roving Bandits, since C couldn't take theirs.

For that matter, here's another wording tweak:

"When another player gains a Gold due to a card other than a Roving Bandits, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

[Asper]

Roving Bandits - $5 Action-Attack-Looter-Reaction-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, each other player gains a Ruins, and if they don't, discards a card and draws up to 4 cards in hand.
-
When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this from your hand, to instead gain that Gold.

Two players react with this at once, who gets the Gold? Better they gain their own Gold and let the buyer keep theirs. I feel either this would never be bought for $5 because there's no definite benefit to the buyer or it would because the Attack is imbalanced hitting twice in one play.

This is a good point; my ruling is that you go in turn order, so the first player to the left of the one gaining the Gold is the first one with the opportunity to use their Bandits. The second person could then trash their Bandits to take the Gold from that player, though, so perhaps I should adjust the wording:

"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

I don't like that. If I know I'm not the only player with this card, it comes down to a game of chicken. Should I react, or wait a few more minutes to see wheather somebody else does so first? The obvious solution to this is to not strip the first gainer of their Gold at all.

Using the later wording, I would rule that if A gains a gold, and B and C both trash bandits, they both get a Gold, and A trashes their Gold. I would also keep the ruling that this goes in turn order -- each person has one opportunity to trash or not trash their Roving Bandits (but I don't know why B wouldn't reveal it even if they thought C also had a Roving Bandits, since C couldn't take theirs.

For that matter, here's another wording tweak:

"When another player gains a Gold due to a card other than a Roving Bandits, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

While I still don't like the fact that turn order matters, and actually think that stealing something a player spent good money on is rather unfun, here's a wording suggestion:
"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this, to put that Gold in your discard pile."

[CPiGuy]

Roving Bandits - $5 Action-Attack-Looter-Reaction-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, each other player gains a Ruins, and if they don't, discards a card and draws up to 4 cards in hand.
-
When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this from your hand, to instead gain that Gold.

Two players react with this at once, who gets the Gold? Better they gain their own Gold and let the buyer keep theirs. I feel either this would never be bought for $5 because there's no definite benefit to the buyer or it would because the Attack is imbalanced hitting twice in one play.

This is a good point; my ruling is that you go in turn order, so the first player to the left of the one gaining the Gold is the first one with the opportunity to use their Bandits. The second person could then trash their Bandits to take the Gold from that player, though, so perhaps I should adjust the wording:

"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

I don't like that. If I know I'm not the only player with this card, it comes down to a game of chicken. Should I react, or wait a few more minutes to see wheather somebody else does so first? The obvious solution to this is to not strip the first gainer of their Gold at all.

Using the later wording, I would rule that if A gains a gold, and B and C both trash bandits, they both get a Gold, and A trashes their Gold. I would also keep the ruling that this goes in turn order -- each person has one opportunity to trash or not trash their Roving Bandits (but I don't know why B wouldn't reveal it even if they thought C also had a Roving Bandits, since C couldn't take theirs.

For that matter, here's another wording tweak:

"When another player gains a Gold due to a card other than a Roving Bandits, you may trash this. If you do, they trash that Gold, and you gain a Gold."

While I still don't like the fact that turn order matters, and actually think that stealing something a player spent good money on is rather unfun, here's a wording suggestion:
"When another player gains a Gold, you may trash this, to put that Gold in your discard pile."

That is also good.

I think turn order mattering is a) unavoidable and b) something that is already rather common in real Dominion cards, many of which involve interacting only with the player to your left.

[CPiGuy]

So, I have some new cards which use Nocturne mechanics. Now that Nocturne is out, here they are.

Philanthropist - $4 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal two more Boons than there are players from the top of the Boon deck. Take two, give one to each other player, and discard the last one. For each Boon, the player who got it chooses whether to receive it now or at the start of their next turn.

Ultimatum - $5 Night-Duration
Name a card type you didn't gain any of this turn. Until the start of your next turn, nobody can buy any cards with that type.

Sexton - $4 Night
You may trash a card from your hand.
+1VP per card you trashed this turn.

Tombstone - $4 Night-Reaction
Trash a card from your hand. If it's...
an Action, gain a Tombstone.
a Treasure, you may gain a Silver.
a Night card, draw an extra card for your next hand.
-
When another player plays an Attack, you may first set this aside. If you do, return it to your hand at the end of your next Buy phase.

Mausoleum - $5 Night-Duration
Choose one:
Play a Night card from your hand twice,
or set aside an Action card from your hand face-down, and at the start of your next turn, -1 Action and play that card twice,
or set aside an Action you have in play and play it at the start of your next turn.

Charterhouse - $4 Night-Victory
Trash a card you have in play. If you do, take a Charterhouse token.
-
This card is worth 1VP for every 5 Charterhouse tokens you have (round down).

[Asper]

I think Tombstone's third option should be "neither" instead of "Night card". Often Tombstone will be the only Night card in the game. This wording allows you to also trash Curses and Estates. Also, in absence of Ruins, I don't think I'd ever want to trash an Action card just to get a Tombstone, which does little more than gain Silvers. How about lettting you also trash from play? That way it at least has a point that this is a Night card. It also bumps it up a bit.