Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 128 129 [130] 131 132 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1546352 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3225 on: August 19, 2019, 12:52:05 pm »
+2



Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn. The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I think that this will lead to very interesting play. You want a Delegate-thick deck in order to copy their good stuff and deny your opponents your good stuff. But if you exaggerate it or the opponents play money, you are left with too many lousy blue dogs in your deck.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3226 on: August 19, 2019, 01:06:55 pm »
0

Would cards like messenger, lost city, and embassy work? Or are they a little too weak in their player interaction?
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3227 on: August 19, 2019, 01:10:10 pm »
0



Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn. The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.
I think that this will lead to very interesting play. You want a Delegate-thick deck in order to copy their good stuff and deny your opponents your good stuff. But if you exaggerate it or the opponents play money, you are left with too many lousy blue dogs in your deck.

Thanks! I'm glad you like my card.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +906
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3228 on: August 19, 2019, 01:19:08 pm »
+1

Dragon Fight by pst
Dragon Fight*: Really interesting concept. I can imagine how intense going though this process would be. Like fighting a real dragon maybe! It really makes use of the Prizes $0 cost. The more Prizes you have, the less cards you have to win the fight. Albeit Prizes can be used for Copper. Trashing all of your cards might be rough, but I can also see where it could be used as a trasher.

I tried it in three games, and it was actually really exciting in two of them. (In one of them it never came up.) Sometimes we had sure wins with enough cards of all kinds in hand/play, but most of the time some luck was needed. In one of the games Prince was on the board, so there was always the risk of it coming up which usually meant failure.

Note that you can always opt not to risk a card you want to keep, but chicken out instead, and only set aside really good cards for the final blow if you are still in the fight.
Logged

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3229 on: August 19, 2019, 01:39:51 pm »
+3



You get all the tokens you need but your opponent decides where.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 02:12:40 pm by pubby »
Logged

mandioca15

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
  • Respect: +237
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3230 on: August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm »
0

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3231 on: August 19, 2019, 02:02:39 pm »
0



You get all the tokens you need but your opponent decides where.
This seems cool, but extremely weak.
Logged

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
« Reply #3232 on: August 19, 2019, 02:14:17 pm »
+1

This seems cool, but extremely weak.
The first version let you pick the token. I changed it last minute. I think I'll change it back to the first version.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3233 on: August 19, 2019, 02:37:27 pm »
0



Quote
Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
+1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.

Bluffing minigame. Do you have a solid treasure? how about action? Or is there something in supply that'd be helpful?
Picked the name because it can do what thrones/crowns do (do a thing twice) but it does so at the direction of an outside power. Sort of a reverse-possession.

revision history:
  • withdrew "Smuggle", submitted "Executioner"
  • renamed from "Bribe" to "Smuggle"
  • first posted
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 01:06:21 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3234 on: August 19, 2019, 02:58:11 pm »
+3

Gatekeeper (Action)

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3235 on: August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm »
+2

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)


I just made an heirloom without a kingdom pile to go with it. I figured the kingdom pile is unnecessary for the contest, since Gift is the card that gives the player interaction. That being said, I will make a kingdom card to match it if anordinaryman wants me to (maybe i'll give it some more player interaction).

I'd thought I'd go with a card that rotates along the decks. You get a little bonus when you pass it along (i did that or else everyone would be passing them along and it would cancel itself out). You can keep it; of course then it just plays like a copper. This is obviously going to affect the openings a little bit like baker.

1) Your opponent does not gain the card and therefore cannot react (for example with a trader)

2) the card is priced at 0 intentionally. I wanted it to continue to rotate hands so I wanted to disincentivize trashing it. At 0 it doesn't work well for trash for benefit. it also can't be trashed with things that only trash copper (ducat, moneylender). And then, if you really want to get it out of your deck you could always play it as a silver (though it will likely come back).

Update: I have added Research here (this should take care of the heirloom problem and give more interactivity). Here are my comments:

You've worked very hard on your research; too bad everyone wants to steal it for themselves. It's a lab that can be stolen for a cost.

1) The choice of stealing goes clockwise from the current player. Once one player takes it, no other player can take it since it is no longer in play.

2) "Other players" refers to all the players who did not steal the card.

3) Because this is a card that rotates and everyone will end up benefiting from, the cost has to be low since why spend my money if everyone is going to get the benefit (also to prevent tfb). I've also added an interactive clause that allows all your opponents to gain one for free (when you gain your 2nd card). I might tweak this clause since it allows the pile to deplete fast in a 4p game.

4) This pairs thematically well with Gift. Gift is a card you give to your opponents, Research is a card you steal from your opponents.

Update: I have decided to do a different set of cards but with a similar idea. This is no longer my submission.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 10:07:49 pm by naitchman »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3236 on: August 19, 2019, 03:10:47 pm »
0

Gatekeeper (Action)

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.
That's a good fix. I guess that "When you play a copy of that card this turn, discard it instead." would even undo the triggering of in-play effects.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3237 on: August 19, 2019, 03:14:46 pm »
+1

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.
Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3238 on: August 19, 2019, 03:35:27 pm »
0

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.
Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.

there are definitely situations that you would play it as a copper to keep it (if you have an extra $1 you don't want to spend). I can kind of hear your other point though that the interactivity is low (though it is still present). I'll see if I can tweak this.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 03:36:55 pm by naitchman »
Logged

mandioca15

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
  • Respect: +237
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3239 on: August 19, 2019, 03:46:57 pm »
0

Gatekeeper (Action)

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.
That's a good fix. I guess that "When you play a copy of that card this turn, discard it instead." would even undo the triggering of in-play effects.

Thanks for the feedback - I hadn't considered that scenario! Your fix makes sense, so I will modify the card to the following:

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3240 on: August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm »
0



A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3241 on: August 19, 2019, 04:55:49 pm »
0

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn.
You should probably put that in your card, then.

Would cards like messenger, lost city, and embassy work? Or are they a little too weak in their player interaction?
Yes, they work. I even put embassy as one of the examples. However, they are a little weak, and I said in the contest that I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction. So, simply writing a new card that also gives the lost city bonus to your opponents on gain will not fare well in this contest, probably. You could try some other conditional interesting way that a card/card-shaped thing gives your opponents +1 card. Or you could come up with a completely unique interaction!

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)


I just made an heirloom without a kingdom pile to go with it. I figured the kingdom pile is unnecessary for the contest, since Gift is the card that gives the player interaction. That being said, I will make a kingdom card to match it if anordinaryman wants me to (maybe i'll give it some more player interaction).
To me, submitting an heirloom without a kingdom pile is like submitting only the back-half of a split pile and saying "eh some sort of weak card goes on top". It's an incomplete submission without the kingdom card that would bring this heirloom into the game

@mandioca15 for a better chance of me noticing your submissions, either create a card image, or put a bold text saying this is a submission for challenge 41



This card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.
Finally, what happens to the set aside cards? As written now, they stay set aside forever until the game ends.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:00:37 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3242 on: August 19, 2019, 05:00:06 pm »
0

This card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.
Finally, what happens to the set aside cards? As written now, they stay set aside forever until the game ends.
Initially this was an Attack, but it runs into rule issues (respectively even more wordiness to exclude players who block from the passing game) with "blocks" like Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Also, Masquerade is not an Attack and the 1D is compensated by being able to get rid of bad card and getting a good card in return.

About your last question, the card explicitly says that the cards are passed to the left.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:02:40 pm by segura »
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
  • Respect: +502
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3243 on: August 19, 2019, 05:01:56 pm »
0

@segura, your card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.
Initially this was an Attack, but it runs into rule issues (respectively even more wordiness to exclude players who block from the passing game) with "blocks" like Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Also, Masquerade is not an Attack and the 1D is compensated by being able to get rid of bad card and getting a good card in return.

Okay! Just making sure you were making it a non-attack for *design* reasons rather than for *contest* reasons. I realized the way I wrote my post it may have come across that attack cards were forbidden.
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3244 on: August 19, 2019, 05:04:14 pm »
0

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn.
You should probably put that in your card, then.

That's why it says that the set aside cards are set aside "for the turn." Version 1.2 spelled it out, but I thought it made Delegate more wordy than necessary. I guess that v1.3 might not work though since you're the one setting them aside. I'll edit my OP to have version 1.2 instead.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:10:08 pm by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3245 on: August 19, 2019, 05:07:24 pm »
0



A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer swinginess.

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.
Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.

there are definitely situations that you would play it as a copper to keep it (if you have an extra $1 you don't want to spend). I can kind of hear your other point though that the interactivity is low (though it is still present). I'll see if I can tweak this.

I guess the problem is that you don't really care that it ends up in your opponent's deck, so there's no weighing of benefit for you vs. your opponent. Still, I do like that this gets the "wandering" card idea to work. There have been a lot of other ideas for cards that get passed from deck to deck. They never work because there's never any reason to buy the card in the first place. Making it an Heirloom solves this brilliantly.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:16:19 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3246 on: August 19, 2019, 05:15:33 pm »
0



A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.
Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1971
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3247 on: August 19, 2019, 05:24:31 pm »
0



A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.
Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.

You're missing my point.

Alice plays swamp tower. She and Bob reveal Estates. Carol happened to draw 5 Coppers and so must reveal a Copper. She gets slapped with 1 Debt and gets one of her early payload cards replaced by a dead card. Alice and Bob waltz away with the highest-card reward and one of them gets rid of a dead card to boot. Carol just got screwed over big time, all because of shuffle luck.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3248 on: August 19, 2019, 05:25:13 pm »
+1

Sounds like Dominion though
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #3249 on: August 19, 2019, 05:28:14 pm »
0



A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.
Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.

You're missing my point.

Alice plays swamp tower. She and Bob reveal Estates. Carol happened to draw 5 Coppers and so must reveal a Copper. She gets slapped with 1 Debt and gets one of her early payload cards replaced by a dead card. Alice and Bob waltz away with the highest-card reward and one of them gets rid of a dead card to boot. Carol just got screwed over big time, all because of shuffle luck.
Sure. But when Bob plays his Swamp Tower, Carol can get rid of her Estate and cash it in for 2 Coffers.
Like with Masquerade, it is a to and fro.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 128 129 [130] 131 132 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.116 seconds with 21 queries.