Extortionist - $5
Action - Attack
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+3 cards, and each other player takes @1; or +$3, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.
Bringing this concept back since fixing it made it ineligible for the last contest I used it in.
Also, why is the font different? I don't see any option to change the font on the card generator.
This is slightly political. In turn order A-B-C-D let's say A played a militia, B finishes turn and draws 5, then C plays Extortionist. D has a decision to choose discard a card which does NOT hurt B, but does hurt A, or 1@ which hurts both B and A. It is also political -- one player's deck might have a far greater ability to handle extra debt, and one player may have a far greater ability to handle 3 cards in hand. There's also the problem of this giving out unbounded debt to other players, which Donald X has avoided.
Whether those are problems depends on how much you care about cards being political. To address it, you could have each player make their own decision on how to be attacked and what benefit to give you, but it's incredibly awkward to phrase it. Here's my stab, but it makes it not strictly fit this context:
"The players who have the next three turns that are not yours each makes this decision: they take @1 and you get +1 card; or "discard" and you get +1$" It also doesn't work because it attacks one player stronger than the other...
To deal with this you could have one of the options being "take their -1 token" and then it doesn't attack one player more strongly than the other, if they choose so.
Atlantis
$4 – Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.
In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.
This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.
That actually was my initial idea, i.e. if you meant:
Action text
-----------------
1
w/o an on-buy effect.
The obvious idea of both versions is to combine a strong ability with the incentive not to play the card at a certain point later in the game because of the . After starting with the Action – Victory version shown above, I thought that the player who buys Atlantis needs a bonus since otherwise the other players would get the strong card without the need to buy it. This in turn could lead to a stalemate were nobody buys it. This can be avoided when the buying player gets a bonus; therefore the on-buy +1.
Now, if the card would just be
Action text
-----------------
On-buy +1
Atlantis cards would be played and “passed” till the end of the game without any consequences, which doesn’t look interesting to me. Therefore, I gave the card 1 when scoring, which means that at a certain point during the game, players have to make the decision whether to play it and lose the , or whether it is better not to play it in order to keep the . (By the way, it is passed to the right because that player has a lower chance to end the game at that point.)
In summary, the way I see it:
The players need an incentive to buy Atlantis (i.e. an on-buy effect).
The players need an incentive to play (and “pass”) the card (i.e. a strong ability).
The players need an incentive not to play the card near the end of the game (i.e. scoring).
I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:
Action effect
When you Buy this, +1.
1
Exactly. This would be the alternative with the same effect, which however doesn't look better.
Are they supposed to gain an Atlantis, or gain the one that was in play? It may be better to have "return this to the supply, the player to your right gains an Atlantis" and possibly make it an attack.
I think the wording is simple and unambiguous, i.e. "this" means exactly this very card that has been played.
Why do you think this should be an Attack?
Well, thank you all for your comments. If anyone can convince me that a simpler version, e.g. like that one chronostrike suggested, is better, please feel free to make any further suggestions. I think the critical points of what I want to deliver with this card are summarized above (highlighted in blue).
I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."
As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically. I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it. It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes. Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck." Something like that.
No idea what the right number is, I don't know if it's 4VP.