Print

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

[Abel_K]

I have often regreted the lack of victories costing 7$, for evident reasons. Several years ago, I designed one, that was fun, but a bit complicated.
I tried this month to find simple ideas, and here they are !
Thank you for the feedback, and propose others !!



Castle in Winter is good with the 5 VP, but you get junk (in winter, certain parts of your castle get damaged...)
Marriage Contract is the hope to get a Province and some bonusses. And a homage to the Marriage Event. (Buy Token gives you one Buy when you want it)
Saint-Honorat Island is an evident tribute to Island
Seraglio is a bigger Harem ! 
Witch Den , to have a curser in this group
Zinc Furnace seems weak with its 3 VP, but can be strong with the Potion+Buy (I assume the fact that, when you buy a 7$ Victory, you could have other priorities than buy cards with Potion...)

[GendoIkari]

For Castle in Winter, did you intend that if you gain the last 2 Ruins, you will also then gain a Curse? That's what will happen as worded.

It think it looks too weak compared to Province. Both less VP and a harsh penalty; and isn't that much cheaper than .

I don't understand Marriage Contract. Is the "Gain 2 different Tokens" a part of the reaction ability; that also happens when you exchange it for a Province? And I don't understand the bottom part either; "take when gained 3 Tokens among" doesn't make sense; what does that mean?

Saint-Honorat Island - Is it suppose to be an Action card also? When does its text apply? If you mean it to be an Action-Reserve-Victory, like Distant Lands, you can use wording similar to Merchant:

"The next time you buy a Victory Card costing up to this turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

[GendoIkari]

Seraglio - A slightly upgraded Harem; probably a little weak, but fine. Should have a dividing line above the VP value.

Witch Den - Should be "Each other player gains a Curse" similar to Witch. Seems ok, though the Coffer feels sort of randomly tacked on.

Zinc Furnace - The Potion feels very random; with such a tiny percentage of cards having a Potion cost. So in 99% of games that won't come into play. I think this will be weaker than Harem almost every time; the extra VP isn't worth putting a Copper into your deck.

[mxdata]

I have often regreted the lack of victories costing 7$, for evident reasons

What are these "evident reasons"?  I don't see any particularly obvious reason to have a victory card at that point

[mxdata]

I don't understand Marriage Contract. Is the "Gain 2 different Tokens" a part of the reaction ability; that also happens when you exchange it for a Province? And I don't understand the bottom part either; "take when gained 3 Tokens among" doesn't make sense; what does that mean?

I'm guessing that means "When you gain this, take 3 tokens".  Either way, it is a bit unusual to have an ability be dependent on whether or not a particular type of card is in the kingdom.  Maybe instead it could have a set up instruction that guarantees an Attack card?  Maybe something like "in games using this card, add an attack card to the Supply"?  Sort of like the mirror image of Young Witch's setup

[Abel_K]

Thank you for your feedbacks.
I'm going for a very long working day (I'm in France), so I answer you in 24-30 hours !

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I don't understand Marriage Contract. Is the "Gain 2 different Tokens" a part of the reaction ability; that also happens when you exchange it for a Province? And I don't understand the bottom part either; "take when gained 3 Tokens among" doesn't make sense; what does that mean?

I'm guessing that means "When you gain this, take 3 tokens".  Either way, it is a bit unusual to have an ability be dependent on whether or not a particular type of card is in the kingdom.  Maybe instead it could have a set up instruction that guarantees an Attack card?  Maybe something like "in games using this card, add an attack card to the Supply"?  Sort of like the mirror image of Young Witch's setup

Agreed. Also, currently, when there is no Attack in the supply, you can choose to get 6 points from 7 coins, same as Province. So it is strictly better than Province, even without the choice of Villagers/Coffers/+buy tokens, when there is no Attack.

Additionally, there are no +buy tokens in the game as of now, so are you intending to invent a new type of token? If so, I would give it a name (maybe Workers, to follow Workshop and Worker's Village, etc, similar to how the +Action name follows Village).

[segura]

Apart from obvious issues like Castle being too weak and Marriage Contract being too strong, they all feel weird and incoherent to me.

[Abel_K]

I have often regreted the lack of victories costing 7$, for evident reasons

What are these "evident reasons"?  I don't see any particularly obvious reason to have a victory card at that point

Well, I understand your interrogation... Here are the 2-3 reasons I thought (very basic, indeed) :

-no Victory card at this price !!! (I said "very basic !!!), between those at 6$ and Province
- the possibility to transform them in Provinces with certain trashers
- the frustation when you get 7$ with one buy

All this is rather common (is 'trivial' a good term for this?), I know, but not false, isn't it ?

[Abel_K]

For Castle in Winter, did you intend that if you gain the last 2 Ruins, you will also then gain a Curse? That's what will happen as worded.

It think it looks too weak compared to Province. Both less VP and a harsh penalty; and isn't that much cheaper than .

I thought of the problem if there is only one Ruin (I think that the rule is that you gt one Ruin and that's all...) but it seems evident (to me...) that if you gain the two last Ruins, you did what was written !
Anyway, you're right, the card is really too weak and not logic : either it's 6VP and a penalty, or 5... and I don't know what, so not interesting !!

[Abel_K]

I don't understand Marriage Contract. Is the "Gain 2 different Tokens" a part of the reaction ability; that also happens when you exchange it for a Province? And I don't understand the bottom part either; "take when gained 3 Tokens among" doesn't make sense; what does that mean?

I'm guessing that means "When you gain this, take 3 tokens".  Either way, it is a bit unusual to have an ability be dependent on whether or not a particular type of card is in the kingdom.  Maybe instead it could have a set up instruction that guarantees an Attack card?  Maybe something like "in games using this card, add an attack card to the Supply"?  Sort of like the mirror image of Young Witch's setup

Agreed. Also, currently, when there is no Attack in the supply, you can choose to get 6 points from 7 coins, same as Province. So it is strictly better than Province, even without the choice of Villagers/Coffers/+buy tokens, when there is no Attack.

Additionally, there are no +buy tokens in the game as of now, so are you intending to invent a new type of token? If so, I would give it a name (maybe Workers, to follow Workshop and Worker's Village, etc, similar to how the +Action name follows Village).

I try to answer to all these reactions :
- mxdata is right when he translates in good english what I wanted !!! I have to add : "different "tokens !..., so ,  hhelibebcnofnena, you cannot have 6VP for 7$
- yes , hhelibebcnofnena, I regret the lack os "buying tokens", and I imagine them in some cards. Workers : excellent idea !!
- " Either way, it is a bit unusual to have an ability be dependent on whether or not a particular type of card is in the kingdom. " Yes, I know this of course, and was not very clear with myself in this case  . Thank you for your propositions, I'll try to have a reflexion upon this

[Abel_K]

Saint-Honorat Island - Is it suppose to be an Action card also? When does its text apply? If you mean it to be an Action-Reserve-Victory, like Distant Lands, you can use wording similar to Merchant:

"The next time you buy a Victory Card costing up to this turn, put this on your Tavern Mat."

When posting this, I had the same interrogation.
I think that it can simply be a Reaction, and one can keep your proposition

[Abel_K]

Seraglio - A slightly upgraded Harem; probably a little weak, but fine. Should have a dividing line above the VP value.

Witch Den - Should be "Each other player gains a Curse" similar to Witch. Seems ok, though the Coffer feels sort of randomly tacked on.

Zinc Furnace - The Potion feels very random; with such a tiny percentage of cards having a Potion cost. So in 99% of games that won't come into play. I think this will be weaker than Harem almost every time; the extra VP isn't worth putting a Copper into your deck.

Seraglio : yes...
Witch Den : you're twice right... I didn't know the term "tacked on", but I understand it and it makes me smile (it's a bit what segura calls "weird and incoherent" I suppose ? )
Zinc Furnace - Th e fact is that I designed or copied several cards with Potion,so I try to have certain synergies for all  them. But for other people (!!!) (and they often don't like Potions...) your analysis is good. But, we can also think that this sort of card allowes to play with Potion cards more easily.

[GendoIkari]

For Castle in Winter, did you intend that if you gain the last 2 Ruins, you will also then gain a Curse? That's what will happen as worded.

It think it looks too weak compared to Province. Both less VP and a harsh penalty; and isn't that much cheaper than .

I thought of the problem if there is only one Ruin (I think that the rule is that you gt one Ruin and that's all...) but it seems evident (to me...) that if you gain the two last Ruins, you did what was written !
Anyway, you're right, the card is really too weak and not logic : either it's 6VP and a penalty, or 5... and I don't know what, so not interesting !!

To try and explain... when you gain the card, you do all of the instructions, in order. So say there are 2 Ruins left and you gain Castle in Winter. You follow each instruction one at a time:

 - Gain 2 Ruins
 - If there are no more Ruins (there are no more Ruins, the Ruins pile is now empty), gain a Curse

So you end up with 2 Ruins and a Curse.

[Jack Rudd]

For Castle in Winter, did you intend that if you gain the last 2 Ruins, you will also then gain a Curse? That's what will happen as worded.

It think it looks too weak compared to Province. Both less VP and a harsh penalty; and isn't that much cheaper than .

I thought of the problem if there is only one Ruin (I think that the rule is that you gt one Ruin and that's all...) but it seems evident (to me...) that if you gain the two last Ruins, you did what was written !
Anyway, you're right, the card is really too weak and not logic : either it's 6VP and a penalty, or 5... and I don't know what, so not interesting !!

To try and explain... when you gain the card, you do all of the instructions, in order. So say there are 2 Ruins left and you gain Castle in Winter. You follow each instruction one at a time:

 - Gain 2 Ruins
 - If there are no more Ruins (there are no more Ruins, the Ruins pile is now empty), gain a Curse

So you end up with 2 Ruins and a Curse.

And the way to get the card to do what you want is to write it in the other order.

"If the Ruins pile is empty, gain a Curse.
Gain two Ruins."

[GendoIkari]

For Castle in Winter, did you intend that if you gain the last 2 Ruins, you will also then gain a Curse? That's what will happen as worded.

It think it looks too weak compared to Province. Both less VP and a harsh penalty; and isn't that much cheaper than .

I thought of the problem if there is only one Ruin (I think that the rule is that you gt one Ruin and that's all...) but it seems evident (to me...) that if you gain the two last Ruins, you did what was written !
Anyway, you're right, the card is really too weak and not logic : either it's 6VP and a penalty, or 5... and I don't know what, so not interesting !!

To try and explain... when you gain the card, you do all of the instructions, in order. So say there are 2 Ruins left and you gain Castle in Winter. You follow each instruction one at a time:

 - Gain 2 Ruins
 - If there are no more Ruins (there are no more Ruins, the Ruins pile is now empty), gain a Curse

So you end up with 2 Ruins and a Curse.

And the way to get the card to do what you want is to write it in the other order.

"If the Ruins pile is empty, gain a Curse.
Gain two Ruins."

You could do that, but it sounds awkward to me. Better to have an "otherwise" in there. And then you could have the sentences in either order.

"If the Ruins pile is empty, gain a Curse. Otherwise, Gain two Ruins."

"Gain two Ruins. If you didn't, gain a Curse". Of course this would cause the possibility of gaining the last single Ruins and a Curse.

You can also make it a less harsh penalty by giving a choice:

"You may gain two Ruins. If you didn't, gain a Curse".

[Abel_K]

Thank you for these "theoric" explanations that are really important to word well the cards !
Anyway, this card was underpowered so the player is not going to gain two ruins !!!

But I notice all rhese remarks for the future

[nemryn]

The "gain two Ruins. If you didn't, gain a Curse" wording lets you use Trader to gain three Silvers, for what it's worth.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

The "gain two Ruins. If you didn't, gain a Curse" wording lets you use Trader to gain three Silvers, for what it's worth.

Unless it completely breaks the game, you shouldn't pay too much attention when designing to interactions that only apply to a single card. Especially if removing that single interaction comes at the cost of having simpler and more consistent wording.