Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent  (Read 21404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2021, 12:44:26 pm »
+4

Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2021, 12:58:37 pm »
0

Thank you for pointing this out.

I was curious to see how strong this strategy actually was so I added my card to the Geronimoo sim and tried it out. The $2-cost version is crazy fast. Playing around with it it seems like costing $4 makes the monolithic strategy comparable with some of the basic "big money + x" strategies - which seems to prevent that problem. I'm also pretty sure that the card is still buyable in the non-monolithic case, too - the only reason it cost so little in the first place was because I thought I could get away with it but that clearly isn't true.

The update is reflected in my original post.
That's an improvement for sure. It still has very powerful combos, say with Watchtower. That is probably fine, as Watchtower is all about enabling such combos. But it also works super well with any $0 Event, and whereas the Watchtower thing feels like a cool combo, this feels more like an exploit.

Not sure how to fix that though. It would be good if it forced you to spend the Buys on cards, but there is no elegant way to do this. A radical modification might be "+1$. You may gain a Copper for +2 Coffers", but that disqualifies it and also makes it less interesting.
Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2021, 01:13:41 pm »
+2

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
I mean... Hunting Grounds does the same thing. Dilemma's top option isn't really nonterminal since it always leaves you with fewer actions than you started with.
But you can play the combination Village+Dilemma an arbitrary number of times, as it always leaves you with the 1 Action you started with.

Yes, Hunting Grounds does the same in combination with a Village. But it costs $6, unlike Dilemma, and doesn't have Dilemma's second option to be nonterminal by itself. Playing any even number of Dilemmas has the same effect as playing the same number of Labs (if you start out with 1 Action). Hunting Grounds doesn't have this flexibility to cope with collisions.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 01:16:44 pm by Holger »
Logged

Xen3k

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +581
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2021, 01:27:16 pm »
+1

Hey, look!  Woodcutter's back!





The idea is for Buys to function as a different currency (you can skip buying Woodsman entirely).  I thought about allowing Woodsman to gain Spirits with unused Buys, but it's more fun to create my own cards.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5300
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2021, 01:29:13 pm »
+4

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2021, 03:49:52 pm »
+1


Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2021, 05:56:19 pm »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...
Well, it's definitely a big problem with Advance + Fortress.
Logged

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2021, 06:47:38 pm »
0

Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.
Logged

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2021, 07:36:03 pm »
+3

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

I didn't think it was a major issue to have Woodsman effectively cost $0, because often you will have additional $ to spend on something better.  However, I agree that it's awkward if you happen to have Woodcutter in the same game, and it's probably better to limit the special gaining to non-Supply cards so that it isn't too easy to empty out the Woodsman pile.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.

You're right that it would be impossible in some Kingdoms to gain Magic Axe.  I had initially though about whether Enchanted Forest should be a Village or give +Buys, but I felt like it would be too easy to stack Woodsmen with it (which were previously quite easy to gain) and also to gain additional Enchanted Forests or Magic Axes. 

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

Thanks - I've modified the set so that you can't gain Woodsmen by spending Buys.  Instead I've added Secluded Village, to also address the issue that Xen3k highlighted.

Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve

Thanks - the comma doesn't seem necessary, but I've updated the wording anyway to match Improve.

Revised set: (I'll update the OP as well)

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 07:39:08 pm by Timinou »
Logged

LittleFish

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Respect: +188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2021, 08:17:26 pm »
+2

Woodcutter's back and now he costs $0? The way I'm reading this card, you can spend a Buy and $0 during your Buy phase to gain a Woodsman, which means it basically costs $0. Was that what you intended? I don't think that can exist alongside Woodcutter, even though Woodcutter is removed.

I didn't think it was a major issue to have Woodsman effectively cost $0, because often you will have additional $ to spend on something better.  However, I agree that it's awkward if you happen to have Woodcutter in the same game, and it's probably better to limit the special gaining to non-Supply cards so that it isn't too easy to empty out the Woodsman pile.

I really like this set of cards. Am I correct to think there are Kingdoms that would make getting your hands on the Magic Axe impossible? If there are no Villages and no cantrip +Buys that could be a scenario. I don't know if that is an issue to you or not.

I would also be concerned about making Woodsman cost essentially $0 as mentioned before. As a suggestion, you could leave everything on Woodsman the same but move the part where you can pend 1 Buy to gain a Woodsman above the line so it requires a Woodsman in play to get that benefit.

Another option would be to just increase the cost of each card by 1 Buy, but that would still not resolve the potential issue mention in above where some of the non-supply cards cannot be obtained.

You're right that it would be impossible in some Kingdoms to gain Magic Axe.  I had initially though about whether Enchanted Forest should be a Village or give +Buys, but I felt like it would be too easy to stack Woodsmen with it (which were previously quite easy to gain) and also to gain additional Enchanted Forests or Magic Axes. 

Imo, Just cut out the special gaining of Woodsman, and leave the rest as is.

Thanks - I've modified the set so that you can't gain Woodsmen by spending Buys.  Instead I've added Secluded Village, to also address the issue that Xen3k highlighted.

Just a small pedantic thing, but there should be a comma after "this turn". See Improve

Thanks - the comma doesn't seem necessary, but I've updated the wording anyway to match Improve.

Revised set: (I'll update the OP as well)

Secluded village should say to reveal the hand, so there isn't trust issues
Logged

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1532
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1677
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2021, 08:24:59 pm »
+1

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

My recommended wording:
Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+ equal to the unspent the player to your right had on their last turn.

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=, you could spend twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=, you could spend three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):
Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording
+1 Buy
+
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of for +2 Coffers per paid (rounded down).
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.

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2021, 09:51:32 pm »
+4

« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 09:53:56 pm by pubby »
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2021, 01:44:50 am »
+2

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2021, 01:48:44 am »
0

Since there are only a total of four Events that cost $0 and don't give back +1 Buy*, I don't see this as a big problem...

*and only three $0 Events that can be bought more than once per turn
Any Event can be bought any number of times. There are Events that only do something the first time you buy them, but they can still be bought afterwards, for no effect. Thus, all six $0 cost Events would enable you to spend all buys.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2021, 01:58:59 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2021, 02:07:17 am »
0

That's too strong IMO: playing a Village and then a Dilemma nonterminally increases your handsize by three, just like playing three Labs. (You just won't use Dilemma's weaker second option if you can help it...)
This is false. After playing Village, you'd have 2 actions. Then playing a Dilemma uses up one of those, so by the time you get to the text you only have one action left.
I think he meant that if you play three Labs, not three Labs + a Village (I think that is what he means at least).
Yes, but the version of Dilemma quoted only activates with more than one Action. The result of playing Village + Dilemma would be having 5 Actions and having drawn no cards other than the one from Village.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2021, 02:50:01 am »
+3



Quote
Promote ③ Event
You may overpay for this, to trash a card you
would discard from play this turn. Then, gain a
card costing the amount you overpaid more than it.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards). (This is no longer true after the change in wording. But now we can overpay Potion! And uh I guess you can still pay ④ to trash a Copper if there's no card costing ① in the Supply. Go nuts, woo.)

EDIT: Updated wording to make it an overpay card.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:26:33 pm by MochaMoko »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5300
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2021, 04:31:46 am »
0

I think this needs a 'this turn' clarifier

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #68 on: January 25, 2021, 06:05:56 am »
0

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ per unspent $ at the beginning of the last clean-up phase, of the Player to your right. (it actually says 'player to your left' on the card, as we play in counter clockwise turn order)

My recommended wording:
Quote from: Wandering Beggar Recommended Wording
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn:
+ equal to the unspent the player to your right had on their last turn.
thanks for the improvement, I'll implement it in the translation.


4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

The english wording is kinda clunky, so if you have any improvements, please let me know.

Am I correct in assuming that for Tradesman, if you have >=, you could spend twice to get a total of 4 Coffers, and if you have >=, you could spend three times to get a total of 6 Coffers, and so on? Because if so, I would recommend this wording, as it's more in-line with how it would be worded as an official card and is simpler (also, the horizontal line should be omitted, see Improve):
Quote from: Tradesman Recommended Wording
+1 Buy
+
At the start of Clean-up, you may pay any amount of for +2 Coffers per paid (rounded down).
You are incorrect, the intention is to only allow increments of 3, in order to prevent the Wandering beggar to be obsolete as soon as other players buy the Tradesman.
But using the tradesman you can limit the Wandering beggar to +2$.

Split Pile Top HalfSplit Pile Bottom Half

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

4$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

Updated english wording.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2021, 06:37:47 am »
+3



Quote
Promote ③ Event
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:

Quote
Promote - $3+
Event

You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #70 on: January 25, 2021, 07:49:27 am »
+1

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.
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
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #71 on: January 25, 2021, 08:10:22 am »
+1



Quote
Promote ③ Event
At the start of Clean-Up, trash a card you would discard
from play this turn. You may spend ◯ to gain a card
costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
It's like Enhance, except well a lot of things -- since this cares about things you put in play, you'll have to play those Ruins in order to trash them; but you'll also be able to play your Golds before you trash them! If you can buy this Event many times (and have enough money left over), you're looking at a megaturn. The wording is mostly borrowed from Improve, and this really is like Improve turned into an Event. Oh right, you can also just not spend any money, and then not gain a card. In this way, it's also like a half-Bonfire (without the nightmares of Bonfiring Champions or other Duration cards).
I feel like there is no reason here to delay the effect until cleanup. This would work better as an overpay Event:

Quote
Promote - $3+
Event

You may overpay for this. Trash a card you have in play. If you overpaid, gain a card costing the amount you spent more than the trashed card.
i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #72 on: January 25, 2021, 09:02:37 am »
0

Split Pile (Top Half)Split Pile (Bottom Half)

Translations:
----------------------------------------
Wandering Beggar

+2 Cards

At the start of your next turn:
+X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn (in play and in their hand).

3$    Action - Duration
----------------------------------------
Tradesman

+1 Buy
+1 $

At the beginning of your Clean-Up phase, you may spend 3$ at a time to get 2 Coffers.

3$     Action
----------------------------------------

After a little bit of playtesting (in 2-player games) i updated the Wandering beggar, in order to prevent the problem of other players simply not playing their treasure cards.
This version of Wandering beggar does not work for multiple reasons.

1. There is no accountibility since the card does not require players to reveal their hands (and if it did it would probably need to be an attack).
2. There is no such thing as "unspent $ in their hand". Treasures that have not been played simply did not generate any $. I understand what you are going for, but in terms of rules this is nonsensical.
3. Even if we allowed "common sense" to override the technical issues from the previous point, it is still not well-defined - if I have a Bank and a Copper in hand, how much $ is that?

In order to fix the card, I would suggest turning it into an Attack that punishes players if they have Treasures in their hand at the end of their buy phase.

I am also not in love with the 1-to-1 conversion of unspent $ into cash for you. It already feels bad to draw all your money without enough buys, this just punishes people who are already doing badly.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:10:16 am by faust »
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5300
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3188
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #73 on: January 25, 2021, 09:46:08 am »
0

i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking

Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.

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
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2021, 10:44:26 am »
0

i think you still want to include "that you would discard this turn" so theres fewer issues with duration-tracking

Use faust's wording and make it 'non-Duration' card.
i mean, thats more restrictive - do it my way and you can still promote caravans or havens or whatever
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.119 seconds with 21 queries.