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 21417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3189
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2021, 10:46:21 am »
+2

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2021, 10:59:27 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, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.

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
----------------------------------------

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.
I fully agree with you here, and thus changed the need to look at their hand.

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?
This didn't occur in the testing rounds, thanks for bringing it up, it is also fixed now.

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 will not turn this into an attack, as it doesn't directly affect any players in this new version, but your fix is also flawed, as this would just allow players to play the treasure cards instead, but I did include it along with the old text, to solve both problems (as you maybe intended).

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.

The 1-to-1 conversion didn't seem to be an issue, as no player received more than 4$ per card in testing, (my cards are generally to be seen as cards from prosperity (regarding colonies) so buying a colony is always an option) and not having enough buys is your fault for which you should be punished, as having a +buy card in the game is guaranteed, because of the tradesman.

But now you can simply choose not to play a gold and the next player will only gain +1$ instead of +3$,
so gaining too much using the wandering beggar shouldn't be a problem, even in province games.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2021, 11:14:20 am »
0

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, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.

(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)
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 #78 on: January 25, 2021, 11:47:28 am »
0

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, aswell as +1$ per unplayed Treasure card, that player discarded during their clean-up phase.
This is still not fully compatible with the rules. During cleanup, you discard all cards in your hand at once, and the opponent does not get to see what you discarded, so there is no way to tell how many Treasures were discarded.

(There is also a minor technical issue with stuff like Mandarin - you might play a Treasure and have it end back up in your hand. Then, technically speaking, it is not "unplayed" but it is impossible to track which Treasures were played before.)

I guess them showing you their hand is the only option then, I'll implement it later.
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2021, 11:59:42 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.
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.
Logged

Meta

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2021, 12:12:28 pm »
+1

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

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

+2 Cards
The player to your right, has to reveal their hand prior to the Clean-up phase.

At the start of your next turn:
+1$ per Treasure revealed by the player to your right. +X$ equal to the unspent $ the player to your right had on their last turn.

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
----------------------------------------

Reworded Wandering Beggar, I will not classify it as an Attack, as it doesn't hurt anyone directly. (Duchess and Council Room are also not classified as an attack, even though they can hurt the other players)
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2021, 12:19:20 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.


Another way you could potentially accomplish what I think you are trying to do is by adding a non-supply Action card that (if choosing the first option) you gain to your hand, are forced to play over and over until you are down to one Action, and then returns itself to it's pile. It would look something like this:



(You would obviously want to rename this and ad art). I think you would technically only need one copy of it in the pile, but you might want 2 just to make it easier to put back. I thought about adding a line and language that says if you somehow gain this by any other means, it goes back to its pile, but I do not think that is possible.

If you added this, Dilemma could be simplified to say:

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.

The obvious downside is that [Dilemma Helper] is super wordy and inelegant. The plus side is that it does not require adding the mechanic of spending Actions, and the Action card itself is cleaner. Plus, while the text of the Helper card is wordy, the mechanism is pretty simply, and once players learn it it is not hard to carry out.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #82 on: January 25, 2021, 12:33:20 pm »
0

This is my submission for the week



A card idea that i had for a long time.


Another way you could potentially accomplish what I think you are trying to do is by adding a non-supply Action card that (if choosing the first option) you gain to your hand, are forced to play over and over until you are down to one Action, and then returns itself to it's pile. It would look something like this:



(You would obviously want to rename this and ad art). I think you would technically only need one copy of it in the pile, but you might want 2 just to make it easier to put back. I thought about adding a line and language that says if you somehow gain this by any other means, it goes back to its pile, but I do not think that is possible.

If you added this, Dilemma could be simplified to say:

Quote
Dilemma, action $5
Choose one: Gain a [Dilemma Helper] to your hand, or +4 Actions.

The obvious downside is that [Dilemma Helper] is super wordy and inelegant. The plus side is that it does not require adding the mechanic of spending Actions, and the Action card itself is cleaner. Plus, while the text of the Helper card is wordy, the mechanism is pretty simply, and once players learn it it is not hard to carry out.
First, I am kind of confused. When you say playing it immediately, that wouldn't use up an action, which means that you would immediately draw your deck with 2 Actions before you gain it. I'm not totally sure what the card is supposed to do
Logged

emtzalex

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Respect: +1450
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2021, 12:38:38 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...

*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.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.
Logged
he/him/his

Thanks to Shard of Honor for his Extended Version of the Dominion Card Image Generator, which I use to mock up my fan cards, and to Violet CLM, who made the original.

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 #84 on: January 25, 2021, 01:30:51 pm »
0

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way
i'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3189
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2021, 02:15:11 pm »
0

elegance over minor conveniences is the Donaldian way
i'd argue any qualifier on it is inelegant - may as well do the one that lets you do more

comes down to a matter of taste. I find 'non-Duration' much less icky, but I can't justify it intellectually.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2021, 02:20:23 pm »
+3

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

Alternatively, maybe Secluded Village should just be

Choose One: +2 Actions; or +1 Buy

This is slightly stronger (unless you have Diadem, the +2 actions doesn't help if you would be getting the +buy in the original version). But I think the original version is too weak even for a $0 cost card. This version would still be a very situational buy (no Villages in the Kingdom, etc). And simpler wording than using the original wording and adding a reveal clause for accontability.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2021, 04:18:07 pm »
+1

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.
Delaying the effect until clean-up is a lot less necessary for this card, true. Allowing for immediate trash can open up some fancy gain-and-play stuff with Villa or something, which I mean isn't going to be too convoluted, probably, considering that you already have to be pretty precise with tracking money using this Event. I'll allow it.

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

I still prefer "would discard from play this turn" because of tracking. Sometimes non-Duration cards stay out, like Throne Rooms and King's Courts and stuff. I mean of course they would like to leave play, but for tracking, it's still better to make it "would discard from play".

All that being said, the overpay wording actually seems kind of clunky compared to the original wording, imo. It might be fine to say something like,
Quote
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.
This would be functionally different in that half-Bonfire isn't possible, but that's fine. Overpaying would also let you overpay Potion, so woohoo. There are fewer words in this one, too, so fine, I'll go with this one. (Actually there aren't fewer words, after accounting for getting rid of the Clean-up phase clause, lol, but I might as well use overpay as a mechanic because it exists.)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:31:34 pm by MochaMoko »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3189
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2021, 05:45:59 pm »
0

I would avoid the 'would' wording at all cost, and not do the card at all if that weren't possible. I don't think any official cards says 'would'. Trader used to, and it was changed.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 06:20:11 pm by silverspawn »
Logged

MochaMoko

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: MochaMoko
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2021, 05:50:52 pm »
+1

The "you would discard from play this turn" is directly borrowed from Improve's card text:
Quote
+②
At the start of Clean-up, you
may trash an Action card you
would discard from play this
turn, to gain a card costing
exactly $1 more than it.

I am glad Trader's "would gain" has been phased out. We can have better and cooler blue dogs.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3189
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2021, 06:20:03 pm »
0

I withdraw my objection. The 'would' wording is fine.

alion8me

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Shuffle iT Username: alion8me
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2021, 06:33:51 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.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
Logged

BBobb

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • My brother says thief is amazing.
  • Respect: +138
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2021, 06:40:55 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.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
This is totally fine, but for the bottom part, you could just say "In games using this, when you buy an Event costing more than , +1 Buy." This would still avoid the infinite loops.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:32:45 pm by BBobb »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2021, 10:19:06 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.

Thank you for pointing this out. Took a while thinking about this, I've come up with a solution that's hopefully not too clunky and also doesn't have any awful edge cases, also updated the original post with it.

Quote
Goods v4

$1
+1 Buy
If at the end of your Buy phase you have no Buys left, +2 Coffers.
-
In games using this, all Events cost $1 more and when you buy an Event, +1 Buy.

$4 Treasure
Save (and any other Event that already had +buy) now gives extra buys!

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #94 on: January 26, 2021, 02:34:16 am »
+5

Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #95 on: January 26, 2021, 07:04:21 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.
Yep, I'm stupid. You are right.

Yes, I didn't realize that playing Dilemma uses up one of Village's two Actions, sorry for the confusion! :-[
So you'd need to play two Villages before a Dilemma to be able to use Dilemma's first option and get the net effect of three Labs, which is still okay but not overpowered.
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #96 on: January 26, 2021, 07:16:20 am »
+1

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.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 08:04:34 am by Holger »
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #97 on: January 26, 2021, 08:41:21 am »
0

As an aside, Donald's Secret history comment for Desperation seems weird to me:
 
Quote
Desperation: At first it wasn't limited to once per turn. You don't need to have the experience of "okay I take 15 Curses and buy 6 Provinces" twice.

Desperation only gives $2 per Curse gained, so 15 Desperations would only net you $30, giving less than 4 Provinces and not 6, if it wasn't limited to once per turn. You'd need to gain 4 Curses for each Province, netting you 2VP. This would still make it reasonable to spam Desperation on your last shuffle if you have enough spare buys, but I'm not sure if it would really break the game...
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #98 on: January 26, 2021, 09:40:50 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.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-

Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.

In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #102: Unspent
« Reply #99 on: January 26, 2021, 10:19:08 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.

Interestingly, per the "Official FAQ" as described in the Wiki, you are only allowed to buy Alms and Borrow once per turn, but Desperation does not seem to have that restriction, or at least it does not say so.

Yes, I specifically checked Alms' entry in the Wiki before making my above statement, to see what the "Once per turn:" restriction on Events means exactly. I assume they all should work the same way, though it's strange that Desperation's FAQ doesn't say so. (I suppose the difference doesn't matter with any official cards...)

Edit: Here's a convoluted example where it matters whether you can play Save (a $1 "Once per turn" event) more than once for no effect:
You play Save once and then buy Villa to return to the Action phase to play Storyteller. You don't want to draw one too many cards with Storyteller (in order to not trigger a reshuffle),  so you'd prefer to be able to spend another $1 on a useless Save before buying Villa. But Save's FAQ explicitly forbids this, just like the FAQ for Alms and Borrow do.
I just kind of assumed that you could buy them for no effect, it seems a bit weird to me that you can't as it feels like that should be a separate below-the-line instruction then (the text on Events is always on-buy after all, so usually it wouldn't be checked before you buy it)-

Similarly to the above, Inheritance clarifies that you can only buy it once per game whereas Seize the Day does not.

In general, i would argue that it's better if a fan card does not bring up such hard-to-research questions.

It seems to me that all Adventures Events with "Once per turn" have this FAQ, and none of the later such Events do, for whatever reason...
I think it's more intuitive to casual players that you can't buy them again for no effect, but YMMV.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.184 seconds with 21 queries.