Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!  (Read 4578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2021, 01:40:34 am »
+1

I have no idea how you generated your Kingdoms.
I played random games on ShuffleIT.

My sample size wasn't very big, that's for sure. Clearly there are kingdoms where this is great. I think looking at Menagerie is kind of skewing things in Charge's favor, not just because of the Ways, but also because much of the draw there comes through Horses, and Horses are obviously much better for Charge than actual +cards. Plus there's an above-average amount of Durations.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 01:45:38 am by faust »
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

spheremonk

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2021, 02:22:10 am »
0

*Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
Drawing won't change the number of cards you have, only the number you have in hand.
Yup, that was stupid. Thanks for the help. I changed the OP.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 02:35:18 am by spheremonk »
Logged

Timinou

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 430
  • Respect: +516
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2021, 02:31:32 am »
+1



Quote
Charge | Event | $8
Once per game:
Play the top card of each Action Supply pile in any order, leaving them there.
Edit: cost changed to $8

Wow, this is probably the most bonkers idea I've submitted. Simple, but totally out of control.
I will point out that this card isn't very strategic at all, in almost every game it's pretty clear if you want to buy this, and if you, you're going to want to buy this as soon as you can. The point of this event is it's just a fun thing to do. But we have to limit it to once a game, because then it's broken in some Kingdoms. In games with multiple attacks that stack, you likely want to rush $8 to get this, that's pretty much as far as this goes, strategically. Of course there's cases like Beggar and no trashing, or lots of virtual money but no +buy or gainers that make you think twice about buying this.

In tests with random kingdoms, this works well. Because it happens once, I decided to let it go full-wild (no restrictions on Duration cards -- the buyer will remember and it's easy because they can just look at the entire Supply on their next turn, and no restrictions on Commands -- it wasn't as confusing as I'd thought it'd be).

Open to feedback. I think this counts as simple for the contest? Even if the effect can be complicated.

This looks like it could be fun, but in some kingdoms it will really favour the player who is able to hit $8 first.  I think the once per game restriction helps to keep this from snowballing, but if there are certain Attacks in the kingdom, you can impede your opponent from being able to hit $8 on their turn and so they may not be able to catch up.  I don't think this will be the case for most kingdoms, though, so I don't know that I would necessarily want to change anything.

On a separate note, how would this work with Hireling?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 02:38:56 am by Timinou »
Logged

mathdude

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2021, 09:49:58 am »
0


Gonna replace my entry with this:

Quote
Sycophant $2 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Sycophant, put it in your hand.

Pile is 16 deep, doesn't scale on player count.
Did you know Syncophant only has one 'n' in it? I didn't.

I love this idea!! I don't think it needs to have 16 cards in it, though.

Sycophant feels very weak, even at 2.  It seems worse than Will-o'-Wisp, even though that's not a Supply card.  It doesn't serve much purpose, other than as a Cantrip to replace itself (putting another Sycophant in your hand doesn't improve in any way).  I guess the only purpose is that it lets you know the next card in your deck, which can impact whether you play a terminal draw card.

Two optional suggestions:
1. If it's a Sycophant put it in your hand, otherwise you may discard it or put it back.  (I know, this makes it way too many words), or
2. If it's a Sycophant, play it (effectively making this sort of a cheap Village).
Logged
he/him

X-tra

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 326
  • Respect: +571
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2021, 11:52:18 am »
+3



Opening Village, lol.

Kinda Silver+, but y'know. Port does stuff similar to this, and it gains a versus Silver's cost. I don't think it's an entirely illegal thing to do here.
Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +933
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2021, 12:22:48 pm »
0


Gonna replace my entry with this:

Quote
Sycophant $2 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Sycophant, put it in your hand.

Pile is 16 deep, doesn't scale on player count.
Did you know Syncophant only has one 'n' in it? I didn't.

I love this idea!! I don't think it needs to have 16 cards in it, though.

Sycophant feels very weak, even at 2.  It seems worse than Will-o'-Wisp, even though that's not a Supply card.  It doesn't serve much purpose, other than as a Cantrip to replace itself (putting another Sycophant in your hand doesn't improve in any way).  I guess the only purpose is that it lets you know the next card in your deck, which can impact whether you play a terminal draw card.
putting another sycophant in your hand increases your hand size, while still being non-terminal. You seed these in your deck correctly and they're labs. While they are a worse will-o-wisp, they're not nearly as useless as you're implying them to be - i take it you've never tried flooding your deck with will-o-wisps?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 12:23:52 pm by spineflu »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1249
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2021, 02:51:50 pm »
+2




Fortunately, you didn't say anything about the artwork being simple.
Trash plus Lab after looks pretty strong.
Logged

spheremonk

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2021, 07:15:24 pm »
0

It's only a Lab in some circumstances. Also, Labs have a whole other chaining effect that you can't replicate easily with Charnel House.
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 683
  • Respect: +593
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2021, 08:35:33 pm »
+1

Golden Goose
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a Golden Goose.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

EDIT: renamed, rephrased a bit.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2021, 02:06:42 am by majiponi »
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2021, 12:08:32 am »
+1

Adventurer
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a copy of this.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

1. There's already an official card named Adventurer.
2. The name Adventurer doesn't make sense for a Treasure anyway.
3. Like the aforementioned Rats and Magpie, it should say "gain a/an [cardname]" instead of "gain a copy of this."
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.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2021, 03:39:02 am »
+2


Quote
Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per Laborer you have in play.

EDIT: Wording changed as suggested by gambit05. Thanks!
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 11:27:28 am by faust »
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

Aquila

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +650
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2021, 04:16:23 am »
+2


Quote
Thane - Action, $5 cost.
You may discard the top 2 cards of your deck. Look through your discard pile; you may play an Action from it twice.
Exactly 20 words if the '2' doesn't count.

Edit: up to 22 according to host's recommendation.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2021, 04:37:29 am by Aquila »
Logged

Shael

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2021, 04:38:22 am »
0


I’ve already post this card on an expansion, I let the comment I’ve made about it (with some correction):

Quote
It’s simple: you buy a Province, I discard a Duchy to gain 2vp. So it’s interesting to buy Duchy right? Sure but since we all start with 3 Estate maybe you’ll give 2vp to the other player while doing so. And if everyone take them and not the Provinces; they won’t be that valuable and there was no real point to buy them.
It’s a type of card that I like because if a game plan is too strong, you may buy a certain card to take advantage of it: Duchy beat Province, Province  beat Estates and Estae beat Duchy…

Edit: reworded it to fit with the contest requirements
Edit 2: the previous rewording wasn't "dominiony" enough: it was full of word that aren't usualy used in dominion's cards
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 07:05:03 am by Shael »
Logged
Post here your favorite fan-cards The Archive Witchcraft, a Potion & Exile themed Expansion Not so Soon                                           

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
  • Respect: +487
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2021, 05:21:52 am »
0


Quote
Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2021, 06:02:54 am »
0


Quote
Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?
Well, Laborer is at worst a $5 gainer, so its baseline is much stronger than Inventor. (note that once you played one, it is already in play and thus costs $6 when the gaining ability activates)
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

gambit05

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
  • Respect: +487
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #40 on: June 18, 2021, 07:14:44 am »
+1


Quote
Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

Great idea, but isn't it a bit too weak when compared to Inventor?
Well, Laborer is at worst a $5 gainer, so its baseline is much stronger than Inventor. (note that once you played one, it is already in play and thus costs $6 when the gaining ability activates)

I see. I misinterpreted the wording and thought that "per copy of it" means that the first Laborer doesn't count. Would "per Laborer you have in play" be clearer?
Logged

Shael

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #41 on: June 18, 2021, 07:15:06 am »
0

Adventurer
cost $5 - Treasure
$2
Gain a copy of this.
You may trash this to gain a card costing up to $5.


Super Feast like Rats or Magpie.

I really like your card but I think that, even if it's not requier, you should put an image of it ^^.
(do you know how to do it? If you don't I can try to explain)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 07:23:08 am by Shael »
Logged
Post here your favorite fan-cards The Archive Witchcraft, a Potion & Exile themed Expansion Not so Soon                                           

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #42 on: June 18, 2021, 11:12:31 am »
+1


Quote
Laborer - $5
Action

Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per copy of it you have in play.

What happens if you have 6 Highways in play and one Laborer? Does Laborer cost (- and then +), or (+ and then -)? I'd assume Laborer's passive cost reduction would trigger first (i.e. the latter).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 01:52:58 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.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #43 on: June 18, 2021, 11:25:11 am »
+1

What happens if you have 6 Highways in play and one Laborer? Does Laborer cost (- and then +), or (+ and then -)? I'd assume Laborer's passive cost reduction would trigger first (i.e. the former).
I will say that you apply all cost modification to the card, and then if it costs less than $0, up the price to $0. So in that example Laborer would cost $0.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +933
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2021, 11:32:35 am »
+1

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.

emtzalex

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 389
  • Respect: +526
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #45 on: June 18, 2021, 12:29:11 pm »
0


Quote
Thane - Action, $5 cost.
You may discard the top 2 cards of your deck. You may play an Action card from your discard pile twice.
Exactly 20 words if the '2' doesn't count.

You could probably drop the word "card" after "Action" (so the second sentence would be "You may play an Action from your discard pile twice.") Official cards sometimes do this, especially (though not always) when pressed for space. (See Champion, Ghost, Herald, Scrying Pool; and especially Crown). That would get you down to 20 words.
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.

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2021, 02:12:45 pm »
0

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.
There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
  • Respect: +1039
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2021, 03:43:04 pm »
+1

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.
There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

Haggler + Livery is a poor example because Haggler triggers on-buy, before gaining the bought card, whereas Livery triggers on-gain, so Haggler would trigger before Livery no matter which order they were played in.

That aside, "stuff happens in the order things were played" doesn't make sense for the Highway + Laborer example because Laborer's cost increase is a constant thing that's always happening, not something with a specific timing like Bridge's cost reduction. Likewise Highway's cost reduction is also not an event like that of Bridge, it's an ongoing effect.

For this reason, the interaction between Bridge and Laborer is clearer than the interaction between Highway and Laborer imo. It seems to me like common sense that an ongoing effect would occur before an on-play event (i.e. Laborer's cost increasing effect would trigger before Bridge's cost reduction), but the order to resolve two opposing ongoing effects isn't so clear. Of course, your ruling that the "but not less than " occurs at the very end after counting up all the cost-changing effects rather than after each individual cost-changing effect makes a lot of sense and solves the issue perfectly.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 04:04:25 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.

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +933
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2021, 05:33:53 pm »
0

I don't see how "cost adjustment happens in the order things were played" isn't the right answer here. Like, canal, then any price changes in the order they occurred during the turn.
There is no right answer, as this has not happened with official cards yet. I can share my view on things though.

Since the errata happened, "cards cannot cost less than $0" is no longer a rule that is on Bridge, Highway, etc. - rather, it is a global rule. I interpret this rule as saying "whenever a card would have negative $ amount, treat the $ amount as 0". This seems intuitive enough, and it resolves a lot of issues with cost increasers, so it's a good rule to have for fan cards.

I don't think "stuff happens in the order things were played" is intuitive, because there is no precedent for this. if I played a Haggler and a Livery on a turn, and I buy a Province, it's not the case that the card I played first activates first; instead, I get to choose the order. So introducing a "first effect played resolves first" rule here would be weirdly in contradiction with how all the other effects resolve. Now, choosing the order of effects of cost reduction/increase for every card individually is of course impossible. The beauty with my rule (as i see it) is that we don't have to care about order of effects.

This is also good because there are times where it would be hard to remember what effect happened when, if for some reason the cards have left play. It's not good to introduce another thing that needs to be tracked if you can avoid it.

Haggler + Livery is a poor example because Haggler triggers on-buy, before gaining the bought card, whereas Livery triggers on-gain, so Haggler would trigger before Livery no matter which order they were played in.

That aside, "stuff happens in the order things were played" doesn't make sense for the Highway + Laborer example because Laborer's cost increase is a constant thing that's always happening, not something with a specific timing like Bridge's cost reduction. Likewise Highway's cost reduction is also not an event like that of Bridge, it's an ongoing effect.

For this reason, the interaction between Bridge and Laborer is clearer than the interaction between Highway and Laborer imo. It seems to me like common sense that an ongoing effect would occur before an on-play event (i.e. Laborer's cost increasing effect would trigger before Bridge's cost reduction), but the order to resolve two opposing ongoing effects isn't so clear. Of course, your ruling that the "but not less than " occurs at the very end after counting up all the cost-changing effects rather than after each individual cost-changing effect makes a lot of sense and solves the issue perfectly.

no, but we can picture the game itself as a series of states with a series of transitions (cards that are played, which take us from one state to another; you can view any player-decision point as a transition). since you can just not play a card, it's weird for there to be some after-the-fact/after-the-transition rule of the world that comes in and says "negative costs are ok as an intermediate step".

Like say you play six highways. Laborer now costs $0. Now you play your Laborer - it costs $1, because it cost $0 at the state you played it. It's a really weird phenomenon to play a Laborer, and then go back and say, actually it cost $-1 before, and costs $0 now. The environmental rules (cards can't cost less than $0) should hold true at every state of the game. Ergo, per-play/per-transition cost adjustment, even for ongoing effects and while this is in plays.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 05:44:02 pm by spineflu »
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1249
  • Respect: +753
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest 118: Short and Sweet!
« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2021, 06:28:30 pm »
+1



Quote
Charge | Event | $8
Once per game:
Play the top card of each Action Supply pile in any order, leaving them there.
Edit: cost changed to $8

Wow, this is probably the most bonkers idea I've submitted. Simple, but totally out of control.
I will point out that this card isn't very strategic at all, in almost every game it's pretty clear if you want to buy this, and if you, you're going to want to buy this as soon as you can. The point of this event is it's just a fun thing to do. But we have to limit it to once a game, because then it's broken in some Kingdoms. In games with multiple attacks that stack, you likely want to rush $8 to get this, that's pretty much as far as this goes, strategically. Of course there's cases like Beggar and no trashing, or lots of virtual money but no +buy or gainers that make you think twice about buying this.

In tests with random kingdoms, this works well. Because it happens once, I decided to let it go full-wild (no restrictions on Duration cards -- the buyer will remember and it's easy because they can just look at the entire Supply on their next turn, and no restrictions on Commands -- it wasn't as confusing as I'd thought it'd be).

Open to feedback. I think this counts as simple for the contest? Even if the effect can be complicated.

This looks like it could be fun, but in some kingdoms it will really favour the player who is able to hit $8 first.  I think the once per game restriction helps to keep this from snowballing, but if there are certain Attacks in the kingdom, you can impede your opponent from being able to hit $8 on their turn and so they may not be able to catch up.  I don't think this will be the case for most kingdoms, though, so I don't know that I would necessarily want to change anything.

On a separate note, how would this work with Hireling?
Hireling does not have to be in play to do its thing.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 22 queries.