Print

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

[engineer]

Witches aren't action-attack-cursers.  No cards refer to looters.  Why bother to have the looter type?

The only explanation I can think of is that ruins are only available when looters are in the game.  But that seems like a thin reason to make a whole new card type.  You could just say "if any card that refers to ruins are in the game, then put ruins in the game."

Am I missing something?

[michaeljb]

At this point, it looks like it is just there to include Ruins, but I guess we won't know for sure until the actual rulebook is available, or Donald happens to chime in here.

[Archetype]

You could just say "if any card that refers to ruins are in the game, then put ruins in the game."

Or you could just say if a "Looter" is in the kingdom.


I think the point is to prevent people from buying Ruins in games without Looters. Or if a kingdom lacks +Buy, you couldn't always have access to it through Ruined Market.

I think the reason Curses are always available is for simplicity and for the rare times you would buy one for Fairgrounds/Ambassador.

[engineer]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

At least for the moment, the "Looter" type just means "this card mentions ruins."  So, in the rulebook, you could just say "if any card that mentions ruins is in the game, put ruins in the game" instead of "if any looters are in the game, put ruins in the game."  I mean, it's an extra few words in the rulebook, but it makes the cards simpler, because there isn't this new type for people to worry about.  If you had a choice between simplifying the rule book slightly or simplifying the cards slightly, which would you choose?

In any case, I bet I get a "what the heck does this type mean" question from at least a couple of friends.  My best answer is "it just means I pull ruins into the game. Once the game starts, it means nothing."  That's not a great answer.

[Archetype]

It could also be that the actual typing of the card has some interaction with cards in Guilds

[Beyond Awesome]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

At least for the moment, the "Looter" type just means "this card mentions ruins."  So, in the rulebook, you could just say "if any card that mentions ruins is in the game, put ruins in the game" instead of "if any looters are in the game, put ruins in the game."  I mean, it's an extra few words in the rulebook, but it makes the cards simpler, because there isn't this new type for people to worry about.  If you had a choice between simplifying the rule book slightly or simplifying the cards slightly, which would you choose?

In any case, I bet I get a "what the heck does this type mean" question from at least a couple of friends.  My best answer is "it just means I pull ruins into the game. Once the game starts, it means nothing."  That's not a great answer.

I guess it makes it easier saying, hey, if a looter is out, put out ruins. I mean the looter could have the looter type removed and say add a ruins pile like YW adds a bane pile, but that adds more text. Looter as a type is more simple and elegant. So, having a looter type does make sense.

[engineer]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

At least for the moment, the "Looter" type just means "this card mentions ruins."  So, in the rulebook, you could just say "if any card that mentions ruins is in the game, put ruins in the game" instead of "if any looters are in the game, put ruins in the game."  I mean, it's an extra few words in the rulebook, but it makes the cards simpler, because there isn't this new type for people to worry about.  If you had a choice between simplifying the rule book slightly or simplifying the cards slightly, which would you choose?

In any case, I bet I get a "what the heck does this type mean" question from at least a couple of friends.  My best answer is "it just means I pull ruins into the game. Once the game starts, it means nothing."  That's not a great answer.

I guess it makes it easier saying, hey, if a looter is out, put out ruins. I mean the looter could have the looter type removed and say add a ruins pile like YW adds a bane pile, but that adds more text. Looter as a type is more simple and elegant. So, having a looter type does make sense.

But it adds that extra word on the bottom line of three cards.  In my opinion, that's going to confuse more people than an extra line in the rule book.

It could also be that the actual typing of the card has some interaction with cards in Guilds

This is what I'm hoping for.

[Beyond Awesome]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

At least for the moment, the "Looter" type just means "this card mentions ruins."  So, in the rulebook, you could just say "if any card that mentions ruins is in the game, put ruins in the game" instead of "if any looters are in the game, put ruins in the game."  I mean, it's an extra few words in the rulebook, but it makes the cards simpler, because there isn't this new type for people to worry about.  If you had a choice between simplifying the rule book slightly or simplifying the cards slightly, which would you choose?

In any case, I bet I get a "what the heck does this type mean" question from at least a couple of friends.  My best answer is "it just means I pull ruins into the game. Once the game starts, it means nothing."  That's not a great answer.

I guess it makes it easier saying, hey, if a looter is out, put out ruins. I mean the looter could have the looter type removed and say add a ruins pile like YW adds a bane pile, but that adds more text. Looter as a type is more simple and elegant. So, having a looter type does make sense.

But it adds that extra word on the bottom line of three cards.  In my opinion, that's going to confuse more people than an extra line in the rule book.

It could also be that the actual typing of the card has some interaction with cards in Guilds

This is what I'm hoping for.

I'm pretty sure the looter type is explained in the rule book.

[eHalcyon]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

FWIW, you can mention ruins without being a Looter, e.g. Vagrant.

[agrajag]

Even if there weren't instances like Vagrant where you want to talk about Ruins without triggering them to be included in the supply, it's a lot easier to just look at the card types to see if any are Looters than to read the descriptions of every card in your kingdom and decide whether or not that text means Ruins should be included. Having the Looter type makes Ruin inclusion rules simpler and more explicit.

[Beyond Awesome]

Even if there weren't instances like Vagrant where you want to talk about Ruins without triggering them to be included in the supply, it's a lot easier to just look at the card types to see if any are Looters than to read the descriptions of every card in your kingdom and decide whether or not that text means Ruins should be included. Having the Looter type makes Ruin inclusion rules simpler and more explicit.

That too.

[Scissors61]

Plus, it's cool. Aren't there a lot of things (e.g Knights) in Dark Ages that make you say," hey, that's pretty cool."

[Rhombus]

I guess the reason that it bothers me is that there is now a synchronicity problem.  What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?  Or what if I make a card that doesn't mention ruins but I do make it a looter?

At least for the moment, the "Looter" type just means "this card mentions ruins."  So, in the rulebook, you could just say "if any card that mentions ruins is in the game, put ruins in the game" instead of "if any looters are in the game, put ruins in the game."  I mean, it's an extra few words in the rulebook, but it makes the cards simpler, because there isn't this new type for people to worry about.  If you had a choice between simplifying the rule book slightly or simplifying the cards slightly, which would you choose?

In any case, I bet I get a "what the heck does this type mean" question from at least a couple of friends.  My best answer is "it just means I pull ruins into the game. Once the game starts, it means nothing."  That's not a great answer.

What if you made a curser, say "+3 Cards, each other player gains a curse" but didn't call it an attack?  Or a card that is worth VP but not called a Victory Card.  You could, but what's the point?  Odd card interactions maybe, but they're there for categorization.

[pst]

What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?

Just add "Setup: Include Ruins in this game".

[NoMoreFun]

I think that ruins should just be in play whenever ANY dark ages cards are in play (or all the time really). It adds colour, and while it's definitely not going to change many games that don't have fairgrounds, it's always a nice option.

[Donald X.]

What if I make a card which uses ruins but I don't call it a looter?

Just add "Setup: Include Ruins in this game".

That would be a third kind of timing on Cultist, a thing I avoid.

The entire point to "Looter" is in fact to have a simple rule for when to use Ruins. I had considered this for Curse, but decided to always have Curses out so as not to have to scream at people "you could buy one for your Ambassador" etc. by putting the type on such cards. That's not an issue for Ruins because you've got Curses already.

[engineer]

The entire point to "Looter" is in fact to have a simple rule for when to use Ruins. I had considered this for Curse, but decided to always have Curses out so as not to have to scream at people "you could buy one for your Ambassador" etc. by putting the type on such cards. That's not an issue for Ruins because you've got Curses already.

I understand your logic, especially about curses.  But here's what I don't get: you treat spoils exactly the way I was saying you could treat ruins.  You don't have a special type dedicated to spoils.  You just have a line in the rules saying:

"the Spoils card is not part of the Supply and in [sic] only included when the Bandit Camp, Marauder, or Pillage cards are in the game"

I understand that there is a small but important difference between spoils and ruins: when ruins are in the game, they are part of the supply and can be bought and gained through a variety of means, whereas spoils are not in the supply and can't be bought or gained normally.  Still, a line similar to the one above would work for ruins.  Granted, it's a slightly more complicated rule than the current "if looters, then include ruins" rule, but the benefit is that we don't have a new card type which is only used during the setup phase.

I guess I'm just saying that in my opinion, every card type should have at least one (possible) reason for existence during the gameplay.  Each new card type adds complexity.  That complexity is fine if the new type creates fun new in-game interactions (e.g. knights, vagrant/shelters), but the looter type has no effect during the game.  Because of that, I think that the extra rule in the rulebook would be a better compromise than the extra type on the card.

Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point.  I think it would be neat if Guilds included some reference to looters, but that might violate an unwritten rule about mentioning mechanics which are specific to one expansion on cards from a different expansion.

[Donald X.]

I understand that there is a small but important difference between spoils and ruins: when ruins are in the game, they are part of the supply and can be bought and gained through a variety of means, whereas spoils are not in the supply and can't be bought or gained normally.  Still, a line similar to the one above would work for ruins.  Granted, it's a slightly more complicated rule than the current "if looters, then include ruins" rule, but the benefit is that we don't have a new card type which is only used during the setup phase.

The supply thing is the reason. Ruins are in the supply because Curses are, and so it would be more confusing if Ruins weren't. I didn't want them always in the supply, so there is a rule for when to put them out. I felt that referring to a type was the simplest thing I could do.

Spoils don't go in the supply; there is no rule for putting them out. The rulebook mentions that they're only used with certain cards, for when people ask; it is trying to give people helpful information. But there's no rule for putting them out, they aren't even mentioned in the preparation section, and they don't have to be.