Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36, 37: Refinery  (Read 6223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36, 37: Refinery
« on: August 30, 2012, 03:06:32 pm »
0

The traffic on these forums is a little low for me to be posting a new thread every day. I was hoping they wouldn't clog up the front page, but they've done so enough to have attention brought upon that fact. I still want to post cards regularly, and I still desire as much feedback as possible, so I'm switching to a weekly thread... with a theme! This week, in celebration of Dark Ages, is Trash Week. All the cards will be looking at different aspects that trashing brings to the game. I'll update the thread title as I move along.



Groves (4)
Victory
Worth 2VP plus an additional 2VP if more Victory cards are in the Trash pile than any other card type.
-----
When you buy this, trash a card from your hand.



  • #34 - Groves
  • A version of this was being worked on for the "One-Shot" contest, but it had some ugly features, namely needing to be an Action card. I didn't want to force it into those constraints, since having another card type ruins the effect of this card quite handily.
  • I'm not sure how well defined the card types are in Dominion. Are there four, or do Durations and Reactions and such count? I haven't read anywhere that declares what the separation actually is. Only the base four can exist on cards by their lonesome, but that doesn't mean that the others aren't defined the same. I'd like to think that they are "determiners" or "sub-types", and that's how I intend to treat the playing of this card unless that fact is noted otherwise. This doesn't change how the card is played, really, but it's something to consider.
  • One of my favorite features about this card is how it influences play. There will be games where you just can't out-trash your opposition, but sometimes its a race to set this card's value. That facet of play interests me greatly.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 09:50:27 pm by Rush_Clasic »
Logged

razorborne

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2012, 03:28:09 pm »
0

personally, I'm not a huge fan of victory cards with fluctuating values where the total value is going to be the same for all players. that sentence is worded really awkwardly but hopefully you know what I mean. I feel like the point of non-fixed-value victory cards is so that you can set up yourself to be in a better situation with them than your opponent. if I do all the work to set this up so it's worth 4 for me, my opponent can just buy it and it'll be worth 4 for them too. that feels wrong because they didn't do the work, I did.

also, on an unrelated note, is there a reason Duke is worded differently from the other non-fixed-value victory cards? as far as I can tell, all the others say "Worth X Victory Point(s) for every Y Zs in your deck." whereas Duke is "Worth 1 Victory Point per Duchy you have." cards were printed with the other wording both before and after Duke.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2012, 03:37:37 pm »
0

I expect VP entries to have a tough time in the contest since there are three in the set already.

The main types in Dominion are Action, Treasure, Victory.  Curse is its own type too, I suppose, but there is only one Curse card.  Reaction is a subtype that can appear on any other type.  It can probably be considered its own type, but it has never appeared alone.  Attack, Duration, Ruins and Looter are subtypes that have only appeared on Actions.  Shelter should probably be considered a subtype, in which case Hovel is as close as we'll get to a "pure" Reaction.

Groves is OK.  2VP for $4 is fairly standard.  Trash on buy is fine; in some cases this may even be preferable to Farmland's remodel (maybe you trash a Curse but don't want an Estate).  The bonus VP is peculiar and may cause FBI.  In a Kingdom with no other trashing, buying Groves to trash Estates is quite strong.  An opponent would have to join the Groves race.  OTOH, picking up a bunch of Groves means you won't be in as strong a position to buy Provinces.

It looks OK to me.

I somewhat agree with razorborne, but there are other cards that are like this too (Trade Route, Forager, even City).


@razorborne, I think Duke is worded like that because it counts 1:1 with Duchy.  Compare:

a) "Worth 1 VP for every 1 Duchy..."
b) "Worth 1 VP per Duchy..."

c) "Worth 2 VP for every 5 differently named cards...."
d) "Worth 2 VP per 5 differently named cards..."

(b) reads better than (a), and (c) reads better than (d).  Granted, Duke could have just said "Worth 1 VP for every Duchy" and that would be fine and consistent. :P
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2012, 03:56:36 pm »
0

I'm not sure how well defined the card types are in Dominion. Are there four, or do Durations and Reactions and such count? I haven't read anywhere that declares what the separation actually is. Only the base four can exist on cards by their lonesome, but that doesn't mean that the others aren't defined the same. I'd like to think that they are "determiners" or "sub-types", and that's how I intend to treat the playing of this card unless that fact is noted otherwise. This doesn't change how the card is played, really, but it's something to consider.

As far as the rules of the game are concerned, things like Attack, Reaction, Duration have the exact same status as "card types" as Action, Victory, Curse, Treasure do—as do Prize, Shelter, Ruins, Knight, Looter....
Logged

razorborne

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2012, 03:58:51 pm »
0

I somewhat agree with razorborne, but there are other cards that are like this too (Trade Route, Forager, even City).
it feels different to me because it's a victory instead of an action, but I have no idea why exactly that feels different.

@razorborne, I think Duke is worded like that because it counts 1:1 with Duchy.  Compare:

a) "Worth 1 VP for every 1 Duchy..."
b) "Worth 1 VP per Duchy..."

c) "Worth 2 VP for every 5 differently named cards...."
d) "Worth 2 VP per 5 differently named cards..."

(b) reads better than (a), and (c) reads better than (d).  Granted, Duke could have just said "Worth 1 VP for every Duchy" and that would be fine and consistent. :P
seems likely, although as you pointed out, all you have to do to line Duke up is remove the numeric qualifier on the Duchies, and it reads just fine.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2012, 04:03:12 pm »
0

I'm not sure how well defined the card types are in Dominion. Are there four, or do Durations and Reactions and such count? I haven't read anywhere that declares what the separation actually is. Only the base four can exist on cards by their lonesome, but that doesn't mean that the others aren't defined the same. I'd like to think that they are "determiners" or "sub-types", and that's how I intend to treat the playing of this card unless that fact is noted otherwise. This doesn't change how the card is played, really, but it's something to consider.

As far as the rules of the game are concerned, things like Attack, Reaction, Duration have the exact same status as "card types" as Action, Victory, Curse, Treasure do—as do Prize, Shelter, Ruins, Knight, Looter....

Oops, I thought of Prize and Knight but forgot to mention them.

Yeah, as far as rules, all types are types.  Jester, which looks for Victory cards, will hand out Curses against Nobles and Harem, despite them also being Action and Treasure, respectively.  Rabble, which looks for Actions and Treasures, would discard Nobles and Harem despite their Victory card status.  Haggler, which says "not a Victory card", won't let you gain a Great Hall even though it is an Action.  And so on and so forth.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2012, 04:56:10 pm »
0

In games without other trashers, this becomes a rather straight-forward race. I don't have huge issues with that (yet), but it could seem a bit lackluster. I like the condition, but maybe a more nuanced form of trashing would like to be involved. Perhaps a Reaction trash ability.

As for card types, I have no huge issue over them all being considered "card-types", but it would be nice to have wording technology to differentiate between types that can stand alone and types that require something to attach to. I'm not sure if it's necessary, though.

razorborne

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 12:17:06 am »
0

In games without other trashers, this becomes a rather straight-forward race. I don't have huge issues with that (yet), but it could seem a bit lackluster. I like the condition, but maybe a more nuanced form of trashing would like to be involved. Perhaps a Reaction trash ability.

As for card types, I have no huge issue over them all being considered "card-types", but it would be nice to have wording technology to differentiate between types that can stand alone and types that require something to attach to. I'm not sure if it's necessary, though.
in the case of this card, it's fairly unlikely that you'll ever need to check for card types other than the big four. Attacks, Durations, Ruins, Knights, and Looters can only be actions so if actions are less than victories then all of those will be too. reactions could technically outnumber them without another type also doing so, since reaction-treasures and reaction-actions exist but it's unlikely. prizes are almost all actions, and if you went to the trouble of gaining them odds are you're not going to trash them. in games with shelters you'll have to check those I guess.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2012, 05:36:16 pm »
0

Embezzler (4)
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each player (including you) sets aside a card from their hand face-down, then simultaneously trashes it. Each player who trashed the highest costing card draws 3 cards. Each other player draws 1 card.


Embezzler #2 (4)
Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each player (including you) sets aside a card from their hand face-down, then simultaneously trashes it. Each player who trashed the card with the highest cost in $ draws 3 cards. Each other player draws 1 card.



  • #35 - Embezzler
  • The game tries to avoid politics, but I wouldn't say it ignores them altogether. This feels like a low-end idea that could work. You can try to bid low and hope everyone else tries to do the same, or you can go all out and try to snake the big card gain all for yourself.
  • EDIT: Changed wording to make potion cases clear. Also, it was never supposed to me +Actions, since that gives the one playing the card no real benefit at all.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 06:13:41 pm by Rush_Clasic »
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2012, 05:44:12 pm »
+1

Embezzler (4)
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each player (including you) sets aside a card from their hand face-down, then simultaneously trashes it. Each player who trashed the highest costing card draws 3 cards. Each other player draws 1 card.
I trash an Estate; you trash a Transmute. Who draws three cards?
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35: Embezzler
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2012, 05:45:43 pm »
+1

It seems too symmetric.  Why would you buy this card? 

Do you want it for the trashing?  It gives the same trashing to everyone else.  Granted, you get to choose to play it, but opponents must comply once you're in.  So yeah, it's an attack.  But it is often beneficial to them, just as much as it benefits you.

Do you want it for the non-terminal draw?  Probably a bad idea because then it's unreliable and it will probably cost you expensive cards.  Not only that, but the odds are against you!  You had to have had Embezzler in your hand to start, which means you are choosing your card to trash out of 4.  But your opponents are choosing out of 5.  It's more likely for them to have a bad card worth trashing OR a good card for stealing the draw.  Not to mention, with more than 2p, it's even more likely that someone else gets the bonus.  And that's a HUGE bonus for your opponents, way better than your own, since it didn't cost them a card slot to play.

It just seems like, in most cases, it is way better for you to have your opponent buy and play this than for you to do so.  Until you run into nasty abuse cases where you play a whole lot of these repeatedly and force your opponent to trash all his good cards.
Logged

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35: Embezzler
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2012, 05:46:03 pm »
0

Embezzler (4)
Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each player (including you) sets aside a card from their hand face-down, then simultaneously trashes it. Each player who trashed the highest costing card draws 3 cards. Each other player draws 1 card.



  • #35 - Embezzler
  • The game tries to avoid politics, but I wouldn't say it ignores them altogether. This feels like a low-end idea that could work. You can try to bid low and hope everyone else tries to do the same, or you can go all out and try to snake the big card gain all for yourself.

I would change the wording to "cost in coins" to remove Potion confusion.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35: Embezzler
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2012, 06:05:13 pm »
0

Forgot about potions. Thanks for the poke!

It seems too symmetric.  Why would you buy this card?

It was always supposed to be "+2 Cards", not "+1 Action". I don't know why I changed it in editing, but the effect was always small Smithy with trashing or Envoy with a price to get those cards. That should hopefully change your opinion on it a bit.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 06:11:45 pm by Rush_Clasic »
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2012, 06:28:55 pm »
0

Vagabond (3)
Action - Attack
+$2
Choose a random card from the Trash pile. You may have each other player gain a copy of that card. Otherwise, you may buy it immediately.
-----
Setup: Put a Copper card, Silver card, and Gold card in the Trash pile.



  • #36 - Vagabond
  • "Randomizing" can be done in a number of ways, but the simplest is just to shuffle the trash face-down. I didn't add that wording in case it wasn't necessary to shuffle for the effect to take place.
  • I wanted to make a card that starts with something in the trash. I felt it was a simple way to make diving into the trash matter without necessarily making a trasher.

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34: Groves
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2012, 08:23:28 pm »
0

Vagabond (3)
Action - Attack
+$2
Choose a random card from the Trash pile. You may have each other player gain a copy of that card. Otherwise, you may buy it immediately.
-----
Setup: Put a Copper card, Silver card, and Gold card in the Trash pile.
This could get horrible with Cursing attacks in the game. You give someone a Curse, he trashes it, and then you give it back to him with the Vagabond. And so ad infinitum.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

razorborne

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36: Vagabond
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2012, 08:25:57 pm »
0

I don't think we need more cards that let you dump treasures into play during the action phase. it's an awkward mechanic to begin with. I like the setup idea, I just wish there was a simpler main ability. it also seems kinda worthless to start with, since turn 3 there's a 66% chance that I will do exactly what I'd have done if this was just a terminal silver. without any trashers on the board, all this will ever be is a 33% shot at half a mountebank. if there's a good trasher, this can get kinda nuts, but still, nothing will ever wind up in the trash that you couldn't just buy so the ability to purchase things is kinda weak. (with the exception of a Feast in the Black Market or something, but like, don't plan for that.) the only time you'll be happy about it is if the pile is empty, and a) that means the game's nearing a close, and b) if it was so popular that everyone bought out the pile, what were they doing trashing it? does everyone just love Embargoing stuff?
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36: Vagabond
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2012, 04:30:50 pm »
0

The ability to buy helps make the attack better, but I see what you're saying. I was thinking that instead I could make the buy more relevant buy making the coins only good for that buy. I'm not sure how much I like that, but a pseudo Jester seemed interesting. I'll figure it out and post later.

EDIT: So, maybe...

Vagabond (3)
Action - Attack
Choose a random card from the Trash pile. You may have each other player gain a copy of that card. Otherwise, cards that share a name with that card (including cards in players' hands) cost $2 less this turn, but not less than $0.
-----
Setup: Put a Copper card, a Silver card, and a Gold card into the Trash pile.

$2 less might be too good, but I like the function of the card in this form, and the general change gives it both a stricter purpose and combo potential. It might be a bit too swingy, but I don't see it. (>.<)
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 09:49:09 pm by Rush_Clasic »
Logged

razorborne

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36: Vagabond
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2012, 03:58:53 pm »
0

the one concern I have is that no official card, to my knowledge, has messed with pricing on a single card other than itself. I don't know if this is a real issue though. the only difference it makes mechanically is that it changes something's price in relation to other things, meaning you can buy a Border Village and take a gold, which is otherwise not possible. similar interactions exist with Haggler.

but like I said I'm not sure those interactions are a bad thing, so whatever.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36: Vagabond
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2012, 09:49:59 pm »
0

Refinery (4)
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. If 4 or more cards are in the Trash pile: +$2
Then, if 7 or more cards are in the Trash pile, set them aside.



  • #37 - Refinery
  • I wanted a City like card that influences people to go for a strategy in intervals, one that gets stronger if everyone goes for it. I also wanted it to reset. This is what came out.
  • This format came out from problems with formatting the original idea of setting things aside after just the first trash bonus ability. I like this way better, as it leaves a window for everyone to grab the benefit.
  • I balanced this compared to Conspirator, which is sorta backwards to this (sans trashing). I think Refinery is unreliable enough for it to work out okay. But it also brings up a question to mind: how much would a straight-up cantrip-trasher cost?

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36, 37: Refinery
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2012, 01:34:04 am »
0

I don't think you can properly price a straight up cantrip trasher unless you use potion cost or do some sort of buy restriction a la Grand Market.  Consider the cantrip trashers we have now -- Upgrade, Junk Dealer and Rats.

Upgrade and Junk Dealer cost $5.  JD gives +$1 and Upgrade has a simple benefit in that you gain a card costing EXACTLY one more than what you trashed.  This is often meaningless (Copper->Nothing) sometimes pretty good (Estates->Silver), sometimes not so good (Copper->Poor House if your strategy can't use PH; Shelter->Estate when there are no good $2 cards).

Rats costs $4 and comes with what will often be a penalty (more Rats taking over your deck).

So you have cantrip-trasher with bonus at $5 and with penalty at $4.  So just a no frills cantrip trasher probably can't be priced properly with just coin.

Anyway, Refinery outclasses Rats completely!  Cantrip trasher for $4 that sometimes has +$2 bonus?  Man, that's strong.  So strong.

I'd say that it's really weird to have a separate perma-Trash pile (that is, the cards set aside from the trash).  Also, messing with the Trash that way cripples Graverobber and Forager.  Pretty annoying.

Also annoying: say you play a few Refineries, putting a bunch of cards in the trash and activating Refinery.  You end your turn... then your opponent(s) play 3 Refineries before the start of your next turn, reaping the benefit of your hard work and then removing it completely.  At least with Forager, Trade Route and City, the benefit remains for you to use.

Those complaints aside, I'm pretty sure this would have to cost $5.  Cantrip trashing is too good, and this has a bonus on top of that.  At $5, this is worse than Junk Dealer just a little over half the time, but better the rest of the time.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Clasic_Cards - (Trash Week) - #34, 35, 36, 37: Refinery
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2012, 02:39:40 pm »
0

*dives in*

I don't think you can properly price a straight up cantrip trasher unless you use potion cost or do some sort of buy restriction a la Grand Market.  Consider the cantrip trashers we have now -- Upgrade, Junk Dealer and Rats.

Upgrade and Junk Dealer cost $5.  JD gives +$1 and Upgrade has a simple benefit in that you gain a card costing EXACTLY one more than what you trashed.  This is often meaningless (Copper->Nothing) sometimes pretty good (Estates->Silver), sometimes not so good (Copper->Poor House if your strategy can't use PH; Shelter->Estate when there are no good $2 cards).

Rats costs $4 and comes with what will often be a penalty (more Rats taking over your deck).

So you have cantrip-trasher with bonus at $5 and with penalty at $4.  So just a no frills cantrip trasher probably can't be priced properly with just coin.

I think, looking at Rats (which I forgot to do), you could price a cantrip trasher at $4. The comparison isn't actually that bad between the two: Rats will start flooding your hand, but they also come with that wonderful bonus for being trashed themselves, which isn't insignificant. I wouldn't be surprised if the proposed cantrip trasher just cost $4; whether it's good for the game at that cost is another debate and one that might be interesting to undertake.

Anyway, the existence of Rats and Upgrade definitely pushes this card to $5.

I'd say that it's really weird to have a separate perma-Trash pile (that is, the cards set aside from the trash).  Also, messing with the Trash that way cripples Graverobber and Forager.  Pretty annoying.

It doesn't seem all that different to me from the other cards setting things aside, save perhaps the size of the pile. I mean, new things are always weird, but this isn't something that takes great leaps and bounds to become comfortable with. The Trash card is helpful with that. As for crippling Graverobber and Forager, this doesn't eliminate their usefulness entirely. Graverobber can even fight Refinery. If Refinery made those unplayable, I'd need to look at changes around the interaction, but I don't see that occurring.

Also annoying: say you play a few Refineries, putting a bunch of cards in the trash and activating Refinery.  You end your turn... then your opponent(s) play 3 Refineries before the start of your next turn, reaping the benefit of your hard work and then removing it completely.  At least with Forager, Trade Route and City, the benefit remains for you to use.

I wanted to remove that aspect specifically from this card. I think it's interesting to have a short window where a card is good, then have to work your way back to it. That said, I can see how that would be annoying, and if playtesting showed it to not be an interesting play feature, I'd redesign the card. This does bring up the point of whether this should actions or not. I can see leaning toward the latter.
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 21 queries.