Print

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

[Schneau]

See updated version here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2998.msg51878#msg51878

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $6

+$2
Every opponent may discard any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Every opponent who didn't discard at least as many cards as the number on the Revolt die must gain a Curse on their deck.
-----
If you have a Peasant Revolt in play during this turn's Clean-up phase and you would draw 5 cards, draw 6 instead.

[Revolt die is 6 sided die whose sides are: 1-1-1-2-2-3]

Peasant Revolt is a bit stronger of an attack than Torturer. You may discard 0 cards, but then you gain a Curse on your deck (which stack unlike Sea Hag!). You may discard 3 cards to avoid the Curse. Or, you may take a chance with discarding 1 or 2 cards, but then you might gain the Curse anyway! Unlike Torturer, since there is no immediate card draw, these will be harder to chain. The end-of-turn bonus card makes it defend against itself, since you'll have more cards to discard.

[DStu]

Also unlike Torturer, once you have discarded your hand, you have to take the Curse.

[Schneau]

Also unlike Torturer, once you have discarded your hand, you have to take the Curse.

True! Though like Torturer, once the Curses run out, the attack becomes nullified.

[LastFootnote]

Also unlike Torturer, once you have discarded your hand, you have to take the Curse.

True! Though like Torturer, once the Curses run out, the attack becomes nullified.

I like the idea of the card, but even without the card draw, it stacks too well. The general rule is that you shouldn't create a card that can wipe out a turn if played multiple times, and this card can wipe out both your next turn (through discarding) and the one after that (through Curses on your deck). Ouch!

It seems like you're trying to cram too many things onto one card, as well. How about just:

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $5

+$2
Each other player may discard any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player that didn't discard at least that many cards gains a Curse.

Also, if you test it and it seems like the discard option is never used except to discard junk, you could change the die to have 0-1-1-2-2-3.

[Schneau]

I like the idea of the card, but even without the card draw, it stacks too well. The general rule is that you shouldn't create a card that can wipe out a turn if played multiple times, and this card can wipe out both your next turn (through discarding) and the one after that (through Curses on your deck). Ouch!

It seems like you're trying to cram too many things onto one card, as well. How about just:

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $5

+$2
Each other player may discard any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player that didn't discard at least that many cards gains a Curse.

Also, if you test it and it seems like the discard option is never used except to discard junk, you could change the die to have 0-1-1-2-2-3.

This is actually almost identical to where my thoughts of this card started. But, IMO it looks way too much like Torturer here - basically discard 2 (approx) cards or gain a Curse. It's slightly stronger because of the Curse not gained to hand, and slightly weaker since +3 Cards is probably better than +$2 for chaining. Also, it looks almost exactly like Witch if they don't discard any cards, again with the difference in +2 Cards vs. +$2.

I wanted the Curse on the deck to make more incentive to try to "beat the peasants". And the bonus to draw 6 cards next hand both helps defend as well as makes the card more worthwhile after the curses run out. Otherwise, at least at $6, it would be pretty lame post-curses, especially if there are other cursers.

But, thanks for the suggestion! I might lean more your way after some playtesting.

[eHalcyon]

Make the die 2/3/3/4/4/4. Anyone with more cards than the number gains a curse. That way it doesn't stack quite as dangerously.

[Schneau]

Make the die 2/3/3/4/4/4. Anyone with more cards than the number gains a curse. That way it doesn't stack quite as dangerously.

I really like this idea. I think it would take the card into the $5 realm, since it won't stack if you are willing to discard, but stacks like a Witch if you refuse to discard. In fact, if you discard down to 3 cards, it's like Militia with a 1/6 chance of getting a curse. I'll post an updated version soon.

[Schneau]

UPDATE:

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $5

+$2
Each other player discards any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player with more than that many cards in hand gains a Curse.


[Revolt die is 6 sided die whose sides are: 4-4-3-3-2-2]


Since it seemed a bit weak compared to a lot of $5 cursers, I skewed the Revolt die a little more in favor of more Curses. How do you like it now?

[Archetype]

This seems pretty balanced. Strong if you play it once, but its effectiveness declines the second play because odds are they've already discarded enough.

Good card idea!

[Thanar]

I like it enough to suggest an image or two:

Bundschuh Peasant Revolt of 1493, by A. Yezhov
Hi res version (1316x900) - http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9629/rebelincampesinabundsch.jpg


Brawling Peasants by Joost Conelisz Droochsloot (1641)
http://www.wga.hu/art/d/droochsl/brawling.jpg

[Asklepios]

I would have thought the optimal response to this card would be to never discard useful cards to it. Not worth the risk! Make it two curses, and I'll think about it...

Net result of that would be that the discard would either be non-painful, or it'd be a $6 sea hag (with the stackability and the +$2 more than balanced by the fact that it doesn'y always hit).

Also, is it possible to make this more symmetrical and dispense with the dice roll?

I'm thinking that after playing the action the attacking player reveals the top card of his deck, and anyone who has more cards than the cost of that card gets the curse.

So in summary, I'd say:

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $6

+$2
Every opponent may discard any number of cards. Reveal then discard the top card of your deck. Every opponent who has more cards in their hand than the cost of the revealed card gains two Curses on their deck. If you do not have any cards in your deck to reveal, the attack of this card has no effect.

[Schneau]

I would have thought the optimal response to this card would be to never discard useful cards to it. Not worth the risk! Make it two curses, and I'll think about it...

Net result of that would be that the discard would either be non-painful, or it'd be a $6 sea hag (with the stackability and the +$2 more than balanced by the fact that it doesn'y always hit).

Also, is it possible to make this more symmetrical and dispense with the dice roll?

I'm thinking that after playing the action the attacking player reveals the top card of his deck, and anyone who has more cards than the cost of that card gets the curse.

So in summary, I'd say:

Peasant Revolt
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $6

+$2
Every opponent may discard any number of cards. Reveal then discard the top card of your deck. Every opponent who has more cards in their hand than the cost of the revealed card gains two Curses on their deck. If you do not have any cards in your deck to reveal, the attack of this card has no effect.

I like the die roll. Plus, this card would be WAY too powerful, especially since it's likely to hit a Copper. And I think you're underestimating the discard vs. curse tradeoff. Often, you'll be able to discard an Victory card or a Copper to avoid the Curse, which is a big deal.

[rinkworks]

And I think you're underestimating the discard vs. curse tradeoff. Often, you'll be able to discard an Victory card or a Copper to avoid the Curse, which is a big deal.

Isn't the complaint that it's too easy to do exactly this?

But I disagree with the criticism.  Torturer is already evidence enough that the decision of whether to discard or accept a curse is often non-trivial -- complicated by the fact that you don't always know how many more Torturers are coming, I grant you, but often difficult even when you know there's only one.  True, if you can buy a Province next turn, you'll take a Curse rather than sacrifice the ability to do that.  But if you're holding Silver-Silver-Copper-Copper-Estate, you might well sacrifice your ability to buy a Gold and settle for a Power 5 instead, just to be a little more sure that you won't get a Curse.  Sometimes the risk/reward analysis is easy; sometimes not.

I think it's a really interesting idea for a card, and I like that it repackages the Torturer decision in a non-stackable way.  Very small tweaks like this can turn an existing card into something radically different and interesting in its own right.

[Schneau]

And I think you're underestimating the discard vs. curse tradeoff. Often, you'll be able to discard an Victory card or a Copper to avoid the Curse, which is a big deal.

Isn't the complaint that it's too easy to do exactly this?

But I disagree with the criticism.  Torturer is already evidence enough that the decision of whether to discard or accept a curse is often non-trivial -- complicated by the fact that you don't always know how many more Torturers are coming, I grant you, but often difficult even when you know there's only one.  True, if you can buy a Province next turn, you'll take a Curse rather than sacrifice the ability to do that.  But if you're holding Silver-Silver-Copper-Copper-Estate, you might well sacrifice your ability to buy a Gold and settle for a Power 5 instead, just to be a little more sure that you won't get a Curse.  Sometimes the risk/reward analysis is easy; sometimes not.

I think it's a really interesting idea for a card, and I like that it repackages the Torturer decision in a non-stackable way.  Very small tweaks like this can turn an existing card into something radically different and interesting in its own right.

I think you're right both about the complaint and about how this card is still interesting. Thanks!

[pokeman7452]

If you want, I can make some small "2" "3" and "4" numbers in the same dominion font/shape as seen in the cost. Print two of each number and tape them to a normal die to make a revolt die.

[LastFootnote]

Nice image. I have a few nitpicks on the wording of the card, though. It should probably read:

Each other player discards any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player with more than that many cards in hand gains a Curse.

It's shorter and more in line with the official cards.

Also, the typeface on the card seems just a bit too small.

/nitpick

[ftl]

Hah! It's a really cute idea! I like it!

I think it'll be on the weak side for a curser - players could just discard however many cards they could afford to discard without impacting their buying power this turn, and have a reasonable shot at getting a free pass on the curse. If that's the response, it'll be like a witch that sometimes misses. I'd say it's a little better than Torturer if not stacked, but worse than Torturer if multiples are stacked. Worse than Witch and Mountebank definitely. It's also a little more vulnerable to countering by stuff like Horse Traders, Watchtower, Library, Jack, etc.
 
But it's still going to be a good card in a lot of situations, and "on the weak side for a curser" still means it's a good card. And the +$2 instead of +2 cards makes it less vulnerable to collisions...

And, of course, the exact power of it is trivial to tweak after playtesting by modifying the distribution on the die! 4/3/3/2/2/2 if you want to power it up, 4/4/4/3/3/2 if it needs a nerf, 4/3/3/3/2/2 for just a slight gain in power... 5/4/3/2/1/0 if you want to make it really swingy and hard to plan for!

[Thanar]

A big thank you to Pokeman for the graphic design on this card and the other fan variant cards recently!

I do agree with LastFootnote that the font for the body text on this card and others is a bit too small. On some of the other cards, the text for +1 Card/Action seems about right though.

[Schneau]

Nice image. I have a few nitpicks on the wording of the card, though. It should probably read:

Each other player discards any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player with more than that many cards in hand gains a Curse.

It's shorter and more in line with the official cards.

Also, the typeface on the card seems just a bit too small.

/nitpick

Agreed on both points! Thanks!

[Schneau]

[image]
If you want, I can make some small "2" "3" and "4" numbers in the same dominion font/shape as seen in the cost. Print two of each number and tape them to a normal die to make a revolt die.

This is awesome like usual! You do a great job with these!

[Schneau]

Hah! It's a really cute idea! I like it!

I think it'll be on the weak side for a curser - players could just discard however many cards they could afford to discard without impacting their buying power this turn, and have a reasonable shot at getting a free pass on the curse. If that's the response, it'll be like a witch that sometimes misses. I'd say it's a little better than Torturer if not stacked, but worse than Torturer if multiples are stacked. Worse than Witch and Mountebank definitely. It's also a little more vulnerable to countering by stuff like Horse Traders, Watchtower, Library, Jack, etc.
 
But it's still going to be a good card in a lot of situations, and "on the weak side for a curser" still means it's a good card. And the +$2 instead of +2 cards makes it less vulnerable to collisions...

And, of course, the exact power of it is trivial to tweak after playtesting by modifying the distribution on the die! 4/3/3/2/2/2 if you want to power it up, 4/4/4/3/3/2 if it needs a nerf, 4/3/3/3/2/2 for just a slight gain in power... 5/4/3/2/1/0 if you want to make it really swingy and hard to plan for!

I agree all around. In response, I would say: Mountebank and Witch were voted the two most powerful $5 cards, and Torturer was #6 (in Qvist's poll). I'd be happy to have a curser that's more middle-of-the-pack, so that it's not always a must-buy. And thanks for your other comments!

[pokeman7452]

Nice image. I have a few nitpicks on the wording of the card, though. It should probably read:

Each other player discards any number of cards. Roll the Revolt die. Each other player with more than that many cards in hand gains a Curse.

It's shorter and more in line with the official cards.

Also, the typeface on the card seems just a bit too small.

/nitpick

I like nitpicks , I go for full authenticity. Yeah, the small text was a combination of a long block of text and me being too lazy to move the +2 Coin ('twas from a militia scan.) Both have been resolved and I have made the text full size now.