Laws are landscapes that come in sets of 3, and provide any effect that will apply to a player's turn.
The rules are as follows:
- Each player will have a wooden cube in their colour to track which Law will apply on their turn
- Starting on Turn 3, at the start of each player's turn, that player will place their wooden cube on one of the available Laws
- In a 2-player game, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains the other player's cube. In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes. In a game with 6 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains three cubes
- You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn
Laws are landscapes that come in sets of 3, and provide any effect that will apply to a player's turn.
The rules are as follows:
- Each player will have a wooden cube in their colour to track which Law will apply on their turn
- Starting on Turn 3, at the start of each player's turn, that player will place their wooden cube on one of the available Laws
- In a 2-player game, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains the other player's cube. In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes. In a game with 6 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains three cubes
- You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn
I really like this concept, but I think there is a bit of an issue with this implementation. In a 2 player game, after Turn 3, no one gets to choose where their cube goes. At the start of each turn after that, there is (a) the Law your cube is on, (b) the Law your opponent's cube is on, and (c) the Law with no cube on it. Under these rules, your only "choice" is to move your cube to (c).
In a 5 player game, is be impossible to follow those rules in one situation. If at the start of your turn (after all the cubes are down) your cube is alone on a Law, that means that each other Law has 2 cubes on it. At that point, you either have to violate the rule that "In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes" or the rule that "You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn" but you cannot follow both.
I don't immediately have a solution that I love for these. The most obvious would be to make it so there are 4 Laws in a set, but that seems like it might be too much. You could fix the issue with the 5 player game by allowing 3 cubes per Law, and just leave the 2 player rule, but it will make the mechanic play radically differently in 2 versus 3+ player games.
Laws are landscapes that come in sets of 3, and provide any effect that will apply to a player's turn.
The rules are as follows:
- Each player will have a wooden cube in their colour to track which Law will apply on their turn
- Starting on Turn 3, at the start of each player's turn, that player will place their wooden cube on one of the available Laws
- In a 2-player game, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains the other player's cube. In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes. In a game with 6 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains three cubes
- You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn
I really like this concept, but I think there is a bit of an issue with this implementation. In a 2 player game, after Turn 3, no one gets to choose where their cube goes. At the start of each turn after that, there is (a) the Law your cube is on, (b) the Law your opponent's cube is on, and (c) the Law with no cube on it. Under these rules, your only "choice" is to move your cube to (c).
In a 5 player game, is be impossible to follow those rules in one situation. If at the start of your turn (after all the cubes are down) your cube is alone on a Law, that means that each other Law has 2 cubes on it. At that point, you either have to violate the rule that "In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes" or the rule that "You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn" but you cannot follow both.
I don't immediately have a solution that I love for these. The most obvious would be to make it so there are 4 Laws in a set, but that seems like it might be too much. You could fix the issue with the 5 player game by allowing 3 cubes per Law, and just leave the 2 player rule, but it will make the mechanic play radically differently in 2 versus 3+ player games.
Thanks for the feedback.
Good catch on the lack of choice for 2-player games. I think you're right that the most obvious fix is to increase the number of Laws per set to 4, so that you have 2 Laws to choose from.
I think for the scenario in the 5-player game that you mentioned, perhaps the rule should be tweaked to say you must move "you must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn if you can"
Scaling this well based on the number of players is difficult, but I think Dominion already becomes a very different game at more than 3 players.
Laws are landscapes that come in sets of 3, and provide any effect that will apply to a player's turn.
The rules are as follows:
- Each player will have a wooden cube in their colour to track which Law will apply on their turn
- Starting on Turn 3, at the start of each player's turn, that player will place their wooden cube on one of the available Laws
- In a 2-player game, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains the other player's cube. In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes. In a game with 6 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains three cubes
- You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn
I really like this concept, but I think there is a bit of an issue with this implementation. In a 2 player game, after Turn 3, no one gets to choose where their cube goes. At the start of each turn after that, there is (a) the Law your cube is on, (b) the Law your opponent's cube is on, and (c) the Law with no cube on it. Under these rules, your only "choice" is to move your cube to (c).
In a 5 player game, is be impossible to follow those rules in one situation. If at the start of your turn (after all the cubes are down) your cube is alone on a Law, that means that each other Law has 2 cubes on it. At that point, you either have to violate the rule that "In a game with 3-5 players, players cannot place their cube on a Law that already contains two cubes" or the rule that "You must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn" but you cannot follow both.
I don't immediately have a solution that I love for these. The most obvious would be to make it so there are 4 Laws in a set, but that seems like it might be too much. You could fix the issue with the 5 player game by allowing 3 cubes per Law, and just leave the 2 player rule, but it will make the mechanic play radically differently in 2 versus 3+ player games.
Thanks for the feedback.
Good catch on the lack of choice for 2-player games. I think you're right that the most obvious fix is to increase the number of Laws per set to 4, so that you have 2 Laws to choose from.
I think for the scenario in the 5-player game that you mentioned, perhaps the rule should be tweaked to say you must move "you must move your cube to a different Law at the start of your turn if you can"
Scaling this well based on the number of players is difficult, but I think Dominion already becomes a very different game at more than 3 players.
Another solution is to not outright forbid choosing the same law as the opponent, but instead make the player you copy gain a reward such as a Horse. Of course, this has its own complications regarding first player advantage.
At any rate, you are free to pretend Dominion is a 2-4 player game.
Do you have a Custom Color you would prefer for us to use?
Secrets Best Kept - Policy
At the start of your turn, Exile a card from the trash that doesn't cost $8 or more.
One Man's Trash - Policy
At the start of your turn, trash a card from your hand for +1 Buy.
Another Man's Treasure - Policy
At the start of your turn: you may trash a card from your hand. Gain a card from the trash to your hand.
Risk Assessment - PolicyOne Man's Trash and Risk Assessment are the only 2 that thin the deck, so they will likely be the hot focus. Sometimes Exiling an Estate, borrowing a Copper, knowing the top of your deck or getting a crucial +Buy is best. And there are times when you don't want to do anything, and there are 3 that can effectively do that.
At the start of your turn, trash the top 2 cards of your deck, then gain 1 or 2 cards from the trash onto your deck in any order.
This mechanic should add interest to the game if done right, but there's also the potential to take it away. It's a good challenge!
Firstly, I think I prefer to call them Policies, since they're a bit more open than laws. You can't really choose which law to obey, but you can follow different policies.
Secondly, I assume they will be included in games randomly along with WELPs, with one set being one of the recommended 2 landscapes?
Thirdly, I agree to 4 per set with one cube denial for 2 player and two for 3+.
In any case, some design observations:
- They add a bit of player interaction and more poignantly make each turn different, so they can move games away from exact mirrors.
- One player can get one effect at most every other turn.
- They should all be on the same power level, and each be relevant in every game (maybe one could get away with being niche), so the choosing is always interesting.
- Keep an eye on first player advantage. Effects that are strong early may be best made available on 2 or more Laws/Policies.
- Speaking of power level, they're free global effects. More positive effects will definitely speed the game up more, and negative slow it down. They could each have a positive and negative to them, but, they should probably be all positive, all negative or all mix, so there's no sting of all the positives being unavailable.
- Adding some kind of cost might often be necessary to open up a stronger positive effect without losing game balance.
- If effects are made to come in later game (e.g checking for empty Supply piles) the choosing aspect is lessened and an ideal game course can be set up.
- Effects requiring another mechanic to be present in order to work can be done if another one of the Laws/Policies makes it happen.
Oh boy, another new landscape. These are always the hardes to make good ones for. And aren't these just edicts with extra steps?
How many laws are set out per game? N + 1? All of them?
Question: if I made a set of laws concerning the playing of zombies, would I be able to include a 4th zombie from wdc 109 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20727.0), or would that count as reusing an entry?
Logistically, there should be some way to identify Laws / Policies that go together. I mean as fan cards we don't *have* to, but imagine if this was ever in an official printed set; you'd want to quickly be able to identify all the Laws / Policies from the set you want to use, while only using one from each as a randomizer.
So maybe thematically, the laws in the OP could be the "type" of Law / Policy, with the actual individual Laws / Policies being more specific names. For example for Employment Law, you'd have "at-will", "unionized" etc...
Of course the issue with that is that's a lot of characters for the small diagonal... :/
But some way to group would make this feel more fleshed out, for me, at least.
(https://i.imgur.com/HudH8Ruh.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/4PUNPEDh.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/8lplDt5h.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/2Sh60rCh.png) |
Succession - Law
At the start of your turn, you may set aside a non-Command Action card from your hand costing up to $4.
Primogeniture - Law*
During your turn, Duchies are also Actions with "Play one of your set aside cards, leaving it there."
Dead Hand - Law*
During your turn, Curses are also Actions with "Play one of your set aside cards, leaving it there."
Estate Tax - Law*
During your turn, when you play a copy of one of your set aside cards, +$1.
Okay so I don't know if this is allowed, but I made a similar concept called Traits with different rules than Laws, but I realized the card names/art and effect could easily reinterpreted to be laws. I don't have time to re-format these cards, so if you would oblige me, ignore the types on these cards and pretend they say laws. Naming-wise they are similar to your laws in the OP, but I agree they sound more like the names of policies than laws. The effects are also all intended to be significantly weaker, weaker than even one vanilla bonus per turn.
Okay so I don't know if this is allowed, but I made a similar concept called Traits with different rules than Laws, but I realized the card names/art and effect could easily reinterpreted to be laws. I don't have time to re-format these cards, so if you would oblige me, ignore the types on these cards and pretend they say laws. Naming-wise they are similar to your laws in the OP, but I agree they sound more like the names of policies than laws. The effects are also all intended to be significantly weaker, weaker than even one vanilla bonus per turn.
How many of these cards are you proposing would be available in each game? All of them, or would you randomly select a certain number to be used?
Necromantic Law: Setup: Put the 3 Zombies and Zombie Summoner into the trash Quote Policy: Apprenticeship Quote Policy: Construction Quote Policy: Surveillance Quote Policy: Summoning | Zombie Summoner:(https://i.imgur.com/LUfC73u.png) |
I don’t like the first one as there are obvious broken combos with TfB and Provinces.
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
This is an intriguing set with some good synergy. Succession allows you to set aside an Action card from your hand in order to power up Primogeniture, Dead Hand, and Estate Tax. Primogeniture and Dead Hand are like Inheritance for Duchies and Curses, respectively, except that most of the time these cards will still clutter your deck. It's not clear to me that you would want to gain Duchies or Curses in order to take advantage of Primogeniture and Dead Hand, unless you are playing with Archives and can stash them away for turns where they would not be activated. Setting it up through Succession also comes with an opportunity cost since you are removing an Action card from your deck. I could definitely see it being detrimental, since it will not only slow down your tempo but having Curses and Duchies in your deck during turns where Dead Hand or Primogeniture are not available will make your deck less reliable. I suspect that Estate Tax would probably be the strongest Law of the bunch and the most contested one.
WINNER:
emtzalex's Laws (Succession, Primogeniture, Dead Hand, Estate Tax)
spineflu's Bromides (A Sparing Father, A Spending Son, Make Light Work, Look a Gift Horse, Reach for the Sky, Over the Moon, Tricks of the Trade)
Unlike Laws, Bromides are randomly selected from the set based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, there would be 3 available. As emtzalex pointed out early in the thread, have 3 to choose from in 2-player game will essentially only give the players a choice the first time they place their cube (e.g. Player 1 selects Bromide A, Player 2 then selects Bromide B, then Player 1 has no choice but to select Bromide C, and Player 2 has no choice but to select Bromide A, and so on). Tweaking the rule to using n+2 Bromides, where n is the number of players, would give the player an actual choice to make.
Bromides have an interesting feature whereby they give the active player a bonus and a different bonus to their opponents. In the case of a Spending Son and Make Light Work, the bonus that your opponents get is arguably better than what you get, so you need to be wise about whether your really need to take the +$1 or +1 Action. On the other hand, a well-timed Over the Moon might not give your opponent any advantage if their discard pile is empty, and the remaining Bromides generally have better bonuses for the active player than their opponents. It may mean that players will gravitate towards the latter ones.
spineflu's Bromides (A Sparing Father, A Spending Son, Make Light Work, Look a Gift Horse, Reach for the Sky, Over the Moon, Tricks of the Trade)
Unlike Laws, Bromides are randomly selected from the set based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, there would be 3 available. As emtzalex pointed out early in the thread, have 3 to choose from in 2-player game will essentially only give the players a choice the first time they place their cube (e.g. Player 1 selects Bromide A, Player 2 then selects Bromide B, then Player 1 has no choice but to select Bromide C, and Player 2 has no choice but to select Bromide A, and so on). Tweaking the rule to using n+2 Bromides, where n is the number of players, would give the player an actual choice to make.
Bromides have an interesting feature whereby they give the active player a bonus and a different bonus to their opponents. In the case of a Spending Son and Make Light Work, the bonus that your opponents get is arguably better than what you get, so you need to be wise about whether your really need to take the +$1 or +1 Action. On the other hand, a well-timed Over the Moon might not give your opponent any advantage if their discard pile is empty, and the remaining Bromides generally have better bonuses for the active player than their opponents. It may mean that players will gravitate towards the latter ones.
I don't think giving the players a choice every time is a good idea - you're going to be stuck on your particular orbit through the bromides, and your opponents can plan for that. Otherwise the "better for your opponents than yourself" ones will never get picked; it's like randomly getting a dud Council Room draw.
Primogeniture and Dead Hand are like Inheritance for Duchies and Curses, respectively, except that most of the time these cards will still clutter your deck. It's not clear to me that you would want to gain Duchies or Curses in order to take advantage of Primogeniture and Dead Hand, unless you are playing with Archives and can stash them away for turns where they would not be activated. Setting it up through Succession also comes with an opportunity cost since you are removing an Action card from your deck. I could definitely see it being detrimental, since it will not only slow down your tempo but having Curses and Duchies in your deck during turns where Dead Hand or Primogeniture are not available will make your deck less reliable. I suspect that Estate Tax would probably be the strongest Law of the bunch and the most contested one.
Industrial - Law
+1 Action
Commercial - Law
+1 Buy
Economic - Law
+$1
Sacred - Law
Trash a card from your hand.
Primogeniture - Law*
This turn, Duchies are also Actions with "Play one of your set aside cards, leaving it there."
(https://i.imgur.com/tduQPbah.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/fi68TDfh.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/7tijjTah.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/U2H8UC3h.png) |
Three Wise Monkeys - Law
At the start of your turn, reveal the top card of your deck. Move the Evil token to its pile (cards from that pile are Evil cards).
See No Evil - Law*
On your turn, you may not gain Evil cards.
Hear No Evil - Law*
At the start of your turn, discard an Evil card (or reveal a hand without one).
Speak No Evil - Law*
On your turn, you may not play Evil cards.