Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with ChoicesEvaluation of your Cards – Round I – Selecting Candidates for the Final Round: - Fragasnap
First thoughts: Concept-wise some similarity to Raider. Warlock provides strong drawing combined with a hand-size attack and potential junking, which looks at first glance like its main function. Why including the option “reveal from hand”? Obviously, this allows including non-Supply cards from piles as targets, but is the additional complexity worth it?
In game thoughts/notes (here and for some other cards, they look terrible in hindsight):
Player A plays Warlock; opponents may have a Workshop or a Caravan in their hand, but it doesn’t matter much to choose one of those; there is a possibility that the other players can gain a Warlock (Note: In hindsight, I am not sure what I wanted to say here); player A chooses Curse.
Warlock allows quick cycling; if 2nd Cursing failed (opponents discard Curse), they cannot trash it with Steward and they are likely hit the 3rd time.
Player B plays Warlock first time, chooses Curse (player A doesn’t have any yet). Player A looks whether opponents trashed Curses. If yes, names Curse.
Player B plays Warlock, names Curse. Player C discarded a Curse before (and has 4 cards in hand now), C gets a Curse even if they would have a Curse in hand, since they can’t discard (only 4 cards in hand).
Strategy player A: 2-3 Warlocks, several Worker’s Villages. 1st Warlock: Curse, opponents discard Curse, 2nd Warlock: Curse (no defense, since 4 card hands)
Player C got hit in the same round by player B (has still 4 cards in hand).
At some point, player A plays 2 Warlocks in the same turn (supported by 2 Worker’s Villages): B can’t discard, gets Curse, can’t discard 2nd time, 2nd Curse. Player C discards Curse, has now 4 cards in hand, not eligible to defend, gets inevitably a Curse by the 2nd Warlock. Then 3rd Warlock is played… Then I stopped the game.Conclusion:
Cursing is mandatory. During early turns, the attacking player can make an estimated guess whether opponents can hit $5. On the other hand, a reduction of $4 to $3 via Copper discarding doesn’t matter much. It looks like cursing other players is the dominant strategy. Once a few Curses are in the decks, a 2nd Warlock will ultimately hit. An alternative strategy is to first give a Copper and then curse the opponents, which seems to have a similar effect. I’ve not tried this since just cursing worked well enough. The best strategy for the attacking player seems to be to have multiple Warlocks and sufficient Village support, and always curse the opponents, which hits most of the times and even if it doesn’t, the attacked players are defenseless due to having only 4 cards in hand. This latter part makes Warlock quite weak concept-wise. I somehow miss the challenge to make decisions and the fun that would result from that.
- faust
First thoughts: A terminal Silver with a Cursing effect on a $3 cost card likely makes this an opening buy, even if you have no clue how to accurately play Shaman. Interesting and complex connection between cursing, providing Actions (which is also helpful to play/chain Shaman itself) and a mild hand-size reduction (as long as a player is not hit multiple times). Reminds me in that aspect of Torturer.
In game thoughts/notes:
All players $3/$4 start. All players buy Shaman (Silver has no advantage) and Caravan.
Round 3: Player A plays Shaman. All players discard an Estate (nothing happens).
Round 4: Player B plays Shaman (just by chance no player has any Estates in hand). Tough decision; B decides to take Bewitched (to keep $5; “stupid decision”). C decides to take Bewitched (no danger as they are next). A decides discarding a Copper: $5 to $4, but no crucial $5 cost card on board; C is next with a high chance for playing a Shaman; player C (still 4th turn) plays Shaman (Bewitched has no effect; no other Action card in hand): A takes Bewitched (no risk). B gets Curse. C has $4, discards Copper, buys Silver (that is what they wanted anyway).
Round 5: Player A plays Worker’s Village and 2 Shamans. B and C discard an Estate then take Bewitched. A discards Estate & Copper ($2 to $1), buys nothing; B plays Shaman; C gets Curse. A and B discard Estate; C plays Shaman: A takes Bewitched (no risk); B discards Curse; C discards Estate.
Round 6: Player A plays Worker’s Village and 2 Shaman (again!).
From around round 7 on it is difficult to predict for an attacked player whether a 2nd Shaman attacks (one is usually not too dangerous).
Funny situation at some point: Player B plays Shaman (no more Actions left), player C has 2 terminal Action cards in hand (Shaman and Steward), takes Bewitched; can play both now. Player’s hands get better, thereby having less junk available for discarding, i.e. an attacked player takes Bewitched more often. On the other hand, efficient attacks need multiple Shamans, which can hamper the player’s own decks if they do not have the proper support by Villages and/or Bewitched.Conclusion:
A $3 cost Attack card that gives $2 is basically a must buy (even for money players). Since Shaman is so cheap, it seems that its attacks are faster than trashing junk from a player’s deck. It is tempting to open with Shaman as it also provides +$2, but then the deck needs more of them for carrying out efficient attacks. Getting more Shamans seems to be addictive in a way I yet have to figure out. Early in the game, the decisions the attacked players have to make are quite easy; i.e. they discard an Estate and no harm is done. If no Estate is available, a Copper will do the same trick, although here it can hurt if that drops the buying power below $5. Later on however, attacked players have to make tougher decisions, and doing this correctly isn’t a simple task. An interesting feature is that Bewitched can be helpful for the next player because it provides +1 Action and thus can allow them playing 2 Shamans without Village support. This is an interesting concept, which fits well to the criteria of this contest round. With the limited experience I have with Shaman/Bewitch I can say that the cards offer fun and challenging games and a great re-playability.
- spineflu
First thoughts: The text is simpler than that of the previous version. The part I liked about making decisions later, i.e. at the start of the turns of the attacked players is gone in the new version of Muster. Mechanically, this change means that the attacked players have to make the decision with less information at hand. On the other hand, since the other players have to decide immediately, it doesn’t require any reminder or tracking of a card that may have been played a while ago. My initial impression of the previous version of Muster was that it’s attack looks quite harsh. The new version may be even more brutal.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 3: Player A plays Muster; B (Caravan, Steward, 2 Coppers, 1 Estate) chooses the tokens; C (Steward, 1 Silver, 2 Coppers, 1 Estates) also chooses the tokens; A buys Steward; B plays Caravan (without drawing), Steward, trashes Copper/Estates, buys nothing, returns tokens; C plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estates, buys Pawn, draws 4 cards at end of turn, returns tokens.
Round 4: A buys Golden Fleece; B & C buy Silver. Round 5: A plays Pawn, Muster; B (Caravan, Steward, 3 Coppers) takes tokens; C (Steward, Silver, 2 Coppers, Estate) takes tokens; A buys Worker’s Village; B plays Caravan (no draw), Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys nothing, returns tokens; C plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estates, buys Pawn, draws 4 cards at end of turn, returns tokens.
Round 6: A plays Steward, trashes 2 Estates, buys Worker’s Village; B and C buy Muster. Round 7: A buys Muster; B plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estate, buys Silver; C plays Pawn, Steward, trashes Copper/Estate, buys Silver.
Round 8: A plays Worker’s Village, Muster; B (Muster, Caravan, 2 Coppers, 1 Estate) takes tokens; C (Muster, Pawn, 3 Coppers) takes token. I stopped here.Conclusion:
The idea of an attack letting opponents choose between penalty and benefit for the attacker is an interesting idea and the mechanic of Muster using the Adventurer penalty tokens in combination with the benefitting non-Supply cards is clearly a novelty. At some point during the test rounds I thought that Muster doesn’t work in the intended way. A very early attack can be quite oppressing, but even then, taking the tokens seems to be the better option than granting the attacker Horse and Spoils that early in the game as that would give a significant boost to the attacker. I can also imagine that the benefits increase immensely with an increasing number of players. However, I have to say that when I tested the previous version of Muster, I’ve found that in later rounds, when players have high quality decks with mostly powerful cards in their hands that it is often better to give the Attacker the benefits, and that this also creates some tension between the opponents. So, with my limited experience with Muster I would say that the challenging decisions occur relatively late in games. Taken together, Muster is an interesting card with a novel mechanic and provides some fun to play with and great re-playability.
Valkyrie (Action-Attack, $5)
+3 Cards
Each other player takes Jinxed.
| Jinxed (State)
At the start of your turn, return this and choose one: -1 Action, -1 Buy, or gain a Curse.
|
- mandioca15
First thoughts: The attack is delayed via distributing the State Jinxed, which at first glance looks conceptually similar to some of the Hexes. I like the simple design.
Players generally want lots of Villages, for defense and for Valkyrie itself. So, the best seems to be to gain Villages a bit earlier than usual. I guess this clearly plays differently in games without Villages, without extra-Buys, no trashing etc.
In game thoughts/notes*:
Game set up: Worker’s Village looks like the perfect counter to Valkyrie. Therefore I used Mountain Village instead of Worker’s Village for testing Valkyrie/Jinxed as the latter would make the defense way too easy.
Early on: Having a hand without Actions doesn’t cause any problems; the same is true if a Steward is available, i.e. trash the junk, don’t buy a card.
In the middle game: Hands w/o extra Action/buy (some luck involved even with the best prepared deck): Taking a Curse is the best option.
-1 Action or -1 Buy (or Curse) looks like a stronger attack early in the game than the -1 Card and -$1 penalty vs the benefits of Muster (see above), at least in my standardized Kingdom. The best defense seems to be to have a bunch of Villages and Pawns (to mitigate the Buy penalty if required). However, doing it this way, also means that the Villages are degraded to cantrips. On the other hand, Valkyrie itself needs Villages for being efficiently used.
*For some reason, I do not have a game log, and I can’t remember why it is missing. My guess is that this was one of the earliest cards I’ve tested when I haven’t established a consistent format yet. Sorry for that.Conclusion:
Valkyrie provides strong drawing and is just for that a card that players want to have in most Kingdoms. As a consequence, its presence doesn’t influence the composition of decks too much. It is more about the order of gaining different cards and maybe having a few more Villages and +Buy cards than usual. The Kingdom I’ve used for testing has a lot of + Buys cards and thus, a Kingdom with limited access to +Buy likely plays differently, which is a good thing in terms of re-playability of Valkyrie. It is also good that due to the State Jinxed, double attacks and the number of players to not cause any problems in terms of playability. Valkyrie is likely not dominating games too much and plays more like an engine piece that has the side effect to occasionally hit opponents. They are not getting in deep trouble, if their decks are (fairly) well prepared. What I really like is that the waiting time caused by the attacks is limited to a minimum due to Jinxed. After getting Jinxed, opponents have some time to think about their choice until their own turn starts. And, the attacking player just continues playing without waiting for opponents’ decisions. Not much more to say, I like the concept.
- Gubump
First thoughts: This looks like a hybrid of Werewolf/Giant. Being a Curser means that it has a “consumable junking” effect unlike Hexes distributed by Werewolf. Once the Curses are gone, Crone remains a strong card, i.e. keeping the token face up converts Crone to a permanent Smithy, which is not bad for an Attack card.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 3: Player A plays Crone, turns token for Cursing.
Round 5: Player A plays Crone, turns token, Curses and draws; player B plays Crone (after Mountain Village), doesn’t turn token, draws.
At some point, player B drew all their deck, including token flipping and cursing.
Player A achieved a double-Crone: including Cursing twice and one draw of 3 cards. When Crone is played in combination with a Village, players rather keep the token face up for drawing. That means, a Crone after Village prefers drawing, independently of whether Cursing is involved through token flipping. If Crone is without Village support, i.e. terminal, having a face down token prefers flipping it for drawing and cursing, whereas a face up token is mostly flipped to get the cursing effect without risking to draw strong Action cards dead.
Conclusion:
Crone has some similarities to Werewolf and it is fun to play with Crone. You should definitely consider Crone for the Fan expansion you mentioned in your original post. However, the critical choices players have to make are limited. Thus, although an interesting and solid card that provides exciting game play, in the context of the contest criteria, it doesn’t score too high. Nevertheless, it's a nice card.
- Xen3k
First thoughts: An attacking Fool. The Hex/Boon combination on one card gives it some similarity to Idol (though there they are alternating). Interesting, but how much will the game flow be affected? I have some doubt that this will turn out favorable.
In game thoughts/notes:
3rd round: 1st Bogart played by A allowed getting from $4 to $5 via The Forrest’s Gift; opponents got Greed (alternative pair was Sky/Delusion)
After some more rounds: The usual strategy is to pair the less harsh Hex with the desired Boon and get it.Conclusion:
Overall, a nice idea, a bit unconventional giving the general hate of the community to Boons and Hexes. The annoying factor isn’t as high as I expected (assuming players know the Boons and Hexes). Having said that, one should keep in mind that the game conditions I used were that only one player went aggressively for the Attack and one player totally ignored it. This is likely different when all players go heavily for Boggarts, which I imagine can become a bit annoying to play with, especially when too many players have to make a decision.
Quite often there is a more brutal Hex attack that the attacked players want to avoid and a better Boon that the attacking player wants to get. Since the attacked players have to choose the Hex, the attacking player just pairs the better Boon with the less brutal Hex and then usually gets what they want. In this aspect there doesn’t seem to be much of a decision making. Boggart is a solid attacking card that combines the Boon/Hex features. It has a lot of re-playability considering all the possible Boons/Hex combinations and that in different Kingdom contexts, but I doubt that many players will find this funny and challenging. Maybe, some people really enjoy it in a more social gaming environment.
- emtzalex
First thoughts (on the new version): This has quite a tiny text (omitting the part in parentheses would make it better); Stingy Witch is still a cantrip attack, but compared to original version lacks the +1 Buy, which is a good thing since I couldn’t find a good reason to have it there. On the other hand, the new version looks more complicated, which at a first glance doesn’t look like an improvement.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 4: Player A plays Pawn, Stingy Witch; B discards Estates, gain Curse to hand; C does the same; A buys Silver. B plays Steward, trashes Copper/Curse, buys Pawn; C buys Stingy Witch.
Round 5: A plays Pawn, Stingy Witch; B discards Estates, gains Curse to hand; C discards Curse, gains Curse to hand, A buys 2nd Stingy Witch; B plays Caravan, buys Stingy Witch; C buys Stingy Witch.
Round 6: A plays Steward, trashes 2 Estates, buys Pawn; B draws card from Caravan, plays Steward, trashes 2 Estates, buys Workshop; C plays Stingy Witch; A discards Copper, gains Curse to hand; B discards Estates, Curse to hand; C plays Pawn, draws Steward, chooses +$2, buys Golden Fleece.
Round 7: A plays Stingy Witch; B discards Curse, gains Curse to hand; C discards Copper, gains Curse to hand; A buys Caravan; B plays Pawn, Stingy Witch, C and A discard something, gain Curse to hand, B buys something; C plays Steward, trashes Estates, Curse. I stopped here. Conclusion:
Although the card instructions look a bit complicated, the execution seems pretty simple: Opponents discard a card, gain a Curse to hand; trash it now or soon after. Of course, in a Kingdom without trashing the procedure would be different. I haven’t tested this, but I guess every player has to aggressively go for Stingy Witches, and rather gains Curses than 3 Coppers, until either the Curses run out or near the end of the game. The concept doesn’t really impress me and there is neither a real decision to make (with the idealized Kingdom I used), nor is the fun factor very high. The original Stingy Witch wasn’t too exciting either, but I liked it more than this later version and it was simpler and less wordy.
- pubby
First thoughts: An attacking Copper+ with VP on stake. Dowry might play totally different with VP gaining cards in the Kingdom (which I will not test). For sure a quite unique concept.
In game thoughts/notes:
Early on reflecting the attack is in most cases done by discarding an Estate. However, in a 3-player game 2 Dowries can be played very soon. Then it is less likely that a 2nd Estate is available for discarding. This is even more critical when an attacked player has to decide to go down from $5 to $4 ($4 to $3 isn’t that critical) very early in the game and they are still not on the safe site if they gave 1 VP instead. I guess the best strategy is to discard whenever it is not too critical, but to give 1 VP when it is critical. I think in the long run it is better to loose the 3 VP and then being immune to the attacks. An aggressive Dowry player would then have a lot of useless junk (Dowries) in their deck.
Opening turns: Player A goes for Double-Dowry, Player B starts without Dowry, i.e. buys Steward, Caravan, C likes shiny Treasures but keeps it moderate and opens Dowry, Caravan.
Round 3: Player A plays Dowry, B and C discard an Estate (no harm). Round 4: Player A misses (5 Coppers in hand), C plays Dowry, buys Dowry. A has $5 in hand, discards Copper. Later rounds: Most of the times, players discard Estates or Copper if it causes a drop from $4 to $3. A few times VP was granted to the attacker. At around round 9-10: Player B gave all VP away, but has a very efficient engine and buys the 1st Province. C got 1-2 times a VP from the other players, but is back now to 3 VP (A has 6 VP). Comparing the decks, B has the best one, C the worst. Conclusion:
Dowry has a funny and unique concept, though I somewhat doubt that it works properly. There is some appeal to it, but it may require some changes. A player aggressively playing Dowries has to invest a good part into a card that is close to being junk itself and players that largely ignore it and care more about building an efficient engine seem to make the better deal. There are probably scenarios where the 6 VP swing matters, or more importantly, the time that was spend to achieve it. However, my feeling is that at least in Kingdoms allowing strong engines, a Dowry player’s VP gain is worth less than the power of a running engine deck. I think Dowry itself should have better abilities to make it less junky itself, if a player wants to go for multiple copies; or maybe Dowry should just be treated as a sort of mini game giving some annoyance as a side effect. Having said all this, I like the general idea and the concept, but the actual card seems to have some flaws.
- fika monster
First thoughts: When I tested one of the previous versions (it was labelled with v5, whereas this one is v4.3), I came to the conclusion that the card doesn’t work well. It allowed opponents to improve the quality of their hands most of the time. So, what is the difference? With version 5 other players have to discard their best 2 cards and then draw 3 cards. In contrast, version 4.3 lets the opponents first draw 2 cards and then the attacker picks the best one for discarding. This looks pretty similar to Pillage, with some notable exceptions: Corrupt Middlemen is a potent drawer and not a one-shot. Looks pretty strong.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 3: Player A plays Corrupt Middleman, draws 3 cards; B and C draw 2 cards; both reveal 1 Steward, 4 Coppers, 2 Estates; A picks Steward in both cases; A buys Golden Fleece; B buys Workshop, C buys Caravan.
Round 4: A plays Pawn, buys Steward; B plays Worker’ Village, draws and plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estate, buys Pawn; C buys Archive.
Round 5: A plays Corrupt Middleman, draws 3 cards; B and C draw 2 cards; B reveals Workshop, 4 Coppers, 2 Estates, discards Workshop; C reveal Caravan, 4 Coppers, 2 Estates, discards Caravan; A buys Archive; B buys Worker’s Village; C buys Caravan.
Round 6: A plays Pawn, draws and plays Steward, trashes 2 Estates, buys Worker’s Village; B plays 2x Worker’s Village, Pawn, Workshop, gains Silver, plays Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Pawn; C plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estates buys Pawn.
Round 7: A plays Worker’s Village, Pawn, Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Worker’s Village; B buys Silver; C plays Archive, puts Pawn to hand, plays Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Silver.
Round 8: A plays Corrupt Middleman, draws 3 cards; B and C draw 2 cards; B reveals 2 Pawns, 2 Worker’s Villages, 1 Steward, 1 Silver, 1 Copper, discards Steward; C reveals 2 Caravans, 1 Steward, 1 Silver, 1 Copper, 2 Estates, discards Steward. A buys Corrupt Middleman and gets 2 Coffers (from Golden Fleece played at Night).
I stopped here. Conclusion:
This version of Corrupt Middleman is miles better than the previous version I have tested. Although the situation where absolute critical cards, e.g. opponent’s Corrupt Middleman or a single Village among a bunch of terminal cards didn’t occur, it becomes clear that this Corrupt Middleman is doing his job and it can be hardly ignored. The mechanic of first increasing opponent’s hands and then pick the best card for discarding seems to work well. It is neither too harsh nor too harmful when multiple Corrupt Middlemen attack, since there is always some replenishment of cards. Taking together, it looks like Corrupt Middleman v4.3 works. The card offers player interactions and funny game play. Corrupt Middleman v4.3 looks like a solid and playable card, and is a real improvement of the previous version 5.
- X-tra
First thoughts: A cantrip attack for a cost of $4 usually means trouble, play-wise and conceptional. Looking a bit closer, Sacked Town is about giving the attacker a choice between a seemingly mild hand-size attack and Cursing opponents, but allowing them to draw back to 5 cards in hand; the more they draw the more Curses they get. As a sort of compensation, they likely replace the worst cards with average cards of their deck. Did I mention that I am a bit worried about the cantrip ability of Sacked Town?
In game thoughts/notes:
Since Sacked Town is a cantrip, even player C buys it in their opening turns.
Round 3: Player A plays Sacked Town, B and C discard Copper, which hurts as they both have a Steward in hand (Steward will trash Estate; they won’t buy $2 card).
A buys 2nd Sacked Town.
Round 4: Player C plays Sacked Town, B in same situation (Steward).
Round 5: A plays Sacked Town (B has 4 cards in hand!). A goes for discarding to affect both opponents (If A would have a 2nd Sacked Town on hand and then choose draw/Curse, B would get 2 Curses).
Round 6: A plays Sacked Town.
At around round 8-9: Double attack from player B, C gains 2 Curses, A gets one.
2nd game w/o trashing, i.e. Vassal replaced Steward. Early turns: Players not affected by Sacked Town (they discard Estates). There were again situations, where only one opponent can be cursed. I went for hand size reduction to affect both opponents, though in hindsight cursing might have been better, as hand size reduction really doesn’t hurt at that stage.
At around round 8-9: Double and even triple attacks (from single players) and double cursing occurred. Decks are of poor quality as there is no trashing available. Redrawing improve hands, but not that much since most cards are junk anyway.Conclusion:
Overall, the attack seems to mostly hurt in early turns. The choices seem to be a bit limited. An attacking player lets first reduce the hand size of opponents, which is quite easy to do twice later on in a game, and finally curses them. The attacked players usually improve the quality of their hand during the attacks. With strong trashing, it is probably not worth to invest much into Sacked Towns and if so, to use the attacks more for hand size reduction. On the other hand, Sacked Towns don’t hurt the deck and picking up a few (e.g. via Workshop) doesn’t hurt either. Without trashing on board, which I have tested in the 2nd game, the outcome is quite different and players have to deal with a lot of junk. This shows that Sacked Town causes different consequences in different Kingdoms, though the general playing strategy doesn’t seem to change much. Is it fun to play with Sacked Town? I wouldn’t say it is bad, it offers some re-playability, but it somehow lacks a refreshing aspect. I am not sure whether it has something to do with Sacked Town being non-terminal, but getting and playing a bunch of them seems to be too easy to achieve.
- segura
First thoughts: Innovative and interesting concept. How will the Ruins interact with “discarding an Action card”? Are +3 Coffers etc. too much? There are interesting decisions to make, e.g. What helps my play, e.g. do I need Actions (Villagers) versus what hurts the opponents most. One aspect makes me a bit curious about how Witch Hut will function: Players can benefit from discarding Coppers, Estates and Ruins and simultaneously junk their opponents, but they can’t do that with Curses, meaning that the latter are the real junk that has to be mostly avoided.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 3: Just by chance, player A had both Action cards (Twins and Witch Hut) on their hand, goes for the “Coffers” option of Witch Hut. However, also the alternatives look really strong, e.g. discarding an Estate for +3 Villagers (even without the attacking part) is super strong and player A wouldn’t have to take care for Actions for a while.
Round 5: Player A, similar scenario as in round 3. Player A has a lot of Coffers by now (or could have a lot of Villagers). I stopped here. Though it was absolutely drawing luck involved (starting the game with $5 in hand was set, but having the 3rd turn with Witch Hut and Twins was not manipulated), such situation (or at least some parts of it) are not too rare for simply being dismissed. The whole scenario would be even worse with a Kingdom without trashing. Conclusion:
Witch Hut really looks like an innovative idea. It combines discarding a card for some benefit and at the same time junks other players. When I said some benefit, I have to correct myself, the benefit seems to be quite a lot, especially so when cheap Action cards are available. The attacking player even doesn’t have to care much about terminal collision as long as they can attack with their Witch Huts. An interesting scenario is when Treasures are discarded, as Coppers are the most abundant junk. This give opponents Ruins, which in turn can be perfectly used as fodder for their own Witch Huts for gaining lots of Coffers and cursing other players. I had some additional thoughts about the special role of Curses in this junking festival, but I am still not sure whether the concept is packed in a well balanced card, or if it rather doesn’t work in a proper way. As interesting as it looks, I think Witch Hut could be improved by some nerfing, but please don’t ask how that could be done.
- silverspawn
First thoughts: A bold concept. I am tempting to include Scout in my set-up testing Kingdom; maybe in a 2nd round if there is one. So, I will start testing this with mostly useful Action cards. To give you a bit of satisfaction at this point, I will use Scout as the substitute to represent Hawker in the test run.
In game thoughts/notes:
Early rounds: Limited cursing, since most decks can’t support too many terminal cards (Hawker, Steward, Workshop). Going for multiple Twins (one-shot “Lost Cities”) would likely be an aggressive approach to Curse opponents more heavily, but I didn’t want to base the strategy on a single powerful $2 cost Fan card and just mostly ignored it here (at this point) at least when it came to making Hawker non-terminal.
Around round 6: Player A plays Village supported double-Hawkers; still curses opponents. Decks (especially that of player A) are thin enough to permanently play multiple Hawkers. I stopped here (6 Curses left in their pile). After Curses run out, I would just continue for a while with naming Coppers, until the player with the most efficient deck goes for greening, when I would use Hawker for payload. For efficient junking opponents with $4 cards named by Hawker, they should be terminal and not of much use when too many copies are in a deck. Hawker itself seems not an option with good Village support available and would likely lead to endless junking until Villages, cantrips and trashers are overwhelmed by the junk.
2nd game: No trashing available (Vassal replaced Steward), I included terminal $4 cost cards (Scout for Conspirator, Sea Hag for Caravan, Pawn for Twins, and Hawker substituted by another card):
First thought: Hawker looks stronger than Sea Hag, as it has after Cursing abilities. The game set-up is that player A will go for Sea Hag:
Lots of junking as expected. With some Silvers, players are able to buy Archive, which helps a lot to manage their decks, then players go for Golden Fleece to concentrate buying power on a single card. I stopped playing before the Curse pile emptied (4 left). I just realized at that point that it doesn’t matter whether $4 cost junk cards are available as the decks are already heavily junked.
3rd game: Trashing (Steward), otherwise the same cards as in game 2: Totally different situation: The +$2 for $4 cost card-junking seems to be the better option when $5 or $6 can be reached for at least a few times, i.e. to get 1-2 copies of Archive and 1 Golden Fleece or so. Opponents of course get junked with the precious Scout. Scout by the way is relatively decent here as it can get the most important cards to hand via a subsequent Pawn for example. Conclusion:
With $4 cost target cards, the concept really seems to work, especially when there is at least some trashing (or, and that would be interestingly different, remodeling/trash-for-benefit cards). The question is how often are there Kingdoms with undesirable $4 cost cards? How would this work when an attacker grants opponents a more than mediocre $4 cost card, but with the own benefit to get to $5 or $6, and later in the game to $8? My gut feeling tells me that this could be the case much more frequently than I originally thought. So, I am not sure whether Hawker is sort of a niche card or whether efficiently playing it just requires some playing skills. Anyway, plus points for brevity, read for presenting an innovative novelty.
- Aquila
First thoughts: A simple Mountebank variant, even to the vanilla bonus. New is the association with a Heirloom “Curse” that will switch decks when played. I can’t find a reason not to play it, e.g. an Action card with the same instructions would be more challenging, or a “discard other than during Clean-up” Reaction. Redoubt, a terminal Curser for $3 with a +$2 bonus looks quite strong. I don’t see an immediate mechanical connection between Redoubt and Rook. Looks more like combining 2 different mechanics. Anyway, I wonder a bit about the choices. What about: “Each other player may discard a Rook. Those who…” as a Redoubt instruction? That would connect the pieces and would make playing Rooks on player’s own turns more challenging. Or at least like Cursed Gold, giving a penalty of not being able to play Rook as a requirement for passing it to the next player.
In game thoughts/notes:
The Rook Heirloom does not have the slightest impact on game play. I couldn’t find a good reason not to open with Redoubt. I stopped playing at round 4. Sorry, there are too many flaws with this concept.Conclusion:
See my first thoughts. I don’t want to sound too harsh, but in light of so many excellent submissions, I felt that playing with Redoubt/Rook was less exciting. I can’t offer much on how to improve the concept other than what I have mentioned in the “First thoughts” section. I just feel like Redoubt and Rook don’t belong to each other.
- NoMoreFun
First thoughts: Racketeer is a Workshop variant with a striking similarity to Cobbler. If the attacking player has a good idea about the decks of the opponents, they can benefit in 2 ways, the guarantee of having a useful card in hand at the start of their next turn, and hurting opponents when they play a copy of it. The important difference of the Workshop part of Racketeer to Cobbler is that the player has to decide which card they want before they know their next hand. On the other hand, choosing key cards such as Villages can be quite oppressive for the opponents. Overall, this looks strong.
In game thoughts/notes:
As Racketeer itself is a Workshop variant, I used Vassal instead of Workshop.
Round 4: Player A plays Racketeer, expects that B plays a Caravan this turn, gains and sets a Caravan aside, buys Pawn; B has indeed a Caravan in hand (the chance was 5/7), plays it (Steward is in their deck), gains a Curse, buys Silver; C buys Caravan.
Round 5: A plays the Caravan, draws and plays Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Silver; B buys Worker’s Village; C buys Racketeer.
Round 6: B buys Golden Fleece. Round 7: C plays Racketeer, gains/sets aside Caravan, buys Market.
Round 7: A plays Caravan, gains Curse, buys Golden Fleece; B plays Caravan, gains Curse, plays Steward, trashes Copper/Estates, buys Pawn; C plays 2 Caravans, 2 Pawns, 1 Steward, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Conspirator. I stopped here.Conclusion:
It is a bit difficult to evaluate the card since the test is based on a “I-play-all-3 players” set up, where I know a bit more about the decks than a player would in a real game with 3 individual players. I don’t know whether I like the concept because I have designed cards with similar mechanics or because it is a refreshing new way of creating player interactions. One potential problem is that in early rounds, players can make an estimated guess on what cards other players have in hands and there is not much the other players can do about it. With a strong trasher on board this is not a real problem as Racketeer, a Duration card with a cost of $5 isn’t too aggressive as long as there aren’t too many of them played. It reminds me in this aspect of Swamp Hag, which can be devastating in multi-player games. The attack of Racketeer can also be quite brutal if no trashers are available and when there is a single key card with a cost of $4 or less. I guess in other Kingdoms, players may chose to not play a copy of the racketeered card. With this in mind and in hindsight, I wonder why player C (the “Coin Collector”) just didn’t played a pure money-based deck in the test rounds, thereby avoiding any trouble (as long as the others do not choose Silver for their Racketeers). Anyway, it’s brutal, it’s fun and it’s innovative.
- Commodore Chuckles
First thoughts: Interesting and novel. Did I tell you that I like player-associated cards that enter decks sometimes later during a game? I’ve designed my own versions (called Equipment cards), though with totally different intentions. I am looking forward testing this.
In game thoughts/notes:
To evaluate the timing and the resulting effects of when the Disasters enter players decks, I slightly modified the player set-ups. Player A is as usual aggressive and once they can play double-Sorcerer, they will give 2 Disasters at once. Player B will do a modest approach and will Disaster the other players sometimes mid-game, though due to the efficient trashing, I expect that this won’t hurt other players too much. Although I haven’t played in the test rounds of other cards until the end so far, player C will have the Disaster-others- near the end approach, i.e. they will (widely) ignore the card.
Game 1: Without any real pressure, all players trim their decks efficiently within a few rounds. Player A is more focused on having enough Villages and an Archive available. The others focus on general engine building. I haven’t counted the rounds, but it took quite a while until player A was ready for a double-Disaster. Both opponents drew their whole deck (almost), and immediately trashed both disasters. I stopped the game at this point.
Game 2: No trashing available (Vassal replaced Steward). It turned out that buying Sorcerers early isn’t a good idea (if not used for “Disastering”, which I haven’t tested). It seems to be a card for the middle or end game. With the set-up Kingdom used (without trashing), the existing junk (Coppers, Estates) doesn’t hurt to built a decent engine and adding a few Disasters doesn’t significantly change that. Just having a few Villages is enough to avoid any Disaster problems, which are still easily removed from decks just by playing them.Conclusion:
While my model Kingdoms are quite potent for all sort of things, even without trashing, Disaster really doesn’t have a remarkable impact. I haven’t tested what happens if Disasters are distributed near the end of the game, but I cannot imagine that it is fun to use Sorcerer just for “Disastering” other players in this way only. There are of course untested scenarios (e.g. no Village), but I doubt that this will help an aggressive Sorcerer player that much as they also have problems to set up efficient attacks. Another thing to consider is the presence of a real junking card in the same Kingdom as Sorcerer, but then again, the real Curses cause much more suffering. I think one problem is that Sorcerer is too expensive for what it does without “Disastering”. Maybe something like this would help: “+2 Cards. Each other player may gain a Disaster (from you). If they did, +1 Card (or some other even stronger bonus)” to make it more attractive to buy Sorcerer earlier in the game and to “Disaster” the opponents. I think there could also be some improvement of the Disasters. It is just too easy to get rid of them.
- mathdude
First thoughts: With the additional Reaction available, Dark Woods asks for complex (complicated?) interactions. It seems to be all about junking and getting junked, though looking not too close at the instructions, it seems like players live in Cockaigne. The Reaction part looks a bit superficial and adds another layer of complexity. It looks like a lot of Village support is required for an efficient Reaction, though why wouldn’t I rather play the other Dark Woods as well instead of reacting with it. Trashing incoming junk comes to my mind, but is it worth it? Is the Reaction part really necessary for the concept, or is it just too much on one card?
In game thoughts/notes:
There is a potential problem with my standard game set-up. Gaining Pawn (Twin has the remarkable difference in that it goes back to the Supply) leads to easy double-junking of opponents without hurting the attacking player. How many official $2 cost cards would allow that? How often would that be a problem with Kingdoms without $2 cost cards? A quick look to the wiki tells me that ~2/3 of the $2 cost cards are tolerable for being present in multiple copies in decks. In the cases where the $2 cost card is not tolerable in multiples, the Dark Woods player can gain $3 cost cards for double-junking the opponents. So, double junking seems to be unavoidable more often than not. After a while, the useful $2 cost card piles out, and junking continues via $3 cost cards. This looks like 3-pile endings are on the table more often than not.
Game (with Pawn, Vassal):
Round 4: Player A plays Dark Woods, gains Pawn, other players gain Curse and Copper. Side note. Player C gets $6, gains Golden Fleece.
Round 5: Player A plays Dark Woods again (drawn by a Pawn)!
Round 7: Same! Round 8: B buys first Dark Woods. Round 9: A buys 2nd Dark Woods (Reaction part becomes relevant). C buys Dark Woods out of frustration.
Round 10: B attacks. A has Dark Woods in hand, but no Steward, so Reaction isn’t an option (wouldn’t an option anyway even with Steward).
Round 11: A attacks, Pawn pile now empty! C attacks, goes for Steward, same Copper/Curse junking as usual. B has Dark Woods in hand, but doesn’t understand the reaction.
Round 12: A attacks. B attacks. Round 13: A attacks. Some piles low (2 Curses, 3 Stewards). B manages to get $8 via Stewards +$2, buys Province.
Round 13: A attacks, Curses gone, buys Province. Junking becomes almost irrelevant (Steward/Silver versus Copper). It’s about greening, trashing junk and 3-pile ending.
Final score after the Steward pile emptied: 13:4:7.Conclusion:
This was a junking-festival that ended by emptying 3 piles. The reaction wasn’t used at all, though I have to say that a double-Dark Woods was never played. However, considering that junking had the highest priority, swapping a Dark Woods with a gained low cost Action card was never a real option. Maybe near the end of the game I missed to swap a gained Silver with a Dark Woods in hand, but I think it really never happened. The Stewards had no chance to fight the flood of junk and thus players had quite thick decks. And even if it happens once in a blue moon that the Reaction is used, it wouldn’t make Dark Woods an exciting card. So, how could the concept be improved? I suggest to first skip the Reaction part and make the attack part less harsh and altogether simpler. It would look like: “Gain a card costing up to $5. Each other player gains a cheaper card of their choice.” This would be a bit similar to the below-the-line part of Messenger, but in my opinion much more elegant.
- alion8me
First thoughts: Simple instruction, giving a choice between being a Peddler and Cursing the opponents. If cursing is chosen, Haunted Shed is terminal with a bonus worth less than that of a $2 cost card. It looks like the best strategy is to accumulate several copies of Haunted Shed, play them as Peddlers and use only the final one (which can be easily the only one in early turns) for Cursing when no other Actions are in hand and/or the goal of the turn is already achieved (e.g. getting $5). Very early, attacking is the only viable option in most cases (without other Action cards in hand). Aside of that, the card looks interesting and elegant because of its simplicity. First drawing a card and than deciding which way to go is certainly useful. My guess is that early in the game, a single copy is mainly used for Cursing, except when an important Action card wants to be played. Mid-game, the Peddler function is probably more frequently used. Late game, it may depend on the game status (who is leading for example). A major potential problem is the cost of $5 (which looks like the correct cost, no doubt), meaning that it usually competes with some tough cards.
In game thoughts/notes:
Round 3: Player A plays Haunted Shed, attacks. The potential of being non-terminal makes it attractive to buy multiple Haunted Sheds early on as there is no terminal collusion to worry about.
Round 5: Player A has 2 Haunted Woods in hand, plus Steward and a Caravan in play, plays both as Peddlers, Steward trashes 2 Estates; the 2x +$2 plus 3 Coppers allows buying a 3rd Haunted Shed. My initial concern (see “First thoughts”) has no weight anymore. Player A wants more of that stuff.
Round 6: Player A chains all 3 Haunted Sheds, plays all as Peddlers, plays Pawn, 2 Caravans, finally Steward which trashes 2 Coppers, still $5 left for the 4th Haunted Shed. Player B still struggles to get to $5, player C managed it twice to get $6 (with the help of Steward’s +$2, but invested both times in Golden Fleece, then gained an Archive.
Round 7: Player A chains four of them, trashes again with Steward, realizes that he needs a +1 Buy, has $7, buys Golden Fleece. Player B finally hits $5, buys Haunted Shed.
Round 8: Player A is the first time unlucky as he has no Haunted Shed in hand, albeit he is ready for the attacks. B plays Haunted Woods as Peddler as part of a chain to trim his deck by trashing.
Round 9: Player A plays 1 Haunted Woods as Peddler, attacks 3x with 3 other Haunted Woods. For this, card drawing by the first Haunted Woods (and a Caravan) allows access to 2 of the much needed Worker’s Villages. B and C get a nice package of 3 Curses all at once. Player A’s deck looks almost perfect now, missing a bit $ payload power. B is a bit behind in everything. C looks okay with all the shiny Money, hits $8 with the help of Steward and a Golden Fleece played in the Buy phase, buys the 1st Province; overconfident? There are 3 Curses looming in the discard pile and more of them are inevitably coming soon.
Round 10: Player A starts with 3 Haunted Sheds in hand (after drawing 1 card from a Caravan in play)… I stopped here.Conclusion:
I was a bit surprised how attractive it is to gain lots of Haunted Sheds. In my initial thoughts I was probably misguided by the apparent non-terminality, which doesn’t seem to be a real problem. I also have to say that Haunted Sheds’ attractiveness is likely due to the lack of strong alternatives in the Kingdom I used for testing (Market is way too similar), and the fact that Haunted Sheds never hurt the deck. Haunted Woods gives +$1 anyway, allowing to easily buy more of them quite quickly. Then once supported by enough Villages, a chain of Haunted Sheds can become devastating, and that quite quickly and consistently. Player A told me he likes the card very much, the other players have some reservation though. I think the chaining ability paired with the payload makes it too easy to efficiently use Haunted Sheds for engines in general and for attacking when the deck is ready. Which choices to make seems to be relatively straight forward. Overall, a nice novel concept and fun to play with (says player A), but not too challenging.
- scolapasta
First thoughts: There was already a card with that name. Looking back: No, it was Bewitched. An Adventures-type Attacking token sounds interesting and novel. Playing with this is probably straight forward in terms of following the instructions and offers great playability as different Kingdoms and decks provide different targets. The relative high cost of $5 probably means that the Event will be bought only once per game. I am a bit curious about the timing and the effect of non-terminal cards when an Attack is attached to them. Are there cheaper versions of Bewitch possible that encourage multiple buys?
In game thoughts/notes:
I added Festival to the Kingdom as the 10th pile. The envisaged strategies: Player A will go for a quick attack with Worker’s Village; B is going for Caravan, and C for Golden Fleece, combining his favored Treasure with the attacking ability.
All players start $4/$3. First few rounds: Nothing remarkable happens. A and B buy an early Workshop to have access to their favorite card; C focusses on money; all players trash via Steward.
Round 5: Player C buys Golden Fleece. Round 6: A buys Market; C hits $5, buys Bewitch, places token on Golden Fleece. Round 7: A buys Bewitch, places token on Worker’s Village. B buys Bewitch, places token on Caravan. C plays Golden Fleece in the Buy phase, after playing Steward in the Action phase for +$2, curses opponents, buys 2nd Golden Fleece. From round 8 on: Permanent cursing by players A and B. Since the decks are all trimmed, and only a single Attack per player can be done, junk doesn’t provide any problems to any of the players. Players could have easily swapped their token with the possible exception of B who suffered a bit for some reason. However, I cannot come up with a good reason for doing that since all players have a lot of copies of useful targeted cards in their deck. Conclusion:
This certainly offers interesting possibilities and guarantees different play with different targets, too many to get a good picture about all the different scenarios. With the standard Kingdom I used, each player easily found their own target, either cheap engine components or high quality cards they want to have anyway. Since only one attack per turn is permitted, this really doesn’t matter as long as the attacking card can be played often. This can be achieved with strong trashing and/or cycling of the deck, which is the case with the Kingdom I used for testing. I can easily imagine to ignore Bewitch at all, since its effects are not dramatic, though this is clearly different in a Kingdom without trashing. I have the feeling that there is more to this concept than my limited play testing revealed (to me), but it probably needs some changes. I think the major flaw is that neither the quality nor the cost of the target card really matters, since playing it once per turn is the limiting factor anyway and this can be achieved by the usual engine components, which do not have to be the target card. There is some potential to make Bewitch an elegant new type of attack, where players have to decide when the best time is to buy a Bewitch (in the test game all players did it as soon as possible), rather than what the preferred target is. Overall, a refreshing idea with a high re-playability, though I think it needs some changes, for example to make token swapping more attractive.
- Mahowrath
First thoughts: This has quite complex instructions. The first part is about self-junking opponents a la Ghost Ship and the Hex Bad Omens. The alternative is a Sea Hag-type Cursing attack, but limited to situations when the discarded card is not an Action and has a cost of $2 or less, i.e. in most cases Coppers, Estates or Curses, but with notable exceptions, e.g. Spoils. All this is combined on a $4 cost card giving +2 Cards. The first part is a mild attack as long as opponents are able to follow it. Attacked players are not obliged to do the top deck junking, which makes an end to the cursing when the Curse pile is empty. Double attacks that first top deck junk, followed by discarding it, inevitably leads to Cursing (if still available). So, a challenge for the attacked players is to estimate the likelihood if a second attack will follow. This is more likely to occur in multi player games.
In game thoughts/notes:
A bit tricky to simulate Jilted Witch with the “I play for all 3 players” testing set-up as the information about cards in the discard pile and a potential second attack is to a great extent available (to “all of me”).
All players buy Steward, A and B buy Jilted Witch, C buys Silver. Round 3: Player A trashes, B plays Jilted Witch. C has no discard pile; thus 2nd part of instructions: discards Estates, top decks Curse (no choice); A has discard pile (Steward, Pawn, 2 Coppers), decides to top deck a Copper; B buys Worker’s Village.
Round 4: A is unlucky (Jilted Witch not in hand), buys Worker’s Village. Round 5: A plays Jilted Witch, B and C no discard pile, thus discard. B discards Worker’s Village, C discards Copper, gets Curse onto deck.
At this point I realize that being able to manipulate the time of shuffling (having a discard pile) can be a challenging option for players to dodge Cursing. On the other hand, cards like Night Watchman would offer a different counter, though with some self inflicting handicap.
Round 6: B attacks (terminal); A and C top deck Copper. Round 8: A attacks, B and C no discard pile; B discards Worker’s Village (again!), C discards Copper (again!), gets Curse onto deck. I just realized that in this situation, if A would play a 2nd Jilted Witch, C would have the option to top deck the previously discarded Copper, whereas B wouldn’t have this option. A & B buy 2nd Jilted Witch, C’s deck looks like a mess.
A few rounds later: Exactly this happens, A double-attacks, First Jilted Witch: B & C do not have a discard pile, B discards Copper, gets Curse onto deck, C discards Golden Fleece. Then 2nd Jilted Witch: B has Copper in discard, decides to top deck it; C doesn’t have this option, discards Copper, top decks gained Curse. If now a 3rd Jilted Witch would follow (for C more likely as B’s turn is before), C would have the “top decking” defense, whereas B wouldn’t; B would discard the Copper he just put onto his deck. Looks like a self regulation that makes multiple Jilted Witch attacks less harsh. Conclusion:
Jilted Witch offers a novel combination of junking attacks, which can be quite annoying for the attacked players. It is really difficult to tell much about the fun factor here when simultaneously playing for all 3 players in the test game. Anyway, for a single attack, Jilted Witch looks a bit swingy and this is exaggerated later in the game, when attacked players discard just by chance a Province or not. Also, when attacked once it is highly random whether the other players have a discard pile, and if so, whether it has a low cost card in it. This seems to be different after multiple attacks, which is more likely to occur with more players in the game. Overall, I am not convinced about the fun factor and I also have some problems with the decisions attacked players have to make.
Ghost Smithycost $5 - Action – Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player chooses one: discard their hand and draw 3 cards; or trash a non-Victory card from their hand (or reveal they can't).
|
- majiponi
First thoughts: Attacked players can choose between a Minion-type effect (harsher if hit with 5+ card hands) and trashing anything but Victory cards from hand. Aside of Ruins, this will be Coppers earlier in games and relatively likely throughout games without any trashing. This is worth testing both scenarios. For multiple attacks by a single player and more likely with more players, discarding Coppers leads quickly to hands with high quality cards, which then will be replaced by a hand of 3 average cards. So, this will hurt most of the time. Single attacks per turn on the other hand don’t look too dramatic.
In game thoughts/notes:
Game 1: Round 3: Player A plays Ghost Smithy; B & C both have 4 Coppers, 1 Estate, both choose option 1; B draws Steward, Copper, Estates (will just trash in his turn); C draws Silver, Copper, Estates; no harm done. Round 5: A plays Ghost Smithy (terminal); B has Steward, Silver, 2 Coppers, 1 Estate, and a Caravan in play, trashes a Copper (will trash more in his turn); C has Silver, 3 Coppers, 1 Estate (this hurts a bit more), trashes Copper. Round 6: B buys Ghost Smithy, C buys Archive. Round 7: A has a problem. He attacked and helped opponents trashing their junk, but wasn’t able to trash his own junk (Ghost Smithy never together in same hand as Worker’s Villages, but unfortunately with Steward. B plays Ghost Smithy. After a few more rounds, players B & C have clearly the better decks than A. I stopped here. An early Ghost Smithy feels like a Ruined Thief/Abandoned Pirate Ship.
Game 2: Same Kingdom, but player A also starts $4/$3 and first improves his deck before attacking. C will not trash anything.
At around round 10: Decks are now trimmed and ready, except C’s, but even this guy has enough cycling and even more so, buying power; C buys 1st Province.
Round 11: A has now 2 Ghost Smithies in his deck; B has 1. C buys 2nd Province.
Round 12: A plays double Ghost Smithy; 1st: B trashes Workshop from hand; C trashes Copper. A buys Province. B plays Ghost Smithy; C discards hand, draws 3 cards (no harm); A trashes Workshop; B buys Province. I stopped here.Conclusion:
If Ghost Smithy has a good timing for attacks, I couldn’t find it. Too early is bad, too late is –well- too late. It seems, at least with the setup I used, that players can totally ignore Ghost Smithy without major harm to their deck. Early on it helps trashing Coppers, later on cards can be trashed that are not anymore useful. Of course this doesn’t last forever, but sacrificing a few $3 to $4 cost cards at that point doesn’t seem to be too dramatic. Making the choices is mostly trivial, i.e. trashing junk.
- Timinou
First thoughts: The previous version of Crusaders allowed players to quickly get very thin decks just by using Crusader’s trashing. It looks like the major change in terms of mechanics is that the attacking player trashes last now and thus has more control over what they can get out of the attack. I just repeat here my previous early thoughts on the earlier version of Crusaders:
Looks like a Sacrifice/Bishop-type bonus that is granted to the attacking player. Since the attacking player can also trash, they can manipulate the outcome to some extent. Especially the first attacked player may have the dilemma to choose between trashing what is best for improving their own deck and avoiding to give the attacker too much of a benefit. This could become critical in the case of Curses, which hurt the deck the most, but would give the attacker +2 VP. This however is relevant only when Curses are gained before and probably plays quite differently in Kingdoms with strong trashers versus those without trashers (other than Crusaders). It might be getting brutal (and interesting) when an additional Curser is in the Kingdom. Looks definitely like an interesting and novel concept.
In game thoughts/notes:
All players open $4/$3; Steward replaced by Vassal (i.e. no additional trashing).
Round 3: Player A plays Crusader; B & C both trash an Estate; A trashes a Copper for +2 Coffers and gets +2 VP, buys a Worker’s Village; B plays Worker’s Village, Crusader; C and A both trash an Estate; B trashes a Copper, getting +2 Coffers and +2 VP, buys Workshop; C plays Crusader; A & B trash an Estate; C trashes a Copper; gets +2 Coffers, +2 VP, buys nothing. Note: Already a heavy attacking/trashing round similar to what happened with the previous Crusader version.
Round 4: Players gain cards (most notable: A gains a 2nd Crusader; C buys a Golden Fleece). Round 5: A gains Archive and Worker’s Village; B buys Golden Fleece; C buys Archive.
Round 6 (now it’s getting funny): Player A plays Worker’s Village, Crusader; B and C trash Copper; A trashes Estates, getting +2 Coffers, +2 VP; A plays 2nd Crusader; all players trash Copper; A gets +2 Coffers; A buys Silver; B plays Worker’s Village, Workshop, gains Worker’s Village, plays Crusader; all players trash a Copper, B gets +2 Coffers, buys nothing; C plays Crusader; A gains a Curse; B trashes a Copper; C doesn’t trash, gets 2 Coffers, plays Golden Fleece at Night for +2 Coffers, buys a Pawn.
Round 7: A plays Worker’s Village, Crusader; B gains a Curse; C trashes a Copper; A trashes nothing, gets 2 Coffers, plays Pawn, Crusader; B gains a Curse; C trashes a Copper; A trashes a Copper, gets 2 Coffers, buys Golden Fleece; B plays Worker’s Village, Crusader… I stopped at this point.Conclusion:
Similar to the previous version of Crusader, players get very quickly very thin decks, without the need of any other trasher. Playing all the Crusaders very quickly is on one hand a funny experience, but on the other hand looks a bit repetitive. What is new to the previous version is that getting lot’s of Coffers accelerates the game even more than before. Is that good? I am not sure, but I tend to say no. I’ll add here some of my conclusions about the previous version of Crusader: […] After all Estates and most Coppers are gone, this mostly leads to VP gaining, and giving Curses to the opponents, who themselves use those Curses immediately for the same purpose. The game will not change after the Curses run out, because attacked players can simply choose this option without effect, making Crusaders pretty useless at that point. I expected more thrill as the concept looks interesting, like giving other players “torturing” options, but it didn’t really worked out like that. Playing 2 (or more) Crusaders per player is a difficult task as the decks are so rapidly eaten up that it might be difficult to also have the right support in form of Villages, though Archive could help here. But would that be fun or challenging? I think the concept could survive when Crusaders is the bottom part of a split pile, or a sort of State or Event. However, I would look at some changes of the trashing/Cursing conditions first.
- D782802859
First thoughts: A Woodcutter, whose simple instructions already makes it clear that the opponents have a choice to make. The Noose looks brutal; it looks like the +1 Buy of Executioner helps here and that it is there for a reason. A direct connection between The Axe and Executioner is less obvious. Maybe for those opponents, who don’t have an extra buy available in their hand.
In game thoughts/notes:
All players start $4/$3. Mountain Village instead of Worker’s Village to reduce the number of cards with + Buys.
Round 4: Player A plays Executioner; B has only Coppers/Estates in hand; he will draw his Executioner next time when it is too late; he takes The Axe; C, the fool, didn’t care about buying an Executioner, takes also The Axe (all players have Steward in their decks); A buys Mountain Village; B buys Silver; C plays Steward, gains a Curse, returns The Axe, trashes 2 Estates, buys Pawn.
Round 5: A plays Executioner again! B chooses The Axe (which he still has), C has 5 Treasures in hand, rage-quits, wait, he changed his mind and takes The Axe again; A buys a 2nd Executioner; B plays Executioner, gains Curse; C chooses The Axe (has it already); A also chooses The Axe; B buys Mountain Village; C buys Golden Fleece.
Round 6: A buys Mountain Village; B plays Steward, gains a Curse, returns the Axe, trashes 2 Coppers, buys Workshop; C plays Steward, gains Curse, trashes, returns The Axe, buys Pawn.
Round 7: A plays Executioner (after Pawn), (gets Curse/returns Axe); B has Executioner in hand, takes The Noose; C has Market in hand, takes also The Noose; A buys Mountain Village; B plays Mountain Village, Pawn, Executioner (the remaining cards in hand are junk, but the Steward is not in sight, sigh); A has the Executioner in hand, takes The Noose; B buys a Copper, trashes it via The Noose, return the latter, buys a Caravan. I stopped here.
Game 2: All players start $4/$3. Player C learnt from the first game and also gains some Executioners now.
Kingdom: Cellar, Vassal, Workshop, Caravan, Conspirator, Mountain Village, Archive, Lab, Crown.
Round 3: A plays Executioner; B (Silver, 3 Coppers, 1 Estate) takes The Axe; C (Executioner, 3 Coppers, 1 Estate) takes The Noose; A buys Archive; B buys Archive; C plays Executioner; A (Workshop, 2 Coppers, 2 Estates) takes The Noose; B (Executioner, 3 Coppers, 1 Estate) takes the Axe (already has it); C buys Copper, trashes it (via The Noose), returns The Noose, buys Archive (quite heavy round)
Round 4: A plays Workshop, gains Conspirator, trashes it (via The Noose), returns The Noose, buys Cellar; B plays Executioner gains a Curse (via The Axe), returns the Axe; C (Workshop, 3 Coppers, 1 Estates) takes The Noose; A (Archive, 4 Coppers) takes The Axe (hopes to draw Executioner); B buys a Lab; C plays Workshop, gains something that he trashes (via The Noose, which he returns), buys something for $3. Game stopped here.Conclusion:
I've found it quite refreshing to play with this set of cards, though it was basically first a The Axe ping-pong and later with enough +Buy cards a The Noose ping pong game. The harshest penalty –trashing an Action card- could be easily avoided, and if this would not be possible, sacrificing a cantrip-Pawn isn’t the end of the world, especially since Workshop easily substitutes for such losses. Executioner would likely play differently in Kingdoms with fewer +Buy cards, though it would become more centralizing just for its own +Buy. Another critical factor is of course the ability to trash. Without trashing, gaining Curses is much more of a problem. In the second game with a different Kingdom, Executioner clearly played differently. Players are more worried about incoming Curses, but can’t (shouldn’t) always avoid them. In summary, a nice idea and well done. The fun factor and re-playability is high, and it gives the attacked players something to think about.
Short list of cards for the Final Round:Shaman/Bewitched – faust
Muster – spineflu
Valkyrie/Jinxed – mandioca15
Corrupt Middleman – fika monster
Hawker – silverspawn
Racketeer - NoMoreFun
Executioner/The Noose/The Axe - D782802859 This list of Finalists is sorted by order of appearance and doesn’t reflect any ranking.
Among the candidate cards I have some favorites that I really like, but without more information it would be really difficult to declare a winner. I have also included some cards that I think are interesting enough to deserve a 2nd chance.
I am now setting up a new Kingdom and will test the listed cards under such conditions. I’ll likely do some changes between the testing rounds to better meet individual card specifics.