Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: Gubump on June 22, 2019, 01:47:27 am
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MMzVvDq.png)
So this is a Throne Room variant for a fan expansion that I'm working on. The idea is that you bluff and claim to be throning an Action card as something it may or may not truly be. If the player to your left calls your bluff, then if they were correct, you just downgrade the card you set aside. If they were wrong in calling you out, however, it turns into a King's Court. On the other hand, if you player to your left decides to believe you, you throne the set aside card as if it were what you claim it is. The problem, of course, is that its text is an essay that makes even Prince and Native Village look short-winded.
EDIT: On second thought, I can easily predict that this would take nightmarishly long to resolve. How can I delete this thread? (And if I can't, could a mod please do so?)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/MMzVvDq.png)
So this is a Throne Room variant for a fan expansion that I'm working on. The idea is that you bluff and claim to be throning an Action card as something it may or may not truly be. If the player to your left calls your bluff, then if they were correct, you just downgrade the card you set aside. If they were wrong in calling you out, however, it turns into a King's Court. On the other hand, if you player to your left decides to believe you, you throne the set aside card as if it were what you claim it is. The problem, of course, is that its text is an essay that makes even Prince and Native Village look short-winded.
EDIT: On second thought, I can easily predict that this would take nightmarishly long to resolve. How can I delete this thread? (And if I can't, could a mod please do so?)
I'm sure this can be stripped down to reduce text and play time, while still retaining all of the originals key concepts.
-
Whoo, guessing games. For added fun, play a game with this and Fortress in the Kingdom.
-
I don't think it would take long to resolve if the player to your left makes a quick decision, while it can cause analysis paralysis and is extremely wordy, I think it could work.
I might be back for a while. It's been months since I posted last.
-
I don't think it would take long to resolve if the player to your left makes a quick decision, while it can cause analysis paralysis and is extremely wordy, I think it could work.
I might be back for a while. It's been months since I posted last.
Okay, I guess I'll keep it around, then. I will, however, drop it from my fan expansion because said expansion already has a Throne Room variant and Planetarium doesn't really fit in with the other cards in it.
-
It also might help speed things up if you can shift the burden of naming a card on to the player who plays Planetarium. Of course this would change how the card plays. :|
-
you've got a player honesty issue with it specifically having to be an action card you set aside, so you can trim that.
you also have a multi-variable output issue (reveal + telling truth, reveal + lying, no reveal) that can be handled a little more elegantly.
and you've got some ambiguity as to whether the gained cheaper card for "reveal + lying" is based on the revealed card or the named card.
This wording fixes all of those (although doesn't make it much shorter):
Set aside a card from your hand, facedown.
Name an Action card costing less than $5 from the Supply.
The player to your left chooses whether or not you reveal the set aside card.
If they choose to have you reveal it and it was the named card, play it three times.
If they choose to have you reveal it and it wasn't the named card, trash it and gain an Action card cheaper than the revealed card.
If they choose to not have you reveal it: reveal it now and play it twice as if it is the Named card. It is that card until it leaves play.
-
you've got a player honesty issue with it specifically having to be an action card you set aside, so you can trim that.
It always reveals the set aside Action in the end even if the player to your left doesn't have you reveal it. There's no honesty issue.
-
I think the way to simplify it is to make it more like Tournament, with two sets of either/or's that lead to a positive outcome or a negative outcome. Here's my suggestion:
Planetarium, Action $3
+1 Action
Set aside a card from your
hand face down. The player
to your left may trash it. If
they do not, reveal it; if it is
an Action, play it three
times, otherwise discard it.
The four possible outcomes (+1 Action for each):
Trash an action card (bad)
Play an action card three times (very strong)
Trash a non-action card (sort of good)
Discard a non-action card (sort of bad)
I gave it +1 Action so that it doesn't have the "might be terminal" problem that makes it annoying to play. I also made it cheap because 3 of the 4 outcomes are not very strong, so you're swinging for the fences, but also have room to bluff.
-
Cool bluffing card. Spineflu's wording is best IMO as it shows the 3 options very clearly.
-
Planetarium
Action - $5
Set aside a card from your hand, then play this as if it's a cheaper Action from the supply twice. Afterwards, the player to your left may have you reveal the set aside card. If you did, and it was the named card, play it.. Otherwise, gain a Curse. Discard the set aside card.