Print

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

[Showdown35]

A couple more cards that I'm considering for my fan expansion that I'd like to put up for discussion. Both of the Reaction variety:

Tax Collector - Action-Reaction - $5
If there are one or more empty Victory Card Supply piles, gain a Gold.
Otherwise, gain a Silver.
------
When another player buys a Victory card, you may discard this.
If you do, that player trashes a Treasure he has in play that you choose.
You gain the trashed card.

I wanted to make a reaction card that would help a player who got off to a bad start. It will help stop a player in the lead from running away with the game. As soon as they start to use their high value Treasure to buy Provinces, you can nab one. I knew I'd have to balance the high powered reaction (well, high powered later in the game), with a sub-par top part. A terminal Silver gainer for $5 is quite bad. Both the top and bottom of the card get much better later in the game, and that's kinda what I was going for with this card.

I am considering two changes:
Changing the price to $4; or reversing the Silver and Gold gaining conditions (i.e. you gain a Gold unless there is an empty Victory pile).
Obviously I would not make BOTH of these changes, because a Gold gainer for $4 would be ridiculous.

Reluctant Executioner - Action-Reaction - $4
+2 Cards
+$1
------
When you would trash a card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, instead trash nothing.

Originally this was called "Broker" and was going to offer a pseudo "insurance policy" on trashing cards, but I ended up really liking the art and flavor paired with this reaction mechanic. I know the name is a mouthful, so I might try to find smaller words to mean the same thing. Granted this card is not very good when there is no trash attack present (I considered making an Attack-Reaction, but thought better of it) keep in mind that it can also protect you from unwanted forced trashing (like using Steward to trash a single Curse and having no other card you want to trash, or Goleming into a forced trash that you don't want). And since it replaces the trashed card with nothing, you can't abuse trash for benefit cards, which I wanted to make sure was the case.

Comments and critiques are welcome. I'm sure there are considerations I have missed and the more eyes on a card in design, the better. I haven't playtested at all, so I expect there to be design flaws, which is what I'm hoping to iron out a little before I start playtesting my set.

Thanks!

[LastFootnote]

Tax Collector - Action-Reaction - $5
If there are one or more empty Victory Card Supply piles, gain a Gold.
Otherwise, gain a Silver.
------
When another player buys a Victory card, you may discard this.
If you do, that player trashes a Treasure he has in play that you choose.
You gain the trashed card.

The bottom ability is cool, but confusing when there are multiple players trying to discard Tax Collectors to steal stuff at the same time. It happens in turn order, so there are rules to cover it. I guess you can see if it's actually a problem in practice.

The top seems weak. Reactions have to be weak, but "Gain a Silver" is just way too weak for a $5 card even with a reaction ability. The default ability should be better. You could even just add +$2 to the top. Maybe that's too close to Explorer, but probably it's fine.

Reluctant Executioner - Action-Reaction - $4
+2 Cards
+$1
------
When you would trash a card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, instead trash nothing.

I don't love the top, but I understand that it's hard to come up with simple tops for Reactions. The bottom wording seems awkward, although it's a cool ability. How about, "When you would trash a card, you may instead reveal this from your hand." I think that's sufficiently clear. I'm not sure the reaction works with all existing cards rules-wise, but no problems are jumping to mind.

[Showdown35]

The bottom ability is cool, but confusing when there are multiple players trying to discard Tax Collectors to steal stuff at the same time. It happens in turn order, so there are rules to cover it. I guess you can see if it's actually a problem in practice.

The top seems weak. Reactions have to be weak, but "Gain a Silver" is just way too weak for a $5 card even with a reaction ability. The default ability should be better. You could even just add +$2 to the top. Maybe that's too close to Explorer, but probably it's fine.

 I agree that the top is weak, as I said in the description. My worry is that if the top is not weak enough, this will become an auto-buy and there will be a clutter of Treasure stealing come end-game. I want the reaction ability to be more of a "hey, I'm falling behind and this will help me catch up" rather than a "cool bonus to a good card". Fitting with the Flavor, the card is meant to be taxing on the players in the lead (if you're buying green with big money, you have to pay taxes).
 My other thought is to make this a one-shot reaction. If I boost the top part (by adding +$2 or making it a Gold gainer), I could hedge the reaction clutter by making it trash itself to steal the Treasure. Thoughts?

I don't love the top, but I understand that it's hard to come up with simple tops for Reactions. The bottom wording seems awkward, although it's a cool ability. How about, "When you would trash a card, you may instead reveal this from your hand." I think that's sufficiently clear. I'm not sure the reaction works with all existing cards rules-wise, but no problems are jumping to mind.

You're bang on with the top part. It is difficult to make a simple top. This one started as a Broker, so I had the top similar to a peddler or market to fit the flavor. When I changed it to an Executioner, I tweaked the top a little, but not much.
I've been thinking about making some self synergy by having the top part a trasher, but again, I don't want to make it an Attack-Reaction. Perhaps I could get away with an "Each player trashes a card from his hand" top, but I'd be treading into dangerous territory if that's not labeled an attack. Maybe, "Each player trashes a card and gains a card costing up to $3" or something, then you could react to it with a copy of it and still gain the card.
The wording I took right from Trader, just replaced "gain" with "trash" and "Silver" with "nothing". I thought it was pretty clear, and shouldn't cause any rules problems (that's why the "if you do" clause is on so many cards!)

[Showdown35]

The more I think about it, the more I think making the Tax Collector reaction a one-shot is a good idea. I mean, it can steal a Gold or Platinum with no risk at all (as in, when you choose to use the reaction, you know what you'll be stealing, it can't swing and miss like Thief).

So what about:

Tax Collector - Action-Reaction - $5
If there are one or more empty Victory Card Supply piles, gain a Gold, putting it in your hand.
Otherwise, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.
-----
When another player buys a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
If you do, that player trashes a Treasure he has in play that you choose.
You gain the trashed Treasure card.

?

[Rubby]

Tax Collector - Action-Reaction - $5
If there are one or more empty Victory Card Supply piles, gain a Gold, putting it in your hand.
Otherwise, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.
-----
When another player buys a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand.
If you do, that player trashes a Treasure he has in play that you choose.
You gain the trashed Treasure card.

The top is very similar to Explorer. And I'm not sure how appealing the one-shot reaction is as in most games it nets you a Gold at best at the expense of the card (and likely a Gold or Silver in your hand on your next turn).

Also, taking multiplayer games into account, it sort of violates Dominion's aim of being non-political in that it attacks (even though it's not technically an Attack card) a specifically targeted individual opponent, something that is deliberately avoided in the official cards.

Reluctant Executioner - Action-Reaction - $4
+2 Cards
+$1
------
When you would trash a card, you may reveal this from your hand.
If you do, instead trash nothing.

Seems promising, other than the eight-syllable name. Interesting combos with cards like Feast and Altar.

[Drab Emordnilap]

+2 cards +$1 is deceptively powerful all by itself. Remember that cards and bucks aren't equal in value -- three cards is a four dollar terminal, but three bucks is a six dollar treasure.

[LastFootnote]

+2 cards +$1 is deceptively powerful all by itself. Remember that cards and bucks aren't equal in value -- three cards is a four dollar terminal, but three bucks is a six dollar treasure.

Well, a terminal [+$3] Action is more like a $5 card. A weak $5 card, but too good/mindless for $4.

In general, terminal +Cards is less strong than terminal +$. But once you throw on +X Actions, the reverse is true. So...

[+2 Cards] < [+$2] < [+1 Action; +$2] < [+2 Cards; +1 Action]

Terminal +Cards often ends up being much more powerful than terminal +$ in practice, but that's because you have to buy other components to make that happen. +$ card immediately boost the total amount of $ in your deck and are much less likely to collide with each other. So terminal +Cards is cheaper because of the extra work it takes to make it pop.

[silverspawn]

+2 cards +$1 is deceptively powerful all by itself. Remember that cards and bucks aren't equal in value -- three cards is a four dollar terminal, but three bucks is a six dollar treasure.

Well, a terminal [+$3] Action is more like a $5 card. A weak $5 card, but too good/mindless for $4.

In general, terminal +Cards is less strong than terminal +$. But once you throw on +X Actions, the reverse is true. So...

[+2 Cards] < [+$2] < [+1 Action; +$2] < [+2 Cards; +1 Action]

Terminal +Cards often ends up being much more powerful than terminal +$ in practice, but that's because you have to buy other components to make that happen. +$ card immediately boost the total amount of $ in your deck and are much less likely to collide with each other. So terminal +Cards is cheaper because of the extra work it takes to make it pop.

I agree with your list, but I disagree with the highlighted part. +3$ is very much a 3$/4$ card. just look at cutpurse. +3$ for 5$ is about as strong as harvest that puts the cards back, which is awful. meanwhile, +4$ for 5$ is strong but fine.

[pacovf]

Considering that horse traders costs 4$ and merchant ship costs 5$, I disagree with your pricing. Not sure why you think that the fact that harvest cycles your deck is a strong enough effect that removing it justifies a harvest that always gets the best result.

[Awaclus]

Giving +$3 is an effect that, alone, isn't balanced at any cost. Horse Traders is a lot worse than that and costs $4. Count is a lot better than that and costs $5.

Also, I'm glad that a $5 +$4 doesn't exist, but Harvest is completely useless so as long as it's not technically strictly better than Harvest, being better than Harvest isn't an issue. It would be powerful, but not too powerful at $5, it just wouldn't be very fun at any cost.

[silverspawn]

Giving +$3 is an effect that, alone, isn't balanced at any cost. Horse Traders is a lot worse than that and costs $4. Count is a lot better than that and costs $5.

Also, I'm glad that a $5 +$4 doesn't exist, but Harvest is completely useless so as long as it's not technically strictly better than Harvest, being better than Harvest isn't an issue. It would be powerful, but not too powerful at $5, it just wouldn't be very fun at any cost.

i disagree about the first part, I think +3$ for 4$ would be perfectly fine. It would not be better than cutpurse.

I agree with the second part, +4$ for 5$ would be strong, but fine. I recall buying harvest in a very small number of games, and most of these were to trigger tunnels, which worked pretty well. If there is nothing going on, but there are tunnels and harvest, it'll be better than straight BM. but that shows how a flat +3$ for 5$ is awful.

[Awaclus]

i disagree about the first part, I think +3$ for 4$ would be perfectly fine. It would not be better than cutpurse.

It's not comparable to Cutpurse, though. Cutpurse is better for hitting smaller buys while making it harder for your opponent to hit them, a +$3 for $4 is better for hitting bigger buys. Quarry and Horse Traders both kind of are +$3 for $4, but Quarry only works for Action cards and Horse Traders makes you discard two cards from your hand, so it's better to compare it to them (and find that it would be outright better than HT and also better than Quarry in many situations).

[silverspawn]

i disagree about the first part, I think +3$ for 4$ would be perfectly fine. It would not be better than cutpurse.

It's not comparable to Cutpurse, though. Cutpurse is better for hitting smaller buys while making it harder for your opponent to hit them, a +$3 for $4 is better for hitting bigger buys. Quarry and Horse Traders both kind of are +$3 for $4, but Quarry only works for Action cards and Horse Traders makes you discard two cards from your hand, so it's better to compare it to them (and find that it would be outright better than HT and also better than Quarry in many situations).

well everything is comparable. the effects of counting house and tactician are completely different, and I can compare them and say Tactician is stronger.

but you're making valid points. well, it's not actually that close to HT, because HT is mostly good for a guaranteed 5$, not for hitting 6$. but it's similar to quarry. and yea, it'd probably be better, but it would still be fine. put it in the list of all terminal 3$/4$ silvers, and it'd rank somewhere near the top, but certainly below swindler.