Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Ok so we know that our Action-Reaction, when played, will be sometimes terminal and sometimes not. Now let's figure out what the reaction part reacts  to. We'll start broad and narrow it down when we need to.

I've listed lots of general conditions, any of them, if picked, could have other conditions attached, like "When X, if Y..." Or "when you gain a ____" instead of just "when you gain". I think I listed all the ideas from the other thread that didn't have obvious problems. If you want to vote for one that isn't listed, just reply with what it is an I can edit the poll if it makes sense.

Voting closes Wednesday afternoon; 3 days.

[Roadrunner7671]

Are there write in ballets?

[gkrieg13]

Are there write in ballets?

Is this like a mad libs for the Nutcracker?

[liopoil]

If no option has a majority, do we get to re-vote with fewer options?

[GendoIkari]

If no option has a majority, do we get to re-vote with fewer options?

Yes, just like the others. Well not so much if no option has a majority, but if no option won by very much. Like, if something gets 45% while everything else gets 7%, then the 45% wins.

[Thanar]

What about "When someone sets something aside"?

[Roadrunner7671]

What about 'when someone plays a Scout?'

[faust]

What about "When someone sets something aside"?

I think that would be covered by "when someone resolves an action".

[Awaclus]

What about 'when someone plays a Scout?'

Then the top part would have to be a junker that gives your opponents Scouts.

[faust]

What about "When someone sets something aside"?

I think that would be covered by "when someone resolves an action".

Though thinking about it, Horse Traders is set aside without having to resolve an action. Also Possession.

[eHalcyon]

I have to say that "A supply pile is emptied" seems like a really bad idea.  In practice, you rarely get more than 3 chances for that to trigger, and only if you happen to have the card in your hand when that happens.  For such a card to work, it would need to be spammable (so you can have a reasonable chance of having it in your hand upon a pile emptying) and/or have ridiculously good pile control.  But even then, with such limited chances to trigger it, what could the reaction do that's compelling?

[Roadrunner7671]

What about 'when someone plays a Scout?'

Then the top part would have to be a junker that gives your opponents Scouts.

'Junker.'

[Accatitippi]

I have to say that "A supply pile is emptied" seems like a really bad idea.  In practice, you rarely get more than 3 chances for that to trigger, and only if you happen to have the card in your hand when that happens.  For such a card to work, it would need to be spammable (so you can have a reasonable chance of having it in your hand upon a pile emptying) and/or have ridiculously good pile control.  But even then, with such limited chances to trigger it, what could the reaction do that's compelling?

Refill the empty pile with Scouts.

[GendoIkari]

I have to say that "A supply pile is emptied" seems like a really bad idea.  In practice, you rarely get more than 3 chances for that to trigger, and only if you happen to have the card in your hand when that happens.  For such a card to work, it would need to be spammable (so you can have a reasonable chance of having it in your hand upon a pile emptying) and/or have ridiculously good pile control.  But even then, with such limited chances to trigger it, what could the reaction do that's compelling?

A couple possibilities that could make this work. You could have the card do the ambassador thing of returning cards to the supply, so that you can empty and re-empty the same pile more than once. Also, you could have an under the line "In games using this, the game ends when 4 supply piles are empty instead of 3" or something.

[Davio]

I have to say that "A supply pile is emptied" seems like a really bad idea.  In practice, you rarely get more than 3 chances for that to trigger, and only if you happen to have the card in your hand when that happens.  For such a card to work, it would need to be spammable (so you can have a reasonable chance of having it in your hand upon a pile emptying) and/or have ridiculously good pile control.  But even then, with such limited chances to trigger it, what could the reaction do that's compelling?

I'd say you get even less chances, because you have to be lucky enough to have this in hand when it happens.

[GendoIkari]

I have to say that "A supply pile is emptied" seems like a really bad idea.  In practice, you rarely get more than 3 chances for that to trigger, and only if you happen to have the card in your hand when that happens.  For such a card to work, it would need to be spammable (so you can have a reasonable chance of having it in your hand upon a pile emptying) and/or have ridiculously good pile control.  But even then, with such limited chances to trigger it, what could the reaction do that's compelling?

I'd say you get even less chances, because you have to be lucky enough to have this in hand when it happens.

He said that...

[NoMoreFun]

You'd get better results if multiple options could be selected -approval voting is better than first past the post.

[GendoIkari]

You'd get better results if multiple options could be selected -approval voting is better than first past the post.

Interesting, I hadn't even considered that. Not sure if it would be a good idea to change the format in the middle of the event though...

[Co0kieL0rd]

You'd get better results if multiple options could be selected -approval voting is better than first past the post.

Interesting, I hadn't even considered that. Not sure if it would be a good idea to change the format in the middle of the event though...

I was a little sad you could only vote for one thing, too. I wouldn't mind if you changed the format now (or started a new vote completely). If you can choose only one option out of so many, chances are in the end result you will have multiple options in first place, so no clear winner.

[Asper]

I got an idea (which doesn't follow the decided top pattern):

Guard, $4
+$1
Take a coin token.
----
When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

[eHalcyon]

I got an idea (which doesn't follow the decided top pattern):

Guard, $4
+$1
Take a coin token.
----
When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

Since it doesn't conform to the decided top, why post it here instead of in a new thread?

This is similar to a reaction I submitted to the Guilds contest:

Royal Guard
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Choose one: Take a Coin token; or pay any number of Coin tokens and +$2 per token paid.
When any player (including you) plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, take 2 Coin tokens.

[Asper]

I got an idea (which doesn't follow the decided top pattern):

Guard, $4
+$1
Take a coin token.
----
When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

Since it doesn't conform to the decided top, why post it here instead of in a new thread?

This is similar to a reaction I submitted to the Guilds contest:

Royal Guard
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Choose one: Take a Coin token; or pay any number of Coin tokens and +$2 per token paid.
When any player (including you) plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, take 2 Coin tokens.

I guess i just thought the general idea behind the bottom was neat... Maybe inspire someone?

Actually, i have a hard time imagining how we should create a complete card the way we are doing this currently. If i'm asked, we should have stuck with doing either the action or reaction part first, or at least down to a certain level of abstraction like "Throne Room variant" or "gives you something when attacked" and build the other part from there. Even now i'm running into the problem that if i got a neat reactio  idea, i have to make sure it fits the abstract top.

Either way, the top on my suggestion was a placeholder. Maybe there's something that goes with what we allready decided on.

[tristan]

When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

While the card is not political it features a positive externality, i.e. its Reaction part behaves significantly different in a 2P (you only help yourself) than in a 3P game (you help the third guy).

[Asper]

When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

While the card is not political it features a positive externality, i.e. its Reaction part behaves significantly different in a 2P (you only help yourself) than in a 3P game (you help the third guy).

Did you notice you can reveal it on your own attacks to get cash for playing "nice"?

[LastFootnote]

Guard, $4
+$1
Take a coin token.
----
When any player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do and did not reveal a Guard to that attack card being played before, take a coin token and no player is affected by that attack.

Three comments. First, you can use Inheritance on Guard. Then when somebody plays an Attack card, you can reveal an Estate any number of times (you didn't reveal a Guard!) and take infinite Coin tokens. The wording you want is, "When any player plays an Attack, you may reveal a Guard from your hand. If you do…" This doesn't work with Inheritance at all, but that's the lesser of two evils. Also it's way shorter.

Second, I'm not sure whether this was your intent, but Guard shuts down Attack cards completely. Like, Militia doesn't even give +$2, because it doesn't affect the player who played it.

Third, even if you worded it so that it still affected the player playing the Attack, I think it shuts down attacks too hard in multiplayer games. In two-player games it's the same as Moat. You usually still buy e.g. Witch when your opponent buys Moats because some Curses are still going to get through. Sometimes they won't have a Moat in hand. But in a 4-player game, the chance that any opponent has a Guard in hand is way higher, and one Guard shuts down your attack for all opponents.

I do like the general idea of a Reaction that gains Coin tokens when you're attacked, but I don't think it should also block the attack.