Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Villages!  (Read 6030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Villages!
« on: September 06, 2012, 05:06:06 pm »
+6

Inspired by Dark Ages' Knights cards, I decided it would be neat to have a pile of unique Village cards.  Why Villages?  One, they all serve generally the same function in a deck, so -- much as with Knights -- being deprived of any particular one probably isn't a big deal, as any of the others will usually serve as well.  Two, I've had several ideas for village cards that seem fun but not quite worth making into a proper stack of 10.  But when all combined into a single stack, each individual card feels more interesting.

I've playtested all of these against an AI.  I'll be playing with these in real, face-to-face games tonight, and I'll report back afterward, but for now, here they are.  It is very deliberate that I changed up the types (including an Attack, a Duration, a Victory, etc) and prices (mostly $4s but some $3s).


Coastal Village
$4 - Action
+2 Actions
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck.  Put one into your hand and put the others on top of your deck in any order.


Selected draw.  (This is an idea I took from the "How many niches are left for villages?" thread here.)

Hunter's Village
$4 - Action
+2 Actions
Look at the top card of your deck and choose one:  Put it into your hand and discard the top card of your deck; or discard it and +1 Card.


Weaker selected draw than Coastal Village, but with some filtering to make up for it.  (The discard component of the first option is not important from a mathematical perspective, but it's good for fun:  the player gets to see if they made a smart or foolish decision and glory or agonize accordingly.)

Shipping Village
$4 - Action/Duration
+1 Card
+2 Actions
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action


One of the stronger ones, I suspect.

Town Hall
$4 - Action/Victory
+1 Card
+2 Actions
--
Worth 1 VP


Great Hall with a bonus.

Encampment
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Reveal your hand.  If it contains no Actions, +1 Card.


Shanty Town plus.  Fires less often (because the first card you draw might be an Action card) but still only fires at all when the Village effect would otherwise go wasted, so I don't think it's too strong.  In Big Money, it's a Laboratory, but then so is Shanty Town.

Municipality
$3 - Action/Attack
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
Every other player reveals the top card of his deck and either discards it or puts it back, your choice.


A unique attack can't be too strong, or it could decide the game.  But a slap on the wrist is fine.  This is also the +Buy Village.  Lack of card draw, though, essentially means this is a Copper-with-a-bonus, so I think $3 is fine.

Trader's Village
$3 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1
Trash a card from your hand.


Another Copper-with-a-bonus Village.  Lack of draw balances the trashing effect, which, even being mandatory, would be too much of a bonus for the $4 family of drawing Villages.

Prospector's Village
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Look through your discard pile.  Select a card from it and put it on top of your deck.


Village plus Scavenger.  The lack of a Chancellor effect means it whiffs a lot, especially if you've build a drawing engine out of all these villages.  But it's pretty good in the right circumstances.

Underground Village
$3 - Action
+2 Actions
Discard up to 3 cards from your hand.  +1 Card per card discarded.


Cellar with a Village effect.  Limiting the number of cards you can discard was possibly unnecessary, since Cellar itself has no limit and still works as a $2 card.  But, I dunno, I think adding an Action to a filtering card is a bigger deal than adding one to most cards would be, just because of the likelihood you'll pull in a bunch of Action cards.  Having the limit felt safer to me.

Outskirts
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
--
When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this.
--
When you trash this, +3 Cards.


I wanted an on-gain Village and an on-trash Village, and then I realized it might be pretty cool if they were on the same card.  I know Donald has a personal rule that he won't make a card with more than one horizontal line, but I liked the symmetry of having a simple vanilla card that had a bonus at each end of its life.  The name "Outskirts," of course, is purposely evocative of "Border Village."
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 05:08:44 pm by rinkworks »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2012, 05:32:33 pm »
+1

Not bad. A couple of these might make decent full piles, but most are obviously good candidates for this special pile.

I have two suggestions.

1. Come up with a name for the stack (a la "Knights") and consider renaming the individual cards to reflect the stack name.

2. In order to avoid the double line in Outskirts, how about this: "When you gain or trash this, gain a card costing less than it."

EDIT: I've got an idea for the stack: "Districts".
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 05:35:03 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2012, 06:46:36 pm »
0

I really like this expansion on the Knight idea. I agree that Villages are a great design slot to use. A few individual comments:

Hunter's Village - Do you think it would have read poorly to just have said "... choose one: +1 Card and discard the top card of your deck; or discard it and +1 Card."...?

Shipping Village - Not a concern necessarily about your card, but it makes me wonder if Fishing Village with no +$ would be viable at $2.

Trader's Village - I'm wondering if this needs the +$ at all. It probably does, but a trasher that gives an abundance of actions seems somewhat good on its own.

Underground Village - I agree with the limitation. If nothing else, it leaves a bit more room for both to matter and does a good job a mirroring the difference in power with Warehouse (that is discard then draw vs. draw then discard).

Overall, I like the assortment and am eager to hear your results.

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Villages!
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2012, 07:12:49 pm »
0

Great general idea, and individually with your Villages! I don't see anything wrong with any of them, though I think the limitation on Underground Village is unnecessary and could be removed for simplicity's sake. Otherwise, I like it! :D
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2012, 07:24:42 pm »
0

Hunter's Village - Do you think it would have read poorly to just have said "... choose one: +1 Card and discard the top card of your deck; or discard it and +1 Card."...?

The "it" in "discard it" doesn't refer to anything then, and the guessing game is lost.  Unless you mean to keep the reveal wording and just phrase the choices that way?  But "+1 Card" means to draw a card from the deck, which makes the initial reveal pointless and actually ambiguous, because then it isn't specified what happens to that revealed card if you pick the first choice.
Logged

Rush_Clasic

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • never knows best
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2012, 07:53:06 pm »
0

Hunter's Village - Do you think it would have read poorly to just have said "... choose one: +1 Card and discard the top card of your deck; or discard it and +1 Card."...?

The "it" in "discard it" doesn't refer to anything then, and the guessing game is lost.  Unless you mean to keep the reveal wording and just phrase the choices that way?

That's what I meant.

But "+1 Card" means to draw a card from the deck, which makes the initial reveal pointless and actually ambiguous, because then it isn't specified what happens to that revealed card if you pick the first choice.

Does revealing a card actually move it from your deck? I always felt it stayed on top, just revealed. Either way, I suppose it isn't obvious enough for my wording to work.

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2012, 08:09:51 pm »
0

My unrequested and overly harsh reviews  :P

Coastal Village seems OP, see: courtyard (comparison), anything that deals with top of deck (combo): 4/10

Shipping village also seems OP but fishing village exists, so in comparison... 5/10
Encampment *might* be balanced, but I feel like the same card without the bonus action could very well fit into 3$-4$, so this might still be OP: 5/10
----

Hunter's village seems like a better designed, more balanced version of Coastal Village: 9/10

Town Hall is fine, IW/Town Hall/Gardens or Silk Road is likely insane but thats OK because it's a 3card combo: 7/10
Municipality isn't the strongest card, but at 3$ it shouldn't be. More situational than other villages: 7/10

Trader's Village compares favorably to lookout without being too strictly-better-than, I like this card: 8/10

Prospector's village is my favorite. The joys of missing like Counting House misses counters it's pretty-strong effect, and it's best in situations where you'd likely draw your deck anyways (it adds consistency, though) 10/10

Underground village seems balanced though highly situational. I like it. 9/10

Outskirts is also a fun card, but I think the on-trash might be better balanced at +2 cards. 8/10
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2012, 09:06:39 pm »
0


Trader's Village
$3 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1
Trash a card from your hand.


Another Copper-with-a-bonus Village.  Lack of draw balances the trashing effect, which, even being mandatory, would be too much of a bonus for the $4 family of drawing Villages.


I would like this better at $4. Otherwise I really like this! A little more consistency in the abilities would help the grokking and remembering the cards, though.

I would like for the Village stack to be named with "____ Town" just to be distinct and confuse less.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 09:09:40 pm by One Armed Man »
Logged

jotheonah

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
  • Respect: +952
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2012, 02:04:54 am »
0

The knights have proper names. Maybe you should give all these villages proper place-names.
Logged
"I know old meta, and joth is useless day 1 but awesome town day 3 and on." --Teproc

He/him

zahlman

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Respect: +216
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2012, 08:48:57 am »
0

I don't especially like that you propose to make a pile of cards that don't all have the same cost. These are neat ideas, though (wasn't the +1VP one submitted to one of the contests?) and I agree that many of them could make full piles on their own.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Villages!
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2012, 08:59:06 am »
0

(wasn't the +1VP one submitted to one of the contests?)

Sure, but that card is one that most self-respecting fan card creators have come up with at some point. A few others here are also prototypical fan Villages, but I think that's fine - he's not saying these are all super-creative, they just fit nicely in this stack.
Logged

Dulkal

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +11
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2012, 09:22:08 am »
0

I don't especially like that you propose to make a pile of cards that don't all have the same cost.

There is precedence for that in the Knight stack though.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Villages!
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2012, 12:18:24 pm »
0

1. Come up with a name for the stack (a la "Knights") and consider renaming the individual cards to reflect the stack name.

I did make a randomizer called "Villages."  It does slightly bother me that they don't all have "Village" in the name, but it gets hard naming Villages after a while!

Quote
2. In order to avoid the double line in Outskirts, how about this: "When you gain or trash this, gain a card costing less than it."

I actually did think of this exact idea.  But I think it's probably too weak.  You want some sort of incentive to trash the thing, but I think it would be pretty unusual that you'd want to trade it in for a Silver or something cheaper.  Whereas +3 Cards in the end-game might push you into Province territory on that very turn.

Hunter's Village - Do you think it would have read poorly to just have said "... choose one: +1 Card and discard the top card of your deck; or discard it and +1 Card."...?

You can't make an educated choice, then.  The idea is that you see one card and have to guess whether the next one will be better or worse.  With this wording, unless you know what's on your deck, one choice is as good as the other.

But maybe this isn't what you meant.  After reading the full thread, I'm still not sure.  But with regard to this:

Quote
Does revealing a card actually move it from your deck?

Yes and no.  It's worth citing something Donald clarified somewhere in the Dark Ages Preview board:  What if you play a Lookout and trash a Rats with it?  You get an immediate +1 Card bonus for doing so, so do you draw the card one of the other two cards revealed by Lookout or just pick the next card off the deck AFTER the revealed cards?  The latter, Donald X. confirmed, as the former would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

Quote
Coastal Village seems OP, see: courtyard (comparison), anything that deals with top of deck (combo): 4/10

Courtyard is strong because you can put a card back that you already had in your hand; additionally, you're drawing all of the top three cards, rather than just picking one of the three.  Coastal Village is actually the one I've played with the most.  While the other nine cards are new, I've had a full stack of Coastal Villages in regular rotation for a year or so now.  I actually kind of think it's possibly the weakest of the ten, although that's quite arguable.

Quote
Trader's Village compares favorably to lookout without being too strictly-better-than, I like this card: 8/10

Aack!  I think I lucked out there, because although I was constantly comparing effects to other official cards, I missed the comparison to Lookout.

Quote
The knights have proper names. Maybe you should give all these villages proper place-names.

Sweet idea, actually.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Villages!
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2012, 12:45:09 pm »
+1

Ok, so here's how things went.  I played three 2-player games last night, all of which used this stack of Villages.  The first one had Rabble, so we build roughly mirror Village-Rabble engines, though there was diversity in the extras we put in and, of course, diversity in the Villages we had to work with.  We wound up emptying the Village stack, possibly unwisely, and used every Village at least once.  An interesting feature of this game is that we had Haggler to pick up extra Villages with $5 and $6 purchases, but when we turned up Town Hall, we couldn't do that anymore.  So Town Hall stayed on top for a while and actually discouraged loading up on Rabbles, as buying a Rabble with a Haggler in play wouldn't allow us to get a free Village to lubricate the deck.

Second game lacked good drawing cards, so the Villages were less important.  We bought some but didn't wind up buying a lot.

Third game was the most interesting -- a Colony game with King's Court, Nobles, Fairgrounds, and Colony/Platinum.  Spice Merchant and Develop thinned out our decks quicker than you'd think, which left us with rich, junk-free decks and no source of +Buy other than Spice Merchant (which we hand to feed Silvers to, because neither of us had the foresight to save some Coppers) and the Municipality buried in an unknown position in the Villages pile.  As we were soon pulling in money sufficient for double- and triple-Colony turns, it was critical to have that +Buy.  But when we got through the Villages stack to Trader's Village, it stalled out the pile, because neither of us wanted a trasher and certainly not one that takes up a card slot.

But my opponent managed to put together a ~$9 turn with +Buy from Spice Merchant, and he bought the Trader's Village.  What do you know -- Municipality was the next Village in the pile, and so he was able to get that too with his second buy.  Now he had a source of +Buy without any strings attached -- one he could King's Court if necessary, and which would turn up in his hand almost every turn, as we were both reliably drawing our whole decks every turn.  As it turned out, I won, but only because I'd build up some early momentum that he wasn't able to overcome.  If the Colony pile had had a couple more Colonies in it, I'm sure that would have prolonged the game long enough to overtake me.

Some comments on the individual Villages:

Coastal Village - Feels like the weakest one to me.  Very often it didn't matter which card I picked, because I had a drawer in hand that would pick up the other two anyway.  I'm sure it's better in junk-heavy decks, though, which was not true of any of the three games we played.

Hunter's Village - Very nice.  I think my opponent got it all three games.  Once he made a bad decision with it, discarding a Village and picking up a green card instead, but usually it was beneficial.

Shipping Village - I played this a lot and only once needed the next-turn +Action.  But when I did, it made a huge difference.

Town Hall - The VP never mattered.  I had considered bumping it up to 2 VP (too much for a dedicated stack, but probably fine as a unique), but I think it would still only generally be a tie-breaker card.  If Coastal isn't the weakest one here, it's this.

Encampment - This is the Shanty Town Plus one.  The thing to recognize here is that if you activate the bonus, you probably aren't going to need the extra Actions.  It got activated once last night and was helpful, but I think it's more accurate to say it's a "safer" Shanty Town rather than a more powerful one, if that distinction makes sense.

Municipality - The attack never mattered that much, but then I didn't expect it to.  This is key when you need the +Buy.

Trader's Village / Outskirts - Rather interestingly, my opponent used this card -- the trasher -- to activate Outskirts' on-trash effect.  So even if there is no other trashing available in the kingdom, there is always the chance you'll get both Trader's Village and Outskirts and get to use one on the other.  I did consider only a +2 Cards bonus on Outskirts, as was suggested here, but it seemed fine.  Outskirts otherwise feels like one of the weaker cards here.  The on-gain bonus is not nearly as exciting as it is on Border Village, as very often all you might want at $3 or under is a Silver, and money is somewhat at odds with the kind of decks you want to build with Villages.

One very cool thing, though:  When you buy an Outskirts, there's a reasonable chance that the Village underneath it is a $3 Village, and you can pick up that with Outskirts' on-gain effect.  That happened once last night.

Prospector's Village - King's Courting this was awesome.  One blind draw, and two targeted draws.  However, it did whiff a LOT, and one thing I was surprised about was how often it was actively BAD, forcing me to put a Copper or a green card on my deck because that's all there was to choose from!  I was pretty happy with the average case, though.

Underground Village - Still not 100% sure that the card limit was the right call here, but I'm slightly more sure than I was.  At one point, my opponent had both a Cellar and this in his hand at the same time and had to think about the correct order to play them in (Cellar first).  So that was a neat bit of tactical thinking.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2012, 12:52:06 pm »
0

Underground Village - Still not 100% sure that the card limit was the right call here, but I'm slightly more sure than I was.  At one point, my opponent had both a Cellar and this in his hand at the same time and had to think about the correct order to play them in (Cellar first).  So that was a neat bit of tactical thinking.

Why Cellar first?  Because of the card limit?
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Villages!
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2012, 01:07:57 pm »
0

Underground Village - Still not 100% sure that the card limit was the right call here, but I'm slightly more sure than I was.  At one point, my opponent had both a Cellar and this in his hand at the same time and had to think about the correct order to play them in (Cellar first).  So that was a neat bit of tactical thinking.

Why Cellar first?  Because of the card limit?

Yeah, basically because he had Cellar, UV, and 4 dead cards.  Had he played UV first, he'd have been able to cycle 3 of the 4, then all 4.  But cycling all 4 first, then the 3 worst of the 4 replacements, provides slightly better odds of drawing good replacements.

Now that I'm spelling it out like that, I'm no longer sure if the logic is sound.  But the conclusion in the moment was that it had actually made an important difference.  Maybe it didn't.  Now I'm all confused.
Logged

zahlman

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Respect: +216
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2012, 05:24:31 am »
0

I don't especially like that you propose to make a pile of cards that don't all have the same cost.

There is precedence for that in the Knight stack though.

I thought they were all $5? Apparently Sir Martin is $4. Odd. (Well, even, actually...)
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Villages!
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2012, 08:40:06 am »
0

As I was reading through the DA rulebook, the Knights made me think of these cards, and a weird situation they have that Knights do not. Since some of these Villages cost $3, but others cost $4, could this pile be added as a Bane for Young Witch? Something weird to think about! I guess it depends what number appears on the randomizer, just like the Knights randomizer has $5 as its cost.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 09:30:56 am »
0

Municipality - The attack never mattered that much, but then I didn't expect it to.  This is key when you need the +Buy.

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought when I read "a single attack should not be too strong". Is the single buy what you want?  Of course, you already have this situation in Princess, but it is usually less luck-based, and is as attainable as Followers, which might be a single attack which is really strong.

Of course, you usually don't want to build an engine when you have no +buy, but often you can replace in the beginning with gainers, but would like the +buy for double Provinces.  Often enough, I saw me diving in the BlackMarket just for this purpose.
So a board with a dominant engine, but without +buy will probably be decided on who gets the +buy Village.  And the Villages for the engines are already on the board...

Edit:
Quote
Third game was the most interesting -- a Colony game with King's Court, Nobles, Fairgrounds, and Colony/Platinum.  Spice Merchant and Develop thinned out our decks quicker than you'd think, which left us with rich, junk-free decks and no source of +Buy other than Spice Merchant (which we hand to feed Silvers to, because neither of us had the foresight to save some Coppers) and the Municipality buried in an unknown position in the Villages pile.  As we were soon pulling in money sufficient for double- and triple-Colony turns, it was critical to have that +Buy.  But when we got through the Villages stack to Trader's Village, it stalled out the pile, because neither of us wanted a trasher and certainly not one that takes up a card slot.
Exactly this.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 09:36:37 am by DStu »
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Villages!
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 04:36:13 pm »
+1

As I was reading through the DA rulebook, the Knights made me think of these cards, and a weird situation they have that Knights do not. Since some of these Villages cost $3, but others cost $4, could this pile be added as a Bane for Young Witch? Something weird to think about! I guess it depends what number appears on the randomizer, just like the Knights randomizer has $5 as its cost.

That's a good point.  I have $4 on the randomizer, though, so, as you say, I would think it's ineligible as a Bane pile.

I was also about to say that as the cards are all differently named, they couldn't all be Bane cards anyway.  But after rereading Young Witch, it seems to be carefully worded to allow this exact thing.  I doubt we'll see a $2-$3 mixed pile in Guilds, but if we do, might we say that Young Witch's wording foreshadowed it?

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought when I read "a single attack should not be too strong". Is the single buy what you want?  Of course, you already have this situation in Princess, but it is usually less luck-based, and is as attainable as Followers, which might be a single attack which is really strong.

Perhaps a better precedent is Sir Martin, who uniquely provides not just 1 extra buy but 2.  I did actually ponder this very question for a while, but with Sir Martin as a precedent I figured I was clear to do it.

Also, not that a sample-size of 1 is especially telling, but I won that test game I described, despite missing out on the +Buy Village.

It does worry me a little, but it seemed like such an obvious and basic ability that it would be wrong to omit it from the pile.  The other thing, though, is that I didn't think to put a +3 Actions Village in there somewhere.  Seems like that should have made it.
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2012, 05:03:36 pm »
0

I really would like enemy spy village to be a +1 card instead of +$1 and +1 buy Municipality. I like the idea of consistency and easy of remembering the pile. The old Municipality is too unique. To go along with it, I have made new $4 versions of the other $3 villages to go along with it. What do you think?

Municipality
$4 - Action/Attack
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Every other player reveals the top card of his deck and either discards it or puts it back, your choice.

Trader's Village 2
$4 - Action
+2 Actions
+$1
You may trash a card from your hand.

Underground Village 2
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard any number of cards from your hand.  +1 Buy per card discarded.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 05:04:50 pm by One Armed Man »
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Villages!
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2012, 09:42:54 am »
0

I really would like enemy spy village to be a +1 card instead of +$1 and +1 buy Municipality. I like the idea of consistency and easy of remembering the pile. The old Municipality is too unique. To go along with it, I have made new $4 versions of the other $3 villages to go along with it. What do you think?

Yup, these ought to work.  I think mandatory trashing on Trader's Village will result in more interesting gameplay -- as will preserving the mix of costs in the pile, which besides changing things up a little, enables Outskirts to self-combo in a way.  But I do like the comparative simplicity of your Municipality and think you are right about mine being a little too unique and hodgepodge.  I might be more inclined to simplify if there were more cards in the stack to spread abilities out over.  There are so many little buffs to Village that are possible that this could easily be a stack of 20 if you wanted it to be.
Logged

jotheonah

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
  • Respect: +952
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2012, 11:07:51 am »
+3

Or a stack of X where you pick a random 10 to play with each game.
Logged
"I know old meta, and joth is useless day 1 but awesome town day 3 and on." --Teproc

He/him

jotheonah

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 989
  • Respect: +952
    • View Profile
Re: Villages!
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2012, 11:08:21 am »
0

(Where X > 10, obviously)
Logged
"I know old meta, and joth is useless day 1 but awesome town day 3 and on." --Teproc

He/him
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 2.254 seconds with 21 queries.