Print

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

[Lettukastike]

Traitor

The player to your left gains a curse.
When this card would be put into your discard pile from play, put it into the discard pile of the player to your left instead.
—————
When you buy this,
+2$
+1 buy

Worth 4$

Action-Attack

[LastFootnote]

The player to your left gains a curse (from the supply) and this card.

Worth 3$

Interesting idea. I think it'll have to produce resources in order to be viable, though. For example:

Traitor
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. The player to your left gains this card and a Curse.

[soulnet]

I really like the card. Being a Terminal, it involves quite a bit of strategy the fact that you may get it without buying it. We are only used to get dead cards or Coppers against our wills, not terminals (Swindler, Ambassador and Jester may give out unwanted terminals, but with Swindler and Jester is usually only once in a while and with Ambassador is rare).

I would consider make it go to the player on your left at clean-up instead, just so you have it in play like normal actions through your turn (seems like it may cause strange interactions and lose track considerations, like Mining Village). It will also be clearer when you TR or KC it. Also, maybe trash it or return it to the supply first (for instante, what happens with the Traitor if the player to the left reveals Trader? Ambassador solves it nicely by letting it in the supply, and Masquerade does not involve a gain, so there is no Trader possiblity).

I strongly agree it needs some resource, more importantly, I think it needs to be coin (+$2 sounds fine). Otherwise, after the curses run out, this is almost like a dead terminal you want to give to your neighbor. The problem is, with Cursers like Sea Hag, the Curses eventually run out and you will not buy any new Sea Hag (barring edge cases that are of no interest). In this case, however, you can have a sort of stalemate situation of 10 Traitors going round and round with nothing else going on (especially in 2p, where 5 Traitors per player + 5 curses each is a lot of dead cards). If the Traitor gives +2, while you pass it, even without Curses, it will probably let you buy at least a Silver and make the game alive again. Also, you may consider some way of trashing the card if there is no Curse-giving.

I would price it at $4 to avoid opening double Traitor. I think that gives too much swingyness and first player advantage, possible putting 4 unwanted cards into the other player deck. Getting hit twice before the 2nd reshuffle by a double-Swindler or double-Ambassador opening is already really awful. Priced at $4 makes it slower for the Traitors to flood everyones deck. I think power attacks are nice, but is also nice that you can defend from them to some extent, at least in some boards, to allow diverging strategies, which are much more fun than mirrors. This considerations seem even worse for 3p, as one player getting Traitors means everyone will be getting them really soon, so there better be some barrier preventing doing that too fast.

[One Armed Man]

This card doesn't work in 3+ player. If there was some text that caused the curses to stop coming if the Traitor pile empties, you could have the curse and traitor go to each other player. Perhaps if it only slowed the flow of Curses...?

[eHalcyon]

This card doesn't work in 3+ player. If there was some text that caused the curses to stop coming if the Traitor pile empties, you could have the curse and traitor go to each other player. Perhaps if it only slowed the flow of Curses...?

I'm not sure what the problem is?  It should work fine.

Note that the card says that the player to the left gains the card, not a copy of the card.  The card itself gets passed around.

[LastFootnote]

I think the card might be better if each other player gained a Curse instead of just the player to your left, but I bet it's OK as is.

[Lettukastike]

Ok I made the changes according to your advice (which I appreciate because fine-tuning is hard). I wanted to keep the "player to your left" thing though, I just like it that way. My only concern is that is the +2$ too good to give to another player? I wanted this card to be like, "do I play this card to return my opponent's favor and lose 1 action or do I just not give a **** and continue like nothing happened". I think this needs some play-testing..

[eHalcyon]

Well, what if the bonus is lost after the Curses run out?

The player to your left gains this card and a Curse.  If he does, +$2.



So once the Curses run out, this card becomes a dead card that just gets passed around.

[khanh93]

Things to maybe try:

Pass the traitor in a direction other than the Curse. The person you pass the Traitor to you would be the one to curse you next. No idea if this is better or worse than passing them the same direction.

Self-trash once the curses are out.

[GendoIkari]

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse.
If you played this card this turn, then return this card to the supply at the beginning of your next clean-up phase. If you do, the player to your left gains a Traitor.

Worth 4$

I'm confused by the update. Why all the extra wording to delay the passing? Seems like the card would function just the same with simply

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse.
Return this card to the supply. If you do, the player to your left gains a Traitor.

or

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse and this card.

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply, and no card lets you gain a card in play. It's also clearer that they aren't gaining a different copy while you keep the one you have.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply,

Thief, Noble Brigand, Rogue, Graverobber, Hermit, Pillage, Tournament, Black Market?


I agree no card currently has someone gain a card from "In Play", but I wouldn't rule it out.

[GendoIkari]

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply,

Thief, Noble Brigand, Rogue, Graverobber, Hermit, Pillage, Tournament, Black Market?


I agree no card currently has someone gain a card from "In Play", but I wouldn't rule it out.

Sorry, I meant unless it specifies another pile to gain from. To say simply "the player to your left gains this card" would lead to confusion because technically, a literal reading of the rules would have them looking in the supply for that specific card, and being unable to find it there, would fail to gain it.

If it said "gains this card from in-play", that would technically work, but it just doesn't sound very nice...

[LastFootnote]

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply,

Thief, Noble Brigand, Rogue, Graverobber, Hermit, Pillage, Tournament, Black Market?


I agree no card currently has someone gain a card from "In Play", but I wouldn't rule it out.

Agreed.

As an alternative though, the card could be passed to the player on the left, giving them the option of playing it on their turn.

[eHalcyon]

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply,

Thief, Noble Brigand, Rogue, Graverobber, Hermit, Pillage, Tournament, Black Market?


I agree no card currently has someone gain a card from "In Play", but I wouldn't rule it out.

Sorry, I meant unless it specifies another pile to gain from. To say simply "the player to your left gains this card" would lead to confusion because technically, a literal reading of the rules would have them looking in the supply for that specific card, and being unable to find it there, would fail to gain it.

If it said "gains this card from in-play", that would technically work, but it just doesn't sound very nice...

I disagree.  If it says "gains this card", then I would read that as literally referring to the card that was played.  Note that there ARE official cards that use the "this card" terminology to refer to the specific card that was played.  For example, Feast says "Trash this card."  In that case, you trash the card that was played, not one from the supply.

Now one could argue that it is a difference between trashing and gaining; the latter gains from the supply by default.  But if the player should gain it from the supply then it should either say "gains a copy of this card" or "gains a Traitor".  This is in keeping with other gainers.  The current wording of "this card" should refer to the copy of the card that was played.

All that said, the return+gain wording works fine and clears up any confusion that may still arise.

[TWoos]

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse.
If you played this card this turn, then return this card to the supply at the beginning of your next clean-up phase. If you do, the player to your left gains a Traitor.

Worth 4$

I'm confused by the update. Why all the extra wording to delay the passing? Seems like the card would function just the same with simply

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse.
Return this card to the supply. If you do, the player to your left gains a Traitor.

or

+2$
The player to your left gains a Curse and this card.

I like the first one better because gaining a card should always come from the supply, and no card lets you gain a card in play. It's also clearer that they aren't gaining a different copy while you keep the one you have.

I think your first version is not just better, but nearly mandatory to make it work as desired.  Imagine if the player to the left has Trader in hand.  They reveal it once to forgo the Curse, and again to forgo Traitor (gaining two silvers, of course)...  and Traitor now goes nowhere, when it was supposed to return to the supply.

[Lettukastike]

Updated with a new idea. Is 2$ too much? 1$ would be useless in 4/3

[Lettukastike]

I got an idea to solve the game-mechanical problems. Same cost and same "on-buy" effect but the action itself would be either

The player to your left gains a curse.
When this card would be put into your discard pile, put it into the discard pile of the player to your left instead.

OR

Each opponent gains a curse.
When this card would be put into your discard pile, put it into the discard pile of the player to your left instead.

I'd like to make the former idea that affects just the player to your left work, but think about how it would play with reaction cards. So I think the latter one would be more formidable.

[soulnet]

Actually, it should be "when you discard this from play", otherwise the game actually hangs: you gain the card, and would usually put it into your discard pile, so the player to the left gains it, so he would put it in his discard piel, so his left neighbor gains it, etc...

I don't see any problem with reactions if the Curse is only given to 1 player.

[Lettukastike]

I think this card is now balanced enough to hopefully result in some interesting and fun gameplay. I'd appreciate it very much if people would playtest it for me because I don't get to play dominion very often and I only have the base set anyway. Thanks