Print

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

[jpople02]

So my brother and I are working on a set called Diplomacy, the theme of which is friendly interactions a la Council Room or Duchess.  There's one idea that we want to explore but it's yet to work out well, and that's Double Agent.


The idea behind Double Agent is the idea behind an actual double agent-- that is, he helps your opponent, but what he does is actually also helping you... and then suddenly he breaks cover and your opponents, previously thrilled with what he did, realize that it was better for you all along.


The card has gone through a few incarnations.  The most recent, which we realize is awful, is this:


Double Agent - Action - $4

+$3

Each other player gains a Silver, putting it into their hand.

You may trash this.  If you do, all players reveal their hand.  +$1 for each Silver revealed this way. 


(Another thing that we considered adding in the "if you do" clause was "each other player must discard a Double Agent if he has any" or something similar.)


Obviously, this doesn't work for a few reasons: it scales badly with multiplayer games, it's often way better for other players than it is for you, just terminal money for you is pretty boring, etc. etc., so I figured I could enlist your help.  Any possible fixes are much appreciated, or even complete reworks that preserve the theme.  What do you think?

[LastFootnote]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to even start with this. I really like your post! You have a cool card concept. You've playtested it and you already know why the current iteration is flawed. You seem very open to changes and new ideas. I really want to help you! The problem is that I can't think of a simple fix and if I were to create a whole new card with this concept, I would probably want it for my own set!

But that's sort of a cop-out, so I'll try to at least analyze the card. I think putting Treasure into your opponents' hands is probably not going to work. Silver for them is way too good. Copper is sort of a wash; sometimes it will help them and sometimes not. There's no middle ground between Copper and Silver. How about if each opponent draws a card, then you get some benefit depending on how many cards the player to your right has in hand. I say the player to your right because if he has fewer than 5 cards in his hand to start, you have only yourself to blame for playing that Militia or what have you. Yeah, it would be cooler if the bonus were a unique one rather than Council Room's bonus, but I think the rest of the card will be interesting enough that it won't matter.

If you choose to go this route, I think disappearing money (+1 Action, +$X) is perhaps the way to go for the main action portion. Then the on-trash bonus could be something like "draw until you have as many cards in hand as the player to your right". So something like

Double Agent
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. +$3. Each other player draws a card. You may trash this. If you do, draw until you have as many cards in hand as the player to your right.

Another thing I can do is share a similar experience I've had recently. As background, I have a card in my set originally designed primarily as a card that would dig for an Attack to play. The current iteration looks like this:

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. If he did not discard any cards, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

In the process of changing my set from a 12 cards to 25 cards, I wanted another card that used Conscripts. I had the idea for a card that would give the opponents Conscripts, but then make you happy that they had them. So I came up with a bunch of iterations of cards that would benefit from being attacked, like cards that rewarded you for having a small hand or for having Curses in your hand or discard pile. They were all clunky and seemed swingy, especially the ones that benefitted from a small hand. What if the other players didn't play their Conscripts the turn before you played this? You'd be double sad. In the "end" (although the card could easily be changed or scrapped), I let go of the idea of a card that benefits from having a bad hand/deck, and the current iteration just looks like this:

Profiteer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck. Each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

Anyway, I hope some portion of that was helpful. I'm interested to see where Double Agent goes from here, and also to see the rest of the Diplomacy set.

[LastFootnote]

Also, let me know if you don't use my suggested changes. I may include that card in my own set.

[jpople02]

Thanks for your feedback!  I'm not sure about your proposed fix.  It seems like a nonterminal draw-to-X is kind of asking for trouble (If you disagree and you do want to use it in your own set, go ahead, though).  Also, we already have a card in the set which allows your opponents a Council Room-like bonus.

That said, I did think of something earlier-- what if it offered your opponents some limited deck inspection and gave you something if they used it?  Something like:

Double Agent
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck.  They may discard one of them.  If the player to your left discards a card costing $3 or less this way, you may trash this.  If you do, +2 cards.

I can't decide whether I like the player to your right having to be more careful about discarding than other players, though, now that I think about it.  The alternative would just be making it "if any player ... this way", but then that shares the multiplayer scaling issue of the original.  What do you think?

[LastFootnote]

That said, I did think of something earlier-- what if it offered your opponents some limited deck inspection and gave you something if they used it?  Something like:

Double Agent
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck.  They may discard one of them.  If the player to your left discards a card costing $3 or less this way, you may trash this.  If you do, +2 cards.

I can't decide whether I like the player to your right having to be more careful about discarding than other players, though, now that I think about it.  The alternative would just be making it "if any player ... this way", but then that shares the multiplayer scaling issue of the original.  What do you think?

The problem with using "if any player…this way" isn't scaling; it's politics. Lots of published cards scale with the number of players. Tournament has an "if any player…" clause. Thief and Jester scale pretty significantly with the number of players; you can gain a pile of cards if you're lucky. But I think it's generally accepted (though not carved in stone) that giving an immediate this-turn bonus like +Coins that scales with the number of players is too much. So the version in your original post is probably too crazy.

Your version here is analogous to Tournament in terms of scaling, so that's fine. But with Tournament your opponents are never* incentivized to not reveal a Province. With a "if any player…this way" version of Double Agent, they either want to all take advantage or all abstain. But technically they have to decide in turn order. So say there's a 4-player game where you're Player A and you play Double Agent. Players B and C pass on the deck inspection, hoping that Player D will too. But Player D goes for it, so Player A gets the benefit anyway and Players B and C are pissed.

* Edge cases aside

[terminalCopper]

I like the innovative concept of dealing out silvers and make profit of opponents silver afterwards!

Now, here's an idea to fix your problems:

***************

Double Agent - Action - $4

+$3 +$2

Each other player gains a Silver, putting it into his hand.

You may trash this and gain a renegade.  If you do, all players reveal their hand.  +$1 for each Silver revealed this way. 

**************

Renegade - Action - 0$

+1$
All opponents trash a silver from their hand (or reveal a hand without silver).


**************

Now, your card has become a real double agent, it self-synergizes somehow, it is neither too strong nor too weak and it doesn't scale that much. What do you think?

[jpople02]

I like the innovative concept of dealing out silvers and make profit of opponents silver afterwards!

Now, here's an idea to fix your problems:

Double Agent - Action - $4

+$2
Each player gains a Silver, putting it into their hand.
You may trash this and gain a Renegade from the Renegade pile. 

Renegade - Action - 0*$
+1$
All opponents trash a Silver from their hand (or reveal a hand without Silver).
(This is not in the Supply).

Now, your card has become a real double agent, it self-synergizes somehow, it is neither too strong nor too weak and it doesn't scale that much. What do you think?

Huh.  I like this concept.  The original DA seems too weak with just +$2, though.  I might take it back to +$3, since gaining a Silver in hand is still a very sizable bonus for your opponents most of the time, even with the promise that eventually they're going to have to lose it.  I'm hopefully going to have the chance to playtest later this week, so I'll definitely look at this.  The only thing that I don't like about it is that the later "profiting from opponents' Silvers" seems kind of... indirect.  I might rename "Renegade" to "Traitor" or "Fugitive", also.  I like those a little better thematically.

Edit: Oh, whoops, I see why DA isn't weak.  Never mind, I missed that you also get to gain a Silver.