Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Proposal: some cards

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 22 Jun 2018 08:06:54 UTC

To the list of types add “magical object”.

To the ruletext which describes the shorthand in Cards add “type: U” to the bottom of both versions.

Add the following card to the ruleset:
title: Sword In The Stone
score: 4
constraint: Can’t have used this card at the same community before.
up effect: Choose a community and make a just ruler there. Increase that community’s Economy by 1 and set it’s Attitude toward you to Friendly.
down effect: Choose a community and make a warring ruler there. Increase that community’s War by 2; as a cost to choosing this effect lower that community’s Economy by 1, if it can’t be paid this option can’t be chosen.
type: magical object

Testing the waters for types of cards. I don’t know if the up/down effects should be mirrored but different like this one or should have mutually exclusive effects.
I think we really need to work out how this score mechanic works otherwise people are just going to propose high value cards or possibly disregard that value for the scoring victory at the end of the dynasty.



20-06-2018 16:48:16 UTC

*scratches head* this seems a bit ambiguous and advanced.

derrick: he/him

20-06-2018 17:06:32 UTC

It just has a lot of stubs.

I think this card’s type should be person, not magical object.

We currently don’t have a way to attach people and monsters to communities. I absolutely think that’s a good idea, but I don’t know that I like the phrasing “Make a warring ruler there”.

I like the card, and its not even too early for it, but its a bit rough.

derrick: he/him

20-06-2018 17:07:33 UTC

Also, the constraint fails to specify if it applies to ANY wizard using this card before or just the wizard playing.

Kevan: City he/him

20-06-2018 18:50:15 UTC

I’m reading the “warring ruler” stuff as flavour text rather than stub. “Rulers” aren’t tracked anywhere so don’t exist.

“Can’t have used this card at the same community before.” is a bit fiddly as it requires players to check the game history to see if it’s already happened for a particular opponent or not.



20-06-2018 19:06:39 UTC

[Kevan] maybe there should be a wikipage that collects that information? either that or not write cards that have conditions like this.

[derrick] that part was written like flavor text but we could include ruler. I just fear if we have too many pieces like rulers, factions, communities etc. then they might become too divergent and them game becomes watered down. I didn’t write it ambiguously on purpose; originally I meant the wizard playing a card but I suppose having only one sword per community might be better. I suppose it should be a person but magical objects should defiantly still be a card type.

Kevan: City he/him

20-06-2018 19:36:33 UTC

Seems better to just avoid the need for that kind of paperwork. I think any slightly-tricky-to-meet condition would be fine here - if the one-offness is particularly important, a card can have a precondition that gets invalidated by its effects (eg. “can only play somewhere that’s Indifferent to you”, and both effects alter their Attitude towards you).


20-06-2018 22:48:56 UTC

against I like the theme but as written there’s too many holes or ambiguous things in this card


21-06-2018 17:04:52 UTC



22-06-2018 02:24:31 UTC