id=2391 | ||
COMMENTS | author | |
Cost=none, Vps=0, Prereq=none When you play this card, you may either pay 1 Wood for 1 Bonus point or receive 1 Wood and pass this card to the player on your left who adds it to his/her hand. [View playtest games] [View all dealt games] |
Winter Deadwood (minor)May 24, 2011 10:30am [quote] (Edit: Oct 15, 2014 10:43pm) |
|
Probably can do much more interesting things than +1w or -1w for 1 point, but this is a start. |
So here's an interesting idea I came up with, and people could try: Minors that are passing *or* not passing.May 24, 2011 10:31am [quote] |
|
Quote from: kimball on May 24, 2011 10:31am Minors that are passing *or* not passing. i think it's more than that: it's "minors with multiple possible completely different effects" (2 different cards merged in 1, but you can play only one of them) i don't like that. |
May 25, 2011 2:21am [quote] |
|
For example receive 2 (or 3) wood or pay 1 wood for a Bonus Point. |
Well, i think the reward for pass the card should be better than keep the card.May 25, 2011 2:36am [quote] |
|
juuh: Yeah, maybe so, but I'm hesitant to have a free pass +2w card. I just picked +1w because I know that building material gets drafted often enough. |
letsdance: Why are minors with possibly completely different effects a bad thing?May 26, 2011 6:47am [quote] |
|
How about receiving 1 wood and placing it in your hand again or receiving 2 wood and pass it to the next player? | May 26, 2011 7:28am [quote] |
|
Quote from: kimball on May 26, 2011 6:47am letsdance: Why are minors with possibly completely different effects a bad thing? because its the same as having 2 different cards (and being only allowed to play one of them) instead of just 1. if you like both of these effects, why not make 2 cards? imagine if every card could do everything at players choice. that would be pretty boring. |
May 26, 2011 7:49am [quote] |
|
Quote from: letsdance on May 26, 2011 7:49am Quote from: kimball on May 26, 2011 6:47am letsdance: Why are minors with possibly completely different effects a bad thing? because its the same as having 2 different cards (and being only allowed to play one of them) instead of just 1. if you like both of these effects, why not make 2 cards? imagine if every card could do everything at players choice. that would be pretty boring. The beauty of this kind of cards is that you can choose which effect to use depending on the game state. Which one is more boring, "receive 1 cattle" or "receive 1 animal of your choice"? But I agree on your previous point: both effects should be related. |
May 26, 2011 7:55am [quote] (Edit: May 26, 2011 7:56am) |
|
Quote from: senseless on May 26, 2011 7:55am Which one is more boring, "receive 1 cattle" or "receive 1 animal of your choice"? receive 1 animal of your choice is more boring. you can only make 1 such card, but you can make 1 of each for receiving cattle, boar and sheep. these also require to plan ahead for them. if you have "take 1 cattle", the decision which animals to take with an action is harder. with "1 of your choice" you just play as you would anyways and then take the animal that you're missing. |
May 30, 2011 2:58am [quote] |
|
Quote from: letsdance on May 30, 2011 2:58am if you have "take 1 cattle", the decision which animals to take with an action is harder. with "1 of your choice" you just play as you would anyways and then take the animal that you're missing. That's why cards with more flexibility are suited for plan B situations and should have less power than 'fixed' cards, which should be more powerful if you can get them to work but dead cards if you don't. |
Jun 1, 2011 1:18pm [quote] |
|