CREATE AGRICOLA CARDS   Hello unknown (Sign In) or (Register)

Now Viewing:   Sorted By:   Cards per page:
    [GO BACK to List View]       99 of 121        Jump to:   [Print]
decktypenametextcostvpsprereqauthorComments
99

[View] 		G3minorDiaryWhenever you play an Occupation, you receive 1 Wood.02 Occupationschris[13 Comments]
last post:
2014-10-15 22:28:41
by chris


id=2436
Pages:  [1] [2]

 COMMENTSauthor
Diary (minor)
Cost=none,   Vps=0,   Prereq=2 Occupations
Whenever you play an Occupation, you receive 1 Wood.

[View playtest games] [View all dealt games]		 .chris
May 25, 2011 4:49am
[quote]
(Edit: Oct 15, 2014 10:28pm)
C'mon, pencils?!?! The card is fine the name is not. creedofhubris
Jun 11, 2011 1:11pm
[quote]
Pencils are important to most Occupations. Pencils were invented in 1795. Is that not early enough? If not, do you have a name suggestion?

Is "Work Supplies" better?		 chris
Jun 11, 2011 8:04pm
[quote]
1795 is too late for this game; it is set in 1670.

Work supplies is OK but a little bland. "Forestry lessons"? 		creedofhubris
Jun 11, 2011 10:15pm
[quote]
if you play all 7 occs this is 5 free wood. even if you use it only twice you got 2w, which is o.k. but already very good for a free minor. letsdance
Jun 12, 2011 1:09am
[quote]
Playing 7 occs is usually a sacrifice both in draft and non-draft and should be rewarded. (And remember, Agricola is a non-draft game.)

On average, i think a player can play 3-4 occs without going out of their way (no sacrifice). At that point, this card gives 1-2 Wood. And, its not an immediately 1-2 Wood when you play the card. It comes later in the game. I think this card is balanced enough for play testing. Lets see how it performs. If it proves too strong, i can increase the prereq to "3 occs" or even "4 occs"		 chris
Jun 12, 2011 3:34pm
[quote]
increasing the prereq is bad. but it might be good to give it a maximum payout of 3 wood for example (put 3w on card, take one when occ is played). that way you oculd even decrease the prereq to 1 occ (in this case i think that would make sense). letsdance
Jun 13, 2011 12:34am
[quote]
(Edit: Jun 13, 2011 12:34am)
I've gone back and forth on this one and have decided in the end to vote no. Not because it's not a good card - it's a fine card that could be very useful. But I simply don't find it interesting enough.

I feel that, if I was a customer eagerly anticipating the third incarnation of the G Deck, excited to see what kind of new, innovative, and thematic cards were included this time, I'd look at this one, say "Oh," and hope the next one was more interesting.

This is just my opinion, and I'm sure people will disagree, but in the end it's enough to make me vote no on this very mechanically sound card.		 inoshishi
Jun 13, 2011 1:11am
[quote]
yeah i prefer the simple cards usually =) customers will have split oppinions as well. letsdance
Jun 13, 2011 7:32am
[quote]
Inoshishi. Yes, all new decks need new innovative cards. But i also think its important to reuse some basic simple mechanics too. chris
Jun 13, 2011 9:45am
[quote]
Pages:  [1] [2]
    [GO BACK to List View]       99 of 121        Jump to: