Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Help me word this rule (please) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jon Vallerand
Canada
St-Basile-Le-Grand
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm slowly designing a deck builder where some cards ("Magic Item" cards) can only be acquired through attacking neutral NPCs. Each of these "NPC" has a "Loot" value. When an NPC is defeated, the player reveals the first X cards from the Magic Item deck (where X = Loot value). He then chooses cards to gain from those revealed, with a budget equal to X. If he wants to, he can use money from his own hand to complete his purchase, but cannot buy a Magic Item card entirely with money from his hand.

Examples should make this clearer.

Alice conquers NPC 1. NPC 1 has a Loot value of 6. Alice reveals the top 6 cards from the Magic Item deck: 2 Magic Swords (cost 2), a Fire Staff (cost 3), 2 Crystal Balls (cost 4), a Wand of Destruction (cost 6). She decides to acquire one of the Magic Swords, and a Crystal Ball. Since 2+4 = 6, she respects the Loot Budget.

Bob conquers NPC 2. NPC 2 has a Loot value of 5. Bob reveals the top 5 cards from the Magic Item deck: a Magic Sword (cost 2), a Fire Staff (cost 3), a Crystal Ball (cost 4) and 2 Wands of Destruction (cost 6). He decides to take a Wand of Destruction. Since he only has a Loot budget of 5, he has to pay the additional 1 from his hand.

Claire conquers NPC 3. NPC 3 has a Loot value of 8. She reveals the top 8 cards from the Magic Item deck: 3 Magic Swords (cost 2), 3 Fire Staffs (cost 3), a Crystal Ball (cost 4) and a Wand of Destruction (cost 6). She wants to gain 2 Staffs and 2 Swords, which cost a total of 10, 2 more than the Loot Budget. She couldn't buy the 2 Staves and then the 2 swords, as that would make the second Sword paid entirely from her hand. She decides to first acquire the Swords (2+2=4), then a Staff (4+3=7), and then the second Staff (for which she pays 1 from the Loot Budget, and 2 from her hand). Claire's move is still illegal, as her purchase could have been done in an order that would make it illegal. As punishment, she is beheaded.

I thought of the following:

"When defeating a non-player village, you reveal a number of cards from the top of the Magic Item deck equal to the village's Loot value. You may then acquire Magic Item cards as long as their value does not exceed the village's Loot value. The least expensive card you decide to acquire can be partly (but not entirely) paid for with money from your hand."

I find that wording a bit over the top.

The other thing I wonder is if this rule makes sense. I meant for it to lesser the impact of random chance: if you have a budget of 6, and only cost 4 cards came out, you'd have wasted resources for a smaller payback. On the other hand, the fluff behind it doesn't make sense ('I attack this village, and I find this Magic sword. I can't take it, I must leave a bag of silver on the table"). Opinions?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it just seems weird that you can make part-payment with money. It would make sense if you couldn't pay at all with money or if you could also entirely pay for something with money ("In raiding the village, I found a time-limited lead on where to purchase this item"), but this mid-ground seems awkward to explain AND to not make much sense thematically.
Are you that concerned that people will only spend their money on looted treasures, leaving other things untouched? If so, why is this a problem?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Leger
United States
Edgewood
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
If you want to keep this rule in, you could add something like "Arrange these cards from most expensive to least. In order, decide whether to spend your loot points on each item; you may supplement the rewarded loot points with money for your final purchase. Once you have spent all your loot points, discard the remaining cards."

A little verbose, but it's also kind of an odd concept. Your motivating example for the rule is what helped me understand it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Could you let the players take money as loot instead?

"... After revealing the cards, you can take any number of them, as long as their total value is less than or equal to the village's Loot value. If their total is less than the village's Loot value, you may make up the difference with Gold (one Gold per Loot point)."

If that's open to abuse, you could limit it with "You may only take gold if there is no way to spend any more Loot points (all remaining cards cost more than the Loot points you have left)."

Or give one gold per TWO excess loot points.

Maybe money is super-flexible in your game and so this would make looting too swingy. But if not...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Iachini
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Could you just set a number for the amount of money a player can contribute to the loot buy? Could the limit be perhaps 2 money from hand?

If so, you can word the rule as:

"When you defeat a non-player village, reveal a number of cards from the top of the Magic Item deck equal to the village's Loot value. You may acquire as many revealed Magic Item cards as you wish with a total value up to the Loot value of the village. If you wish, you may contribute up to 2 money from your hand to increase the total value of the Magic Item cards you can acquire."

Michael Iachini
Clay Crucible Games
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When an NPC Village is defeated, reveal an amount of cards from the top of the Magic Item equal to the Loot Value of the Village. You have an amount of Gold equal to this Loot Value to purchase any of these cards, by paying an amount of Gold equal to the Cost listed on the card.

You may purchase any number of these cards per turn, so long as you have enough Gold. However, when purchasing your final card, you may allocate all the remaining Gold you have, as long as it is at least 1 Gold, even if its not enough to cover the entire cost of the card. In this case, you must make up the difference in cost by discarding Money Cards from your hand. Each Money Card in your hand provides you with an amount equal to the listed Gold Value.

Purchasing cards is optional but any unspent Gold is lost once you are finished Looting. To indicate you are finished, shuffle the remaining magic cards (that were not purchased) and place them face-down at the bottom of the Magic Item deck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Vallerand
Canada
St-Basile-Le-Grand
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jlerpy wrote:
I think it just seems weird that you can make part-payment with money. It would make sense if you couldn't pay at all with money or if you could also entirely pay for something with money ("In raiding the village, I found a time-limited lead on where to purchase this item"), but this mid-ground seems awkward to explain AND to not make much sense thematically.
Are you that concerned that people will only spend their money on looted treasures, leaving other things untouched? If so, why is this a problem?


I like your explanation for using money to buy things in a place you're raiding. However, the reason why it is a problem is that players have only 3 actions per round, and that buying a card is an action, while looting is the result of the attack actions. As attacking a village takes multiple actions, I don't mind giving multiple cards as reward, but it could become problematic if it were a "spend all you want" kind of thing.

kaiser wrote:
If you want to keep this rule in, you could add something like "Arrange these cards from most expensive to least. In order, decide whether to spend your loot points on each item; you may supplement the rewarded loot points with money for your final purchase. Once you have spent all your loot points, discard the remaining cards."

A little verbose, but it's also kind of an odd concept. Your motivating example for the rule is what helped me understand it.


About the example, thank you. I am a teacher after all.

Your wording solves the problem. Thank you!

ChaosAndAlchemy wrote:
Could you just set a number for the amount of money a player can contribute to the loot buy? Could the limit be perhaps 2 money from hand?

If so, you can word the rule as:

"When you defeat a non-player village, reveal a number of cards from the top of the Magic Item deck equal to the village's Loot value. You may acquire as many revealed Magic Item cards as you wish with a total value up to the Loot value of the village. If you wish, you may contribute up to 2 money from your hand to increase the total value of the Magic Item cards you can acquire."

Michael Iachini
Clay Crucible Games


That could also be an option. I'll have to playtest with both. Thanks!

grasa_total wrote:
Could you let the players take money as loot instead?

"... After revealing the cards, you can take any number of them, as long as their total value is less than or equal to the village's Loot value. If their total is less than the village's Loot value, you may make up the difference with Gold (one Gold per Loot point)."

If that's open to abuse, you could limit it with "You may only take gold if there is no way to spend any more Loot points (all remaining cards cost more than the Loot points you have left)."

Or give one gold per TWO excess loot points.

Maybe money is super-flexible in your game and so this would make looting too swingy. But if not...


That could also be an option. More playtesting!

lordrahvin wrote:
When an NPC Village is defeated, reveal an amount of cards from the top of the Magic Item equal to the Loot Value of the Village. You have an amount of Gold equal to this Loot Value to purchase any of these cards, by paying an amount of Gold equal to the Cost listed on the card.

You may purchase any number of these cards per turn, so long as you have enough Gold. However, when purchasing your final card, you may allocate all the remaining Gold you have, as long as it is at least 1 Gold, even if its not enough to cover the entire cost of the card. In this case, you must make up the difference in cost by discarding Money Cards from your hand. Each Money Card in your hand provides you with an amount equal to the listed Gold Value.

Purchasing cards is optional but any unspent Gold is lost once you are finished Looting. To indicate you are finished, shuffle the remaining magic cards (that were not purchased) and place them face-down at the bottom of the Magic Item deck.


Thank you. However, I don't see how this excludes the possibility of "pulling a Claire" and acquiring them in an order that would allow an otherwise illegal move. While it is easy enough to add, I want to make sure I'm not missing something.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.