i`ve been thinking about this some weeks ago, a card like sanctions but instead reduce a player income, reduce a bonus to 0 armies per turn or the half or any value(in %)
If you dont understand: imagine that you have this card set to 50%, you invoke it on france(in Europe map) and instead of 6 (armies per turn of france bonus) it will be 3 or if its set to 100% it will be 0

Its name would be bombing or bombardment or whatever, what do you think?

Not bad idea.

I have zero interest in such a card.

It seems like a pretty good idea to me.

It seems to me such a card would have very limited usability:

- In the early game it's difficult to know for sure which bonuses your opponent controls exactly, so you wouldn't really know which bonus to play it on.
- Once you're past the early stage, decimating a single bonus for a few turns will have a very limited impact (I'd much prefer a reinforcement card which allows me to actually break a bonus).

This could have a pretty dramatic effect on maps with nested bonuses, but those are relatively rare and why "bomb" a superbonus when you could just sanction a player directly (it's not like you don't know who controls a particular superbonus and they don't exactly change hands often).

And the bombardment name was already taken by another card idea, one that simply reduces the number of armies on a single territory by #%.
I wonder why Fizzer hasn't considered, or even commented on any of the good card ideas on Uservoice. Maybe he thinks they're all crap, or thinks there are enough cards already.

it's good in early stages on particular map (like europe 1600.... half russia bonus is somethin ...)

|> I wonder why Fizzer hasn't considered, or even commented on any of the good card ideas on Uservoice. Maybe he thinks they're all crap, or thinks there are enough cards already.

He commented on very few UserVoice ideas, not just the card ones; maybe he just doesn't want to influence "public opinion" too much?

this is a vey good idea for big maps in games with low/no fog but it would be pretty useless on small maps and in games with high fog (unless you have spy or similar cards)

i prefer sanctions card seems like a weakened sanctions card

he normally doesn't comment until an item has begun deeply into implementation..

@Ironheart

Just like a survey card is a weakened recon card is a weakened spy card.

good point moros

I could see it as working well in manual selection games, where you know you were bumped out of the spot on picks, and assume they were developing that bonus.

Other interesting things you could do is set the duration of the affect (like other cards) and it would be transferrable, so if you set it for 10 turns, and broke/took over that bonus, it would still affect you.

Would have a very interesting/different affect than just a sanctions card.

|> Would have a very interesting/different affect than just a sanctions card.

Good point, since it's so much weaker, you can (and should??) compensate by beefing up the duration of the effect; that could make it a quite different card.

---

Still, before putting it up on UV, I do think it needs a new name, "bombardment" isn't just taken by another idea (even if that hasn't been implemented yet either), I also don't think it's a very suiting name; think about it, if you hear the name, would you ever guess its effect? Who has a better idea?

i'm not sure i would be a fan of this RvW...

New Name: Espionage

Enter your idea in uservoice forum like this

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2621873-multicard-setting

@E88B3EC
At this point you could have two rein cards, negative sanc + rein;)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
propaganda card maby works, but I could be missubderstod;)

@[REGL] John
|> New Name: Espionage

I don't see how that makes sense (and it's awfully close to the existing "spy card"), but you did give me an idea, how about "sabotage"?

---

@Poseidon Lord of the Sea
|> i'm not sure i would be a fan of this RvW...

Which part, the card itself or my suggestion to find another name?

I'm not sure I like the card either, but thanks to John, I no longer consider it an outright bad idea. So, I might as well try and help make the proposal as good as it can get, right? I'm not going to vote for it, but if other people want to, sure, go ahead!