i think if it is to be renamed as landmine card then it should better work like a land mine
i.e.it should only be multiplied into neutrals if the opponent attacks that territory
else,the name abandon should stay as is since the player who uses the card is losing his armies

if the territory is not attacked that turn,your armies stay as they are and the card is gone,you cannot use the card again
that's how a mine works for me :)

I like the name abandon, but here's a few other possibilities:


decamp
vacate
dematerialize

I also like the idea of changing abandon into blockade, and then blockade into something else.

I also like the idea of changing abandon into blockade, and then blockade into something else.

Wouldn't that be extremely confusing, especially for players who come back after being gone for a while (a month or two)?

Edited 9/1/2015 14:25:12

reading through all the suggestions, not sure what would work better. dont like land mine. scorched earth sounds a bit too magic the gathering :p

emergency blockade sounded the most decent on first glance. although it might be bit too lengthy.

priority blockade and delayed blockade sound a bit too formal and also big in length.

maybe quick blockade would be the best option? so you have the "quick blockade" that is done in a hurry (and is usually worth less) and then the regular "blockade" which is done in a full turn (and is usually worth more)

about changing abandon for blockade and blockade to fortify, i dont like the fortify word for the blockade because fortify sounds like you'll still retain ownership of the territory, while you dont.

Edited 9/1/2015 14:28:54

How about "Scuttle" as in sinking a ship to prevent the enemy from taking it and also blocking a channel passage. Yes, I know it isn't a ship.

Or "Sabotage"?

bog down? quagmire? you could call it the afghanistan card?

It functions a lot like a ambush, but that implies you retain ownership of the territory. I guess the war equivalent is booby trapping an area and then retreating from it. I dont think that has ever been done on the scale that most territories represent.

Edited 9/1/2015 14:40:49

I think Abandon is a perfectly good name for its function.

it's more like suicide bomber - you die, but you are hoping to take more enemies with you. But i think it might not be good name due to political correctness

incite militia/guerilla :p

hm, How about we mix around a bit:

Abandon card -> bomb Card
Bomb card -> Sabotage card

I think the card should be changed so that it takes the troops from that territory and puts it in a another territory that you want.

What about "Minefield"?

Sabotage isn't bad, although maybe it sounds more like an attack card?

The name abandon is ok, I think it's only the multiplication that doesn't make "sense".

I feel like "sabotage" implies offensive action. "Minefield" makes sense to me because it implies that the territory is unoccupied but also dangerous. If an army is forced to abandon its territory it leaves a minefield to prevent the enemy from moving in quickly without casualties. That pretty much applies perfectly to the abandon card.

I think It should just remain Abandon really. The name doesn't have to perfectly describe the card, but we already know it as abandon. It would get confusing for people who don't play that often, and the only people it would really benefit is new players.

Barricade? It has the right meaning, but does it sound too similar to blockade?

I'm strongly in favor of leaving the name as is.

So far, the Wasteland card is, in my opinion, the best suggestion I've heard so far, since you are essentially creating a wasteland.

John Cena

although fortify wouldnt work all that well for current blockade, what about creating a fortufy card which would be the opposite of bomb card (=it increases the troops of a territory and you can only use it on yourself?)