Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 01:34:54 pm

Title: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 01:34:54 pm
A silly idea, but one that gets the fabled action-treasure typing!

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were an Action or Treasure card in your play area that you choose.
This is that card until either leaves play.

The unholy union between Throne Room and Counterfeit, but has some interesting combos that either lack. Thoughts?

EDIT: this has some weird interaction when copying a throne room / KC to play a duration card, but I don't think there should be any other rule problems with it. The FAQ should specify that you obviously can't use it to copy action cards during your buy phase (or black market phase), but that's about it.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: eHalcyon on October 03, 2014, 01:58:12 pm
Could get a little hairy.  As part Treasure type, you can play it in the Buy phase.  But what if you choose to play it as if it were an Action card?  Surely that would be illegal, since you can't play Action cards during the Buy phase.  But this says you can!  But the wording is like BoM, in which case BoM itself isn't played, it's only what was chosen...

I don't think it would be playable as an action in the Buy phase, but it would cause confusion.

"until either leaves play" is odd.  When could the other card leave play without Magic Mirror leaving play at the same time?  Ummm... Urchin, I guess.  And also if MM becomes a TR/KC/Procession and is used on a Duration, when the original was not.  But then what happens to MM?  Is the Duration still doubled?  It's simpler to have MM be that card until MM leaves play, without consideration for the other card (which only matters in rare cases and is confusing then).



As far as power, this should probably cost a bit more, maybe $5.  It offers a fair bit of flexibility and it usually never ends up dead, if you play at least one Treasure.  Being able to emulate things like KC, Goons or Platinum is really good.



(Edit: looks like your edit addressed a few of these questions.)
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 02:22:01 pm
Thanks for the feedback!

Could get a little hairy.  As part Treasure type, you can play it in the Buy phase.  But what if you choose to play it as if it were an Action card?  Surely that would be illegal, since you can't play Action cards during the Buy phase.  But this says you can!  But the wording is like BoM, in which case BoM itself isn't played, it's only what was chosen...

I don't think it would be playable as an action in the Buy phase, but it would cause confusion.

Because you are playing this card as the card you copy, you aren't able to copy a card with the wrong type in the wrong phase. But a FAQ that states it clearly would help.

"until either leaves play" is odd.  When could the other card leave play without Magic Mirror leaving play at the same time?  Ummm... Urchin, I guess.  And also if MM becomes a TR/KC/Procession and is used on a Duration, when the original was not.  But then what happens to MM?  Is the Duration still doubled?  It's simpler to have MM be that card until MM leaves play, without consideration for the other card (which only matters in rare cases and is confusing then).

I've been back and forth on this. It really only makes a difference if you are TR/KC a duration card, in which case it determines whether the duration is still doubled/tripled on the next turn. I could go either way, but I decided to follow the BoM example and not let it copy a card which you may not be able to read, even if those cases are extremely rare.

Quote
As far as power, this should probably cost a bit more, maybe $5.  It offers a fair bit of flexibility and it usually never ends up dead, if you play at least one Treasure.  Being able to emulate things like KC, Goons or Platinum is really good.

My reasoning for leaving it at 4$ is that this is very often going to copy a copper or silver. If you compare it with TR, MM has the advantage that even when you draw it alone it is going to do something for you, and the disadvantage that it can't copy terminal cards without support (which is easy to overlook). A hand with TR-TR-smithy is (usually) better than a hand with MM-MM-smithy, for example.

Being able to copy a Goons or a Platinum is obviously very strong for 4$, but you still have to get both in the same hand, and TR copies (most) actions better than MM does. The question is, does the fact that it will always do something for you send it to the next tier? It's definitely on the strong side for a 4$, but at 5$ it will make it so you don't actually have anything worthwhile to copy...
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 03, 2014, 02:39:39 pm
This is the first card I've seen that actually might make sense as an Action-Treasure. I think such a card, even this one, is more confusion than it's worth. But let's assume that we're only dealing with good players who have a firm grasp of the rules.

First of all, you claim that it can only copy Actions in the Action phase and Treasures in the Buy phase, but by the wording on the card, that's false. And I think you should keep it that way. It makes the card a lot less interesting/useful if you can't use it to copy Actions in the Buy phase, and I see no inherent problem with allowing you to do so. Probably it will have to cost $5 because at that point it's almost strictly better than Throne Room.

Second, I think "This is that card until it leaves play" creates unnecessary confusion. I suggest "Play that card again" instead. It means you don't get a doubled "while in play" effect from e.g. Highway and Goons, but that's an acceptable loss. On Band of Misfits that wording is necessary because "playing" the card would involve putting it into play. But in Magic Mirror's case the card is already in play. So the simpler wording is almost certainly better. So:

Magic Mirror: Action - Treasure, $5
Worth $0. When you play this, choose a card other than a Magic Mirror you have in play. Play it again.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: eHalcyon on October 03, 2014, 04:45:53 pm
@LFN, as currently worded, you shouldn't be able to choose an action card in your buy phase.  It's worded like BoM, in that the card itself is never played and it is as if you played your chosen card instead.  Therefore if you choose an action card in the buy phase, it is like you are trying to play an action card (not a treasure) in the buy phase, which is forbidden.

Your new version would work as you intend, because you actually play Magic Mirror itself and then choose another card to play again.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 03, 2014, 05:04:20 pm
@LFN, as currently worded, you shouldn't be able to choose an action card in your buy phase.  It's worded like BoM, in that the card itself is never played and it is as if you played your chosen card instead.  Therefore if you choose an action card in the buy phase, it is like you are trying to play an action card (not a treasure) in the buy phase, which is forbidden.

Your new version would work as you intend, because you actually play Magic Mirror itself and then choose another card to play again.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. But this just goes to show how this confusion can occur. And I'm not 100% certain which one of us is actually right. The card does just say, "...an Action or Treasure card you have in play..." And Magic Mirror says, "Play this as if...," so it's telling you right on there to do it, regardless of phase. Anyway, just another reason I think my version is cleaner.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: eHalcyon on October 03, 2014, 05:17:39 pm
@LFN, as currently worded, you shouldn't be able to choose an action card in your buy phase.  It's worded like BoM, in that the card itself is never played and it is as if you played your chosen card instead.  Therefore if you choose an action card in the buy phase, it is like you are trying to play an action card (not a treasure) in the buy phase, which is forbidden.

Your new version would work as you intend, because you actually play Magic Mirror itself and then choose another card to play again.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. But this just goes to show how this confusion can occur. And I'm not 100% certain which one of us is actually right. The card does just say, "...an Action or Treasure card you have in play..." And Magic Mirror says, "Play this as if...," so it's telling you right on there to do it, regardless of phase. Anyway, just another reason I think my version is cleaner.

Yeah, but the "play this as if" wording is from BoM, which sets the precedence.  And yeah, it can definitely be confusing. :P
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 06:31:29 pm
This is the first card I've seen that actually might make sense as an Action-Treasure. I think such a card, even this one, is more confusion than it's worth. But let's assume that we're only dealing with good players who have a firm grasp of the rules.

I usually don't share fan cards ideas because they're rarely worth it, but when I came up with one that had a reason to be an Action-Treasure, I just had to post it here  :)

Quote
First of all, you claim that it can only copy Actions in the Action phase and Treasures in the Buy phase, but by the wording on the card, that's false. And I think you should keep it that way. It makes the card a lot less interesting/useful if you can't use it to copy Actions in the Buy phase, and I see no inherent problem with allowing you to do so. Probably it will have to cost $5 because at that point it's almost strictly better than Throne Room.

Second, I think "This is that card until it leaves play" creates unnecessary confusion. I suggest "Play that card again" instead. It means you don't get a doubled "while in play" effect from e.g. Highway and Goons, but that's an acceptable loss. On Band of Misfits that wording is necessary because "playing" the card would involve putting it into play. But in Magic Mirror's case the card is already in play. So the simpler wording is almost certainly better. So:

Magic Mirror: Action - Treasure, $5
Worth $0. When you play this, choose a card other than a Magic Mirror you have in play. Play it again.

I thought about the "Play it again" wording, but I preferred the BoM wording to further distinguish it from TR. From the (long and frequent) explanations of Donald X about how BoM works, my wording doesn't/shouldn't allow you to play cards out of phase, because (as eHalcyon mentioned) you play MM as whichever card, which means you should be able to play that card in the first place.

I may lack your ambition, because I decided from the beginning that I didn't want to go through all 206 cards and check if playing any of them out-of-phase would break the game. Your version is definitely more interesting, and a solid 5$ card, but just thinking about playing a Black Market, then a MM as a Black Market before you finish resolving the first one, and it's easy to see a FAQ that would rival those of possession, trader or BoM.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 03, 2014, 06:54:57 pm
Yeah, Black Market would be a nightmare. You have convinced me that your version is superior! Assuming it works correctly, anyway. I suggest putting some explanatory text on the card itself, explaining that you can only choose a Actions when playing it as an Action, etc.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 07:41:05 pm
I suggest putting some explanatory text on the card itself, explaining that you can only choose a Actions when playing it as an Action, etc.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and assuming that the BoM wording isn't enough to say that you can only copy a card if you could play it, there's actually no other easy way to say so in Dominionese. BoM was already in the fringe of what is possible without defining a new event in the rulebook (the way Hinterlands defined "buying" as a definite event, different from "gaining"); basically, there is no difference between choosing a card from your hand and actually playing that card (only the second actually exists), which would be useful here (and for BoM).

The best I can think of is:

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were a card in your play area that you choose (the card chosen should be able to be played in your current situation).
This is that card until either leaves play.

But man, is it ugly. The part between parentheses is not strict Dominionese, but it gets the point across. I dropped the "Action or Treasure", because if the card is in your play area it necessarily is either anyway.

Do you think the " until either leaves play" is necessary, by the way?

EDIT: the question of whether "Worth 0" should be put in there is an interesting, if purely academic, one. Horn of plenty does, to insist that the point of the card is not giving coins, but Bank and Philosopher's stone don't, because the actual worth of the card is variable. I think it is not necessary to put it here.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 03, 2014, 08:31:05 pm
I've been thinking about this for a while now, and assuming that the BoM wording isn't enough to say that you can only copy a card if you could play it, there's actually no other easy way to say so in Dominionese. BoM was already in the fringe of what is possible without defining a new event in the rulebook (the way Hinterlands defined "buying" as a definite event, different from "gaining"); basically, there is no difference between choosing a card from your hand and actually playing that card (only the second actually exists), which would be useful here (and for BoM).

The best I can think of is:

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were a card in your play area that you choose (the card chosen should be able to be played in your current situation).
This is that card until either leaves play.

But man, is it ugly. The part between parentheses is not strict Dominionese, but it gets the point across. I dropped the "Action or Treasure", because if the card is in your play area it necessarily is either anyway.

Radically new effects need new terms and phrasings; that's just the nature of the beast. I suggest:

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were a card in your play area that you choose (an Action if you're playing this as an Action, or a Treasure if you're playing this as a Treasure). This is that card until it leaves play.

It's wordy, but super-specific. And it's not wordy in a complex, difficult to remember way.

Do you think the " until either leaves play" is necessary, by the way?

My default answer is no, and that it should be "until this leaves play". Why do you think it should be either?

EDIT: the question of whether "Worth 0" should be put in there is an interesting, if purely academic, one. Horn of plenty does, to insist that the point of the card is not giving coins, but Bank and Philosopher's stone don't, because the actual worth of the card is variable. I think it is not necessary to put it here.

I think the version that becomes another card definitely doesn't need it.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Awaclus on October 03, 2014, 08:33:59 pm
EDIT: the question of whether "Worth 0" should be put in there is an interesting, if purely academic, one. Horn of plenty does, to insist that the point of the card is not giving coins, but Bank and Philosopher's stone don't, because the actual worth of the card is variable. I think it is not necessary to put it here.
It's not necessary. Philosopher's Stone and Bank only have a value when you play them, so it's not necessary for a Treasure card to have a value at other times. And you never play this card itself.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 03, 2014, 08:50:12 pm
íRadically new effects need new terms and phrasings; that's just the nature of the beast. I suggest:

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were a card in your play area that you choose (an Action if you're playing this as an Action, or a Treasure if you're playing this as a Treasure). This is that card until it leaves play.

It's wordy, but super-specific. And it's not wordy in a complex, difficult to remember way.

Mmm, it's not strictly saying what it looks like it is saying, but I like the idea, it sounds more Dominion-like than mine. Maybe insist a bit more: "choose an Action if you are playing this as an Action; choose a Treasure if you are playing this as a Treasure"

Quote
My default answer is no, and that it should be "until this leaves play". Why do you think it should be either?

For the same reason BoM can't copy cards whose supply pile is empty, so that you actually have a copy of the card you can read to check what the card does; but I got the feeling it was just an afterthought of the wording of BoM, rather than a conscious decision by Donald, so I could see it both ways.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 03, 2014, 09:16:20 pm
íRadically new effects need new terms and phrasings; that's just the nature of the beast. I suggest:

Quote
Magic Mirror
Types: Action - Treasure
Cost: 4$
Play this as if it were a card in your play area that you choose (an Action if you're playing this as an Action, or a Treasure if you're playing this as a Treasure). This is that card until it leaves play.

It's wordy, but super-specific. And it's not wordy in a complex, difficult to remember way.

Mmm, it's not strictly saying what it looks like it is saying, but I like the idea, it sounds more Dominion-like than mine. Maybe insist a bit more: "choose an Action if you are playing this as an Action; choose a Treasure if you are playing this as a Treasure"

Quote
My default answer is no, and that it should be "until this leaves play". Why do you think it should be either?

For the same reason BoM can't copy cards whose supply pile is empty, so that you actually have a copy of the card you can read to check what the card does; but I got the feeling it was just an afterthought of the wording of BoM, rather than a conscious decision by Donald, so I could see it both ways.

I realized that you definitely don't want it to revert to being a Magic Mirror if the other card leaves play because then you could play another Magic Mirror and choose the first one, creating endless loop potential.

Here's what it might look like:

(http://i.imgur.com/UtJAu3e.png)

EDIT: Updated image text with "You must choose".
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 04, 2014, 04:57:09 am
Thanks, that's awesome  :)
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: silverspawn on October 04, 2014, 05:04:57 am
the image is pretty incredible
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Fragasnap on October 04, 2014, 09:48:23 am
I realized that you definitely don't want it to revert to being a Magic Mirror if the other card leaves play because then you could play another Magic Mirror and choose the first one, creating endless loop potential.
Magic Mirror can always be played as a Magic Mirror by targeting itself. This is not a problem because it is an infinite loop that does nothing and terminates when a player chooses it to do so.

What is a problem is that if you start your turn by playing a Magic Mirror you create an interminable loop wherein Magic Mirror requires you to select a card in your play area which is Magic Mirror as it is the only card in your play area which will do the same thing ad infinitum. To rectify this problem, specify that Magic Mirror must choose "another card in your play area that you choose."
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 04, 2014, 10:08:02 am
I realized that you definitely don't want it to revert to being a Magic Mirror if the other card leaves play because then you could play another Magic Mirror and choose the first one, creating endless loop potential.
Magic Mirror can always be played as a Magic Mirror by targeting itself. This is not a problem because it is an infinite loop that does nothing and terminates when a player chooses it to do so.

What is a problem is that if you start your turn by playing a Magic Mirror you create an interminable loop wherein Magic Mirror requires you to select a card in your play area which is Magic Mirror as it is the only card in your play area which will do the same thing ad infinitum. To rectify this problem, specify that Magic Mirror must choose "another card in your play area that you choose."

This is a good point, but I don't think it works that way. You're playing it as a card in play, so you choose which card to copy before it hits the table. However, if the first two cards you play are both Magic Mirrors, this issue may arise. But since Magic Mirror doesn't actually have an on-play effect, maybe it's still fine?
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Awaclus on October 04, 2014, 10:31:12 am
I don't think there's a rules problem there. When I play a Band of Misfits and there are no legal targets, I play it as itself and at that point, we're already past the point where the ability works so there's no infinite loop. The same should be true for Magic Mirror playing itself as another Magic Mirror. There could be some confusion, though, not only because of that but also, if it's my buy phase and I'm playing a Magic Mirror as another Magic Mirror (which is a legal move according to the card because it's a Treasure), but hey, it's also an Action, can I play it as an Action now?

So it would probably be better to say "other than a Magic Mirror" in the card text. It's not necessary to make it work, but it certainly makes it a lot less confusing.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: soulnet on October 04, 2014, 11:35:08 am
I think "play it again" is a lot less confusing. I like this text:

Quote
If it is your Buy phase, choose a Treasure in play. Otherwise, choose an Action you have in play. Either way, if you did not choose a Magic Mirror, play the chosen card again.

I put the Magic Mirror clause at the end to avoid repeating "other than a Magic Mirror" twice but it could be done like this also, which is cleaner but longer.

Quote
If it is your Buy phase, choose a Treasure in play other than a Magic Mirror. Otherwise, choose an Action you have in play other than a Magic Mirror. Either way, play the chosen card again.

It works strangely with Black Market (you cannot use it as Treasure during BM false buy phase), but still works pretty much for everything. Of course, it does not work with "while in play" clauses, but I think it is better to live with that.

EDIT: changed "Action in play" to "Action you have in play" to avoid choosing Action-Durations others have in play. It may be interesting to allow it, though.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 04, 2014, 02:22:31 pm
It works strangely with Black Market (you cannot use it as Treasure during BM false buy phase)

I think it works strangely enough with BM to not word it this way...
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Kirian on October 04, 2014, 02:24:49 pm
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 04, 2014, 02:27:19 pm
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: silverspawn on October 04, 2014, 02:31:53 pm
to get into the actual mechanics/powerlevel of the card, I've previously come up with two cards that are similar. one is the same for treasures, "Play this as if it were a Treasure card in Play that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play." I didn't do it because there is this exact card in the Donald's list of outtakes, so it probably wasn't very good. apparently this card became counterfeit, even though counterfeit is more similar to moneylender than anything else. the second card is believer from my set, which lets you take an action card from play into your hand for 2$ (which means you lose 1 action in the process) and is extremely strong.

I wouldn't try this costing less than 5$.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: GendoIkari on October 04, 2014, 11:40:19 pm
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?

At least the base set only has one, but I don't see an issue if there were multiple really. So you play C1, then later play C2, and you choose C1 as the card to copy. This means that you must now choose a card to copy, because that's the effect you're copying. So you must now "copy the effect of another card you played this turn". So you choose C1 again (which is still "another card" from C2, at least that's how I read it). So yeah, you can technically keep choosing C1 forever. So what? It's no different from how you can keep revealing Moat forever in Dominion.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 05, 2014, 12:03:47 am
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?

At least the base set only has one, but I don't see an issue if there were multiple really. So you play C1, then later play C2, and you choose C1 as the card to copy. This means that you must now choose a card to copy, because that's the effect you're copying. So you must now "copy the effect of another card you played this turn". So you choose C1 again (which is still "another card" from C2, at least that's how I read it). So yeah, you can technically keep choosing C1 forever. So what? It's no different from how you can keep revealing Moat forever in Dominion.

I'm just saying that it's only pleasingly simple because there's a single copy of the card, that's all. It's an easy out.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: GendoIkari on October 05, 2014, 12:18:46 am
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?

At least the base set only has one, but I don't see an issue if there were multiple really. So you play C1, then later play C2, and you choose C1 as the card to copy. This means that you must now choose a card to copy, because that's the effect you're copying. So you must now "copy the effect of another card you played this turn". So you choose C1 again (which is still "another card" from C2, at least that's how I read it). So yeah, you can technically keep choosing C1 forever. So what? It's no different from how you can keep revealing Moat forever in Dominion.

I'm just saying that it's only pleasingly simple because there's a single copy of the card, that's all. It's an easy out.

So Throne Room should have been a prize!
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 05, 2014, 12:28:10 am
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?

At least the base set only has one, but I don't see an issue if there were multiple really. So you play C1, then later play C2, and you choose C1 as the card to copy. This means that you must now choose a card to copy, because that's the effect you're copying. So you must now "copy the effect of another card you played this turn". So you choose C1 again (which is still "another card" from C2, at least that's how I read it). So yeah, you can technically keep choosing C1 forever. So what? It's no different from how you can keep revealing Moat forever in Dominion.

I'm just saying that it's only pleasingly simple because there's a single copy of the card, that's all. It's an easy out.

So Throne Room should have been a prize!

Well, maybe Magic Mirror should.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 05, 2014, 07:59:46 am
That's an interesting idea, but I don't know if Magic Mirror is in the same league as the other prizes, not the way it is right now, anyway. While silverspawn seems to think otherwise, the comparison to TR makes me think that this is a 4$, or else a very weak 5$, and all the prizes are either really strong or very quirky, and I think this is neither (not after BoM, anyway); a MM that would let you copy cards out-of-phase would definitely qualify, but it kind of breaks the game too much, and I can't think of any other way to boost MM to a similar powerlevel as the rest of the prizes. The only thing MM would have going on for it as a prize is that it would let you have two princesses or diadems in play at the same time...
I do like the flavour of a magic mirror being the prize of winning a tournament though.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: silverspawn on October 05, 2014, 09:39:19 am
That's an interesting idea, but I don't know if Magic Mirror is in the same league as the other prizes, not the way it is right now, anyway. While silverspawn seems to think otherwise, the comparison to TR makes me think that this is a 4$, or else a very weak 5$, and all the prizes are either really strong or very quirky, and I think this is neither (not after BoM, anyway); a MM that would let you copy cards out-of-phase would definitely qualify, but it kind of breaks the game too much, and I can't think of any other way to boost MM to a similar powerlevel as the rest of the prizes. The only thing MM would have going on for it as a prize is that it would let you have two princesses or diadems in play at the same time...
I do like the flavour of a magic mirror being the prize of winning a tournament though.

There is no leauge of prizes though. the powerlevel of prices is vastly different. I can almost guarantee you that magic mirror would generally be a stronger card than both bag of gold and diadem. although being a prize makes it weaker, because games with prizes are games with tournament, and games with tournament are games where you green early.

A card that can copy any card in Play is at least as good as every card that you have in Play. Just think about what that means. If you have a Bazaar in Play, all MM's can be Bazaars. Just like that. If you have a Village and a draw in Play, all MM's can be either. With an effect like this, why would you even buy any more villages or draw? You're just going to buy so many that you're guaranteed to have one of each in Play, and then you're just going to stack MM's. Now you could say this is also true for TR. Well, for one TR is one of the strongest 4$'s in the game, but also TR is by far not as good. A Hand of 3*TR and a Village isn't good, unless one of the next two cards is your draw. You just play TR, TR, Village, and that's it. TR can be drawn without other Action cards, that's fairly common. If you draw MM without action cards, you can just imitate whatever Action you need. Band of Misfits costs 5$, but your card is so much better than BoM. The typical engine has draw that costs 5$ and a village that costs 4$ or 3$. BoM can only imitate the village, and it costs 5$, so it's not really an advantage over buying the village. Plus, and this is huge, once the village is piled out, BoM becomes useless. MM doesn't have this problem at all.

But there's more. Say you have a hand of TR + Draw in an engine. It's bad, you just draw a lot of dead actions. With MM + Draw, you just play your draw, and then imitate a Gold with the MM. If you have an engine that draws your deck every turn, there is absolutely no reason to buy gold or platin anymore, if you already have one. Just buy one Gold, and then MM's. They can be gold, but they can also do so much more.

Another random thought, have you considered what this does in a game with tournament or KC?

And again, look at Believer:

(http://www.scon.comze.com/dominion/requests/silverspawn/Believer.png)

Believer is probably stronger than every official 2$ card, maybe on top with chapel and stonemason, and it could easily cost 4$. Still, in most ways it's worse than MM. It requires you to pay an additional Action when imitating a card, and it can't copy treasures at all. Granted, it also has some cute hidden powers that your card doesn't have, and pretty strong on-buy effect, but still, it has to be weaker overall.

My prediction is, MM is probably okay priced at 6$, strong at 5$, and broken at 4$ or less.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 05, 2014, 11:38:55 am
I think you are overemphasizing the cases where it is better than TR, and kinda assuming that you have already built a deck that draws itself and has actions to spare. TR is good because it is two cards in one, a village + whatever you draw it with, which is balanced by the fact that if fizzles often. MM needs a lot of support compared to TR, which is balanced by the fact that it does something even when it fizzles, and that it has more potential.

Let's compare some cases:

TR + smithy = draw six cards dead. MM + smithy = draw three cards dead, copy your best treasure (a copper or silver at the beginning of the game, which is arguably the most important phase). TR clearly wins, if anything because of the extra cycling.

TR + TR + smithy = draw six cards, double any action cards from 8. MM + MM + smithy = draw three cards, triple your best treasure. It's not even close when you are building an engine.

The reason why BoM can be good (with the right Kingdom) is because it's always doing what you want it to be doing, independently of your hand or your deck. It can trash when you want to trash, it can give you actions when you've got card draw, it can give you buys when you've drawn your deck, it can attack, sometimes it can draw, etc. Both TR and MM can't do that, unless you already have those cards in hand/in play. If you want to trash, you need to buy a trasher first, and then you probably don't want to trash twice in the same turn; same goes for extra buys, discard attacks, etc.
And if you want to draw your deck, your first 5 cards must allow you to do so; if you are missing a key card, BoM will give it to you, while MM and TR won't.

Basically, the strongest cards are terminal, so you are going to need more support to bring MM to its full potential than you would need with TR. Which is fine, because MM can do some tricks that TR can't.

About MM plus KC, well, any game with KC is going to be kinda crazy, so I don't think that's a problem. A clause about "cards costing 6$ or less" could be added for balance, I guess.

The problem with MM at 5$ is the same as 5$ villages: they are competing with whatever you are using as your payload. In the end, only playtesting would tell whether this is in the "4$ cards that become really strong with the right support" (see bridge, conspirator, etc) or "solid 5$ card". And unfortunately I can't playtest it because I had to move away from where my playgroup used to meet :(
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Awaclus on October 05, 2014, 11:49:54 am
A clause about "cards costing 6$ or less" could be added for balance, I guess.
That'd also prevent Golem interactions, which might be a good idea.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: AJD on October 05, 2014, 08:40:11 pm
This is one of those very few places where Ascension did better.

"Copy the effect of another [card] you played this turn."

Pleasingly simple, yet frustrating to do in Dominion.

Let me guess. Ascension only has one copy of that card?

At least the base set only has one, but I don't see an issue if there were multiple really. So you play C1, then later play C2, and you choose C1 as the card to copy. This means that you must now choose a card to copy, because that's the effect you're copying. So you must now "copy the effect of another card you played this turn". So you choose C1 again (which is still "another card" from C2, at least that's how I read it). So yeah, you can technically keep choosing C1 forever. So what? It's no different from how you can keep revealing Moat forever in Dominion.

Naw, it's no different from how you can keep revealing Trader forever.  ;)
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: AJD on October 05, 2014, 08:41:30 pm
"until either leaves play" is odd.  When could the other card leave play without Magic Mirror leaving play at the same time?  Ummm... Urchin, I guess.  And also if MM becomes a TR/KC/Procession and is used on a Duration, when the original was not.  But then what happens to MM?  Is the Duration still doubled?  It's simpler to have MM be that card until MM leaves play, without consideration for the other card (which only matters in rare cases and is confusing then).

I've been back and forth on this. It really only makes a difference if you are TR/KC a duration card, in which case it determines whether the duration is still doubled/tripled on the next turn.

I don't think it determines whether the Duration is still repeated on the next turn. Whatever happens afterward, the Duration card has been played twice already.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Deadlock39 on October 06, 2014, 05:57:47 pm
I have to agree with Silverspawn here, and you are probably doing the exact opposite of what you accuse him of doing, and over emphasizing the situations where it is worse than Throne Room.

TR + smithy = draw six cards dead. MM + smithy = draw three cards dead, copy your best treasure (a copper or silver at the beginning of the game, which is arguably the most important phase). TR clearly wins, if anything because of the extra cycling.

TR + TR + smithy = draw six cards, double any action cards from 8. MM + MM + smithy = draw three cards, triple your best treasure. It's not even close when you are building an engine.

In these situations, you don't even give consideration to what happens with the cards that get drawn.  When considering the first scenario, if we are drawing 6 cards dead in a deck with a lot of TRs and Smithys, then there is a high chance there are going to be some dead actions there.  If they are MMs, then they are probably at least worth a silver.  In the second case, if you get unlucky and draw a bunch of TRs, then your turn stops, but MM can be either, or if you've already drawn your deck, they can copy your best treasure.

One more point I would make is that, it seems likely that even in the cases where MM "fails" it is highly likely to get played as Silver (unless IMO, you purchased it too early).  I would argue on that basis, that MM belongs in the "Silver with a bonus" group, which we know has to cost at least $5.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: pacovf on October 06, 2014, 06:29:55 pm
In these situations, you don't even give consideration to what happens with the cards that get drawn.  When considering the first scenario, if we are drawing 6 cards dead in a deck with a lot of TRs and Smithys, then there is a high chance there are going to be some dead actions there.  If they are MMs, then they are probably at least worth a silver.  In the second case, if you get unlucky and draw a bunch of TRs, then your turn stops, but MM can be either, or if you've already drawn your deck, they can copy your best treasure.

If we are considering decks full of smithys and TRs/MMs, we are no longer considering the beginning of the game. You have to get there first, and during that time, TR is better, and early advantages tend to snowball. Yes, in a deck with tons of villages and smithies, MMs are better than TR because they can copy gold after you've drawn your deck, but TR reaches endgame earlier because it doesn't need (as many) villages.

Note that, as I mentioned before, by putting MM at 5$, you are "nerfing" it twice, because your deck will have less good cards to copy. And you do need to buy more cards for MM to start doing something for you than for TR. Whether that's reason enough to keep it at 4$ despite its higher potential, or if it indeed needs to be at 5$, only playtesting could tell. Afterall, the discussion we are having is because we don't know how often MM will be doing crazy stuff, and how often it will just be a copper. Maybe you and silverspawn are right, I don't know.

But IMHO, there's no reason to make it more expensive just because it would be a top-tier 4$. As Donald says, "I want the cards as cheap as possible without breaking the game"; Throne Room cost 3$ for most of its life and it was fine.

Quote
One more point I would make is that, it seems likely that even in the cases where MM "fails" it is highly likely to get played as Silver (unless IMO, you purchased it too early).  I would argue on that basis, that MM belongs in the "Silver with a bonus" group, which we know has to cost at least $5.

Even though MM is not exactly a silver with a bonus... that's a very good point, actually.
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: Jasoba on October 06, 2014, 09:35:18 pm
I think 4$ is ok!

It collides with terminals, and is meh with villages. Its prolly best with Laboratory/Hunting Party.
It can be usefull to put some MM in your smithy/village engine but then you buy waaaay to many action cards...
Yes there will be some crazy games, with 12 highways and 14 goons in play but yeah why not xD

At 5$ you really dont want to buy this over Lab/Hunting party, because it just ends up as a Lab/Hp that can fizzle!


So yeah it obv really depends on the Kingdom, but I think 4$ is the best value...
Title: Re: Magic mirror
Post by: LastFootnote on October 07, 2014, 11:44:06 am
I think it's definitely worth testing at $4. I don't think it's obviously too strong at that cost.