Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Auditor: a cheaper attack card  (Read 7357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« on: April 17, 2014, 01:48:44 am »
0

Auditor
Action - Attack
cost $4
Discard up to 2 cards. Draw 1 card plus 1 for each card you discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing either a pure victory card or a $0 card. They put that card on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 02:07:12 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2014, 04:44:50 am »
0

It would introduce the element that the sequence of cards in the discard counts. Is that good or bad? I don't know if I like the idea of thinking about how to stack my cards in play and hand on cleanup.

Also: "pure victory" should be reworded in "non-treasure, non-action".

As for the card: The benefit part is about as good as Cellar (+action is very important for sifters, plus Cellar is unlimited, which in sum should cancel out with the +card). The attack part is comparable to Bureaucrat, plus a fair chance that opponents are hit by Ruins. In summary I tend to think that the card is a bit weaker than Bureaucrat, so I think it shouldn't be a steal for $3.

Practically, I don't like setting up the Ruins pile for a game where they enter play only occasionally. If there's extra setup effort, the card should be worth it.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 05:01:47 am by ipofanes »
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

dominator 123

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • Shuffle iT Username: dominator 123
  • Notice the space
  • Respect: +369
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2014, 04:59:02 am »
+1

Auditor
Action - Attack
cost $4
Discard up to 2 cards. Draw 1 card plus 1 for each card you discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing either a pure victory card or a $0 card. They put that card on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.
This card seems like it could do a lot of rewording.

Firstly, "draw 1 card" can be "+1 card instead". Use as little words as necessary.

Next, what is a "pure victory card"? I'll assume it is a non-hybrid victory card (not Nobles or Harem). So use "a card that is not an Action or Treasure".

Lastly, this introduces ruins, so this should have a looter type.

So after this, this card becomes:

Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 2 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing a card that costs $0 or a card that is not an action or treasure, and put it on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.
So what it does is some sifting for you and a Bureaucrat-like attack for the opponents? Try playtesting this with Bureaucrat to see how it does.
Overall, this seems *slightly* stronger than Bureaucrat, but not strictly, so $4 should be fine.
Logged
"Strictly Better" compares only effects and not cost, change my mind

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2014, 05:28:22 am »
0

Practically, I don't like setting up the Ruins pile for a game where they enter play only occasionally. If there's extra setup effort, the card should be worth it.
Death Cart does this.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2014, 05:45:03 am »
0

Fair enough, but I doubt you'll even dispense two ruins with every Auditor in play, on average.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

thespaceinvader

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 641
  • Respect: +120
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2014, 05:46:18 am »
+1

You don't need the order of the discard pile to matter - discard pile is face up and in an order determined by the player anyway.  Just do 'all other players put a *whatever* card from their discard pile on their deck or gain a ruins'.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2014, 07:08:16 am »
0

You don't need the order of the discard pile to matter - discard pile is face up and in an order determined by the player anyway.  Just do 'all other players put a *whatever* card from their discard pile on their deck or gain a ruins'.
Well, you still need to make them look through their discard pile, since normally you aren't allowed to do that.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2014, 08:33:20 am »
0

But Counting House already introduced that.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2014, 09:11:03 am »
+1

The order of the discard is important: Is not the same to top-deck an Estate or a Copper. It would be easy to put a Copper on top of a discard almost every turn if there is no trashing, and to have no Copper and no green for a long time if there is trashing, so you are more or less always top-decking a Copper. That is not so hot.

Also, what do you do with the revealed-unused cards? I guess you put them in the discard, but you need to say it explicitly (like Hunting Party), and I guess discarding them is not a good idea because discarding a card already in the discard looks weird.

I think the card being terminal makes it pretty weak, and has the potential to pin players, which is even worse. So, it is only balanced with engines that can manage to play a couple so the Attack really hurts, but no pin possibility, which seems like a really narrow space. Even with Cellar unlimited sifting, I think it would be weak most of the time and pin most of the remainder of times.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2014, 09:30:19 am »
0

I guess you put them in the discard, but you need to say it explicitly (like Hunting Party)
You don't. Usually it's said explicitly because you actually do something with the cards (discard them or reorder them), but if you just leave the card where it was, there's no need to say that (see Moat).
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2014, 09:36:46 am »
+2

I guess you put them in the discard, but you need to say it explicitly (like Hunting Party)
You don't. Usually it's said explicitly because you actually do something with the cards (discard them or reorder them), but if you just leave the card where it was, there's no need to say that (see Moat).

There is (possibly) more than one card involved, so you need to say something about the order. When discarding, as a rule, you get to choose the order, but in this case it is not clear whether you can rearrange the cards when putting them back in the discard or have to put them in the same order. Also "where it was" is only perfectly well defined when nothing happened to any other cards. Suppose your discard is: Silver, Copper, Estate. The Silver is on top of the Copper. Since the Copper is gone after the Attack finishes resolving, putting the Silver on top of the discard is "where it was" with some definition, but not exactly, as it is no longer "on top of the Copper", neither it is on 3rd position from the bottom of the discard, as it was.

EDIT: BTW, it has been discussed that using discard pile order is a bad idea. In this case, I think it should be better to just let the player choose which junk to put on top on the discard. Or even always put Ruins and dispense Ruins if there aren't any. That seems even more interesting as a card.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 09:38:26 am by soulnet »
Logged

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2014, 10:06:58 am »
+1

Or even always put Ruins and dispense Ruins if there aren't any. That seems even more interesting as a card.

That would solve some issues indeed. For one, if you are regularly seriously pinned by the attack (having three or more Ruins in discard), you are likely to lose anyway. Secondly, it would make opponent try to get Ruins into the reshuffle, counter to the usual strategy, which is interesting. Thirdly, Ruins would be dispensed more often than not, making the setup worthwhile according to my argument above.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2014, 04:21:02 pm »
0

There is (possibly) more than one card involved, so you need to say something about the order. When discarding, as a rule, you get to choose the order, but in this case it is not clear whether you can rearrange the cards when putting them back in the discard or have to put them in the same order.
It's clear that you can't rearrange the cards. It's also clear that you can't trash the cards or gain the Colony pile for free. The card doesn't instruct you to do that, why would you do that?

Also, Pearl Diver makes it obvious that leaving a card where it is = not moving that card and != having that card's position in relation to other cards stay the same.

Though, having to keep track of the order is not very convenient IRL and making the order of the discard pile matter creates a lot of unnecessary AP so that's also a bad idea.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 04:25:09 pm by Awaclus »
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2014, 04:29:17 pm »
0

It's clear that you can't rearrange the cards. It's also clear that you can't trash the cards or gain the Colony pile for free. The card doesn't instruct you to do that, why would you do that?

Actually, in order to be able to reveal cards you need to rearrange them. For me, the usual way would be to form a new pile of revealed cards. Thus, the natural way to put them back would be to invert their original relative order. I do not think this is clearly wrong instead of reverting the process to get the order we started with. No existing card says (or implicitly tells you to) put more than one card back without saying something about the order. I think there is a non-redundant reason for that.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2014, 04:54:26 pm »
0

Actually, in order to be able to reveal cards you need to rearrange them. For me, the usual way would be to form a new pile of revealed cards. Thus, the natural way to put them back would be to invert their original relative order. I do not think this is clearly wrong instead of reverting the process to get the order we started with. No existing card says (or implicitly tells you to) put more than one card back without saying something about the order. I think there is a non-redundant reason for that.
Of course you could agree on a house rule that revealing cards means revealing them and rearranging them, but I don't think that's in the official rules. And yeah, there's a reason, it's that keeping track of the correct order could cause practical difficulties IRL.

On a slightly related note, this is how you should play Chancellor according to the official rules:
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2014, 06:00:11 pm »
0

Donald X. has said before that any card that puts multiple cards back on the deck allows you to rearrange them because it just makes it easier on the players.  It's pretty easy to screw up the order by accident, and there can be accountability issues too if you require keeping the same order.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2014, 07:04:53 pm »
+1

Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 2 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing a card that costs $0 or a card that is not an action or treasure, and put it on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.
So what it does is some sifting for you and a Bureaucrat-like attack for the opponents? Try playtesting this with Bureaucrat to see how it does.
Overall, this seems *slightly* stronger than Bureaucrat, but not strictly, so $4 should be fine.
That was helpful.

Here's my version that tries to make it slightly stronger while removing the possibility for a pin:
Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 4 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure, and put it on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.

EDIT: I meant to quote this post in a new post, but I accidently hit modify instead and didn't realize it at first, so I had to reconstruct this post. That's why some of it disappeared.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 09:47:10 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2014, 07:52:55 pm »
0

I'm not seeing a scenario under which this card dispenses a Ruins.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

dominator 123

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • Shuffle iT Username: dominator 123
  • Notice the space
  • Respect: +369
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2014, 09:52:51 pm »
0

I'm not seeing a scenario under which this card dispenses a Ruins.
It will when the discard pile is empty.
Logged
"Strictly Better" compares only effects and not cost, change my mind

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2014, 10:22:39 pm »
0

I'm not seeing a scenario under which this card dispenses a Ruins.
It will when the discard pile is empty.

Or just when the discard pile doesn't have any $0 cost cards or VP in it.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2014, 06:47:03 am »
+1

I'm not seeing a scenario under which this card dispenses a Ruins.
It will when the discard pile is empty.

Or just when the discard pile doesn't have any $0 cost cards or VP in it.

I must be getting tripped up in the ambiguity of the condition "If they didn't".  If they didn't what?  I would recommend rewording it.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2014, 09:37:56 am »
0

Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 4 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure, and put it on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.
Now I'm thinking the problem with this version is that it doesn't slow down their cycling, which was part of my idea for the attack.

Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 4 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing 2 cards which are either ruins or are not actions or treasures, and shuffles them into their draw deck. If they didn't have 2 such cards in their discards, they gain a ruins.
This is more like the original idea, but this can easily pin if most of their cards are in their discard pile at the moment. Maybe I could say "2 cards which either cost less than $4 or are not actions or treasures" ?   That way a pin isn't so terrible ...or maybe that idea just won't work and I'll use the first version in this post.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Auditor: a cheaper attack card
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2014, 10:34:42 am »
0

I always try to fix a card by making it simpler rather than by making it more complex.

Quote
Auditor
Action - Attack - Looter
$4
Discard up to 4 cards. +1 card, and +1 card per card discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing 2 cards which are either ruins or are not actions or treasures, and shuffles them into their draw deck. If they didn't have 2 such cards in their discards, they gain a ruins.

To my surprise, this version fits on a card pretty nicely, although it doesn't allow for any good formatting. It's still silly complex, though. If a player has to read a card each time to remember exactly what it does, it's too complex. I think even I would have to do that the first handful of times I played this card.

• Why put a limit at 4 cards? Might as well allow any number of cards.
• "+1 Card and +1 Card per card discarded" is a bit wonky. I think it'd be better if it were either just "+1 Card per card discarded" or "draw until you have X cards in hand".
• Having this crazy logic between three categories of cards (Ruins OR NOT [Action OR Treasure]) is a particularly difficult to remember piece of complexity. Something simple like "Copper" or "Victory Card" or just "Ruins" would be better.
• An attack that always makes each other player shuffle is not ideal. It's not awful, since it's not their turn, but what if this attack gets played 5 times in a row? Ugh.

EDIT: Here's another quick tip, having to do with your original version:

Auditor
Action - Attack
cost $4
Discard up to 2 cards. Draw 1 card plus 1 for each card you discarded.
Each other player reveals cards from their discard pile until revealing either a pure victory card or a $0 card. They put that card on top of their deck. If they didn't, they gain a ruins.

A "pure Victory card"? I'm not going to nitpick about that being undefined, when it's clear what is meant. But specifying that is a bad idea. I think I understand the thought process. You're trying to make it so Harem, Nobles, etc. don't count. But by making that distinction, not only are you making the card slightly more complex, but you're removing interesting interactions from the game. Hybrid Victory cards aren't very common, and it's cool that they help counter this kind of attack. In general, you shouldn't go out of your way to remove harmless interactions like this.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 10:50:10 am by LastFootnote »
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.12 seconds with 21 queries.