Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[market squire]

Hello!

By duration attacks I don't mean Duration cards just with an attack on-play. I mean Attacks that have effects after having played them.
I have seen a lot of serious versions of Duration Attacks.

Also, Donald tried it for Seaside early:

- There was a now-and-later attack. It was you draw two, they discard one, this turn and next turn. I had still not quite learned that you can't do "each other player discards a card" - it will eventually get played in multiples and just massacre turns. I ended up replacing this with Ghost Ship.

The two main issues of this concept are:

• You can't track whether the opponents defended with Moat/ Lighthouse.
• There is no special appeal to it, it could just be a normal Attack.

For (game) design, it can be very important to raise questions. So I'd see these issues as questions, maybe there is a good answer to them. As always, you are invited to change my ideas and come up with new takes on that concept.

My answer on tracking:
As aleady done here, we could just mark a player who has been attacked on-play (e.g. with a set aside card or with a token or something special). The future effect will only trigger if you've got that "tag".


So let's see what kind of things could be done here and if they'd be worth it. I'll just give some sample card ideas.


Taxation (Action-Attack-Duration)
Each other player with 4 or more cards in his hand sets one card from his hand aside and discards it in his next cleanup phase. During his next buy phase, copies of the set aside card cost $3 more (before cost reduction).
At the start of your next turn: +$2.

Maybe you need a mat for this? I'm not sure, but maybe then it wouldn't need to be a Duration?


Usurper (Action-Attack-Duration) $5
+2 Cards
Every other player reveals his hand until the start of his next buy phase.
____________________
Whenever a player stops revealing cards for Usurper, he may discard 2 cards. If he doesn't, -1 Buy.

Here the tag is "your hand is revealed". This allows us to make players loose their basic Buy. I tried to make the wording in a way that Usurpers don't stack, but the only thing that seems to work here is to put the attack below the line, i.e. make it independent from on-play.


Great Embargo (Action-Attack-Duration) $3
+$2
Each other player takes an Embargo token. During his next turn, when he buys a Victory card, he gains a Curse. He discards the token at the end of his next turn.

Very simple implementation of the concept. Again, maybe it doesn't need the Duration type.


Army (Action-Attack-Duration) $4
+$2
Each other player turns the top card of his deck face-up. When he would draw the face-up card, he turns it face down instead.

This is just "the next time he draws cards, he draws one less". Positive versions of this are here.


Wine cellar (Action-Attack-Duration) $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and sets it aside left from your draw pile (leave a gap if he can't). At the start of your next turn, you may discard copies of these cards from your hand; +1 Card per card discarded; the other player puts the set aside card on his discard pile.

This one tries to do what you really want to do with that card type: Extend the Attack to the Attacker's next turn. The trick is that each player sets the card aside on a pile dedicated specifically to his cards, but in the Attacker's play area. This is my very first try on such a concept, so maybe we'll find a better take on it.

[pedroluchini]

Army (Action-Attack-Duration) $4
+$2
Each other player turns the top card of his deck face-up. When he would draw the face-up card, he turns it face down instead.

This is just "the next time he draws cards, he draws one less". Positive versions of this are here.

I really like the simple elegance of this implementation, but I don't see why it needs to be a Duration at all.

[eHalcyon]

There is discussion about Duration Attacks in the mini set design contest, e.g. the one for Seaside (LFN, if you read this, will that ever continue? ) but you'll have to wade through a bit to find the discussion points.

Taxation sounds alright, though the cost increasing part of it is extremely weak.  It also functions as "discard 1 card", and I think that will have more of a negative impact than the cost increase.  Often it'll just increase the cost of junk, which people won't be buying anyway.  In fact, it is liable to help your opponents by buffing their TfB cards. 

Usurper sounds a bit fiddly for real life play.  Should I just flip my hand backwards?  But then I'll have trouble seeing my own cards.  Should I just lay them face up on the table?  That could cause me to mix them up with cards that get played.  It's also rather complicated for what should be a relatively weak attack.  Seeing your hand as you play it usually won't matter that much, and the penalty is far weaker than Militia in that the other player can run through his engine before discarding 2 green cards that he drew at the end, or just giving up an extra +Buy.

I suppose both of those are more just problems with specific implementations than the idea of having a "tag".

Great Embargo is not worded properly.  You want to do it like Embargo:

Each other player takes an Embargo token.
When a player buys a Victory card, he gains a Curse per Embargo token he has.  All Embargo tokens held by a player are discarded at the end of his turn.

The card does not need to be a Duration any more than Embargo does.  It also seems weaker than Embargo.  Early on, players aren't buying VP anyway.  Later on, it is hit-or-miss whether you catch them on a turn they would buy VP.  Even if you get them, it's just a Curse in the late game.  New junk doesn't matter as much by that point.

Army is a great idea, but pedro is right that it doesn't need a Duration type.  I'd generalize the wording too:

Each other player turns the top card of his deck face-up.
When a player would draw a face-up card, he turns it face-down instead.

You could do similar attacks, or even non-attacks.  Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts one card face-up on top of his deck.  Gain a card costing up to $6, putting it face-up on your deck.  You could even remove the below-the-line explanation of what a face-up card means and just stick that in the rule book.

The big thing to consider is what it does to cards that reveal or look at the top of the deck.  If you have a face-up Estate, does Rebuild hit it?  If there is a face-up card on your deck, how does Lookout work? 

It's a neat mechanism though, and naturally produces combo/counter potential with cards Wishing Well and Mystic.  So that's cool.

Wine Cellar is problematic in games with more than 2 players in that it would be easy for other players to lose track of which cards are theirs, especially if you play multiple Wine Cellars.  Having designated areas per player helps, but it would make the play area very messy.

Speaking of which, it is unclear how multiples stack.  Suppose you play Wine Cellar twice and two of my Copper get set aside, one per attack.  When you discard one Copper next turn, does this allow you to draw 2 cards?  What if the third player also set aside a Copper -- one discard lets you draw 3 cards now?

[Asper]

Great Embargo (Action-Duration) $3
+$2
Put an Embargo Token on each Victory Card pile in the supply. When a player buys a card from a pile with an Embargo token on it, he gains a Curse. At the start of your next turn: Remove one Embargo Token from each Victory card pile.

[market squire]

Okay, maybe Usurper, Great Embargo, and Army don't need to be Durations at all. The text below the line makes the tag effect independent from playing the Attack itself.

Taxation sounds alright, though the cost increasing part of it is extremely weak.  It also functions as "discard 1 card", and I think that will have more of a negative impact than the cost increase.  Often it'll just increase the cost of junk, which people won't be buying anyway.  In fact, it is liable to help your opponents by buffing their TfB cards. 

In late game, opponents will have a very hard time if they set aside Provinces. But until midgame, you are right.
TfB doesn't work as the cost is only increased during the buy phase (the opposite of Peddler).

Usurper sounds a bit fiddly for real life play.  Should I just flip my hand backwards?  But then I'll have trouble seeing my own cards.  Should I just lay them face up on the table?  That could cause me to mix them up with cards that get played.  It's also rather complicated for what should be a relatively weak attack.  Seeing your hand as you play it usually won't matter that much, and the penalty is far weaker than Militia in that the other player can run through his engine before discarding 2 green cards that he drew at the end, or just giving up an extra +Buy.

I thought you could just hold the cards plain, parallel to the table.
The Attack is intended to hurt BM more than engines.

Great Embargo is not worded properly.  You want to do it like Embargo:

Each other player takes an Embargo token.
When a player buys a Victory card, he gains a Curse per Embargo token he has.  All Embargo tokens held by a player are discarded at the end of his turn.

The card does not need to be a Duration any more than Embargo does.  It also seems weaker than Embargo.  Early on, players aren't buying VP anyway.  Later on, it is hit-or-miss whether you catch them on a turn they would buy VP.  Even if you get them, it's just a Curse in the late game.  New junk doesn't matter as much by that point.

I don't see why my wording wouldn't work. But yeah, this is more elegant. Maybe the Curse should go on top of the deck. Or maybe just this:

Landlord (Action-Attack) $4
+$2
Each other player takes an Embargo token.
When a player with an Embargo token buys a Victory card, he puts it on top of his deck and discards one Embargo token.

EDIT:

Great Embargo (Action-Duration) $3
+$2
Put an Embargo Token on each Victory Card pile in the supply. When a player buys a card from a pile with an Embargo token on it, he gains a Curse. At the start of your next turn: Remove one Embargo Token from each Victory card pile.

It does not work with Moat. I see, you dumped the Attack. I guess that's okay. Maybe the Embargo tokens should be put there after your buy phase so that the active player isn't affected by his own Embargo.

Army is a great idea, but pedro is right that it doesn't need a Duration type.  I'd generalize the wording too:

Each other player turns the top card of his deck face-up.
When a player would draw a face-up card, he turns it face-down instead.

You could do similar attacks, or even non-attacks.  Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts one card face-up on top of his deck.  Gain a card costing up to $6, putting it face-up on your deck.  You could even remove the below-the-line explanation of what a face-up card means and just stick that in the rule book.

The big thing to consider is what it does to cards that reveal or look at the top of the deck.  If you have a face-up Estate, does Rebuild hit it?  If there is a face-up card on your deck, how does Lookout work? 

It's a neat mechanism though, and naturally produces combo/counter potential with cards Wishing Well and Mystic.  So that's cool.

Rules clarifiaction on Army:
The face-up card is still on top of the deck. If a player discards, looks at or reveals cards from top of his deck, he also discards/ looks at/ reveals the face-up card and, if the face-up card should be put back on top of the deck, he puts it there face-down, as normally. The penalty only appears when a player would draw any number of cards and one of them would be face-up.

You are right, maybe it can be an own mechanic for other cards as well.

Wine Cellar is problematic in games with more than 2 players in that it would be easy for other players to lose track of which cards are theirs, especially if you play multiple Wine Cellars.  Having designated areas per player helps, but it would make the play area very messy.

Speaking of which, it is unclear how multiples stack.  Suppose you play Wine Cellar twice and two of my Copper get set aside, one per attack.  When you discard one Copper next turn, does this allow you to draw 2 cards?  What if the third player also set aside a Copper -- one discard lets you draw 3 cards now?

Because it is a Duration card (and no while in play effect), you will always just draw one card per card discarded.
Maybe the cards could also be put next to the Wine Cellar itself to make it clearer.

I guess Wine Cellar would also work just like this:

Wine Cellar (Action-Attack) $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards the top card of his deck. You may discard copies of these cards from your hand; +1 Card per card discarded.

But the concept is more like "attack the other players and do something according to it at the start of your next turn." Lets see if there are more interesting things to do.

[Asper]

EDIT:

Great Embargo (Action-Duration) $3
+$2
Put an Embargo Token on each Victory Card pile in the supply. When a player buys a card from a pile with an Embargo token on it, he gains a Curse. At the start of your next turn: Remove one Embargo Token from each Victory card pile.

It does not work with Moat. I see, you dumped the Attack. I guess that's okay. Maybe the Embargo tokens should be put there after your buy phase so that the active player isn't affected by his own Embargo.

Ooops, you are right. Funny, as i made a very similar card myself (only difference was that it costed 4$ and placed/removed 4 tokens at will) and got it right on that one.

[eHalcyon]

I don't see why my wording wouldn't work. But yeah, this is more elegant.

Your wording would work, it's just not worded properly.  As written, the Embargo tokens mean nothing.  I take an Embargo token and then I give it back, and it doesn't impact me at all.  The actual Curse penalty is not tied to the tokens because the card doesn't say that the tokens do anything.  The penalty is only from the card.

[soulnet]

I think this works:

Army - Action/Attack/Duration - $5
+$1
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn.

This would play the Attack each time it Attacks, and only play it in two consecutive turns. It will stay out in the middle as any Duration, because it has pending effects, and get discarded after the second turn. Also, since the Attack is being played twice, once in each turn, it is pretty clear to me that you need to revel Moat (or whatever) in each turn to avoid the Attack that turn (similar to requiring revealing Moat to each Cultist even if you play one as part of the effect of another Cultist).

The same idea can work for any kind of Attack, and it does not even needs to be the same attack or effect in each turn, although different effects look weird:

Urwitchin - Action/Attack/Duration $5
If you played this card from your hand:
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
Play this again at the beginning of your next turn.
Otherwise:
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse.

[eHalcyon]

That means that the Duration part won't trigger if it gets played with Golem or Herald though.

[soulnet]

That means that the Duration part won't trigger if it gets played with Golem or Herald though.

You mean the non-Duration part. Yes, that is true. I think that's ok, though. You can change for "if this was not in play when the turn began" or similar instead if you want it to play like usual Durations.

[market squire]

I think this works:

Army - Action/Attack/Duration - $5
+$1
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn.

Okay, this works, but does it answer issue #2? I can't see a special appeal of this vs. Militia. I wanted something that can be done only with this concept.

[eHalcyon]

That means that the Duration part won't trigger if it gets played with Golem or Herald though.

You mean the non-Duration part. Yes, that is true. I think that's ok, though. You can change for "if this was not in play when the turn began" or similar instead if you want it to play like usual Durations.

Hmm?  I mean the Duration part:

"If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn."

With Golem or Herald, you did not play the card from your hand, so the next-turn Duration part (playing it again next turn) is not triggered.

[soulnet]

That means that the Duration part won't trigger if it gets played with Golem or Herald though.

You mean the non-Duration part. Yes, that is true. I think that's ok, though. You can change for "if this was not in play when the turn began" or similar instead if you want it to play like usual Durations.

Hmm?  I mean the Duration part:

"If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn."

With Golem or Herald, you did not play the card from your hand, so the next-turn Duration part (playing it again next turn) is not triggered.

Right, but you would play only the "next-turn" part and not the "first-turn" part (in case they are different). That was my point.

[eHalcyon]

That means that the Duration part won't trigger if it gets played with Golem or Herald though.

You mean the non-Duration part. Yes, that is true. I think that's ok, though. You can change for "if this was not in play when the turn began" or similar instead if you want it to play like usual Durations.

Hmm?  I mean the Duration part:

"If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn."

With Golem or Herald, you did not play the card from your hand, so the next-turn Duration part (playing it again next turn) is not triggered.

Right, but you would play only the "next-turn" part and not the "first-turn" part (in case they are different). That was my point.

I am confused.  Here is the card you proposed:

Army - Action/Attack/Duration - $5
+$1
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn.

This turn part:
+$1
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

Next turn part:
If you played this card from your hand, play it again at the beginning of your next turn.

When played by Golem or Herald, you would only get the "this turn" part, which is the non-Duration part.  That's true even if the next turn part is different, e.g. "If you played this card from your hand, +$3 at the beginning of your next turn."  You would not get that part.

[soulnet]

I was referring to my proposed wording for a two-different-part card:

Urwitchin - Action/Attack/Duration $5
If you played this card from your hand:
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
Play this again at the beginning of your next turn.
Otherwise:
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse.

In this case, Herald or Golem would only play the "Witch" part, which would usually be played on the second turn, not the first.

[eHalcyon]

Ah, OK then.

[GendoIkari]

A couple things with Army...

It has no effect on draw up to X cards. I suppose in this way, it's similar to Militia.

But what about cleanup phase drawing? What happens when a person needs to draw his new hand for next turn while he has a face-up card? Does he draw 5 cards (thus netting only 4 cards), or does he draw until he has 5 cards? The exact wording in the rulebook is "draw a new hand of 5 cards", so this seems to mean you still get 5 cards. But then what if you played an Outpost that turn? Outpost says "You only draw 3 cards (instead of 5)"... does this mean that you literally only draw 3, (thus netting 2), or that you still get a hand of 3 cards? The "instead of 5" seems to imply that if you would get a hand of 5 cards normally, you should get a hand of 3 cards here. But there is technically a contradiction here; outpost says "draw 3 instead of draw 5", but the rulebook never told you to "draw 5", it said "draw until you have 5." Because the rulebook never considered that there could be any difference between these 2 things during cleanup phase.

The same question could arise with this card:

"During cleanup phase this turn, you may keep 1 card in your hand instead of discarding it."

Of course that mechanic exists in Scheme, but if that card did exist, would your next turn start with 5 cards or 6, normally? And would it start with 3 cards or 4, with Outpost?

[market squire]

Army is intended to let you draw one less card in the Cleanup phase as well.

It is not clear from the rules, so I'd interpret the rules "draw a new hand of 5 cards" as "draw 5 cards which are your new hand" instead of "your new hand consists of exactly 5 cards".

[WilsonWriter]

We made a card that we play with regularly, called Werewolf. It has all the fun of the overnight threat of a werewolf, along with the use of silver to ward off the werewolf. It also works well as a Dominion card.

WEREWOLF
Action/Attack/Duration
Cost: $5

+1 Action

You may trash a card costing $1 or more from your hand. If you do, +2 cards.

At the start of your next turn, each other player reveals a Silver from his hand or gains a Curse.

[Asper]

We made a card that we play with regularly, called Werewolf. It has all the fun of the overnight threat of a werewolf, along with the use of silver to ward off the werewolf. It also works well as a Dominion card.

WEREWOLF
Action/Attack/Duration
Cost: $5

+1 Action

You may trash a card costing $1 or more from your hand. If you do, +2 cards.

At the start of your next turn, each other player reveals a Silver from his hand or gains a Curse.

Has the usual problem that people can Moat it on the turn you play it but it might be forgotten when the attack takes place. Unlike Market Squire you are ignoring the need to mark up hit players.

Edit: To try and make a helpful comment, how about having them set aside the Curse during your turn and either gain or return it depending on the Silver reveal? If somebody reveals Moat when you play Werewolf, he does not set aside a Curse and has no need to reveal a Silver.

[market squire]

We made a card that we play with regularly, called Werewolf. It has all the fun of the overnight threat of a werewolf, along with the use of silver to ward off the werewolf. It also works well as a Dominion card.

WEREWOLF
Action/Attack/Duration
Cost: $5

+1 Action

You may trash a card costing $1 or more from your hand. If you do, +2 cards.

At the start of your next turn, each other player reveals a Silver from his hand or gains a Curse.

Has the usual problem that people can Moat it on the turn you play it but it might be forgotten when the attack takes place. Unlike Market Squire you are ignoring the need to mark up hit players.

Edit: To try and make a helpful comment, how about having them set aside the Curse during your turn and either gain or return it depending on the Silver reveal? If somebody reveals Moat when you play Werewolf, he does not set aside a Curse and has no need to reveal a Silver.

I like the idea, but the problem is still issue #2. You could just let them discard a Silver or gain a Curse right now.


Some more thoughts on the general concept.

Attacks with a future effect for the opponent (like Taxation, Usurper, Great Embargo and Army) need a tag to mark up attacked players. But therefore, they are much simpler with a general "tag-rule" which works independently from playing the Attack. I.e. they should have text below the line instead of being a Duration.

However, could there be any real Duration Attacks that are worth it? How would they look like?

Assumptions:
- The tag is necessary.
- To justify the tag, it is relevant for the attacking effect (not just as binary information).
- To justify the Duration type, the Duration effect benefits the attacker later, according to the tag(s) it gave. The problem is, you need to assign the tags to the attacker, see Wine Cellar. I don't know if a variant could work that benefits from all the tags.


I am currently trying to come up with good implementations, but this is very hard, if not impossible. Maybe it isn't worth the thoughts, but on the other hand I like the non Duration attacks using the tags.