Print

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

[werothegreat]

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 8 cards in hand.



How is the cost?  I'm trying to use Haunted Woods as a sort of balancing guide.  The "next turn" effect will normally be identical to HW, but sometimes better, sometimes worse.  The Attack effect stacks, but the next turn effect doesn't.  Is 8 cards too strong?  Should it be 7?  And is "until your next turn" too strong?  Should it be "while this is in play"?  I realize playtesting is the best way to answer these questions, but I wanted to hear community opinions first.

[Awaclus]

Whoever is the first person to play like 3 or 4 of these on the same turn probably just wins the entire game, because there's no way your opponent can do the same (or anything really) on his turn, and then nothing prevents you from doing it again on your next turn, etc and you can have a working engine while your opponent is forced to play BMU with a number of Action cards in his deck that he doesn't even want to play.

[werothegreat]

Whoever is the first person to play like 3 or 4 of these on the same turn probably just wins the entire game, because there's no way your opponent can do the same (or anything really) on his turn, and then nothing prevents you from doing it again on your next turn, etc and you can have a working engine while your opponent is forced to play BMU with a number of Action cards in his deck that he doesn't even want to play.

Was just thinking about that, and I think a good fix would be:

"Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card."

That way he can't be brought down lower than 2 cards in hand.  So you can do stuff with cantrips, but big-draw engines will be penalized.

[Awaclus]

Whoever is the first person to play like 3 or 4 of these on the same turn probably just wins the entire game, because there's no way your opponent can do the same (or anything really) on his turn, and then nothing prevents you from doing it again on your next turn, etc and you can have a working engine while your opponent is forced to play BMU with a number of Action cards in his deck that he doesn't even want to play.

Was just thinking about that, and I think a good fix would be:

"Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card."

That way he can't be brought down lower than 2 cards in hand.  So you can do stuff with cantrips, but big-draw engines will be penalized.

It wouldn't fix anything though. The problem is that one of the players (i.e. the one who plays 3 of these first) can build an engine while the other one cannot. If it's possible to build a good engine, there's no way "stuff with cantrips (with a 3-card hand every turn)" will ever beat the engine.

[CG19]

Yeah, Awaclus hits on good points here. I actually read it initially as "when another player plays an Attack card" which is way less cwazy than just an Action card and it just seems better. Plus it's never dead to a kingdom with no attacks because it is an attack itself. I also think the "Draw to X" is too much and is a very hard-counter to itself. My version might be:

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Attack card, if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 6 cards in hand and +1 coin


The +1 coin is to give it reason to be played more than once.

[enfynet]

Yeah, Awaclus hits on good points here. I actually read it initially as "when another player plays an Attack card" which is way less cwazy than just an Action card and it just seems better. Plus it's never dead to a kingdom with no attacks because it is an attack itself. I also think the "Draw to X" is too much and is a very hard-counter to itself. My version might be:

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Attack card, if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 6 cards in hand and +1 coin


The +1 coin is to give it reason to be played more than once.

If you play more than one and you opponent plays an Attack, will they discard two cards? Or do you chose the order (simultaneous events) in which the "discard a card" trigger happens?

[GendoIkari]

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 8 cards in hand.


 And is "until your next turn" too strong?  Should it be "while this is in play"?

What am I missing here? How are these any different?

[Awaclus]

If you play more than one and you opponent plays an Attack, will they discard two cards? Or do you chose the order (simultaneous events) in which the "discard a card" trigger happens?

There are more than one "if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card" effects happening simultaneously. The order doesn't matter; they all are executed anyway, and there's no way any of them can cause the player to discard down to 1 card.

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 8 cards in hand.


 And is "until your next turn" too strong?  Should it be "while this is in play"?

What am I missing here? How are these any different?

The "until your next turn" version is an on-play effect, so it can be Throned. "While this is in play" is probably intended to be an effect under a dividing line, so if you Throned it, you'd get it only once.

[werothegreat]

Yeah, Awaclus hits on good points here. I actually read it initially as "when another player plays an Attack card" which is way less cwazy than just an Action card and it just seems better. Plus it's never dead to a kingdom with no attacks because it is an attack itself. I also think the "Draw to X" is too much and is a very hard-counter to itself. My version might be:

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Attack card, if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 6 cards in hand and +1 coin


The +1 coin is to give it reason to be played more than once.

I think this is too weak.  In games with only GoR as an Attack, you'd probably never pick one up.  If it were changed to +1 Card, +$1, it might be a little more enticing.

Haunted Woods is good even when the Attack does nothing, because +3 Cards is just so awesome.  GoR needs to either have a reliable Attack, or a really good next turn effect.

[GendoIkari]

If you play more than one and you opponent plays an Attack, will they discard two cards? Or do you chose the order (simultaneous events) in which the "discard a card" trigger happens?

There are more than one "if he has at least 3 cards left in his hand, he discards a card" effects happening simultaneously. The order doesn't matter; they all are executed anyway, and there's no way any of them can cause the player to discard down to 1 card.

Gang of Ragamuffins
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, he discards a card.

At the start of your next turn, draw up to 8 cards in hand.


 And is "until your next turn" too strong?  Should it be "while this is in play"?

What am I missing here? How are these any different?

The "until your next turn" version is an on-play effect, so it can be Throned. "While this is in play" is probably intended to be an effect under a dividing line, so if you Throned it, you'd get it only once.

Oh right, thanks.

Since it's a Duration, I think that it's more OK to allow Throning, as opposed to say, Goons. Because if you Throne it, the Throne Room also needs to stay in play, so you're getting to play your Thrones less often.

[theblankman]

It wouldn't fix anything though. The problem is that one of the players (i.e. the one who plays 3 of these first) can build an engine while the other one cannot. If it's possible to build a good engine, there's no way "stuff with cantrips (with a 3-card hand every turn)" will ever beat the engine.

What if it's a junk attack instead?  Not as obvisouly engine-crushing that way.  Maybe something like...

At the start of your next turn, choose one: draw up to 6 cards in hand or trash a card from your hand.
------
While this is in play, if an opponent plays any actions during a turn, he gains a Curse at the end of that turn.

This hurts an engine but doesn't disable it, and also has a built-in chance to counter itself.  And it stacks as an attack, but also as a counter.  Not sure what this version should cost. 

[LastFootnote]

Until the start of your next turn, when another player plays an Action, he discards a non-Action from his hand (or reveals a hand of all Actions).

[ben_king]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

[LastFootnote]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

[werothegreat]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

[LastFootnote]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

[GendoIkari]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

Also, since this is a "draw up to x" card, it counters its own attack, which could be cool. It's probably pretty harsh anyway, it's like -1 card on every action that has at least +1 card on it. But it doesn't hurt any non-drawing action. But yeah, all your labs are now cantrips? Sounds too powerful.

[werothegreat]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

Also, since this is a "draw up to x" card, it counters its own attack, which could be cool. It's probably pretty harsh anyway, it's like -1 card on every action that has at least +1 card on it. But it doesn't hurt any non-drawing action. But yeah, all your labs are now cantrips? Sounds too powerful.

How about: Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

[Fragasnap]

Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

Fragasnap plays Watchtower (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap would draw for Watchtower, so he discards a card for Gang of Ragamuffins (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)

[werothegreat]

Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

Fragasnap plays Watchtower (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap would draw for Watchtower, so he discards a card for Gang of Ragamuffins (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap discards a card (3 cards in hand)
...Fragasnap draws a card (4 cards in hand)

Yeah, I guess I didn't really think that through all the way.  There should be a "discard a card" token that does that, but only once.

[GendoIkari]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

Also, since this is a "draw up to x" card, it counters its own attack, which could be cool. It's probably pretty harsh anyway, it's like -1 card on every action that has at least +1 card on it. But it doesn't hurt any non-drawing action. But yeah, all your labs are now cantrips? Sounds too powerful.

How about: Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

Aside from Fragsnap's beautifully illustrated point, that just still sounds too strong. Maybe if the discarding were after he drew, instead of before. And then you'd just have to deal with draw-up-to-x's. But discarding once for each card draw sounds way too strong, notice that it's stronger than the -1 card token for cards that draw more than one card. In fact no action can ever increase your handsize while that is in play; no action can ever keep your handsize the same! (Exceptions include things that incrase handsize without drawing; like Envoy).

Hey, "resolve" is a thing now, so let's use that:

Until your next turn, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards a card.

This is the most similar to your original card; the only difference is that he discards the card after the action instead of before, which makes it less painful for cards that draw.

Ok, but that's still too painful for cards that don't draw. So instead:

While this is in play, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards down to 5 cards.

Ok, so this will have no effect on cantrips or cards that don't draw. But it is a bigger blow to cards that do draw, now your opponent can never increase handsize. But he can continue to draw through his deck, finding the best 5 cards. Changed to "while this is in play" because Throning does nothing anyway.

I like that version, because I like the concept of basically giving your opponent a hand-size limit.

[werothegreat]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

Also, since this is a "draw up to x" card, it counters its own attack, which could be cool. It's probably pretty harsh anyway, it's like -1 card on every action that has at least +1 card on it. But it doesn't hurt any non-drawing action. But yeah, all your labs are now cantrips? Sounds too powerful.

How about: Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

Aside from Fragsnap's beautifully illustrated point, that just still sounds too strong. Maybe if the discarding were after he drew, instead of before. And then you'd just have to deal with draw-up-to-x's. But discarding once for each card draw sounds way too strong, notice that it's stronger than the -1 card token for cards that draw more than one card. In fact no action can ever increase your handsize while that is in play; no action can ever keep your handsize the same! (Exceptions include things that incrase handsize without drawing; like Envoy).

Hey, "resolve" is a thing now, so let's use that:

Until your next turn, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards a card.

This is the most similar to your original card; the only difference is that he discards the card after the action instead of before, which makes it less painful for cards that draw.

Ok, but that's still too painful for cards that don't draw. So instead:

While this is in play, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards down to 5 cards.

Ok, so this will have no effect on cantrips or cards that don't draw. But it is a bigger blow to cards that do draw, now your opponent can never increase handsize. But he can continue to draw through his deck, finding the best 5 cards. Changed to "while this is in play" because Throning does nothing anyway.

I like that version, because I like the concept of basically giving your opponent a hand-size limit.

In that case, GoR's next-turn bonus would not be affected.

[GendoIkari]

What if instead of discarding a card, he took his -1 card token each time he played an action?  That seems slightly less powerful.

Oh, that's good. I mean it may or may not work in practice, but it's better than my idea.

I actually like that, because if he plays cards that draw, it's essentially making all of them draw 1 less, but doesn't punish a non-drawing hand.

Right, except that it draws you one less card at the end of your turn.

After thinking about it, I'm guessing it's still way too harsh. It's a very cool idea, though.

Also, since this is a "draw up to x" card, it counters its own attack, which could be cool. It's probably pretty harsh anyway, it's like -1 card on every action that has at least +1 card on it. But it doesn't hurt any non-drawing action. But yeah, all your labs are now cantrips? Sounds too powerful.

How about: Until your next turn, whenever a player would draw a card, he must first discard a card.

Aside from Fragsnap's beautifully illustrated point, that just still sounds too strong. Maybe if the discarding were after he drew, instead of before. And then you'd just have to deal with draw-up-to-x's. But discarding once for each card draw sounds way too strong, notice that it's stronger than the -1 card token for cards that draw more than one card. In fact no action can ever increase your handsize while that is in play; no action can ever keep your handsize the same! (Exceptions include things that incrase handsize without drawing; like Envoy).

Hey, "resolve" is a thing now, so let's use that:

Until your next turn, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards a card.

This is the most similar to your original card; the only difference is that he discards the card after the action instead of before, which makes it less painful for cards that draw.

Ok, but that's still too painful for cards that don't draw. So instead:

While this is in play, directly after another player resolves an action, he discards down to 5 cards.

Ok, so this will have no effect on cantrips or cards that don't draw. But it is a bigger blow to cards that do draw, now your opponent can never increase handsize. But he can continue to draw through his deck, finding the best 5 cards. Changed to "while this is in play" because Throning does nothing anyway.

I like that version, because I like the concept of basically giving your opponent a hand-size limit.

In that case, GoR's next-turn bonus would not be affected.

True, which I think is still fine; I like attacks that can serve as a counter to themselves. Though as soon as you play any action on the turn that you start with 8 cards; even one that doesn't draw, you're back to 5.

[werothegreat]

Ooo!  I just thought of something.  Make it:

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action, he first turns over his Journey token (it starts face up).  If it's face up, he puts his -1 Card token on his deck.

That way, the Attack is still kind of brutal, but only every other play.  And it also messes with their Journey token.

[eHalcyon]

Ooo!  I just thought of something.  Make it:

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action, he first turns over his Journey token (it starts face up).  If it's face up, he puts his -1 Card token on his deck.

That way, the Attack is still kind of brutal, but only every other play.  And it also messes with their Journey token.

Not sure if that's a good interaction with Giant/Ranger.

[werothegreat]

Ooo!  I just thought of something.  Make it:

Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action, he first turns over his Journey token (it starts face up).  If it's face up, he puts his -1 Card token on his deck.

That way, the Attack is still kind of brutal, but only every other play.  And it also messes with their Journey token.

Not sure if that's a good interaction with Giant/Ranger.

It could actually make them better - just get your token face up (play one cantrip or something), then all your Giants/Rangers activate.  And because GoR would always turn your token face down, Giant and Ranger would be a good defense against it.

Hmm.  Maybe I should it make it "if it's face down, -1 Card token."

[GendoIkari]

Pretty sure that in games with a Giant or Ranger, this will serve as more of a benefit to them than an attack. While this is in play, playing a single Giant or a single Ranger is almost as good as playing 2 of them.

[eHalcyon]

When I say "good interaction", I mean "good for the game", not whether it's weak or powerful.

When this attack is in effect, it essentially prevents the token from flipping when you play Giant/Ranger:

My token is in position X.  I play Giant.  The attack flips the token to ~X.  Giant then flips it back to X.

If you have some non-terminal actions, you can control the attack by making sure it is face up before you play Giant/Ranger.  But if you don't, it's all up to luck.  It feels a bit swingy that way, which is why I'm not sure it's a good interaction to have in the game.

[werothegreat]

Just thought of something interesting:

Spiteful Crone
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Move your Spite token onto an Action supply pile (when another player plays a card from that pile, he first discards a card).
At the start of your next turn, remove your Spite token, and draw up to 7/8 cards in hand.

[AJD]

Just thought of something interesting:

Spiteful Crone
$5 - Action-Attack-Duration

Move your Spite token onto an Action supply pile (when another player plays a card from that pile, he first discards a card).
At the start of your next turn, remove your Spite token, and draw up to 7/8 cards in hand.

I dunno, I feel like it's not a coincidence that the attacks that have penalties like this don't stack—I'm thinking Bridge Troll, Relic, maybe even Haunted Woods. Swamp Hag does stack, but the Curses are in your discard pile so they don't affect you all at once. Having an engine where you can put a Spite token every turn on some key engine component that you want to play a lot of—or worse, where multiple players can do that—sounds too punishing to be fun.

[werothegreat]

Silly multiplayer Dominion, ruining everything.