Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Now that Caravan Guard exists, we can make cards that you can play on other people's turns. What if such a card were an attack? This would lead to a few interesting things.... say you play an attack, your opponent reacts with a Caravan Guard-like reaction attack, so he plays the attack. Now you can:

• Reveal Secret Chamber to draw 2 and put 2 back on top. Possibly quite useful in the middle of your turn.
• Reveal Horse Traders to set it aside. Doesn't really do anything special, but note that it will stay set aside until your next turn.
• React with Caravan Guard! This will turn your Caravan Guard into a Village+... because you played it as a reaction, you net an extra action; then it stays in play to give you a coin next turn.
• Since treasure-attack exists, this means that you would be able to play an action card like Caravan Guard (or the reaction-attack) during your buy phase. I believe that currently it's impossible to play an action during the buy phase...

No idea what such a reaction-attack would look like, but the possible side effects are interesting.

[Gubump]

How about this:

Sentinel:
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand and you may have him gain a copy of a revealed card that you choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. At the start of your turn, play it.
Cost: $4
Type: Action, Attack, Reaction

Attack is optional so that it won't be too swingy if one of your opponents reveals a hand of all Colonies.

[GendoIkari]

Why set it aside and then put it back into your hand? That makes it so that you get to play it twice, once out of turn then again on your turn. Also, you say to play it, but then to set it aside "from your hand". Once you play it, it's not in your hand anymore.

[Gubump]

Why set it aside and then put it back into your hand? That makes it so that you get to play it twice, once out of turn then again on your turn. Also, you say to play it, but then to set it aside "from your hand". Once you play it, it's not in your hand anymore.

For the second statement, I had my words in the wrong order. As for the first, I thought that was the best way to be able to play it out of turn but still get the +$2, but I changed it to a much better way now.

[GendoIkari]

Ah, but the new wording doesn't play the card out of turn, which was the whole point of the thought experiment.

[Gubump]

Ah, but the new wording doesn't play the card out of turn, which was the whole point of the thought experiment.

Sentinel:
Take two Coin tokens.
Each other player reveals his hand and you may have him gain a copy of a revealed card that you choose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately after another player plays an Attack card other than Sentinel, you may play this from your hand.
Cost: $5
Type: Action, Reaction

Priced at $5 now instead of $4 because you can save the +$2 for a later turn.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Sentinel:
Cost: $5.  Type: Action, Reaction
Take your +$2 token.
Each other player reveals his hand and you may have him gain a copy of a revealed card that you choose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately after another player plays an Attack card other than Sentinel, you may play this from your hand.

+$2 token: When you get +$, get $2 more and lose this.

Priced at $5 now instead of $4 because you can save the +$2 for a later turn if you play no Treasure cards or Action cards that give +$. Of course, drawback is that you won't get multiple +$ from multiple Sentinel plays because you only have one +$2 token.

I like the idea for the attack, but why introduce a new token for +$2 when you can have it gain 2 coin tokens or a spoils into your hand?

[Gubump]

Sentinel:
Cost: $5.  Type: Action, Reaction
Take your +$2 token.
Each other player reveals his hand and you may have him gain a copy of a revealed card that you choose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately after another player plays an Attack card other than Sentinel, you may play this from your hand.

+$2 token: When you get +$, get $2 more and lose this.

Priced at $5 now instead of $4 because you can save the +$2 for a later turn if you play no Treasure cards or Action cards that give +$. Of course, drawback is that you won't get multiple +$ from multiple Sentinel plays because you only have one +$2 token.

I like the idea for the attack, but why introduce a new token for +$2 when you can have it gain 2 coin tokens or a spoils into your hand?

Good point (didn't want Spoils because that's too strong).

[Asper]

I don't think an out-of-turn attack is such a good idea. It feels like those "attacking reaction" ideas that a lot of people, including me, try to make at some point in their fan card creation history. I guess my concepts at the time always targeted the active player, making them political, but i believe that even without that there is a level of political decision i am uncomfortable with: Say the attack affects all other players the same way. Even then the active player might have drawn a lot of cards when i play it, increasing his chance for a Moat or whatever may help him to deal with it. Which leads to the problem that i have to choose one player to harm less than others, even though reacting on first opportunity might be the smartest move.

Also, such attacks introduce a lot of additional things to analyse - i don't have to think about only my hand, but about other's, too. And of course the rules weirdness which you wrote about in the OP.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think an out-of-turn attack is such a good idea. It feels like those "attacking reaction" ideas that a lot of people, including me, try to make at some point in their fan card creation history. I guess my concepts at the time always targeted the active player, making them political, but i believe that even without that there is a level of political decision i am uncomfortable with: Say the attack affects all other players the same way. Even then the active player might have drawn a lot of cards when i play it, increasing his chance for a Moat or whatever may help him to deal with it. Which leads to the problem that i have to choose one player to harm less than others, even though reacting on first opportunity might be the smartest move.

Also, such attacks introduce a lot of additional things to analyse - i don't have to think about only my hand, but about other's, too. And of course the rules weirdness which you wrote about in the OP.

It also occurs to me that it's not necessary for this card to react to an attack being played. It could just be any reaction, like Watchtower or Fool's Gold. That would at least eliminate the "counterattacking" issue. But I think I like the idea of an added complexity of having to worry more about what's in your opponent's hand. In a way it exists just a little bit with Horse Traders and Fool's Gold.

[Asper]

I don't think an out-of-turn attack is such a good idea. It feels like those "attacking reaction" ideas that a lot of people, including me, try to make at some point in their fan card creation history. I guess my concepts at the time always targeted the active player, making them political, but i believe that even without that there is a level of political decision i am uncomfortable with: Say the attack affects all other players the same way. Even then the active player might have drawn a lot of cards when i play it, increasing his chance for a Moat or whatever may help him to deal with it. Which leads to the problem that i have to choose one player to harm less than others, even though reacting on first opportunity might be the smartest move.

Also, such attacks introduce a lot of additional things to analyse - i don't have to think about only my hand, but about other's, too. And of course the rules weirdness which you wrote about in the OP.

It also occurs to me that it's not necessary for this card to react to an attack being played. It could just be any reaction, like Watchtower or Fool's Gold. That would at least eliminate the "counterattacking" issue. But I think I like the idea of an added complexity of having to worry more about what's in your opponent's hand. In a way it exists just a little bit with Horse Traders and Fool's Gold.

Well, if you see it as a feature, then i guess that's the point where you can say attack-reaction expands Dominion in a meaningful way. I'm not sure i personally like it, but i see it being something new.

[beri]

Now that Caravan Guard exists, we can make cards that you can play on other people's turns.

That's funny. We certainly could make these cards before Caravan Guard. The only thing is that they might have been rejected as not being in the spirit of the game and creating complicated out-of-your-turn interference.

BTW I find Caravan Guard poorly designed.

[Asper]

Now that Caravan Guard exists, we can make cards that you can play on other people's turns.

That's funny. We certainly could make these cards before Caravan Guard. The only thing is that they might have been rejected as not being in the spirit of the game and creating complicated out-of-your-turn interference.

BTW I find Caravan Guard poorly designed.

I'll agree it does things it doesn't need to do, and for the purpose of doing something that's not very interesting. The weird "play during another player's turn" thing is the most exiting aspect of the card, and that's really sad.

If i was to suggest a rewording, i'd probably have it called from your hand instead of played: "When another player plays an attack card, you may call this from your hand for +1Card and +1$ at the start of your next turn.". It still doesn't solve the problem of CG being just a cheap, weak Peddler.

[convolucid]

Caravan Guard is quite inelegant, and also kind of boring. It seems so obvious to me that the card shouldn't have +action; you could load a lot more power on the rest of the card, it's a lot more exciting to use as a reaction, and you don't get the ugly explanatory text. So I wonder if it was tested and just doesn't work for some reason.


Anyway, here's my stab at the out-of-turn attack (created before seeing this thread).

Gladiator- $4
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand places a Treasure card from his hand on top of his deck, or reveals a hand with no Treasure cards.
At the beginning of your next turn, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.
-------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.
Action - Attack - Duration - Reaction

I tried to solve some of the problems with the class (political, difficult to resolve, don't want too much crossfire). It's not high on my list for testing, but  the thread's right here so hey

[LastFootnote]

Caravan Guard is quite inelegant, and also kind of boring. It seems so obvious to me that the card shouldn't have +action; you could load a lot more power on the rest of the card, it's a lot more exciting to use as a reaction, and you don't get the ugly explanatory text. So I wonder if it was tested and just doesn't work for some reason.

It wasn't. Caravan Guard was always like that, except it initially cost $4 very briefly. Without +1 Action, there certainly would be a much larger power differential between playing it during your turn and playing it as a reaction. Maybe a big enough differential that it would always be either too weak during your turn (and in games without Attacks) or too strong as a reaction.

Anyway I think a lot of you are being too hard on Caravan Guard. Against many attacks it's actually significantly better than Peddler.

It's best against Militia attacks. Say you have a hand of [Gold, Silver, Caravan Guard, Caravan Guard, Province]. If those Caravan Guards were Peddlers, you'd have to decide whether to discard one of them or a Treasure card. But since they're Caravan Guards, you can play them and you may very well draw another junk card to discard instead.

It's similarly good against Spy attacks. Say the only Action cards you have in hand are Caravan Guards and Villages, but you have a shot at drawing a Smithy. Unlike Peddlers, Caravan Guard lets you draw before that Rabble engine mucks with the top of your deck.

Against Knight-style attacks it's mostly a wash; you might draw good cards into your hand and thereby keep them safe, but you also might draw bad cards and expose good ones to the attack. It's really only good if the attacks are so numerous that they're actually getting through your whole deck. Against Witch attacks, Caravan Guard may allow you to trigger a reshuffle and put off seeing that Curse for a while. That's a small benefit, but I'm trying to be thorough here.

Of course there are some attacks where it can hurt you (against Taxman and Cutpurse it might draw you Treasures to discard), but those are pretty rare I think.

[convolucid]

I don't think any of us think CG is too weak... it's just not very interesting, especially given the complexity of the new mechanic.

This is the first time we've ever seen a Duration that you can accelerate like CG, so it's underwhelming for this cool new concept to be applied to... one coin. The only less exciting bonus would be a Buy.

You try the card the first time and confirm that yes, getting that extra coin one turn sooner makes a difference. But the risk/reward is so mild that after the initial realization, there's not much to think about. I think that's why many of us feel underwhelmed.

[LastFootnote]

I don't think any of us think CG is too weak... it's just not very interesting, especially given the complexity of the new mechanic.

This is the first time we've ever seen a Duration that you can accelerate like CG, so it's underwhelming for this cool new concept to be applied to... one coin. The only less exciting bonus would be a Buy.

You try the card the first time and confirm that yes, getting that extra coin one turn sooner makes a difference. But the risk/reward is so mild that after the initial realization, there's not much to think about. I think that's why many of us feel underwhelmed.

Well, what's your alternative?

Personally I think the type combination and ability to play it out of turn are exotic enough. I'm glad the effect is simple.

[Fragasnap]

Well, what's your alternative?

Privateer
Types: Action, Duration, Reaction
Cost: $4
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards and then discard 2 cards.When another player plays an Attack, you may play this from your hand.

[LastFootnote]

Well, what's your alternative?

Privateer
Types: Action, Duration, Reaction
Cost: $4
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards and then discard 2 cards.When another player plays an Attack, you may play this from your hand.

Hey, not bad! I don't think it's worth $4, but seems like a good execution of the idea in general.

[XerxesPraelor]

Compared to Dungeon, it seems a lot weaker. Am I missing something.

[singletee]

Compared to Dungeon, it seems a lot weaker. Am I missing something.

I guess that main idea is that you can fiddle with the cards in your hand in response to an attack (hunt for other Reactions or the Bane, discard Coppers/Treasures/Victory, find something to trash the curse that Sea Hag or Torturer is giving you).

[Fragasnap]

Compared to Dungeon, it seems a lot weaker. Am I missing something.

I guess that main idea is that you can fiddle with the cards in your hand in response to an attack (hunt for other Reactions or the Bane, discard Coppers/Treasures/Victory, find something to trash the curse that Sea Hag or Torturer is giving you).

Fair catch, but the card is more illustration than serious. Numbers can be changed if need be (+3 Cards, discard 3 cards?) (and the next turn bonus could be made literally anything since that effect has no off-turn issues), my point is that Caravan Guard is a pretty messy and uninteresting execution of the concept "play a card out of turn." The only advantage Privateer as written above has is that you can get its on-play and Duration effect on the same turn (which is quite a bit better than getting them separately) (and technically it dodges any attacks that rely upon a hand of 5 cards, but those are few), but because of Dungeon it would make a lot more sense for Privateer as written to cost $2.

[Drab Emordnilap]

(and technically it dodges any attacks that rely upon a hand of 5 cards, but those are few),

Militia, Minion, Ghost Ship, Goons, Followers, Margrave, Urchin, Mercenary, Pillage, and  Taxman are all reduced in effectiveness when attacking someone with a 4 card hand instead of 5. More than you would think!

[convolucid]

Well, what's your alternative?

Exactly what Fragasnap posted 
I think you price it at $2; compare to other cheap draw with no +action (Courtyard, Moat). Dungeon's fine, but the combination with CG is a lot cooler than either by itself.
Also I'd call it Dirigible; it flies away!