Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: Strange attack idea  (Read 8008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Strange attack idea
« on: October 12, 2015, 07:53:05 pm »
+1

Shamaness
Each other player takes his Thunder token. Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1.
-------
Directly after any other player with a Thunder token resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he loses his Thunder token and gains a Curse.
($4) Action - Attack - Duration

I was pondering an Attack that could punish Wharf-y mega draws without sending the game into a boring slugfest.
  • Does this concept seem like it might successfully implement the idea?
  • The wording is butts and it seems like a token is required. Could it be more elegant?
  • Would a game with this Attack be fun?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9141
  • Respect: +9987
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2015, 11:25:28 pm »
0

I think that more often than not, the effect will just be a very complex wording for "If this is the first time you played Shamaness this turn, each other player gains a Curse". I mean, most decks are quite likely to have more than 5 cards in their hand at some point on their turn. Though this is also similar to Swamp Hag,  and Torturer, where a player can choose to skip their turn in order to avoid the Curse. But it's not stackable, which makes it probably a pretty weak curser.

Minor wording note; you shouldn't have "other" in the below the line text. It should just be "any player"; that particular effect applies to all players equally.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3041
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4304
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2015, 09:19:43 am »
+1

I like that the card discourages some builds that currently aren't really discouraged by any other attacks (like double Tactician or Wharf).

The token is unelegant though. One solution is just having the effect take place every time (Directly after any other player resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he gains a Curse), which makes the card much stronger and maybe makes games too boring. Another way that does this would be:

While this is in play, directly after another player resolves an action card, if they have more than 5 cards in hand, they set aside a Curse. At the end of their turn, they gain one of the Curse cards set aside this way and put the rest back in the supply.

I'm not sure if gaining the Curse at the end of the turn makes the attack stronger or weaker. On one hand, it starts clogging their deck later, on the other hand, they cannot get rid of the Curse the same turn.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2015, 03:12:59 pm »
+1

I like Faust's suggestion! Then the bottom would be something like
Quote
While this is in play, after another player resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he sets aside a Curse; at the end of that player’s turn, he takes one of the set-aside Curses and returns the rest to the Supply.

It could have some weird interactions with other Cursers when the pile is low. Like if you have to play a few Smithies to find your Witch, by the time you get it all the Curses are set aside and the Witch can't pass any out, even though you end up putting them back in the supply.

Also, the penalty doesn't have to be Curses.
Quote
Warlord
Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1.

While this is in play, after another player resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he discards a card.
($4) Action - Attack - Duration
You can change the handsize limit to get the right power level. My biggest concern with this version is that it might be annoying to resolve over and over (actually applies to any version that can hit more than once each turn).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2015, 04:57:51 pm »
+1

Also, the penalty doesn't have to be Curses.
Quote
Warlord
Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1.

While this is in play, after another player resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he discards a card.
($4) Action - Attack - Duration
You can change the handsize limit to get the right power level. My biggest concern with this version is that it might be annoying to resolve over and over (actually applies to any version that can hit more than once each turn).

OK, this version I can really get behind. Seems like a cool new attack! I strongly suggest wording it like other Duration attacks ("until your next turn" instead of "while this is in play") to make it clear that Moat blocks it, etc.

Quote
Warlord: Action–Attack–Duration, $4
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1. Until your next turn, after any other player resolves an Action card, if he has more than 5 cards in hand, he discards a card.

I might go further and make the attack non-cumulative, buffing it and increasing the cost.

Quote
Warlord: Action–Attack–Duration, $5
Until your next turn, after any other player resolves an Action card, he discards down to 5 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn: +2 Actions.

Or something like that.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9141
  • Respect: +9987
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2015, 04:59:42 pm »
0

I'm almost positive that a fan card that caused your opponents to be unable to have more than 5 cards in hand on their turn was discussed quite a bit already....
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2851
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2015, 05:00:24 pm »
0

I like the card
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2015, 05:00:27 pm »
0

I'm almost positive that a fan card that caused your opponents to be unable to have more than 5 cards in hand on their turn was discussed quite a bit already....

Really? I can't recall, but I can believe it. Can you find a link?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9141
  • Respect: +9987
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2015, 05:08:35 pm »
+1

I'm almost positive that a fan card that caused your opponents to be unable to have more than 5 cards in hand on their turn was discussed quite a bit already....

Really? I can't recall, but I can believe it. Can you find a link?

After a fair bit of searching: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13133
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 05:10:14 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2015, 05:20:29 pm »
0

I'm almost positive that a fan card that caused your opponents to be unable to have more than 5 cards in hand on their turn was discussed quite a bit already....

Really? I can't recall, but I can believe it. Can you find a link?

After a fair bit of searching: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13133

Nice, thanks. Yeah, I like the "discard down to 5 cards after resolving an Action" version best. I may have to mock it up and test it.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2015, 05:30:50 pm »
0

Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8171
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9601
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2015, 05:36:14 pm »
0

This is similar to the Gang of Ragamuffins card I came up with a while back.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 06:23:07 pm by werothegreat »
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2851
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2015, 05:42:02 pm »
+1

This is similar to the Gang of Pickpockets card I came up with a while back.

Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1236
  • Respect: +1057
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2015, 05:47:28 pm »
+1

Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2015, 05:48:34 pm »
+1

Shouldn't that be an Attack?

Damn! Thanks for catching that!

EDIT: Fixed.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 05:51:45 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2015, 07:47:13 pm »
0

Nice mockup LF! I think this is on my shortlist to test also. With pure +coin the card really screams BM+Warlord to me but knowing the relative strength of engine vs BM, engine+Warlord may still be stronger. If Warlord buffs BM too much, I would try reverting to +action +$1.

I like that it's actually pretty bad in the early game.

Some potentially interesting kingdom partners:
  • Hunting Party
  • Tunnel
  • Wharf, Tactician, or other mondo draw
  • Warehouse, Cellar, or other sifters
  • Council Room, Lost City, or Governor
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 07:49:15 pm by convolucid »
Logged

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 712
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2015, 12:28:39 am »
0

"Discard down to 5 Cards'  devastates duration-draw cards like Tactician, Wharf, Caravan, Prince+Draw, etc, while doing nothing to the likes of Minion. "Discard a card" weakens duration draws (and Scrying Pool) without neutering them the way Warlord does.

I can't think of another attack card that completely neuters a power-$5 card like this.

What about, "If another player resolves an Action that would cause him to have 6 or more cards in his hand, he first discards down to four cards". That weakens Smithy-Village chains without savaging duration-draw engines. Ok, Draw-to-X is perhaps slightly stronger against Warlord, but the Draw-to-X cards aren't world-beaters at drawing, anyway.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1344
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2015, 01:08:53 am »
0

Shouldn't that be an Attack?

Damn! Thanks for catching that!

EDIT: Fixed.


I think it should cost $5 or $6. And it encourages money strategies, which are never fun.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1236
  • Respect: +1057
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2015, 11:45:31 am »
0

I just realized something wrong with this card. According to Adventures rules, "immediately after resolving an Action" only counts its on-play effect if said Action is a Duration; its next-turn effect doesn't count as resolving it. So, as worded, all Duration effects except those from playing it the first turn are completely unaffected by Warlord's attack! Here's how I would fix it:

Warlord:
Until your next turn, immediately after another player draws any number of cards, they discard down to 5 cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
Cost: $4
Action

This way, it affects Duration cards. It isn't exactly the same since Raze, for example, isn't considered drawing a card. But Raze reduces handsize, and Warlord's attack only affects cards that increase handsize, so that doesn't matter too much.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2015, 01:32:28 pm »
0

Hmm... Here's an idea: Have it trigger it at the start of the respective player's buy phase. Less fiddely, but of course you get to play your whole turn before discarding. I wonder whether down to 4 would be too harsh, and whether that's worse for BM or engines.
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1236
  • Respect: +1057
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2015, 01:42:31 pm »
+1

Hmm... Here's an idea: Have it trigger it at the start of the respective player's buy phase. Less fiddely, but of course you get to play your whole turn before discarding. I wonder whether down to 4 would be too harsh, and whether that's worse for BM or engines.

I think that down to 5 would be too dependent on the board (only useful against cards that give +2 or more cards), but 4 seems good. I would price that at $5 instead of $4, assuming the self-bonus is the same.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2015, 06:06:01 pm »
+1

I think it should cost $5 or $6. And it encourages money strategies, which are never fun.

If it encourages boring strategies too much, the solution is not to weaken the card, but to not make it at all. But whether it really encourages money strategies remains to be seen.

I just realized something wrong with this card. According to Adventures rules, "immediately after resolving an Action" only counts its on-play effect if said Action is a Duration; its next-turn effect doesn't count as resolving it. So, as worded, all Duration effects except those from playing it the first turn are completely unaffected by Warlord's attack! Here's how I would fix it:

Why does this need to be fixed at all? It's totally fine that Duration effects don't trigger the attack again.

Hmm... Here's an idea: Have it trigger it at the start of the respective player's buy phase. Less fiddely, but of course you get to play your whole turn before discarding. I wonder whether down to 4 would be too harsh, and whether that's worse for BM or engines.

There was an Adventures outtake that did just that.

Raider: Action–Attack–Duration, $4
At the start of each other player's next Buy phase, he discards down to 3 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.

It was too weak. So no, discarding down to 4 is not too harsh at all; it's not harsh enough.

Hmm... Here's an idea: Have it trigger it at the start of the respective player's buy phase. Less fiddely, but of course you get to play your whole turn before discarding. I wonder whether down to 4 would be too harsh, and whether that's worse for BM or engines.

I think that down to 5 would be too dependent on the board (only useful against cards that give +2 or more cards), but 4 seems good. I would price that at $5 instead of $4, assuming the self-bonus is the same.

Yes, good point. I think if I were to test a version, it would make each other player discard down to 4 cards in hand after resolving each Action. Maybe it would be too anti-engine in practice, but I think it's worth a try to see how it really plays out.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 06:10:17 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10382
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2015, 06:09:43 pm »
0

Nice mockup LF! I think this is on my shortlist to test also. With pure +coin the card really screams BM+Warlord to me but knowing the relative strength of engine vs BM, engine+Warlord may still be stronger. If Warlord buffs BM too much, I would try reverting to +action +$1.

Well, the reason I decided to not go with +Actions is that I don't think this wants to act as a village, even a next-turn one. If it did, players would buy it for its village capabilities and then just incidentally have this attack in their deck, which is something that Donald at least tries to avoid (and I agree).

I do think the concept of "Duration card that's a village next turn but not this turn" is an interesting one. Probably you can make it enough different from Coin of the Realm to be interesting.
Logged

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2015, 04:04:19 pm »
0

I keep mulling over this concept. Haven't had a chance to playtest yet, but my gut says that the discard version is situational, and frustrating when it's good. Turning back to junking, Curses are too strong for something that can hit so many times in one turn. How about Coppers or Ruins? Here are some variants:

Quote
Profiteer
Until your next turn, when another player resolves an Action card, if he has 5 or more cards in hand, he gains a Copper.
At the beginning of your next turn, +$3.
$5 Action - Attack - Duration
Quote
Skirmisher
Until your next turn, when another player resolves an Action card, if he has 5 or more cards in hand, he gains a Ruins.
At the beginning of your next turn, discard any number of cards, then +1 Card per card discarded.
$5 Action - Attack - Looter - Duration
The basic setup of these versions feels really solid to me. You can fight the attack in a number of ways: directly with reactions, indirectly with heavy trashing, or indirectly with a stealthy deck that stays under 5 cards. But the attack is still dangerous enough that you need to consider it.
You can mix and match the benefits for balance and flavor. Cellar will be strong with 5 cards at the start of your turn, and putting sifting on a junker might be a bit automatic. Nonetheless, I think the Looter version looks promising, as long as you're comfortable with using Ruins on a fan card and having that sweet quadruple card-type (Dame Josephine sends her regards).

Quote
Charlatan
Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card, he first gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.
At the beginning of your next turn, +$2.
$5 Action - Attack - Duration
This is almost certainly too imposing to exist, as it eviscerates many fun decks, but I'm putting it out there because I think the implementation of the Attack is kind of neat.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Strange attack idea
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2015, 06:37:35 pm »
0

I just realized something wrong with this card. According to Adventures rules, "immediately after resolving an Action" only counts its on-play effect if said Action is a Duration; its next-turn effect doesn't count as resolving it. So, as worded, all Duration effects except those from playing it the first turn are completely unaffected by Warlord's attack! Here's how I would fix it:

Why does this need to be fixed at all? It's totally fine that Duration effects don't trigger the attack again.

Hmm... Here's an idea: Have it trigger it at the start of the respective player's buy phase. Less fiddely, but of course you get to play your whole turn before discarding. I wonder whether down to 4 would be too harsh, and whether that's worse for BM or engines.

There was an Adventures outtake that did just that.

Raider: Action–Attack–Duration, $4
At the start of each other player's next Buy phase, he discards down to 3 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.

It was too weak. So no, discarding down to 4 is not too harsh at all; it's not harsh enough.

Interesting. But aren't the +2 Cards a weird bonus for a card that decreases the use of +Cards? I mean, my perception may be wrong here, but if two players go for this, wouldn't it become a net loss for both? Coin seems a much more reasonable bonus to me. I mean, you wouldn't put Swamp Hag's attack on Goons, either.

Of course i believe you when you say it's too weak, and i guess it's still weak with coins- i just like to believe that the problem lies with what you get, not with how it attacks. It could also be a Workshop variant, for example. Or nonterminal, as it doesn't stack, either way.

Admittedly, it being an outtake is a bit discouraging. I still think that it's better than discarding after every single card - engine turns take long enough allready, and the OP's idea was to make them worse for the engineer, not forthe observer.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 22 queries.