Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices  (Read 1957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2021, 10:53:20 pm »
+3

I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:



Quote
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

(some of you may recognize it from a past contes, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)

Notes:
• It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
• That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
• I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. I would mitigate starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
• when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variant, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
• I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"

Any feedback / thoughts?

There is something that cares about card names and being the same* and (frustratingly) it isn't coming to mind right now, but you could just make cards from that pile an attack all the time (and change the Cursing token text to be like Crossroads or whatever, where it's only an Attack in the Noble Brigand sense the first time). Then it's on the players to judge whether its worth it to do when Beggar/Caravan Guard/Secret Chamber/Diplomat/Horse Traders/Squire are in the kingdom (which I think are the only card interactions which are changed).


*i want to say it'd be something like a turn that went:
• Procession ->
• • (Curse token card)
• Lurker (to gain the trashed curse token card)
• • React with Sleigh to put in your hand
• play the same curse token card you played before - is it still an attack?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 05:05:59 pm by spineflu »
Logged

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2021, 11:59:57 pm »
0


Quote
STINGY WITCH - $5
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player discards a card from hand, draws until they have 4 cards in hand, then either gains three Coppers, putting one of them in hand, or gains a Curse to their hand, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)

I redid my card, and changed it quite a bit. While the basic premise of choosing what kind of junk your receive (Copper or Curse, with a penalty for choosing Copper), the mechanics are almost completely different.

At it's most basic function, this version replaces one card in each opponent's hand with a piece of junk. But from there it gets...different. The opponent chooses if they receive a Curse or a Copper; if they take the less harmful Copper, they get a lot more of it. At this level it's extremely powerful--it's both a hand attack (although they usually end up with the same number of cards total) and a potent junker. As a cantrip, you can potential fill your deck with them and play them multiple times a turn. That would seem overpowering.

But the attack's limitation's are real as well. The discard-first mechanic prevents multiple firings from ruining a turn, as the player can continue to discard the junk previously received. And after the Curses run outs, it turns into a relatively weak handcard attack, but still with the option for Copper (unless that runs out as well).

What's different about this, and why I think it works as a cantrip, is that (imo) it has the highest risk of any attack of backfiring, and actually helping the victim. If any of the cards in the other player's hand are dead cards, they can increase their buying power, potential to an important threshold. Indeed, playing Stingy Witch against an opponent with a hand of Gold-Silver-Silver-Province-Curse could cost you the game. (Something like that could happen with Margrave if an opponent had Gold-Gold-Copper-Province-Province and drew a Silver, but that would rely on something in the opponent's deck).

This only becomes more likely as your opponent gains more Curses and/or starts buying Victory cards. It also becomes more likely if you have a lot of these and keep using them after the Curses run out, as each one after the first sifts your opponent's hand, giving them the option of adding the (potential last-needed) Copper to each new incarnation of that hand. Unless they can be trashed, you're left with the choice of giving your opponent that opportunity or leaving them dead in your hand. And of course, if the Kingdom has good trashing, the junk is less of a problem.

That said, it's definitely a potent Attack. Because of that, and because it continues to work as an attack (albeit with increasing risk) for the entire game, I took away the +Buy. You don't need it.
Logged

segura

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1063
  • Respect: +586
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #77 on: February 19, 2021, 12:55:47 am »
+3

If you consider the Attack to be strong, you should think more than twice about making it a cantrip. The only two official cantrip Attacks are either weak or hard to get get.
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2845
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3972
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #78 on: February 19, 2021, 01:08:45 am »
0

why I think it works as a cantrip, is that (imo) it has the highest risk of any attack of backfiring
Thinking of the times Swindler flipped a Province, ending the game...

This card doesn't really have a big chance of backfiring. You can usually tell the few times when an opponent might benefit from lots of Coppers - and then you just don't play the card (unless it helps you more). It is a risk that is easily accounted for, and that won't matter until the final turns of the game anyways.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

gambit05

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
  • Respect: +386
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #79 on: February 19, 2021, 02:40:03 am »
+2

I'm not sure this will qualify, as it's a landscape card, but it does involve choice and attacking, so it seems to me like it should:



Quote
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

(some of you may recognize it from a past contes, though it used to be called Coven, before there was an official Coven; that said, I like this name thematically better)

Notes:
• It's once per turn because otherwise it would be way too powerful.
• That does lead to a scenario where two cards of the same name would be "different" during your turn. While there's no official precedent for this, I don't immediately see any issues.
• I have considered limiting it to piles of $3 (or $4) or more, but not sure if it's necessary. It would mitigate for starting hands of 5/2, though, so may be worth another consideration.
• when I had originally posted, I had played around with all sorts of variants, e.g. whether the card cursed others when you played; or cursed others when they played; or whether the curse was given on play or on gain from the pile. This is the version I ended up liking best, which is good, because the others wouldn't be attacks / fit this contest.
• I have playtested it and it did seem balanced enough. And while it was the only cursing in the game, so became a must buy; it still enabled different strategies based on which pile you "bewitched"

Any feedback / thoughts?

Yes, it qualifies for this entry. It is all about the wording, to make the emulated card Moat-able, but only as long as it is also an Attack card and not when a second copy is played. I don’t care too much about the wording as long as I can interpret the intention based on the card text and any rule clarifications/notes correctly.

As I am replying to this card anyway, I have a question, just to be sure I interpret the instructions indeed correctly: Aside of Action-Night cards (Werewolf) and via “back-to-the-Action phase” cards a la Villa, the Action card with the Curse token is earliest played in the next turn. So, I guess a player could buy Bewitch, place the token on a pile and that token could wait there until the player plays the first copy of that card even if it is like 10 turns later, right? What happens when you replay the same card (exactly the same copy) via Throne Room or Royal Carriage? With other words, is the Attack type attached to the individual copy of a card or (as I interpret it) to the first play only (and thus not Throne-able)?
Logged

Mahowrath

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #80 on: February 19, 2021, 03:42:07 am »
+4



Quote
Jilted Witch - $4
Action - Attack

+2 Cards

Each other player looks through their discard pile. They may reveal from it a non-Action card costing 2 or less, and put it onto their deck.
If they didn't, they reveal and discard the top card of their deck, and gain a Curse if it costs 2 or less.

Edit: Adding some explanation:
Jilted Witch is an early-game alternative curser/topdeck attacker. Attacked players must choose whether to topdeck Coppers and junk, or risk milling junk for Curses. In games where you may be attacked multiple times, it may be prudent to mix the options. Late game, accepting the mill may become more palatable.
The synergy with cost-reduction is a balancing act: letting your opponent topdeck Silver, but having a higher chance of delivering Curses.

Flavour-wise, Jilted Witch leaves you cheap "presents" onto your deck, and is upset if you don't accept them.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 11:05:18 am by Mahowrath »
Logged

mathdude

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #81 on: February 19, 2021, 08:26:20 am »
+1



Quote
Jilted Witch - $4
Action - Attack

+2 Cards

Each other player looks through their discard pile. They may reveal from it a non-Action card costing 2 or less, and put it onto their deck.
If they didn't, they reveal and discard the top card of their deck, and gain a Curse if it costs 2 or less.
I like the mix of using existing junk in deck and giving new junk as an attack. However, this card currently has accountability, scaling, and balance issues.

Balance - as it's currently written, this card punishes decks that haven't trashed junk effectively in two ways but doesn't punish decks that have removed all coppers and estates at all. This could be addressed by changing the second half's cursing to happen if revealing a card costing more than 2.

Scaling - imagine a worst case game with no trashing cards and playing a 6-player game (I know, terrible).  5 players can keep a 6th effectively drawing the same coppers and estates over and over again without cycling the deck (depending on how the balance noted above and accountability noted below are addressed). Even so, in a 2 or 3 player game, getting hit by 2 or 3 of the by a player with a strong engine can wreck the top of your deck really fast.

Accountability - if I was attacked with this, I "look" (without showing others) and do not reveal and top-deck any junk even if I find some. I'll take a gamble that the card I reveal will not make me gain a curse, especially as currently worded (if the change noted in balance above is made, I may top-deck copper, depending on my deck). But changing "look" to "reveal" and forcing any junk found to be top-decked would significantly increase resolution time and make this a brutal scaling attack.
Logged

Mahowrath

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #82 on: February 19, 2021, 10:40:52 am »
0

Thanks for taking the time to check over my submission Mathsdude; let me respond to your points inline:

Balance - as it's currently written, this card punishes decks that haven't trashed junk effectively in two ways but doesn't punish decks that have removed all coppers and estates at all. This could be addressed by changing the second half's cursing to happen if revealing a card costing more than 2.
Similarly, Mountebank punishes decks that remove curses you've given them, and Young Witch punishes decks that don't build around the Bane pile. Wall punishes decks that want to grow too large. This is not a balance issue.

Milling a card that instead costs 2 or more doesn't strike me as a great idea. For starts, having your first round purchases milled in the early game is already a huge disbenefit; the contrast between milling copper for no penalty vs the double whammy of milling an important opener and delivering a Curse is too swingy for my liking.

Quote
Scaling - imagine a worst case game with no trashing cards and playing a 6-player game (I know, terrible).  5 players can keep a 6th effectively drawing the same coppers and estates over and over again without cycling the deck (depending on how the balance noted above and accountability noted below are addressed). Even so, in a 2 or 3 player game, getting hit by 2 or 3 of the by a player with a strong engine can wreck the top of your deck really fast.
Cursers already exist in 6 player games, and yes, they are more vicious. This card scales well to be a 50-50 curser in such games, as mostly any milled card yielding Curse can be topdecked between mills. Once the curses run out, this mills a card for no disbenefit. This doesn't have scaling issues.
edit: to be clear; you do not have to topdeck just because you can!

Quote
Accountability - if I was attacked with this, I "look" (without showing others) and do not reveal and top-deck any junk even if I find some. I'll take a gamble that the card I reveal will not make me gain a curse, especially as currently worded (if the change noted in balance above is made, I may top-deck copper, depending on my deck). But changing "look" to "reveal" and forcing any junk found to be top-decked would significantly increase resolution time and make this a brutal scaling attack.
I think you've misread the card (and possibly the contest - there has to be a choice involved in all entries); you aren't forced to topdeck if you don't want to: you choose, having looked first and decided this. There is no accountability issue.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 11:18:47 am by Mahowrath »
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 640
  • Respect: +525
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #83 on: February 19, 2021, 11:14:48 am »
0

Ghost Smithy
cost $5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player chooses one: discard their hand and draw 3 cards; or trash a non-Victory card from their hand (or reveal they can't).
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4858
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2490
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #84 on: February 19, 2021, 11:16:48 am »
0

I don't think you need (or reveal they can't) here. If they can't, they just have to choose the other option, which is better anyway.
Logged

gambit05

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
  • Respect: +386
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #85 on: February 19, 2021, 11:30:08 am »
+1

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2845
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3972
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #86 on: February 19, 2021, 11:37:05 am »
+3

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
At the point where they play the Silver, they have already used an Action to play the original card. You are not playing a card "as" anything here, you are using an Action card to play another card (form the supply). So if you started with one Action and played an Action card, using Moral Panic's effect to play a Silver with it, you would end up with 0 Actions.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

gambit05

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
  • Respect: +386
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2021, 11:49:38 am »
0

Moral Panic
Action/Duration/Command - $5
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card, instead of following its instructions, they play a cheaper, non-Command, Action or Treasure from the supply (leaving it there).
At the start of your next turn, gain a card costing up to $4 to your hand.

I have a question here, as I am not really sure about this. The official cards Storyteller and Black Market allow playing Treasures during the Action phase. Their instructions are clear enough that there is no doubt how to proceed. With Moral Panic I suppose you can also play your Action card as a Treasure during the Action phase, e.g. a $4 cost Action card as a Silver. Does playing it as Silver means that the player cannot play another Action card thereafter when they do not have +1 Action (from a previously played Duration card) or Villagers? With other words is playing the card as a Silver counts as playing a terminal card?
At the point where they play the Silver, they have already used an Action to play the original card. You are not playing a card "as" anything here, you are using an Action card to play another card (form the supply). So if you started with one Action and played an Action card, using Moral Panic's effect to play a Silver with it, you would end up with 0 Actions.

Yes thanks, this is how I understand the instructions. I just wanted to be sure whether that it is indeed the intention as this makes the Attack stronger than it would otherwise do.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #88 on: February 19, 2021, 12:13:04 pm »
+1

I don't think you need (or reveal they can't) here. If they can't, they just have to choose the other option, which is better anyway.

Not if you have 5 Nobles (Nobleses{?}). (There are some other cases as well, all extremely unlikely. For example, if you have 5 Duchies, $4 from Durations/Coffers, and Banish available).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 12:16:11 pm by emtzalex »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4858
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2490
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #89 on: February 19, 2021, 12:31:22 pm »
0

Sure. Nonetheless, you don't need to have the () on the card.
Logged

Mahowrath

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2021, 12:38:43 pm »
0

Sure. Nonetheless, you don't need to have the () on the card.

Having () on the card follows the Bureaucrat, Cutpurse, Rats, Taxman, etc. precedent. Has this changed?
Edit: I guess you can force the other attack, feels a bit mean for an edge-case

That said, I also wouldn't mind seeing the card do nothing if the player has 3 or fewer cards in hand already.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 12:53:52 pm by Mahowrath »
Logged

Gubump

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Respect: +755
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2021, 01:04:25 pm »
0

I think you do need the (or reveals you can't). You can always choose an option you can't do, and without that parenthetical, you wouldn't have accountability to prove that you chose an option you can't do.
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.

Timinou

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
  • Respect: +171
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2021, 01:18:11 pm »
+3

This is a variation on Bishop.  It would need playtesting to see how often it does actually end up handing out Curses. 

EDIT: Revised version


Quote from: Original

Quote from: Crusaders
$4 Action-Attack
Each other player trashes a card from their hand or gains a Curse, their choice. You may trash a card from your hand.
If any Treasures or Action cards are trashed, +2 Coffers.
If any Victory cards or Curses are trashed, +2VP.

I've tried to ensure that it doesn't go crazy with a high player count (for example, in a 5-player game, if all players trash an Estate, you only get +2VP). 

Not sure if the card needs to specify that players can choose an option they can't do (like Torturer), or if that's understood.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 09:56:38 am by Timinou »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4858
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2490
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2021, 02:55:01 pm »
+1

I don't think that's a problem. But the fact that it's 'do a bad thing or a good thing' 80% of the time is kind of a problem. This card is usually going to be '[+2$/+2VP], each other player trashes a [Copper/Estate] from their hand', which is extremely weak.
Logged

emtzalex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2021, 02:55:35 pm »
+4

Quote from: Crusaders
$4 Action-Attack
Trash a card from your hand.  Each other player may either trashes a card from their hand or gains a Curse, their choice. (They may pick an option they can't do.)
If any Treasures or Action cards are trashed, +$2.
If any Victory cards or Curses are trashed, +2VP.

Not sure if the card needs to specify that players can choose an option they can't do (like Torturer), or if that's understood.

"(They may pick an option they can't do.)" is a rules reminder, and not strictly necessary. However, as you have it now the other players are not required to either trash a card or take a Curse (they "may" do so). Given what the second option is and that it's an attack, I'm almost certain that was not your intention.

I'm not sure at first if this card is strong or weak. If it's the latter, you may want to think about having the player play it trash last, providing the opportunity to select something to get both bonuses. This also prevents a situation in multi-player games where the first opponent matches the player's trashing category (trashing another Copper vs. an Estate, or vice versa), and subsequent players feel pressure to do the same, even if they would prefer not to. If the player might switch and get both, that element is removed. Of course, that ability by the player makes the card notably better.
Logged

D782802859

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
  • Respect: +294
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2021, 03:24:39 pm »
+3



   

Logged

spineflu

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +585
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2021, 03:48:37 pm »
+1



   
in what might be the most hackeneyed joke/trope in fantasy writing,
i choose...

scolapasta

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
  • Respect: +501
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2021, 03:49:51 pm »
+2

Quote
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

There is something that cares about card names and being the same and (frustratingly) it isn't coming to mind right now, but you could just make cards from that pile an attack all the time (and change the Cursing token text to be like Crossroads or whatever, where it's only an Attack in the Noble Brigand sense the first time). Then it's on the players to judge whether its worth it to do when Beggar/Caravan Guard/Secret Chamber/Diplomat/Horse Traders/Squire are in the kingdom (which I think are the only card interactions which are changed).

As I am replying to this card anyway, I have a question, just to be sure I interpret the instructions indeed correctly: Aside of Action-Night cards (Werewolf) and via “back-to-the-Action phase” cards a la Villa, the Action card with the Curse token is earliest played in the next turn. So, I guess a player could buy Bewitch, place the token on a pile and that token could wait there until the player plays the first copy of that card even if it is like 10 turns later, right? What happens when you replay the same card (exactly the same copy) via Throne Room or Royal Carriage? With other words, is the Attack type attached to the individual copy of a card or (as I interpret it) to the first play only (and thus not Throne-able)?

The original idea was that it would be just to the individual copy of the card. Based on spineflu's comments, I checked the wki's list of cards and found a few potential challenges, though I don't think either presents a real issue that couldn't be explained in the FAQ:

• Doctor says "Name a card. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash the matches." So it depends on how you define "matches", though I think it's fair to say consider it to match in name.
• Pursue has similar wording
• Pilgrimage is "choose up to 3 differently named cards you have in play and gain a copy of each" - similarly how do you define a "copy of", just in name or also the text?

The TR interaction is interesting in that the card would change twice? That's weird.

And a further issue: As an example you Bewitch a Peddler. You Bonfire it, then via Villa and Lurker gain it back and have to shuffle. We're left with the which Peddler is the bewitched one (assuming you have 2+), which could matter if you play a Courtier.

So seems like we should remove this chaos from v0.2 and just make all cards from the pile Attacks:



Quote
Bewitch - Event - $5
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile. (During your turns, cards from that pile are also Attacks, and the first time you play one, each other player first gains a Curse.)


Also gambit, to be clear (and hopefully the new wording helps explain this), the Cursing token is like the token from Adventures in that each player has one and it stays on the pile until you buy another Bewitch to move it.



« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 07:22:08 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

gambit05

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
  • Respect: +386
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2021, 04:11:40 pm »
+1


I think it's all clear now. Thanks!

Quote from: scolapasta
Also gambit, to be clear (and hopefully the new wording helps explain this), the Cursing token is like the token from Adventures in that each player has one and it stays on the pile until you buy another Bewitch to move it.

That part was always clear.

Logged

mathdude

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest #105: Attack with Choices
« Reply #99 on: February 20, 2021, 12:59:50 am »
0

The only thing I can think of wording-wise is maybe specify who chooses what is gained that costs less.

"Each other player gains a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained and a curse."
I knew there was something missing.  Thanks!

This seems quite oppressive. Dealing out 2 junk cards is super strong. At the baseline, this is something like "Gain a Silver, each other player gains a Copper and a Curse". While this is arguably weaker than Mountebank, it makes for extremely boring games. It might be more interesting due to the greater range of options, but I imagine that most of the times, giving your opponents more junk will be optimal.

I also think the when-gain effect doesn't really add enough to be worth the extra complexity.

I guess it depends on the people playing and the strategies they are using.  Most of the time for me, it would probably make more sense to take a good 5-cost card myself and let others have something half-decent with their curse (or occasionally, I'd take a 4-cost, depending on the board).  Wasting that opportunity to gain only a silver doesn't seem worth it (even if it junks others more).

It's also a 5-cost card.  So people usually won't open with it (when a double-junk would hit the worst).  And if you are running an engine that draws your full deck, it would be hard to use multiples of these anyway (it's terminal with no draw, and gaining extra silvers into your deck for the next turn would make it even harder to draw your whole deck).

For the reaction ability, you might be right that it doesn't add too much.  But it does add something to the choice, so I'm going to keep it there for now anyway.

Wording now updated and image added:

Quote
Dark Woods
Type: Action-Attack-Reaction
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 other than Dark Woods.
Each other player gains a curse and a card of their choice costing less than the card you gained.
-
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to put it into your hand.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  All
 

Page created in 0.098 seconds with 23 queries.