Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?  (Read 35093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2013, 03:49:51 pm »
0

I made Bright Side of Life stronger:

Bright Side of Life (v.2)
Action
Cost: 4
Each player gains a Curse; yours goes into your hand. Each player may reveal up to three Curses from their hand. Each player who revealed exactly 1/2/3 Curses gains a Copper/Silver/Gold. If you gained a Treasure this way, put it into your hand.

(It probably gives other players no more than a Silver, or more likely just a Copper they may want to opt out of anyway. Everyone gets a Curse in any case. This still has a strong connection to the original theme, as well.)
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2013, 04:15:02 pm »
0

Yes, and as I said, official attack cards can also help opponents.  But they (and BSoL) usually hurt.

I don't know how you feel about labeling things as "attack" or not based on balance and theme reasons. If it had a name like "Cursed Tomb", then the plot reason for it not being an attack is that the player is just derping around in a cursed place, not actually attacking anyone. The balance reason is simply that if it's too easy to prevent it, then the self-curse is too much of a drawback to be justified. (Though it would still get strongly countered by Watchtower and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting)

Most would agree that Dominion is a game of mechanics first, theme second, so theme is not a great reason to make an attack that doesn't have the attack type.  You can name it something else.  Or you can think about it differently -- "Cursed Tomb" is an attack because the Tomb itself is attacking all you explorers for intruding and tripping all its cursed booby traps or whatever.  As for balance, well, you can do that, but you can also give it the attack type and balance it in other ways.  If there is a way to block the attack, then the attack is weaker -- so be it.  If the bane is strong, I don't go for Young Witch -- that's just how the game goes.  As it is, there are two unblockable "attacks" in Dominion already -- Noble Brigand (on buy) and Ill-Gotten Gains (on gain).  But they are unblockable for mechanic reasons rather than theme or balance.

All of the cards you are posting are pretty similar so there's not much to say about them, unless you have a specific question. 
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2013, 04:29:11 pm »
0

All of the cards you are posting are pretty similar so there's not much to say about them, unless you have a specific question.

I think they're closer to being balanced cards than the original. The differences are probably substantial in practice, even if they are iterations on the same idea. Do one or the other of the last two look usable? That is, putting aside for the moment your distaste for curse-for-benefit on principle.

Or suppose the Attack type is added to the most recent BSoL. What other change might tune the balance back into place?
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2013, 04:42:31 pm »
0

Most would agree that Dominion is a game of mechanics first, theme second, so theme is not a great reason to make an attack that doesn't have the attack type.  You can name it something else.  Or you can think about it differently -- "Cursed Tomb" is an attack because the Tomb itself is attacking all you explorers for intruding and tripping all its cursed booby traps or whatever.  As for balance, well, you can do that, but you can also give it the attack type and balance it in other ways.  If there is a way to block the attack, then the attack is weaker -- so be it.  If the bane is strong, I don't go for Young Witch -- that's just how the game goes.  As it is, there are two unblockable "attacks" in Dominion already -- Noble Brigand (on buy) and Ill-Gotten Gains (on gain).  But they are unblockable for mechanic reasons rather than theme or balance.
And Council Room, Masquerade, Possession and Embassy.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2013, 04:54:46 pm »
0

All of the cards you are posting are pretty similar so there's not much to say about them, unless you have a specific question.

I think they're closer to being balanced cards than the original. The differences are probably substantial in practice, even if they are iterations on the same idea. Do one or the other of the last two look usable? That is, putting aside for the moment your distaste for curse-for-benefit on principle.

Or suppose the Attack type is added to the most recent BSoL. What other change might tune the balance back into place?

Sure, Cursed Tomb looks alright, as does the latest BSoL.  It should get the attack type and no other change is really necessary.  The niche is still mostly as a response to other cursing, but maybe you also use it if you think you can handle curses better than opponents or something.  Giving it the Attack type doesn't throw it out of balance or anything.  If other players have Moat, then that's just something you have to account for before deciding to buy or play the card.

Most would agree that Dominion is a game of mechanics first, theme second, so theme is not a great reason to make an attack that doesn't have the attack type.  You can name it something else.  Or you can think about it differently -- "Cursed Tomb" is an attack because the Tomb itself is attacking all you explorers for intruding and tripping all its cursed booby traps or whatever.  As for balance, well, you can do that, but you can also give it the attack type and balance it in other ways.  If there is a way to block the attack, then the attack is weaker -- so be it.  If the bane is strong, I don't go for Young Witch -- that's just how the game goes.  As it is, there are two unblockable "attacks" in Dominion already -- Noble Brigand (on buy) and Ill-Gotten Gains (on gain).  But they are unblockable for mechanic reasons rather than theme or balance.
And Council Room, Masquerade, Possession and Embassy.

???

The effects of those cards aren't considered attacks.  Masq and Possession have already been explained in this thread.  CR gives everyone a card, which is almost always a helpful thing.  Embassy (and Governor, might as well mention that too) gives Silver which is also usually helpful.

NB is obviously an attack, since it does the same thing on-buy or on-play, but the on-buy is unblockable for rules simplicity.  IGG curses which is (hopefully) obviously an attack, but again the mechanics of the card makes it unblockable.  Note that even Donald X. calls it an "on-gain attack" in the secret histories.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 04:56:19 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2013, 05:15:51 pm »
0

???

The effects of those cards aren't considered attacks.  Masq and Possession have already been explained in this thread.  CR gives everyone a card, which is almost always a helpful thing.  Embassy (and Governor, might as well mention that too) gives Silver which is also usually helpful.
I fail to see why helping the opponent is relevant from a mechanical point of view (it is relevant if you want to create flavorful cards, though, but that has nothing to do with mechanics). They all are direct player interaction, the key difference to Attacks, which also are direct player interaction, is that they aren't supposed to be blocked. If Bright Side of Life isn't supposed to be blocked, there is no reason why it should have the Attack type.

Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2013, 05:33:19 pm »
0

???

The effects of those cards aren't considered attacks.  Masq and Possession have already been explained in this thread.  CR gives everyone a card, which is almost always a helpful thing.  Embassy (and Governor, might as well mention that too) gives Silver which is also usually helpful.
I fail to see why helping the opponent is relevant from a mechanical point of view (it is relevant if you want to create flavorful cards, though, but that has nothing to do with mechanics). They all are direct player interaction, the key difference to Attacks, which also are direct player interaction, is that they aren't supposed to be blocked. If Bright Side of Life isn't supposed to be blocked, there is no reason why it should have the Attack type.

So how do you define attacks then?  Direct player interaction that should be blockable?  How do you decide whether it should be blockable?  Whether the card helps or hurts others is a mechanics things.  You could rename Witch to "Happy Awesome Fun Times" -- that's a change in flavour/theme, but it doesn't change the mechanics of the card which is an attack that junks others' decks.

An attack is something offensive that hurts others.  This is the dictionary definition, and there's no reason why that should change in Dominion.  Attacks are the cards that hurt others.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you don't give it the Attack type, then it becomes an attack without the Attack type, and being unblockable makes it stronger.  But most players will recognize that it is still basically an attack, and reasons not to give it the typing aren't really so compelling.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2013, 05:36:11 pm »
0

???

The effects of those cards aren't considered attacks.  Masq and Possession have already been explained in this thread.  CR gives everyone a card, which is almost always a helpful thing.  Embassy (and Governor, might as well mention that too) gives Silver which is also usually helpful.
I fail to see why helping the opponent is relevant from a mechanical point of view (it is relevant if you want to create flavorful cards, though, but that has nothing to do with mechanics). They all are direct player interaction, the key difference to Attacks, which also are direct player interaction, is that they aren't supposed to be blocked. If Bright Side of Life isn't supposed to be blocked, there is no reason why it should have the Attack type.

In the card-making advice FAQ, there was this whole lecture on why attack reflection cards make both Attack cards and themselves into non-starters. Allowing BSoL to be an attack would essentially turn Moat/Lighthouse into attack reflection cards. Watchtower is a strong counter to BSoL, however. I think preserving the sanctity of the Attack type would hurt BSoL, as well as most other self-cursing "attack" cards you might think of.
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2013, 05:40:44 pm »
+2

It's not attack reflection because you are incurring the penalty whether or not they block you.  If this is an issue, it's more a knock on self-cursing itself IMO.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2013, 05:40:49 pm »
0

So how do you define attacks then?  Direct player interaction that should be blockable?  How do you decide whether it should be blockable?  Whether the card helps or hurts others is a mechanics things.  You could rename Witch to "Happy Awesome Fun Times" -- that's a change in flavour/theme, but it doesn't change the mechanics of the card which is an attack that junks others' decks.

An attack is something offensive that hurts others.  This is the dictionary definition, and there's no reason why that should change in Dominion.  Attacks are the cards that hurt others.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you don't give it the Attack type, then it becomes an attack without the Attack type, and being unblockable makes it stronger.  But most players will recognize that it is still basically an attack, and reasons not to give it the typing aren't really so compelling.

If we're going by strict conformity to the dictionary instead of treating labels as simple mechanical tools, then Copper shouldn't count as a treasure because it's lousy. It should have the new type "bauble" or "pocket change". Most Action cards in the game shouldn't count as Actions because they're mostly people or buildings.

Even if Watchtower counters BSoL unreasonably well in any case, the number of cases is drastically reduced by not having the Attack type. Also, it can potentially give the other players a Gold and no curses without having to rely on any combination with other non-basic cards whatsoever, so it has this ground to stand on for classifying it as not being an attack for English dictionary reasons.

The point here is that from a mechanical perspective, "Attack" is just a label which can be applied or not strictly for gameplay reasons. We could change the old name to "Blockable Attack" and give BSoL the new type "Unblockable Attack", but there would be no practical difference in gameplay whatsoever. It would just be wordier than what I proposed: making BSoL a basic Action.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 05:45:40 pm by Minotaur »
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2013, 05:58:46 pm »
0

So how do you define attacks then?  Direct player interaction that should be blockable?  How do you decide whether it should be blockable?  Whether the card helps or hurts others is a mechanics things.  You could rename Witch to "Happy Awesome Fun Times" -- that's a change in flavour/theme, but it doesn't change the mechanics of the card which is an attack that junks others' decks.

An attack is something offensive that hurts others.  This is the dictionary definition, and there's no reason why that should change in Dominion.  Attacks are the cards that hurt others.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you don't give it the Attack type, then it becomes an attack without the Attack type, and being unblockable makes it stronger.  But most players will recognize that it is still basically an attack, and reasons not to give it the typing aren't really so compelling.

If we're going by strict conformity to the dictionary instead of treating labels as simple mechanical tools, then Copper shouldn't count as a treasure because it's lousy. It should have the new type "bauble" or "pocket change". Most Action cards in the game shouldn't count as Actions because they're mostly people or buildings.

Even if Watchtower counters BSoL unreasonably well in any case, the number of cases is drastically reduced by not having the Attack type. Also, it can potentially give the other players a Gold and no curses without having to rely on any combination with other non-basic cards whatsoever, so it has this ground to stand on for classifying it as not being an attack for English dictionary reasons.

The point here is that from a mechanical perspective, "Attack" is just a label which can be applied or not strictly for gameplay reasons. We could change the old name to "Blockable Attack" and give BSoL the new type "Unblockable Attack", but there would be no practical difference in gameplay whatsoever. It would just be wordier than what I proposed: making BSoL a basic Action.

Treasure is "something of value, money".  Copper still fits that definition.  But that wasn't really my point -- an attack is an attack because it's supposed to hurt others.  Look at literally every attack card in Dominion -- their primary use case involves hurt other players in some fashion.  Giving out curses?  The purpose of that is to hurt other players which qualifies it as an attack.

There isn't really a good balance reason to omit the Attack type from an attack.  You get around Moat and Lighthouse... OK, there's still Trader and Watchtower.  Sometimes it helps other players by letting them gain Gold?  That doesn't change its nature because you still gave out a Curse.  Soothsayer is an attack even though it lets others draw a card.  Militia is still an attack even though it can let opponents gain multiple Golds from discarding Tunnels.

Please don't misunderstand me here -- I'm not saying that this card MUST have have the Attack type.  I'm just saying that it is obviously an attack card, and the reasons for omitting the Attack type are weak.  I think the best reason would be for purely thematic reasons, and even that is not so compelling.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2013, 06:12:05 pm »
+1

So how do you define attacks then?  Direct player interaction that should be blockable?  How do you decide whether it should be blockable?
Yeah, direct player interaction that should be blockable is my definition for Attack. It should be blockable if being blockable improves the gaming experience.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #62 on: September 17, 2013, 06:31:29 pm »
+2

So how do you define attacks then?  Direct player interaction that should be blockable?  How do you decide whether it should be blockable?
Yeah, direct player interaction that should be blockable is my definition for Attack. It should be blockable if being blockable improves the gaming experience.

And if it doesn't?  Keep in mind that there are reactions to attacks that aren't just blocking.  Some of them mitigate attacks in other ways, or offer something like a consolation prize.  "You took a Curse and that sucks, but hey -- have an extra card in hand," says Horse Traders.

The definition for "attack" that I gave is the one that is commonly understood by veterans and newbies alike.  The game experience is improved by sticking to it and keeping it easy to understand.  When I play Council Room, my friends don't typically yell at me and wish they could have stopped it with a Moat.  They throw their hands in the air and shout, "Council Room!" because that extra card is great.

It would be confusing for new players if Council Room had the Attack type.  Likewise, given that there is an Attack type in the game, it would be confusing if a card like Soothsayer did NOT have the Attack type.  BSoL is like that -- it gives others Curses and is therefore an attack.  Omit the Attack type if you wish, but most players will still recognize that it has the spirit of an attack.  IMO it is better to keep consistent and give this attack the Attack type.  YMMV, of course.

On your definition of Attack though -- it really makes no sense to classify all direct player interaction as an "attack".  Are you seriously going to classify Council Room as an attack?
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #63 on: September 18, 2013, 02:28:59 am »
0

On your definition of Attack though -- it really makes no sense to classify all direct player interaction as an "attack".  Are you seriously going to classify Council Room as an attack?
No, because it's not supposed to be blocked.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #64 on: September 18, 2013, 02:52:23 am »
0

On your definition of Attack though -- it really makes no sense to classify all direct player interaction as an "attack".  Are you seriously going to classify Council Room as an attack?
No, because it's not supposed to be blocked.

Well how do you decide what should be blockable? :P
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #65 on: September 18, 2013, 03:07:43 am »
0

Well how do you decide what should be blockable? :P

I think he already answered this...

It should be blockable if being blockable improves the gaming experience.

The point was made that a blockable self-curse card of the Attack type would be unreasonably well-countered by Reactions. Denying the card the Attack type drastically reduces the number of cases where the card is completely invalidated.
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2013, 07:13:41 am »
0

The point was made that a blockable self-curse card of the Attack type would be unreasonably well-countered by Reactions. Denying the card the Attack type drastically reduces the number of cases where the card is completely invalidated.

I think the definition of an attack should be "any kind of card that has an usually undesirable effect on your opponents, where 'usually' means 'ignoring interaction between kingdom cards'". Council Room, Masquerade and Possession only give a negative effect provided certain other kingdom cards (like Pillage, Militia, Baker), and all attacks are only non-negative on boards with certain other cards (reactions, draw-up-to, etc).

Keep in mind that only 3 of oh so many Dominion cards can actually block your card. Ignoring them, your card will always harm your opponents, and this is enough for an attack type. Every card can live with one or two other cards that make it less desirable - heck, that's part of what makes Dominion interesting. If you really want to improve its interaction with blocking reactions, tie the reveal-benefit to the curse gaining, like Soothsayer does. It won't solve Watchtower, but gee, 1 of 205 cards? Sounds fine to me.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #67 on: September 18, 2013, 08:35:19 am »
0

I think the definition of an attack should be "any kind of card that has an usually undesirable effect on your opponents, where 'usually' means 'ignoring interaction between kingdom cards'". Council Room, Masquerade and Possession only give a negative effect provided certain other kingdom cards (like Pillage, Militia, Baker), and all attacks are only non-negative on boards with certain other cards (reactions, draw-up-to, etc).

Keep in mind that only 3 of oh so many Dominion cards can actually block your card. Ignoring them, your card will always harm your opponents, and this is enough for an attack type.
Council Room does give a negative effect in a single-card kingdom, too, it triggers unwanted reshuffles. Masquerade sometimes makes you pass a good card even without hand size reduction attacks and Possession can make you skip a good hand. And Margrave, Minion, Soothsayer, Thief, Fortune Teller, Saboteur, Rabble, Ghost Ship and Pirate Ship can help opponents without the presence of any other cards, even if you're not trying to help your opponent with them. "Undesirable" is relative, so basically what your definition actually is, is "it should be an Attack if the card feels like what the word 'attack' means" which is a flavor reason.

There is no reason to have an Attack type if there are no cards that interact with the type Attack. If there was, there also should be a Splitter card type, a Trasher card type, a Virtual-Coin type etc.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2013, 08:51:25 am »
0

I think the definition of an attack should be "any kind of card that has an usually undesirable effect on your opponents, where 'usually' means 'ignoring interaction between kingdom cards'". Council Room, Masquerade and Possession only give a negative effect provided certain other kingdom cards (like Pillage, Militia, Baker), and all attacks are only non-negative on boards with certain other cards (reactions, draw-up-to, etc).

Keep in mind that only 3 of oh so many Dominion cards can actually block your card. Ignoring them, your card will always harm your opponents, and this is enough for an attack type.
Council Room does give a negative effect in a single-card kingdom, too, it triggers unwanted reshuffles. Masquerade sometimes makes you pass a good card even without hand size reduction attacks and Possession can make you skip a good hand. And Margrave, Minion, Soothsayer, Thief, Fortune Teller, Saboteur, Rabble, Ghost Ship and Pirate Ship can help opponents without the presence of any other cards, even if you're not trying to help your opponent with them. "Undesirable" is relative, so basically what your definition actually is, is "it should be an Attack if the card feels like what the word 'attack' means" which is a flavor reason.

There is no reason to have an Attack type if there are no cards that interact with the type Attack. If there was, there also should be a Splitter card type, a Trasher card type, a Virtual-Coin type etc.

Hmm... Good points.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2013, 10:03:17 am »
+1

I think the definition of an attack should be "any kind of card that has an usually undesirable effect on your opponents, where 'usually' means 'ignoring interaction between kingdom cards'". Council Room, Masquerade and Possession only give a negative effect provided certain other kingdom cards (like Pillage, Militia, Baker), and all attacks are only non-negative on boards with certain other cards (reactions, draw-up-to, etc).

Keep in mind that only 3 of oh so many Dominion cards can actually block your card. Ignoring them, your card will always harm your opponents, and this is enough for an attack type.
Council Room does give a negative effect in a single-card kingdom, too, it triggers unwanted reshuffles. Masquerade sometimes makes you pass a good card even without hand size reduction attacks and Possession can make you skip a good hand. And Margrave, Minion, Soothsayer, Thief, Fortune Teller, Saboteur, Rabble, Ghost Ship and Pirate Ship can help opponents without the presence of any other cards, even if you're not trying to help your opponent with them. "Undesirable" is relative, so basically what your definition actually is, is "it should be an Attack if the card feels like what the word 'attack' means" which is a flavor reason.

There is no reason to have an Attack type if there are no cards that interact with the type Attack. If there was, there also should be a Splitter card type, a Trasher card type, a Virtual-Coin type etc.

Hmm... Good points.

Disagree, those weren't good points.

eHalcyon has already basically made the case, but I think these arguments in favor of not having the type "attack" require some serious pedantry. I find it completely irrelevant to point out that it's theoretically possible for a play of Council Room to hurt someone. This isn't a question of opinion or subjectivity. "Undesirable" is not subjective. Actual numbers can be used here.

How about Awaclus and I play a bunch of rounds of Dominion, with Council Room in the Kingdom. Except whenever I play Council Room, he doesn't get to draw a card. But when he plays Council Room, standard rules apply. There is absolutely no realistic chance that if he will win many games in which we both buy Council Room. Same goes for Witch... since Curses can theoretically help you, how about whenever you play Witch, I don't get a Curse, even if I want one. But when I play Witch, normal rules apply. We can run a modified sim if it's really needed, but I think it's quite obvious what the outcome would be.

An attack in Dominion is a card that has a harmful effect for your opponent. A harmful effect is one that, on average, will cause your opponent to need more turns to score a given number of points than they would have otherwise. That's it. The only exception to this is IGG, which as explained, would cause a lot of rules confusion if it were labeled "attack."
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 10:04:24 am 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

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #70 on: September 18, 2013, 11:05:00 am »
0

An attack in Dominion is a card that has a harmful effect for your opponent. A harmful effect is one that, on average, will cause your opponent to need more turns to score a given number of points than they would have otherwise. That's it. The only exception to this is IGG, which as explained, would cause a lot of rules confusion if it were labeled "attack."
No, an Attack in Dominion is a card that can be interacted with by cards that interact with the Attack type. That's it. There are no exceptions to this.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

XerxesPraelor

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2013, 11:14:27 am »
+1

Yes, but the way cards are chosen to be attacks is what you quoted, and that's what is being discussed: choosing whether or not this should be an attack. The decision is not and should not be circular.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #72 on: September 18, 2013, 11:25:01 am »
0

Yes, but the way cards are chosen to be attacks is what you quoted
That's how Donald X. did it, but it's certainly not necessary for a fan card to do it the same way. The only requirements are that it must be a card with direct player interaction and the creator needs to think that the interaction part should be sometimes blockable.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #73 on: September 18, 2013, 11:33:02 am »
0

The point was made that a blockable self-curse card of the Attack type would be unreasonably well-countered by Reactions. Denying the card the Attack type drastically reduces the number of cases where the card is completely invalidated.

I think the definition of an attack should be "any kind of card that has an usually undesirable effect on your opponents, where 'usually' means 'ignoring interaction between kingdom cards'". Council Room, Masquerade and Possession only give a negative effect provided certain other kingdom cards (like Pillage, Militia, Baker), and all attacks are only non-negative on boards with certain other cards (reactions, draw-up-to, etc).

Keep in mind that only 3 of oh so many Dominion cards can actually block your card. Ignoring them, your card will always harm your opponents, and this is enough for an attack type. Every card can live with one or two other cards that make it less desirable - heck, that's part of what makes Dominion interesting. If you really want to improve its interaction with blocking reactions, tie the reveal-benefit to the curse gaining, like Soothsayer does. It won't solve Watchtower, but gee, 1 of 205 cards? Sounds fine to me.

Lighthouse and Moat are two cards which invalidate this card in an uncommonly strong way - to the point of essentially being as strong as an attack reflection, which are discouraged from being fan-made because the threat of them invalides attacks and therefore themselves altogether, reducing the board size by 2. Watchtower and Trader can't be helped (without going to great lengths in the wording at least), but that's no reason to give it four unreasonably strong counters instead of two. Every card that nullifies the curse gain invalidates BSoL altogether.
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3960
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #74 on: September 18, 2013, 11:38:07 am »
0

Yes, but the way cards are chosen to be attacks is what you quoted
That's how Donald X. did it, but it's certainly not necessary for a fan card to do it the same way. The only requirements are that it must be a card with direct player interaction and the creator needs to think that the interaction part should be sometimes blockable.

I think I could fix this by making it like this:

"Each other player gains a curse. If they all do so, gain a curse into your hand; otherwise, you may gain a curse into your hand." etc, etc. Then it could be Attack type without being invalidated, not even by Watchtower.

But that wording is clunky, and just having it be a sort of Murphy's Law rather than giving it the Attack type is a more compact way of doing things. It's still countered pretty hard by a couple cards, but Militia is countered almost as hard by Library and Watchtower.
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.12 seconds with 21 queries.