Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it  (Read 9337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

achmed_sender

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Shuffle iT Username: achmedsender
  • Respect: +202
    • View Profile
Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« on: August 15, 2013, 06:01:16 am »
0

Just a few simple things not a single official card is like.

1. +2 cards +bonus (other than draw) for $4

Why isn't there such a card? Are they unlikely to doubleopen because of the collision to do everythink like taht at $3? I mean, there are several terminal Silvers for $4...

2. Attack for $2

Ok, obviously it's maybe too strong, the attack must be really weak or some kind of penalty, but still like the idea and wondering why there isn't an official card for it.

3. Reaction that deny to do something (for opponent)

Interesting would be a card that denies some kind of trashing.

4. On-Trash-penalty

Ok, sometimes Hunting Grounds' on-gain can be a penalty, but mostly it's a bonus. Maybe gain a copper or so when trashed?


There are still more types. What card type combination do you miss?
Logged

RTT

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
  • Respect: +707
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2013, 06:40:40 am »
0

1. well there is young which if you count that as +2cards.
4. sometimes Squire is a penalty if the only attack is eg.(burocrat, seahag[if curses are out],thief)

Logged

BadAssMutha

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2013, 09:10:27 am »
0

I don't think it'd be too feasible to have an attack at $2. It'd probably have to be terminal and so weak that it's rarely worth buying. Let's look at the options for attacks:

Trash - trashing from someone's hand would be too powerful. Cards that trash from the deck can cost $5 (Rouge, Saboteur), $4 for trashing restricted types (Thief, Noble Brigand), or $3 if there's replacement (Swindler). Maybe you could do a weak Swindler that says "+$1, Each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a differently named card costing the same amount".

Discard - Urchin is already discard down to 4 cards for $3. All you could do to make it $2 is eliminate the +1 card... but then you wind up with a 4-card hand as well as your opponent. Useless.

Junker - The only way you could give out Curses or Ruins with a $2 card would be at significant penalty to yourself (also gain junk), or significant gain to others (e.g., each other player gains a Ruins and a Gold). Even so, it'd be pretty dicey to balance a card like that. Other types of junk (copper) are still pretty bad for most decks, too.

Deck-stacking - A pretty weak class of attacks, so this might be the answer. "Deck inspection" or "Place on top" cards like Oracle and Fortune Teller already aren't that great, so it's tough to find something costing less that would still have a place in the game. Maybe a weak Rabble, "+2 cards, Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and discards any revealed action or treasure."
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2013, 09:44:47 am »
+2

Just a few simple things not a single official card is like.

1. +2 cards +bonus (other than draw) for $4

Why isn't there such a card? Are they unlikely to doubleopen because of the collision to do everythink like taht at $3? I mean, there are several terminal Silvers for $4...

I think you're probably onto something with the unlikely to double open bit. It could just be a coincidence, but chances are good that any such card costing $4 could easily cost $3 and therefore does.

2. Attack for $2

Ok, obviously it's maybe too strong, the attack must be really weak or some kind of penalty, but still like the idea and wondering why there isn't an official card for it.

Any attack that's going to matter should probably cost more than $2. One exception would be a card that didn't attack the first time you played it in a turn, but only on subsequent plays. Such a card would almost have to cost $2.

3. Reaction that deny to do something (for opponent)

Interesting would be a card that denies some kind of trashing.

The denying trashing is an interesting idea, but I don't know if the fun factor would outweigh the frustration factor. It would basically be an attack Reaction, although there's not much point to giving it the Attack type, since the attack is on the Reaction portion. Hmm...

4. On-Trash-penalty

Ok, sometimes Hunting Grounds' on-gain can be a penalty, but mostly it's a bonus. Maybe gain a copper or so when trashed?

The reason this doesn't exist is that there's not much point to it. An on-trash penalty doesn't really make a card weaker because in most games you just wouldn't trash it. In games with Attacks that could trash it for you, you just wouldn't buy it. Not a very interesting mechanic.
Logged

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2013, 09:50:11 am »
0

2. Attack for $2

Ok, obviously it's maybe too strong, the attack must be really weak or some kind of penalty, but still like the idea and wondering why there isn't an official card for it.

Any attack that's going to matter should probably cost more than $2. One exception would be a card that didn't attack the first time you played it in a turn, but only on subsequent plays. Such a card would almost have to cost $2.


Hm. The funny thing about the card is that reactions could only be played when the card is played, not when its attack resolves. I think this would benefit Secret Chamber, for instance, with a next turn Cutpurse impending, yu can draw Copper and topdeck something else.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2013, 01:34:11 pm »
+1

On number 3,it would just be really slow and annoying to play. Now every time I do that action, I have to wait and see if you're going to block it, especially if it's a common action. And if it isn't a common thing, then the reaction is useless on most boards. If it just reacts to itself, we're back to frustration.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 02:18:13 pm »
0

The $4 +2 Cards +bonus is interesting, but there are already cards doing that conditionally (Spice Merchant, Herald, Ironmonger) and cards that always do that but are slightly worse than just +2 Cards (Advisor, Caravan). All these cards give +action. So, it indeed looks like the reason for the lack of a $4 +2 Cards is just that most +2 Cards cards don't need to cost $4 because of the collision issue and DXV likes to keep his cards as cheap as possible. However, coin tokens make the difference between $3 and $4 more interesting so it could be done.

The attack for $2 is an interesting idea. It should probably be a cantrip and extremely weak, such as a Pearl Diver effect for your opponents or something.

I don't like the Reaction that denies the opponent something, because it's quite swingy, especially denying trashing. And it would be difficult to word too.

And the on-trash penalty has the issue that it's just usually not relevant because you won't choose to trash the card yourself and there aren't really any trashing attacks that can reliably hit a specific card, so either it's overpowered most of the time or it's usually balanced and sometimes it sucks if you happen to get unlucky.
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

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2013, 02:25:45 pm »
0

$4 +2 Cards +1 Action +Penalty might work.

Actually, Advisor is like that.

There could be another type of curse, where all the card says is: "When you trash this, gain a Curse."  Then, of course, have an attack that gives them out.  It would, of course, be better than Curses, so it would be a pretty powerful card.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2013, 02:47:17 pm »
+1

So, it indeed looks like the reason for the lack of a $4 +2 Cards is just that most +2 Cards cards don't need to cost $4 because of the collision issue and DXV likes to keep his cards as cheap as possible.

I don't think possible collision is the reason +2 Cards with a bonus tends to cost $3 instead of $4. I think it's the fact that it provides no economy. You're unlikely to open double Oracle because it adds no additional coin to your deck.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 02:50:26 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2013, 03:09:46 pm »
+1

Embargo is almost an attack at $2.

I actually do think of it as an attack when playing it.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 03:33:23 pm »
0

So, it indeed looks like the reason for the lack of a $4 +2 Cards is just that most +2 Cards cards don't need to cost $4 because of the collision issue and DXV likes to keep his cards as cheap as possible.

I don't think possible collision is the reason +2 Cards with a bonus tends to cost $3 instead of $4. I think it's the fact that it provides no economy. You're unlikely to open double Oracle because it adds no additional coin to your deck.
I would open double Oracle if Oracle had +1 Action. Pretty much every time.
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

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2013, 03:40:10 pm »
0

I kind of wish there were more interesting on-trash effects.  Aside from Fortress, I think all of the on-trash effects we have are either gain something or draw cards.  I think something like "when you trash this, +2 cards and trash a card from your hand" would be interesting, you could set off a chain reaction.  You could also make on-trash "attacks" like "when you trash this, each other player discards down to three cards in hand" or "when you trash this, each other player gains a Curse/Ruins".  The discard one might get weird with Bishop/Governor/trashing attacks but I think it would work.  Then there are also things you could do with set-aside on trash, like "when you trash this, set it aside.  At the start of your next turn, move it to the trash pile and +x actions/buys/coin".  That's ugly though so I can understand why it's not on an official card.
Logged

GeronimoRex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2013, 04:04:25 pm »
0

I really like the $2 Attack card idea--I think it would interesting for one or more to exist, just for the variety.

I think you could make certain mechanics work, though they'd probably need to be balanced by adding one of two base benefits (+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1).

A couple of ideas that might work:

Idea 1: "Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards 2 cards."

Less damage to your opponent than Urchin, since they get to draw a card before discard, and it doesn't necessarily drop them down to four cards (if you'd played Governor, Council Room, etc.). Cycle has some chance of helping them... Not sure what base buffs to give this version.

Idea 2: +1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards down to 4 cards.

I like this version. It's similar to Urchin, but can't bloom into a mercenary. And spamming it isn't helpful because subsequent plays actually help your opponents. So it's a $2 cantrip Attack that's only effective in low doses. Everyone will likely buy 1, few people would buy more than two unless they were trying to use it as part of a three-pile strategy.

Idea 3: "Each other player gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

With the right balance of buffs, this might work. Maybe +1 Card, +1 Buy or +1 Card, +$1. You don't want to make it easy to spam.

To prevent spamming, maybe you could have it be: "+2 Cards | If this is the first time you've played $2-Attack this turn, each other player gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

Or, you could have it be: "+2 Cards | Each player with 5 or less cards gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

I think this last version is the most interesting, because of how it could synergize with hand-size attacks if you have the extra actions... If you can reduce the person's hand size then hit them with a few of these, to add multiple Coppers to their hands at once.

No matter how you run it, adding a copper per turn to opponent's hands is effective, but because it's in hand, it helps them with early buys, so it's a balancing act, particularly if good trashing is on the board. This is definitely less powerful than something like Ambassador. Some versions of this card would actually be most effective mid/late game when you are trying to dilute a player's deck.

Logged

A Drowned Kernel

  • 2015 World Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1067
  • They/Them
  • Respect: +1980
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2013, 04:10:36 pm »
+1

Maybe you could do a weak Swindler that says "+$1, Each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a differently named card costing the same amount".

Pretty awesome when it hits a Province or Colony.
Logged
The perfect engine
But it will never go off
Three piles are empty

ednever

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 650
  • Respect: +722
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2013, 04:17:14 pm »
0

Lazy Witch, $2, Attack
Discard two cards. If you do, all other players gain a curse.

-=-=-
Junior Sab, $2, Attack
All other players reveal their top card. If it costs between $3 and $6, trash it. Player may gain a card at least $2 less.

-=-=-
Diplomat (Spy-on-the-side), $2, Attack
+1 action. All players (including you) reveal their top card of their deck. You choose whether it goes back on top of the deck or is discarded.

-=-=-
Gift-giving celebration, $2, Attack
Reveal a card from your hand, all players gain that card from the supply

-=-=-
Backfill Militia, $2, Attack
+$1, Other players draw 3 cards then discard down to 3 cards

-=-=-

They may not all work, but with some playing around they likely could.
I think the bigger issue is they are all derivative. There are higher value cards that do all of those things better.

Right now most of the $2 cards are pretty unique. They do very different things than the higher cost cards.
The exceptions tend to be the worst $2 cards: Secret Chamber, Duchess, etc.

Ed
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2013, 05:24:14 pm »
0

I did a deny-reaction some time ago and posted it in this forum, but here it is again:

Lawyer
2$, Action - Reaction
Choose one: Put a coin token on your Lawyer mat; Or trash this and gain a card costing up to 1$ per coin token on your Lawyer mat.

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If he would put the card in his discard pile, he instead puts it on top of his deck.

The Reaction slows down others to buy your Lawyers some more time, and of course also goes with the "Red line" thematic of a class that somehow resembles Bureaucrat...


About the on-trash penalty here's an idea i had some days ago but which isn't ready yet:

Relic
Treasure, 5$
2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure in play and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more.

Edit: When you trash this, gain an Estate.

Stealing this with Thief would surely be fun... For the Thief, that is.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 07:52:55 pm by Asper »
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2013, 05:50:00 pm »
0

2. Attack for $2

Ok, obviously it's maybe too strong, the attack must be really weak or some kind of penalty, but still like the idea and wondering why there isn't an official card for it.
According to the Dominion outtakes, there was this card.

Kennel
Action - Attack - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action

Each other player reveals the bottom card of his deck, and puts it on the bottom or top, your choice


Donald X. had this to say about it:
"The little Spying Kennel quickly teaches you just how weak and poor for gameplay the Spy effect is."

I guess the attacks for $2 that were tried out were either too weak, or too strong, or too inconsequential, or perhaps just uninteresting.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2013, 06:24:43 pm »
+1

I kind of wish there were more interesting on-trash effects.  Aside from Fortress, I think all of the on-trash effects we have are either gain something or draw cards.  I think something like "when you trash this, +2 cards and trash a card from your hand" would be interesting, you could set off a chain reaction.  You could also make on-trash "attacks" like "when you trash this, each other player discards down to three cards in hand" or "when you trash this, each other player gains a Curse/Ruins".  The discard one might get weird with Bishop/Governor/trashing attacks but I think it would work.  Then there are also things you could do with set-aside on trash, like "when you trash this, set it aside.  At the start of your next turn, move it to the trash pile and +x actions/buys/coin".  That's ugly though so I can understand why it's not on an official card.

You have to be careful with things like that.  "Trash another card" would probably work fine, though it may result in cases that feel bad.  For example, I have a hand of good cards.  You play swindler and hit a card forcing me to trash one of those good cards.  Blah.  But that could be a risk of that card, or it could be made optional.  It probably works fine.

On-trash attacks are a bad idea because they can turn into confusing chains depending on the attack.  Also note that such attacks would be unblockable by reactions.  It's also bad because it can punish the original attacker, sort of like the attack-reaction.

The main thing I'd like to see is on-trash coin tokens, which is basically on-trash +$ that doesn't have tracking issues.

Idea 1: "Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards 2 cards."

Less damage to your opponent than Urchin, since they get to draw a card before discard, and it doesn't necessarily drop them down to four cards (if you'd played Governor, Council Room, etc.). Cycle has some chance of helping them... Not sure what base buffs to give this version.

The main risk with this card is that it can pin another player into 0 card hands.  The risk is somewhat mitigated because it takes quite a bit to do it -- 5 plays of a weak terminal is a lot.  But it's something to keep in mind.  This exact idea would rarely be purchased even at $2 because the attack is weak and it provides no bonuses to the player.

Idea 2: +1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards down to 4 cards.

I like this version. It's similar to Urchin, but can't bloom into a mercenary. And spamming it isn't helpful because subsequent plays actually help your opponents. So it's a $2 cantrip Attack that's only effective in low doses. Everyone will likely buy 1, few people would buy more than two unless they were trying to use it as part of a three-pile strategy.

The problem with this card is that it is so, so incredibly weak.  The sifting that it gives opponents is more likely to help than hurt.  I probably would skip it even opening 5/2 with no other $2 card available.  The exception would be in CR or Governor engines.

Idea 3: "Each other player gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

With the right balance of buffs, this might work. Maybe +1 Card, +1 Buy or +1 Card, +$1. You don't want to make it easy to spam.

To prevent spamming, maybe you could have it be: "+2 Cards | If this is the first time you've played $2-Attack this turn, each other player gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

Or, you could have it be: "+2 Cards | Each player with 5 or less cards gains a Copper, putting it into his hand."

I think this last version is the most interesting, because of how it could synergize with hand-size attacks if you have the extra actions... If you can reduce the person's hand size then hit them with a few of these, to add multiple Coppers to their hands at once.

No matter how you run it, adding a copper per turn to opponent's hands is effective, but because it's in hand, it helps them with early buys, so it's a balancing act, particularly if good trashing is on the board. This is definitely less powerful than something like Ambassador. Some versions of this card would actually be most effective mid/late game when you are trying to dilute a player's deck.

Beware copper junking attacks.



Lazy Witch, $2, Attack
Discard two cards. If you do, all other players gain a curse.

I think this is the only one I like out of the ones you posted.  This is fairly neat because the attack itself is still powerful (cursing is good) but the card itself is usually really bad (reduce hand size for no personal benefit).  If this is on the board, now players want to find a way to make use of it without screwing themselves.  Or is cursing powrful enough that Lazy Witch BM still beats plain BM?



I did a deny-reaction some time ago and posted it in this forum, but here it is again:

Lawyer
2$, Action - Reaction
Choose one: Put a coin token on your Lawyer mat; Or trash this and gain a card costing up to 1$ per coin token on your Lawyer mat.

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If he would put the card in his discard pile, he instead puts it on top of his deck.

The Reaction slows down others to buy your Lawyers some more time, and of course also goes with the "Red line" thematic of a class that somehow resembles Bureaucrat...


About the on-trash penalty here's an idea i had some days ago but which isn't ready yet:

Relic
Treasure, 5$
2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure in play and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more.

Stealing this with Thief would surely be fun... For the Thief, that is.

Not sure if I saw the original post.  Lawyer seems too powerful though.  The reaction is probably fine, but the action seems crazy good.  Buy as many Lawyers as possible, playing them at every opportunity until you've played them 8 times.  This should not take very long.  Now every subsequent play is a free Province.

I don't see any on-trash clause on your Relic.  Did you miss it?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2013, 07:35:47 pm »
0

I did a deny-reaction some time ago and posted it in this forum, but here it is again:

Lawyer
2$, Action - Reaction
Choose one: Put a coin token on your Lawyer mat; Or trash this and gain a card costing up to 1$ per coin token on your Lawyer mat.

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If he would put the card in his discard pile, he instead puts it on top of his deck.

The Reaction slows down others to buy your Lawyers some more time, and of course also goes with the "Red line" thematic of a class that somehow resembles Bureaucrat...


About the on-trash penalty here's an idea i had some days ago but which isn't ready yet:

Relic
Treasure, 5$
2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure in play and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more.

Stealing this with Thief would surely be fun... For the Thief, that is.

Not sure if I saw the original post.  Lawyer seems too powerful though.  The reaction is probably fine, but the action seems crazy good.  Buy as many Lawyers as possible, playing them at every opportunity until you've played them 8 times.  This should not take very long.  Now every subsequent play is a free Province.

I don't see any on-trash clause on your Relic.  Did you miss it?

I totally did...
Seriously, i don't even...
Thanks.

This is how Relic should look:
Relic
Treasure, 5$
2$
When you play this, trash a Treasure you have in play and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more.

When you trash this, gain an Estate.

Edit: Estate-gain is to keep you from trashing your Relics for Golds from the start on.

About Lawyer, you are probably right. I didn't get much feedback on it when i posted it and never playtested it much. Since Guilds the mechanic has started feeling a bit old, anyways. I still like the reaction, so i guess it'll just get another action part.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 07:52:42 pm by Asper »
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2144
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2013, 09:37:29 pm »
0

I kind of wish there were more interesting on-trash effects.  Aside from Fortress, I think all of the on-trash effects we have are either gain something or draw cards.  I think something like "when you trash this, +2 cards and trash a card from your hand" would be interesting, you could set off a chain reaction.  You could also make on-trash "attacks" like "when you trash this, each other player discards down to three cards in hand" or "when you trash this, each other player gains a Curse/Ruins".  The discard one might get weird with Bishop/Governor/trashing attacks but I think it would work.  Then there are also things you could do with set-aside on trash, like "when you trash this, set it aside.  At the start of your next turn, move it to the trash pile and +x actions/buys/coin".  That's ugly though so I can understand why it's not on an official card.

You have to be careful with things like that.  "Trash another card" would probably work fine, though it may result in cases that feel bad.  For example, I have a hand of good cards.  You play swindler and hit a card forcing me to trash one of those good cards.  Blah.  But that could be a risk of that card, or it could be made optional.  It probably works fine.

On-trash attacks are a bad idea because they can turn into confusing chains depending on the attack.  Also note that such attacks would be unblockable by reactions.  It's also bad because it can punish the original attacker, sort of like the attack-reaction.

The main thing I'd like to see is on-trash coin tokens, which is basically on-trash +$ that doesn't have tracking issues.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to work out perfectly.  Trashing on trash could be frustrating if you get hit by a trashing attack and have a hand full of good cards, but that's a very specific situation; I doubt that it would come up enough to be a problem.  The on-trash attacks would be unblockable (which is why I put attack in quotes in previous post), but I don't think that's any worse than IGG.  The discarding one might be a little difficult to track in some cases, but I don't think giving a Curse/Ruins on trash would lead to any "confusing chains" at all; it's hardly any different from gaining something for yourself on trash.  It is true that it can punish the attacker, which is a bad thing.  When I was thinking of on-trash ideas I wasn't thinking specifically about "what if they get hit by a trashing attack", so I hadn't considered that.  I don't think it would come up so often as to not be worth having on a card though.  At least the "punish the attacker" aspect of it only applies to a very specific kind of attack, and it's clearly not the main use of the card.  At worst, I think it just means people ignore Swindler or Knights or whatever on a few boards.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2013, 10:28:04 pm »
0

So, it indeed looks like the reason for the lack of a $4 +2 Cards is just that most +2 Cards cards don't need to cost $4 because of the collision issue and DXV likes to keep his cards as cheap as possible.

I don't think possible collision is the reason +2 Cards with a bonus tends to cost $3 instead of $4. I think it's the fact that it provides no economy. You're unlikely to open double Oracle because it adds no additional coin to your deck.
I would open double Oracle if Oracle had +1 Action. Pretty much every time.

Sure. If I could open with two of a card that was strictly better than Lab, I'd do that too. But we're not talking about that.

Two Swindlers can collide, too. Two Oracles are less likely to collide than, say, two Moats, due to the sifting. I really don't think collision has much to do with it.
Logged

GeoLib

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1265
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2013, 02:01:20 am »
+2

I think Donald mentioned something about reactions-to-other things in one of the secret histories. He didn't go for them because it messed up gameplay. All existing reactions happen when the player with the reaction has to do something anyway (ok, not horse traders when you have lighthouse in play and other edge-cases, but whatever). If you're getting attacked you have to respond to the attack anyway, so you have a chance to moat it, if you're trashing something then you can reveal your Market Square, etc. The problem with a reaction that triggers on someone else's action is that you have to stop them in mid play to reveal a card, which just disrupts game play:
"I play village, then steward to trash two cards, then militia."
"Wait, no, go back. What do you trash? When you play steward to trash I reveal Hoarder and instead the trashed cards go back to the supply. Dig them out now."
It screws up the flow, and I think that's why it hasn't been done.
Logged
"All advice is awful"
 —Count Grishnakh

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2013, 02:24:51 am »
0

Deny reactions are political.

Pretty sure you could do a 2$ attack.  I mean, if you wanted to.  2$ for an abandoned mine that hands out curses really isn't much more imbalanced than Sea Hag, both are "Buy at every opportunity".  Except for the 5/2 factor, but, chapel exists, so does Fool's Gold.

The apparent issue here is that any 2$ attack becomes very similar to Sea Hag in the sense that, for it to perform an attack that feels like it has any effect at all (have to do at least better than Kennel), the card has to have little to no benefit for the person playing the card.  That creates a slog, which is among the most unpopular game types (I think they are fun, but when I'm shuffling by hand I very well might not).

For the most part, ednever's suggestions are balanced, but would create slog gametypes (in particular, slog gametypes involving an attack) which Donald started trying to avoid post-Sea Hag, post-Saboteur.  Too much of the consumer base doesn't like them.

Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2013, 07:41:42 am »
+1

Deny reactions are political.

How so? If you mean they allow politics, that's nothing new. Many, many existing cards do. The worst offenders are probably Envoy and Advisor.

If you mean they necessitate politics, I don't see how that's true unless the Reaction is one-use.

It's still not a good idea for the reasons GeoLib outlines, but it's not necessarily political.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2013, 08:23:29 am »
0

Two Swindlers can collide, too. Two Oracles are less likely to collide than, say, two Moats, due to the sifting. I really don't think collision has much to do with it.
But if you discard your second Oracle with your first Oracle, you're still getting only one Oracle effect per reshuffle, which is like colliding them but you just get to replace the dead Oracle in your hand with a Copper or an Estate. Two Swindlers are much less likely to collide than two Oracles.
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

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2013, 09:21:29 am »
0

Deny reactions are political.

How so? If you mean they allow politics, that's nothing new. Many, many existing cards do. The worst offenders are probably Envoy and Advisor.

If you mean they necessitate politics, I don't see how that's true unless the Reaction is one-use.

It's still not a good idea for the reasons GeoLib outlines, but it's not necessarily political.
Most that I see suggested tend to be political because they pick so hard on a certain strategy, so if the game has any divergent strategies then choosing whether to get the deny reaction is a political move.

Technically any attack has a similar issue, but they tend to be more general.  If you have a copper in your hand, regardless of your strategy you want to keep it, stacking them to punish Stables would be an edge case where it becomes political.  But if you trigger on trash, some people are trashing a lot, some are going Gardens.  If you trigger on gain, some people are using Workshops, some aren't.  Triggering on gaining Province is about as unpolitical as you can get if you cross your fingers for no alt VP, which is why Donald used Fool's Gold to explore the non-attack event territory, but even then the card was mostly about the other half.  Triggering on victory card gain was a suggestion in this thread, and it is as good a suggestion as you can get, that's pretty general, but it still seems pretty political to me (and of course it gets extra political if a headliner alt VP card is in the game).

Cursing, discarding, topdecking, and trashing hurts everyone.  The most specific attack out there is Thief, and its final form, Noble Brigand, has a special built in mechanic that ensures it hurts action based decks more so that it dishes out punishment more fairly.

The envoy-esque choices about whether to go ahead and let a losing player help you empty the Province stack and stuff is icing, but not really a big deal
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 09:23:11 am by popsofctown »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2013, 09:30:08 am »
0

I think you guys have a too narrow approach about the 2$ attack. I guess not many people would have thought a nonterminal attack for 3$ would make it, and Urchin made it. Some attacks are more than just
Code: [Select]
(+X Y)* (Each other player Z)
This isn't balanced, but consider attacks with a downside:

Schaman
2$, Action - Attack
+1$
Each other player gains a Curse. Each player (including your) may trash a card from his hand and gain a card costing exactly 0$. If you gain a card this way, put it in your hand.
Logged

Stealth Tomato

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 507
  • Dorkneel
  • Respect: +480
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2013, 11:06:12 am »
0

Deny reactions are political.

How so? If you mean they allow politics, that's nothing new. Many, many existing cards do. The worst offenders are probably Envoy and Advisor.

If you mean they necessitate politics, I don't see how that's true unless the Reaction is one-use.

It's still not a good idea for the reasons GeoLib outlines, but it's not necessarily political.

That's not political. Obviously there's the potential to argue about choice, but there's never a choice of which player to target, so you can never be targeting the leader or anything of the sort. The only problem with "one-player-chooses" is if the one player is losing, a dickbag, and feels like kingmaking instead of playing to win.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2013, 11:37:47 am »
0

That's not political. Obviously there's the potential to argue about choice, but there's never a choice of which player to target, so you can never be targeting the leader or anything of the sort. The only problem with "one-player-chooses" is if the one player is losing, a dickbag, and feels like kingmaking instead of playing to win.
It's still kingmaking if the losing player is "playing to win" in a situation in which he can't win and he could choose to help another player win the game or "play to win", resulting in a different player winning the game.
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

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2013, 04:05:58 pm »
0

Idea 1: "Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards 2 cards."

Less damage to your opponent than Urchin, since they get to draw a card before discard, and it doesn't necessarily drop them down to four cards (if you'd played Governor, Council Room, etc.). Cycle has some chance of helping them... Not sure what base buffs to give this version.

The main risk with this card is that it can pin another player into 0 card hands.  The risk is somewhat mitigated because it takes quite a bit to do it -- 5 plays of a weak terminal is a lot.  But it's something to keep in mind.  This exact idea would rarely be purchased even at $2 because the attack is weak and it provides no bonuses to the player.
You can't pin a player down to 0 cards because it only affects players with 5 or more cards. You can't even get below 4 cards with it. Urchin's attack is already pretty weak. This one's attack is even weaker and is terminal. The cycling your opponent gets is better than having this in your hand, which is essentially a dead card because it gives no bonuses. It can probably work as a cantrip
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2013, 04:08:28 pm »
0

Idea 1: "Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand draws a card then discards 2 cards."

Less damage to your opponent than Urchin, since they get to draw a card before discard, and it doesn't necessarily drop them down to four cards (if you'd played Governor, Council Room, etc.). Cycle has some chance of helping them... Not sure what base buffs to give this version.

The main risk with this card is that it can pin another player into 0 card hands.  The risk is somewhat mitigated because it takes quite a bit to do it -- 5 plays of a weak terminal is a lot.  But it's something to keep in mind.  This exact idea would rarely be purchased even at $2 because the attack is weak and it provides no bonuses to the player.
You can't pin a player down to 0 cards because it only affects players with 5 or more cards. You can't even get below 4 cards with it. Urchin's attack is already pretty weak. This one's attack is even weaker and is terminal. The cycling your opponent gets is better than having this in your hand, which is essentially a dead card because it gives no bonuses. It can probably work as a cantrip

Oops, missed the "5 or more".
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2013, 07:40:24 pm »
0

I think a deny-reaction becomes political if it
1) has an effect that is differently harmful for different strategies or
2) only hits a single player on use and cannot be revealed/used multiple times or
3) can be used multiple times but is so harmful that the first use on a player will warn other players and keep them from doing whatever triggers the reaction.

The reason i gave gaining a Victory card as an example is that it will usually be something all players want to do and that doesn't become terrible through the top-decking. Even if i have been warned because another player had to top-deck his card before, i'd often still want to gain those VPs.


That's not political. Obviously there's the potential to argue about choice, but there's never a choice of which player to target, so you can never be targeting the leader or anything of the sort. The only problem with "one-player-chooses" is if the one player is losing, a dickbag, and feels like kingmaking instead of playing to win.
It's still kingmaking if the losing player is "playing to win" in a situation in which he can't win and he could choose to help another player win the game or "play to win", resulting in a different player winning the game.

Not like you couldn't use any attack card which gives a choice to help certain players...
Nice examples: Oracle, Swindler and Pillage.
Logged

PSGarak

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
  • Respect: +160
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2013, 05:20:57 pm »
+2

I think the easiest way for an attack to cost $2 is if it were a one-shot. A Militia that trashes itself could reasonably cost $2. A one-shot Cursing attack might have potential, although it probably resembles IGG too much in practice.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2013, 11:21:25 pm »
0

I've thought a bit more about the on-trash penalty.  As I see it, there are at least two ways it might work.

1a)  On a junk card.  You already want to trash junk cards, so you might be willing to suffer the on-trash penalty.  Imagine a Ruined Fortress, which gains a Ruins to your hand when trashed.  This would usually be a penalty, and would effectively slow the rate at which the junk may be trashed away.  You may object that this penalty does nothing when trashing isn't available, but in those cases the junk is permanent anyhow (edge case:  ambassador, island).

1b)  Pretty much the same as 1a, but rather than it being a junk card which is dealt out by an attack or penalty, it could be a junky card which has a powerful on-buy/on-gain/overpay effect.

2)  An on-trash penalty on a trashing attack.  Imagine a card like Swindler, Saboteur, or Knights with an on-trash penalty.  Unfortunately, such a card would need to be pretty strong to make up for the risk.  But then I feel like the card would become quite swingy.  I mean, losing a good card is already a penalty, right?

3)  A card which can be trashed if a certain condition is reached.  Knights are an example, since an attacking Knight is trashed if it hits an opposing Knight.  You could also imagine a Duration card which is trashed if an opponent buys a Victory card.  But again, just the card being trashed would probably be enough of a penalty.

4)  On a one-shot.  Seems reasonable at first, but since the card is trashed anyhow, you could just make the penalty a part of the on-play effect.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Wrclass

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Dominion is the best game ever
  • Respect: +110
    • View Profile
Re: Simple card types and mechanics which didn't do it
« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2013, 10:26:38 pm »
0

Barracks Action $5
+1 Action
When you gain this, gain a card costing up to $6
When you trash this, you may discard a treasure. If you don't, put this on top of your deck.
Logged
I play Lookout, revealing a Fortress, a Tunnel and a Gold.
Pages: 1 2 [All]
 

Page created in 0.128 seconds with 20 queries.