Print

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

[popsofctown]

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

[Asper]

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.

[Stealth Tomato]

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.

[Awaclus]

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.

[markusin]

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

[eHalcyon]

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".

[Asper]

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.

[PSGarak]

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.

[SirPeebles]

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.

[Wrclass]

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.