Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: market squire on September 15, 2014, 07:42:23 am
-
Hello!
I am wondering about the strength of "Gain a Peddler", which is, abstactly spoken, "add +$1 to your deck economy". Do you think that such an effect might be worth it?
My first try is this:
Kontor (Action) $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile.
_______________________
When you trash this, gain a Grand Market from the Grand Market pile.
Maybe it should rather be a terminal Action?
-
This is way too strong.
I think you are underestimating Peddler. Not only does it add $1, it does so with extra cycling and its $8 cost makes it a prime target for late trash for benefit cards.
Also, it has serious issues with requiring 2 other piles to be in the kingdom.
-
This is way too strong.
I think you are underestimating Peddler. Not only does it add $1, it does so with extra cycling and its $8 cost makes it a prime target for late trash for benefit cards.
Also, it has serious issues with requiring 2 other piles to be in the kingdom.
I compared it to Baker. Baker gives you a disappearing +$1 in a turn of your choice; this gives you a disappearing +$1 in every future shuffle. I don't know if Baker's timing choice is as strong as Kontor's consistency - maybe you are right and it is worse.
Again, maybe it should be terminating, like +2 Cards instead of the Cantrip.
The card does not require other piles in the kingdom. It says "from the Peddler pile", so Peddler doesn't need to be in the supply, same for Grand Market.
-
The card does not require other piles in the kingdom. It says "from the Peddler pile", so Peddler doesn't need to be in the supply, same for Grand Market.
It doesn require them to be in the kingdom, because otherwise it's a useless card. I will assume this is a thought exercise.
And yes Davio is right. This is really strong. Maybe not always my first $5 card, but I'd do my best to pick this up in almost any deck.
-
Not only does it add $1, it does so with extra cycling
It doesn't do so with extra cycling, though. It only gives you some more control over your shuffles (you might not want to play a Peddler every time, but if you didn't have the Peddler, then you can't choose not playing it).
-
In super general case, gaining a Peddler is like playing a Mine. Mine costs $5. I posit that
"Mein
Action
+$1
Gain a Peddler."
should cost $5 as well. (The dollar is the same dollar Mine gives you the turn you play it.)
-
it's not bad, but there are couple of differences. most importantly, "gain a peddler" works in a treasureless deck.
-
In super general case, gaining a Peddler is like playing a Mine. Mine costs $5. I posit that
"Mein
Action
+$1
Gain a Peddler."
should cost $5 as well. (The dollar is the same dollar Mine gives you the turn you play it.)
Though, Mine is very weak, and they are different enough that the gain a peddler version could be a bit stronger (Treasure cards can't be drawn dead).
-
But there are only 10 Peddlers for everyone. Mine can keep gaining you $1 a turn after 10 plays. Especially with KC, 10 plays of a card you want early is not that much. If the Peddler pile is limited to 10 Peddlers, I would say the card is strange. If you get only 1, is fine. If each player gets one, is a bit weak. However, since each one you buy weakens all other players Kontor's as well, I would say getting the second one may be decent in 2p, but horrible in >2p. In any case, it seems like it would lead to a horrible game in which you race for Peddlers in an uninteresting way, and after the split everyone has a weak deck of Peddlers and do-nothing cantrips, so you have to restart.
The on-trash is absurdly strong if there is strong trashing and/or any engine potential. And quite swingy. I would gain a Gold or something like that.
-
well, I just wouldn't do more with the card than the thought experiment.
-
well, I just wouldn't do more with the card than the thought experiment.
Why not? At least I'd like to try fixing it.
The comparison to Mine is a very good point. The cantrip version is too strong.
The limit of 10 Peddlers is the reason for the on-trash effect. Okay, trashing isn't always available.
My brainstorm ideas to get around the problem:
- Add some way to put Peddlers back to their pile.
- Gaining a Peddler is only one choice, so that Kontor can be useful when Peddlers are empty.
- You choose between different $ cantrips (Oasis, Peddler, Market).
Kontor (Action) $5
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile.
_______________________
In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile.
Kontor (Action) $5
Choose one:
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile
or return a Peddler from your hand to the Peddler pile. If you do, +$5 +1 buy.
Kontor (Action) $5
Choose one: Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile; or +$2 +1 buy.
Kontor (Action) $5
Choose one:
Gain an Oasis from the Oasis pile and play it;
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile, putting it on top of your deck;
Gain a Market from the Market pile.
-
Why not? At least I'd like to try fixing it.
because
- it feels awkward
- it requires another kingdom card to be ingame. that's a completely new mechanic, and should probably not be done without a good reason.
- in peddler games, you often buy lots of cheap +buys to empty the pile, and then do so pretty quickly, which will just make your card useless
- the interaction with TfB is kind of silly
- the concept of "increase the money produced from your deck by 1$ for each time played" has already been done. by mine.
if anything, I'd make a new non-kingdomm card with "+1 card, +1 action, +1$" and price 0$, and reference that one. but then I'd say, that's not worth it for a mine-variant.
-
In super general case, gaining a Peddler is like playing a Mine. Mine costs $5. I posit that
"Mtin
Action
+$1
Gain a Peddler."
should cost $5 as well. (The dollar is the same dollar Mine gives you the turn you play it.)
FTFY
-
well, I just wouldn't do more with the card than the thought experiment.
Why not? At least I'd like to try fixing it.
The comparison to Mine is a very good point. The cantrip version is too strong.
The limit of 10 Peddlers is the reason for the on-trash effect. Okay, trashing isn't always available.
My brainstorm ideas to get around the problem:
- Add some way to put Peddlers back to their pile.
- Gaining a Peddler is only one choice, so that Kontor can be useful when Peddlers are empty.
- You choose between different $ cantrips (Oasis, Peddler, Market).
Kontor (Action) $5
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile.
_______________________
In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile.
This is still far stronger than Mine as long as the Peddlers last; +2 Cards is much better than +$1. If you ignore Peddler trashing for benefit, this is about as strong as Mine would be in Colony games if it was guaranteed to always collide with a Gold. In games without trashers, it might work as a strong $5 since the Peddlers will likely run out quickly due to several Kontors getting bought. But with TfB to recycle the Peddlers, this is far too strong, probably far better than Grand Market.
You can also compare Kontor with Workshop, since Peddler is as strong as a $4 card: Kontor draws two additional cards and combos with TfB, in exchange for non-flexibility. Usually adding +2 cards to a terminal card is enough to increase a card price by about $4 (Moat vs. Hunting Grounds). t with +1 Kontor could be balanced with only +1 Card...
-
Usually adding +2 cards to a terminal card is enough to increase a card price by about $4 (Moat vs. Hunting Grounds)
That's just wrong. Moat vs. Hunting Grounds is a next-to-useless terminal you don't even want in your deck in most situations vs. one of the most powerful +card cards for engines. Is Ruined Library a card that people actually buy for $0? inb4 someone says yes and posts a log in which they did that and won because of it Would you say that a terminal "Each other player gains a Curse" is balanced at $1?
Besides, a terminal +2 Cards loses a lot of its strength when you have a deck full of cantrips. Furthermore, Mine is still an incredibly weak card, so it's not useful to compare the two cards unless one is strictly better than the other, which isn't the case here.
I dislike this card for the reasons that silverspawn pointed out, but I'm not buying that the effect would be too strong at $5 and with +2 Cards.
-
I think the comparisons to Mine are a bit of a stretch. Yes this card could have a similar effect on your deck's economy, but the mechanic is completely different and Kontor and Mine combo with completely different cards.
I strongly suggest that you use a new ancillary card rather than Peddler for Kontor. I guess by the fact that you reference the Grand Market pile as well that maybe that's the point of the card. If so, I'm not a fan of the idea. Requiring another specific Kingdom card seems hokey to me. But let's say you have:
Kontor (Action) $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a CardX from the CardX pile.
CardX (Action) $0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)
This could be interesting, but probably it wants more excitement. You could test it like this and then add some cool bonus to CardX depending on how it plays out.
-
Why not? At least I'd like to try fixing it.
because
- it feels awkward
- it requires another kingdom card to be ingame. that's a completely new mechanic, and should probably not be done without a good reason.
- in peddler games, you often buy lots of cheap +buys to empty the pile, and then do so pretty quickly, which will just make your card useless
- the interaction with TfB is kind of silly
- the concept of "increase the money produced from your deck by 1$ for each time played" has already been done. by mine.
if anything, I'd make a new non-kingdomm card with "+1 card, +1 action, +1$" and price 0$, and reference that one. but then I'd say, that's not worth it for a mine-variant.
Sounds like you dislike the idea just because the concept is new/ strange to you.
I opened this thread rather for the concept (i.e. gain other kingdom card) than for the idea (i.e. Mine variation).
Personally, I have not much love for additional non-kingdom piles like those in Dark Ages (EDIT: and like LastFootnote suggested). I think it is much easier to use an existing kingdom card that is really simple - maybe the concept could also work with "gain Laboratory"; or "gain Smithy" on a Necropolis card; or "gain a $5 card that is randomly chosen during setup". There are some interesting things possible with this concept while it doesn't need any new rules. Of course the effect is less powerful when that specific card is in the supply as well. But this should be fixable, see my last post. Then there are two ways to gain Peddlers, either by this card or by cheap +buys. The interaction with Tfb might be silly, but still fun, I think.
Now I noticed that Donald's cards that gain a specific non-supply card either trash themselves (Hermit, Urchin) or let the other card put itself back on its pile (Madman, Spoils).
I also noticed that this phrase is pretty bad: "In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile." VP engine with this and Bishop, you know...
What about a Reaction like this, a risk that you can loose the Peddlers:
Kontor (Action-Reaction) $5
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile. Play it.
____________________________
When a player plays a Peddler, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put it on the Peddler pile.
This might be a bit political if players choose not to reveal, but the Action part encourages them to do.
-
while it doesn't need any new rules.
if you don't add any new rules, this card is useless on the majority of boards, because there is no peddler to gain. it does need new rules.
and actually, I dislike the idea for the reasons I listed.
-
If you're really set on using another Kingdom card as a non-Supply pile, I think you'd be better off using the vanilla ones like Village, Woodcutter, Laboratory, etc. I try to keep an open mind these days about new concepts, but the idea of using existing Kingdom cards rubs me the wrong way because not everybody owns every set. For instance, your version of Kontor that uses Oasis, Peddler, and Market requires Hinterlands, Prosperity, and the Base Set.
Why don't you like non-Kingdom card piles?
-
A $5-cost "Gain a Lab" is interesting because its clearly worse than outright buying the lab if everyone gets one, but if you get the only one, it may be worth it. However, it is basically forcing everyone to Curse themselves, so it is not really a good addition, just an interesting thought exercise.
-
A $5-cost "Gain a Lab" is interesting because its clearly worse than outright buying the lab if everyone gets one, but if you get the only one, it may be worth it. However, it is basically forcing everyone to Curse themselves, so it is not really a good addition, just an interesting thought exercise.
I think you're right if players can also just buy the Labs straight. If they can't, though, it's probably often worth buying a $5 card that reads "Gain a Lab from the Lab pile".
-
I actually think that, on the majority of boards, you buy a card that says "gain a lab" (if lab is there of course) rather than lab itself if both cost 5$. this of course a question of strategy and not a question of design.
you probably don't want to get more than one.
-
Usually adding +2 cards to a terminal card is enough to increase a card price by about $4 (Moat vs. Hunting Grounds)
That's just wrong. Moat vs. Hunting Grounds is a next-to-useless terminal you don't even want in your deck in most situations vs. one of the most powerful +card cards for engines. Is Ruined Library a card that people actually buy for $0? inb4 someone says yes and posts a log in which they did that and won because of it Would you say that a terminal "Each other player gains a Curse" is balanced at $1?
Probably, yes. :P It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
Of course you don't buy Ruined Library, because it actively hurts your deck, and only costs $0 because there are no negative price points.
If you consider Moat to be so much weaker than HG at their respective price points, adding +2 Cards should cause an even higher cost increase than $4 to be balanced. But HG is only at an average position among $6+ cards in Qvist's card ranking, while Moat is below average among the $2 cards but far from the worst. Not every board is an engine, after all. And Moat's non-vanilla bonus is not that much stronger than HG's, I think.
You can also compare HG with Smithy, a strongish $4 card, which is probably the better comparison because price increases between $0 and $4 matter much less than going from $4- to $5+.
Cantrips do indeed hurt terminal card draw; I did say it could work at $5 in the absence of TfB, in spite of being better than Mine. But with TfB you get a $8's worth out of every Kontor play, in addition to playing the Peddler when it doesn't collide with TfB, and you won't have a deck full of cantrips because you keep trashing the Peddlers.
-
the idea of using existing Kingdom cards rubs me the wrong way because not everybody owns every set. For instance, your version of Kontor that uses Oasis, Peddler, and Market requires Hinterlands, Prosperity, and the Base Set.
You are right, this is a problem (even for me if I don't combine my game with my sister's). I wanted the first version to be able only with Prosperity, but when you open the card pool, you need multiple expansions.
Why don't you like non-Kingdom card piles?
Well, I don't really dislike the extra piles. I just hate that moment when you see them first and have to read lots of extra text and think, man that's complex. Simple cards like Spoils are okay and I also like the theme of "Hermit goes mad" and "Urchin gets paid". But I don't see a huge appeal in making new cards in that manner.
Referencing existing kingdom cards is different - you already got to know them.
A $5-cost "Gain a Lab" is interesting because its clearly worse than outright buying the lab if everyone gets one, but if you get the only one, it may be worth it. However, it is basically forcing everyone to Curse themselves, so it is not really a good addition, just an interesting thought exercise.
What if it does not cost $5?
School (Action) $3
Gain an education card from its pile.
If you don't, [xyz].
________________________
Setup: Determine a card costing $5 that is not in the supply. Cards from that pile are education cards.
-
while it doesn't need any new rules.
if you don't add any new rules, this card is useless on the majority of boards, because there is no peddler to gain. it does need new rules.
Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.
Personally, I have not much love for additional non-kingdom piles like those in Dark Ages (EDIT: and like LastFootnote suggested). I think it is much easier to use an existing kingdom card that is really simple - maybe the concept could also work with "gain Laboratory"; or "gain Smithy" on a Necropolis card; or "gain a $5 card that is randomly chosen during setup". There are some interesting things possible with this concept while it doesn't need any new rules. Of course the effect is less powerful when that specific card is in the supply as well. But this should be fixable, see my last post. Then there are two ways to gain Peddlers, either by this card or by cheap +buys. The interaction with Tfb might be silly, but still fun, I think.
Now I noticed that Donald's cards that gain a specific non-supply card either trash themselves (Hermit, Urchin) or let the other card put itself back on its pile (Madman, Spoils).
I also noticed that this phrase is pretty bad: "In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile." VP engine with this and Bishop, you know...
Yes, this could be worse than Bishop-Fortress. If you don't return trashed Peddlers to their pile, your "+2 cards" version would probably work at $5, since it becomes "dead" (or rather, Moat-ish) quickly when contested, just like Witch. But even just two "good" plays give you almost a (retarded) Grand Market (or two $8 TfB targets), in addition to the weak card draw.
-
Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.
I'm aware of that. the post that my post was directed to did not include the "from the XX pile" part. and to address this also, I think it's even worse, because it requires you to have another expansion. I don't have a single card in my expansion that even references a card that's not in its own set or in the base set is one of the base cards, much less require you to have it, and LF also doesn't have a single one in his.
and, again, gain a 5$ card for 5$ is plenty strong. you don't need to make it cheaper.
-
Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.
I'm aware of that. the post that my post was directed to did not include the "from the XX pile" part. and to address this also, I think it's even worse, because it requires you to have another expansion. I don't have a single card in my expansion that even references a card that's not in its own set or in the base set, much less require you to have it, and LF also doesn't have a single one in his.
and, again, gain a 5$ card for 5$ is plenty strong. you don't need to make it cheaper.
The base set is not a requirement to play Dominion. You can play with Intrigue alone.
-
Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.
I'm aware of that. the post that my post was directed to did not include the "from the XX pile" part. and to address this also, I think it's even worse, because it requires you to have another expansion. I don't have a single card in my expansion that even references a card that's not in its own set or in the base set, much less require you to have it, and LF also doesn't have a single one in his.
The post you quoted did use the "from the Peddler pile" wording in the explicit card suggested, as does the OP; it was only missing in the "colloquial" discussion of potential other cards.
Referencing other expansions is a problem in official expansions (and therefore never done), but you can just declare this as a "Prosperity fan card" instead of a Dominion fan card... :P
-
well yea, i meant base cards, as in the 3 basic treasures, the 3 basic victory cards, and curses. i don't have any card that references a kingdom card from the base set, but "base set" was of course misleading.
-
Probably, yes. :P It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.
-
What do you think of my Reaction version? I've put some thought in there - if you really want, here is the extra pile version of it:
Kontor (Action-Reaction) $5
Gain a Pedlar from the Pedlar pile. Play it.
____________________________
When a player plays a Pedlar, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put it on the Pedlar pile.
Pedlar (Action) 0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)
-
Probably, yes. :P It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.
Compared to Sea Hag, the +1 Card Witch has the disadvantage of replacing itself with a terminally drawn card, while not hurting the opponent's hand. I don't see it as clearly worse than Young Witch - you usually have one or two bad cards to discard in the early game, and buying a Bane is often not worth it in 2p. But Young Witch would probably also work at $3; I think it'd still be weaker at $3 than the original Witch is at $5, and usually weaker than Ambassador.
I'd rather compare this with Masquerade, which is essentially an anti-"+1 Card Witch" since it also keeps your hand at the same size (when trashing) and "removes" one junk card out of every player's deck when compared to playing +1 Card Witch instead. Masqerade does this as long as one has a trash target (which is usually about as long as a Witch still has curses to give), and doesn't become dead afterwards, but is still a vanilla Moat with the potential to annoy opponents. So I'd say +1 Card Witch is slightly weaker than Masquerade, which does cost $3.
-
Probably, yes. :P It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.
Compared to Sea Hag, the +1 Card Witch has the disadvantage of replacing itself with a terminally drawn card, while not hurting the opponent's hand. I don't see it as clearly worse than Young Witch - you usually have one or two bad cards to discard in the early game, and buying a Bane is often not worth it in 2p. But Young Witch would probably also work at $3; I think it'd still be weaker at $3 than the original Witch is at $5, and usually weaker than Ambassador.
I'd rather compare this with Masquerade, which is essentially an anti-"+1 Card Witch" since it also keeps your hand at the same size (when trashing) and "removes" one junk card out of every player's deck when compared to playing +1 Card Witch instead. Masqerade does this as long as one has a trash target (which is usually about as long as a Witch still has curses to give), and doesn't become dead afterwards, but is still a vanilla Moat with the potential to annoy opponents. So I'd say +1 Card Witch is slightly weaker than Masquerade, which does cost $3.
Trashing is cheaper than junking anyway. Dealing out 4 Curses by discarding your hand for $2 would be stupidly powerful.
-
What do you think of my Reaction version? I've put some thought in there - if you really want, here is the extra pile version of it:
Kontor (Action-Reaction) $5
Gain a Pedlar from the Pedlar pile. Play it.
____________________________
When a player plays a Pedlar, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put it on the Pedlar pile.
Pedlar (Action) 0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)
The first thing I wanted to say is "You've mis-spelled Peddler" :P Is "Pedlar" an actual word?
Buying this card would effectively force your opponents to reciprocate, since otherwise you get the whole Pedlar pile without risk of losing them. This need not be a bad thing, but it also seems very strong to me, since being a Peddler/Pedlar at play is much better than +2 cards. Now it practically becomes a Grand Market upon second play, and even better afterwards, unless you lose the Pedlars again.
-
Probably, yes. :P It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.
Compared to Sea Hag, the +1 Card Witch has the disadvantage of replacing itself with a terminally drawn card, while not hurting the opponent's hand. I don't see it as clearly worse than Young Witch - you usually have one or two bad cards to discard in the early game, and buying a Bane is often not worth it in 2p. But Young Witch would probably also work at $3; I think it'd still be weaker at $3 than the original Witch is at $5, and usually weaker than Ambassador.
I'd rather compare this with Masquerade, which is essentially an anti-"+1 Card Witch" since it also keeps your hand at the same size (when trashing) and "removes" one junk card out of every player's deck when compared to playing +1 Card Witch instead. Masqerade does this as long as one has a trash target (which is usually about as long as a Witch still has curses to give), and doesn't become dead afterwards, but is still a vanilla Moat with the potential to annoy opponents. So I'd say +1 Card Witch is slightly weaker than Masquerade, which does cost $3.
Trashing is cheaper than junking anyway. Dealing out 4 Curses by discarding your hand for $2 would be stupidly powerful.
Right. But arguably Chapel is "stupidly powerful" itself, it could easily cost $5...
-
No, it can't.
Since you rarely want more than one Chapel, it's fine making it cost $2 so that both players can grab it if they want.
The only problem with it costing $2 is that you can pair it with a strong $5 like Mountebank.
Maybe it would have been better at $3 so one guy opens Silver/Chapel and the other opens Mountebank/- and they both could have a decent chance.
-
No, it can't.
Since you rarely want more than one Chapel, it's fine making it cost $2 so that both players can grab it if they want.
The only problem with it costing $2 is that you can pair it with a strong $5 like Mountebank.
Maybe it would have been better at $3 so one guy opens Silver/Chapel and the other opens Mountebank/- and they both could have a decent chance.
I agree that Chapel is fine at $2 (or $3) for the reasons you state, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work at other costs. Why can't it cost $5? Forge costs $7 and is not that much stronger. Usually when you open e.g. Chapel/Witch and they collide, you prefer playing Chapel, implying that it's actually stronger than Witch even when ignoring costs. You could argue that Chapel is too strong to cost $5 (giving too much of an advantage to a 2/5 opening), but that would rather speak for a $6 cost than a lower one. And the $2 cost already gives a massive advantage to a 2/5 opening, as you say.
(Note that I'm only talking in terms of the card's power level, not what makes the game most fun. I do enjoy the "insane" games that $2 Chapel allows for.)
-
(Note that I'm only talking in terms of the card's power level, not what makes the game most fun. I do enjoy the "insane" games that $2 Chapel allows for.)
and this is the answer to your question, as i said before, you should never balance cards for powerlevel, but always for what makes the game most fun. if the cards stack, this is often the same/similar, but in case of chapel, it's two very different things.
-
(Note that I'm only talking in terms of the card's power level, not what makes the game most fun. I do enjoy the "insane" games that $2 Chapel allows for.)
and this is the answer to your question, as i said before, you should never balance cards for powerlevel, but always for what makes the game most fun. if the cards stack, this is often the same/similar, but in case of chapel, it's two very different things.
In principle that's right, but the problem is that everyone has a different opinion of what is fun; many players hate(d) Chapel for being overpowered. Donald usually tries to make cards both balanced and fun; Chapel is the only intentional exception, I think.
And my discussion with Awaclus was about card strength, not fun games. Obviously Chapel is much more fun at $2 than his "anti-Chapel" would be, although they have a similar power level.
-
I found that the assumption that a card's power level is always directly related to its cost is a false one.
A card's cost only functions to limit its availability.
The reason King's Court costs $7 is to make it harder to get a bunch of them easily.
There is a relation to the card's power, but it's an oversimplification to say: This card is super powerful, it should cost at least $X.
Especially if you're only ever getting one copy of it.
And even if you want multiple copies, you still have to be careful with pricing if you only look at raw power.
Take Fool's Gold for example. Every FG other than the first provides more value than Gold! And just 2 FG's played provides more value than 2 Silvers. So maybe it should cost at least $3? Making it cost $3 makes it harder to get multiple copies, making it a less viable strategy and dropping its fun factor.
So in deciding on a price, you should look at it this way: If it's cheap, players can more easily get multiple copies of it. Is that a bad thing? If so, up the value. Allowing two players grab multiple Mountebanks early quickly turns a game into a slog hell. It's no big deal if a player wants two Chapels. It's not a bad thing if players get multiple Fool's Golds.
Also, there are only 3 effective price levels in Dominion.
The first level is $2-: Cards costing $2 (other than opening cards like Chapel, Pearl Diver for instance) just give you something to buy to not feel like your turn is wasted
The second level is $3/$4: Cards at this level are pretty much interchangeable. Masquerade and Ambassador could cost $4 and not much would change. It's so easy to hit $3 and $4 that you're often buying $3 cards with $4 to spend.
The third level is $5+: $5 is the level at which the "power cards" like Mountebank and Wharf are found. Anything above $5 like King's Court at $7 is in pretty much the same league, but just a bit better.
I find that the biggest gaps are between $2 and $3/$4 and between $3/$4 and $5.
So this is also something you can take into consideration when pricing a card.
-
the gap between 5$ and 6$ isn't that small, but aside from that, you're right.
-
Obviously Chapel is much more fun at $2 than his "anti-Chapel" would be, although they have a similar power level.
But the anti-Chapel is more powerful. You have to actually collide the junk you want to trash with the trasher, that's not true for junkers. Also, junk piles run out of junk so you can buy the anti-Chapel in order to defend yourself against your opponent's anti-Chapel. Also, usually an engine can deal with the opening 10 if necessary, but 20 junk cards is usually too much, so getting rid of the opening cards isn't as powerful as giving your opponent another 10 junk cards. Also, by trashing the Coppers in your deck, you improve your economy less than you hurt your opponent's economy by giving him Curses.
-
the gap between 5$ and 6$ isn't that small, but aside from that, you're right.
Well, I often find myself buying $5 cards with $6. Also, there aren't many action cards costing $6, only Goons, Hunting Grounds, Adventurer, (Nobles), (Grand Market), (Border Village) and Altar. Sure, the difference between Silver at $5 and Gold at $6 can be huge, but if there are good $5's around, having one of them over Gold isn't that horrible.
-
the gap between 5$ and 6$ isn't that small, but aside from that, you're right.
Well, I often find myself buying $5 cards with $6. Also, there aren't many action cards costing $6, only Goons, Hunting Grounds, Adventurer, (Nobles), (Grand Market), (Border Village) and Altar. Sure, the difference between Silver at $5 and Gold at $6 can be huge, but if there are good $5's around, having one of them over Gold isn't that horrible.
you often buy 5$ with 6$. but it's more difficult to reach 6$, which, I think, is the crucial point. Alter, for example, would be silly at 5$.
-
Back to topic...
As others stated gain a Peddler is just too clunky, why not make it random, like (setup choose a card at random) gain that card, or gain a bane card!
Imagine gain a KC xD
-
School (Action) $3
Gain an education card from its pile.
If you don't, [xyz].
________________________
Setup: Determine a card costing $5 that is not in the supply. Cards from that pile are education cards.
What about:
School (Action) $4
Choose one: Gain an education card from its pile
or play an education card from your hand twice.
________________________
Setup: Determine a card costing $5 that is not in the supply. Cards from that pile are education cards.
-
Why not use the Young Witch mechanic and add a pile of education cards to the supply costing $5?
-
2 Grand Markets is essentially
+2 Actions
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler.
So each Grand Market is like nonterminal Gain half a Peddler~.
(Edit: Or, you know, don't gain a Peddler and use the money and buys for something else.)
-
Why not use the Young Witch mechanic and add a pile of education cards to the supply costing $5?
To make School more attractive, I guess. Gain a card that you can't buy normally is stronger than gaining one that you could have bought directly. The gaining doesn't work that often if the pile belongs to the regular supply. I'm afraid the card would become a dud, turning its effect in something like "replace this pile with a $5 cost pile."
On the other hand, adding the education cards to the supply sounds much more balanced.
2 Grand Markets is essentially
+2 Actions
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler.
So each Grand Market is like nonterminal Gain half a Peddler~.
(Edit: Or, you know, don't gain a Peddler and use the money and buys for something else.)
QED ;)
-
2 Grand Markets is essentially
+2 Actions
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler.
So each Grand Market is like nonterminal Gain half a Peddler~.
(Edit: Or, you know, don't gain a Peddler and use the money and buys for something else.)
By that logic, Woodcutter is essentially a terminal gain an Estate.
-
2 Grand Markets is essentially
+2 Actions
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler.
So each Grand Market is like nonterminal Gain half a Peddler~.
(Edit: Or, you know, don't gain a Peddler and use the money and buys for something else.)
By that logic, Woodcutter is essentially a terminal gain an Estate.
Logic rules.
-
Another thing that might be done by using "Gain a specific card from its pile" could be evolving like we know it from Urchin and Hermit.
Experiment (Action) $2
+1 Card +1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs $5 or more, trash this Experiment. If you do, gain a Laboratory from the Laboratory pile.
The Experiment may be successful if your deck is good enough. Then you can build a Lab for it.
Printer (Action) $4
+2 Actions
+$1
You may trash this. If you do, gain a Library from the Library pile.
A weak version of Festival that will always have the Library combo. Hard to tell whether it should cost $3 or $4. $3 would be more interesting, but double Printer opening is maybe too easy...
Architect (Action) $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $4 more.
If it costed $3-$4 more, trash this and gain a Remodel from the Remodel pile.
A devolving card. Every Architect has a very special talent that he will realize once in his live. Afterwards, he'll just do his normal job.
Pied Piper (Action-Attack) $3
+1 Action
Each player (including you) gains a Rats from the Rats pile.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put all revealed Rats into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
No evolving card, but I'd like to hear what you guys think about a Rats attack. My old version of this had the ability to trash Rats, but I guess it's more interesting to just pull them out of the pile.
-
Experiment and Architect sound interesting. Printer might be too strong when compared to Feast (but then Feast is very weak, and Library is not the strongest $5). It's also not that interesting IMO.
Pied Piper seems very weak. It isn't really an Attack since you get the same (potential) junk as your opponents do. And with several PP's bought, Rats will pile out quickly, making the Rats good cards rather than bad ones. So the main helpful aspect of the card is the potential Rats draw, which is similar to, and probably as weak as, Scout.
-
It isn't really an Attack since you get the same (potential) junk as your opponents do.
The fact that you junk yourself is immaterial. "Gain 5 Curses. Each other player gains a Curse." would still be an Attack. Your opponents are getting Curses without wanting to.
-
It isn't really an Attack since you get the same (potential) junk as your opponents do.
The fact that you junk yourself is immaterial. "Gain 5 Curses. Each other player gains a Curse." would still be an Attack. Your opponents are getting Curses without wanting to.
A card is an Attack if it has the Attack type.
-
Well, maybe Pied Piper shouldn't give Rats to the active player. In my first version I wanted the card to get benefit from the Rats, so it had to gain a Rats for the active player. The new version might be okay just as a "normal" attack, maybe even without +1 Action, and (just for an idea) drawing more cards?
Pied Piper (Action-Attack) $3
Each other player gains a Rats from the Rats pile.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put all cards costing $3-$4 into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
Printer might be too strong when compared to Feast (but then Feast is very weak, and Library is not the strongest $5). It's also not that interesting IMO.
Maybe it needs a condition and one more Action?
Printer (Action) $4
+3 Actions
+$1
If you have played at least 3 Actions this turn (including this), you may trash this. If you do, gain a Library from the Library pile.
Alternatively, there could be just the choice "+$1 oder trash for Library".
-
It isn't really an Attack since you get the same (potential) junk as your opponents do.
The fact that you junk yourself is immaterial. "Gain 5 Curses. Each other player gains a Curse." would still be an Attack. Your opponents are getting Curses without wanting to.
A card is an Attack if it has the Attack type.
Yes. Masquerade also lets opponents (and yourself) gain Curses occasionally, but it has no business being an Attack (barring pins). I don't think a card hurting each player equally needs to be an Attack. Otherwise you'd only hurt yourself when the opponents have Moat...
-
It isn't really an Attack since you get the same (potential) junk as your opponents do.
The fact that you junk yourself is immaterial. "Gain 5 Curses. Each other player gains a Curse." would still be an Attack. Your opponents are getting Curses without wanting to.
A card is an Attack if it has the Attack type.
Yes. Masquerade also lets opponents (and yourself) gain Curses occasionally, but it has no business being an Attack (barring pins). I don't think a card hurting each player equally needs to be an Attack. Otherwise you'd only hurt yourself when the opponents have Moat...
masquerade is not an attack because it would be confusing with moat. if it weren't for that, it should absolutely be an attack.
-
I don't think a card hurting each player equally needs to be an Attack.
The Attack portion of Minion hurts each player equally. You are choosing to play it, so whatever the card does that hurts you is your problem. The opponents are being affected without choosing to do so, i.e., they are attacked. If it hurts other players, it wants to be an Attack. Masquerade is not because it would be complicated rules-wise to make it one.
-
Well, maybe Pied Piper shouldn't give Rats to the active player. In my first version I wanted the card to get benefit from the Rats, so it had to gain a Rats for the active player. The new version might be okay just as a "normal" attack, maybe even without +1 Action, and (just for an idea) drawing more cards?
Pied Piper (Action-Attack) $3
Each other player gains a Rats from the Rats pile.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put all cards costing $3-$4 into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
Printer might be too strong when compared to Feast (but then Feast is very weak, and Library is not the strongest $5). It's also not that interesting IMO.
Maybe it needs a condition and one more Action?
Printer (Action) $4
+3 Actions
+$1
If you have played at least 3 Actions this turn (including this), you may trash this. If you do, gain a Library from the Library pile.
Alternatively, there could be just the choice "+$1 oder trash for Library".
Make it "2 Actions" each, and it seems reasonable (maybe a bit weak). Requiring 2 prior Actions to trash it seems unnecessarily harsh.
Or do you mean for the condition to be considered after you played all your Actions? Then you need to add "At the beginning of your buy phase" or something like that.
-
masquerade is not an attack because it would be confusing with moat. if it weren't for that, it should absolutely be an attack.
Even if it wasn't confusing, I don't think it should be an Attack. It hurts other players much less than Possession on average (if at all), and Possession has no "confusing" excuse for not being an Attack. Tribute isn't an Attack either, though it can occasionally hurt your opponent, maybe more often than Masq.
I don't think a card hurting each player equally needs to be an Attack.
The Attack portion of Minion hurts each player equally. You are choosing to play it, so whatever the card does that hurts you is your problem. The opponents are being affected without choosing to do so, i.e., they are attacked. If it hurts other players, it wants to be an Attack. Masquerade is not because it would be complicated rules-wise to make it one.
Minion doesn't hurt you equally because you usually have less than 5 cards in hand after playing it, unlike your opponents. And you can play all cantrips in your hand (maybe even a good terminal) before playing Minion, so your remaining hand cards will be weaker than random new cards. Also, it doesn't ever force you to hurt yourself, you can always choose the Silver option instead.
I can understand you wanting this to be an Attack since it can hurt opponents substantially. But I think for balancing and "fairness" reasons it shouldn't be.
-
Minion doesn't hurt you equally because you usually have less than 5 cards in hand after playing it, unlike your opponents. And you can play all cantrips in your hand (maybe even a good terminal) before playing Minion, so your remaining hand cards will be weaker than random new cards. Also, it doesn't ever force you to hurt yourself, you can always choose the Silver option instead.
You are also more likely to have more than 5 cards in hand than your opponents. You end up with a 4-card hand, just like them. The fact that you discard 4 instead of 5 (if you play Minion from a 5 card hand) does not make any different whatsoever. And the choice: you can always choose not to play a card, thus, no card is a "self-Attack". All terminal Attacks hurt you because they cost an Action and a card in hand you could have cellar'd or TfB or whatever. If you play Sea Hag or Saboteur and everyone else Moats, the you wasted your Action. It is not the difference in effect what matters.
What is your argument for saying what a card does to you is important when deciding if an Action is an Attack or not? Because none of the existing cards consider that.
BTW, I think a self-junker is a bad idea for a card, but that is a different issue.
-
Even if it wasn't confusing, I don't think it should be an Attack. It hurts other players much less than Possession on average (if at all), and Possession has no "confusing" excuse for not being an Attack. Tribute isn't an Attack either, though it can occasionally hurt your opponent, maybe more often than Masq.
that argument doesn't really work for me, because making it an attack is one of the first things I'd do to possession if I could. Y'know, after tearing it into pieces and flushing it down a toilet.
-
that argument doesn't really work for me, because making it an attack is one of the first things I'd do to possession if I could. Y'know, after tearing it into pieces and flushing it down a toilet.
So you would dive into the toilette Trainspotting-style to retrieve the pieces and put them back together to add the word "Attack" to it?
-
What is your argument for saying what a card does to you is important when deciding if an Action is an Attack or not? Because none of the existing cards consider that.
None of the existing cards hurt you the same way they hurt your opponents. My arguments are:
Balancing - an Attack card junking all players equally is likely either underpowered with Moat on the board, or overpowered without Moat. (Pied Piper is likely underpowered even when it's not an Attack, though...)
"Fairness" - an Attack is judged as "aggressive" because you hurt your opponents without hurting yourself the same way (and usually not at all). Giving everyone a Rats is "fair" to me, just like allowing everyone to remodel a card with Governor, or letting everyone draw card(s) with Council Room. (This is obviously a subjective argument.)
Maybe those arguments together with your argument "anything that hurts opponents should be an Attack" are the reason why there are no cards junking all players...
-
Even if it wasn't confusing, I don't think it should be an Attack. It hurts other players much less than Possession on average (if at all), and Possession has no "confusing" excuse for not being an Attack. Tribute isn't an Attack either, though it can occasionally hurt your opponent, maybe more often than Masq.
that argument doesn't really work for me, because making it an attack is one of the first things I'd do to possession if I could. Y'know, after tearing it into pieces and flushing it down a toilet.
I sympathize with you ;D. I'd also like Possession to be an Attack, but Donald obviously doesn't agree with us...
-
What is your argument for saying what a card does to you is important when deciding if an Action is an Attack or not? Because none of the existing cards consider that.
None of the existing cards hurt you the same way they hurt your opponents. My arguments are:
Balancing - an Attack card junking all players equally is likely either underpowered with Moat on the board, or overpowered without Moat. (Pied Piper is likely underpowered even when it's not an Attack, though...)
"Fairness" - an Attack is judged as "aggressive" because you hurt your opponents without hurting yourself the same way (and usually not at all). Giving everyone a Rats is "fair" to me, just like allowing everyone to remodel a card with Governor, or letting everyone draw card(s) with Council Room. (This is obviously a subjective argument.)
Maybe those arguments together with your argument "anything that hurts opponents should be an Attack" are the reason why there are no cards junking all players...
The difference between "everyone gets a Rats" and "everyone may Remodel/Upgrade a card" is that the latter gives them the option. The difference between "everyone gets a Rats" and "everyone draws a card" is that drawing a card is usually a good thing.
Awaclus is technically correct that a card is an Attack if it has the Attack type. That's not really useful for discussion though. We can talk about what cards should be labelled an Attack. If what it does to other players generally hurts them, it should be labelled an Attack.
There are some judgement calls you have to make here. Possession is one. I still think it is correct to not call it an Attack, but I can understand why some feel otherwise. Likewise for Masquerade, though I think it's a weaker argument for that than for Possession. Then there's the forced Silver gaining from Governor, but Silver is usually an OK card except in tight engines at the highest levels of play.
It doesn't matter what the card does to you. "Fairness" is not a consideration.
NotWorthIt
Gain two Curses. Each other player gains a Curse.
This should still be an attack. You talked about Minion earlier, and how it hurts others more because you can reduce your handsize before discarding, play off cantrips, etc. You can similarly mitigate other self-damaging attacks too. You can wait until you have a Trader in hand before playing NotWorthIt, for example.
-
What is your argument for saying what a card does to you is important when deciding if an Action is an Attack or not? Because none of the existing cards consider that.
None of the existing cards hurt you the same way they hurt your opponents. My arguments are:
Balancing - an Attack card junking all players equally is likely either underpowered with Moat on the board, or overpowered without Moat. (Pied Piper is likely underpowered even when it's not an Attack, though...)
"Fairness" - an Attack is judged as "aggressive" because you hurt your opponents without hurting yourself the same way (and usually not at all). Giving everyone a Rats is "fair" to me, just like allowing everyone to remodel a card with Governor, or letting everyone draw card(s) with Council Room. (This is obviously a subjective argument.)
Maybe those arguments together with your argument "anything that hurts opponents should be an Attack" are the reason why there are no cards junking all players...
The difference between "everyone gets a Rats" and "everyone may Remodel/Upgrade a card" is that the latter gives them the option. The difference between "everyone gets a Rats" and "everyone draws a card" is that drawing a card is usually a good thing.
Awaclus is technically correct that a card is an Attack if it has the Attack type. That's not really useful for discussion though. We can talk about what cards should be labelled an Attack. If what it does to other players generally hurts them, it should be labelled an Attack.
There are some judgement calls you have to make here. Possession is one. I still think it is correct to not call it an Attack, but I can understand why some feel otherwise. Likewise for Masquerade, though I think it's a weaker argument for that than for Possession. Then there's the forced Silver gaining from Governor, but Silver is usually an OK card except in tight engines at the highest levels of play.
It doesn't matter what the card does to you. "Fairness" is not a consideration.
NotWorthIt
Gain two Curses. Each other player gains a Curse.
This should still be an attack. You talked about Minion earlier, and how it hurts others more because you can reduce your handsize before discarding, play off cantrips, etc. You can similarly mitigate other self-damaging attacks too. You can wait until you have a Trader in hand before playing NotWorthIt, for example.
I agree with 100% of this. And if you think that you're more likely to have 5+ cards in hand than your opponent when you play Minion, then you're playing Minion poorly.
-
I agree with 100% of this. And if you think that you're more likely to have 5+ cards in hand than your opponent when you play Minion, then you're playing Minion poorly.
When I play Minion, most of the time my opponent has 4 cards in hand.
-
Awaclus is technically correct that a card is an Attack if it has the Attack type. That's not really useful for discussion though. We can talk about what cards should be labelled an Attack. If what it does to other players generally hurts them, it should be labelled an Attack.
The interactions between players in Dominion are too complex to say that doing thing X hurts your opponent or doesn't hurt your opponent; any gainer can hurt my opponent when I use it to gain the last Village (any card with +$ or +buy too for the same reason), any trasher can hurt my opponent when I use it to trash Silvers right before he plays his Rogue. Indirectly, any cards with +2 or more cards or +2 or more actions can also hurt my opponent, because they're helping me play more Actions that hurt my opponent. I guess that you could even say that Victory cards should be Attack cards, because they give me more points, which lets me end the game in a victory, which means my opponents lose, which obviously hurts them.
Therefore, I'm suggesting that it should be labeled an Attack if you want Moat, Urchin, Squire and other cards to work with it. There are two different reasons why you would or would not want your card to interact with Moat etc:
1) It feels or doesn't feel intuitive — if a careless player is likely to read (or experience) what the card does and buy a Moat as a way to defend against it, then it's more intuitive to make it an Attack card (and if not, then not). This is true for all official Attack cards, also definitely true for Possession, and to a lesser extent also true for Masquerade. I think it is also true for a card that hands out Curses for everyone. I don't think it's necessarily true for a card that hands out Rats for everyone — free Rats, that's awesome, normally I would have to pay $4 for it and apparently the designer of the game has intended for me to buy it at that cost anyway. We know that it actually does hurt you to get a Rats in most situations, but Lord Bottington, for example, likes them very much, and many new players haven't realized that a cantrip doesn't actually do anything useful on its own. There are also obvious reasons why it could be seen as a bad thing to get a free Rats. I'm pretty sure that some people will find it confusing if this is an Attack, and others will find it confusing if this isn't an Attack. I think it's better to make it an Attack in these kinds of situations, because when people find an Attack confusing in this way, the reaction is like "oh well, this is weird, why's this an Attack?", and then they'll brush it off and not care about it, but when people find a non-Attack card confusing in this way, the reaction is like "why doesn't Goko let me reveal this Moat that I already bought just for this purpose, Dominion sucks".
2) Interacting or not interacting with said cards is a key part of the functionality of the card. This could be true for the following card, for instance:
Flare
$2 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player reveals his hand and discards all the Reaction cards in it.
The purpose of this card is to get rid of those Reactions in your opponents' hands, take a look at those hands while you're at it, and activate your own Tunnels (hey, that's more flavorful than I even intended!). It wouldn't work if it was an Attack, because then it couldn't get rid of the Reactions. Masquerade has to be a plain Action because interacting with Moat would be confusing. Possession has to be a plain Action because interacting with Moat would make it completely useless. I don't think there's any particular reason why "everyone gains a Rats" shouldn't be an Attack for technical reasons.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Regarding Possession, I would make a ruling for online Dominion that the state of hand, deck and things played/set aside is restored after the Possessed hand. That way Possession would really be a strange gainer and nothing else.
-
The interactions between players in Dominion are too complex to say that doing thing X hurts your opponent or doesn't hurt your opponent; any gainer can hurt my opponent when I use it to gain the last Village (any card with +$ or +buy too for the same reason), any trasher can hurt my opponent when I use it to trash Silvers right before he plays his Rogue. Indirectly, any cards with +2 or more cards or +2 or more actions can also hurt my opponent, because they're helping me play more Actions that hurt my opponent. I guess that you could even say that Victory cards should be Attack cards, because they give me more points, which lets me end the game in a victory, which means my opponents lose, which obviously hurts them.
Man, those are just edge cases and pedantry. "An effect that helps you or puts you ahead" is distinct from "an effect that hurts the opponent or puts him behind". But fine, I'll clarify -- a card should be an attack if it hurts other players directly by forcing them to do something they usually would not want.
A gainer doesn't work -- this isn't forcing anything on your opponent (and gaining the last village is not generally the thing that happens when you play a gainer anyway). Trashing a Silver does not directly impact others; they can choose not to play that Rogue. Your other examples are even less direct. Village "hurts your opponent" as much as it is "a Province gainer because it helps me play more Actions that will help me gain a Province". There is a separation here that shouldn't need to be clarified. The discard attack is part of Militia, not part of the Village you played before Militia. This should be obvious.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine. Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said. When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card? When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.
Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards. You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary. "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).
-
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
Usually, when the annoying student does the annoying thing of interrupting a line of thoughts for nuances just to show how much he or she knows about formalities, I would ask politely tell him that what he or she is doing is hurting everyone else's understanding and not take his or her questions anymore until the end of the lecture. In this case, I have no means to avoid you posting, but I would just stop responding to you on this topic.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine. Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said. When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card? When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.
Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards. You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary. "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).
According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.
-
I forgot about that Rats are actually pretty good if they are not part of the supply.
So there are 2 possibilities:
A) Have "nice Rats" and forget about the Attack.
Pied Piper (Action) $3
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain up to 2 Rats from the Rats pile.
B) Add Rats to the supply and make them evil:
Pied Piper (Action-Attack) $3
+$2
Each other player gains a Rats.
_______________________
In games using this, if Rats are not in the Supply, add Rats to the Supply.
I guess the latter is less promising because the Rats pile does not scale with the number of players.
Printer (Action) $4
+3 Actions
+$1
__________________________
When you discard this from play, if you have played at least 3 Actions this turn (including this), you may trash this. If you do, gain a Library from the Library pile.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine. Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said. When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card? When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.
Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards. You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary. "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).
According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.
I said it was an exception, given that it hasn't really been done with official cards.
-
Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.
Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.
Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine. Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said. When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card? When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.
Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards. You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary. "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).
According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.
I said it was an exception, given that it hasn't really been done with official cards.
And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."
-
And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."
And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."
And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"
And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."
-
And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."
And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."
And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"
And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."
;D
-
And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."
And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."
And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"
And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."
;D
The game Kung Fu Fighting has something like that... you can make an attack unblockable, but even then it can by blocked by certain cards that say they can block even unblockable attacks.