Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: LastFootnote on May 30, 2015, 04:02:24 pm
-
So, I haven't had time to work on Enterprise cards lately, but I came up with this (untested) Attack card idea that I'd love feedback on. It uses Enterprise's Trade token mechanic, but like all Trade token cards the mechanic is pretty self-explanatory (cards refer to tokens; the tokens don't do anything outside of that).
(http://i.imgur.com/uIe6zfl.png)
Raider: Action–Attack, $5
+$2. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. He may pay a Trade token to discard that card. Otherwise, he trashes it and takes a Trade token.
It's like Saboteur in a lot of ways. It can't hit Provinces, though. Instead of downgrading a card into a cheaper card, it downgrades it into a Trade token. And you can then use that token to make the next Raider miss. Of course the interesting part is whether you want to spend the Trade token on saving your card or keep it for when a more valuable card is attacked.
As always, feedback is very much appreciated.
EDIT: Upped the cost from $4 to $5.
-
The idea is super cool, but it might be a bit too powerful. It's not that much weaker than Rogue, and it's on the cheaper side of the $4-5 gap than Rogue. OTOH, Rogue isn't that strong anyway so perhaps this is fine.
-
Hmm, that Rogue comparison is a good call. The two things that make it weaker are:
• Raider doesn't gain you a card when it doesn't attack like Rogue does.
• Targets have some control over what gets trashed.
I think the first point is the big one and it's the reason I want to start testing it at $4.
-
Hmm, that Rogue comparison is a good call. The two things that make it weaker are:
• Raider doesn't gain you a card when it doesn't attack like Rogue does.
This one isn't strictly a weakness, though. Sometimes Rogue makes you gain cards you don't want. Also, Rogue has the upside that it can be used purely as a gainer when there are lots of good cards in the trash, and the downside that it doesn't attack at all when there are lots of mediocre cards in the trash.
When I think about it, I don't think it's too powerful though, it was just the initial reaction to the card.
-
Hmm, that Rogue comparison is a good call. The two things that make it weaker are:
• Raider doesn't gain you a card when it doesn't attack like Rogue does.
• Targets have some control over what gets trashed.
I think the first point is the big one and it's the reason I want to start testing it at $4.
Well, Rogue also sometimes fails on its own (if it doesn't reveal any $3 - $6) and also gives some choice somtimes (when you reveal two of them).
I immediately thought of Saboteur, of course: Raider's a replacement-less one that can't hit Provinces. It also fails half of the time, but gives +$2 in return. Honestly, i'm not sure whether $4 isn't a bit too little, but either way i like it. More than the real Saboteur, actually.
-
I love the idea of an attack that can be bought off, but am not totally sold on this implementation. It seems too good for $4 but a bit too weak for $5.
-
After further consideration, I think this does want to cost $5, just to limit how quickly players can load up on them. Asper makes some good points about how Rogue can miss and also sometimes gives the target a choice of what to trash. I think I'll try the current version at $5 first, then tweak it if it seems too weak.
-
When in a game where it's the only Trade Token card, this can be compared to Giant, or Journey Token things in general, because if a player uses a Trade Token whenever they can, the attack will only work every other play.
That part of it is a little weaker than a normal Journey Token / Every other time thing because players can choose to build up on Trade Tokens when it hits Silvers to protect their better cards that they don't want trashed.
-
I like it.
Have you considered giving it +2 Cards instead of +$2? It is a weaker benefit for the card (in terms of economy), makes it slightly easier to play it in multiples to make its Attack more effective, but most importantly gives it additional differentiation from Rogue.
-
I like it.
Have you considered giving it +2 Cards instead of +$2? It is a weaker benefit for the card (in terms of economy), makes it slightly easier to play it in multiples to make its Attack more effective, but most importantly gives it additional differentiation from Rogue.
I think I like this; there's not many trashing attacks that draw (is there a 2 cards knight? I don't even know). Normally it would be bad to make it easy to play multiple trashing attacks, but the trade token part should make it ok here.
-
I like it.
Have you considered giving it +2 Cards instead of +$2? It is a weaker benefit for the card (in terms of economy), makes it slightly easier to play it in multiples to make its Attack more effective, but most importantly gives it additional differentiation from Rogue.
Yes, I am strongly considering this now that you suggest it. I am leery about making Attacks too easy to stack (especially trashing Attacks), but maybe +2 Cards is fine. It's missing about half the time anyway. Worth trying.
-
This is a great idea and I am happy you could come up with a new use for your Trade tokens. I don't think Conquest is bad but obviously there should be either Raider or Conquest in Enterprise, so then I would prefer Raiders.
-
Co0kieL0rd and i played with Raider recently, and i think i must revise my statement that the card should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).
When i wrote that, somehow i assumed players would have to choose whether they pay a token before they reveal a card. Obviously deciding only after the card is revealed is so much better for them, as it allows building up tokens with no risk at all. I suggest you consider a version where you pay the token to prevent revealing cards at all, or drop the price to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).
Also, GendoIkari's Chrome plugin rocks.