Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Lots of people have ideas for Reaction cards that "reflect" attacks or harm the attacking player in some way. Most of us here on f.DS know this is a bad idea. It's Pitfall #1 in rinkworks's list of Common Pitfalls of fan card design. Donald X. wrote a short essay about why it doesn't work. It's the oldest non-sticky thread in the Bible of Donald X. subforum. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. The upshot is that if such a Reaction is good enough to be worth buying, it disincentivizes buying Attack cards too much. The Attack cards don't get bought and therefore the Reaction doesn't get bought either. The last paragraph of the essay is this:

So that's the deal. You can't fix the problem by tweaking the cost of Revenge; you still have the bad ratio. The one thing you can do is change the ratio; for example, Revenge could make every opponent lose a point whenever any opponent attacked. Then it's an attack that your opponents have to enable. Which is not necessarily out of the question, but isn't super sexy.

I have seen a couple of fan cards that sort of take this route with the following Reaction: "When another player plays an Attack, you may [discard/trash] this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of that Attack card." An interesting idea. I like that it doesn't put the current Attack on hold to launch a counter-attack. Instead it bolsters your own attacking capability during your turn(s). It has some issues, though. You only want so many copies of most Attack cards, and most of the ones you want a ton of (Minion, etc.) will run out and make your Reaction useless.

Switching gears for a moment, I have a card in my set that either digs for an Attack to draw or gains two copies of a one-shot Attack called Conscripts. I'm looking for another way to use Conscripts, and it seems like if there was ever a time to try this "Reaction that attacks", this is it. I'm going to test a Reaction card that you can discard when you're attacked to gain a Conscripts. Here's Conscripts for reference:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. If he did not discard any cards, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

So yeah, a Reaction that gains a Conscripts when you're attacked. I don't know what the top of the Reaction card will look like yet. In part that will depend on the answer to this question: Where should the Conscripts go when it's gained? This question is the reason I'm posting this thread.

• Directly to your hand. This was my initial plan. I'm second-guessing myself because I'm worried it's too much of a disincentive to buying Attacks, especially in multi-player games. In a 3-player game, if you play an Attack and your opponents both have a copy of this Reaction, you're getting a Curse before your next turn. Sure, they're attacking each other too, but not as badly.

• Into your discard pile. This option I worry is too weak. Compared to Beggar and Market Square, gaining a single Conscripts that you won't see until your next shuffle seems lackluster.

• On top of your deck. OK, this may sound weird, but I'm worried that this may be almost as strong as into your hand. Yeah, you're down a card in hand and you have to use a cantrip if you want to draw the Conscripts next turn, but several Attacks (Minion, Urchin, Pillage, Taxman, Axeman) are completely neutralized once you only have 4 cards in your hand. OK, maybe that's not so many Attacks after all. Perhaps this is a good middle ground.

So any opinions? Is this card worth doing? If so, where should the gained Conscripts go? I'll put up a poll.

[Awaclus]

I like gaining to the discard pile, but the top part of the Reaction needs to be strong enough then.

[LastFootnote]

I like gaining to the discard pile, but the top part of the Reaction needs to be strong enough then.

Unfortunately, that's not really how it works. When you have an Action-Reaction, especially one that you discard when you react, the power of the card is not equal to the sum of its two parts. It's less. If the Reaction portion is weak, a strong Action will not make up for it. What will happen is that players will choose not to use the reaction in favor of keeping the card in their hand so that they can use the action instead. Look at Beggar and Market Square: until the endgame, you usually prefer to use their reactions, which is exactly how it should be.

I'm not saying that gaining it to your discard is necessarily too weak. I have no idea, which is why I made this thread. But if it is weak, buffing the Action half of the card won't help.

[Awaclus]

I like gaining to the discard pile, but the top part of the Reaction needs to be strong enough then.

Unfortunately, that's not really how it works. When you have an Action-Reaction, especially one that you discard when you react, the power of the card is not equal to the sum of its two parts. It's less. If the Reaction portion is weak, a strong Action will not make up for it. What will happen is that players will choose not to use the reaction in favor of keeping the card in their hand so that they can use the action instead. Look at Beggar and Market Square: until the endgame, you usually prefer to use their reactions, which is exactly how it should be.

I'm not saying that gaining it to your discard is necessarily too weak. I have no idea, which is why I made this thread. But if it is weak, buffing the Action half of the card won't help.

Oh. I was thinking that it would be like Horse Traders for some reason. If you discard the Reaction, I think gaining Conscripts into your hand is fine.

[Davio]

How about something like:

Trash this card. Reveal your hand: +$2 for every revealed Victory card.


This way it's useful in the endgame as a one-shot Silver or Gold+ and you might want to use it in the midgame if you have a green draw.

That being said, I really think the Conscripts should go to discard because they're a pretty darn good attack on their own and I fear the backlash is too great. Imagine playing a simple Urchin and getting smacked with this the next turn. Early in the game, this is slightly better than Goons even.

Is going to discard too weak? Maybe, but it's hard to find something in between. Maybe...
Shuffling it into your deck à la Inn?

[LastFootnote]

How about something like:

Trash this card. Reveal your hand: +$2 for every revealed Victory card.


This way it's useful in the endgame as a one-shot Silver or Gold+ and you might want to use it in the midgame if you have a green draw.

Wow, I'm an idiot. I've been looking for a way to fix up the Hinterlands outtake that discarded Victory cards for $2 apiece. Specifically, I've been trying to fix it up for inclusion in my one-shot expansion. Yet somehow, I never considered making it a one-shot. Bravo, sir!

I'm not sure I love it as the top half of a Reaction card. If you don't get to use the Reaction, it's nice to at least have the option of playing it instead. Here you probably want to save it for later. I guess it might work, though. I will often opt not to play Beggar if the reaction fails to fire, depending on the situation. Regardless, I'll definitely try to work that one-shot effect into the set somewhere. If not here, then probably as an optional one-shot ability on a more expensive card. Thanks for the idea!

That being said, I really think the Conscripts should go to discard because they're a pretty darn good attack on their own and I fear the backlash is too great. Imagine playing a simple Urchin and getting smacked with this the next turn. Early in the game, this is slightly better than Goons even.

Is going to discard too weak? Maybe, but it's hard to find something in between. Maybe...
Shuffling it into your deck à la Inn?

Yeah, I'd thought of shuffling it in, but that's a bit too time-consuming for my taste. Bottom of the deck is another in-between option, but in a big deck you're potentially stacking a bunch of Conscripts there for use all at once. Mega curses.

So far the consensus seems to be hovering between top-deck and discard pile.

[SCSN]

I'm second-guessing myself because I'm worried it's too much of a disincentive to buying Attacks, especially in multi-player games.

Why is a disincentive to buying Attacks problematic? Attacks as a whole are quite overpowered as it is, so if your card can make it a close decisions as to whether you want the actual attack (with the correct answer varying across boards), that could be a very interesting modification. I'm for gaining the cards into your hand, as that's a very underutilized mechanic and would add the most flavor.

[LastFootnote]

I'm second-guessing myself because I'm worried it's too much of a disincentive to buying Attacks, especially in multi-player games.

Why is a disincentive to buying Attacks problematic? Attacks as a whole are quite overpowered as it is, so if your card can make it a close decisions as to whether you want the actual attack (with the correct answer varying across boards), that could be a very interesting modification. I'm for gaining the cards into your hand, as that's a very underutilized mechanic and would add the most flavor.

Well, in theory, if a Reaction punishes Attack cards enough, people won't buy Attack cards and the Reaction will therefore also go unbought. So it changes the the dynamic of the game, but it also makes at least 2 of the 10 cards on the board dead. That's the theory, anyway. This reaction isn't punishing the attacker per se, since the other players are also being attacked. It's an Attack that your opponents have to enable.

At some point (though not necessarily first), I would like to test a version that puts the Conscripts into your hand. It's the most compelling as far as buying the Reaction card itself goes. Assuming the top half is a terminal Action, I find it interesting that if someone loads up on them, NOT playing your Attack cards becomes an attack in itself, potentially leaving that player with a hand of unplayable Actions.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, one thing I didn't think of until now is that this goes both ways. Because it's not the Reaction itself that's doing the attacking, the "reaction" can itself be reacted to. Lets say I play Sea Hag. You discard [Card X] and gain a Conscripts (lets say into your hand for simplicity in this example). When your turn comes up, you play that Conscripts, whereupon I can discard any copies of [Card X] I now have in my hand. Sort of an escalating arms race, if you will. Seems like a novel mechanic, if nothing else.

[Kirian]

Hmm, one thing I didn't think of until now is that this goes both ways. Because it's not the Reaction itself that's doing the attacking, the "reaction" can itself be reacted to. Lets say I play Sea Hag. You discard [Card X] and gain a Conscripts (lets say into your hand for simplicity in this example). When your turn comes up, you play that Conscripts, whereupon I can discard any copies of [Card X] I now have in my hand. Sort of an escalating arms race, if you will. Seems like a novel mechanic, if nothing else.

Huh, that was exactly the first thing I thought of when I saw this.  I actually quite like gaining Conscripts as a reaction.  Perhaps the top could also interact with Conscripts?  Like a one-shot: Trash this, and gain a Conscripts.

[Archetype]

Maybe the top part would be one that would be really useful if there weren't attacks in the kingdom? Not specifically saying "If there aren't any attacks in the kindgom XYZ", but the power of it boosted without fear of attack. That way if you can't use the reaction, it's still useful.

Name-wise you'd want something that is a place where armies are enlisted. Maybe a Gambling Hall or a Tavern?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

How about Levy? And the non-reaction part could be more along the lines of levying taxes.

[LastFootnote]

I actually quite like gaining Conscripts as a reaction.  Perhaps the top could also interact with Conscripts?  Like a one-shot: Trash this, and gain a Conscripts.

I like that all existing Reactions have top halves and bottom halves that are quite different, but that often complement each other pretty well. Except Trader, I guess. Those halves are pretty similar. Besides, I have Barracks as a card that straight-up gives out Conscripts on-play, and while I certainly could have another card that does that, I'd rather do something cooler. Also, as I explained above, I'm not too keen on having a one-shot Action as the top half of a Reaction.

Maybe the top part would be one that would be really useful if there weren't attacks in the kingdom? Not specifically saying "If there aren't any attacks in the kindgom XYZ", but the power of it boosted without fear of attack. That way if you can't use the reaction, it's still useful.

I like this idea a lot. I'm not sure what the exact effect would be, but it's a very good idea and one I'm going to shoot for.

Name-wise you'd want something that is a place where armies are enlisted. Maybe a Gambling Hall or a Tavern?

How about Levy? And the non-reaction part could be more along the lines of levying taxes.

I just realized that I already have decent art for "Recruiter", so I might name it that. I like Levy, though; depending on the Action half, I may use that. Gambling Hall isn't ideal since I already have a card called Gambler. I have an outtake called Tavern (so I have art for that too), but Tavern seems more like a village name to me, and I am pretty sure this is going to be terminal. After all, Plaza was originally called Tavern.

[scott_pilgrim]

I really like Davio's suggestion of making it a one-shot top-half, especially one that benefits you late in the game.  The theme of your set is one-shots, and having a useful reaction on a one-shot top half seems like a really cool, unique way of doing a one-shot.  You use it just as a reaction early on, and then later when the reaction is not so useful any more and the top half is useful, you trash it to get the most out of it.  The +$2 per victory card thing is one way you could go.  Something else I've been thinking of is "Trash this and gain a Duchy".  You use it to gain Conscripts until you think it's getting close to the end of the game, and then turn it into VP.  If you hang onto it too long you may not have time to get the Duchy, but if you trash it too soon you might miss out on some Conscripts.

I voted for discard pile in the poll, but I think if you do end up making it a one-shot, it should probably gain the Conscripts to top-deck to make sure that the bottom half doesn't go unused (otherwise it might be the norm to pick it up for the top half and trash it without ever using the reaction).

If you opt not to make it a one-shot (it looks like that's what you're leaning towards right now), here are a few ideas for top halves that are stronger in kingdoms without attacks:

"Each other player reveals his hand.  If no other player revealed an attack card, gain a Conscripts."  This is explicit about attack cards, which I kind of don't like, but I think it's cool that it gives you attack cards to block other plays of itself.  Maybe this creates a positive feedback loop though which is bad.

"+1 card/+$1/Gain a card costing up to $1/(some other benefit) per card in your hand."  Specifically interacts with discarding attacks, but as long as there's any attack in the kingdom, discarding attacks are available via Conscripts, so the interaction will often be there.  If there's no attacks, the reaction is irrelevant, but the top-half becomes a strong card by itself.  Possibly you could do "Each other player draws a card", and then it feeds off itself and also combos with the Conscripts it gains.

[GendoIkari]

What if you didn't make them chose between using the reaction and using the action? Do the Horse Trader thing.

[eHalcyon]

Concept-wise, I think that "into the discard pile" does not fit.  Gaining an attack card is already an abstraction away from "reaction that attacks back".  Gaining Conscripts into the discard pile feels, to me, not much different than Tunnel.  Yeah you gain an attack instead of Gold, but it doesn't feel like the reaction especially hurt the attacker.  It's not immediate enough.

Granted, maybe it fits the bill because there is no other way to gain Conscripts... but still.

I voted for top of deck so that there is some immediacy, but it takes a little bit of extra work to get it in play.  It's still pretty far removed though.

[simval]

I voted top of the deck too, and for the same reason as eHalcyon.

I feel that if a reaction is designed to give you an attack card, well it shouldn't put it in your deck cause it doesn't really feel like revenge or you're ''attacking back''. Also, the fact that you lose Conscripts when you play it is already a minor backlash, so using it in two turns (or the next with a cantrip) isn't that bad. You'll never use it again anyway... unless someone attacks you again.

Also, if the top of the card is good enough, a player will hesitate before discarding it. Making it a one-shot cantrip could do something like that. I also really like Davio's idea, which synergizes well with kingdoms without attacks. Think about it : if someone plays a militia, which card are you going to discard ? Victory cards.

Imagine :

Lands of war
+1 action
+1 Card

Trash this card. Reveal your hand : +2$ per revealed Victory card.
_________________________________________________________
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it on top of your deck.

Another idea I got by looking at Beggar is that you could gain two cards. One of them could be pretty bad (an estate maybe) and the other could be a Conscripts. I think my idea is better but if it's too strong, that could help balance it.

Design note : The idea behind the name is that the country is going to war when it's attacked (so it build up its army), and when it's peaceful it profits form its lands.

I also just realized that having many lands of war in one hand is actually really good (use one for conscripts, the other one for money + pulling conscripts). It's cool ! The more your country is war-like, the more you profit form entering a war... It needs testing though.

[LastFootnote]

I really like Davio's suggestion of making it a one-shot top-half, especially one that benefits you late in the game.  The theme of your set is one-shots, and having a useful reaction on a one-shot top half seems like a really cool, unique way of doing a one-shot.  You use it just as a reaction early on, and then later when the reaction is not so useful any more and the top half is useful, you trash it to get the most out of it.  The +$2 per victory card thing is one way you could go.  Something else I've been thinking of is "Trash this and gain a Duchy".  You use it to gain Conscripts until you think it's getting close to the end of the game, and then turn it into VP.  If you hang onto it too long you may not have time to get the Duchy, but if you trash it too soon you might miss out on some Conscripts.

I voted for discard pile in the poll, but I think if you do end up making it a one-shot, it should probably gain the Conscripts to top-deck to make sure that the bottom half doesn't go unused (otherwise it might be the norm to pick it up for the top half and trash it without ever using the reaction).

I appreciate the thought, and while my set does have a one-shot theme, not all the cards can be one-shots and a Reaction seems like a poor fit (unless the reaction portion itself is a one-shot à la Fool's Gold). If you get to use the reaction every time it comes up in your hand until the endgame when you're ready to trash it, great! If you don't, you have a dead card in your hand. And although I've often bought cards simply for their reaction ability, it's nice to at least have the option to play them (on those turns where there's nothing better to do) without them leaving my deck. If it's a one-shot, that also means that if you draw into it during your turn, it's completely dead (unless you're ready to trash it).

If you opt not to make it a one-shot (it looks like that's what you're leaning towards right now), here are a few ideas for top halves that are stronger in kingdoms without attacks:

"Each other player reveals his hand.  If no other player revealed an attack card, gain a Conscripts."  This is explicit about attack cards, which I kind of don't like, but I think it's cool that it gives you attack cards to block other plays of itself.  Maybe this creates a positive feedback loop though which is bad.

"+1 card/+$1/Gain a card costing up to $1/(some other benefit) per card in your hand."  Specifically interacts with discarding attacks, but as long as there's any attack in the kingdom, discarding attacks are available via Conscripts, so the interaction will often be there.  If there's no attacks, the reaction is irrelevant, but the top-half becomes a strong card by itself.  Possibly you could do "Each other player draws a card", and then it feeds off itself and also combos with the Conscripts it gains.

Cool ideas. Again, I'd prefer an Action that doesn't gain Conscripts, but your second suggestion is along the lines of what I'm thinking.

What if you didn't make them chose between using the reaction and using the action? Do the Horse Trader thing.

This is certainly something I could do, but I'd rather not for a couple of reasons. First, the wording necessary for setting the card aside and returning it to your hand at the start of your next turn is extremely long. It takes up five lines on Horse Traders and there the actual effect is just "+1 Card". If the effect is "Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile", we're looking at at least another line of text. More importantly, it's an awkward effect that's necessary on Horse Traders but not here. With Horse Traders you have to wait until the start of your next turn to draw the extra card or it's useless against discard attacks. With this card (and Beggar), it's simpler just to make sure that the reaction effect is good enough to be worth forgoing the Action effect.

Concept-wise, I think that "into the discard pile" does not fit.  Gaining an attack card is already an abstraction away from "reaction that attacks back".  Gaining Conscripts into the discard pile feels, to me, not much different than Tunnel.  Yeah you gain an attack instead of Gold, but it doesn't feel like the reaction especially hurt the attacker.  It's not immediate enough.

I agree. If it turns out that the discard pile option is the most balanced, I'll stick with it, but it will be pretty far from the original concept.

Granted, maybe it fits the bill because there is no other way to gain Conscripts... but still.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but there definitely could be another way of gaining Conscripts depending on what other cards from the set are on the table.

I voted for top of deck so that there is some immediacy, but it takes a little bit of extra work to get it in play.  It's still pretty far removed though.

I've been thinking about it more, and I'm liking "top of your deck" less and less. One big reason is that the Conscripts is often not going to end up on the top of your deck after the Attack resolves. If the Attack card being played is Spy, Thief, Saboteur, Pirate Ship, Scrying Pool, Rabble, Fortune Teller, Jester, Noble Brigand, Oracle, Rogue, or a Knight, that Conscripts you gained is probably going to be in your discard pile by the time your turn comes up. If the card being played is Ghost Ship, Bureaucrat, or Sea Hag, it might be close to the top, but not there. And if it's Swindler, you're better off not using (or buying) the Reaction. As mentioned before, it would also completely foil any Attack that misses when you have 4 or fewer cards in hand.

Now you could argue that the fact that it protects against some Attacks this way is a positive trait. That's what most Reactions that react to Attacks are meant to do. And you'd have a good argument there. Beggar's the closest example. With Beggar, the Silver on your deck actually protects against many of these attacks. Sometimes it means your opponent is gaining a Silver, but whatever. But for some reason, the way topdecking the Conscripts would affect all these Attacks seems very scattershot to me and it doesn't really fit the concept of the card. I believe Beggar is meant to defend you against some attacks. This isn't. It's more like Fool's Gold's reaction. It's meant to give your deck a boost based on what your opponents are doing.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it right now. Maybe I'll change my mind, but currently I like both "discard pile" and "hand" better than "top of your deck".

Also, if the top of the card is good enough, a player will hesitate before discarding it. Making it a one-shot cantrip could do something like that. I also really like Davio's idea, which synergizes well with kingdoms without attacks. Think about it : if someone plays a militia, which card are you going to discard ? Victory cards.

Sure. But again, I don't usually want the player to hesitate before discarding it. The Reaction should be better enough than the Action that you usually want to do it. Otherwise why even have the Reaction? You could use that below-line space to spice up the Action instead.

Another idea I got by looking at Beggar is that you could gain two cards. One of them could be pretty bad (an estate maybe) and the other could be a Conscripts. I think my idea is better but if it's too strong, that could help balance it.

This had occurred to me as well and it's definitely on my list of possible tweaks. Although it's more likely that I'll have it gain another good card if it ends up being too weak. As Donald X. has said, people like bonuses more than penalties. I'm not worried about the weakest option (gaining a Conscripts to your discard pile) being too strong. The set has a $5 card that can gain 2 Conscripts at once and although that's powerful (like $5 cards should be), it's not crazy.

I also just realized that having many lands of war in one hand is actually really good (use one for conscripts, the other one for money + pulling conscripts). It's cool ! The more your country is war-like, the more you profit form entering a war... It needs testing though.

Hm, could be. I'll have to think about a cantrip option if the Reaction ends up top-decking the Conscripts. I'm worried that if the Action portion is a cantrip, people will load up on the card just because they can. Although if it's also a one-shot, that's obviously less of a concern.

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

[eHalcyon]

Granted, maybe it fits the bill because there is no other way to gain Conscripts... but still.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but there definitely could be another way of gaining Conscripts depending on what other cards from the set are on the table.

Sorry for being unclear.  I just meant that if it is the only way to get Conscripts, then it may still feel like a reaction that hurts the attacker, in that it gives the reacting player an otherwise unobtainable attack with which to retaliate.  But yeah, it's a stretch away from the original concept.

[Polk5440]

I have to say, I just don't like the idea of a reaction gaining Conscripts, at all.

Conscripts is on par with Followers in strength. non-terminal Militia + gain a curse if you can't discard? And you don't gain a junking Estate. Wow! So what that it's one-shot? It goes back to the supply, an attack is played, and it's back in my deck if I have the reaction (or on top of the deck? or in my hand???). The top half of the reaction better be pretty bad in order to be enough of a junking penalty to have this ability, I think, in order for the one-shot on Conscripts to have any bite; otherwise I load up on the reaction cards and rake 'em in if my opponent buys an attack.

I think the chance at gaining a Conscripts via a reaction still has the problem of making a lot of kingdoms less interesting because the "attack back" is so much stronger than many attacks. Strategies that rely on playing a weak attack almost every turn are likely to get ignored. Spy, Bureaucrat, Scrying Pool, Urchin, Pirate Ship, Thief, Oracle, Fortune Teller, Minion, etc. all get neutered pretty badly.   And many of these are the types of attacks that do NOT need to be weakened further in two player games. Gaining a Conscripts to the discard pile is more balanced against the stronger attacks, but I don't think this reaction is going to be good on net for overall interesting-ness.

HOWEVER, you could also make the reaction one-shot ("reveal and trash") in addition to gaining Conscripts and Conscripts remaining one-shot. Then the reaction would work like Squire. You lose the card, but gain an attack (and likely, the most powerful attack on the board). Then the top half could remain interesting in its own right, and there is an actual decision to be made. Keep the card? Or lose it but gain a great future attack?

[manthos88]

Now, i can't really vote if i don't know what the rest of the card that gains a conscripts does. First of all, do you discard that card as a reaction and gain a conscripts?

And you also have to consider that the reaction part will be totally useless if there are not attacks in the game. So the top of the card should be something useful. -- Or perhaps it should be another way to gain conscripts? That could even utilize its reaction part when there are no other attacks around.


For example:


[Conscripts Gainer]

(Action/Reaction, Cost: X)


- Some effect -

Gain a Conscripts.

--

When another player plays an attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a Conscripts - putting it on top of your Deck (perhaps).

[LastFootnote]

Now, i can't really vote if i don't know what the rest of the card that gains a conscripts does. First of all, do you discard that card as a reaction and gain a conscripts?

And you also have to consider that the reaction part will be totally useless if there are not attacks in the game. So the top of the card should be something useful. -- Or perhaps it should be another way to gain conscripts? That could even utilize its reaction part when there are no other attacks around.

Yes, you discard the Reaction in order to gain the Conscripts. The Reaction is the important part and determines the overall power of the card. The Action portion should be weaker overall so that you usually want to use the Reaction portion when you have the opportunity.

Although I'd prefer not to have the top half gain Conscripts when played (I have another card that does that), I'm starting to wonder whether I should change the Reaction trigger to something other than "When another player plays an Attack card". That would completely change the concept of the card, but it would potentially fix the disincentive from buying Attack cards and allow the reaction to be used when there are no Attack cards on the table.

Conscripts is on par with Followers in strength. non-terminal Militia + gain a curse if you can't discard? And you don't gain a junking Estate. Wow! So what that it's one-shot? It goes back to the supply, an attack is played, and it's back in my deck if I have the reaction (or on top of the deck? or in my hand???). The top half of the reaction better be pretty bad in order to be enough of a junking penalty to have this ability, I think, in order for the one-shot on Conscripts to have any bite; otherwise I load up on the reaction cards and rake 'em in if my opponent buys an attack.

I think it's overstating it a bit that it's on par with Followers. Followers is simultaneously a Militia and a Witch. Conscripts is either one or the other. And yes, I definitely plan to make the Action portion a weak-ish terminal effect so that there is some risk associated with buying a ton of them.

I think the chance at gaining a Conscripts via a reaction still has the problem of making a lot of kingdoms less interesting because the "attack back" is so much stronger than many attacks. Strategies that rely on playing a weak attack almost every turn are likely to get ignored. Spy, Bureaucrat, Scrying Pool, Urchin, Pirate Ship, Thief, Oracle, Fortune Teller, Minion, etc. all get neutered pretty badly.   And many of these are the types of attacks that do NOT need to be weakened further in two player games. Gaining a Conscripts to the discard pile is more balanced against the stronger attacks, but I don't think this reaction is going to be good on net for overall interesting-ness.

I think your points are well made. But also take into account that the player who plays the Attack can also buy this Reaction. So when he plays a weak Attack, he's not necessarily just provoking a stronger backlash. He's potentially starting an arms race that he himself may benefit from.

HOWEVER, you could also make the reaction one-shot ("reveal and trash") in addition to gaining Conscripts and Conscripts remaining one-shot. Then the reaction would work like Squire. You lose the card, but gain an attack (and likely, the most powerful attack on the board). Then the top half could remain interesting in its own right, and there is an actual decision to be made. Keep the card? Or lose it but gain a great future attack?

If Conscripts weren't a one-shot, I'd say this is a great idea. As it is, I think a Reaction that you trash to get a one-shot Conscripts would be really, really weak. Like, I'm not sure I'd ever buy it.

Look at it this way: is Conscripts a $5 value? If it were a Kingdom card, would you pay $5 for it? I wouldn't. A card that you can trash to get a specific $4 card is way, way weaker than Workshop.

[Polk5440]

Conscripts is on par with Followers in strength. non-terminal Militia + gain a curse if you can't discard? And you don't gain a junking Estate. Wow! So what that it's one-shot? It goes back to the supply, an attack is played, and it's back in my deck if I have the reaction (or on top of the deck? or in my hand???). The top half of the reaction better be pretty bad in order to be enough of a junking penalty to have this ability, I think, in order for the one-shot on Conscripts to have any bite; otherwise I load up on the reaction cards and rake 'em in if my opponent buys an attack.

I think it's overstating it a bit that it's on par with Followers. Followers is simultaneously a Militia and a Witch. Conscripts is either one or the other. And yes, I definitely plan to make the Action portion a weak-ish terminal effect so that there is some risk associated with buying a ton of them.

They are hard to compare, sure, but the tradeoffs are very favorable. Especially since Conscripts stacks so easily and they go back to the supply. Multiplayer games, for sure.

I think the chance at gaining a Conscripts via a reaction still has the problem of making a lot of kingdoms less interesting because the "attack back" is so much stronger than many attacks. Strategies that rely on playing a weak attack almost every turn are likely to get ignored. Spy, Bureaucrat, Scrying Pool, Urchin, Pirate Ship, Thief, Oracle, Fortune Teller, Minion, etc. all get neutered pretty badly.   And many of these are the types of attacks that do NOT need to be weakened further in two player games. Gaining a Conscripts to the discard pile is more balanced against the stronger attacks, but I don't think this reaction is going to be good on net for overall interesting-ness.

I think your points are well made. But also take into account that the player who plays the Attack can also buy this Reaction. So when he plays a weak Attack, he's not necessarily just provoking a stronger backlash. He's potentially starting an arms race that he himself may benefit from.

Maybe. But why would this work here but not other attack back cards?

HOWEVER, you could also make the reaction one-shot ("reveal and trash") in addition to gaining Conscripts and Conscripts remaining one-shot. Then the reaction would work like Squire. You lose the card, but gain an attack (and likely, the most powerful attack on the board). Then the top half could remain interesting in its own right, and there is an actual decision to be made. Keep the card? Or lose it but gain a great future attack?

If Conscripts weren't a one-shot, I'd say this is a great idea. As it is, I think a Reaction that you trash to get a one-shot Conscripts would be really, really weak. Like, I'm not sure I'd ever buy it.

Look at it this way: is Conscripts a $5 value? If it were a Kingdom card, would you pay $5 for it?

I don't think the kingdom card cost comparison is the right one think about. As a one-shot kingdom card it is definitely a weak $5, but that's not how you gain them. My concern is that the one-shot-ness doesn't really matter if Conscripts are too easy to gain and they go back to the pile. 

I guess I agree it would be weak to trash the reaction and gain the one-shot to the discard pile. You could probably get away with the in-hand gain or top-deck gain rather than discard pile, though, if you trash the reaction. And this would be more interesting. Consider the in-hand gain. Then the question is: Would I trade this card for a one-shot attack of this strength on my next turn? Quite often, but depending on the top half and my strategy -- not always.

[simval]

I think the chance at gaining a Conscripts via a reaction still has the problem of making a lot of kingdoms less interesting because the "attack back" is so much stronger than many attacks. Strategies that rely on playing a weak attack almost every turn are likely to get ignored. Spy, Bureaucrat, Scrying Pool, Urchin, Pirate Ship, Thief, Oracle, Fortune Teller, Minion, etc. all get neutered pretty badly.   And many of these are the types of attacks that do NOT need to be weakened further in two player games. Gaining a Conscripts to the discard pile is more balanced against the stronger attacks, but I don't think this reaction is going to be good on net for overall interesting-ness.

I think your points are well made. But also take into account that the player who plays the Attack can also buy this Reaction. So when he plays a weak Attack, he's not necessarily just provoking a stronger backlash. He's potentially starting an arms race that he himself may benefit from.

Maybe. But why would this work here but not other attack back cards ?

Because usually, the attack back cards are something like "Discard this, the attacking player gains a curse." It's a negative effect created by a reaction card.

In our case, however, the "attack back" is itslef considered an attack, but delayed, so the original attacking player can react to it, gaining a conscripts too.

[Nic]

I don't know if anyone brought it up in the other thread, but it seems like this would be the perfect spot for the Copper-junking attack. It's weak enough that it doesn't outshine the reaction, and you've guaranteed there'll be an attack on the board that you can react to. To beef it up, I feel like it needs something that's also really weak, but situational enough that you would be tempted to buy it for your economy (and perhaps set off an arms race in the process). I feel like a Chancellor with +2 Buys instead of +$2 would be on the right level, but I just thought of something even cooler.

Press Gang
Types: Action – Attack – Reaction
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals the top card of his deck. If it's not Copper, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a card costing $2 or less and place it on top of your deck.
When another player plays an attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

I have no good intuition about how much text is too much, but it feels like it could fit. Maybe there's also enough space for a vanilla bonus? There are two things I really like about it: the reaction combos with the action, so with enough of them it's almost like gaining to the middle of the deck rather than to the top or the discard. If two of them collide when you get attacked, you have the choice of gaining one in the deck versus two in the bush. Secondly, you're involuntarily slipping someone the King's coin, and next turn you have a soldier ready to be shipped off to the front. It doesn't get any more thematic than that.