Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

Sometimes it's uncertain whether a card is an attack or not. The official cards can be explained; Masquerade isn't an attack because of rules confusion with Moat, and Tribute and Possession only affect the player to your left and not in a negative way. IGG can't be an attack as an on gain effect without some confusing "gaining this card is akin to playing an attack" wording. The compulsory non attack interactions are generally seen as positive (eg draw a card, gain a silver) and the mixed ones like Bishop and Vault are optional.

However I have issues with a few of my cards that don't have obvious answers:

Annex
Action/(Attack?) - $4
Each other player may discard any number of cards from his hand
Draw until you have twice as many cards in hand as any other player

Now this card is obviously nasty, but you don't technically have to do anything, so you aren't necessarily being attacked. On the other hand the nature of this card makes it seem appropriate to be able to use reactions like Secret Chamber and Beggar.

Pariah
Action/(Attack?) - $5
Gain a card costing up to $6. Each other player may gain a curse, putting it on top of his deck. If he did, he also gains a copy of the card you gained.

It's all in your opponents hands, and both options (nothing vs curse and $6 card) are meant to be viable and better in some situations and worse in others. One of them, however,  if you take away the "wash" effect of gaining, is most definitely an attack however. Similarly, would soothsayer be an attack if Curse+Card was optional?

Conqueror
Action/Attack - $5
Gain 2 cards with a total cost of up to $7. Each player (including you) looks through his discard pile and either trashes a card from it or puts a card from it on top of his deck.

This card is almost always beneficial to your opponent, but if, for example, their supply pile entirely consisted of Victory Cards (that they want), then it's an attack. It's probably an attack as often as Governor's Silver. This ambiguity can of course be solved by making the effect optional (and you get the 3 letters back by getting rid of the "es" in trashes and "s" in puts).

Prospector
Action/(Attack?) - $2
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6, putting it in your hand. Each other player gains a copy of that treasure, putting it on top of his deck.

Now this card, if you choose to gain Copper, is most definitely an attack that hurts. However if you reveal a moat, then your opponent gets to choose to Gain a Gold in hand without benefiting you, making you regret revealing the reaction, so the optimal play when you have a moat in hand is probably not to reveal it. Similar effect with Lighthouse. Almost makes it worth not being an attack. Also of all the treasures you can choose, only one of them would almost always be considered an attack; triggering Beggar then being given a Gold seems like a strange interaction indeed.



Please let me know whether you think each card should or shouldn't be an attack, and I'm interested in hearing edge cases of your own.

[SirPeebles]

A card is an attack if it has the Attack type.

[LastFootnote]

A card is an attack if it has the Attack type.

You are technically correct: the best kind of correct!

But clearly he meant, "What should and should not be an Attack?"

[NoMoreFun]

A card is an attack if it has the Attack type.

Wrong subforum
I've edited the thread title

[SirPeebles]

Annex
Action/(Attack?) - $4
Each other player may discard any number of cards from his hand
Draw until you have twice as many cards in hand as any other player

This makes opponents respond in slow-mo in turn order and becomes political.

Pariah
Action/(Attack?) - $5
Gain a card costing up to $6. Each other player may gain a curse, putting it on top of his deck. If he did, he also gains a copy of the card you gained.

Why would you make this an Attack?  Adding the Attack subtype to a card brings all of the baggage of interaction with other cards such as Moat, several other reactions, Lighthouse, Squire, etc. 

Conqueror
Action/Attack - $5
Gain 2 cards with a total cost of up to $7. Each player (including you) looks through his discard pile and either trashes a card from it or puts a card from it on top of his deck.

Prospector
Action/(Attack?) - $2
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6, putting it in your hand. Each other player gains a copy of that treasure, putting it on top of his deck.

Now this card, if you choose to gain Copper, is most definitely an attack that hurts. However if you reveal a moat, then your opponent gets to choose to Gain a Gold in hand without benefiting you, making you regret revealing the reaction, so the optimal play when you have a moat in hand is probably not to reveal it. Similar effect with Lighthouse. Almost makes it worth not being an attack. Also of all the treasures you can choose, only one of them would almost always be considered an attack; triggering Beggar then being given a Gold seems like a strange interaction indeed.

I think your analysis reveals that it just isn't a good card to make.  Sometimes a card as written turns out to be no good because there is no good pricing point.  Sometimes it is because there is no good choice for some other discrete choice, like number of VP or coin.  In this case, there is no satisfactory answer to whether it should or should not have the Attack type.

[NoMoreFun]

Prospector
Action/(Attack?) - $2
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6, putting it in your hand. Each other player gains a copy of that treasure, putting it on top of his deck.

Now this card, if you choose to gain Copper, is most definitely an attack that hurts. However if you reveal a moat, then your opponent gets to choose to Gain a Gold in hand without benefiting you, making you regret revealing the reaction, so the optimal play when you have a moat in hand is probably not to reveal it. Similar effect with Lighthouse. Almost makes it worth not being an attack. Also of all the treasures you can choose, only one of them would almost always be considered an attack; triggering Beggar then being given a Gold seems like a strange interaction indeed.

I think your analysis reveals that it just isn't a good card to make.  Sometimes a card as written turns out to be no good because there is no good pricing point.  Sometimes it is because there is no good choice for some other discrete choice, like number of VP or coin.  In this case, there is no satisfactory answer to whether it should or should not have the Attack type.

I'm ok with a few weird interactions existing with only 2 cards; Moat and Lighthouse. I think I'll make it an Attack because it can be one, and there's a precedent for cards that may or may not be attacks having the Attack type  - Minion. Only concern is that being hoisted by your own lighthouse would indeed feel bad, but nothing a rulebook clarification (like Throne Room/Feast) can't fix.

[SirPeebles]

What is the purpose of putting on the Attack type if you don't care about the interaction with Moat and Lighthouse?  Is it because you want it to trigger Beggars?  Is there some interaction with Squire you are looking for?

[NoMoreFun]

What is the purpose of putting on the Attack type if you don't care about the interaction with Moat and Lighthouse?  Is it because you want it to trigger Beggars?  Is there some interaction with Squire you are looking for?

Beggar, Horse Traders, Secret Chamber and Squire. Also I'd imagine there'd be other fan cards, or future cards that also directly interact with "Attacks", and it's in the spirit of the game for cards that hurt to be flagged with the "Attack" type.

Either way it affects a small few cards, so it's just an aesthetic issue and not something that can make or break an idea.

[eHalcyon]

Annex I would say should not be an attack.  It would be very confusing as an attack... what happens if somebody Moats it?  Are they no longer allowed to discard cards?  Do you still draw based on their hand?  SirPeebles mentioned some other problems with the card in general though.

Pariah should not be an attack.  The curse gaining is optional.  Soothsayer shouldn't be an attack if the curse was optional.  Again, what does it mean to reveal Moat against this card?  Does it do nothing but eliminate your option?

Conqueror probably should not be an attack because it is usually beneficial.  You nailed it when you compared it to Governor's silver giving.  If you really want it to be an attack, you could label it as such.  It would weaken the card overall by allowing opponents to use various reactions like HT and Beggar.

Prospector is a legitimately tough call.  I'd probably call it an attack.  Note that the Copper gain still helps you (you get it in hand, so it's +$1 to this turn at least) while it hurts others a fair bit (junk their deck and probably lower the value of their next hand).  I probably would scrap it though.

[NoMoreFun]

Annex I would say should not be an attack.  It would be very confusing as an attack... what happens if somebody Moats it?  Are they no longer allowed to discard cards?  Do you still draw based on their hand?  SirPeebles mentioned some other problems with the card in general though.

Pariah should not be an attack.  The curse gaining is optional.  Soothsayer shouldn't be an attack if the curse was optional.  Again, what does it mean to reveal Moat against this card?  Does it do nothing but eliminate your option?

Conqueror probably should not be an attack because it is usually beneficial.  You nailed it when you compared it to Governor's silver giving.  If you really want it to be an attack, you could label it as such.  It would weaken the card overall by allowing opponents to use various reactions like HT and Beggar.

Prospector is a legitimately tough call.  I'd probably call it an attack.  Note that the Copper gain still helps you (you get it in hand, so it's +$1 to this turn at least) while it hurts others a fair bit (junk their deck and probably lower the value of their next hand).  I probably would scrap it though.

If you moated a hypothetical Annex attack it would be the same as choosing to discard nothing. I think I'll leave it as a non attack because of lighthouse though. Lighthouse means you can't discard. I've edited Annex in the OP to respond to criticism, to make it worthwhile to the people who put their neck out, but it was just an idea I had.

Conqueror and Pariah were never attacks I was just philosophising; Conqueror being something that's very occasionally painful, and Pariah being something that can be akin to an attack if you want it to be. In "Dominion: Pandemonium" I already have 4 attacks but there's a lot of non attack interaction (ie nearly 25 cards out of 35) and some of it is very ambiguous, hence this thread.

Why would you scrap Prospector? Just because it's unclear whether it's an attack or not? It's simple, versatile, unique and interesting and I like it, although I do need to playtest it a bit (along with its sister card Philanthropist). The Copper interaction is important; everyone's affected in the same way in the long term but everyone else is suspiciously slowed down.



Also feel free to post your own edge cases everyone in this thread. If I make a thread with a question I'm not just looking for feedback.

[NoMoreFun]

I should post my other "everyone gains the same treasure" card while I'm here.

Philanthropist
Action - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one of the following for everyone to gain. You put the gained card in the location in brackets;
A Copper (in hand), A Silver (on top of your deck), A Gold (on the bottom of your deck)

This one I'm pretty sure isn't an Attack. As soon as your turn is over everyone's in the same boat; they have an extra Copper in their discard pile. If the wording was "+$1, everyone gains a copper" it would obviously not have the "make everyone worse off than yourself" requirement I think attacks all need.

Although I have a card in Pandemonium that effects everyone equally that most definitely is an attack;
Rear Admiral:
+3 Cards
Each player (including you) with 5 or more cards in hand puts a card from his hand anywhere in his deck.

This is because the +3 cards more than likely makes what's happening to you nowhere near as bad as what's happening to everyone else.

[eHalcyon]

Why would you scrap Prospector? Just because it's unclear whether it's an attack or not? It's simple, versatile, unique and interesting and I like it, although I do need to playtest it a bit (along with its sister card Philanthropist). The Copper interaction is important; everyone's affected in the same way in the long term but everyone else is suspiciously slowed down.

I'm pretty wary of copper junkers in general, and this one can potentially fill your opponents' next hand entirely with copper, thus being a partial pin.

[NoMoreFun]

Why would you scrap Prospector? Just because it's unclear whether it's an attack or not? It's simple, versatile, unique and interesting and I like it, although I do need to playtest it a bit (along with its sister card Philanthropist). The Copper interaction is important; everyone's affected in the same way in the long term but everyone else is suspiciously slowed down.

I'm pretty wary of copper junkers in general, and this one can potentially fill your opponents' next hand entirely with copper, thus being a partial pin.

It's got the same issue as Bureaucrat in that you're gaining cards as well, so you have to put a lot of effort into playing 5 a turn, especially as a non drawing terminal. Also having $5 isn't too Shabby compared to bureaucrat's $0. Multiplayer may be a problem though, and you could make it a true pin if you work in cutpurses somehow. Perhaps I'll make it "3 to 6" and solve this mess.

Not sure if I consider everyone being junked the same a junker. It will slow the game down but everyone's in the same boat.

[eHalcyon]

Why would you scrap Prospector? Just because it's unclear whether it's an attack or not? It's simple, versatile, unique and interesting and I like it, although I do need to playtest it a bit (along with its sister card Philanthropist). The Copper interaction is important; everyone's affected in the same way in the long term but everyone else is suspiciously slowed down.

I'm pretty wary of copper junkers in general, and this one can potentially fill your opponents' next hand entirely with copper, thus being a partial pin.

It's got the same issue as Bureaucrat in that you're gaining cards as well, so you have to put a lot of effort into playing 5 a turn, especially as a non drawing terminal. Also having $5 isn't too Shabby compared to bureaucrat's $0. Multiplayer may be a problem though, and you could make it a true pin if you work in cutpurses somehow. Perhaps I'll make it "3 to 6" and solve this mess.

Not sure if I consider everyone being junked the same a junker. It will slow the game down but everyone's in the same boat.

Bureaucrat is also mitigated in that the other player has to have green in their hand for the attack to work, whereas this only requires that the Copper pile is not empty.  You can also set up your deck to better deal with the junk than your opponents.  It's still a junker even if you take the hit as well.  It doesn't fix the issues of copper junking.

[pedroluchini]

I'm pretty wary of copper junkers in general, and this one can potentially fill your opponents' next hand entirely with copper, thus being a partial pin.

Sea Hag solves this issue by discarding the card on top before putting a Curse there.

[GendoIkari]

There's some discussion about this here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4819.0.

My opinion is that a card should be an attack if you using the card means that on average, your opponent's deck will be slower than it would otherwise.

[NoMoreFun]

It doesn't fix the issues of copper junking.

IIRC the main issue of copper junking is that the supply doesn't scale with the number of players, and in 2 player games the pile is huge for how much junk could be given, so some other limit needs to be put on it. For example noble brigand is unpredictable, and mountebank can be moated (and likely will be) in every game it's in, and Ambassador needs the Copper in hand (and you're probably in the business of getting rid of them). The thing that limits Prospector and Philanthropist is the fact that you need to think about how much you want to junk your own deck, and as your own deck gets junked you won't be able to play them as often, and you'll probably need to take one of card's other options to make key purchases.

I could add the sea hag clause but I just like the idea that the card genuinely slows down your cycling as well as giving you a slightly worse hand next turn. I have other cards in my set that do that though, and perhaps the "Gold" option needs a buff, so I may include it.

There's some discussion about this here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4819.0.

My opinion is that a card should be an attack if you using the card means that on average, your opponent's deck will be slower than it would otherwise.

By on average, do you mean "relative to other players"? What do you think of "junks everyone equally" - attack or not?

[eHalcyon]

I don't see self-junking as an adequate limiter. It's easier to overcome that, especially in the engine setting that is when the card would be most problematic.

[Asper]

This one I'm pretty sure isn't an Attack. As soon as your turn is over everyone's in the same boat; they have an extra Copper in their discard pile. If the wording was "+$1, everyone gains a copper" it would obviously not have the "make everyone worse off than yourself" requirement I think attacks all need.

I disagree that "make everyone off worse" is a requirement for attacks. A card is an attack if it forces something sufficiently unpleasant on your opponents.

Annex is too good for $4, but not an attack. Opponents have the choice to do something unpleasant. They don't do it because they will have another disadvantage otherwise, but to deny you an advantage. It's still political, though.

Same for Pariah. It forces nobody, so it's a benefit, not an attack. If Pariah was an attack, Vault would be, too. Soothsayer with a may would definitely not be an attack anymore, as it gave a benefit instead of an attack. Even if the benefit is terrible, it's still a choice. Even "Each other player may gain a Curse" is not an attack - drawing a card would just make the choice more attractive.

As you said, the fact that Conqueror forces your opponent is very relevant. I definitely would refrain from doing that and make it a "may", though - that clears things up. Compare it to Tribute, Possession and Masquerade: Usually the effects of those are neutral, but they can be harmful. None of them is an attack because none of them is about attacking your opponents conceptionally. Possession is about an additional turn, Masquerade about card passing (technically equal chance), Tribute about random bonuses. The reasons why they are forcing thing on other players without being attacks are A) Donald didn't consider the forced thing bad enough for an attack, B) they wouldn't work as optional effects and C) making them attacks meant they wouldn't work when somebody revealed Moat (or at least they would become terrible). With Conquerer A is arguably true, but neither B nor C is.

Prospector should just make the gain optional for the same reason. Unless you want the card to become a mindgame and/or political. Truth be told, i don't like the card the way you obviously want it to be.

Edit: I agree with eHalcyon. Harming yourself doesn't make an attack a non-attack. It just makes it a worse attack.

[GendoIkari]

There's some discussion about this here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4819.0.

My opinion is that a card should be an attack if you using the card means that on average, your opponent's deck will be slower than it would otherwise.

By on average, do you mean "relative to other players"? What do you think of "junks everyone equally" - attack or not?

I would say just relative to what the deck would have done if you hadn't played the card. So "Each player gains a curse" I would call an attack. It slows down your opponents. I would ignore the fact that it slows you down as well for that consideration.

The ones you propose where the players may optionally hurt themselves to stop your card from being overpowered are definitely much trickier. I guess I would call them attacks, because on average, your opponent's decks will be slower if you play them than if you don't. But the fact that it only ever hurts them if they agree to be hurt by them does make it quite tricky.

[Asper]

There's some discussion about this here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4819.0.

My opinion is that a card should be an attack if you using the card means that on average, your opponent's deck will be slower than it would otherwise.

By on average, do you mean "relative to other players"? What do you think of "junks everyone equally" - attack or not?

I would say just relative to what the deck would have done if you hadn't played the card. So "Each player gains a curse" I would call an attack. It slows down your opponents. I would ignore the fact that it slows you down as well for that consideration.

The ones you propose where the players may optionally hurt themselves to stop your card from being overpowered are definitely much trickier. I guess I would call them attacks, because on average, your opponent's decks will be slower if you play them than if you don't. But the fact that it only ever hurts them if they agree to be hurt by them does make it quite tricky.

"I reveal Moat so i don't have to chose to not do something."

[GendoIkari]

There's some discussion about this here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4819.0.

My opinion is that a card should be an attack if you using the card means that on average, your opponent's deck will be slower than it would otherwise.

By on average, do you mean "relative to other players"? What do you think of "junks everyone equally" - attack or not?

I would say just relative to what the deck would have done if you hadn't played the card. So "Each player gains a curse" I would call an attack. It slows down your opponents. I would ignore the fact that it slows you down as well for that consideration.

The ones you propose where the players may optionally hurt themselves to stop your card from being overpowered are definitely much trickier. I guess I would call them attacks, because on average, your opponent's decks will be slower if you play them than if you don't. But the fact that it only ever hurts them if they agree to be hurt by them does make it quite tricky.

"I reveal Moat so i don't have to chose to not do something."

Crap! Now I can't play my reaction, "Whenever an opponent chooses not to do something, you may reveal and discard this card. If you do, +3 cards."