Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

Imagine a card that was just
Action/Attack - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals his hand.

Pretty weak card right? It seems like knowing the contents of your opponents hand is only relevant to a few scenarios.

Likewise would cards like Lookout, Navigator etc. be much worse if they were "reveal" instead of "look at"?

Gaining is never secret, and it isn't that hard to keep track of which player has which card unless masquerade is in the kingdom.

Even strategies are hard to conceal.

I just dislike the idea that dominion comes down to the strategy you pick in the first turn, easily learnable and predictable tactics, and luck.

[GeoLib]

I don't think your conclusion follows from the rest. There isn't a ton to be gained by knowing other people's hands and therefore Dominion is a bad game? I don't get it. And tactics are not easily learnable and predictable even if you've got the strategy down. Watch Stef or SCSN play and then watch me play. One of us is making way better tactical decisions even if we're following the same basic strategy.
It isn't me

[A Drowned Kernel]

Sometimes it doesn't make a difference, sometimes it makes a huge difference, especially in the endgame you could make decisions based on how much money your opponent has in hand.

And I also think that it's huge misconception to say that Dominion is decided by the strategy you pick at the start. Good play requires a lot of reaction to your opponent's play and to your draws.

[NoMoreFun]

Never said dominion was a bad game.

Also I wasn't thinking of the last few turns. Maybe the card in the OP isn't so bad after all (it would compare well to pearl diver at least).

[Awaclus]

I wish this card existed without the Attack type.

[NoMoreFun]

What's wrong with the attack type? You'd reconsider getting the card if Beggar and Horse Traders (and possibly Secret Chamber) are on the board, but why shouldn't you be allowed to Moat it?

[Awaclus]

What's wrong with the attack type? You'd reconsider getting the card if Beggar and Horse Traders (and possibly Secret Chamber) are on the board, but why shouldn't you be allowed to Moat it?

Because it's annoying.

[silverspawn]

no, this card should not exist, because it would be pointless a lot of times and completely "wtf" to newer players.

[Awaclus]

no, this card should not exist, because it would be pointless a lot of times and completely "wtf" to newer players.

It wouldn't be pointless, it would be incredibly useful. And it shouldn't be more "wtf" to newer players than Chancellor is.

[SCSN]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

[ThaddeusB]

Imagine a card that was just
Action/Attack - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals his hand.

Pretty weak card right? It seems like knowing the contents of your opponents hand is only relevant to a few scenarios.

Ironically, this is actually quite a good card idea IMO. It would help greatly in decision making in the end of any close game - well worth 2. Other scenarios it is useful would just be a bonus.

[werothegreat]

"Oh, you have a Moat in your hand?  Guess I'll play this Mandarin instead of my Militia."

[sudgy]

In games with reactions, attacks, or a close endgame, you would benefit from knowing your opponents hand.  I think that includes most games.

[silverspawn]

And it shouldn't be more "wtf" to newer players than Chancellor is.

well chancellor probably shouldn't exist either, at least not in the base set.

It wouldn't be pointless, it would be incredibly useful

you really think so? I think it would be useful in a minority of games. there is also no other card which + is only information.

In games with reactions, attacks, or a close endgame, you would benefit from knowing your opponents hand.  I think that includes most games.

the thing is, even if that stuff is there, it's still unlikely that this kind of information helps you. even if your opponent has moat in his hand, you still want to play militia, because it has +2$. the moments where it's better not to play an attack are rather rare. like, if your opponent has draw to x in his hand and you don't need the $, or if you play another terminal silver with a better bonus instead.

and it might even be political, one player has library in his hand, the other one doesn't. do you play your militia now?

don't get me wrong, I would like that card if it existed. But I don't think it should exist.

[blueblimp]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

I'm curious what your reasoning is here. The main reason I'd want to know my opponent's hand is for PPR-ish scenarios where I want to estimate how much VP they will be capable of next turn (or, for that matter, number of buys so that I know whether they can 3-pile). But in such endgame scenarios, I feel like P1's extra half-turn is a larger advantage. Granted, in your scenario it's more like a quarter-turn advantage on average (since you would have been P2 in half the games anyway), so that's less clear.

[Mic Qsenoch]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

Hey, I would do this experiment with you if you are interested. I can share my screen with you or something. Maybe we do a friendly joint stream.

[theblankman]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

I'm curious what your reasoning is here.

I'm thinking hand- and deck-affecting attacks.  Knowing what your opponent currently has could heavily affect how you play Minion, Margrave (after the first), Masquerade, what you leave on top with Scrying Pool, and I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of.

[Witherweaver]

This card would be great to have exist, because then every "Oh, I played a Cutpurse some time ago" comment to solve a random puzzle question could be replaced with using this card.

[liopoil]

This card would be great to have exist, because then every "Oh, I played a Cutpurse some time ago" comment to solve a random puzzle question could be replaced with using this card.

pillage does this already. Bureaucrat can too.

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

I'm curious what your reasoning is here.

I'm thinking hand- and deck-affecting attacks.  Knowing what your opponent currently has could heavily affect how you play Minion, Margrave (after the first), Masquerade, what you leave on top with Scrying Pool, and I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of.

The most important thing is that endgames are much easier to play if you know their hand. I think I too would accept in a hearbeat.

[Witherweaver]

But none of them are nonterminal!

And they have other effects.  This card does that, and only that. 

[Eevee]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

Hey, I would do this experiment with you if you are interested. I can share my screen with you or something. Maybe we do a friendly joint stream.

Yes! This would be highly interesting.

[GendoIkari]

I believe this card has been discussed before... I remember the discussion revolving around whether or not it should have the "attack" type. My general opinion is that no, it should not, because in general, it does not slow down the other player. It only does that when combined with other interactive cards.

[Zappie]

If you add the moat effect to this card, the reveal effect probably is relevant in more games.

[SCSN]

If someone were to offer me to always reveal his hands in exchange for him being always first player, I would accept it in a heartbeat.

Hey, I would do this experiment with you if you are interested. I can share my screen with you or something. Maybe we do a friendly joint stream.

Sure, sounds cool.

[popsofctown]

Imagine a card that was just
Action/Attack - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals his hand.

Pretty weak card right? It seems like knowing the contents of your opponents hand is only relevant to a few scenarios.

Likewise would cards like Lookout, Navigator etc. be much worse if they were "reveal" instead of "look at"?

Gaining is never secret, and it isn't that hard to keep track of which player has which card unless masquerade is in the kingdom.

Even strategies are hard to conceal.

I just dislike the idea that dominion comes down to the strategy you pick in the first turn, easily learnable and predictable tactics, and luck.

Hidden information is not a very interesting mechanic to me, I prefer games of strategy without it like chess.

But MTG is doing a new set based on facedown gotcha cards, so if that's what you want huzzah.