Print

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

[Asper]

The fact that Port has 12 cards in its pile made me think: Would IGG be a better card if there was another number of them then 10? Don't get me wrong, i don't mind the card, but i feel IGG is (as competitive players use it) too little about the decision when to spend money to curse your opponents, and too much about cutting the game short.

Another option that would remove the rush ability completely would be an IGG-Event, where you just pay some coins, maybe gain something for balance (Copper, Silver), and everybody else gains a Curse. As i said, the difference here would be that this makes the rush (nearly) impossible, not just harder, like a 12 (or 9) card IGG pile would.

What do you think? Is IGG rush an interesting strategy and i'm just missing the point? Or, asked differently, do you think IGG should or should not be about the rush? Would it maybe be imbalanced without the rush ability?

[Awaclus]

I think IGG rush is an interesting strategy.

[popsofctown]

I'm not sure if IGG is the worst thing ever.  You can still buy terminals and there's some gray areas where the rush seems beatable, unlike rebuild.

An event that did nothing but curse the opponent, as a separate idea, doesn't seem terrible though.  I'd price it at 6-7$ or 4P.


It's definitely occurred to me that lots of Hinterlands cards are like cards and events stapled together.

[eHalcyon]

I'm not sure if IGG is the worst thing ever.  You can still buy terminals and there's some gray areas where the rush seems beatable, unlike rebuild.

An event that did nothing but curse the opponent, as a separate idea, doesn't seem terrible though.  I'd price it at 6-7$ or 4P.


It's definitely occurred to me that lots of Hinterlands cards are like cards and events stapled together.

Why would you cost it more than IGG?

[Deadlock39]

I definitely wouldn't expect an event "each other player gains a Curse" to cost more than IGG. Part of the reason the IGG rush works is that you are filling your deck with psudo-Silvers at the same time.  If you got nothing of benefit yourself, it has to be a fair bit weaker.

You could look at an event that is almost the same, but only empties Curses "Gain a Silver, each other player gains a Curse"  This would certainly need to cost more than IGG since the Silvers are definitely better than the IGGs. I don't have a good idea of whether that would work at $6 or $7 or not.

[popsofctown]

Because when I design cards I try to aim for the low-center of the overall power curve of all existing Dominion cards, and IGG is definitely in the top half of all dominion cards, to understate it.

[popsofctown]

"Each other player gains a curse" is similar to "You gain a Lab", except it's disruptive instead of constructive.  It's possible being disruptive instead of constructive makes you weaker, but my default presumption is that it makes you stronger.
I guess you could start it out at 5$ since Lab isn't overbearingly powerful, but I'd rather try it at six and bring it down.  Seven is like, unnecessarily high, but where you would cost it if everyone hates it to be nice to whiny casual players, kinda like Pirate Ship and Thief costs.

[eHalcyon]

"Each other player gains a curse" is similar to "You gain a Lab", except it's disruptive instead of constructive.  It's possible being disruptive instead of constructive makes you weaker, but my default presumption is that it makes you stronger.
I guess you could start it out at 5$ since Lab isn't overbearingly powerful, but I'd rather try it at six and bring it down.  Seven is like, unnecessarily high, but where you would cost it if everyone hates it to be nice to whiny casual players, kinda like Pirate Ship and Thief costs.

Uh, I guess in terms of relative cards it's like that, but the effect of a Lab in your deck vs. a Curse in opponents' decks are very, very different.  Like, the comparison isn't useful at all for theoretical design or practical strategy.

If the event only gave out Curses with no benefit to the buyer, I'd try it at 4 and still expect it should come down to $3 before being a viable buy, and even then it would be a middling choice.

[Awaclus]

If the event only gave out Curses with no benefit to the buyer, I'd try it at 4 and still expect it should come down to $3 before being a viable buy, and even then it would be a middling choice.

At $3, it's an automatic opening buy every time, no edge cases. If Chapel, Ambassador, Remake, Steward and Hovel trash aren't available, you probably want to open double IGG-event on most boards.

[eHalcyon]

If the event only gave out Curses with no benefit to the buyer, I'd try it at 4 and still expect it should come down to $3 before being a viable buy, and even then it would be a middling choice.

At $3, it's an automatic opening buy every time, no edge cases. If Chapel, Ambassador, Remake, Steward and Hovel trash aren't available, you probably want to open double IGG-event on most boards.

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

[Awaclus]

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

Well, if my opponent opens double Silver and I open double IGG-event, it's pretty much as if I opened nothing/nothing and he opened 4x Copper. Opening nothing/nothing is pretty dumb, but it's still far better than 4x Copper.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

Well, if my opponent opens double Silver and I open double IGG-event, it's pretty much as if I opened nothing/nothing and he opened 4x Copper. Opening nothing/nothing is pretty dumb, but it's still far better than 4x Copper.

No, it's not 4x Copper.  Two Silvers and 2 Curses gives more variance in draws, with better chance of hitting higher price points than just 4 Coppers.  I'd usually prefer a Gold and a Copper over 2 Silver.  And also, you can usually do better than opening 2 Silvers.

[Awaclus]

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

Well, if my opponent opens double Silver and I open double IGG-event, it's pretty much as if I opened nothing/nothing and he opened 4x Copper. Opening nothing/nothing is pretty dumb, but it's still far better than 4x Copper.

No, it's not 4x Copper.  Two Silvers and 2 Curses gives more variance in draws, with better chance of hitting higher price points than just 4 Coppers.  I'd usually prefer a Gold and a Copper over 2 Silver.  And also, you can usually do better than opening 2 Silvers.

True and true, but neither of those things is going to make enough of a difference to make up for the "4 Coppers" that you have in your deck.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

Well, if my opponent opens double Silver and I open double IGG-event, it's pretty much as if I opened nothing/nothing and he opened 4x Copper. Opening nothing/nothing is pretty dumb, but it's still far better than 4x Copper.

No, it's not 4x Copper.  Two Silvers and 2 Curses gives more variance in draws, with better chance of hitting higher price points than just 4 Coppers.  I'd usually prefer a Gold and a Copper over 2 Silver.  And also, you can usually do better than opening 2 Silvers.

True and true, but neither of those things is going to make enough of a difference to make up for the "4 Coppers" that you have in your deck.

Maybe?  I'd still prefer Silver/Silver/Curse/Curse over nothing at all though.  I mean, I'm more like 60% on that than 100%.  I just don't think it's an "automatic opening buy every time, no edge cases".

Still curious if you'd spend your first 10 buys on this event in a 2p game.

Anyway, this is going on a tangent.  Do you at least agree that it shouldn't cost $5+?

[Awaclus]

I don't think it's so automatic.  Keep in mind that buying this event means adding nothing to your deck at all.  I think I'd rather build up my deck than just give others a Curse.  How far would you take it?  Would you just keep buying this event and add nothing to your deck until all the Curses are gone?

I'm not adamant about this.  It's just my intuition that the opportunity cost is significant here.

Well, if my opponent opens double Silver and I open double IGG-event, it's pretty much as if I opened nothing/nothing and he opened 4x Copper. Opening nothing/nothing is pretty dumb, but it's still far better than 4x Copper.

No, it's not 4x Copper.  Two Silvers and 2 Curses gives more variance in draws, with better chance of hitting higher price points than just 4 Coppers.  I'd usually prefer a Gold and a Copper over 2 Silver.  And also, you can usually do better than opening 2 Silvers.

True and true, but neither of those things is going to make enough of a difference to make up for the "4 Coppers" that you have in your deck.

Maybe?  I'd still prefer Silver/Silver/Curse/Curse over nothing at all though.  I mean, I'm more like 60% on that than 100%.  I just don't think it's an "automatic opening buy every time, no edge cases".

Still curious if you'd spend your first 10 buys on this event in a 2p game.

Anyway, this is going on a tangent.  Do you at least agree that it shouldn't cost $5+?

I guess it depends on the kingdom and what the opponent does. If he also goes for IGG-events, then I probably want some economy and/or trashing pretty early because otherwise my deck is going to suck when it's just the starting 10 and some Curses. If he doesn't, then there's probably a point at which his deck is awful enough that I can start building to get the last couple of curses into his deck more efficiently, but it's hard to say when that's going to be without seeing an actual game.

I think it should probably cost $5.

[LastFootnote]

A Curse-giving Event should not cost <= $4 and should absolutely never cost $3. It doesn't matter how weak or strong it is; it enables players to really easily create an awful slog.

[eHalcyon]

Fair enough, though I still think it should be OK.  I think Sea Hag would create an awful slog much more easily.

[popsofctown]

You've got to be kidding me.  3$ for a curse event?  No, no way at all.

The 4 coppers vs nothing comparison seems pretty clear on the results of a 3$ curse power level.  Variance does not help that much, if it did Cache would be way more ok than it actually is.  In a notrash game there would be nothing you could ever do to undo the impact of those curses and an engine would be available for the player who spammed curse events but just don't even think about it as a strategy for the person who took the curses.  We're not even talking about the -VP yet!

4$ is way too good autobuy too.  Of course there is Ironmonger and Tournament and Caravan(you know, the lab with a drawback, you're trying to make Lab with an upside) (yes cursing is totally different than Lab: it's so much -better-!) so maybe 4$ autobuys are this thing that people like and are good.  But I don't like to design 4$ autobuys.

At 5$ yeah the card might work.  Part of my logic for 6 or 7 is somewhat of a concession that in a "focus group" sense people aren't always having fun when they play with slog games or cursing attacks that don't benefit themselves like Sea Hag, so 6 or 7 makes it less unfun because it's more niche.

But I don't really see this easy obvious common ground of "can we at least agree it doesn't need to cost 5+$", that seems like a very hard sell.  You might be able to personally like the idea of it at 4$ the way some people are just funs of absurd power level 4's like Sea Hag, Ironmonger, Tournament, and Jack (each of which is probably slightly worse, except Hag, which I think Donald has said "never again"), but I don't think you can expect to get consensus for that.

[eHalcyon]

You've got to be kidding me.  3$ for a curse event?  No, no way at all.

The 4 coppers vs nothing comparison seems pretty clear on the results of a 3$ curse power level.  Variance does not help that much, if it did Cache would be way more ok than it actually is.  In a notrash game there would be nothing you could ever do to undo the impact of those curses and an engine would be available for the player who spammed curse events but just don't even think about it as a strategy for the person who took the curses.  We're not even talking about the -VP yet!

4$ is way too good autobuy too.  Of course there is Ironmonger and Tournament and Caravan(you know, the lab with a drawback, you're trying to make Lab with an upside) (yes cursing is totally different than Lab: it's so much -better-!) so maybe 4$ autobuys are this thing that people like and are good.  But I don't like to design 4$ autobuys.

At 5$ yeah the card might work.  Part of my logic for 6 or 7 is somewhat of a concession that in a "focus group" sense people aren't always having fun when they play with slog games or cursing attacks that don't benefit themselves like Sea Hag, so 6 or 7 makes it less unfun because it's more niche.

But I don't really see this easy obvious common ground of "can we at least agree it doesn't need to cost 5+$", that seems like a very hard sell.  You might be able to personally like the idea of it at 4$ the way some people are just funs of absurd power level 4's like Sea Hag, Ironmonger, Tournament, and Jack (each of which is probably slightly worse, except Hag, which I think Donald has said "never again"), but I don't think you can expect to get consensus for that.

There's the opportunity cost too, man.  On a board with no trashing, I'd take Cache if you open nothing/nothing.  I think the opportunity cost of doing nothing for two turns will usually hurt you more Cache will hurt me.  If a no-trash engine is available, then I very well may be able to get enough momentum from those engine components I'm buying to overcome the curses and later buy those curse-events faster than you.  It depends on the board.

You still can't compare "giving a Curse" with "gaining a Lab".  They're really, really not the same.

The $4 cards you name are strong, but they aren't auto-buys.  I don't know if I would ever buy a $5 Event that just gave out a Curse.  The opportunity cost is so huge.  At least put +1 Buy on it.

[Destry]

This is the curse event I came up, using an alternate curse.

Forgery - Event
Cost 1 Potion
+1 Buy
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure. Discard the other cards. Play or discard that Treasure.
Each other player gains a Bad Penny (from the Bad Penny pile).

Setup: Add the Bad Penny Supply with the same number of Bad Pennies as Curses.


Bad Penny - Treasure/Reaction
Cost 0
1 coin
Victory Cards can't be bought while a Bad Penny is in play.
--
When you gain this, trash this, or discard this from play, put it on top of your draw deck.

It turns potions into an attack card, which is a way to avoid rushes on the event. Since attack cards without any player benefit are a little weak, it turns the potion into a random treasure.

[Asper]

I think a price point of $3 makes this compare all too favourably with Great Hall. GH is a VP point for $3 that doesn't (necessarily) clog your deck. IGG-Event is a VP point for $3 that clogs your opponent's deck. Of course this is an oversimplification, but i think this alone makes clear that $3 is too little. Whether it would be $4 or $5, i don't know, i have the feeling that $5 might be a bit much. Still, i personally like my cards (or non-cards) more when the decision isn't only when to go for them, but also whether to go for them in the first place. So i'd try a version that does something more than just giving a Curse and costs $5. $6 seems really too much to me, too.

[eHalcyon]

I really like the idea of a Potion-cost event with +1 Buy.  If the effect is something small but always positive, it removes just a tiny bit of the opportunity cost and risk in going for Potion cards.  I wouldn't want that in every game, but it would be nice for some.

As for Bad Penny, it probably shouldn't be a reaction, because those are always optional and you clearly want the below-line effect to be mandatory.  I'm not that interested in such a card or most other attempts to make Curse variants.  We already have Ruins; we really need something special to make having 50 more junk cards worthwhile.  Those 50 cards could be used for 5 new kingdom cards or a smattering of events which will be much more interesting.



Asper's Great Hall comparison is good.  That's enough to convince me that it shouldn't cost $3 (but it's worth noting that Great Hall is usually ignored, so I still don't think such an event would be game-breaking).  I think IGG is enough to say that an almost-strictly weaker event should not cost $5.  $4 for such an event still sounds OK to me, or else put it at $5 with some additional bonus like +1 Buy, or $6 with a bigger bonus.

[popsofctown]

I can't make almost-strictly-weaker than IGG for 5$?  Does that mean I have to cost weaker-than-Chapel trashers at 1$?

It's not a strict relationship, at all, though.  On a board with 5$ cursing event and 5$ IGG, you would never want to buy IGG ever.  5$ cursing event would destroy it head to head.

[eHalcyon]

I can't make almost-strictly-weaker than IGG for 5$?  Does that mean I have to cost weaker-than-Chapel trashers at 1$?

It's not a strict relationship, at all, though.  On a board with 5$ cursing event and 5$ IGG, you would never want to buy IGG ever.  5$ cursing event would destroy it head to head.

$2 is a different kind of price point and Chapel is a special case too.  But yeah, if it was almost strictly weaker, like "trash exactly 4 cards and gain a Copper", I wouldn't expect it to cost $2+.  Actually, I wouldn't expect it to be made at all.

And I don't think the event would destroy IGG head to head.

[Awaclus]

And I don't think the event would destroy IGG head to head.

Well, you don't want the IGG in your deck unless you're going for the IGG rush, and you don't want to go for the IGG rush when there's other cursing.

[eHalcyon]

And I don't think the event would destroy IGG head to head.

Well, you don't want the IGG in your deck unless you're going for the IGG rush, and you don't want to go for the IGG rush when there's other cursing.

Sometimes the IGG is useful for other things.  TfB, Counting House, Bank, Big Money, slogs.