Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: Inverse Swamp Hag  (Read 11944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dominator 123

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • Shuffle iT Username: dominator 123
  • Notice the space
  • Respect: +369
    • View Profile
Inverse Swamp Hag
« on: November 19, 2015, 05:58:48 am »
+6

Inverse Swamp Hag $5
Action-Attack-Duration
While this is in play, every other player gains a Curse for every unused buy they have in their cleanup phase.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now and at the start of your next turn,
+1 buy
+$1

This has the effect of virtually forcing every buy on a player (until the Curses run out). Name and wording can be better. Also has +1 buy to (anti)synergize with the attack.

Is this too powerful? Possibly broken? Should I replace Curse with Copper?
Logged
"Strictly Better" compares only effects and not cost, change my mind

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3384
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5161
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2015, 06:36:21 am »
+2

I think it's very niche. You can just not play your +buy cards. And even if you do end up with spare buys, it is virtually always better to buy a Copper, so this will never actually deal out Curses.

So it's basically only good when there's spammable +buy that you need to play for effects other than +buy - Worker's Village, Grand Market. Then it's crippling, otherwise it does nothing. I don't think that's very good design.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2015, 10:01:09 am »
0

I think it's very niche. You can just not play your +buy cards. And even if you do end up with spare buys, it is virtually always better to buy a Copper, so this will never actually deal out Curses.

So it's basically only good when there's spammable +buy that you need to play for effects other than +buy - Worker's Village, Grand Market. Then it's crippling, otherwise it does nothing. I don't think that's very good design.

I think it's very original and definitely worth trying. Unless your source of +Buy is Ruined Market, you always have another incentive to play your +Buy cards, so saying that you can just not play them is pretty silly.

You can argue whether the attack should be phrased this way (gain a Curse per unused buy) or phrased as buys being mandatory. I can see pros and cons to both. I lean slightly toward buys being mandatory.

I don't think I'd put +Buy on the card itself. That's a little too much anti-synergy for my taste.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2015, 10:19:50 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1758
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2015, 10:12:19 am »
+2

If it is in a Kingdom without any other source of +buy, it would be a dead card, so maybe there is a way to make it give your opponents an extra buy instead of you.  The wording might be a little tricky.

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9630
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2015, 10:26:36 am »
0

ISH
Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's Buy phase, they gain a Curse for each unused Buy they have.  At the start of each other player's next turn, they get +1 Buy.  On your next turn: +1 Buy, +.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2015, 10:54:25 am »
0

ISH
Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's Buy phase, they gain a Curse for each unused Buy they have.  At the start of each other player's next turn, they get +1 Buy.  On your next turn: +1 Buy, +.

Ugh, what a wordy mess. I think it's enough of an attack without giving them +1 Buy. And if it isn't, probably the attack isn't worth doing.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2015, 10:58:10 am »
+1

If it is in a Kingdom without any other source of +buy, it would be a dead card

This isn't quite true. Sometimes you might want to buy nothing.
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1797
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2015, 11:21:21 am »
0

ISH
Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's Buy phase, they gain a Curse for each unused Buy they have.  At the start of each other player's next turn, they get +1 Buy.  On your next turn: +1 Buy, +.

Ugh, what a wordy mess. I think it's enough of an attack without giving them +1 Buy. And if it isn't, probably the attack isn't worth doing.
If the attack is going to be just that, then the non-attack part should probably be better than double Herbalist, even more so since the mandatory +Buy next turn is potentially a big liability.
Also, this might make it too wordy, but what do you think about:
"setup: put all players' +Buy tokens on one Action Supply pile chosen at random."
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2015, 11:27:55 am »
+1

ISH
Action-Attack-Duration

Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's Buy phase, they gain a Curse for each unused Buy they have.  At the start of each other player's next turn, they get +1 Buy.  On your next turn: +1 Buy, +.

Ugh, what a wordy mess. I think it's enough of an attack without giving them +1 Buy. And if it isn't, probably the attack isn't worth doing.
If the attack is going to be just that, then the non-attack part should probably be better than double Herbalist, even more so since the mandatory +Buy next turn is potentially a big liability.

I agree that the bonus for the person playing the card should be generous and should not include +1 Buy.

Also, this might make it too wordy, but what do you think about:
"setup: put all players' +Buy tokens on one Action Supply pile chosen at random."

I think it's definitely worth testing without that first.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3500
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2015, 02:17:47 pm »
0

If you are not afraid of double lines, you can take a page from Fragasnap's Greed fan expansion and say:

"In games using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 buy"

Or even:

"In games using this, at the start of each of your turns, +1 buy. While another player has an ISH in play, buys are mandatory."
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Respect: +864
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2015, 08:00:08 am »
0

I think this is a clever idea but a double line is not necessary. Since the only situation where it would make sense to force other players to gain a Curse is when the Copper pile is empty, it might as well say "While this is in play, other players must spend all their buys on their turn."
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2015, 02:49:56 pm »
+1

So, dominator, on a scale of 1 to 10, how OK are you with me co-opting this idea for Enterprise?

Anyway, I tested this version today:


Quote
Charlatan: Action–Duration, $3
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1. Until your next turn, each other player must use all of his Buys during his Buy phase.

As it happens, we played it on a board without any +Buy and it was a dud. Which is a shame because we had just finished playing another +Buy-less game in which we passed on buying cards pretty often. But that game had no $2 Kingdom cards and had harsher attacks, whereas this one had two options at $2 and attacks that were easier to work with.

But! I am not ready to give up on the concept altogether. Now I am still not so interested it adding +Buy to this card itself, either for you or for your opponents. If it gives you +1 Buy, it's less attractive because you might be shooting yourself in the foot. But if it gives your opponents +Buy, it stacks to a potentially devastating degree, which I'd also rather not have. My current plan is to give it +1 Action (just on the turn you play it). That way you are more likely to pick one up on boards where it's marginal, and you might get it over Silver in cases where it combos with cards that care about Actions.
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1758
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2015, 03:00:36 pm »
+2

Random thought (maybe it is bad)

You could give out -1 coin tokens to make it more likely your opponent doesn't have as good of options to purchase.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2015, 03:18:55 pm »
0

Random thought (maybe it is bad)

You could give out -1 coin tokens to make it more likely your opponent doesn't have as good of options to purchase.

One of my playtesters suggested that. If I do put this in Enterprise, I am not so keen on it needing components that are included in a specific other set. I guess it's not off the table, though.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2015, 04:31:15 pm »
+3

Honestly, i don't like it. Maybe this is because i'm a mediocre Dominion player, but the usefulness of buys is allready far less obvious than the other vanilla bonuses'. Sometimes it's deciding, but it's abstract, and far less consistent than, let's say, +Action or +Card. Sometimes a buy won't do anything for you. With actions, it's the same, but at least you have a good grasp of what you need actions for. Cards that punish you for buying something, such as Swamp Hag, allready harm +Buys by making them less useful. Gosh, i have five buys, but maybe i should only pick up the Lab, even though the Peddlers are free... Now you go even further, making buys a liability.  I think this is swingy and unfun - now i don't only have to take care i get enough buys when i need them, i also have to take care i don't get buys when i don't. Maybe i'll play my three Markets and still be stuck with $4, maybe i'll play five Gold with one buy. Up to now, +Buy was a solution to a problem you might not even run into. Now they can be a problem. So why bother? I also think the attack discourages engines.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 04:32:16 pm by Asper »
Logged

Dingan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1154
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dingan
  • Respect: +1731
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2015, 04:33:33 pm »
+1

I feel like sometimes this is going to be very overpowered (e.g. in the case of Worker's Village / Grand Market, as mentioned above), and other times it's going to be completely useless (opponent always only has 1 buy, or is always using all their buys).  This might be an oversimplification, but it's how it feels to me.  Even other $5 attacks that do "nothing" usually have additional benefit, whether it's draw, virtual economy, whatever (exception: Saboteur).  So perhaps giving more vanilla benefits than what you already have (e.g. now and at the start of your next turn, +1 card) would be necessary.  Or maybe limit it to max 1 curse, and make it $4.  Or maybe go by extra actions instead of extra buys.  Not sure.

EDIT:
I thought of something else.. I sort of see having extra actions at the end of your turn, and having extra buys, and having drawn your deck in a single turn, etc. (obviously I'm talking about an engine here) are often consequences of playing well.  That is, it may be difficult to set something like this up, and is often associated with skilled Dominion players and expert-level Dominion play.  Therefore, this attack is, in a way, punishing good play.  And I don't like that.  I think good play should be rewarded, not punished.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 04:41:25 pm by Dingan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2015, 04:37:03 pm »
+2

Random thought (maybe it is bad)

You could give out -1 coin tokens to make it more likely your opponent doesn't have as good of options to purchase.

One of my playtesters suggested that. If I do put this in Enterprise, I am not so keen on it needing components that are included in a specific other set. I guess it's not off the table, though.

A little wacky, but what about

"In games using this, Silver gives +1 Buy."

And then the art can be the same as Workshop, but with a very sad man sitting at the table.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2707
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2015, 05:01:16 pm »
0

What happens if there's nothing left in the supply to buy?  Saying "must" seems to suggest the game stalls.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2015, 05:03:48 pm »
0

What happens if there's nothing left in the supply to buy?  Saying "must" seems to suggest the game stalls.

Not at all. You play a Smithy, but only have two cards left to draw. Does the game stall? No, you just do as much as you can.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2015, 05:14:47 pm »
+5

I also think the attack discourages engines.

I thought of something else.. I sort of see having extra actions at the end of your turn, and having extra buys, and having drawn your deck in a single turn, etc. (obviously I'm talking about an engine here) are often consequences of playing well.  That is, it may be difficult to set something like this up, and is often associated with skilled Dominion players and expert-level Dominion play.  Therefore, this attack is, in a way, punishing good play.  And I don't like that.  I think good play should be rewarded, not punished.

I've said this before, but I think the f.DS fan card community has swung a little too hard over to the "attacks must encourage engines" paradigm. I do think it's important that a card doesn't make the game trivial (like Rebuild). And it's good if cards, especially Attack cards, don't encourage you to build a boring deck. I don't think we yet have any evidence that this attack does that.

Dingan, "good play" does not always correlate with "engine building". If this attack is being used, good play is (ideally) managing your buys to work around it. It's fantastic when a card alters the way you play; that's the entire point of having so many cards. I think that too often this community judges cards by the metric of "How good is this in the deck I already wanted to build" rather than "What new decks does this enable"?

Now I'm not saying that this card is definitely a winner. But it's very simple and the attack is very novel. So I think it's worth testing a few versions before rejecting it. I'm happy to drop it if it turns out not to work. I've dropped promising ideas before.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 05:17:03 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Dingan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1154
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dingan
  • Respect: +1731
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2015, 05:51:10 pm »
0

Dingan, "good play" does not always correlate with "engine building".

I agree.  That's why I said it is
often
associated with good play, not *always*.  And I also agree that every new mechanic that a card/expansion introduces is an opportunity to build new/different decks; rather than a road-block to building the same decks you've always built.  And also tailoring your own play based on what your opponent does is a huge part of the game, and cards that make you do that are very fun cards.  So... I think we are in agreement..?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2015, 05:58:08 pm »
+2

Dingan, "good play" does not always correlate with "engine building".

I agree.  That's why I said it is
often
associated with good play, not *always*.  And I also agree that every new mechanic that a card/expansion introduces is an opportunity to build new/different decks; rather than a road-block to building the same decks you've always built.  And also tailoring your own play based on what your opponent does is a huge part of the game, and cards that make you do that are very fun cards.  So... I think we are in agreement..?

I think the conclusion from your post is the sticking point here:

Therefore, this attack is, in a way, punishing good play.  And I don't like that.  I think good play should be rewarded, not punished.

LF is pointing out that this card doesn't punish good play.  Rather, it has the potential to change what good play means on a board it appears on -- and that's exactly what the most interesting cards do.  They change the way you approach the game.
Logged

Dingan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1154
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dingan
  • Respect: +1731
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2015, 06:31:46 pm »
0

Therefore, this attack is, in a way, punishing good play.  And I don't like that.  I think good play should be rewarded, not punished.

LF is pointing out that this card doesn't punish good play.  Rather, it has the potential to change what good play means on a board it appears on -- and that's exactly what the most interesting cards do.  They change the way you approach the game.

Makes sense.  Perhaps I misspoke.  But just to play Devil's advocate, what if you had an Event as follows:

Code: [Select]
$30
Event
X
Game ends, you win.

That would change what good play means, and would drastically change the way I play the Kingdom and the deck I build.  But it wouldn't make it "good".  In fact, I think it would be a terrible Event.  Some people may like it, and consider it fun, but I think it would alter the game and the game mechanics so much to the point where you're basically playing a different game at that point.

The point I'm trying to make is that yeah, I like cards that change the game and/or affect how my opponent and I play the board, but there's sort of an upper limit on how much can be changed whilst you're still playing the Dominion that we know and love.  I mean heck, you can always have something like

Code: [Select]
$4
Event
Y
Stop playing Dominion and start playing Settlers of Catan instead.

if you think (cards that change the game) = (good).
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2015, 06:47:11 pm »
+1

Therefore, this attack is, in a way, punishing good play.  And I don't like that.  I think good play should be rewarded, not punished.

LF is pointing out that this card doesn't punish good play.  Rather, it has the potential to change what good play means on a board it appears on -- and that's exactly what the most interesting cards do.  They change the way you approach the game.

Makes sense.  Perhaps I misspoke.  But just to play Devil's advocate, what if you had an Event as follows:

Code: [Select]
$30
Event
X
Game ends, you win.

That would change what good play means, and would drastically change the way I play the Kingdom and the deck I build.  But it wouldn't make it "good".  In fact, I think it would be a terrible Event.  Some people may like it, and consider it fun, but I think it would alter the game and the game mechanics so much to the point where you're basically playing a different game at that point.

The point I'm trying to make is that yeah, I like cards that change the game and/or affect how my opponent and I play the board, but there's sort of an upper limit on how much can be changed whilst you're still playing the Dominion that we know and love.  I mean heck, you can always have something like

Code: [Select]
$4
Event
Y
Stop playing Dominion and start playing Settlers of Catan instead.

if you think (cards that change the game) = (good).

No, changing the game isn't necessarily good design, especially if it turns the game upside-down entirely.  But for any effect to be interesting, it's going to do something new and change the game.  LF isn't saying that this is definitely a good idea.  He's only saying that it has potential.

If you're arguing that changing the game too much is bad, sure.  But (1) there isn't a hard objective dividing line for this, and (2) that's not what you were saying in the first post.

And I'd have to disagree.  This card concept isn't at all equivalent to "Start a game of Catan"; it's an attack in the same vein as Swamp Hag.  Are Reserve cards bad?  Heck, what about Durations?  Those ideas were big changes to what Dominion had been before, bigger than a "mandatory buys" attack IMO.

Hindering engines isn't anti-Dominion.  Engines are great, but other deck archetypes are fun too.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Inverse Swamp Hag
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2015, 07:13:11 pm »
+3

I also think the attack discourages engines.

I've said this before, but I think the f.DS fan card community has swung a little too hard over to the "attacks must encourage engines" paradigm. I do think it's important that a card doesn't make the game trivial (like Rebuild). And it's good if cards, especially Attack cards, don't encourage you to build a boring deck. I don't think we yet have any evidence that this attack does that.

Personally, i don't even like engines that much. I prefer me some alt-VP. Either way, i think that this card harms engines, and felt it was worth pointing out.

Another problem with this attack is that often you will not be able to tell whether you want to play a card that gives +Buy beforehand. Woodcutter is fine, but what about Storeroom, Market, Grand Market, Worker's Village, Margrave etc, where you don't know exactly how much money you will have at the end of your turn? You have to guess whether that additional buy will be good for you or harm you, and if you guess wrong you are double-hurt. The only simple solution to this is to not get any +Buy cards at all, and maybe get this attack to harm people who do. If they need their buys, they will use them either way, so it never helps them. If they don't, sad for them. So i do think that it does in fact encourage boring strategies.

Also, the attack doesn't harm those who are doing good, but worsens the situations for those who are allready producing too little money. Hey, i got $2, guess i'll have to buy another Copper, because buying Copper helps you to get more money.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 21 queries.