Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Ok, so here's the concept for the top half of our card:

India - Action, Reaction
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to more than it. If the trashed card is an action, +1 action. If the gained card is an action, play it.

We'll figure things out like "up to" vs "exactly" more, and vs , depending on balance and avoiding any broken combos due to playing the gained card immediately.

But first, let's get the mechanic for the reaction. We already agreed that this would react to "whenever any player gains a [card with some condition]". That condition could be based on card type, cost, or anything really.

Also remember that we can use "would gain" instead here, or "buys" instead of "gains", just depending on what the effect does.

Please PM me with your ideas for the reaction. Feel free to throw around ideas for open discussion here as well. I'll make the poll for reaction effects on Saturday.

[GendoIkari]

I don't have any ideas at the moment for what the reaction would actually do. But as for what it reacts to, one conditional gain could be "when a player gains a second card on a turn". Because the card itself is a gainer, you know it's possible to gain 2 cards per turn. Your opponent might not ever gain 2 cards on a turn, but in most setups, he probably will on some turns.

[Gubump]

"When any player gains a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, that player discards the top card of his deck and puts the gained card on top."

So you could do it to yourself when you gain a card you want on top of your deck, and you could also do it to your opponent when they gain a card they wouldn't want on top of their deck, such as a Victory or Curse card. Discards the top card for the same reason Sea Hag does: So that it can't completely wreck the opponent's next turn.

[GendoIkari]

Seems ok, but it does need some condition, it can't just react to any gain (based on what we voted previously).

[Gubump]

Seems ok, but it does need some condition, it can't just react to any gain (based on what we voted previously).

Okay, disregard that one then, I thought having a conditional one was optional.

"When any player gains an Action or Treasure card costing up to $5, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of the gained card, setting it aside. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card, then return it to the Supply."

So it turns itself into a one-shot but free version of whatever card was gained, as long as it's an Action or Treasure and costs no more than $5.

[spiralstaircase]

Most importantly, what alphabet are we going to use to name the reactions?

[spiralstaircase]

"When any player gains an Action or Treasure card costing up to $5, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a copy of the gained card, setting it aside. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card, then return it to the Supply."

I was thinking along the same lines, back in part 13:

When any player gains a card, if it is an action, you may set this card aside.  If you do, at the start of your next turn, play this card as if it were the gained card.  This card is that card until it leaves play.

I like that your version helps track what was copied, though it comes at the cost of not being able to copy the last of a card.  Setting a $5 cost limit sounds good, and I like that yours is another chance for BM/Artificer type shenanigans.

[Gveoniz]

I feel that this would be either broken or pointless, but one possible reaction could be to gain from trash, something like this:

When a player gain a (??) card, you may discard this from your hand, if you do, gain a card from the trash costing less than it.

[enfynet]

What about reacting to a gained card with "Set this aside with an Action from your hand. At the start of your turn, play it, and return this to your hand."

Something like a one-shot Prince reaction?

[GendoIkari]

A lot of ideas have been around letting you play a card, which the main action already lets you do. Nothing automatically bad about having the reaction be a different version of the action (see Caravan Guard for the obvious example), but for most reaction cards, the reaction is a different thing.

[Roadrunner7671]

What about the broken Fortress combo?

[spiralstaircase]

What about the broken Fortress combo?

How about "Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it, other than [India]?" or "If the gained card is an action other than [India], play it."?  That would stop you from chaining them.

[Roadrunner7671]

What about the broken Fortress combo?

How about "Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it, other than [India]?" or "If the gained card is an action other than [India], play it."?  That would stop you from chaining them.

That would work.

[Marcory]

Reaction: When another player gains a card costing more than $4, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your turn, +$2 and return this to your hand.
++++++++++
In an ideal, world, this could be +$1 per every X in the gained card's cost, or +$1 when a card costing $4 or less is gained, but tracking it would be a nightmare.

[GendoIkari]

Reaction: When another player gains a card costing more than $4, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your turn, +$2 and return this to your hand.
++++++++++
In an ideal, world, this could be +$1 per every X in the gained card's cost, or +$1 when a card costing $4 or less is gained, but tracking it would be a nightmare.

See, given the complexity of the top, I'd prefer a simpler reaction like this. Though it should work when any player gains a card, yourself included.

[eHalcyon]

Keep in mind that the top already does something to gained action cards.  Maybe the reaction should be conditional to Treasure cards to avoid overlap and confusing timing.  Victory wouldn't work since Action-Victory is a thing.

Also keep in mind that simplicity remains important or the text may not fit on the card.

I don't like the idea of a reaction that gains because then you have to be super careful about turn order with 3+ players.  There will be cases where you need to know if another player is going to reveal before you do, and bad nesting interactions where you react to the reaction reacting to another reaction and so on.

[GendoIkari]

Keep in mind that the top already does something to gained action cards.  Maybe the reaction should be conditional to Treasure cards to avoid overlap and confusing timing.  Victory wouldn't work since Action-Victory is a thing.

Also keep in mind that simplicity remains important or the text may not fit on the card.

I don't like the idea of a reaction that gains because then you have to be super careful about turn order with 3+ players.  There will be cases where you need to know if another player is going to reveal before you do, and bad nesting interactions where you react to the reaction reacting to another reaction and so on.

I like all of this.

[spiralstaircase]

We already agreed that this would react to "whenever any player gains a [card with some condition]". That condition could be based on card type, cost, or anything really.

Did we decide that the condition had to relate to the card?  I'm thinking about Tunnel's reaction, if you can have "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase" could we use "When a player gains a card other than during a Buy phase"?

[enfynet]

Looking at some current Reaction functions...

- Tunnel, Market Square, Trader, Beggar, Fools Gold all give treasure in their reaction.

- Horse Trader and Caravan Guard give bonuses to your next turn in their reaction.

 -Secret Chamber and Moat offer protection to Attacks in their reaction.

- Watchtower manipulates a gained card in it's reaction.

And this is going to react to whenever any player gains [some condition] right?

I think bonus to your next turn is the easiest reaction that doesn't get mucked up in multiplayer. I don't think card manipulation is a good idea for another player's cards. And we have 5 different "gain treasure" reactions already.

[GendoIkari]

We already agreed that this would react to "whenever any player gains a [card with some condition]". That condition could be based on card type, cost, or anything really.

Did we decide that the condition had to relate to the card?  I'm thinking about Tunnel's reaction, if you can have "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase" could we use "When a player gains a card other than during a Buy phase"?

I don't think this question came up. The actual vote was on "When a player gains a [card with some condition]", which could be read either way. But I would say that "gains a card other than during a buy phase" fits in there.

[scott_pilgrim]

When a player gains a Treasure card, you may discard this.  If you do, gain a copy of that Treasure card, putting it into your hand [or on your deck or somewhere else].

I agree with eHalcyon that we want to avoid letting it react to gaining actions (or at least be very careful about that), because it can get really messy with actions being gained and played.  I think Treasures in general are weak enough that this idea would not be OP.  You use the top half if you want to gain and play an action, or the bottom half if you want to gain and play a treasure.  Since actions are generally better (and you can make better use of the flexibility there), it requires you to trash something first, while the treasure part does not.

Also, will there be an option to cut out the "If the trashed card is an action, +1 action" part?  It's not important to the concept at all and it would be a lot cleaner without it I think.

[eHalcyon]

I'm just going to assume that the +1 action line will be cut, because it's just extra complexity and power that doesn't add that much since you usually wouldn't want to trash an action anyway.

It's also worth mentioning that the top is already a stronger version of Remodel, thus worth $5+ even without the action.  The reaction should probably be on the weaker side or account for it some other way.  Having it react to treasure gaining may be enough, since it incentivizes using the card to gain a Treasure instead of an Action.

So, maybe something like this?

When any player gains a Treasure card, you may discard this from your hand.  If you do, +2 cards.

When a player gains a Treasure card, you may discard this.  If you do, gain a copy of that Treasure card, putting it into your hand [or on your deck or somewhere else].

That can still cause the weird multiplayer gain chains.  Suppose you gain a Harem.  Now you have to slow down and go around in turn order to see if anybody will use their reaction.  You may have to do it for every gain, even when nobody has the reaction in hand, because otherwise you'll give away information when you make a point of asking if anybody before you wants to react.  And even after you've gone around the circle once, you may have to go around a second time since a player who passed on reacting to the original gain may want to react to your use of the reaction (likely involving emptying piles).

Having it gain a specific Treasure (Copper, Silver or Gold) would help.  The pile is less likely to empty, so turn order won't be as much a concern.

But maybe it could do a similar thing without gaining?

When any player gains a Treasure card, you may discard this from your hand.  If you do, reveal a Treasure card from your discard pile and put it [into your hand/on top of your deck].

The nice thing is that it still has some symmetry with the top.  I worry that this is getting too lengthy though.

[Marcory]

Reaction: When another player gains a card costing more than $4, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your turn, +$2 and return this to your hand.
++++++++++
In an ideal, world, this could be +$1 per every X in the gained card's cost, or +$1 when a card costing $4 or less is gained, but tracking it would be a nightmare.

See, given the complexity of the top, I'd prefer a simpler reaction like this. Though it should work when any player gains a card, yourself included.

Then there's the question of discarding it or setting it aside for your next turn. The reactions are pretty much equivalent during your own turn (barring engines where you can draw it back), but discarding it during other people's turns makes the reaction weaker than setting it aside.

Would a 'discard this to gain 2 cards' reaction be too strong? Caravan Guard's reaction only replaces itself, while Horse Traders' reaction is related to the fact that HT itself is a discarder. That's why I suggested +$ instead, and setting the card aside to help with tracking. (It could, of course, be tweaked to 'when a player (including you) gains a card, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your next turn, . . . )

[eHalcyon]

Would a 'discard this to gain 2 cards' reaction be too strong? Caravan Guard's reaction only replaces itself, while Horse Traders' reaction is related to the fact that HT itself is a discarder. That's why I suggested +$ instead, and setting the card aside to help with tracking. (It could, of course, be tweaked to 'when a player (including you) gains a card, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your next turn, . . . )

You mean +2 cards, not gain 2 cards, right?  Caravan Guard's reaction also gives you the +$1 a turn earlier, which is the point, I think.  Replacing itself is nice, but if that was the only benefit then it would be worthless (it would be equivalent to a simple cantrip, weaker than Pearl Diver).

[GendoIkari]

Also, will there be an option to cut out the "If the trashed card is an action, +1 action" part?  It's not important to the concept at all and it would be a lot cleaner without it I think.

Yes, we'll figure out either changing the action-trashing bonus, or removing it completely. I had the same thought which I mentioned in part 15.

[Marcory]

Would a 'discard this to gain 2 cards' reaction be too strong? Caravan Guard's reaction only replaces itself, while Horse Traders' reaction is related to the fact that HT itself is a discarder. That's why I suggested +$ instead, and setting the card aside to help with tracking. (It could, of course, be tweaked to 'when a player (including you) gains a card, you may set this aside; if you do, at the start of your next turn, . . . )

You mean +2 cards, not gain 2 cards, right?  Caravan Guard's reaction also gives you the +$1 a turn earlier, which is the point, I think.  Replacing itself is nice, but if that was the only benefit then it would be worthless (it would be equivalent to a simple cantrip, weaker than Pearl Diver).

Yes, I meant +2 cards, sorry.

Caravan Guard is a cheap Peddler whose coin is delayed when you play it; if you react with it, it becomes a straight-on Peddler during your next turn.

A simple Reaction for India would be 'When a player gains a card, you may [discard this/set this aside]; if you do, get X benefit. That would let you get X as soon as possible (e.g. during your own turn, or during your next turn after another player gained a card). The Reaction could also be used multiple times per turn if you can draw your deck, which might make said Reaction too powerful (especially if it draws cards).

You could also give India a more powerful reaction that is delayed if you use it during your own turn. That Reaction would read, 'When a player gains a card, you may set this aside; if you do, get X at the start of your next turn.' That would make it similar to Caravan Guard, wherein you get the benefit at the start of your next turn if you React defensively, but delay the benefit a turn if you React offensively.

[eHalcyon]

The Reaction could also be used multiple times per turn if you can draw your deck, which might make said Reaction too powerful (especially if it draws cards).

I don't think this is a problem.  If you've drawn your deck, a reaction that draws cards doesn't actually help you that much, right?  If you use it on your own gain, then it could draw the gained card.  That's good, but you've already drawn your deck before that so you probably deserve it (and could probably do it anyway with some other card, like a cantrip).  Could a +2 cards reaction be used more than once to help you draw your deck?  Sort of.  You could discard it, draw 2 cards triggering a reshuffle, draw the reaction again (if you're lucky or your deck is already mostly drawn) and use it again for 2 more cards.  I don't know, it sounds rare enough or deserved enough that I think it would be OK.

[GendoIkari]

I haven't gotten very many submissions. But I'm out of town this weekend, so I'll just delay the deadline some. We'll shoot for Wednesday.

[GendoIkari]

Hmmm, based on the few submissions, I'm worried that the top half may simply be bad for generating react-to-gain ideas. (As the sort of thing LastFootnote predicted). But we did choose a top half specifically that would have interaction with gaining. So c'mon, another day to come up with some ideas! Even if they aren't great!

[eHalcyon]

I haven't sent a PM, but you can count the bold text here as submissions, I guess.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Hmmm, based on the few submissions, I'm worried that the top half may simply be bad for generating react-to-gain ideas. But we did choose a top half specifically that would have interaction with gaining. So c'mon, another day to come up with some ideas! Even if they aren't great!

Well I already know which one I'm voting for (one that was posted earlier), so AFAIC we have enough submissions...

[Davio]

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this to trash a card from your hand. If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down.

Aka the Bishop reaction, beware of cost-lowering cards!
Just can't help myself to do something with VP tokens.

This reaction is both weak and strong. In the early game, it's pretty weak as it will be pretty rare that an opponent will gain a lot of VP cards. In the late game, it's pretty strong to turn cards into VPs.

I don't know how to word it so you can only trash one card yourself per card gained by an opponent.

[spiralstaircase]

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this to trash a card from your hand. If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down.
[...]
I don't know how to word it so you can only trash one card yourself per card gained by an opponent.

How about the set-aside-and-return thing from Horse Traders?

[Davio]

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this to trash a card from your hand. If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down.
[...]
I don't know how to word it so you can only trash one card yourself per card gained by an opponent.

How about the set-aside-and-return thing from Horse Traders?

Good idea, here it is reworded:

When another player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, trash a card from your hand. +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down and return this to your hand.

So you can get both the VP and the Remodel effect. You get the VP once per turn (not per card) and I think that's fine. The card is already pretty strong without any reaction part so I'm okay with it being pretty weak-ish / situational.

You'll often end up with using the Remodel instead of the reaction.

[spiralstaircase]

It might be nice for it to return itself to hand first, so you're guaranteed to have a mid-cost card to trash.

[Davio]

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Having it trigger at the start of your turn means you can resolve a bunch of Wharves and Caravans first and have more options.
Having it trigger during your turn means you could trash a card you might otherwise have discarded to Militia.

[spiralstaircase]

Having it trigger at the start of your turn means you can resolve a bunch of Wharves and Caravans first and have more options.
Having it trigger during your turn means you could trash a card you might otherwise have discarded to Militia.

I wasn't suggesting changing the timing of the effect, just changing the timing of the return to hand within the effect.  So instead of:

When another player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, trash a card from your hand. +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down and return this to your hand.

It would be this:

When another player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand and then trash a card from your hand. +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down.

So if I played, um, Followers then Tactician, I could set this aside in response to my opponent gaining an Estate, then discard my hand, but when the reaction triggered I'd get it back so I had something to trash.

[Marcory]

Two simple Reactions:

1. When a player gains a card, you may set this aside, to gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. At the start of your next turn, put this in your hand.

You then have something to Remodel during your next turn.

2. When a player Gains a card, you may set this aside, to gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile. At the start of your next turn, put this in your hand.

Maybe the Spoils should also be gained to hand?

[eHalcyon]

When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this to trash a card from your hand. If you do, +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down.
[...]
I don't know how to word it so you can only trash one card yourself per card gained by an opponent.

How about the set-aside-and-return thing from Horse Traders?

Good idea, here it is reworded:

When another player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, trash a card from your hand. +<VP> equal to half its cost in Coins, rounded down and return this to your hand.

So you can get both the VP and the Remodel effect. You get the VP once per turn (not per card) and I think that's fine. The card is already pretty strong without any reaction part so I'm okay with it being pretty weak-ish / situational.

You'll often end up with using the Remodel instead of the reaction.

With how long the top is, will this fit on a card?  Also, the reaction needs to be for any player, not just others.

[Graystripe77]

this seems like a lot to squeeze into a card without each effect being weak on its own [like JoaT] or being high cost. That's not to say it can't be cool, but it should fill a role as a card rather than just be a complex jumble of mechanics.

[Marcory]

Just thought of another reaction idea, inspired by Caravan Guard:

When a player gains a card, you may discard this, to play a card from your hand

You can use a second copy of India to make the first non-terminal, or play a Lighthouse from your hand to protect you against attacks, or play one of the two terminals in your hand during your opponent's turn, or even set up your own Menagerie. You could even play Relic or another Attack to hurt your opponent during his own turn, or Remodel a Gold to gain the last Province before your opponent can buy it. (note that he can React with his own copy of India before you get a chance to do so, however.)

[Gubump]

Just thought of another reaction idea, inspired by Caravan Guard:

When a player gains a card, you may discard this, to play a card from your hand

You can use a second copy of India to make the first non-terminal, or play a Lighthouse from your hand to protect you against attacks, or play one of the two terminals in your hand during your opponent's turn, or even set up your own Menagerie. You could even play Relic or another Attack to hurt your opponent during his own turn, or Remodel a Gold to gain the last Province before your opponent can buy it. (note that he can React with his own copy of India before you get a chance to do so, however.)

The card gained has to have some condition, for example, being an Action card, not just any card.

[Marcory]

Well, the condition is negotiable, if the reaction is interesting to people. Action cards are the most likely to be gained, so if the trigger is an Action card, it will kick in more often; the reaction can be weakened by changing it to Treasure, Victory, Not-Action, or cost.

[eHalcyon]

Just thought of another reaction idea, inspired by Caravan Guard:

When a player gains a card, you may discard this, to play a card from your hand

You can use a second copy of India to make the first non-terminal, or play a Lighthouse from your hand to protect you against attacks, or play one of the two terminals in your hand during your opponent's turn, or even set up your own Menagerie. You could even play Relic or another Attack to hurt your opponent during his own turn, or Remodel a Gold to gain the last Province before your opponent can buy it. (note that he can React with his own copy of India before you get a chance to do so, however.)

I think this would create messy nesting of reactions-to-reactions, basically what I describe here except much, much worse.  Consider -- you can end up drawing and playing your entire deck on another player's turn with this with any action that plays another action, like King's Court, Golem, Herald.

[Asper]

How about "When any player gains an India..." as the trigger?

[Marcory]

Just thought of another reaction idea, inspired by Caravan Guard:

When a player gains a card, you may discard this, to play a card from your hand

You can use a second copy of India to make the first non-terminal, or play a Lighthouse from your hand to protect you against attacks, or play one of the two terminals in your hand during your opponent's turn, or even set up your own Menagerie. You could even play Relic or another Attack to hurt your opponent during his own turn, or Remodel a Gold to gain the last Province before your opponent can buy it. (note that he can React with his own copy of India before you get a chance to do so, however.)

I think this would create messy nesting of reactions-to-reactions, basically what I describe here except much, much worse.  Consider -- you can end up drawing and playing your entire deck on another player's turn with this with any action that plays another action, like King's Court, Golem, Herald.

Fair enough. Could it be emended to 'This cannot cause you to play more than one Action', like the wording of Mission?

Or could it be, instead, 'When a player gains an Action, you may play this from your hand?'

[eHalcyon]

How about "When any player gains an India..." as the trigger?

I still don't think the reaction should work for gained Action cards, even specifically India.  India's on-play effect already does stuff when it gains an Action card, so having the reaction overlap like that will likely cause timing confusion.  I brought this point up early and nobody's really given an argument for the other side.  Do you think it would be OK anyway?

Fair enough. Could it be emended to 'This cannot cause you to play more than one Action', like the wording of Mission?

I don't think the wording of Mission works well here.  Mission says "you can't buy cards", which doesn't really conflict with anything.  But what happens when I use this reaction to play Golem?  I dig for 2 action cards... then I can't play them?  Golem requires that I play them, which is actively contradicting the restriction from the reaction.  If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules), what happens next? Do I put the revealed Action cards back on top of my deck, or discard them?  It's not defined.

The most similar case I can think of with Mission is Black Market, and I'm not sure what happens there.  But Black Market doesn't require that you buy a card, so it's not quite the same.

Or could it be, instead, 'When a player gains an Action, you may play this from your hand?'

Again, the top already does stuff with a gained Action.  "You may play this" just makes this into a reaction that gains, which also causes messy nesting and timing issues.  Caravan Guard gets away with it because it's so simple and playing it out of turn won't chain into more effects or trigger more reactions, as would be the case with this card, which can trigger when-trash and when-gain effects and allow various players to trigger more reactions to said trashes and gains.

I'll just quote myself...

Keep in mind that the top already does something to gained action cards.  Maybe the reaction should be conditional to Treasure cards to avoid overlap and confusing timing.  Victory wouldn't work since Action-Victory is a thing.

Also keep in mind that simplicity remains important or the text may not fit on the card.

I don't like the idea of a reaction that gains because then you have to be super careful about turn order with 3+ players.  There will be cases where you need to know if another player is going to reveal before you do, and bad nesting interactions where you react to the reaction reacting to another reaction and so on.

I'm interested in hearing counterarguments though.

Sorry for being so negative.  The top is already complex and powerful enough that I'm not sure any reaction will make a good addition to it.  IMO, none of the ideas discussed so far (including my own) are particularly compelling or a good fit.  I'm just hoping that the winning reaction won't cause turns to knot up with players interrupting one another repeatedly to do too much stuff outside of their own turn.

[GendoIkari]

It's going to take a bit of combing to get the list, but I'm making the new thread/poll now.

[scott_pilgrim]

If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules)

Isn't it assumed that something like this is in place though?  Otherwise how do we know whether Moat or Militia gets priority?

But I agree with most of that post.  The top half makes it so that basically any interesting bottom half we come up with will have awful, messy interactions with itself.

[Marcory]

Fair enough. Could it be emended to 'This cannot cause you to play more than one Action', like the wording of Mission?

I don't think the wording of Mission works well here.  Mission says "you can't buy cards", which doesn't really conflict with anything.  But what happens when I use this reaction to play Golem?  I dig for 2 action cards... then I can't play them?  Golem requires that I play them, which is actively contradicting the restriction from the reaction.  If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules), what happens next? Do I put the revealed Action cards back on top of my deck, or discard them?  It's not defined.

The most similar case I can think of with Mission is Black Market, and I'm not sure what happens there.  But Black Market doesn't require that you buy a card, so it's not quite the same.

The wording of Mission that I meant was 'this can't cause you to take more than two consecutive turns'--i.e. playing Outpost or buying Mission on a Mission turn has no effect. Couldn't the wording 'this can't cause you to play more than one Action card' similarly prevent Throne Room, Herald, etc from playing Action cards?

This is a moot point because GendoIkari has already posted the poll, and this effect would probably have been too complex anyway, but I was just clarifying what i meant.

[Gubump]

Fair enough. Could it be emended to 'This cannot cause you to play more than one Action', like the wording of Mission?

I don't think the wording of Mission works well here.  Mission says "you can't buy cards", which doesn't really conflict with anything.  But what happens when I use this reaction to play Golem?  I dig for 2 action cards... then I can't play them?  Golem requires that I play them, which is actively contradicting the restriction from the reaction.  If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules), what happens next? Do I put the revealed Action cards back on top of my deck, or discard them?  It's not defined.

The most similar case I can think of with Mission is Black Market, and I'm not sure what happens there.  But Black Market doesn't require that you buy a card, so it's not quite the same.

The wording of Mission that I meant was 'this can't cause you to take more than two consecutive turns'--i.e. playing Outpost or buying Mission on a Mission turn has no effect. Couldn't the wording 'this can't cause you to play more than one Action card' similarly prevent Throne Room, Herald, etc from playing Action cards?

Think about it this way: The reaction causes you to play Throne Room, and since Throne Room is the card that's causing you to play another Action card, it isn't the reaction causing you to play it, and therefore the reaction isn't causing you to play more than one Action card.

[GendoIkari]

Fair enough. Could it be emended to 'This cannot cause you to play more than one Action', like the wording of Mission?

I don't think the wording of Mission works well here.  Mission says "you can't buy cards", which doesn't really conflict with anything.  But what happens when I use this reaction to play Golem?  I dig for 2 action cards... then I can't play them?  Golem requires that I play them, which is actively contradicting the restriction from the reaction.  If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules), what happens next? Do I put the revealed Action cards back on top of my deck, or discard them?  It's not defined.

The most similar case I can think of with Mission is Black Market, and I'm not sure what happens there.  But Black Market doesn't require that you buy a card, so it's not quite the same.

The wording of Mission that I meant was 'this can't cause you to take more than two consecutive turns'--i.e. playing Outpost or buying Mission on a Mission turn has no effect. Couldn't the wording 'this can't cause you to play more than one Action card' similarly prevent Throne Room, Herald, etc from playing Action cards?

This is a moot point because GendoIkari has already posted the poll, and this effect would probably have been too complex anyway, but I was just clarifying what i meant.

Actually Mission doesn't have that wording; Outpost does. But that's the wording that he was responding to... it doesn't work because there's still a valid question of "what if you use your action-play to play Golem"? Golem now tells you to play 2 actions. Does this prevent that? I would think probably not, because it's not the reaction that's causing you to play more than 1 action, it's Golem.

[GendoIkari]

If we assume that the restriction takes precedence (which is not currently part of Dominion rules)

Isn't it assumed that something like this is in place though?  Otherwise how do we know whether Moat or Militia gets priority?

Hmmm... that's an interesting example/question, but I still think it's different than 2 effects, one which says "you must do X" and the other which says "you can't do X". With Moat, it specifically calls out the other effect and says to ignore it. It's more like Coppersmith in that it changes the effects of playing another card. This is different than simply having a restriction that says you can't do something.

Though, this does make me realize that you could probably re-word such a restriction so that it would work, though it would be messy: "Until the end of turn, card instructions that tell you to play another card have no effect."

[enfynet]

The best solution would be to set it aside, and play it at the start of your turn, like Prince does.