Print

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

[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.