Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Help with a reaction mechanic  (Read 2596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GeneralRamos

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Help with a reaction mechanic
« on: January 28, 2016, 07:29:17 pm »
0

Sadly original post got lost. Anyhow, i had an idea for a reaction effect earlier. But I cannot figure out a solid wording for it that doesn't get really wordy or run into weird conflict problems. Is there a way to make the effect work without being broken? It is basically a reaction (to anyone, inclduing yourself) that lets you name a card when compelled to reveal cards from your deck, and instead of that card being affected by the action, it is ignored. As a defense against certain trashing attacks, for instance, or a card you want to skip drawing if it would normally hit.

Reaction
When an action card causes you to reveal cards from your deck, you may set this aside. Name a card. While this is set aside, when you reveal the named card, set it aside with this card. At the start of your next turn, discard this and the cards set aside with it.

Maybe almost okay? Maybe hopeless? Maybe it stacks in a gamebreaking way? Not sure.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1679
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2016, 08:25:56 pm »
+1

Why set the reaction aside?
This is only slightly shorter than what you said, but I think it'd be fine (depending on the length of the top half of course):

When an action card causes you to reveal cards from your deck, you may reveal (or discard) this to name a card. Set aside any revealed copies of the named card and discard them at the start of your next turn.

Another slightly shorter option that leaves the named cards on your deck:

When an action card causes you to reveal cards from your deck, you may reveal (or discard) this to name a card. Copies of the named card are immune to being trashed or moved by the action card.

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2146
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2016, 11:12:42 pm »
0

If it doesn't get set aside, I think you can reveal it repeatedly to name as many cards as you want.

It's a pretty cool idea but I don't think it'll be possible to cut it down to a reasonable number of words.  I'd like to be proven wrong though.  I'm also concerned that it reacts to too narrow of a class of cards.
Logged

CG19

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +22
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2016, 01:32:17 am »
+1

How about this:

Reaction
When an action card causes you to reveal cards from your deck, you may set this aside and name a card. If you do, when you reveal the named card, set it aside also. At the start of your next turn, discard all set aside cards.

Still convoluted, but it seems alright to me.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2016, 06:15:40 am »
+1

Why is it limited to an Action card revealing cards? That makes the wording a bit weird and I don't mind it triggering on Venture.
Also setting aside allrevealed cards could cause rules issues with Horse Traders, Island, etc.

How about this:

When you reveal cards from your deck, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, name a card and set aside all revealed copies of the named card. At the start of your next turn, discard all cards set aside this way. <-- Including the reaction card
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2016, 04:43:46 pm »
+1

I think the concept has legs! I also agree with Davio, you don't have to limit what causes the reveal, it's a rare enough trigger as it is. That's the main thing you have to test: how often does this card appear in a Kingdom where it matters?

The allowable complexity of the reaction (and the length of the text) is dependent on what you put on top. Since you are trying to discard this card (via the reaction) I assume you are heading towards a Victory - Reaction. In that case the top half takes basically 0 complexity budget, so you can afford a pretty wordy reaction.
Logged

luser

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447
  • Respect: +353
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2016, 04:57:21 pm »
0

As this is it should cost 5, otherwise it would be in lot of cases OP card, With pool/minstrel/farming village and ignoring copper you would instantly get reliable engine.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2016, 05:16:02 pm »
+1

Why is it limited to an Action card revealing cards? That makes the wording a bit weird and I don't mind it triggering on Venture.
Also setting aside allrevealed cards could cause rules issues with Horse Traders, Island, etc.

How about this:

When you reveal cards from your deck, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, name a card and set aside all revealed copies of the named card. At the start of your next turn, discard all cards set aside this way. <-- Including the reaction card

I agree that there's no need to limit to action cards.  I don't think your wording works though.  For example:

I play Golem, so I am now going to reveal cards while looking for two action cards.  Suppose I have Remodels in my deck but there's nothing in my hand that I want to Remodel.  I reveal this reaction and name Remodel.

Intended effect: Whenever I reveal Remodel, I set it aside.  I end up revealing two other Action cards, which I play as normal.

Effect of your wording: I reveal two Remodels, both of which I set aside with the reaction.  But Golem still revealed two Action cards, so it stops revealing more.  Not only that, it still plays the Remodels (as phantom copies, I think) even though they were set aside.

I think you need to add on some clarification at the end.  And also, I think you need to say "When you would reveal cards" so that you have to use the reaction before you start revealing, or else you can wait until you reveal something you didn't want to reveal before you use your reaction to name it, instead of having to decide beforehand.  This may actually be a better way to implement the card, but it's not what the OP describes.

I also don't think that this wording adequately specifies when the effect ends, which is why the OP used the awkward "while this is set aside" (which also has some possible issues -- what if something else sets it aside?).

So, maybe something like this:

Quote
When you would reveal cards from your deck, you may set this aside.  If you do, name a card.  Until you are done revealing cards, when you reveal a copy of the named card, set it aside and continue as if it wasn't revealed.  At the start of your next turn, discard all cards set aside this way.

Note that "when you would reveal cards" doesn't prevent you from continuing on to revealing cards.  Unlike Trader, this card doesn't say "instead".

And here's an attempt at that other way of implementing this concept:

Quote
When you reveal a card from your deck, you may discard this from your hand.  If you do, discard the revealed card and continue as if it had not been revealed.

Or:

Quote
When you reveal a card from your deck, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, swap this card with the revealed card and continue as if you had revealed this card from your deck instead.

Not sure if I actually like this concept overall.  The interactions of this reaction might be too complicated, especially for how uncommon it would be.
Logged

GeneralRamos

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2016, 05:35:05 pm »
0

Thanks to all for the help.  I agree with the proposition that it  needn't be restricted to actions. I guess that wording was a hangover from an earlier attempt  at wording that included the word "resolved."  I think eHalcyon's longer form version might do the trick.

 As for the above-the-line effects of the card, I would probably make it an action that involves revealing cards in someway. This way, there's never a condition in which the card is present and is also an absolute dud.

 I'm not quite sure what the problem with horse traders and island that Davio alludes to is. Could someone clarify? Set aside isn't a single or specific play area to my understanding (so doesn't confuse with trader set aside in reaction to an attack) and island is only set on the island mat when played, so this wouldn't do anything particular to island. Unless I'm missing something.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 05:39:44 pm by GeneralRamos »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Help with a reaction mechanic
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2016, 05:38:49 pm »
+1

It may also be good to have it discard all the cards "when you are done revealing cards". 
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 20 queries.