Print

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

[Loschmidt]

The challenge is to make an attack that dishes out debt someone but isn't boring or opressive or too similar to existing cards.

I'll take care of the obvious ones.

------------------
Cost: ~$5
"Some mild benefit to the player"
"Each other player with no debt tokens takes 1D"
------------------
Positives
- you can defend yourself from this attack by already being in debt, i think that's a cute interaction
- pretty simple card
- could be interesting depending on the bonus is gives to the player
Critcisms
- it is just a bridge troll variant/cutpurse that stays relevant late game
Variants
- could be made more powerful/stackable "each other player with fewer than 2/3/4 debt tokens takes 1D" (although that is probably oppressive)

I'll call this next one Debt Collector:
------------------
Cost: ~$5
*A very minor benefit to the player*
Each other player with at least 1 debt token gains a Ruins.
If they did not gain a ruins they take 1 debt token.
------------------
Positives
-Play multiple to bury your opponents under ruins. It is nice to have another ruins attack, a conditional ruiner seems good. Like a torturer variant where you really need to play multiple before you start handing out the crap.
-Also thematic! The debt collectors are wrecking your shit because you're behind on payments
-Heavily discourages anyone going into debt (the compliment to the previous attack!)
-Combos nicely with the previous attack!
-Needs support and setup to be really mean
Criticisms
-occasionally oppressive?
-slow game when everyone is cash poor and filled with ruins? (personally I like the odd slow game thrown into my dominion mix)

Thoughts? I want to see everyone else's take on the debt-firing attack. There has to be a good one out there somewhere

[eHalcyon]

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

[Loschmidt]

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

Love it to pieces. Simple design. Much more interesting version of troll bridge.

As an aside it absolutely destroys your opponent's gainers, and also your own on your second turn. Interesting anti-synergy.

[Doom_Shark]

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

Someone should do a mockup of that one. Maybe I will

[tristan]

Debt attacks are basically -1 Coin token attacks that stack. If you make the Debt attack conditional upon not havind Debt on the defender's side this is, in the absence of these few cards and Events with Debt cost, equivalent to the old -1 Coin token attack.

[FishingVillage]

Unfortunately debt is a rather nasty drawback if it can be stacked indefinitely on others. Even being able to consistently give debt is very harmful. Here's an example that's basically a variant of what you have in your opening:

Debt Attack
$5 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) may discard any number of cards from hand. Then each other player with no debt gains 1 debt per 2 cards in hand.

And, well, here's another idea, which tries unlimited stacking of debt, but gives other players a way out to not get completely flooded by it. Also I wonder how much one is willing to overpay to slap others with debt.

Debt On Buy
$4+ - Action - Attack
+2$
Each other player discards 1 card from hand or gains 1 debt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpay, each other player gains 1 debt.

[GendoIkari]

Unlimited = easy pin and unfun. Limited = -1 coin token. Bridge Troll is the debt attack.

[faust]

Debt attacks are basically -1 Coin token attacks that stack. If you make the Debt attack conditional upon not havind Debt on the defender's side this is, in the absence of these few cards and Events with Debt cost, equivalent to the old -1 Coin token attack.

Edge case: Storyteller.

[AdrianHealey]

I think Tollgate is actually a great idea.

One more way of avoiding the stack would be: 'When there is a <Card name> in play: when you do X (gain a card, buy a card, etc.), gain 1 debt.'

Then it doesn't matter if you have 10 or 1 in play.

[Asper]

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers

[eHalcyon]

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers

I disagree about the Enchantress ruling being applied to Moat. Enchantress has its own key word about "instructions" whereas Moat is a blanket "that Attack". I think it's important to make the cost change a while-in-play like all cost reducers since Bridge, just to avoid the nastiness with KC.  The own-turn interaction is interesting IMO, and combined with the +Buy discourages stacking.

I also think that making it cost debt itself would be good, to prevent it from being copied by BoM or Overlord.

[Asper]

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers

I disagree about the Enchantress ruling being applied to Moat. Enchantress has its own key word about "instructions" whereas Moat is a blanket "that Attack". I think it's important to make the cost change a while-in-play like all cost reducers since Bridge, just to avoid the nastiness with KC.  The own-turn interaction is interesting IMO, and combined with the +Buy discourages stacking.

I also think that making it cost debt itself would be good, to prevent it from being copied by BoM or Overlord.

While in play is not tied to playing. A card can end up in play without being played and be played when not in play. Defending against a played card isn't defending against a card in play - or at the very least, it's highly debatable it does. There's a reason Donald X made all Duration Attacks "Until your next turn" to avoid that ambiguity.

Furthermore, a card that triggers on buy may stack, but only if you decide to buy a card at all. If all you do is pay off debt, your opponent could have played this a bazillon times and you wouldn't get a single token. And even if you buy a card, you don't have to pay a cent more if you don't want - you just get tokens that hinder you to buy another card, and as long as you pay those off, you won't get more.

The self-harming aspect just feels clumsy - as i said it's a really weird idea to put a +Buy on a card and at the same time discouraging to buy multiple cards.

[eHalcyon]

I play an attack card. It's an attack card so you can reveal Moat, however the Attack is written. Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions. I agree that there is ambiguity, but I think it's more important to limit stacking. The "until your next turn"  wording doesn't fully resolve the confusion anyway, but if you understand the intended interaction there then it's easy enough to see how it should apply here.

I understand how Debt works, which is why I suggested it as a workable cost-increasing attack in the first place. However, stacked excessively it can still effectively become a pin, where a player can't buy any more cards without getting crushed by a mountain of debt. A hard limit of 10 stacks seems tough but surmountable to me, handled within a turn or two. 30 with KC or more with Procession is too much.

That's why I think blocking yourself is elegant, not clumsy. It gives extra money to compensate a little and it's something new for the player to consider. You say it discourages from multiple buys, but that's only if you stack too many. It slows you down so the debt-pinned player has time to pay it off.  If it's really so offensive, I say it's better just to not give +Buy. However, I think the self-harming weirdness is a good thing here, giving the player a different kind of experience.

[eHalcyon]

I maintain that the rules confusion of Moat/Lighthouse vs. Attack-Durations remains even with the "until your next turn" wording (there's evidence in rules questions that popped up upon reveal of those cards) and I believe that the answers to those questions apply just as well to "while in play" wording.  Nonetheless, here's another idea for discouraging stacking that uses the same kind of wording as other Attack-Durations:

Factory
<6> - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost <1> more.
At the start of your next turn:
Gain a card costing up to $6<6>.

With this setup, pinning the other players will pin yourself as well.  It discourages buying for everybody but is a gainer itself, yet it will fail to gain anything at all if it is excessively stacked.  Its cost is such that it cannot gain itself.

A small design drawback here is that it can cause confusion with cost comparisons, but that's already the case with debt cost cards plus any cards that specify cost limits.

[tristan]

Unfortunately debt is a rather nasty drawback if it can be stacked indefinitely on others.

I don't think so. Cutpurse, while being weaker than a Debt attack (but also hitting earlier in the game when you have less coins), is not the end of the world.
Torturer shows us that as long as you give the defending player the option to do something else, basically what you suggested, stackable attacks are fine.

[Erick648]

Here's one that gives out debt directly and works in multiples, but mostly avoids the pin aspects:

Usurer
(5) Action - Attack
Gain a Silver.
Each other player gains a Copper.  Each player who gained a Copper takes <1>.

I'm not sure about the cost or the Silver-gaining, which may need to be balanced.  The point is that you can't leave your opponent stuck with Debt and no money, because he gets a Copper to pay off his debt; it's not overly easy to stack because it's a non-drawing terminal that gains treasure; and even if you manage to play a bunch, you'll eventually run out of Coppers to hand out. 

IMO, the pin risk is no greater than Bureaucrat, but there will still be plenty of cases where you play two or more (e.g. because you happened to draw two Usurers and a village) so it's different from the -1 Coin token.

[trivialknot]

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

To be honest, I think that a debt attack by itself is not that interesting, and it needs to be paired with an interesting bonus.  I think most people agree, the exciting thing about Bridge Troll is its cost reduction, not the -1 coin token.  I like Factory because it does something different. 

[trivialknot]

The interesting thing about making cards cost <1> more is that it actually hurts yourself more than your opponents, since it applies for two of your turns, and only one of each of your opponents' turns.  I can imagine attaching this ability to a card that's too strong in order to nerf it.  What if we attached it to Wharf?  Would Wharf be less crazy?

[eHalcyon]

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

To be honest, I think that a debt attack by itself is not that interesting, and it needs to be paired with an interesting bonus.  I think most people agree, the exciting thing about Bridge Troll is its cost reduction, not the -1 coin token.  I like Factory because it does something different.

Right, and I think the danger of allowing you to KC the attack unchecked is that if you pile on enough debt, it will take so long to pay off each single bought card that it may as well be a pin.  That's why I made Tollgate's debt un-KC-able.  Factory allows it but becomes as big a block to you as to your opponent if used in excess.

The cost increase hitting the one who played it on both turns is something I'd considered, but perhaps underestimated.  Tollgate could provide +$4 if necessary?  And Factory could put the gained card in hand if gaining $5s and $6s alone isn't strong enough.

[AdrianHealey]

Usurer Part 2-$5
Action-Attack
Gain a silver, putting it into your hand
Everyone may discard 2 copper. If they do not: gain a copper, putting it in their hand. Each that did gain a debt token.

Usurer part two is not more disastrous for a deck than a kc-d mountebank, I think.

[AdrianHealey]

Would this work:

Bad Missionary-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1 and +1Buy
--
When this is in play, all non-victory cards cost $1 less but no less than 0. All other players galn +1buy at the start of their turn and must use all the buys during their buy phase. When another player buys a card, he gains a debt.

So the debt stacks, but also the benefit. So on net it doesn't benefit other players. Probably too complicated though.

[Dingan]

Would be gnarly to add a card that gives debt to the KC/KC/Goons/Masquerade pin.

[Asper]

Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions.

Moat says you are unaffected by "that attack", which may mean either the card or its attacking part. By convention, a card is not an attack if its harmful effect does not happen on play, which, in my eyes, implies that harming you outside of the on-play part is not an "attack", and so Moat does not apply. It's not even important whether i'm right here (how would i ever prove that), just that official cards avoid diverting from this convention to avoid confusion, which is why i suggest the convention should be applied here, too.

[AdrianHealey]

Mean Court Room - $6
Action-Attack
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
All other players draw a card.
All other players gain a curse.

I reveal moat. Do I draw a card? Imo: I do not.

Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less.

I reveal moat when Mean Fishing Village is played. It's my turn: are cards cheaper for me? I am inclined to think they do.

But what if it said:

Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less and when someone buys a card, they gain a curse.

Are cards now cheaper for me, when I revealed moat when it was played? Do I gain the curse?

[eHalcyon]

Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions.

Moat says you are unaffected by "that attack", which may mean either the card or its attacking part. By convention, a card is not an attack if its harmful effect does not happen on play, which, in my eyes, implies that harming you outside of the on-play part is not an "attack", and so Moat does not apply. It's not even important whether i'm right here (how would i ever prove that), just that official cards avoid diverting from this convention to avoid confusion, which is why i suggest the convention should be applied here, too.

As I've said above, I think these points have merit, but still disagree with your conclusion and have given reasons why.  "That attack" logically refers to the card as a whole; that's why Enchantress has its own special keyword to refer to the on-play instructions only.

I think an issue with your argument is that the card ideas being discussed here do have the attacking part happen on-play, because they can only ever be in play by being played.  These aren't Attack-Reserves, which can be put into play without being played, so the confusion isn't an issue here.

In any case, I don't think Tollgate can safely exist while following that "convention".  If it's not worth breaking the convention, then it should be scrapped as a whole.

What do you think of Factory, which does follow the convention?

Mean Court Room - $6
Action-Attack
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
All other players draw a card.
All other players gain a curse.

I reveal moat. Do I draw a card? Imo: I do not.

Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less.

I reveal moat when Mean Fishing Village is played. It's my turn: are cards cheaper for me? I am inclined to think they do.

But what if it said:

Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less and when someone buys a card, they gain a curse.

Are cards now cheaper for me, when I revealed moat when it was played? Do I gain the curse?

Mean Court Room - no you don't, because you're unaffected by the card.

Mean Fishing Village (1) - It should say "Now an at the start of your next turn" and "while this is in play", but the answer should be no.  You are unaffected by the card, which includes beneficial parts of it.

Mean Fishing Village (2) - The answer is still no.  It has zero affect on you.