Print

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

[Timethief]

Illusionist:

When another player buys a card you may discard the Illusionist and trash the gained card.

Thug:

When another player buys a card  you may reveal the Thug and collect 1 VP.

both are obviously 5+ worth, maybe a potion added for Illusionist.

[GendoIkari]

Illusionist:

When another player buys a card you may discard the Illusionist and trash the gained card.

Thug:

When another player buys a card  you may reveal the Thug and collect 1 VP.

both are obviously 5+ worth, maybe a potion added for Illusionist.

These have some rules issues...

With Illusionist, having the "attack" type wouldn't do anything other than cause confusion. The only thing that having the "attack" type does is to allow cards like Moat to be revealed when the card is played. If you can't play the card, you can't ever reveal Moat in response to the card. Note that Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the "Attack" type.

Aside from that, it reacts to the player buying the card, which happens before they gain the card; so it wouldn't have been gained yet when you try to "trash the gained card". You could just change it to on-gain though. And I'm pretty sure that currently you can't ever trash another player's card; all trashing attacks force the other player to trash a card. This matters for things like Market Square.

With Thug, it's not clear why you would want this to be an attack; it doesn't hurt or slow down your opponents. If the argument is that they will be more reluctant to buy a card in case you have it, then you Fool's Gold should be an attack for the same reason.

But more importantly, with Thug, there's nothing stopping you from revealing it an unlimited number of times for unlimited when an opponent buys 1 card.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

[Timethief]

Illusionist:

When another player buys a card you may discard the Illusionist and trash the gained card.

Thug:

When another player buys a card  you may reveal the Thug and collect 1 VP.

both are obviously 5+ worth, maybe a potion added for Illusionist.

These have some rules issues...

With Illusionist, having the "attack" type wouldn't do anything other than cause confusion. The only thing that having the "attack" type does is to allow cards like Moat to be revealed when the card is played. If you can't play the card, you can't ever reveal Moat in response to the card. Note that Ill-Gotten Gains doesn't have the "Attack" type.

Aside from that, it reacts to the player buying the card, which happens before they gain the card; so it wouldn't have been gained yet when you try to "trash the gained card". You could just change it to on-gain though. And I'm pretty sure that currently you can't ever trash another player's card; all trashing attacks force the other player to trash a card. This matters for things like Market Square.

I agree that the mechanism might need some tweaking, also in wording...
however, the basic idea is that I can disrupt someones buy by discarding (playing out of term) the card. i would totally allow an reaction like moat to break the attack, or market Square to alter they gain.

With Thug, it's not clear why you would want this to be an attack; it doesn't hurt or slow down your opponents. If the argument is that they will be more reluctant to buy a card in case you have it, then you Fool's Gold should be an attack for the same reason.

But more importantly, with Thug, there's nothing stopping you from revealing it an unlimited number of times for unlimited when an opponent buys 1 card.

Thug would basically be a positive version of swamp hag. instead of those buying gaining a curse, the attacker would gain a VP.
This will force you to evaluate whether you want the card more than someone else gaining a VP, possibly stoping the buy.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

thank you

[tristan]

First of all, if I understand it correctly (you reveal the card like a Reaction and then it is an Attack so other players can play Reactions as in the case of normal Attack) ReactionAttack is a cool idea. 
There is the theoretical potential for infinite loops but if you carefully check your cards you can easily avoid them.

Illusionist is strongest when it trashes a Province/Colony. This is obviously a very strong ReactionAttack but on the other hand if the card costs 5$ and does nothing active the opportunity costs are high. I'd try it out.

If you gotta discard Thug to get the VP this is virtually identical to "+1 Action, +1VP. If you don't this scales badly as you get on average double the amount of VPs in 3P games relative to 2P games. On the other hand I like that it triggers on buy, i.e. other players can avoid it via gainers and so on.
You could consider implementing as Duration. It doesn't undo the scale issue but avoids rule ambiguities associated with revealing several times:
"While this is in play, when another player buys a card +1VP."

[tailred]

I think a hacky workaround would be to make the card an action-reaction-attack, with a negligible on-play (say +1 action or something along those lines), and the reaction part stating (when <x>, you may play this card, and <y>), which solves the allowing others to react issue.

[Davio]

I don't mind a card being strong, but Illusionist doesn't seem a lot of fun.

Donald has regrets about Saboteur, not because it trashes good cards, but because it provides no resource for the one playing it.
Most other attack cards provide some kind of resource, mostly cards or coins.
Ambassador is weird this way.

[tristan]

Ambassador is weird this way.

I think Ambassador "works", compared to Saboteur, as it is cheap and as it simultaneously quasi-trashes and junks which is sublime in the opening.

[majiponi]

How about this?

Prototype 1
cost $3 - Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
In this turn, when another player gains a card, he takes his -$1 token.When another player buys a card, you may play this from your hand.

[Davio]

Ambassador is weird this way.

I think Ambassador "works", compared to Saboteur, as it is cheap and as it simultaneously quasi-trashes and junks which is sublime in the opening.

I know, but most other attacks provide an actual resource.
I didn't mean that it was a weird card, just that it's weird when compared to other attacks.

[tristan]

Ambassador is weird this way.

I think Ambassador "works", compared to Saboteur, as it is cheap and as it simultaneously quasi-trashes and junks which is sublime in the opening.

I know, but most other attacks provide an actual resource.
I didn't mean that it was a weird card, just that it's weird when compared to other attacks.

I don't think it is weird. Sure, it doesn't provide vanilla boni but the "resource" it provides is quasi-trashing. So unlike Saboteur it does something for you.

[Timethief]

First of all, if I understand it correctly (you reveal the card like a Reaction and then it is an Attack so other players can play Reactions as in the case of normal Attack) ReactionAttack is a cool idea. 
There is the theoretical potential for infinite loops but if you carefully check your cards you can easily avoid them.

Illusionist is strongest when it trashes a Province/Colony. This is obviously a very strong ReactionAttack but on the other hand if the card costs 5$ and does nothing active the opportunity costs are high. I'd try it out.

yes, that's the mechanism i envisioned. To avoid the infinite loop you would have to discard it. That way someone buys card x -> you play reaction attack -> they can play reaction (moat to stop it or market square to gain a gold a.e.).
The card would only have this ability, as it is  so strong, so you have high cost to gain and it blocks a spot in the hand.

If you gotta discard Thug to get the VP this is virtually identical to "+1 Action, +1VP. If you don't this scales badly as you get on average double the amount of VPs in 3P games relative to 2P games. On the other hand I like that it triggers on buy, i.e. other players can avoid it via gainers and so on.
You could consider implementing as Duration. It doesn't undo the scale issue but avoids rule ambiguities associated with revealing several times:
"While this is in play, when another player buys a card +1VP."

actually i thought of it first as a duration with +1 action. On the other hand, if you play it as a duration players are aware of it and may plan accordingly. If you reveal it you generate at least once a surprise effect.

[Destry]

majiponi's solution seems pretty good for your Thug.

Thug
some cost
Action-Reaction-Attack

You may only play this card during another player's turn.
The player who bought a card gains +1 and gives it to you.
---
When another player buys a card, you may play this from your hand, or, if this card is in play, you may put this in your hand and play it.

There. Now it's a moat-able attack as well.

--edited to make it act as if revealed so you can use it multiple times per player, but only once per buy.

[Asper]

What i don't like about stealing/trashing a card on buy is that it scales badly with multiple players. If you only reveal the card, the player to be hit first gets the worst result, and other players have been warned. If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political. Both of these points get much worse when the card is discarded or played, as you are much likelier to be save once your right neighbor was hit. Or, llet's say it like this, your adjacent right neighbor is a much worse threat than his right neighbor. It also allows kingmaking - let player X keep his card, steal the card from player Y. Oh wow, why does player X have more Provinces than player Y, surprise.

That leaves aside the mechanical issues, i'm just talking about design here.

[Destry]

I don't think you can get around Illusionist is a political card. Not necessarily a bad thing if you like that, though Donald X has studiously avoided making cards like that.

Seems more thematic, and a logical nerf, instead of trashing the gained card, they gain a card of equal cost you choose instead.

[Timethief]

What i don't like about stealing/trashing a card on buy is that it scales badly with multiple players. If you only reveal the card, the player to be hit first gets the worst result, and other players have been warned. If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political. Both of these points get much worse when the card is discarded or played, as you are much likelier to be save once your right neighbor was hit. Or, llet's say it like this, your adjacent right neighbor is a much worse threat than his right neighbor. It also allows kingmaking - let player X keep his card, steal the card from player Y. Oh wow, why does player X have more Provinces than player Y, surprise.

That leaves aside the mechanical issues, i'm just talking about design here.

well, you can hold the card back and attack the player in the lead, you are not forced to play it.
another fun idea to avoid trashing : every player puts a card from thier hand with the bought card in the center. The played cards get shuffled and everyone draws one into thier hands

[Asper]

If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political.
It also allows kingmaking [...]

well, you can hold the card back and attack the player in the lead, you are not forced to play it.

Yes, that's called "political" and "kingmaking". Political decisions, where you decide which player to hurt are absent from Dominion as a design decision by the creator. That's something you may or may not adhere to, your decision. After all, there are games with political decisions, like Catan, for example.

Kingmaking is a special case of politics, where a player without a shot to win decides which of the other players wins. It is justly frowned upon and considered poor design.

[AdrianHealey]

If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political.
It also allows kingmaking [...]

well, you can hold the card back and attack the player in the lead, you are not forced to play it.

Yes, that's called "political" and "kingmaking". Political decisions, where you decide which player to hurt are absent from Dominion as a design decision by the creator. That's something you may or may not adhere to, your decision. After all, there are games with political decisions, like Catan, for example.

Kingmaking is a special case of politics, where a player without a shot to win decides which of the other players wins. It is justly frowned upon and considered poor design.

Let's be clear: Kingmaking is definitely present in Dominion (multiplayer, of course). And a lot of it, even.

[Asper]

If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political.
It also allows kingmaking [...]

well, you can hold the card back and attack the player in the lead, you are not forced to play it.

Yes, that's called "political" and "kingmaking". Political decisions, where you decide which player to hurt are absent from Dominion as a design decision by the creator. That's something you may or may not adhere to, your decision. After all, there are games with political decisions, like Catan, for example.

Kingmaking is a special case of politics, where a player without a shot to win decides which of the other players wins. It is justly frowned upon and considered poor design.

Let's be clear: Kingmaking is definitely present in Dominion (multiplayer, of course). And a lot of it, even.

Huh, i guess you are right - i can refuse to buy the last Province so the next player has a shot at getting it. Or i buy it, ending the game and having the leading player win. Still, this wouldn't normally be a kingmaker decision - barring certain cases, i would still make my decision to win myself. In this case, i'd pick up a cheaper vp card and hope for another turn. Are there specific card examples you have in mind?

[AdrianHealey]

Do I buy a province for second place or do I do not for the guy who has 16, 2 buys and an 11 point deficit on the guy currently in the lead?

[Asper]

Do I buy a province for second place or do I do not for the guy who has 16, 2 buys and an 11 point deficit on the guy currently in the lead?

How would you know what coins he'll produce next turn outside of edge cases?

Also, i suspect that the decision whether you do what maxes out your chances of being first or what makes you sure second is NOT guided by who you are helping, but the playing circumstances and your general play style.

[AdrianHealey]

We have had such cases. If you play a lot of multiplayer, I am surprised you haven't.

[AJD]

I think (non-Action) Reaction–Attack works in principle as a card type:

"When another player [X], you may play this from your hand. If you do, [Y]."

It's not an Action card, so you can't play it normally—you can only play it when the reaction is triggered. But you do "play" it when you use it, so Moats are triggered.

There may be more elegant ways to have a similar effect, but in principle this does work if you really want a Reaction–Attack.

(I don't like Illusionist as a card concept though. Trashing people's cards as they gain them seems pretty unfun.)

[Doom_Shark]

We have had such cases. If you play a lot of multiplayer, I am surprised you haven't.

A lot of people on the forum that I've seen so far really don't lile multiplayer. It's a slower game, and a lot of people don't like that. So I'm not surprised that this is a thing people don't notice.

[Asper]

We have had such cases. If you play a lot of multiplayer, I am surprised you haven't.

A lot of people on the forum that I've seen so far really don't lile multiplayer. It's a slower game, and a lot of people don't like that. So I'm not surprised that this is a thing people don't notice.

I play mostly multiplayer and actually prefer the game that way. So it's a reasonable question when directed to me.

My answer would be that multiplayer games generate kingmaking decisions only on  a very abstract, meta level, usually because the supply is a shared ressource. If you play to win, it doesn't come up, as you do what's best for you. If you don't,  chances are you didn't track your opponent's score closely and then it doesn't matter. Either way, your influence is mostly when to end the game, and that's unavoidable. It is, however, avoidable to have cards that harm a targeted player.

[eHalcyon]

If you decide to only use it later to avoid that, it becomes political.
It also allows kingmaking [...]

well, you can hold the card back and attack the player in the lead, you are not forced to play it.

Yes, that's called "political" and "kingmaking". Political decisions, where you decide which player to hurt are absent from Dominion as a design decision by the creator. That's something you may or may not adhere to, your decision. After all, there are games with political decisions, like Catan, for example.

Kingmaking is a special case of politics, where a player without a shot to win decides which of the other players wins. It is justly frowned upon and considered poor design.

Let's be clear: Kingmaking is definitely present in Dominion (multiplayer, of course). And a lot of it, even.

Huh, i guess you are right - i can refuse to buy the last Province so the next player has a shot at getting it. Or i buy it, ending the game and having the leading player win. Still, this wouldn't normally be a kingmaker decision - barring certain cases, i would still make my decision to win myself. In this case, i'd pick up a cheaper vp card and hope for another turn. Are there specific card examples you have in mind?

Your example is very much kingmaking! It could happen in a situation where you know the next player can definitely afford the last Province, or where you're mathematically out of the running (or nearly so) whether you buy a cheaper VP card or not.

"Play to win" means different things to different people. Does it mean maximizing your points, securing a good position (e.g. if first is highly unlikely, aim for 2nd) or trying for first no matter the odds, even if it risks you falling into last place? You might have a consistent personal answer, but it's highly subjective.

Anyway, I'm with you in preferring to keep politics to a minimum, but if a group enjoys fan cards with political and/or take-that elements, that's cool.

[Destry]

I play almost exclusively 3-4 player games and, practically speaking, the kingmaking you describe - holding off buying province or three pile so player A can win instead of player B - never comes up. The common attitude is, if I'm not going to win, then I want to end the game as quickly as possible so I can play another round I could win. It becomes one of the unspoken rules, and you take it into account when you play (ie, if you still can win, you avoid making it easy for anyone to end the game before you can catch up.)

[eHalcyon]

I play almost exclusively 3-4 player games and, practically speaking, the kingmaking you describe - holding off buying province or three pile so player A can win instead of player B - never comes up. The common attitude is, if I'm not going to win, then I want to end the game as quickly as possible so I can play another round I could win. It becomes one of the unspoken rules, and you take it into account when you play (ie, if you still can win, you avoid making it easy for anyone to end the game before you can catch up.)

Sure, but your group having a consistent priority doesn't make it the "right"  choice, and since it is still a choice, it's kingmaking. This topic has come up before as well. What if you're in a tournament setting where 2nd place is better than 3rd? What if you're a new group without established conventions?

Another common attitude among the general gaming population is to target the leader, which is the opposite of what you're describing (trying to end the game sooner helps whoever is in the lead).

[GendoIkari]

I play almost exclusively 3-4 player games and, practically speaking, the kingmaking you describe - holding off buying province or three pile so player A can win instead of player B - never comes up. The common attitude is, if I'm not going to win, then I want to end the game as quickly as possible so I can play another round I could win. It becomes one of the unspoken rules, and you take it into account when you play (ie, if you still can win, you avoid making it easy for anyone to end the game before you can catch up.)

Sure, but your group having a consistent priority doesn't make it the "right"  choice, and since it is still a choice, it's kingmaking. This topic has come up before as well. What if you're in a tournament setting where 2nd place is better than 3rd? What if you're a new group without established conventions?

Another common attitude among the general gaming population is to target the leader, which is the opposite of what you're describing (trying to end the game sooner helps whoever is in the lead).

As a general rule, I would consider it to be bad sportsmanship purposefully make make a move that guarantees you lose the game. Especially if that decision specifically helps one player over another.

The problem comes when a player is literally mathematically eliminated from the game; which can certainly happen in 3 player Dominion... player A has 6 Provinces, player B has 5 Provinces, and player C, who is really new to or really bad at Dominion, has none. For argument sake we could say that a bunch of Duchies are gone too; so that it's a literal elimination, but even with 12 Duchies available, it's reasonable to consider yourself eliminated even then; you know you aren't going to get every single Duchy plus some Estates before anyone gets a Province (or just buys some Duchies/Estates of their own). In these situations, there's a valid question that the player has to ask, which is "what is my goal now"? There seems to be 3 (legitimate) possible goals you can have:

1. Get the highest place possible; do the move that gets you second place.
2. Maximize your own score; no matter how it affects the ranking.
3. Minimize the difference in score between you and the winner; come as close as possible to winning.

I don't think I can fault anyone for choosing any of those 3. But it needs to be a situation where actual victory is not an option.

[Destry]

I play almost exclusively 3-4 player games and, practically speaking, the kingmaking you describe - holding off buying province or three pile so player A can win instead of player B - never comes up. The common attitude is, if I'm not going to win, then I want to end the game as quickly as possible so I can play another round I could win. It becomes one of the unspoken rules, and you take it into account when you play (ie, if you still can win, you avoid making it easy for anyone to end the game before you can catch up.)

Sure, but your group having a consistent priority doesn't make it the "right"  choice, and since it is still a choice, it's kingmaking. This topic has come up before as well. What if you're in a tournament setting where 2nd place is better than 3rd? What if you're a new group without established conventions?

Another common attitude among the general gaming population is to target the leader, which is the opposite of what you're describing (trying to end the game sooner helps whoever is in the lead).

I see your point, and I'm not saying it never happens, but I have never seen anyone calculate the points, and actively make the decision to end or not end a game of Dominion based on letting player A win over player B. The stakes are way too low to make it worthwhile. Kingmaking, to me at least, connotes someone is actively deciding to help someone else win, which I haven't seen in this case.

As a general rule, I would consider it to be bad sportsmanship purposefully make make a move that guarantees you lose the game. Especially if that decision specifically helps one player over another.

The problem comes when a player is literally mathematically eliminated from the game; which can certainly happen in 3 player Dominion... player A has 6 Provinces, player B has 5 Provinces, and player C, who is really new to or really bad at Dominion, has none. For argument sake we could say that a bunch of Duchies are gone too; so that it's a literal elimination, but even with 12 Duchies available, it's reasonable to consider yourself eliminated even then; you know you aren't going to get every single Duchy plus some Estates before anyone gets a Province (or just buys some Duchies/Estates of their own). In these situations, there's a valid question that the player has to ask, which is "what is my goal now"? There seems to be 3 (legitimate) possible goals you can have:

1. Get the highest place possible; do the move that gets you second place.
2. Maximize your own score; no matter how it affects the ranking.
3. Minimize the difference in score between you and the winner; come as close as possible to winning.

I don't think I can fault anyone for choosing any of those 3. But it needs to be a situation where actual victory is not an option.

We usually choose option 4 - get as much game play in as possible.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think it's unsportsmanlike if it's a tournament where 2nd is worth more than 3rd and your chance of 1st is low. If your choice is between guaranteed 2nd vs. low chance of 1st but probable 3rd, the first option has real merit. Likewise in a casual setting with a group that cares most about not being last.

Where it does get unsportsmanlike could be in a tournament setting where you choose to kingmake one player over another based on meta reasons of their respective tournament standings, e.g. you choose to let Bob take the points for finishing first because he's much lower in the standings while Alice is highly ranked. But even this is debatable, I think, especially if denying Alice those tournament points puts you higher in the standings.

PPE: the thing is choosing to end the game immediately is equivalent to choosing to let the current leader win, even if that's not the express intent. Sometimes you don't need to specifically calculate the points to know that you're in this situation. Often, players are keeping a general sense of this. And sometimes, players are using a point tracker.

[Asper]

I stand with my claim that kingmaking in Dominion is present, but rarely relevant. Any decision i make in Dominion that could make a king is a decision for myself actually. I don't gain the last Province because i want Victor to win, but because i want to come in second. I don't skip it because i want Beatrice to win, but because i want a shot at first. Either way, i never do things because it's moot either way, and i can just have to decide whom to harm.

Tournaments are a meta-game and create decisions that the game itself can't be held responsible for in my opinion. If you know you'll be the total winner when Freddy comes in before George this game, will you allow Freddy to gain a second Lab when you reveal it with Jester? You might. But that's not Dominion's fault, it's the fault of the tournament set-up.

[eHalcyon]

I stand with my claim that kingmaking in Dominion is present, but rarely relevant. Any decision i make in Dominion that could make a king is a decision for myself actually. I don't gain the last Province because i want Victor to win, but because i want to come in second. I don't skip it because i want Beatrice to win, but because i want a shot at first. Either way, i never do things because it's moot either way, and i can just have to decide whom to harm.

Tournaments are a meta-game and create decisions that the game itself can't be held responsible for in my opinion. If you know you'll be the total winner when Freddy comes in before George this game, will you allow Freddy to gain a second Lab when you reveal it with Jester? You might. But that's not Dominion's fault, it's the fault of the tournament set-up.

Well my question then is... how is this any different from kingmaking in other games?  You can very well make decisions for yourself then as well.  This sounds more like, "I personally don't intentionally king-make" rather than, "king-making is rarely relevant in Dominion because of the way it is designed".

[AdrianHealey]

All I can say is a repetition of a point I made before: I think we have kingmaking discussions in about 40% of the games, at the very least.

Usually, the 'kind' is the person who is already ahead, i.e. people just focus on their own gains. Which is probably the best way of going about, but this doesn't mean that it's any less kingmaking.

[Asper]

I stand with my claim that kingmaking in Dominion is present, but rarely relevant. Any decision i make in Dominion that could make a king is a decision for myself actually. I don't gain the last Province because i want Victor to win, but because i want to come in second. I don't skip it because i want Beatrice to win, but because i want a shot at first. Either way, i never do things because it's moot either way, and i can just have to decide whom to harm.

Tournaments are a meta-game and create decisions that the game itself can't be held responsible for in my opinion. If you know you'll be the total winner when Freddy comes in before George this game, will you allow Freddy to gain a second Lab when you reveal it with Jester? You might. But that's not Dominion's fault, it's the fault of the tournament set-up.

Well my question then is... how is this any different from kingmaking in other games?  You can very well make decisions for yourself then as well.  This sounds more like, "I personally don't intentionally king-make" rather than, "king-making is rarely relevant in Dominion because of the way it is designed".

Hum. I actually don't king-make, so that applies. However, i find kingmaking a serious problem in other games, and never had any issues with it in Dominion. It's maybe just that directed attacks make it feel much more immediate, though.

[eHalcyon]

Well, fair enough.  It sounds to me like you're conflating "take that" and politics with kingmaking specifically, but that may be due to slightly different interpretations of what kingmaking is.

[Asper]

Yes, maybe i was using the term a bit wrong. Either way, this probably derailed the topic a bit, sorry for that.