Print

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

[tlloyd]

Okay, so this idea is not well-thought-out at all. Actually that's not true--I've thought about it a lot, but it seem irretrievably broken. So maybe this will up getting re-posted on the "Really Bad Card Ideas" discussion. But I have shot myself in the foot so many times with Lookout that I have at times wished a Lookout on my opponent.

In theory you could have a card that forces other players to reveal and then trash/discard/replace the three top cards on their deck. But that seems both too harsh (if "trash the top card of your deck" attacks are out of bounds, then only getting to pick which one card out of three to trash might still be too brutal) and yet too weak (people do, after all, pay $3 for the chance to do this to their own decks).

So a possible fix to both problems might be to affect the other players' hands instead of their decks. It would be a combo Militia/Ghost Ship (discard one, put one back on your deck), plus a trash one card out of five attack. But that again seems both too harsh (no other single attack can reduce other players' handsize to two) and too weak (discard one and put one back on deck is probably less frustrating than either discard two or put two back on deck).

To fix the too-harsh problem, we could perhaps take a lesson from Margrave and first have the other players draw a card, then trash/discard/replace. That leaves the other players with a handsize of three, and makes the trashing attack a one-out-of-six choice, which is probably tame enough. But is the attack now much too weak? You basically leave the other players with a best-three-out-of-six hand, with the opportunity to (1) trash an unwanted card (2) pass a victory card safely through to the discard pile, and (3) put a desired card back on the deck. How do you price an attack which most of the time is welcomed by the victims but has an even worse potential downside than Saboteur?

So then I thought I could ramp up the attack by adding "every other player gains a curse." Now the attack seems to do a little bit of everything (it's like Jack of All Trades turned to the Dark Side). The only problem is, how effective is a curse-dealing attack that also gives other players the opportunity to trash on out of six cards from their decks? Seems like this attack will cleanse other players' decks at the same pace it tries to fill them with junk.

Then I realized another major problem for this card: what happens if you first play a Militia, or in multi-player if someone else has played one? If a person already had a three-card hand, should this attack leave them with a one-card hand?

Anyway, I like the idea for this card, but it just has so many problems. Anyone out there got a solution?

[play2draw]

Whatever the design for the card becomes, it probably shouldn't capable of shenanigans similar to King'sCourt/Masquerade.

[jotheonah]

Maybe the card could stipulate that the the player trash a non-Curse card?

[Jimmmmm]

Or perhaps a card costing $2 or more. So it has Estate-trashing potential early on, but will usually hit something that they'd rather not trash.

[Kirian]

Make it trash like Swindler instead of like Lookout?  That makes it a Spy + Swindler +... something combo:

Card - $5

+$1
+1 Card

Each other player reveals the top three cards of his deck.  Replace one of them with a card of your choice with the same cost.  He then discards as many of the three cards as you choose, and places the rest on top of his deck.

[Epoch]

Whatever - $4
Action - Attack
+1 Action

Each other player reveals the top three cards of his deck.  That player chooses one of those cards and trashes it.  You then choose to discard any number of the cards remaining two cards.  Any cards not discarded are put back on the opponent's deck in the order you choose.

The trashing could be good or bad for you, but the other parts of the effect are likely to hurt your opponent, right?

[tlloyd]

Whatever - $4
Action - Attack
+1 Action

Each other player reveals the top three cards of his deck.  That player chooses one of those cards and trashes it.  You then choose to discard any number of the cards remaining two cards.  Any cards not discarded are put back on the opponent's deck in the order you choose.

The trashing could be good or bad for you, but the other parts of the effect are likely to hurt your opponent, right?

I like this idea. Here's a slightly different version that still affects the hand instead of the deck:

Delta Attack ($?)
Action-Attack

"Each other player draws one card, then reveals two cards from his hand. He discards one and puts one back on his deck - your choice. He then trashes a card of his choice from his hand and gains a curse."

Notice that the ordering is designed to prevent a situation where a player is forced to trash a card without at least three options. I also considered "...and gains a curse or a copper - your choice." I think this would cut both ways: it keeps the junk coming even after the curses are gone, but it should also prevent total-deck-annihilation in KC games.

I don't have any strong feelings about price or vanilla bonuses, but I figure each can be adjusted to the other to make the card balanced. Since it dishes out curses it should cost at least $4.

EDIT: okay, this version still presents the problem that repeated plays further reduce the victim's handsize. At the very least this means that the card shouldn't give +1 action. But that's probably not a sufficient fix. What if instead of "draw one card" it read "draw up to 6", meaning draw until you have six cards in hand. That way each play leaves you with a three-card hand. Kinda anti-synergizes with Torturer.

[Epoch]

Hmmm, so, this has nothing to do with Lookout, really, but a potentially interesting idea is:

Whatever - $whatever
Action - Attack
Whatever generic bonuses

Each other player turns over the top two cards on their deck and trashes one of their choice.  If the trashed card costs $0, that player gains a Curse.  Otherwise, the player draws cards equal to half of the cost of the trashed card (round down).



So, the idea (no doubt imperfectly implemented) is that the card mitigates the swinginess of its own attack.  If you benefit from the trashing, then you get a Curse.  Otherwise, if you're forced to trash a high-value card, you get a bonus.

Plus: Bridge/Highway/Princess interactions!  In a probably broken way!

Getting the card right would, I think, take a huge amount of playtesting.

[tlloyd]

Hmmm, so, this has nothing to do with Lookout, really, but a potentially interesting idea is:

Whatever - $whatever
Action - Attack
Whatever generic bonuses

Each other player turns over the top two cards on their deck and trashes one of their choice.  If the trashed card costs $0, that player gains a Curse.  Otherwise, the player draws cards equal to half of the cost of the trashed card (round down).



So, the idea (no doubt imperfectly implemented) is that the card mitigates the swinginess of its own attack.  If you benefit from the trashing, then you get a Curse.  Otherwise, if you're forced to trash a high-value card, you get a bonus.

Plus: Bridge/Highway/Princess interactions!  In a probably broken way!

Getting the card right would, I think, take a huge amount of playtesting.

I'm not sure I would want to buy that card. Maybe at the beginning there's a chance they pull copper/copper and have to take a curse, but they could also pull an estate and then you played a half-apprentice for them! Even toward the end if they get very unlucky and pull Province/Province, an extra four cards in hand should all-but guarantee that they buy a replacement Province. Plus in combination with rabble this could really be abused.

[Tables]

Hmmm, so, this has nothing to do with Lookout, really, but a potentially interesting idea is:

Whatever - $whatever
Action - Attack
Whatever generic bonuses

Each other player turns over the top two cards on their deck and trashes one of their choice.  If the trashed card costs $0, that player gains a Curse.  Otherwise, the player draws cards equal to half of the cost of the trashed card (round down).



So, the idea (no doubt imperfectly implemented) is that the card mitigates the swinginess of its own attack.  If you benefit from the trashing, then you get a Curse.  Otherwise, if you're forced to trash a high-value card, you get a bonus.

Plus: Bridge/Highway/Princess interactions!  In a probably broken way!

Getting the card right would, I think, take a huge amount of playtesting.

I'm not sure I would want to buy that card. Maybe at the beginning there's a chance they pull copper/copper and have to take a curse, but they could also pull an estate and then you played a half-apprentice for them! Even toward the end if they get very unlucky and pull Province/Province, an extra four cards in hand should all-but guarantee that they buy a replacement Province. Plus in combination with rabble this could really be abused.

Arguably the effect is better than an Apprentice for them (they've ended up with a 6 card hand with 1 action, Apprentice-estate gives you a 5 card hand). But asides from that case, I think the attack would be reasonable. It has some potentially powerful combos (Rabble/this) as you've noted, and a reasonable amount of the time it's probably not worth it... doesn't that make it just like lots of other fun cards? Board dependant, but never going to be totally worthless.

[Chriamon]

This is similar to a custom card that I have played with, the card is as follows:

Celtic Metal - 5$ (friend picked the card name)
Action - Attack

+4 Cards
Discard a card and then trash a card.
Each other player chooses one: he discards a card and then trashes a card; or he gains a Curse card.

This card obiously still has it's own balance issues, but I think using the torturer method of gaining curse cards, and limiting the attack to just affecting 2 cards (removing the saboteur effect) makes it easier to balance ( or at least makes solving some of the problems easier, although this card has the same problem that you mentioned, giving curses and then allowing you to trash them later). Originally this card was playtested at +3 cards, but it seemed too weak, and at +5 cards it was way too strong, so it was nerfed to +4 cards. I think the way to fix attacks that are sometimes weak is to give benefit for playing the card. That way if the attack is being weak, you at least got benefit from playing the card, and like you mentioned, it is way too hard to deduce the strength of this card because it would be so variable. I think the main issue to balance with your version is that the saboteur effect is just way to random to tell how strong it could be, so I think that maybe the way to go with this could be perhaps giving yourself a buffed version of lookout, while giving your opponents a bad version of lookout.

[rinkworks]

This is similar to a custom card that I have played with, the card is as follows:

Celtic Metal - 5$ (friend picked the card name)
Action - Attack
+4 Cards
Discard a card and then trash a card.
Each other player chooses one: he discards a card and then trashes a card; or he gains a Curse card.

Seems like that could be a monster (not necessarily too much of one) if you think of this as a souped-up Masquerade.  Masquerade is +2 cards, trash a card.  This is that, but with three additional buffs:  +1 more card, warehouse another card, and weaker Torturer attack.  That feels pretty strong to me, but maybe the chance that the attack will help your opponent more than it will hurt him balances it out.  Either way, it looks like a fun one.

[tlloyd]

I appreciate all the comments and alternative ideas. I would, though, like to hear any feedback on the most recent form of my idea, so I thought I would shamelessly re-post:

Attack-of-all-Trades (ha ha)
Action-Attack ($4)
"Each other player draws from his deck until he has six cards in hand, reveals two of his choice, then discards one of your choice and returns the other to his deck. Each other player trashes one card from his hand and gains a curse or a copper, your choice."

[rinkworks]

I appreciate all the comments and alternative ideas. I would, though, like to hear any feedback on the most recent form of my idea, so I thought I would shamelessly re-post:

Attack-of-all-Trades (ha ha)
Action-Attack ($4)
"Each other player draws from his deck until he has six cards in hand, reveals two of his choice, then discards one of your choice and returns the other to his deck. Each other player trashes one card from his hand and gains a curse or a copper, your choice."

Great name.  But this is just brutal, isn't it?  Just the cursing attack alone is worth a $4 card, since having it go to Coppers when the Curses run out seems like a fair exchange for Sea Hag's top-decking ability.  That leaves the rest of the card slamming players above and beyond what a $4 attack should do, even without any benefits to the player.

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I'm guessing, though, that it'll be hard to avoid the Dominion phenomenon where a card that does a lot of little things looks innocuous but is in reality an incredible game-changer.  Jack of All Trades, Masquerade, Ambassador, and to a lesser extent Trading Post all illustrate the point.  And we already know how brutal Followers is, even with a penalty for the player.

[LastFootnote]

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I had this idea for an Attack card that hit harder depending on the Treasure card you discarded when you played it. If you discarded a Copper, it was a Spy-like attack. If you discarded a Silver, it was a Spy-like attack and a Militia-style discard. If you discarded a Gold, it did both of those things and gave out a Curse. I have no idea if such an idea could actually be balanced. I gave up on it because it didn't seem fun. Attack-happy players would just go for the most brutal attacks possible, even if it wasn't the optimal play.

[tlloyd]

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I had this idea for an Attack card that hit harder depending on the Treasure card you discarded when you played it. If you discarded a Copper, it was a Spy-like attack. If you discarded a Silver, it was a Spy-like attack and a Militia-style discard. If you discarded a Gold, it did both of those things and gave out a Curse. I have no idea if such an idea could actually be balanced. I gave up on it because it didn't seem fun. Attack-happy players would just go for the most brutal attacks possible, even if it wasn't the optimal play.

That's awesome. I had an almost identical card in mind that I called Mercenary (the more you pay him, the stronger his attack). I set it up with three or four different types of attacks, and you got to pick which attacks you wanted, and the more treasure you discarded the more picks you got. I never could come up with something workable, but I'd be curious to see someone else's take, so if you ever finish yours be sure to post it.

[jotheonah]

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I had this idea for an Attack card that hit harder depending on the Treasure card you discarded when you played it. If you discarded a Copper, it was a Spy-like attack. If you discarded a Silver, it was a Spy-like attack and a Militia-style discard. If you discarded a Gold, it did both of those things and gave out a Curse. I have no idea if such an idea could actually be balanced. I gave up on it because it didn't seem fun. Attack-happy players would just go for the most brutal attacks possible, even if it wasn't the optimal play.

What if the choice was the opponent's, and it was backward? Like, the attack can be a Cutpurse, but I also have to discard an additional card and gain a curse. Or I can discard a Silver and discard an additional card, or discard a Gold and nothing else.

[tlloyd]

I appreciate all the comments and alternative ideas. I would, though, like to hear any feedback on the most recent form of my idea, so I thought I would shamelessly re-post:

Attack-of-all-Trades (ha ha)
Action-Attack ($4)
"Each other player draws from his deck until he has six cards in hand, reveals two of his choice, then discards one of your choice and returns the other to his deck. Each other player trashes one card from his hand and gains a curse or a copper, your choice."

Great name.  But this is just brutal, isn't it?  Just the cursing attack alone is worth a $4 card, since having it go to Coppers when the Curses run out seems like a fair exchange for Sea Hag's top-decking ability.  That leaves the rest of the card slamming players above and beyond what a $4 attack should do, even without any benefits to the player.

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I'm guessing, though, that it'll be hard to avoid the Dominion phenomenon where a card that does a lot of little things looks innocuous but is in reality an incredible game-changer.  Jack of All Trades, Masquerade, Ambassador, and to a lesser extent Trading Post all illustrate the point.  And we already know how brutal Followers is, even with a penalty for the player.

Thanks for the feedback. First of all let me say that I picked the price without too much thought, other than the fact that $4 is the minimum this card should cost. I don't think there is any way to judge the right price for this without playtesting.

I completely agree that this card is difficult to balance, for precisely the reason you mentioned: doing a little bit of everything can turn out to be huge in practice. But I also worried that all the various components of the attack could cancel themselves out. For an absurd example, imagine a card that combined Sea Hag and Saboteur*. Sounds brutal, right? But "Put a curse on top of your deck and then trash the top card of your deck" does nothing but take a curse from the supply and put it in the trash. [*I know that Sab skips curses].

As I mentioned earlier, a hybrid Militia/Ghost Ship might actually be less painful than either a Militia or a Ghost Ship. I think I've fixed that by letting the attacker choose which of the two gets discarded and which gets returned to the deck.

The reason for the copper element of the attack is that I was worried that the cursing and trashing attacks would cancel out. For reasons which Donald has made clear to everyone, trashing attacks have the potential to really mess up the game. This trashing attack doesn't skip worthless cards (weaker than Sab), but doesn't give you a cheaper card to replace what you lose (stronger than Sab). Part of the way I have designed the card to make sure the trashing attack wasn't overly strong (or swingy), was to allow the victim to choose which card out of six got trashed. But, having done that, I wondered how effective a cursing attack would be, since you may end up trashing the curses for them. Once the curses are gone, does the attack become a net-benefit to your opponent? That's why I decided to have the attack give curses or coppers: it still may get rid of junk for them, but it also keeps the junk coming.

There is a second purpose for dishing out coppers: it prevents abuse akin to KC/Masq. Playing this attack repeatedly will eventually run out not one but two piles (which is also the minimum for Saboteur).

And of course the card currently provides no benefit to the attacker. I figure that once the attack mechanism is suitably balanced, then the price and vanilla bonuses can be jointly decided on in order to keep the card balanced. For example, with no bonuses at all, this card is still stronger than Sea Hag (I'm pretty sure). So $4 at minimum and probably it should be higher. But how does this compare to Torturer? It both discards and curses, while Torturer let's the victim choose between those effects. It trashes, but again I'm not sure whether that's very brutal in combination with cursing. It gives no benefit while Torturer increases hand size by two, and - most significantly - the hand size reduction component of the attack doesn't stack, while Torturer (famously) does. So I think this would be underpowered at $5 with no bonuses.

What bonuses would make the card worthwhile at $5? Ghost Ship gets +2 cards, and I think this attack might be stronger than Ghost Ship. Should it get +$2 coin like Militia? This is where I'd really appreciate some suggestions.

[Ozle]

It's a really interesting idea to do all the different types of attacks on one card, though, and I'd love to see it work.  (The first sentence, by the way, seems like a great attack component on its own card.)

I had this idea for an Attack card that hit harder depending on the Treasure card you discarded when you played it. If you discarded a Copper, it was a Spy-like attack. If you discarded a Silver, it was a Spy-like attack and a Militia-style discard. If you discarded a Gold, it did both of those things and gave out a Curse. I have no idea if such an idea could actually be balanced. I gave up on it because it didn't seem fun. Attack-happy players would just go for the most brutal attacks possible, even if it wasn't the optimal play.

Hmm, why not make it the other way round, the better the card it discards the lesser the extra punishment.
Reveal the top cards of opponents deck until you reach a treasure.
If it is a copper, discared the copper and player gains a curse
If it is a Silver trash it
If it is a Gold, discard the gold  and opponent gains a copper.
If it is another Treasure 'do X....'

That way it equals out (and has a bit of longevity in the end game)

[LastFootnote]

What if the choice was the opponent's, and it was backward? Like, the attack can be a Cutpurse, but I also have to discard an additional card and gain a curse. Or I can discard a Silver and discard an additional card, or discard a Gold and nothing else.

Hmm, why not make it the other way round, the better the card it discards the lesser the extra punishment.
Reveal the top cards of opponents deck until you reach a treasure.
If it is a copper, discared the copper and player gains a curse
If it is a Silver trash it
If it is a Gold, discard the gold  and opponent gains a copper.
If it is another Treasure 'do X....'

That way it equals out (and has a bit of longevity in the end game)

Good ideas! I'll have to explore this next time I make an Attack card.

That's awesome. I had an almost identical card in mind that I called Mercenary (the more you pay him, the stronger his attack). I set it up with three or four different types of attacks, and you got to pick which attacks you wanted, and the more treasure you discarded the more picks you got. I never could come up with something workable, but I'd be curious to see someone else's take, so if you ever finish yours be sure to post it.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that my card was also called Mercenary. I ended up going in a different direction with the card while maintaining its soldier-for-hire feel.