Print

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

[timchen]

Actually this is something quite easy yet I haven't thought about before.

We all know cursers are strong. In most of the games. But how strong?

Consider the following variant: instead of -1 VP, the curses now worth 1 VP. It is still treated as a curse otherwise. How strong are the cursers under this variant?

My instinct feeling is that it is still very strong. To be more precise though, an engine will still hate it, but a money deck can probably survive better. I guess this does not in general help the game though (as I feel the money strategies are already buffed a bit too much to my taste currently...)

[Young Nick]

Conversely, how about if instead of Curses being dealt out, they were instead -1 VP chips. Then they could not be trashed, but would not take up space in the deck. If this were the case, would there still be the same limit of only 10*(Number of opponents)?

[kn1tt3r]

Actually this is something quite easy yet I haven't thought about before.

We all know cursers are strong. In most of the games. But how strong?

Consider the following variant: instead of -1 VP, the curses now worth 1 VP. It is still treated as a curse otherwise. How strong are the cursers under this variant?

My instinct feeling is that it is still very strong. To be more precise though, an engine will still hate it, but a money deck can probably survive better. I guess this does not in general help the game though (as I feel the money strategies are already buffed a bit too much to my taste currently...)

I think it's fairer to make this comparison with 0 VP cards, because you can play those attacks also during endgame. I still think they would hurt quite a lot, but the -1 VP should not be underestimated.

Another interesting thought would be to change the costs of such "curses", creating intresting interaction with TFB cards.

[Epoch]

I don't think you're right.  I think that if, say, a Witch gave Curses that were +1 VP instead of -1 VP, it'd be a pretty bad card.

You're right that the VP swing given by Curses isn't usually the most compelling part of the attack -- the deck dilution is -- but the deck dilution part is informed by the negative VP part.  The $5 Cursers, at least, don't dilute your deck all that fast.  What really slows down Cursing games is the obligation of all players to invest in Cursers that are less good at building their own decks than equivalent non-attacks would be.  And you have to invest in Cursers because you're worried about getting a big negative VP drain on your deck, and the best defense to that is giving your opponent an equivalent pile of Curses.

Maybe Geronimoo can quickly confirm for us, but I think that if Curses gave +1 VP instead of -1 VP, single-Witch or single-Sea-Hag would lose to single-Smithy, and they might lose to straight up BMU.

[Jimmmmm]

What about something like a $3-4 Familiar which gave out positive Curses, allowing you to clog up your opponent's deck extremely quickly in the early game?

[DStu]

Maybe Geronimoo can quickly confirm for us, but I think that if Curses gave +1 VP instead of -1 VP, single-Witch or single-Sea-Hag would lose to single-Smithy, and they might lose to straight up BMU.

On Dominiate, DoubleWitch loses 25:75 against BigSmithy if Curses give +1VP

[Asklepios]

Hmmm... Or how about if there were no curses, just copper giving attacks?

Thematically it wouldn't make much sense, but game balance wise I think it would make cursers less of an obvious choice.

[GendoIkari]

The problem with attacks that give -1 VP tokens is that they are completely equivalent to giving yourself +1 VP tokens... Now, -1 VP tokens could be interesting if a card gave 1 to yourself; as a drawback to being otherwise very powerful.

[Deadlock39]

The problem with attacks that give -1 VP tokens is that they are completely equivalent to giving yourself +1 VP tokens...

This is mostly true, but Moat and Lighthouse make it not 100% accurate. 

On a related note, this variation would prevent something like Watchtower from being a defense.

[RisingJaguar]

A card giving out 1VP cards would be very troublesome to handle in the late game.  No card in dominion becomes unplayable near the end game (sans trashers of a mandatory amount, ie. remake/trading post) and that just seems like a situation probably dominion doesn't need. 

Another thing to note is giving 1VP cards would run out the estate pile (assuming its just called estate) very quickly. 

[jonts26]

There is also the option of what Donald originally had as confusion cards. Basically a nothing card. Just takes up space with no -1 point or anything else on it.

I think this would be a better comparison when figuring out the strength of that -1 point on the curse.

[DG]

One serious problem with a +1 vp curse is that you give the opponent a vp lead and probably exhaust a supply pile. This will lead to frequent 3 pile duchy endings.

There are also a lot of secondary problems with how you name, cost, and assign a type to these cards but this is presumably only a hypothetical exercise.