Print

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

[RTT]

Hey everyone.

I´m trying to find out what the most hated attacks from the community are. Please Vote for yours in the following survey.

https://goo.gl/forms/DaPCZEQ1mDW3MG322

Thanks

[cascadestyler]

It's a bit unclear whether this should be "which attack do I hate having played against me the most?" which is essentially just "which is the most powerful attack?" or "which attack do I hate seeing on a board?" The latter question is much more interesting, and I've answered it accordingly, but I have a feeling enough people will interpret it the first way that we'll just have a poll to find out that, hey man, Torturer and Mountebank are really really powerful, who knew?

[LaLight]

Hey everyone.

I´m trying to find out what the most hated attacks from the community are. Please Vote for yours in the following survey.

https://goo.gl/forms/DaPCZEQ1mDW3MG322

Thanks

There's a mistake in Haunted Woods' name

[ipofanes]

You mean the letters are out of order and it's really an "un-hated woods"?

[Awaclus]

I voted for Mountebank and Cultist because I feel like those cards had the highest random chance of making it very easy for my opponent to win regardless of small differences in skill level (where small = no more than 7 levels) out of all Attacks, and that's why I like seeing them in a kingdom less than the others. I wouldn't say I hate them though, they're not Magic Lamp level bad.

[McGarnacle]

I always disliked attacks that trashed your cards. If you are struggling to hit $5, the opponent gets a couple of Knights and trashes your first $5, your basically screwed.

[markusin]

Were we able to vote for more than one card?

I actually voted Ghost Ship. It just feels so unpleasant in the games where it's good and you expect to be hit by it every turn. Maybe Possession would have been a better choice.

[crj]

Oracle is my least favourite attack, but it's missing from your list.

(It's just so fiddly! You play it, players reveal cards, you make a choice, they make a choice. And then someone decides order matters, so it's you play it, player on your left reveals, you choose, they choose, next player reveals, you choose, they choose, and so on. Once you're finished, it was such a pissy little attack it wasn't worth all the bother.)

[Polk5440]

Possession. Not an attack, I know. And yet....

[RTT]

Oracle is my least favourite attack, but it's missing from your list.

(It's just so fiddly! You play it, players reveal cards, you make a choice, they make a choice. And then someone decides order matters, so it's you play it, player on your left reveals, you choose, they choose, next player reveals, you choose, they choose, and so on. Once you're finished, it was such a pissy little attack it wasn't worth all the bother.)

sorry mate i forgot oracle. i can fully understand hating the card.

Its added now if you still want to vote for it.

[RTT]

Possession. Not an attack, I know. And yet....

... its about to win

[Commodore Chuckles]

There are 4 attacks I've never found fun. Not sure how I would order them:

Militia: Having to see a good hand be destroyed is always irritating, but this card is also boring, so I've just never had fun with it. And having your first $5 hand taken away is beyond aggravating.

Urchin: Overpowered in a really boring way. Having to Discard down to 3 when your own hand has a Mercenary is super annoying. The luck factor is the cherry on top of the unfundae.

Familiar: It just isn't very interesting most of the time. You just make the game more frustrating for each other, and then it doesn't do anything when the Curses are gone. Also has an annoying luck factor.

Knights: Man, I could write a whole rant about the problems with these, but I'll try to be brief. Playing with trashing attacks feels like fighting the wind a lot of the time: You buy a card, it gets trashed, ad nauseam. The random bonuses only encourage people to buy all the Knights instead of just a few, even though they can't really be used as engine pieces due to the randomness. And then if you lose the split you're screwed. In the end, they all trash each other (assuming the split is even), thus making the whole thing seem like a pointless distraction.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Since we could vote for more than one, I voted for Ambassador, Ghost Ship, Possession, IGG, Taxman, Followers, and Warrior. I voted for the ones I think just make the game less fun instead of more fun.

Ambassador is hard to play well (or maybe I'm just bad at it), and in multiplayer it can multiply estates until the pile is empty. (I play a lot of 3-player games at home.)

Ghost Ship just seems to hurt worse when you get hit by it than others.

Taxman seems really weak when you play it, but it hurts when it makes you discard silver (or gold).

Possession, IGG, Tournament, and Page are just among the cards I generally hate to play with. (Page would be the least hated of those, but I felt like voting warrior because it really should exclude travellers.)

[brokoli]

I voted for Goons, Bridge troll and Mountebank but after thinking about it, i should have voted for urchin as well. But it all depends on context. The least fun attack games are those where it's obvious that you have to rush on the attack first and just hope you'll be luckier than your opponent. This can apply to most of the attacks, but more often with the most powerful ones, such as mountebank, goons, witch, familiar, ambassador, and urchinary although the attack is not the most important part for that one.
My hate for bridge troll is less based on rational arguments : it's just that i hate to endure the cost increase thing. And Bridge, Highway and merchant guild already exists so i feel Bridge troll has no reasons to exist.

Latest sets have done a great job on attacks, they are more situationnal than before therefore more interesting. I'm thinking about Swamp Hag, Haunted woods, Enchantress, Werewolf…

[Watno]

Anyone who doesn't pick Minion is wrong.

[Holunder9]

Cultist is the only Attack which I consider to be a bad card design because it is so overpowered. The idea of a terminal that can play further copies of itself is neat but it should never ever be on a junker.

[benedettosoxfan]

My least favorite attack by a million miles is the knights pile. Aside from possession, it's the only pile I would ban. I don't have much of a problem with junkers or militia type attacks because they can usually balance each other out. Starting each turn with 3 cards is fine as long as I can do the same to my opponent, same with dealing out a curse. With knights, if you lose the split in certain situations, you eventually won't have any knights of your own to even the playing field. Of course, you might not have any relevant cards at all if you're on the wrong end of the "knightmare" as I've heard it called. Not only do you have no chance of winning, you can't even really do anything at all. You basically can't even play the game if you know everything between 3-6 is going to get trashed. For me personally the knightmare is the least fun thing in the entire game. In all other games, even if you're getting destroyed, you can still buy stuff and pull off the occasional good turn just for some personal satisfaction and sense of accomplishment.

The other thing about knights- some of them are just so much better than all the others the vast majority of the time. In boards without trashing, Dame Anna can easily decide the whole game. Same with Martin in games without plus buy. On the other hand, knights like Natalie or Vander can just end up futile as whatever you gain from them might get trashed anyway. Imagine if there was exactly one witch in the whole pile that made your opponent discard down to 3 or one random militia that would give you 2 actions. That's what knights feel like for me.

I also picked minion just because I suck with it, swindler for the possible early game deciding swinginess, and scrying pool because the turns take too darn long, but those are mostly just me being grumpy. I didn't pick any junkers or anything like that because, like I said, you should be able to construct your deck to the point where the punishment is roughly even. Maybe cultist is the exception, but I don't mind ruins nearly as much as curses. The fact that there's only one attack among the whole set of expansions that I would axe really speaks to the balance of the game though.

[Commodore Chuckles]

My least favorite attack by a million miles is the knights pile. Aside from possession, it's the only pile I would ban. I don't have much of a problem with junkers or militia type attacks because they can usually balance each other out. Starting each turn with 3 cards is fine as long as I can do the same to my opponent, same with dealing out a curse. With knights, if you lose the split in certain situations, you eventually won't have any knights of your own to even the playing field. Of course, you might not have any relevant cards at all if you're on the wrong end of the "knightmare" as I've heard it called. Not only do you have no chance of winning, you can't even really do anything at all. You basically can't even play the game if you know everything between 3-6 is going to get trashed. For me personally the knightmare is the least fun thing in the entire game. In all other games, even if you're getting destroyed, you can still buy stuff and pull off the occasional good turn just for some personal satisfaction and sense of accomplishment.

The other thing about knights- some of them are just so much better than all the others the vast majority of the time. In boards without trashing, Dame Anna can easily decide the whole game. Same with Martin in games without plus buy. On the other hand, knights like Natalie or Vander can just end up futile as whatever you gain from them might get trashed anyway. Imagine if there was exactly one witch in the whole pile that made your opponent discard down to 3 or one random militia that would give you 2 actions. That's what knights feel like for me.

And this is the Knight rant I could have written. Well done.

I agree that Dame Anna is really swingy. Other potentially "important" ones like Molly and Martin get trashed pretty fast, so you can't get much benefit from them usually. However, the trashing you get from Anna immediately makes your deck better for the rest of the game. That's pretty game-deciding.

About Natalie, the whole reason she's good to get is that you can keep getting cheap cards to buffer your deck against the other Knights. Vander definitely feels sad when your Gold immediately gets hit, though.

[crj]

Question to the people who most hate the attacks which hurt the most: do you like attacks at all in Dominion? I know many people don't.

Personally, I don't mind a vicious slog once in a while, so I'm not going to vote for Ghost Ship or Goons just because it makes life so very difficult.

[Robz888]

Urchin/Mercenary. It's just so dominating, and there's not a whole lot of strategy for doing it better than your opponent.

[ehunt]

Knights are fine. I agree that Anna is dominant, and yes, occasionally Anna's on top and your opponent splits 5/2, but there are so many other situations like this in Dominion. In any other situation, when you buy a knight, ask yourself: is this worth the risk of uncovering Anna? If the answer is no, don't buy the knight.

Minion used to be super annoying on BSW (anyone remember that client?) when the only sets were base and a few cards from each of the others, because it was so dominant. Too many alternatives now.

My vote goes to Margrave. Both players have to get a million of them, and then it just slows the game to a crawl.

[samath]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

[LastFootnote]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.

[Asper]

Warrior for me. Like Knights, but trashing one with the other can be game-deciding. Bonus points for ruining 3 other cards, too.

[samath]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.

Bearable yes but it still functions like an attack. More disappointed from a completionist perspective than something I’d vote for.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.

Bearable yes but it still functions like an attack. More disappointed from a completionist perspective than something I’d vote for.

I feel like Masquerade should be there too. I don't hate it as much as the other cards I mentioned, but man does that card infuriate me a lot of the time.

[Cave-o-sapien]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.

Hey, I had a game recently were I "attacked" with it multiple times.

[cascadestyler]

Disappointed that Hauted Castle didn't make the list in the "not really an attack" category.

Only happening once makes it pretty bearable.

Hey, I had a game recently were I "attacked" with it multiple times.

That happened to me recently - having your opponent repeatedly gain it from the trash it really nasty

[Friendlyone1]

So, did Possession win? lol

[Simon Jester]

I can't help but think that this is an odd survey. I love attacks, they are my favourite mechanism in the game I must say and without it Dominion probably would be a game that couldn't catch my interest for too long. Strong, well-balanced, attacks are yum. All love to Mountebank and Goons. The fact that many of the cards without the attack type can intervene with other players deck shows that this types of interactions are essential to the game.

Now I'm not saying that anyone here disagrees with me necessarily, I just rather want to chose which attack I love the most. (Swindler, I think.)

I chose Urchin however. I've been trying for a while to always open Urchin/Urchin and I have yet to feel that that was the wrong choice. The chance to get a salty opponent yelling about "luck" when you hit Mercenary turn 3 is rather high too. Could be without, honestly.

[LastFootnote]

I really wish Urchin cost $4.

[RTT]

I can't help but think that this is an odd survey. I love attacks, they are my favourite mechanism in the game I must say and without it Dominion probably would be a game that couldn't catch my interest for too long. Strong, well-balanced, attacks are yum. All love to Mountebank and Goons. The fact that many of the cards without the attack type can intervene with other players deck shows that this types of interactions are essential to the game.

Now I'm not saying that anyone here disagrees with me necessarily, I just rather want to chose which attack I love the most. (Swindler, I think.)

I chose Urchin however. I've been trying for a while to always open Urchin/Urchin and I have yet to feel that that was the wrong choice. The chance to get a salty opponent yelling about "luck" when you hit Mercenary turn 3 is rather high too. Could be without, honestly.

so the survey was fine since you found a totally valid answer with reasoning. i am in no way saying go hate all the attacks because they are bad. but some just feel worse then others.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I chose Urchin however. I've been trying for a while to always open Urchin/Urchin and I have yet to feel that that was the wrong choice. The chance to get a salty opponent yelling about "luck" when you hit Mercenary turn 3 is rather high too. Could be without, honestly.

I had a game not too long ago where I went Urchin/Urchin, hit it early, and it was absolutely the wrong choice. Struggling to remember what my opponent did, unfortunately.

[Simon Jester]

I can't help but think that this is an odd survey. I love attacks, they are my favourite mechanism in the game I must say and without it Dominion probably would be a game that couldn't catch my interest for too long. Strong, well-balanced, attacks are yum. All love to Mountebank and Goons. The fact that many of the cards without the attack type can intervene with other players deck shows that this types of interactions are essential to the game.

Now I'm not saying that anyone here disagrees with me necessarily, I just rather want to chose which attack I love the most. (Swindler, I think.)

I chose Urchin however. I've been trying for a while to always open Urchin/Urchin and I have yet to feel that that was the wrong choice. The chance to get a salty opponent yelling about "luck" when you hit Mercenary turn 3 is rather high too. Could be without, honestly.

so the survey was fine since you found a totally valid answer with reasoning. i am in no way saying go hate all the attacks because they are bad. but some just feel worse then others.

Of course, do every survey you like! I'm just a bit sad to see the title "hated attacks" showing up from time to time and wanted to vent. Wasn't meant to criticise you, very much not.   

There is also the thing that there is many threads about how bad certain cards and how we feel about that and even though it's understandable (there is not much to discuss coming to the things what we like about the game) it can sometimes be tiresome.

Whatever, hope you'll get the result you are looking for

[Chappy7]

Definitely Warrior.  Only because it can trash the opponents warrior though.  Other than that, it is totally fine.

[Holunder9]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

[crj]

Warriors killing Warriors is a bit swingy, I agree. On the other hand, it is often interesting to have to think about either how you're going to protect your Warrior, or how you're going to get yours played before your opponent's.

Provided the question has an answer. Preferably a choice between competing answers. If there's nothing you can do but hope, that sucks.

[Chappy7]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

Eh I don't play Dominion for theme.  I just wish it said "Trashes a card costing $3 or $4 other than a Warrior or Treasure Hunter" It's the worst when your opponent gets 2, or even just one extra mega Champion turn.  It's game over.

[Awaclus]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

Eh I don't play Dominion for theme.  I just wish it said "Trashes a card costing $3 or $4 other than a Warrior or Treasure Hunter" It's the worst when your opponent gets 2, or even just one extra mega Champion turn.  It's game over.

Why not just "other than a Traveller"?

[Holunder9]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

Eh I don't play Dominion for theme.  I just wish it said "Trashes a card costing $3 or $4 other than a Warrior or Treasure Hunter" It's the worst when your opponent gets 2, or even just one extra mega Champion turn.  It's game over.

If you consider the payoff of Warriors killing of other Warriors as strong, simply buy an extra Page to either defend against that to achieve that lovely trick yourself. While there is luck involved in Warrior kills Warrior the way to hedge against that is cheap and not a matter of whoever hits $5 and gains a Mountebank/Cultist first most likely wins.

This whole Warrior thing is similar to other trashing Attacks like Knights against which you can also defend by gaining Knights. Knights are admittedly more interesting as the buy decision is far more difficult than with Page.

[missouriben]

Ghost Ship for me--just turns the game into such a slog a high percentage of the time because of the top-decking.

I actually don't mind card-reducing attacks--Goons is probably my single favorite card in Dominion just because its high cost and the need to try to hit multiples of it even when starting from a three-card hand often makes for some creative deck-building problems right from the start. But the top-decking with Ghost Ship can just make a game stall out.

[ackmondual]

If 1E isn't part of the "those we do not speak of", then Saboteur when there are newbies around, or Spy when you have players that aren't paying attention.

Barring those, I'd go with Ghost Ship.  Things do drag with it.

I really wish Urchin cost $4.

Curious, is that how you play it?

[Chappy7]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

Eh I don't play Dominion for theme.  I just wish it said "Trashes a card costing $3 or $4 other than a Warrior or Treasure Hunter" It's the worst when your opponent gets 2, or even just one extra mega Champion turn.  It's game over.

Why not just "other than a Traveller"?

Because I didn't think of that.

[mameluke]

I understand the hate for Warriors killing other Warriors, that also happened to me in one of my first Adventures games. But it is thematically sensible and mechanically quite interesting as it makes you consider buying an extra Page lest one gets slaughtered as well as the downside of it (if you do e.g. not need a Warrior once you are in the Chamipon stage as there is better draw in the Kingdom).

Eh I don't play Dominion for theme.  I just wish it said "Trashes a card costing $3 or $4 other than a Warrior or Treasure Hunter" It's the worst when your opponent gets 2, or even just one extra mega Champion turn.  It's game over.

If you consider the payoff of Warriors killing of other Warriors as strong, simply buy an extra Page to either defend against that to achieve that lovely trick yourself. While there is luck involved in Warrior kills Warrior the way to hedge against that is cheap and not a matter of whoever hits $5 and gains a Mountebank/Cultist first most likely wins.

This whole Warrior thing is similar to other trashing Attacks like Knights against which you can also defend by gaining Knights. Knights are admittedly more interesting as the buy decision is far more difficult than with Page.

But it's not as simple as "buy another Page" -- sure, this helps you from having to go through the whole Traveller line again, but even if you do have a second Page, you likely won't have it at the same Warrior stage quite yet (unless you open Page/Page, I guess). You'll still have to go through another shuffle or two, while your opponent already has a Hero. Missing shuffles puts you at a big disadvantage.

Knights are different because the attacking Knight gets trashed, too. To me, they're just fodder for protecting other cards (Silver is similar). If the Warrior got trashed if it trashed another Warrior, then that would be an interesting card.

[Screwyioux]

I really wish Urchin cost $4.

AMEN