Print

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

[pandotree]

Here is an attempt at a balanced punishing reaction and attack card

Fire Ship
----------
+2 Cards
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck and trashes the card with smaller cost. You may choose which one if the values are equal.
----------
You may reveal this card when another player plays an attack. If you do, that player may trash the attack card after playing it or return the card to their hand unplayed.

Cost - $4

I don't think this card causes people to never choose to buy attacks but does change the way attacks are played.

It's also useless revealed multiple times since the attack card is returned to the attacker's hand. The action remains unused but if they play the attack again, the same scenario plays out.

[Robz888]

The attack portion of the card is very swingy. And I think really dominating. Somebody turns up Estate/Silver, somebody else turns up Province/Gold. And your card gives +2 cards AND it only costs $4? And because the best defense against the card is to buy it yourself (for the Reaction aspect), this card would probably just totally dominate whatever set it appears in. You would have to buy out the pile.

Also, you have some wording issues. "You may reveal this card when another player plays an attack. If you do, that player may trash the attack card after playing it or return the card to their hand unplayed." Well, they can't return it to their hand unplayed, because they already played it, or else the Reaction wouldn't trigger.

[Adrienaline]

Maybe "reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal two different cards, then trash the lower value of the two?" Because otherwise if you reveal two provinces, trash one.
It reduces the swingyness, though still makes it really swingy.

And for the reaction portion, its a wording reword, "If you do, the player may trash the attack or the effects of the attack are reversed and the attack card is returned to the player's hand. Either way, this is highly un-dominion like. I'd make it cost 5 at a minimum to help with that, but it's more swingy than Saboteur, and most people who play dominion (myself included) won't like that as it radically changes the game.

[yudantaiteki]

And for the reaction portion, its a wording reword, "If you do, the player may trash the attack or the effects of the attack are reversed and the attack card is returned to the player's hand.

That doesn't work; "reversed" is undefined in the Dominion rules and no effects have taken place yet, since the order goes play the card -> reactions -> effects of the card.

I'm not sure why it needs to be returned to the hand; can you just say "If you do, the player chooses one: Resolve the attack and then trash it, or discard it without resolving its effects."

[Adrienaline]

Yes, yudan, that makes far more sense. Go with that

[jotheonah]

Maybe it should have the saboteur effect of letting the opponent choose a lower-cost replacement?

[Kirian]

I'm almost certain DXV had somewhere said that an attack that just plain trashes the top card, or something similar, without offering a replacement, was considered far too swingy.  Seriously, this is more powerful than Saboteur, and Sab gives no other benefit to the player and costs $5, and can still dominate in some games.

[pandotree]

To tell you the truth, the attack portion was not very thought through. I'm mainly focusing on the concept of forcing the attacker to choose between making their attack a one shot or not have the card be resolved at all.

[eHalcyon]

Mind elaborating on why you think this reaction is balanced?  If this card was present, why would you still buy Attack cards?  It almost completely shuts down some strategies (Minion!) and it can render Attack cards useless.  I wouldn't want to buy Goons with this on the board, because Fire Ship would make it as effective as a $6 Curse in my hand.

Maybe if the non-trash choice is "play as +1 Card, +1 Action" instead of just blocking it entirely.  At least then my card isn't useless.

Definitely should rethink the main action portion.

[Schneau]

Another problem with this card is that the reaction blocks the attack for all players in games with more than 2 players. No other reaction cards work this way - they just benefit the person with the reaction card. This could lead to situations where if both your opponents buy Fire Ships, you might not bother, since their reaction will help you as well, which seems a bit silly.

[O]

The concept is workable with just a bit of fixing

1) Allow a replacement costing 3 lower or more for trashed cards (province->duchy, gold->silver hurt but don't crush, but you probably aren't getting much back for your 5$.)
2) The reaction needs a penalty other than not-playing the card, which is pretty harsh. Maybe "discards a treasure or reveals a hand with no treasure". People are still going to play Mountebank and Witch, and they never were going to play Spy anyways. It makes Cutpure and Militia pretty bad, though.

[Asklepios]

Hmmm...

Perhaps keep the reaction as it is, make the action act like a saboteur attack, but at -$1 or less value rather than -$2, and up the cost to $5?

[rinkworks]

One other point:  When the two cards that get turned up are Apothecary and Festival, then by the rules of the game neither has the smaller cost.  You could fix this easily just by saying "cost in coins" instead of just "cost."

[Schneau]

One other point:  When the two cards that get turned up are Apothecary and Festival, then by the rules of the game neither has the smaller cost.  You could fix this easily just by saying "cost in coins" instead of just "cost."

Or you could just let the player decide which to trash. They'll almost always trash the cheaper one, but it lets them decide in weird cases like this.