Print

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

[werothegreat]

Warlock
Action-Reaction
$4

Discard a Curse.  If you do, +$3.

------

When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.  At the start of your next turn,  return this to your hand.

[Davio]

I remember there being a problem with these kinds of reactions.

Maybe it was something Donald X. said, but I can't find his post nor do I dare misquote him.

I guess it had to do with targeting, but also that Attacks need to be strong and you shouldn't have to worry about playing them. A Moat only helps the defender, but doesn't hurt you. When your own Attack can hurt you, that's not good.

Of course the card tries to solve this by setting it aside, but even Scrying Pool is an Attack.

If someone can find the comment or topic by Donald X. it would be really helpful.

[werothegreat]

I was bearing that in mind, and that's why this Reaction doesn't stop an Attack.  And there's the added benefit that you can do something with those Curses with this self-same card - there may be a lot of Curses thrown around.

[jonts26]

I think this card has 2 problems:

1) It's useless with no attack cards on the board, but I guess attacks are common enough that it should still do something in a decent number of games.
2) It's actually pretty weak against most attacks. Unless you are getting hit most turns, it's very risky to buy a card which will literally do nothing when you have it most of the time. At least moat gives you 2 cards.

[Grujah]

Imagine this vs poor spy.

[jonts26]

It would be very good against any sort of repeated attack like Minion or Scrying pool, or maybe a strong engine which is playing a lot of attacks. But that's really it.

[UltimaPenguin]

Maybe it was something Donald X. said, but I can't find his post nor do I dare misquote him.

I guess it had to do with targeting, but also that Attacks need to be strong and you shouldn't have to worry about playing them. A Moat only helps the defender, but doesn't hurt you. When your own Attack can hurt you, that's not good.

I can't find it either, but as I recall the gist of it was that if you have a card like this on the table, it only does anything if people are buying attacks. But if this card is on the table, people are going to be much less likely to buy attacks. And if as a result, people don't buy attacks, then nobody buys this either. So the goal is to add an interesting new dynamic, but in practice it often is going to result in two dead cards, which is no fun.

[qmech]

If someone can find the comment or topic by Donald X. it would be really helpful.

It's the first topic in the Bible of Donald X. board.

[werothegreat]

Maybe it was something Donald X. said, but I can't find his post nor do I dare misquote him.

I guess it had to do with targeting, but also that Attacks need to be strong and you shouldn't have to worry about playing them. A Moat only helps the defender, but doesn't hurt you. When your own Attack can hurt you, that's not good.

I can't find it either, but as I recall the gist of it was that if you have a card like this on the table, it only does anything if people are buying attacks. But if this card is on the table, people are going to be much less likely to buy attacks. And if as a result, people don't buy attacks, then nobody buys this either. So the goal is to add an interesting new dynamic, but in practice it often is going to result in two dead cards, which is no fun.

Well, that's usually what happens with Thief.  Thief is on the board, oh, I better not buy Treasures.  He's not buying any Treasures, oh, it would be pointless to buy Thief.

[jonts26]

Except thief is more likely to help your opponents than hurt them in the early game. So it's more like, yeah I'm buying this silver, buy a thief, I dare you.

[eHalcyon]

Yeah, I don't think people are afraid of buying Treasures against Thief.

[Eevee]

I think it was a rather funny joke, why is no one else laughing?

[razorborne]

If someone can find the comment or topic by Donald X. it would be really helpful.

It's the first topic in the Bible of Donald X. board.

that's slightly different, in an important way. the question he was answering is why not have a reaction that hurts the attacker. the answer had to do with math, and the comparison of benefits to the players involved. (roughly, in a four-player game, giving one player a curse is only worth 1/3rd of a point, which means it's rarely worth it, but if you balance it to make it worth it it becomes crippling for that one individual you hit.) this doesn't have that problem, since it gives a curse to each other player. so I still get my full point of damage without overly crippling a single player.

[AJD]

Warlock
Action-Reaction
$4

Discard a Curse.  If you do, +$3.

------

When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.  At the start of your next turn,  return this to your hand.

So, I play Witch, you reveal Warlock, and players 3 and 4 get two curses each?
I play Witch, all three players reveal Warlock, and everybody gets three curses?

[razorborne]

one idea on how to solve the "no attacks" problem is to, instead of making it "when another player plays an attack card", make it "when you gain a curse". it makes it not the world's biggest overreaction to spy, but it lets you always use it by just buying a curse if you have the extra buy, or use any other gaining mechanism. you could even make it replace the curse-gaining, so you don't actually fall behind, letting you use it with Wharf to craft your own witch.

[werothegreat]

one idea on how to solve the "no attacks" problem is to, instead of making it "when another player plays an attack card", make it "when you gain a curse". it makes it not the world's biggest overreaction to spy, but it lets you always use it by just buying a curse if you have the extra buy, or use any other gaining mechanism. you could even make it replace the curse-gaining, so you don't actually fall behind, letting you use it with Wharf to craft your own witch.

I gain a Curse.  I reveal Warlock.  Players 2, 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 2 reveals Warlock.  I and players 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 3 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 4 gain Curses.

Player 4 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 3 gain Curses.

I reveal another Warlock...

Silly, isn't it?

[razorborne]

one idea on how to solve the "no attacks" problem is to, instead of making it "when another player plays an attack card", make it "when you gain a curse". it makes it not the world's biggest overreaction to spy, but it lets you always use it by just buying a curse if you have the extra buy, or use any other gaining mechanism. you could even make it replace the curse-gaining, so you don't actually fall behind, letting you use it with Wharf to craft your own witch.

I gain a Curse.  I reveal Warlock.  Players 2, 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 2 reveals Warlock.  I and players 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 3 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 4 gain Curses.

Player 4 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 3 gain Curses.

I reveal another Warlock...

Silly, isn't it?

I mean, if they all happen to collide like that, yes, but how likely is that?

[Davio]

If someone can find the comment or topic by Donald X. it would be really helpful.

It's the first topic in the Bible of Donald X. board.

Admittedly, I was too lazy to look it up.

But I had expected it to be a comment regarding some other card, not that it was in his own bible!

[qmech]

that's slightly different, in an important way.

I agree that it's different, and I quite like Warlock (I was in Golem mode when I just posted the link).  Compared with a Vanilla Curser Warlock has the disadvantage that it can't attack on it's own, but the advantage that it can activate several times a round in a multiplayer game.  In 4p it might be too much of a deterrent against attacks, but in 2p Witch would still get bought with Warlock on the board (it's not obviously as much of a deterrent as Trader, for example).

EDIT: It cannot activate multiple times a round.  I can't see any objections to the Reaction part.

[ycz6]

one idea on how to solve the "no attacks" problem is to, instead of making it "when another player plays an attack card", make it "when you gain a curse". it makes it not the world's biggest overreaction to spy, but it lets you always use it by just buying a curse if you have the extra buy, or use any other gaining mechanism. you could even make it replace the curse-gaining, so you don't actually fall behind, letting you use it with Wharf to craft your own witch.

I gain a Curse.  I reveal Warlock.  Players 2, 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 2 reveals Warlock.  I and players 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 3 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 4 gain Curses.

Player 4 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 3 gain Curses.

I reveal another Warlock...

Silly, isn't it?

I mean, if they all happen to collide like that, yes, but how likely is that?

Only two people would have to both have Warlocks in hand to loop like this.

[Asklepios]

Why not ditch the reaction and have it as:

Warlock
Action
$4
+1 card, +1 action.

Discard a Curse.  If you do, +$3.
OR
Gain a curse in your hand.

[razorborne]

one idea on how to solve the "no attacks" problem is to, instead of making it "when another player plays an attack card", make it "when you gain a curse". it makes it not the world's biggest overreaction to spy, but it lets you always use it by just buying a curse if you have the extra buy, or use any other gaining mechanism. you could even make it replace the curse-gaining, so you don't actually fall behind, letting you use it with Wharf to craft your own witch.

I gain a Curse.  I reveal Warlock.  Players 2, 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 2 reveals Warlock.  I and players 3, 4 gain Curses.

Player 3 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 4 gain Curses.

Player 4 reveals Warlock.  I and players 2, 3 gain Curses.

I reveal another Warlock...

Silly, isn't it?

I mean, if they all happen to collide like that, yes, but how likely is that?

Only two people would have to both have Warlocks in hand to loop like this.

not if it's set aside like the original says.

[One Armed Man]

Warlock
Action-Reaction
$4

Discard a Curse.  If you do, +$3.

------

When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.  At the start of your next turn,  return this to your hand.

How about for the primary effect:

Gain or discard a Curse. If you do either, +$3.

[zahlman]

How about for the primary effect:

Gain or discard a Curse. If you do either, +$3.

At this point a comparison to Baron is tempting.

[jonts26]

Except Baron works on estates, which you start with, and gives you $4 and a buy.