Print

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

[Rush_Clasic]

Previous version:

Tower $4
Action - Reaction
+$2
+1 Buy
-----
Whenever a player buys a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, that player puts that card on top of his deck.

Tower $4
Action - Reaction
+$2
+1 Buy
-----
Whenever a player gains a card during a buy phase, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, that player puts that card on top of his deck.

• #48
• I'm always on the lookout for an interesting interaction card. One of the features I take issue with in Dominion is the lack of direct interaction at times. It isn't the biggest issue; I enjoy that the game has a pace and flow to it, and attacks and reactions in general offer the ability to affect the opposition. The balance is important to keep. I just think there's room for more such connections.
• This card originally triggered on gaining cards at any time, to facilitate Workshop effects and Curse attacks and so on. I felt at the time that the process of gaining a card was enough of a turn stop itself for the reaction not to matter. But after a bit of discussion with peers, it seems that's not the case, especially with players quite familiar with the game. So I changed it to buying, which is easy enough to handle and doesn't feel like such an interruption. As is, its mostly a semi-Royal Seal for you and a green hater on the opposition.

[LastFootnote]

Very cool idea, but unfortunately this does create some rule resolution issues.

The problem with an on-buy ability that moves a card is that the card hasn't been gained yet. So after the card moves to the top of the player's deck, it would then be gained and move to the discard pile. Either that or it makes on-gain effects lose track of the card. It's messy, regardless.

What if you could reveal the card when a player gained a card during the buy phase? Or just during their buy phase, if you don't want it to work for the Curses that Ill-Gotten Gains gives out?

[NoMoreFun]

What are the worst possible situations for On-Gain? I guess you could get kingmaking whenever a cursing attack is played.

I suppose it would suck to play a card like Explorer or Mine and have it be neutered by someone else's reaction

[SirPeebles]

What are the worst possible situations for On-Gain? I guess you could get kingmaking whenever a cursing attack is played.

I suppose it would suck to play a card like Explorer or Mine and have it be neutered by someone else's reaction

Worst case scenario?  Possibly a long Cultist chain culminating in a King's Courted Mountebank, and then buying an Ill-Gotten Gains.

[NoMoreFun]

What are the worst possible situations for On-Gain? I guess you could get kingmaking whenever a cursing attack is played.

I suppose it would suck to play a card like Explorer or Mine and have it be neutered by someone else's reaction

Worst case scenario?  Possibly a long Cultist chain culminating in a King's Courted Mountebank, and then buying an Ill-Gotten Gains.

In an IRL game I'd hold my Tower and cackle as my opponents next 6 turns are neutered.

At least in isotropic the clicking process can make it seem just as painful for the attacker.

[Rush_Clasic]

Very cool idea, but unfortunately this does create some rule resolution issues.

The problem with an on-buy ability that moves a card is that the card hasn't been gained yet. So after the card moves to the top of the player's deck, it would then be gained and move to the discard pile. Either that or it makes on-gain effects lose track of the card. It's messy, regardless.

I'm not convinced that this problem exists. The rules read as though buying is a different form of gaining, and that the purchase and placement are part of one process. The effect of my card replaces the placement altogether; it's not stepping in between, it's rewriting.

What if you could reveal the card when a player gained a card during the buy phase? Or just during their buy phase, if you don't want it to work for the Curses that Ill-Gotten Gains gives out?

That would mirror conventional wording more. And offer up a few cute interactions. Looking through the sets, both the "gained during a buy phase" version and my version only have questionable interactions with Possession and Watchtower. (Everything else is rather straight-forward on how it should play out.) Possession would fortunately work the same as with Royal Seal... except I'm not entirely sure how that interaction works. If you've Possessed someone with Royal Seal and you, say, want to buy a Curse and put it on top of their deck, can you? I'd usually think no, but they're both trying to replace where the card ends up which leads me to think the possessing player would have a choice in the matter. Watchtower has a similar issue of which replacement takes precedence. If a player buys a Curse then reveals Watchtower to trash it, then I reveal Tower to top it, whose wins? Furthermore, who has precedence over reacting first?

That last issue might be cause for change. Possibly something like "Whenever a bought card is put into a discard pile..."

[LastFootnote]

Very cool idea, but unfortunately this does create some rule resolution issues.

The problem with an on-buy ability that moves a card is that the card hasn't been gained yet. So after the card moves to the top of the player's deck, it would then be gained and move to the discard pile. Either that or it makes on-gain effects lose track of the card. It's messy, regardless.

I'm not convinced that this problem exists. The rules read as though buying is a different form of gaining, and that the purchase and placement are part of one process. The effect of my card replaces the placement altogether; it's not stepping in between, it's rewriting.

What if you could reveal the card when a player gained a card during the buy phase? Or just during their buy phase, if you don't want it to work for the Curses that Ill-Gotten Gains gives out?

That would mirror conventional wording more. And offer up a few cute interactions. Looking through the sets, both the "gained during a buy phase" version and my version only have questionable interactions with Possession and Watchtower. (Everything else is rather straight-forward on how it should play out.) Possession would fortunately work the same as with Royal Seal... except I'm not entirely sure how that interaction works. If you've Possessed someone with Royal Seal and you, say, want to buy a Curse and put it on top of their deck, can you? I'd usually think no, but they're both trying to replace where the card ends up which leads me to think the possessing player would have a choice in the matter. Watchtower has a similar issue of which replacement takes precedence. If a player buys a Curse then reveals Watchtower to trash it, then I reveal Tower to top it, whose wins? Furthermore, who has precedence over reacting first?

That last issue might be cause for change. Possibly something like "Whenever a bought card is put into a discard pile..."

Possession's redirection is a would-gain effect and happens before any on-gain effects. Royal Seal can't affect a card gained during a possessed turn.

[eHalcyon]

Very cool idea, but unfortunately this does create some rule resolution issues.

The problem with an on-buy ability that moves a card is that the card hasn't been gained yet. So after the card moves to the top of the player's deck, it would then be gained and move to the discard pile. Either that or it makes on-gain effects lose track of the card. It's messy, regardless.

I'm not convinced that this problem exists. The rules read as though buying is a different form of gaining, and that the purchase and placement are part of one process. The effect of my card replaces the placement altogether; it's not stepping in between, it's rewriting.

You're reading the rules incorrectly then.  On-buy and on-gain are well established.  Buying leads to gaining, though there are ways to gain besides buying.  Buying is not a different form of gaining, it is one of several ways to gain.

[Rush_Clasic]

Possession's redirection is a would-gain effect and happens before any on-gain effects. Royal Seal can't affect a card gained during a possessed turn.

Ah, they are worded differently. Noted.

You're reading the rules incorrectly then.  On-buy and on-gain are well established.  Buying leads to gaining, though there are ways to gain besides buying.  Buying is not a different form of gaining, it is one of several ways to gain.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[eHalcyon]

As for the concept itself, I think it is pretty interesting.  There is some fear of kingmaking though! 

[Rush_Clasic]

Here's a situation that I'm not certain the answer of that will helps me follow up with some rules responses:

Suppose I have a Haggler and a Royal Seal in play. I buy a Smithy, gain a Silver with the Haggler trigger, and decide to put both on top of my deck with the Royal Seal. Which card ends up the topmost on my deck?

[eHalcyon]

Here's a situation that I'm not certain the answer of that will helps me follow up with some rules responses:

Suppose I have a Haggler and a Royal Seal in play. I buy a Smithy, gain a Silver with the Haggler trigger, and decide to put both on top of my deck with the Royal Seal. Which card ends up the topmost on my deck?

I think Smithy ends up on top.

First you buy a Smithy.
Haggler is on-buy, so you trigger its effect.  It lets you gain a card.  You choose to gain Silver.
You gained a Silver, so you may now use Royal Seal to topdeck it.  You choose to do so, putting the Silver on top of your deck.
NOW, you gain the Smithy and may topdeck it as well.

From reading the cards, I would say that the Haggler gain precedes the gain from purchasing.  A similar thing happens with Talisman.

[Rush_Clasic]

If that's how to flow of gaining works, then there indeed is a separation between the action of buying the card and the action that puts the card into your discard, which makes my interpretation incorrect. I'm not such whether your response is covered by actual rules anywhere, but I'll at least forfeit my knowledge base to yours.

*edits OP*

Now to playtest whether this plus Ill-Gotten Gains is that oppressive. There are plenty of ways to fix this, but I won't unless its just god awful unfun.