Print

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

[Kirian]

There was quite a bit of discussion as Goko appeared about the idea that some cards might be created that were "online only;" cards that would be interesting, but either impossible or prohibitively difficult to track at the gaming table, but easy to do on the computer.  I thought I'd try to create a few.

Tower
Action - $2*

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash this card.  If you do, gain a cheaper card
----
Each time you play this card, the cost of this card increases by 1.

This is just an expensive cantrip when purchased.  However, each time you play the card, its cost increases.  After 5 plays, you can trash it for a Gold; after 7 plays, you can trash it for a Province!  But this requires tracking each individual card, and different copies of Tower in your deck may have different costs at the same time.  Not to mention that, when trashed, it retains its cost, meaning it has to be tracked for Rogue and Graverobber.


Pocketwatch
Treasure - $5

Worth $1 for each copy of Pocketwatch in your deck

The first one is an expensive Copper; the third one is three cheap Golds, effectively.  But keeping track of this requires either a mat or some sort of tally--either of which gets messed up when the card is trashed.


Chancellor
Action - $3

+$2
You may shuffle your deck and discard together.  If you do, take half of the cards (rounded down) and place them in your discard pile.

An odd card, probably with a power level similar to the real Chancellor; it allows you to (possibly) recycle your used good cards, without automatically recycling your dead cards.  Well, probably; I'm not actually saying this is a good card, just an example.  Sitting at the table, you have to count the newly-shuffled deck, then cut that number in half and place those in the discard pile.


Astrolabe
Treasure - $5

Worth $1 per $12 of the total cost of the cards in your deck

Really, you don't want to have to deal with this at the table.

--------

Probably only the first two are even close to good ideas (I quite like the first one).  But I thought it was an interesting thought experiment.  Anyone else have good online-only cards?

[SirPeebles]

I like Tower

[gman314]

Every time this comes up, I bring up the same card, which doesn't have quite the same tracking issues, but they still exist.

Peons
$4 - Action-Duration
Choose two: +1 card, +1 action, +$1, +1 buy (The choices must be different.)

At the start of your next turn receive the other two.


It's totally possible to track this for one or two, but if you start piledriving them, or if you King's Court or Throne Room them, I really don't want to track that. And Procession, just no. However, it would be totally possible to track on the computer.

[Kirian]

Every time this comes up, I bring up the same card, which doesn't have quite the same tracking issues, but they still exist.

Peons
$4 - Action-Duration
Choose two: +1 card, +1 action, +$1, +1 buy (The choices must be different.)

At the start of your next turn receive the other two.


It's totally possible to track this for one or two, but if you start piledriving them, or if you King's Court or Throne Room them, I really don't want to track that. And Procession, just no. However, it would be totally possible to track on the computer.

Yes, that would be nuts to track in person!  That could also be very powerful I think.

[heron]

Pocketwatch was proposed before, I think by Davio. It's too strong, especially with Colonies.

[dondon151]

Any cards that involve randomness without depending on contents of decks, etc. can only be implemented well online.

[eHalcyon]

Along the lines of Tower, you could make other cards where individual copies have state.

Variable Smithy
$4 - Action
Draw X+2 cards, where X is [number of times this copy of this card has been played] mod 3.

Student
$2 - Action
Choose one: change the mode of this copy of this card (A-D); or get the effect of mode [current mode].
---
A: +1 Buy, +$2
B: +1 Card, +2 Actions
C: +2 Cards
D: Trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
---
There is no initial mode so you must choose one the first time you play this card.





V-Smithy draws 2 cards, then 3, then 4, then 2 again.  This could actually work in real life by tracking copies of all V-Smithies rather than each individual copy, though it would still be a bit fiddly.

Student can be a Woodcutter, Village, trashing Steward or drawing Steward.  The first play of each copy is dead while later on you can give up using its bonus to change its function.  The version above is probably just way worse than Steward though.  Being dead on first play probably makes it too weak even for $2, especially because the flexibility isn't all that flexible.  So maybe each individual effect could be slightly bigger.

Grad Student
$2 - Action
Choose one: change the mode of this copy of this card (A-D); or get the effect of mode [current mode].
---
A: +2 Buys, +$2
B: +1 Card, +3 Actions
C: +2 Cards, you may change the mode of this copy of this card
D: Trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
---
There is no initial mode so you must choose one the first time you play this card.

[Matt_Arnold]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

[SirPeebles]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

I don't think that's a strong enough case to make it online only.  When this card is in the kingdom and being purchased, I imagine people would be paying attention.  If I played a Levy, then it is my responsibility to point it out whenever someone interacts with cost.

[StrongRhino]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

But according to the duration rules, it would get discarded at the end if its ability, so it would go away in the clean up of the turn it was played, so wouldn't affect the opponents.

[Just a Rube]

How about a variant of Balcony from the Dominion Outtakes article (the throne room that drew first, then discarded)? It got talked about in the forum thread. It had a couple issues (not knowing whether or not it would be terminal until you played it, balance issues) but those seem fixable; the consensus was that the real problem was the stacking.

Likewise the version of crossroads from the Hinterlands outtakes that gave you actions depending on how many victory cards you had in hand when you played it; one of its problems was that you couldn't backtrack and figure out how many actions you had at any given point if you lost count.

A computer would fix those problems.

[Gveoniz]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

Revealing a moat to this have no effect at all.

[Awaclus]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

Revealing a moat to this have no effect at all.

It would: your opponent now knows that you have a Moat in your hand, instead of Horse Traders or Secret Chamber.

[KingZog3]

Levy
Type: Action / Duration / Attack
Cost: $5
+$3.
----------------------
While this is in play, all cards cost $1 more.

For in-person play, the problem with this card is that it's too easy to not notice Durations in the areas of other players. If your mistake costed you a missed opportunity, it would be fine. Instead, your mistake advantages you, which is unacceptable. By the time you realize the mistake, no one remembers how to undo the error.

Revealing a moat to this have no effect at all.

It would: your opponent now knows that you have a Moat in your hand, instead of Horse Traders or Secret Chamber.

And it's not really an attack either. It makes my opponent's Bishop much better, giving me extra points, or their Salvager produces more money. Not to mention you also receive all the same positives and negatives of all the other players. So it shouldn't even be labeled as an attack.

[eHalcyon]

The Duration cost increaser is an attack. Yeah it can sometimes help, but it really hurts most of the time. It doesn't matter that it hits you too. Minion is an attack even though I also discard.

The big problem with this concept is that it stacks harshly. In games with 3 or more players it can completely lock people out of buying even copper.

[SirPeebles]

I wouldn't consider it an attack any more than Bridge, Highway, and Princess are attacks.  Especially Highway and Princess, since those also have "While this is in play..." effects.

As another comparison, Embargo is not an attack.  That is perhaps the closest in spirit to Levy.

[eHalcyon]

I wouldn't consider it an attack any more than Bridge, Highway, and Princess are attacks.  Especially Highway and Princess, since those also have "While this is in play..." effects.

As another comparison, Embargo is not an attack.  That is perhaps the closest in spirit to Levy.

Bridge, Highway and Princess don't effect your opponents.  Levy is a duration that does.

Embargo is not an attack because it is possible for opponents to play around it.  While it can hurt them later, it doesn't actually effect them directly.  Cost increasing might feel similar, but it is much more direct because in most games you really do rely on buying something, and Levy can make that extremely difficult.

Perhaps it would be better to give a real example -- Cutpurse actually started out as a duration that increased cost.  I guess you could argue that it was an attack because it didn't create the increase for yourself... but again, I point to Minion.  I would consider a card that gave everyone (including you) a Curse to be an attack as well.

[SirPeebles]

I wouldn't consider it an attack any more than Bridge, Highway, and Princess are attacks.  Especially Highway and Princess, since those also have "While this is in play..." effects.

As another comparison, Embargo is not an attack.  That is perhaps the closest in spirit to Levy.

Bridge, Highway and Princess don't effect your opponents.  Levy is a duration that does.

Embargo is not an attack because it is possible for opponents to play around it.  While it can hurt them later, it doesn't actually effect them directly.  Cost increasing might feel similar, but it is much more direct because in most games you really do rely on buying something, and Levy can make that extremely difficult.

Perhaps it would be better to give a real example -- Cutpurse actually started out as a duration that increased cost.  I guess you could argue that it was an attack because it didn't create the increase for yourself... but again, I point to Minion.  I would consider a card that gave everyone (including you) a Curse to be an attack as well.

Sure, Bridge doesn't affect your opponent.  But neither does Levy.  They both affect the costs of cards.  All cards.  In your hand, your deck, your opponents', in the supply, in the black market deck... all of them.

And you don't really think that's the reason Embargo is not an attack.  That's pretty silly.

One reason Levy and Embargo are not attacks is because they don't affect your oopponents when played.  They are interactive, but playing the card is not attacking.  For instance, as noted above, there is nothing for Moat or Lighthouse to nullify.

[eHalcyon]

I point again at Cutpurse.  The original Cutpurse was a duration cost increaser.  The effect of causing the price of cards to increase by $1 is roughly equivalent to forcing opponents to discard a Copper.  Increasing the cost of cards affects opponents in what they can purchase.  It's an attack on their ability to buy cards, just like Cutpurse.

[Young Nick]

There are a lot of cards that are borderline attacks, but does it matter all that much?

Example:

Copper Flooder
$3
Action(-Attack?)
+$2
Each opponent gains a Copper.

Is this an attack? What if it reads as "Everyone gains a Copper?"

I mean Overgrown Estate is technically a Victory card even though it doesn't net you VP's. Talk about straining a definition...

Card types are an increasingly malleable affair.

[scott_pilgrim]

If you label it as an attack, you will surely get players who buy lighthouses/moats, and then later are disappointed when they find out that "being unaffected by the attack" makes no difference, and now they've bought some cards that they didn't want.  There's no real reason to label this as an attack; the only difference it makes is whether it can be gained by trashing Squire, and I don't think that that's what this discussion is about.

The difference between this and Cutpurse is that Cutpurse does something when you play it.  This does something while it's in play.  Cutpurse could be blocked by moat/lighthouse if it were an attack, so it's an attack.  This could not be blocked by moat/lighthouse if it were an attack, so making it an attack just causes confusion.

[eHalcyon]

There are a lot of cards that are borderline attacks, but does it matter all that much?

Example:

Copper Flooder
$3
Action(-Attack?)
+$2
Each opponent gains a Copper.

Is this an attack? What if it reads as "Everyone gains a Copper?"

I mean Overgrown Estate is technically a Victory card even though it doesn't net you VP's. Talk about straining a definition...

Card types are an increasingly malleable affair.

Yes that is an attack.  It is a copper junker.  Giving other people Copper is a common use case of Ambassador, which is an attack.  It is also an attack that was tested by Donald X. and ultimately scrapped because the size of the Copper pile doesn't scale with numbers of players.  Existing Copper junkers are gated in some way -- Ambassador by the starting Copper in your deck (people are unlikely to buy more just to send to others); Noble Brigand and Jester by having to hit specific cards in the opponents deck (non-Treasures for NB, Copper for Jester); Mountebank by the built in Curse bane.

What other cards are "borderline attacks"?  The only two that people consider that are Masquerade and Possession, I think.

If you label it as an attack, you will surely get players who buy lighthouses/moats, and then later are disappointed when they find out that "being unaffected by the attack" makes no difference, and now they've bought some cards that they didn't want.  There's no real reason to label this as an attack; the only difference it makes is whether it can be gained by trashing Squire, and I don't think that that's what this discussion is about.

The difference between this and Cutpurse is that Cutpurse does something when you play it.  This does something while it's in play.  Cutpurse could be blocked by moat/lighthouse if it were an attack, so it's an attack.  This could not be blocked by moat/lighthouse if it were an attack, so making it an attack just causes confusion.

I think this is an argument for not making the card at all.  Messing with opponent's buying power is undeniably an attack to me.  The main purpose of a card like that is to make it harder for others to buy cards. 

When the main purpose is to hinder opponents, I consider it an attack.  Other cards that are "borderline" attacks but are not labelled attacks are not (usually) purchased with the intent to hurt opponents.  Masquerade only hurts if opponents have trimmed down to an extremely high quality deck, or if they have an incredibly "good" draw, or sometimes (but still not reliably) in conjunction with a discard attack.  Possession doesn't hurt on average and is only really harmful with Amb, Masquerade, and possibly a trove of coin tokens.

That it uses a "while in play" wording does make it interact with reactions in a potentially confusing way.  That's just another reason I don't think it works as a card.



But whatever, don't label it an attack if you want.  It's still problematic.  It can create games where a player can't even buy Copper.  That is seriously an issue.  It's especially true with more than 2 players, and they exacerbate first player advantage.  P1 plays Levy, cards cost $1 more.  P2 also plays Levy, cards cost $2 more for P3 now... this is significant, especially in the early game.  At least against something like Torturer you can always choose to take the curse.  With Levy, you just get locked out with no recourse.  It's similar to the problem with the common Embargo fan variant that increases costs of individual cards with "tax tokens".

[scott_pilgrim]

I agree that it's a terrible card.  But it's even more terrible if it's an attack, because that just makes it confusing and terrible.

[AJD]

What other cards are "borderline attacks"?  The only two that people consider that are Masquerade and Possession, I think.

When the main purpose is to hinder opponents, I consider it an attack.  Other cards that are "borderline" attacks but are not labelled attacks are not (usually) purchased with the intent to hurt opponents.

The obvious relevant example here is Ill-Gotten Gains, I guess.

[GeronimoRex]

I think you could fix most of the problems... first, you could have it only increase the cost of specific card types (Action and Victory would make the most sense), so that Copper remained a zero-cost card.

Second, you could put a prohibition on stacking the effect. i.e. "With any number of this card in play, Action and Victory cards cost +2."

At this point, though, it might be too weak to be worthwhile... it might be more interesting as a Duration/Treasure card... worth $2 on this turn, $2 next turn; with any number of this card in play, Action and Victory cards cost +$2... So with only one in hand, it's worthless except to frustrate opponents. With multiples in play, additional copies are worth $4 total, spread across two turns... I think this would be a $5 cost card. A similar card, with all $2 reduced to $1 would also be worth playing around with, probably a cost $3.