Print

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

[rinkworks]

I know Donald's right of course, (he knows the game better than anyone), but help me understand why he's right and I'd be grateful.

Your post suggests you already understand most of it and just need time to internalize it a bit better.  I guess the underlying problem is that it's near-impossible (likely actually impossible) to balance such a reaction card out in a way that keeps the game fun.  With a strong attack, as you've pointed out, it's worth taking the risk anyway and buying the attack card.  But in that case, it's NOT worth investing in the reaction card, since the proportion of damage it deals out is going to be too weak or too expensive to bother with.  OR, if the reaction card IS strong enough to balance out a strong attack, then it will completely obliterate and stomp over a weaker attack card, which would then become dead piles, because no one would ever buy them.  Which, in turn, means that nobody would bother with the reaction card -- no matter HOW strong -- because it would never get used.

AJD mentioned Trader, and indeed when I saw Trader, I feared that a Trader game with attacks would suffer from the same kind of imbalanced game state.  And unfortunately I think it does sometimes, but only with some attacks (only a small percentage of attacks give out cards) and only in 2p, where mistakenly helping an opponent is roughly the same as mistakenly hurting yourself.  So it's a much narrower set of situations.

The other difference is that Trader is useful even without the reaction.  Since the reaction doesn't apply to all attacks and is therefore weaker than a blanket one that covers all attacks, its top half can be strong enough to be actually useful.  So Trader is never a wholly dead card, no matter what else is on the table.  This particular disadvantage is not insurmountable, but in light of all the other problems, why bother trying?

[Davio]

Don't forget that there is another golden rule of Dominion that Donald has never violated: He doesn't like targeted attacks, and for good reason.

All attack cards out there attack every other player, while some nasty action cards that are not attacks focus on the person to your right (Smuggler) or left (Possession, Masquerade).

If you give an attack-style Reaction to a card, it becomes possible to target the attack. If a player would have both Revenge and Moat in his hand, he may choose not to reveal Revenge if the attacker is a friend.

Having this kind of selective attacking creates all kinds of problems, most of which you can think of yourselves.

I think we should always strictly adhere to the rule of either attacking everybody or nobody. The same goes for defending. Help yourself, but don't help others.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks rink and Davio.

So the challenge then, is to make the reaction untargeted and worthwhile enough to buy, but not so worthwhile as to neutralize attacks completely. Yeah, that's a tall order, indeed.

It's clunky, but perhaps something like this can bypass the design problem? I think it winds up creating a weird card, that simply isn't elegant or practical:

Ancient Witch
Action - Reaction - 5
Trash a card from your hand, +2 Cards
-----------------------------------------
When another player plays an Attack card, set Ancient Witch aside. You are unaffected by the attack. On your next turn trash this Ancient Witch, if you do, all other players must reveal a Curse in their hands, or gain a Curse (this is considered an attack).

The card now embeds an attack on the next turn. Yeah, its pretty clumsy, just trying to see if there is a way around the design problem. I think I clearly lack the skills to do it.

I think one issue clearly, is Curse-givers are VERY strong in the game. Even a REALLY weak Curse-giver in my expansion can still be very effective. So anything that spreads a Curse requires a LOT of scrutiny.

Is targeting the attacker really a big "no-no" though? It isn't a political reaction, it gets ignited by the attacker. An attacker who saw you buy a card that targets the attacker, is aware you have it in your deck and elected to attack anyway. I agree targeting the attacker and giving them a Curse is problematic. What if the reaction was the attacker and defender now engage in a masquerade? In other words, the reaction to the attack is you pass a card to him and he passes one to you, giving you the option to trash a card after the trade? In the case where he has no card to pass, you are unaffected by the attack.

Is there ANY scenario, in which a reaction card punishes the attacker in some way that is acceptable? Probably not, but I'm curious to see if conceptually one could be devised.

[UltimaPenguin]

Ancient Witch
Action - Reaction - 5
Trash a card from your hand, +2 Cards
-----------------------------------------
When another player plays an Attack card, set Ancient Witch aside. You are unaffected by the attack. On your next turn trash this Ancient Witch, if you do, all other players must reveal a Curse in their hands, or gain a Curse (this is considered an attack).

I agree that its a bit clunky, but I think this seems like at least a plausible idea.

One note though, is I see a lot of little notes on fan cards like (this is considered an attack) or (this is not an attack). If you ever find yourself writing something like this, its almost guaranteed to be a mistake. Take a close look at Moat and Lighthouse. They don't say "you are unnaffected by attacks". They very explicitly say "when another player plays an attack card". This has 3 parts to it. First of all, it has to be another player. Second, it has to be an attack card. As in, the card has the word "Attack" as a type. Finally, and most relevant to your example, the card has to be played. So, even if your Ancient Witch is "considered an attack", it doesn't get played, so it still doesn't interact with Moat and Lighthouse. As another example, some might wonder why ill-gotten gains isn't an attack. And its because it wouldn't matter if it were. The nasty stuff happens when its gained, and Moat and Lighthouse can't interact with that, no matter what the card type is.

Is there ANY scenario, in which a reaction card punishes the attacker in some way that is acceptable? Probably not, but I'm curious to see if conceptually one could be devised.

Who knows. Maybe? The real question is, why do you want to make a card that punishes the attacker? The only reason I can think of is that you don't want them to play attacks. But that just seems like bad design. Also, targeting attacks is always going to include stuff like Spy, which is just awful, since Spy isn't really even that mean or powerful.

How about a hybrid victory-reaction? If buying it early has a nasty enough opportunity cost, it might give attacks enough breathing room to still be viable and effective, but then having a big impact on the end game. If someone does really hate attacks and chooses to buy this card early, it still has both a positive (+vp) and negative (deck clogging) impact on them. Anyway, just shooting around some ideas. I'm still not convinced that it would make a good card, but if its something you really want to make for some reason, it might be possible.

Another idea is to dampen the effect on the attacker. Gain a curse is nasty. But maybe you could have something like "the attacker discards a card or gains a curse", or something like that to give the attacker an out. Again, not sure if that would be a good idea, but I think definitely gaining a curse is almost always going to be too hard to balance, mainly because that's one of the most powerful things an attack can do. So to have a card that counters any attack with the effect of the strongest attacks is probably going to be no good.

[ChaosRed]

One note though, is I see a lot of little notes on fan cards like (this is considered an attack) or (this is not an attack). If you ever find yourself writing something like this, its almost guaranteed to be a mistake.

Yeah forgive the clumsy wording, since it was just a point of discussion, I went with something off-the-cuff. It wasn't about designing a functional, formal variant, more as a catalyst for discussion about whether any reaction can punish an attacker.

Who knows. Maybe? The real question is, why do you want to make a card that punishes the attacker?

To be honest, it was really to challenge the brighter minds on this forum to see if it can be done, in a way that doesn't completely violate the spirit of the game. It was an exercise, for the sake of exercise. Kinda like how in soccer you attempt to keep heading the ball as many times as possible. It doesn't really add value to your game, but is an exercise of skill and precision that if you value the game is worth watching.

How about a hybrid victory-reaction? If buying it early has a nasty enough opportunity cost, it might give attacks enough breathing room to still be viable and effective, but then having a big impact on the end game. If someone does really hate attacks and chooses to buy this card early, it still has both a positive (+vp) and negative (deck clogging) impact on them. Anyway, just shooting around some ideas. I'm still not convinced that it would make a good card, but if its something you really want to make for some reason, it might be possible.

I think this is plausible, and I think Tunnel kind of already fits the bill? I guess Tunnel doesn't react to attacks, but still the line has already been crossed here. Tunnel, is a VERY cool card by the way and proof that none of us can design like Donald can, because that card is compelling and relatively balanced.

Another idea is to dampen the effect on the attacker. Gain a curse is nasty. But maybe you could have something like "the attacker discards a card or gains a curse", or something like that to give the attacker an out. Again, not sure if that would be a good idea, but I think definitely gaining a curse is almost always going to be too hard to balance, mainly because that's one of the most powerful things an attack can do. So to have a card that counters any attack with the effect of the strongest attacks is probably going to be no good.

Yeah dampening is definitely an option, but as I said before, I am more keen to explore IF it can be done at all, or as Donald deduced in the thread rink linked to, it really should be avoided completely. Perhaps, since Donald definitively said it was a bad idea, I should just leave it at that and let others come up with new ideas.

[ChaosRed]

I should add, that one of Dominion's great strengths is its relatively simplicity. It's interesting the thread rink liked to mentions the idea of targeting an attacker with a subsequent "ricochet" or "deflection" came from Garfield.

You see, Magic often ISN'T simple and Magic as a result has sometimes had to labor under some complex verbiage to satisfy its cumbersome mechanics. This thread illustrates this reality well:

http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg%2Fdaily%2Farcana%2F837

Dominion has never had to go to these kinds of extremes, and with Donald at the helm, probably never will.

[Jack Rudd]

It might be interesting to have a Reaction that Spies on the Attacker. For example:

"If another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal and discard this card. If you do, that player reveals the top card of his deck, and discards it or puts it back, your choice."

[ChaosRed]

A spy reaction is kinda cool, kinda more intriguing than Spy itself, especially if the primary ability was something that filtered your own "top deck", so you could get both halves of Spy in the Action/Reaction (it would have to be terminal I guess, I've learned non-terminal reactions are bad). I guess a "Thief" type reaction could work too. Neat idea.

[Newcomer]

A way to avoid political targeting would be to make the reaction element part of a Duration card while it is in play.

Force Field
ACTION-DURATION   $3
---
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.
---
While this in play, if another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you, and he must either discard a card or gain a Copper.

It's weaker than cursing the attacker, so I think people would still strongly consider playing their Attack cards while Force Field is in play. If they have any Victory or Curse cards in hand, they definitely are willing to discard them. And by using the "while this card is in play" mechanic, you can't choose whom to react to; you have to react to all attacks.

Does this need to be labeled as a Reaction, though, since it's a "while in play"? Lighthouse isn't, but this affects the other player directly. I'm thinking not, because you don't have to reveal, set aside, or discard the card when the attack is played. The game state of attacks-lead-to-discard-or-Copper is set up before the Attack card is played, because Force Field is actively in play.

[Jimmmmm]

Force Field
ACTION-DURATION   $3
---
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.
---
While this in play, if another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you, and he must either discard a card or gain a Copper.

It's not terribly important for the sake of the discussion, but this needs to be at least $5, since the top part alone is strictly better than Caravan.

In terms of the "reaction" part, I think it could work. It would probably make you think twice about buying something like Spy or Fortune Teller, which are not fantastic anyway, but it won't stop you from buying a Mountebank.

On the other hand, there's always the issue with spammable reactions. You may as well buy the whole pile of these, and never be affected by an attack again. In that case, maybe it will stop you from buying a Mountebank. Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say a reaction to attacks should never be spammable, but if it's a Moat-like reaction, I'd say it's not a good idea.

[Newcomer]

I agree making it easily spammable might not be a good idea. It's another good point to keep in mind, and part of why designing such cards is so tricky. But I won't bother amending this card, as it's just meant as an exercise. The top part can really be anything, so long as it's a Duration card.

And yep, forgot about Caravan, and it's surprising how strong such a simple card can be. I mean, it makes sense, it just reads like it's not going to be that powerful.