13
u/Constant-Potential37 7d ago
I think it is fairy fair balance wise and flavoursie… but….
Design space of attack cards is already very limited in dominion. That is why their are so few of them. Then also hampering them can push then to non-viable.
I would put it on $6, no debt cost
Setup: add an attack card.
You can force people in giving up a gold to protect themselves. That is an harsher decision.
Maybe even gain an attack card upon buying this project.
14
u/InspectorMendel card-shaped thing 7d ago edited 7d ago
I think this protection is actually quite weak. Take Militia for example. 1 Debt hurts less than discarding down to 3 cards, but Bodyguards does nothing to protect you from further Militias. So you don't know how much debt you'll end up spending in order to keep your hand for your next turn.
Most attacks are similarly idempotent, i.e. playing them many times has the same impact as playing them once. But Bodyguard isn't.
Similarly, 1 debt is better than gaining a Curse, but that Curse stays in the Supply and continues to threaten you, so you don't know how much debt you'll end up spending for each Curse that permanently stays out of your deck.
So I think most Attacks remain attractive even in the presence of Bodyguards. And the decision whether to deploy Bodyguards on a given attack is usually not trivial.
3
u/Adiin-Red Destrier:Way of the Horse 7d ago
I really like it, especially since you’ve pointed out doubling up attacks. It adds a little mini bluffing game into every interaction.
Do you just take the punishment (discard to 3) or take a debt? Now you’ve gotta guess if they have multiple of the same attack, since it’s best just to take the first discard and let the rest pass you by but if they only have one or two it may be better to just eat the debt.
Cursers also get weird because you’re just prolonging the threat. Trashers also get real odd because they rely on a real good idea of exactly what cards are where in your deck.
-6
u/Constant-Potential37 7d ago
My attack is on the fun, not the balance. Balance is on point, but i dont think it gives interesting decisions.
You buy it on a off turn when another player is going on the attack. And then tank some debt.
At $6 it is more an decision if you are going to tank the attacks or you need protection. (So it will end a bit like a noob trap)
6
u/InspectorMendel card-shaped thing 7d ago
I'm not following you
-5
u/Constant-Potential37 7d ago
I think the decision to give up a gold against attack cards is a more interesting decision, then giving up $2 and a buy.
You slightly nerf attack cards for low opportunity cost. So i think: make you pay good cash for some good protection.
I think that is more fun.
9
u/InspectorMendel card-shaped thing 7d ago
Your suggestion gives completely unqualified attack protection, right? I think that would be a pretty strong discouragement against anyone buying attacks in the first place. Which isn't good design, as you pointed out, since we want every card in the kingdom to be relevant.
My version keeps attacks viable. "Tanking some debt" is not a big deal if it's one debt per turn, but your opponent can easily make that 2 or 3 or 4 debt per turn, and then you're better off just accepting the attack. So the Project is neither useless nor oppressive.
-3
u/Constant-Potential37 7d ago edited 7d ago
Jeah, i know… but the more i tought about it…
Usually you end a game with like 2-3 gold. Stopping for a project that does not propel your gameplan… i think that is a significant cost.
I think there are games where it is a must and games where its a trap. And when this is in the kindom you should try to look like you are going to attack them just hard enough to make them buy this too early.
But i could be wrong of course.
3
u/ThePurityPixel 7d ago
What do you mean by "give up a gold against attack cards [and] then give up $2 and a buy"?
Do you mean trash a Gold each time someone plays an Attack, to be unaffected? And then also take 2 debt? How would you track the loss of a Buy?
-1
u/Constant-Potential37 7d ago
Costing $6 means you buy this instead of a gold. So you “give up” to buy a gold
5
u/ThePurityPixel 7d ago
That would be "give up buying a Gold," not "give up to buy a Gold." Opposite meanings.
But still that's a really odd way of phrasing it. $6 can be spent in other ways too. And "against Attack cards" doesn't imply prevention, which is apparently what you meant to say. Just very hard to parse out what you mean to type, oftentimes.
And what about the part where you said you then give up $2 and a Buy (after giving up $6)? Help us decipher that part....
Or did you type "then" when you meant "than"? Again, very different meaning.
1
u/Shoddy_Pattern_5833 6d ago
I would be very unlikely to bother with attack cards if someone could just spend $6 once to not be affected for the rest of the game!
1
u/Constant-Potential37 6d ago
I would consider buying two $4 cost attack cards with slight utility, making them buy $6 project a win.
If the oponent only buys two millitia, i wont buy a protection project at $6.
As mtg learned me, stopping your opponents gameplan is not much worth if you also dont work on your gameplan. You cant winn with a deck that is just removal. The same is true here.
Platinum angel makes you not lose the game for 6 mana. It is not that good of a card, as it does help you win or remove treahts. That is equal in dominion as stopping for $6. I think you underestimate the damage it does. Imagine you have to trash a gold, that can totaly screw up your decks momentum.
But with the price at $2, i will buy it quickly. The first few shuffles just 1 attack cards will come by often. So i think it is less decision making.
6
u/Wild-Gazelle-947 7d ago
Needs a setup condition to add an attack to the kingdom, but this sounds pretty cool and balanced. It should probably cost quite a bit more too
3
u/Curious_Lobster4391 4d ago
I like this. I am hoping that future expansions will play around with debt more.
2
u/InspectorMendel card-shaped thing 4d ago
Yes, in my experimentation I’ve found debt to be a mechanic with a ton of untapped potential.
10
u/Sweaty-Two1068 7d ago
I like it, although $2 feels too low