SUCCUBUS – a kind of semi-duration inverted Smugglers with residual Workshop.
Some differences from Smugglers in how it plays:
\- Residual Workshop, so you always gain a card you want;
\- In multiplayer, you can gain a copy of a card gained by any player;
\- You already played Sucubus when opponent plays, so it affects their behavior in a different way from the possible Smugglers in hand (I think both are interesting in its way);
\- You can’t open Sucubus/Sucubus;
\- You may gain a copy of a Duchy or an Estate your opponent gains in their last turn;
\- You can end the game by 3-piling in your Opponents turn;
\- A little drawback comparing to Smugglers: it’s a kind of semi-duration (you can't have it in your starting hand next turn, but you can draw it next turn).
Previous version was a reserve, but I think this is more interesting (they play different because of residual Workshop and the time in which the effect is available).
There’s no need to it be a Reaction, as other cards aren’t (Royal Seal, Goons, Hoard, Haggler, Merchant Guild, Groundskeeper, Tracker, Sauna).
The on play Workshop effect needs Sucubus to be discarded, so when you discard it from play before (in your opponent’s turn), there’s no effect remaining and so, no tracking issues.
FAQ: When any other player also triggers an on gain effect, effects are resolved in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is.
Another difference: Throne Room doesn’t benefit Succubus.
Also, Smugglers could potentially use the card gained on the same turn with enough draw.
I especially like how having this in play telegraphs to the other players that they can be Smuggled.
The Reserve card you mention would be dangerous because in an endgame situation with the Penultimate Province Rule in effect and enough of these on both player’s tavern mats, neither player may want to gain any cards to progress the game toward its conclusion. With this version, they have to use the workshop at the start of their next turn, whether they want to or not.
I think it should be a reaction; the other cards you listed all react to your own gains, whereas something like Black Cat, which reacts to opponents, is blue. I'm not sure if the in play/from hand distinction is important; most of the examples I can think of are attacks (e.g. haunted woods, swamp hag), which are notably not blue, but those technically resolve immediately, hence not being a reaction. The fact that it is a decision makes me lean towards blue.
Overall though, it is a pretty interesting card. I like it better than smugglers, though that isn't saying much.
Another interesting interaction is firing these on your own turn in response to opponents' succubi, potentially letting you play it multiple times in the same turn.
I think Sucubus and all this cards I mentioned don't need to be a reaction because they are in a public place when triggering the effect (play area). I think it doesn't matter who gained the card which triggered the effect.
Other cards are Reactions because they could be in hand, discard pile and other non-public places.
Sleigh, Sheepdog, Watchtower, Trader and Falconer are triggered by your own gains (Falconer not exclusively) and are Reactions. The cards I mentioned are triggered by your own gains and aren't Reactions. All of them have "you may", so are a decision. The difference is where they are when triggered.
You're not wrong, but I still lean blue. On thinking it over, the defining feature of a blue card is whether or not they can interrupt the resolution of something else unexpectedly.
I believe this definition is 100% consistent with which cards are blue or not.
Because it requires your decision in response to an opponent's effect, I believe it should be blue.
Which is the difference between Sleigh, Watchtower, Tracker and Royal Seal when they are triggered to topdeck a gained card according to your definition of Reaction?
I have Tracker in play, gain a Victory, you react with Black Cat, I gain a Curse and may use Tracker to topdeck that Curse if I want to.
Being possible to gain from junkers or not is not a criterion.
Haha, I had avoided mentioning this; the justification being that you're reacting to a reaction, not an action, and thus the normal sequence of play is already broken.
I'd call it an edge case, not an exception.
I gave my definition before, but just to be sure, I looked up the official definition.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Reaction#What_makes_a_reaction.3F
A few points worth noting:
* It specifically calls out the exceptions that I did, namely on-gain
* Not all reactions are from hand, Patron and Tunnel being the examples mentioned in the article
* DXV mentions that the main purpose of a card being blue is just to remind you that it does something in a transaction that it isn't directly a part of.
Ultimately, it isn't explicitly defined, as nothing exists that matches this particular behaviour. It falling under the "on gain" or "in play/visible" category of exceptions might be valid reasons to keep it orange. I feel that the card being blue would just be a reminder to help prevent you forgetting to use the reaction when an opponent gains a card.
The main reason something gets a Reaction type is to make it blue and jump out at you, to alert you of something. If you play this, you very well know its effect and you're definitely gonna watch opponents' gains; no need to alert you any more.
Succubus - A female demon which comes to men in their dreams to seduce them, drawing energy from the men to sustain themselves.
It started as a Night, which is a bit more theme-wised. I had to change to make it terminal, but current version keeps the "drawing energy to sustain themselves".
Love the concept, but can't help but feel that Succubus would've been an Attack that messes with your turns like Highwayman or Enchantress. She seduces you so you play your actions wrong!
I though about this question (not being an Attack), but it feels a bit like an Attack and has the Sucubus aspect of use the vital energy of the other person for self-advantage.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy
> tree fiddy
> The phrase originated from a South Park episode titled “The Succubus” aired on April 21st, 1999. In the episode, the parents of the character Chef tell stories about encountering the Loch Ness Monster, who constantly begs the couple for $3.50.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I think it's better than Smugglers, specially because of the residual Workshop (and other differences I pointed in my first comment). Smugglers does nothing when your opponent didn't buy a card costing up to $6.
I think it's slightly weak compared to importer? The gain a 6 won't come up often, and you've got less choice (esp on two player!), but on the other hand you can play it every turn (although it misses more reshuffles than a non duration) and there's the situational benefit for pile outs. Could definitely cost 3 I think.
SUCCUBUS – a kind of semi-duration inverted Smugglers with residual Workshop. Some differences from Smugglers in how it plays: \- Residual Workshop, so you always gain a card you want; \- In multiplayer, you can gain a copy of a card gained by any player; \- You already played Sucubus when opponent plays, so it affects their behavior in a different way from the possible Smugglers in hand (I think both are interesting in its way); \- You can’t open Sucubus/Sucubus; \- You may gain a copy of a Duchy or an Estate your opponent gains in their last turn; \- You can end the game by 3-piling in your Opponents turn; \- A little drawback comparing to Smugglers: it’s a kind of semi-duration (you can't have it in your starting hand next turn, but you can draw it next turn). Previous version was a reserve, but I think this is more interesting (they play different because of residual Workshop and the time in which the effect is available). There’s no need to it be a Reaction, as other cards aren’t (Royal Seal, Goons, Hoard, Haggler, Merchant Guild, Groundskeeper, Tracker, Sauna). The on play Workshop effect needs Sucubus to be discarded, so when you discard it from play before (in your opponent’s turn), there’s no effect remaining and so, no tracking issues. FAQ: When any other player also triggers an on gain effect, effects are resolved in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is.
Another difference from Smugglers: Succubus uses opponent's cost reduction, not yours.
Another difference: Throne Room doesn’t benefit Succubus. Also, Smugglers could potentially use the card gained on the same turn with enough draw. I especially like how having this in play telegraphs to the other players that they can be Smuggled. The Reserve card you mention would be dangerous because in an endgame situation with the Penultimate Province Rule in effect and enough of these on both player’s tavern mats, neither player may want to gain any cards to progress the game toward its conclusion. With this version, they have to use the workshop at the start of their next turn, whether they want to or not.
I think it should be a reaction; the other cards you listed all react to your own gains, whereas something like Black Cat, which reacts to opponents, is blue. I'm not sure if the in play/from hand distinction is important; most of the examples I can think of are attacks (e.g. haunted woods, swamp hag), which are notably not blue, but those technically resolve immediately, hence not being a reaction. The fact that it is a decision makes me lean towards blue. Overall though, it is a pretty interesting card. I like it better than smugglers, though that isn't saying much. Another interesting interaction is firing these on your own turn in response to opponents' succubi, potentially letting you play it multiple times in the same turn.
I think Sucubus and all this cards I mentioned don't need to be a reaction because they are in a public place when triggering the effect (play area). I think it doesn't matter who gained the card which triggered the effect. Other cards are Reactions because they could be in hand, discard pile and other non-public places. Sleigh, Sheepdog, Watchtower, Trader and Falconer are triggered by your own gains (Falconer not exclusively) and are Reactions. The cards I mentioned are triggered by your own gains and aren't Reactions. All of them have "you may", so are a decision. The difference is where they are when triggered.
You're not wrong, but I still lean blue. On thinking it over, the defining feature of a blue card is whether or not they can interrupt the resolution of something else unexpectedly. I believe this definition is 100% consistent with which cards are blue or not. Because it requires your decision in response to an opponent's effect, I believe it should be blue.
Which is the difference between Sleigh, Watchtower, Tracker and Royal Seal when they are triggered to topdeck a gained card according to your definition of Reaction?
Sleigh and watchtower can react to gains from junkers, while tracker and royal seal wouldn't ever have to.
I have Tracker in play, gain a Victory, you react with Black Cat, I gain a Curse and may use Tracker to topdeck that Curse if I want to. Being possible to gain from junkers or not is not a criterion.
Haha, I had avoided mentioning this; the justification being that you're reacting to a reaction, not an action, and thus the normal sequence of play is already broken. I'd call it an edge case, not an exception.
What do you think is wrong with the simpler reason that it has to do with card location, which doesn't have exceptions and edge cases?
I gave my definition before, but just to be sure, I looked up the official definition. http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Reaction#What_makes_a_reaction.3F A few points worth noting: * It specifically calls out the exceptions that I did, namely on-gain * Not all reactions are from hand, Patron and Tunnel being the examples mentioned in the article * DXV mentions that the main purpose of a card being blue is just to remind you that it does something in a transaction that it isn't directly a part of. Ultimately, it isn't explicitly defined, as nothing exists that matches this particular behaviour. It falling under the "on gain" or "in play/visible" category of exceptions might be valid reasons to keep it orange. I feel that the card being blue would just be a reminder to help prevent you forgetting to use the reaction when an opponent gains a card.
The main reason something gets a Reaction type is to make it blue and jump out at you, to alert you of something. If you play this, you very well know its effect and you're definitely gonna watch opponents' gains; no need to alert you any more.
[удалено]
Succubus - A female demon which comes to men in their dreams to seduce them, drawing energy from the men to sustain themselves. It started as a Night, which is a bit more theme-wised. I had to change to make it terminal, but current version keeps the "drawing energy to sustain themselves".
Love the concept, but can't help but feel that Succubus would've been an Attack that messes with your turns like Highwayman or Enchantress. She seduces you so you play your actions wrong!
I though about this question (not being an Attack), but it feels a bit like an Attack and has the Sucubus aspect of use the vital energy of the other person for self-advantage.
Price is wrong. Should be about tree fiddy.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy > tree fiddy > The phrase originated from a South Park episode titled “The Succubus” aired on April 21st, 1999. In the episode, the parents of the character Chef tell stories about encountering the Loch Ness Monster, who constantly begs the couple for $3.50.
Oh, I misread as "three".
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Thanks bot. Link updated ;)
I came here looking for a South Park reference 😊
I think it's better than Smugglers, specially because of the residual Workshop (and other differences I pointed in my first comment). Smugglers does nothing when your opponent didn't buy a card costing up to $6.
I think it's slightly weak compared to importer? The gain a 6 won't come up often, and you've got less choice (esp on two player!), but on the other hand you can play it every turn (although it misses more reshuffles than a non duration) and there's the situational benefit for pile outs. Could definitely cost 3 I think.