Print

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

[ChaosRed]

This is the second phase of a Dominion newbie developing his own fan variant. It is called Silver Lining. The second phase now comes after the first phase produced 100 test games and the results of those games were cataloged and analyzed. This is an exercise to help me learn the game's intricacy and balance and come to appreciate the difficulty of design in an elegant game such as DOMINION.

This thread is the "sequel" to the first round of beta-testing found here and the first round of peer-review found here.

Here are two other links related to the expansion:

• The final beta-report of the first wave of testing
• The latest random shuffler of the current tested edition

For this thread, I am going to unveil one card at a time. Each card will have its rating and summary from the first phase of testing, and if necessary, it will discuss which revisions I feel are required for the second phase. The good news is most cards won't need revising as they tested fine. Others might just have small cosmetic revisions or small technical tweaks to the rules. Some cards will require a complete overhaul.

Comments, feedback and most of all criticisms are welcome. Rip this expansion apart, the more critical review I receive, the better the expansion will be.

THEME/ FLAVOR OF THE SET
Here are some of the set's themes and here is generally how the set plays:

• SILVER - This set's central theme revolves around making silver a useful card. There are victory cards that score on the acquisition of silver and other cards that require a silver to ignite an ability.
• MIDDLE ROAD - One of the set's themes is it allows you to win via the "middle road", that is to say by acquiring silver instead of gold and acquiring dutchies instead of provinces (along with other VP routes of course to make up for the point difference).
• FAST GAMES - In general, this is a fast set. Games usually play slightly faster than other DOMINION sets. There are exceptions to this, but overall most games are over in 18 turns or so.
• GREEN EARLY - The set encourages and rewards greening early, and can often augment greening early with victory tokens.
• PILING - There are numerous mechanisms and combinations which allow you to pile certain cards.
• NUMEROUS VICTORY PATHS - The set often provides numerous ways to win, when you combine the fact you can green early, pile quickly and that 'middle road' tactics are well-supported the way you can win is often diverse.
• SYNERGY - The set has obvious synergy, many of the cards are clearly designed to work with one another.

WEAKNESSES
The set has weaknesses, it's a very "basic" set that does not require a great deal of skill to master (one of the artifacts of the synergy is some of the combinations that work well are obvious). Another weakness is that almost all the curse attacks in the set are weaker than curse attacks in other expansions. Curse attacks are still viable, (i.e. they still work and are effective), but overall they are not as strong as the genuine curse attacks in real expansions.

Also the set is a mish-mash of ideas that are often borrowed from the other expansions. It has Duration cards like Seaside and it borrows both the discard-mechanic of Tunnel and the "on-gain" mechanic of Ill-Gotten Gains for some of its variants. So it is a highly derivative set. I can accept this, because its my first attempt at designing these, and because I think fan variants in general are often derivative. Also using all the "known tricks" of DOMINION allowed me to produce the kind of synergy in the set I was looking for.

I will write more on this thread in the coming days.

I say this often, but just to be clear, I know this is not of prolific interest to others, but using this space to document my notes and findings is really useful and if it elicits comments and feedback by doing so, so much the better.

Cheers.

[ChaosRed]

CARD GRADING
(Post v1 Testing)

The following is an assessment of each card in the expansion post-testing. Each card will get a grade and that grade will indicate whether a revision is necessary. I will post one card at a time and wait for comments (if any) and then make final revisions, push the card to a Silver Lining v2 - Beta thread.

Once all 25 cards have completed the process, I will test again, actively working to bring the set to completion by the end of the second set.

Here is how each section in the report breaks down:

GRADE:

A simple grading system, that does not judge the POWER of the card, but rather the overall balance, utility and design. It breaks down this way:

• A - Card tested well, seems perfectly balanced with great utility and cost, will stay the same for future tests. The only caveat will be minor cosmetic changes or semantic changes to the card's overall text.
• B - Card tested well and was generally a well-balanced card. Card's that rate "B" might have some red flags in testing and might have very minor adjustments, but those adjustments will likely be cosmetic, semantic or just the tiniest of revisions.
• C - This is the grade I give cards I am unsure about. Testing might have revealed some issues with the card, or the card seemed just a tad too powerful or weak, but I am unsure just what to do with the card.
• D - This card had some utility at rare times, but was mostly broken in some way or clearly needs an adjustment.
• F - This card failed. It was disliked, or was utterly broken and needs a complete overhaul.

RATING
This is the card's rating after the 100 games of testing. It is a fairly crude formula that was used to calculate it. It was a hybrid of the card's win-loss rating, (with a small bonus if the card was in both winning and losing decks, so it would not score entirely neutral if that happened). It also gave a very small bonus to the most popular cards (the assumption cards that were purchased often, must have had utility).

The ratings are expressed like this: 1.0 +/- 0.11.

1.0 is essentially "perfectly balanced" while 2.0 is a card that "always wins and never loses" and 0.0 is a card that "never wins and always loses". The variance is a crude calculation to give me a range of error. The more games the card was active in, the less the variance will be. In the above example, the card could be rated as low 0.89 or as high as 1.11.

RATING POSITION
Denotes where out of the 25 cards this particular card's rating ranked. A card that was the WORST ranked card gets a rating of 25 out 25, while the BEST card in the set gets a rating of 1 out of 25.

POPULARITY POSITION
Denotes where out of the 25 cards this particular card's popularity ranks. Popularity is calculated as getting one point every time a player bought or gained at least one copy of the card of their own volition.

BEST COMBO
This highlights which card combination produced the highest percentage of victory for the card. It is a simple calculation of win-percentage of this card combined with all other buys/gains it was combined with in a winning/losing deck.

ASSESSMENT
This is some general notes from my wife and I (who play tested with me) about the card's utility, value and general balance.

RECOMMENDATION
This is the summary of what I recommend I do the card, it usually breaks down into whether I keep the card as is, adjust the card very slightly (usually just technical changes to the rules/verbiage of the card, or whether I completely overhaul the card.

SUGGESTED VARIANTS
If the recommendation required a small adjustment or a complete overhaul, I'll list the change(s) here. There are sometimes just one variant to look at, other times several. Comment is most welcome on which variant you feel will produce the best results or appear to be the most balanced.

[ChaosRed]

Servant's Quarters

GRADE: F RATING: 0.77 +/- 0.14 RATING POSITION: 23rd out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 21st out of 25 BEST COMBO: It's pretty easy to see why this was the best combination Servant's Quarters was involved in. The Emporium can reveal the Servant's Quarters and decide to put aside the bad card, or discard it to gain a card. Since Emporium puts actions onto the stack, having a filter and a possible card-draw in one play is a pretty decent cantrip. ASSESSMENT: This is a failed card. This assessment is made knowing it's a 2-Cost Reaction card, meaning its utility is meant to be limited, but even with these factors it still failed and was a miserable card. +1 Card is simply an unffective and useless ability, as BOTH a prime ability and a secondary ability (the discard bonus). The card also suffers from having three basic compartments, and only the last ability (the full-defense of an attack) has any real utility at all. The card also had a high-tendency to go completely unbought and indeed we often had to FORCE ourselves to buy it, just to test it, (which generally signals a disliked, dysfunctional card). RECOMMENDATION: Rename the card "Servant", it's a lighter, tighter name for a card that is essentially a low-priced utility card that is easily acquired. Change the image to artwork rather than a photograph. Keep the main defensive ability, it suits the theme of the card and keeps two defensive cards in the expansion. Change the primary ability and secondary ability to have more synergy and ability. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this:

[chesskidnate]

1st one seems best. The second one seems like it would be ok by itself with +actions and just devastating with discard effects like warehouse or minion. The first one alleviates this problem by only giving +1$ when discarded and although it has decent self synergy, it wont be very easy to make a deck around them. The third one seems a bit too weak, sure it's versatile but even if you manage to discard it with another one and take 2cards, I think you still did only as good as a moat. The first one doesn't seem incredibly powerful but probably the right amount of utility for a 2-cost card. It does, however seem to have self-confliction since you may want to discard it in response to a discard attack but it may be better just to use it a moat. Also, what happens if you discard this on an opponents turn?

[ChaosRed]

I rather like the first variant myself, but you bring up a very interesting rule question.

To answer you question:

Also, what happens if you discard this on an opponents turn?

I assume the +1$ goes on the stack? Kind of like a Duration card, the 1$ kicks in at the start of your turn? It's a good question, since no other "on discard" trigger has ever put money on the stack and the rules probably don't support how that works.  It makes me realize gaining +1$ on a discard might not work.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, much appreciated!

[Jimmmmm]

Maybe it needs to be worded something like "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do: if it is your turn, +$1; otherwise set it aside and at the start of your next turn discard it and +$1."

(First sentence matches Tunnel.)

[ChaosRed]

Maybe it needs to be worded something like "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do: if it is your turn, +$1; otherwise set it aside and at the start of your next turn discard it and +$1."

(First sentence matches Tunnel.)

Nice, cheers.

Perhaps something like this?

When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, at the start of your next Buy phase, +$1

It is very similar, but just a tad shorter.

[popsofctown]

I don't see any reason to use awkward rule bending.  Just stick with plus-cards but amp it up.

Servant:

Discard a card.  +3 cards.
Reaction : when you discard this, you may reveal it.  If you do, +2 cards.

Hey cool, it combos with itself.  Still balanced though IMO, comboing once makes it a smithy variant, thats fine.

[popsofctown]

Waaait maybe I'm miscounting and it goes to councilroom with the combo.

Discard a treasure, then

[Jimmmmm]

Maybe it needs to be worded something like "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do: if it is your turn, +$1; otherwise set it aside and at the start of your next turn discard it and +$1."

(First sentence matches Tunnel.)

Nice, cheers.

Perhaps something like this?

When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, at the start of your next Buy phase, +$1

It is very similar, but just a tad shorter.

A problem with that is that it can be discarded during the buy phase via Venture, and then you have to wait until next turn for your +$1.

I also think it needs to specifically say what to do with the card until then if it's not your turn. Duration cards get away with not saying because there is a general rule for all Duration cards. Unless you want to add a rule that says something like "If a card reacts to gives you +$, +Actions or +Buys (possibly +Cards, depending if you want it to work like a Council Room or a Caravan) when it's not your turn, set the card aside. Discard it and get the bonus at the start of your next turn." But unless you're going to have this mechanic for several cards, it's probably best to just have it on the card.

Edit: But maybe popsofctown is right and it's best to save messing with your $, Action and Buy stacks for when it's your turn.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah point taken, +$ on a discard reaction is messy. Let me go back to the drawing board with this, thanks guys.

[ChaosRed]

Here's the variant I came up. I pushed the Moat-draw on the discard effect (which should combo nicely with other cards). I took away the full-defensive reaction to accommodate for the fact the discard-reaction is fairly strong:



You can click the card for a larger version if you are having a hard time reading.

I also added a new calculation to the original card report. Each card report will now feature a section highlighting which card it successfully combined with most.

I think the new variant has the potential to combine with other cards quite successfully now, but it does mean my expansion has only one full-defensive card, but I might look at providing a full-defense on another more-expensive card to accommodate that deficiency.

[Jack Rudd]

My Inn feels the sudden need to be staffed with a Servant or two.

[ChaosRed]

My Inn feels the sudden need to be staffed with a Servant or two.

Hehehe, yeah it's strong when on the board with any card that discards frequently. It would work fairly well with Cellar even. Without a strong discard companion, it's a pretty gimped Cellar. I don't think it combos that well with itself, because you need a +action source somewhere.

Is it too strong though? Getting a hand advantage from a discard is pretty easily exploited with the right companion, but maybe that's okay?

[Jack Rudd]

Without a strong discard companion, it's a pretty gimped Cellar. I don't think it combos that well with itself, because you need a +action source somewhere.

It depends what kind of deck you're building. It's worse than Cellar for your standard cantrip engine deck (such as a Lab deck), but it's probably better for a Big Money deck.

[popsofctown]

It looks great.  Inn is an edge case.  I think it's balanced

[Newcomer]

That card looks fun, though I have no idea whether it's balanced at $2 or not. It's comparable to both Cellar and Moat, but quite distinct. I like it.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got here, but I'm pretty busy lately and probably won't check in every day for a bit. I'll try to add feedback when I get the chance.

[ChaosRed]

BAILEY

GRADE: D RATING: 0.83 +/- 0.11 RATING POSITION: 20th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 14th out of 25 BEST COMBO: Actually, this card rarely combined well with any card, because despite its popularity, it was never consistently bought to combine with other cards. Also the card didn't have that great of a Win/Loss record to begin with. This combo at least had some synergy to it, as the Villa often used the +buy to get more Victory cards, or used the trash to get rid of Copper. But even this combo was rarely spectacular or effective. ASSESSMENT: This is a failed card. Although it did not fail as badly as Servant's Quarters (and was purchased more often), the card was often purchased for its defensive ability alone. Also the card has choices, but none were strong. Even trashing one card, just simply didn't jump you fast enough (especially since the set had other more elegant ways of dealing with cak in your hand). It shined most when it stopped a devastating attack, so I kept the full defensive reaction. It was really the key aspect of the card that truly shined. RECOMMENDATION: Keep the card name but update the card's art. I switched this card, so that it can really shine in those early rounds. I took the +buy feature out, so that other +buy cards in the set can be even more desired. This card's clear intent now is to push your money up in the early going, trashing copper/estates for a +2$ bump. That's nice, (and maybe too nice). Of course, it goes counter to some of the other strategies in the set that LIKE Copper and Estates, but it becomes a relatively nice BM-support card and allows you to smite the Curse you picked up on that turn you failed to draw the Bailey. The card is quite useful in turns 3-6, and then less so after that (other than a defensive reaction). I think it might test okay like this. It's terminal, and quite handy early in the game. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this: What do you think? Is the power about right for the cost?

[Tydude]

My gut reaction is that it's probably too strong. Compare it to Moat. +$2 and trash a card, or +2 cards? I would either remove the reaction or remove the "you may" clause, so that it's just, "+$2, trash a card from your hand". Speaking of which, it should say "trash a card from your hand" instead of just "trash a card" or "trash a card in your hand".

[ChaosRed]

It should say "from your hand", thanks for that. You might be right on the balance/cost, I worry it is just a tad too much.

It is stronger than Moat in the early rounds, but less so later in the game. We found in our testing that a single-card trash wasn't effective, without some kind of bonus for the trashing, even at a 2$ cost.

In fact, I'd take this card over it:



This card's rating soared, it was one of the strongest cards we tested, but the original Bailey did not. It had a very poor rating and a very poor win/loss record. So I was looking to give Bailey a boost, I may have gone too far, as it does shine above Moat in the early rounds.

[Newcomer]

Let's see, as an Action, it does one of two things:

+$1 if you don't trash anything. That's a pretty poor card. It's a Copper that eats an action.

or

+$2 and trash a card from your hand. Early on, that's nice. I'd compare this to Moneylender. Moneylender gives more money, but restricts you to trashing Copper. Bailey can trash anything, but for less money. Bailey also will give you at least the +$1 when you don't have anything to trash. But the difference between a Gold and a Silver is big, and you'll hopefully be using your actions on something better than +$1, so I think Moneylender is probably stronger.

However, Bailey also has the reaction ability. I'm not sure how much that helps it in pricing. If you're only using the card for its reaction ability, it might as well cost $2 like Moat. If the reaction is useless, I'd probably price the rest of the card at $3. Together, I think I'd still say it's a $3 card, but I'm far from confident on that assessment.

[popsofctown]

I'd remove the dollar reward for trashing a card.  It's the straw on the camel's back making it too strong, and it's not a very interesting choice when you think about it.  You don't need a dollar to convince you to trash a curse, the dollar makes trashing a copper a no-brainer instead of a thought-provoking decision like it is with Trader or Salvager, and it's too doubtful you'll be trashing anything else, the only other thing you could trash is an unplayable terminal, in which case, why are you wasting your action on a 2$ card instead of your superior terminal?

[ChaosRed]

Thanks again all of you. You are right of course, +2$ and a single trash is just too much for 2$ when it comes with full defense. I need it to stay a full defensive card and I'd like it to stay at 2 for costing, so here's another variant that's toned down:



Provides the +2$ now only a discard, but can still allow a single trash and +1$. This actually makes it a nice hybrid of Servant and Pauper (the other 2$ in the set), so I am pretty keen on this one. What do you think? Seems like it is viable this way, if maybe a little boring.

[popsofctown]

It's a mini horse traders!

I like it fine.  It has a much deeper choice now, you're knocking something out of your hand either way, but do you want to remove that crap permanently or take a dollar right now?

[ChaosRed]

PAUPER'S FEAST

GRADE:  A RATING: 1.24 +/- 0.07 RATING POSITION: 3rd out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 4th out of 25 BEST COMBO: This card has several combinations with a very high win-rate. I had a lot to choose from. This combo was just slightly ahead of the others in percentage points. The reasoning here is that both cards set you up nicely for turns 4-6, trimming your deck superbly for a nifty tight configuration. The Pauper's Feast gets out of the way, while the Excursion is a non-terminal cantrip, so it isn't really harmful after its done the main task of trashing your Estates. ASSESSMENT: We loved this card. It turns out, even a gimped Chapel for 2$ is still a great card. In this case, the "mini-chapel" goes away and puts +1$ on the stack for you. Chapel is still far superior, but this is a handy card that became a "must buy" in the later rounds of testing. I hesitate to give it an "A" as it rated just a bit high and the second portion of the card was rarely used. It is probably more accurately rated as a "B". Still, it's nice to have a strong, popular 2 in your set and this one fit well. It is not as strong as Chapel (we tested it against Chapel to make sure), but still provides a nice trashing effect. Paupers go away too, which is really nice. So the one issue with Chapel is they linger long after their utility has worn out. One weakness in Pauper is that it is lousy in dealing with Curses. You have to keep it around to get the hit and when you do, it goes away (and usually by then you have another Curse to trash). This card was so well-liked I'd really be foolish to alter it. It was never really ridiculously broken, it was very popular and compared favorably to it's sister-card in the real base set (coming in just slightly weaker than the mighty Chapel). We gave it an "A" because we both loved this card. RECOMMENDATION: I am just making a cosmetic change with this one, trimming the name and updating the art work. SUGGESTED VARIANTS This is not really a variant, it's just an update to name and art: Feel free to discuss the card if you like, otherwise I'll move quickly to the 3's.

[popsofctown]

I wouldn't call it a gimped Chapel.  The card is an even better combo enabler than Chapel because it trashes itself.  Chapel's better against curses but I think I'd rather have multiples of Pauper's feast than a single Chapel.  But of course I haven't played with the card.

[ChaosRed]

Chapel was stronger and faster at achieving density. It becomes a clog in the later rounds, while Pauper doesn't. It rated extremely high to be sure.

Turn 5 Pauper looks stronger, for example, Chapel might have a 10 card 10$ breakout (1$ exactly per card), while Pauper might have 9 cards worth 10$ (1.1) But here's the thing, to get denser you HAVE to buy another Pauper. That slows you down a buy, while Chapel surges ahead. Think about it, if the goal is to remove all 3 Estates and up to 5 Copper, that requires 4 purchases of Pauper to achieve.

In the later rounds Chapel is a pain, but the set has cards to deal with that (numerous cards set cards "aside"). So in this set, the Chapel is more prolific. You know what's actually a superb thing to do is to buy the Pauper, in hopes that you can actually trash your Chapel. Get the Chapel to narrow your deck to the point where drawing the Pauper and the Chapel together is very likely, then Pauper the Chapel to have both cards eliminated. In games where density is more important than Curse-elimination, it's a really nice move that worked out really well in a game we played.

I think you might be right in that Pauper is a tad over-powered. It certainly rated that way. It would have rated even higher if it were not for the fact a lot of times, both players purchased it. In games where one player purchased it and the other didn't, it's win rate was staggering. So it is a very strong card. I think in most instances, Chapel is better, but let's face it Chapel shouldn't cost 2$, you could make an argument Chapel is worth 4$. So Pauper is probably worth more than 2$ as well.

I think I am going to live with that though, as the card enables fast games and launches you forward in turns 4-7, which produces an exciting game. If I were more honest with myself, I'd cost the card at 3$.

However, I really value your feedback, if you feel the set would be stronger with Pauper's cost adjusted or its abilities nerfed, I will consider it. All the advice I've gotten on this forum has been excellent, I'd be a fool not to listen to it.

[Tejayes]

I think the best way to nerf Pauper is to simply remove the +$1. I don't really see how a Pauper can give anyone money, anyway -- they're poor by definition, right?

[ChaosRed]

It's an outstanding idea Tejayes. Cheers. Putting the first 8 turns in a spreadsheet however, seems to reveal that even with the +1$, the Pauper is significantly slower than Chapel in a BM engine. Of course, later the Chapel is a pain, but in terms of creating density and a higher $-per card, Chapel pulls ahead quickly.

Again the key is, you don't have to keep buying it to achieve the density, and as such, in turns 5-8, you are almost guaranteed to get those last few troubles copper/estates to trash, leaving you with just silver/gold and a chapel.

[popsofctown]

I didn't say Pauper's feast was stronger, I just said it was a better combo enabler.  The perfect Goons deck wants a pauper, though a rush might stop it before it sets that up.  Chapel is stronger because it's faster.

[ChaosRed]

I didn't say Pauper's feast was stronger, I just said it was a better combo enabler.  The perfect Goons deck wants a pauper, though a rush might stop it before it sets that up.  Chapel is stronger because it's faster.

Sorry I misunderstood your criticism.

Chapel is, as you say, much stronger for density. Pauper is a great card none the less.

What I was really trying to say is that I think I'll leave the +1$ on it for now, despite Tejayes' astute suggestion. The spreadsheet seemed to suggest that the +1$ didn't really factor in too much. It did at times, but less than I thought it would. And that Chapel is almost always the better buy for early-round trashing.

Moving on to other cards, I think whatever Pauper's faults are, the card worked well in testing and I can live with the fact its slightly overpowered, because I don't feel the power is broken. It helps the set's speed, which is something the set is designed to do.

I do however, GREATLY appreciate the feedback and comments, thanks for them!

[ChaosRed]

EXCURSION

GRADE:  A RATING: 1.23 +/- 0.11 RATING POSITION: 5th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 15th out of 25 BEST COMBO: This combo had a high victory percentage. The reasoning here is that both cards set you up nicely for turns 4-6, trimming your deck superbly for a nifty tight configuration. The Pauper's Feast gets out of the way, while the Excursion is a non-terminal cantrip, so it isn't really harmful after its done the main task of trashing your Estates. ASSESSMENT: I hesitate to give this an "A". It worked well, but it wasn't that popular. However, the success of the card was undeniable and its utility was obvious on certain boards. I gave it an "A" because it really seemed to be more valuable than it looks. I liked that about this card. It's a great card in the early rounds *if* you happen to draw it when there's estates in the discard pile (it is terribly frustrating when you get it with an empty discard pile). It also combined well with Dark Knight and it helped augment Pauper (the light chapel-like trasher in the set). It was a nice defense to when your opponent forced Estates on you (there was a card in the set that could do this). You could also discard a victory/action card on discard attacks, knowing you could fish it back out again when your turn commenced. There were a few Victory/Action hybrids in this set, so it shined when there was one in the kingdom. This card had value, but it has far less value than the rating demonstrates. The popularity rating of the card was more indicative of this card's strength and weakness: on some boards it makes great sense, and other times, it's a wasted purchase and lies dead. That means its not really an "A" card, but because it wasn't broken and served the testing well, I give it an "A". RECOMMENDATION: I am just making a cosmetic change with this one. I updated the verbiage a little to make it clear the victory card you trashed has to be the one you picked up from the discard pile (this was always the card's intent and how we play-tested it, but the wording now makes that abundantly clear). I also updated the artwork from photograph to art. SUGGESTED VARIANTS This is not really a variant, it's just an update to verbiage and art: Feel free to discuss the card if you like, but I'll move quickly forward, there's other cards I need real help with (this one tested pretty well).

[popsofctown]

Not overpowered, not underpowered, but a little bit boring.

Not boring enough to scrap through.  Buying estates in order to feed it is amusing.

[ChaosRed]

Not overpowered, not underpowered, but a little bit boring.

Not boring enough to scrap through.  Buying estates in order to feed it is amusing.

Yeah a tad boring to be sure, but in a way that's part of what makes the card weird, because it looks more banal than it is (at least in terms of utility). Of course, its utility was hard-wired into the expansion. That's part of the problem with my testing, I don't have the capacity to test these cards across multiple expansions, so a card's utility is judged almost entirely with how it functioned with the rest of the expansion.

Here are just a few cards in the set that Excursion helps:





So yeah, boring card, but it has some synergy with how the overall expansion is designed. I think that's part of the expansion's flaw though, its too damn "cute", it has obvious combinations, but each card on its own is often isolated or weak without its regular companions.

I concede that as a flaw, but I accept it, since, well its my first damn time ever designing a set of cards for this game. I can work on greater subtlety and flare in the next expansion, basic utility, function and a general sense of balance were the goals for this one.

Thanks for your comments and yeah, "boring" is pretty much right on the money to describe the card.

[Tejayes]

I'm really liking the new art for the cards, and would like to know where you're getting these illustrations. Also, I just want to add that an excursion usually involves a larger group of people, not just one person. Nothing against the new art used for Excursion -- it's lovely. I just think a group of people shown in the artwork would fit the theme of the name better.

[ChaosRed]

I'm really liking the new art for the cards, and would like to know where you're getting these illustrations. Also, I just want to add that an excursion usually involves a larger group of people, not just one person. Nothing against the new art used for Excursion -- it's lovely. I just think a group of people shown in the artwork would fit the theme of the name better.

Ha, we think alike! Alas, I couldn't find decent art that fits. Sometimes it's not just a nice drawing, its getting a drawing that when re-sized frames nicely in the card.

DeviantArt.com has been where I've found most of the images by the way. The cards look pretty decent when I print them out too, so thanks for noticing that!

[ChaosRed]

Forgive the rapid pace of me presenting these reports, some cards I really am okay with as-is or with just the smallest of revisions, slamming through these allows me to get to cards I need greater support with:

Villa

GRADE: B RATING: 1.0 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 16th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 11th out of 25 BEST COMBO: This expansion's version of a "Smithy+Village" combo were these two cards put together. Actually, Fool's Choice is a tad broken (more on that later), but this combo probably wasn't as exploited as often as it should have been, and it had all the same problems of a Village+Smithy strategy and all the same benefits. It was a "nice" and rather obvious combination, and the best-rated combo for Villa in the expansion. ASSESSMENT: This card's appeal was generally higher than its performance. You can see why, the card looks decent. You can get a +2 Actions, +1$ and up to +2 cards (for discarding cards that you don't want probably). You get it for 3 dollars, so you think, "okay I'll bite". Except of course, now you need to green, because if you don't, this card doesn't get you very far. The card was sometimes the only +2 Actions in the Kingdom, and this was part of the reason its popularity is higher than its actual rating. The rating itself is neutral, which really is true when you dig deeper in the data. This card sometimes enabled some games, and other times it really didn't. We tended to ignore the card more as our testing went on, and gravitated to it when we knew greening early made tactical sense. But the card isn't useless and the card isn't broken and it did, at times, enable some nice combinations. It's the kind of card you want in your expansion, that is to say that it has utility, it is simple to enforce and understand and it isn't overpowered or broken. For a 3$ basic card, that's just fine. It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those  right? RECOMMENDATION: I will just adjust the art work and leave the rest as is. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this. It only has an artwork revision, that's it.

Feel free to comment if you like, but the next 3$ (that I post tomorrow) is a complete overhaul of a bad card, so that will be the one I'll really need to most support/advice for.

[Jack Rudd]

It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those  right?

Two of those (or one if it's a minor expansion). At least, that's what all the published sets have gone with.

[popsofctown]

Excursion doesn't seem banal at all to me, it's really solid even without the synergy in the set.  It's a cantrip, other 3$ cantrips give you effects like Wishing Well's far less frequent extra card draw or "discard a card, +1$".

I say the card is boring because it's boring the way Moneylender tends to be boring.  In a setup with no other trashing and no cursing, you pretty much buy exactly one Moneylender and play it whenever you draw it.  There's not much choice to it.  Two Moneylenders is too clearly out of the question, but the card has a powerful enough interaction with its fuel that you have to pick one up.  Excursion looks like it will behave in a similar way (it's magic number might be 2, I don't know), and that doesn't foster much choice when it's obvious how much of a card to buy and obvious to play it whenever you buy it.

It is more interesting than Moneylender though, because it's not a legitimate option to buy copper to power a moneylender, but buying an Estate is plausible with this.  And with hybrid victory cards it begins to encourage clever discard pile management.  There is more there.  It's just going to be a moneylender a lot of times.

edit:
Villa needs Tournament flavor!  The card looks nice.  It actually would probably be totally inoffensive at 2$ cost.  The difference between a 3$ and a 2$ is +buy concerns, and this doesn't seem to need to be too concerned.  Amassing lots of villas will either fail to work because you don't see the other side of your engine because your hand is full of villas, or you can't reveal a green card because your hand is full of villas.  And if you reveal a green card it's probably what you want to use the cellar effect on, but then if you surprise yourself and draw into another villa, your green card is gone.

Sorry if that messes up your set's $ curve, but 2$ cards are very hard to make so it's exciting when you have a cantidate.

[ChaosRed]

Jack: There is indeed another "village clone" in the set, it's in the 4$ range.

pops - You make a good point that you can argue that Villa should be 2$ and Pauper could be 3$. I think because the card rated exactly at 1.0, I'd be a bit foolish to mess with the pricing. The card has merit, when there's an obvious path to green early, and after that, it is sometimes the only +2 actions in the Kingdom. After that, yeah, the card is not worth it. You have been really great here, reading the cards and providing feedback, I am very grateful.

My next card needs serious work, I'll look forward to your comments on it.

[ChaosRed]

Wooden Bridge

GRADE: F RATING: 0.85 +/- 0.18 RATING POSITION: 21st out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 23rd out of 25 BEST COMBO: The truth is, the card didn't work particularly well with any other card in the set. In particular, the card was really dissonant in theme, flavor and ability to the rest of the set. It never really fit in anywhere. It had mild success with Silver Vein, (mostly for the +buy), but really this card was a train wreck. ASSESSMENT: Ever look back on something you've done and wince? Ever look at an old college paper and wonder why and how the prof ever let you get away with it? That's how I feel about Wooden Bridge, quite possibly the worst card I've ever designed (well there's a few others that are really bad that I'll reveal later). Wooden Bridge was an early design, it's not only completely derivative, it does to Bridge what should never be done. It takes away the core feature of price reduction, but then adds the danger of making it non-terminal. Then it allows you to get the main feature back, if you trash the card. The idea was it would produce this mini-game where you'd rush the Wooden Bridge and blow them all up to win, (I think my love of the film Bridge Over River Kwai helped influence me). In theory, with this card, if you rushed 7, got them all out on a single turn and blew them up, you could collect all Provinces in a single swoop. Well what a ridiculous idea to build a card around, and worse it does it by essentially copying verbatim an existing card. YUCK. We tried to pull the trick off several times, in the end, the expansion is too fast and because the set is actually weak on card-draw, you can never pull it off anyway (there's only one really strong terminal-card draw card in the set, and one nice one, but it's mitigated across 2-turns). Even when you do finally get four or five out there and blow them up, most of the Provinces are eaten up, or you are so far behind you lose. The ONLY thing I liked about the card was the gimmick, that all 0-cost cards, got upgraded to 1-cost and you could never get less than 1 for any card. That turned out to be kinda fun (at least interesting). The rest of it was a terrible derivative card, that was against the flavor/theme of the set, with bad art, a bad name and just overall was general suckitude. RECOMMENDATION: Scrap this thing and never mention it again. SUGGESTED VARIANTS So this isn't really a variant, it's an entirely new replacement for the card. For this reason, I'll write a longer intro to the concept than I normally would. One quick note however, is that because this new replacement does not have +buy on it, I'll probably need to add +buy to another card. I want just a few +buy opportunities in the set. There were only 3 in the expansion, and I feel 2 is not enough, so I will find a place to put the +buy on another card. I wanted a thematic card. One of the key themes of the set is that it encourages and rewards greening early. It also has several kingdoms where 3-piling is an optimal strategy (although it doesn't always win, which I also like). In fact, not to sound too arrogant, but I am very proud of how many of our games went, because of the different routes you could take to win. Also victory points are a factor in this expansion, they often tilt the balance with the right cards. Also, I had just removed a full-defensive ability from one of the 2's, and I wanted at least 2 cards that could fully deflect an attack. I wanted a card that gave you a bonus, (in addition to deflecting the attack), but I come up against the way reactions work (they can be revealed endlessly). (This is where I need the most help, although, in general I could use a lot of help with this card) The combination of all these wishes for the card led me to this initial design. Here's the worry I have about the card, right up front. In order to ensure you can't get the additional VP bonus for deflecting an attack, I've made the player discard the card. This causes problems in multi-player games. The player to your left, has a small disadvantage, because his attack is the first one that can get deflected and when it does, the card's primary defense is eliminated. How does on solve the problem? Or is it something I can tolerate? Or is it something that can only be solved with complicated wording and mats (which I want to avoid if possible)? Don't worry about the "gain an Estate" ability for the secondary ability. That's there as part of the set's overall theme. In fact, discarding to gain an Estate has a lot of utility in this expansion. It also helps accommodate the fact I took the +buy away just a little. If you feel strongly the card is broken or weak, let me know as well of course. This has not been play-tested at all. It is purely an artifact of blending elements that the set complements and works with well, rather than careful consideration of balance.

My sincere gratitude in advance of any comments or feedback on this particular report.

[plasticbrain]

i know you said not to worry about Hero's discard/Estate text but i do. it makes the card overly complex, which makes it seem like a fan card, if you know what i mean. just having the Hero gain +1vp, and then 1 more when defending against an attack is clean and enough. and him being a Hero, i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.
that said, i really like Hero.

[Jack Rudd]

i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.

If you don't have to discard/set aside him when defending, you can gain arbitrarily many points whenever an Attack card is played. This might be considered a flaw.

[ChaosRed]

i know you said not to worry about Hero's discard/Estate text but i do. it makes the card overly complex, which makes it seem like a fan card, if you know what i mean. just having the Hero gain +1vp, and then 1 more when defending against an attack is clean and enough. and him being a Hero, i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.

It needs to either discarded or be set aside. Otherwise you could endlessly reveal the card to get +1VP, because in DOMINION there's technically no limit to the number of times you can reveal a reaction card. It's weird that DOMINION works that way but it does. One of the reasons is so that you can continually defend against all attacks, there's a good thread on this issue on this forum.

Once you get a bona fide benefit for deflecting the attack, things get complicated (and really I probably shouldn't attempt to do this), But, I think the discard feature might work, although it will more-often deflect the next opponent (and then fail to deflect the next one), it doesn't actually hurt the opponent and most attacks are penalties to opponents. In other words, there's no real politics involved here. Deflecting Militia once, and not the second time doesn't really benefit the opponents. Even curse attacks, (with some small exceptions) it doesn't really matter who gave you the curse, only that you got it.

It weakens the card of course in multi-player games, which is an issue, given its cost, but I don't think it creates a larger problem about politics or bias in a multi-player game.

The gain the estate trick, yeah it is weird. It's there because the expansion could use a cheap source of Estate-piling (to make up for the lack of +buy for one thing). Also a lot of cards in the expansion thirst for green in the hand. It is very tacked on, your point is well taken, and perhaps I can add the Estate-gain feature to another card. It might be better without it. I think you are right.

[popsofctown]

This easy to fix because the rules of Dominion are so elegant!  Just separate the abilities.


"When you are attacked, you may reveal this.  If you do, you are immune to that attack"

"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."

You can reveal it for the first ability seven times when player two attacks you, then three times when player three attacks you, and then, when player four attacks you, reveal it ten times for redundant immunity to the attack, but you can only reveal it and discard it once for VP.

This means you have to guess whether to cash in on VP or to keep it in case you're attacked again.  That's absolutely fine for multiplayer.

As for card power, I think the main ability is a tad bit weak, maybe +action or +buy.  +action would be nice for when it fraternizes with other sets because it could be used during greening phase even without attacks on the board.

Removing the estate ability seems like a good idea when I think about it, because the card could get too purely VP oriented, which could stall games.  In fact, since the reaction gains VP it's probably best the main effect do something else entirely.

[plasticbrain]

firstly, the main ability is not weak, imo. but secondly, the 'main' ability on this card should be weaker than its Reaction ability, because its Reaction is what it's really about. this is a Hero afterall.
that said, the idea to seperate the abilities is an interesting one.

This easy to fix because the rules of Dominion are so elegant!  Just separate the abilities.
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this.  If you do, you are immune to that attack"
and
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."
You can reveal it for the first ability seven times when player two attacks you, then three times when player three attacks you, and then, when player four attacks you, reveal it ten times for redundant immunity to the attack, but you can only reveal it and discard it once for VP.

This means you have to guess whether to cash in on VP or to keep it in case you're attacked again.  That's absolutely fine for multiplayer.

As for card power, I think the main ability is a tad bit weak, maybe +action or +buy.  +action would be nice for when it fraternizes with other sets because it could be used during greening phase even without attacks on the board.

Removing the estate ability seems like a good idea when I think about it, because the card could get too purely VP oriented, which could stall games.  In fact, since the reaction gains VP it's probably best the main effect do something else entirely.

[ChaosRed]

"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it.  If you do, +1 VP."

Nice. I can't think of any attack where you bias the game by choosing which next attack might work on you. The only REMOTE possibility I see for political bias here is keeping a strict count of remaining curses...

4 Player Game

Player 1 draws a Hero at the end of his turn
Player 2 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 3 Curses left, deflects the attack and does not discard.
Player 3 & 4 get Curses
Player 3 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 1 Curse left, deflects the attack, then discards for +1VP, player 4 gets a Curse.
Player 4 plays With, no effect

I mean, in the original incantation, you were forced to discard, meaning this is the scenario:

Player 1 draws a Hero at the end of his turn
Player 2 plays Witch
Player 1 sees 3 Curses left, deflects the attack discards for +1VP
Player 3 & 4 get Curses
Player 3 plays Witch
Player 2 gets a Curse
Player 4 plays Witch, no effect

I think it's a pretty minuscule point though. Really, in the first scenario, you gambled and it paid off, and really curse distribution is always a little uneven in multi-player games, because at some point the number left doesn't match the number of players effected.

I can't think of any attack that would have political effects. Masquerade is not an attack. Oh wait, Thief.

Thief creates problems, you can now selectively choose which player gets the potential benefit of a Thief attack.

[popsofctown]

huh.

I thought Theif attacks everyone.

[ChaosRed]

It does, but that's not the issue. The issue is if you know two opponents have Thief, you can choose to let one work, in lieu of stopping the first one early with a bonus.

For example, if I know Player 2 has a Thief and I know he's ahead on money (or is bigger threat than Player 3), I can use the discard effect on Player 2, knowing I am guaranteed the VP and that Player 3's Thief attack is less punishing, (because he's not as much of a threat).

Really any attack, where the attacker doesn't just harm you (but also benefits himself) has small political problems with the card. It sucks that it does, but it does. You can argue the politics are minute (or no different than electing not to reveal the reaction at all), but I should probably think of another way.

Your solution is a better one pops, because it ensures that the next player in line isn't the one to be most likely defended (while others will not be). But since I want to discard it eventually and I need to choose when, one way I can choose is letting the card go when a weaker opponent is next in line, knowing that if an attack-for-benefit play has less of an impact on my course to victory.

Perhaps the more elegant solution is to put the card on a mat?

When another player plays an Attack card you may reveal this card or from the Hero mat, if you do you are unaffected by the attack. If there are no Hero cards on the Hero mat, you must place this card on the Hero mat, +1VP. At the start of your next turn, you may return Hero to your hand.


This is clunky, but it assures you can always defend for the entire cycle of turns (preventing any bias), but also ensures you can never get more than +1VP as the additional bonus. It also ensures you can defend and play the card when it is your turn again, which boosts the power of the card, also keeps it compatible with other defensive reactions.

It's clunky though, pretty damn clunky.

[popsofctown]

The internet ate my post I guess.

The issue you're talking about is a way smaller deal than issues Masquerade creates.  Optimal play is always to preserve your Gold from thief and get VP off the last attack.  There is a tiny space where you might let your guard down more for someone who is playing poorly but it might not even kick in.  People who play MP instead of 2P are generally ready for small interactions like this.

[ChaosRed]

It's true the window is small and not that deleterious, but I think rink's general guide is to avoid any kind of political problems. Your point about Masquerade is well-taken though, you can play politics with that card much more easily, but then your political play can only be targeted at one player.

I really like it with the two separate triggers, so for simplicity, maybe that's how I should go.

[popsofctown]

Rink's list is a lot of guidelines about what makes a good card, but there are tradeoffs and you have to weigh things against eachother.

(2) Simplicity is a good thing. You don't want your cards to be any more complicated than they have to be. If you have an idea for a card, try to boil it down as simply as possible without losing the essence of the idea.

[rinkworks]

Just to clarify, the position I wanted my guide to take (I may have worded it wrongly, I dunno) is that political cards are unDominionesque but perfectly fine as long as you're aware of the issues that they raise -- including the fact that a lot of Dominion players like the lack of politics in the game.  I'd just seen a lot of fan cards that were political without their designers realizing that the official game was so carefully designed not to be.  But ultimately there's nothing wrong with having a whole set of political cards, even, if they'd make for the kind of game you're interested in.

But yeah, the politics on this one seem to be even smaller than the little bit you can eke out of a few of the official Dominion cards, like Masquerade and the entire Spy family.

[ChaosRed]

Good to know, thank you rink and pops. I'll adjust the card to something similar to what pops suggested. I'll remove the "gain Estate" function and add it to another card. Much, much obliged to all of you for your help as always.

[Tydude]

Good to know, thank you rink and pops. I'll adjust the card to something similar to what pops suggested. I'll remove the "gain Estate" function and add it to another card. Much, much obliged to all of you for your help as always.

Are you going to replace it with something? Because just +1 VP sucks when there's no attacks.

[plasticbrain]

Good to know, thank you rink and pops. I'll adjust the card to something similar to what pops suggested. I'll remove the "gain Estate" function and add it to another card. Much, much obliged to all of you for your help as always.

Are you going to replace it with something? Because just +1 VP sucks when there's no attacks.

really? seems good to me. but maybe a +1 Action would be appropriate to a Hero...

[biopower]

really? seems good to me. but maybe a +1 Action would be appropriate to a Hero...

It's probably a terrible idea to make any theoretically-infinite-VP card nonterminal. It's probably also not a spectacular idea to make any protective reaction nonterminal (see how good Lighthouse is).

[popsofctown]

^^^^Goodposting

I thought about it a bit, and I think some people might misinterpret reactions as not being "you can choose to do this thing and get this benefit" but rather "You're allowed to do this.  You're allowed to do that.  By the way, this always causes benefit A.  That always causes benefit B".

So someone could have trouble with my earlier suggestion of Hero if they are attacked by Minion and want to get VP, but don't want to block the attack.

I think you can fix that with a very small change just by making the second reaction ability "If you are attacked, you may discard this card and reveal it.  If you do, gain a VP".
Revealing from discard happens on tunnel, so swapping the order works fine here.  And it then happens to work under the cause-effect interpretation (although I think it's actually an erroneous one).

[ChaosRed]

You read my mind pops, and beat me to the punch, the new card has similar verbiage to what you just posted.

Agree with bio, I don't want a non-terminal VP gainer, I think that's a problem. I've heard the argument about non-terminal full-defensive cards, I actually think that can be done  with a little thought, but let's put that aside, I want this to be a terminal card.

Are you going to replace it with something? Because just +1 VP sucks when there's no attacks.

Monument is +2$, +1VP @ 4$ with no defensive reaction at all. I think based on that, you can make an argument that Hero is fine as is, at 3$. I think a lot of full-defensive cards suffer a bit on the board when there's no attacks.  Still, let's add a little something to it, see how everyone reacts. I'll post the new card shortly.

[ChaosRed]

Okay here's the new version for you all to judge:



I think the reaction verbiage is fine, it stipulates you can reveal for a full defensive deflection, but then you may also discard the card to get +1VP. The secondary ability is a really light ability to scout for the top card and decide to leave it there, or discard it. It seemed thematic, and also useful if you are greening early (as you often are in this expansion), or if you have a card draw to play with an action on the stack. If you happen to discard a discard-reaction card (like Servant) well so much the better.

Seems pretty decent to me now, thanks everyone for your help.

[popsofctown]

That's the other verbiage I considered, it just doesn't abuse rules loopholes haha.

I think the new version looks good, but I dislike that the main effect doesn't have a unique feel.  Maybe add Pearl Diver too?

[ChaosRed]

Yeah that's what I liked about "gaining an Estate" as it was relatively unique. It was odd in that you had to squint and wonder when it was useful. Of course it had utility for things like Gardens decks, Silk Road decks and of course late in the game too when the game is close. It had utility with other cards in the set too, cards that want Victory cards to discard, or trash or set aside for points.

But, you know adding Pearl Diver might be too much (for one thing I am crowded for real estate on the card as it is). I like the idea, it's just that the card is just crowded already with text. I should probably test it, if it comes in weak or under-utilized I can add the "bottom-up" effect of Pearl Diver too.

Thanks again pops, you've been a really big help today.

[Tydude]

Monument is +2$, +1VP @ 4$ with no defensive reaction at all. I think based on that, you can make an argument that Hero is fine as is, at 3$. I think a lot of full-defensive cards suffer a bit on the board when there's no attacks.  Still, let's add a little something to it, see how everyone reacts. I'll post the new card shortly.

Hmm, that's an interesting discussion. Should defensive cards be on par only when there's attacks and underpowered otherwise, or should they be on par normally and stronger when there's attacks? Based on the actual cards I'd say it's more the former, but it's still a good question to think about when designing reactions.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah I'm not qualified to answer the question either Ty. I can just tell you that without the defensive reaction, Moat is an average card. Even with it, it ain't all that grand. My favorite reaction card is Tunnel, my second favorite is probably Watchtower.

I cheated really, I have two full-defensive cards that riff off Moat. One is worth 3$ that is just a gimped Monument on its own, the other replaces +2 Cards with +1$, Trash a Card. This is really the weakness of the expansion, it is highly derivative and not particularly creative.

But I think a good reaction card is judged as a whole and the reaction is very much part of the equation. A reaction to attack card is, if  you follow that, a lesser card without an attack on the board.

But hey Moat gets you 2 cards, which for 2 $ ain't bad, but it ain't exactly Chapel either.

[biopower]

But hey Moat gets you 2 cards, which for 2 $ ain't bad, but it ain't exactly Chapel either.

*Moat gets you 1 card, because it only increases handsize by 1. (If you never bought Moat, one of the cards you would've drawn would've already been in your hand). For a terminal, that's pretty bad.

[ChaosRed]

Moving on to other cards, (I think we've kicked Hero around enough and I am ready to test it). I agree with you about Moat bio, I had originally also put the line "but it ain't that great either", after the phrase, "for 2$ that ain't that bad".

Summon posed an interesting problem for me, it seemed to rate okay, but it also created a similar problem rinkworks ran into on his "Royal Scepter" thread...(I've linked to that thread below if you want to review his findings...)

SUMMON

GRADE:  C RATING: 1.11 +/- 0.09 RATING POSITION: 10th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 7th out of 25 BEST COMBO: The card was designed as a superb companion to a strong attack and it turns out this was its strongest function. This particular combination was tested a few times, and worked quite well. ASSESSMENT: I gave this card a "C" because it was a bit broken. Actually rinkworks has a similar card  he's testing on this thread here. His is a 4$ card with a Throne Room ability added in, but the premise is the same you tutor for a single card in your deck, then play it. The best thing you can do with this card is have a deck with no other action cards but Summon and a single, strong attack (or single strong terminal card draw). The Summon essentially assures you can spam that attack every hand. As your deck widens simply buy another Summon, and you can keep the attack going every turn. It's problem is two-fold: This is really all the card is good for. What it is really good for is really strong at times, and possibly broken, especially very early in the game (it can ensure you get Witch out earlier and more often for example than those who do not play this card). The flip-side to this however are these positive elements: It actually didn't rate ridiculously high, in other words, it SEEMS broken, but testing suggested focusing your deck on just getting one attack out, only gets you so far. Chances are, if that one card is strong enough, your opponent has it too and is getting it out too (even without Summon). Also, there's better ways to get an attack out there, this one just keeps milling but never really gains cards or generates money. A more adept, agile strategy can defeat it. In other words, it's a "pseudo-engine" that works well early, but a "real engine" eventually overpowers it. The card was popular, people liked toying with this card and sometimes they were rewarded with a win. RECOMMENDATION: I am going to tone down the card, just slightly, forcing you to discard to activate the tutor ability.  I think this can slow it down just enough to keep it in check, and keep it at 3$. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Here's the variant with the adjusted rule: I'd welcome comments on whether the tone-down is appropriate, or just a comment in general on how a strategy of buying just one strong action and milling to get to it constantly is an effective strategy.

Thanks as always, for all your support.

[Qvist]

This card is close to Venture. But Venture is limited to Treasure cards. This is not. So basically this seems like a $5-$6 card to me.

Another comparism would be Scheme. This is a $3 card which also allows you to play your favourite attack more often. I think at the first few turns both card would play similarly, but Summon would be more faster and more reliable in the mid- and end-game, what definitely makes it better.

Dicarding a card is a good try for a disadvantage.
But what about removing the +1 Action? So if you have no village in your hand, you have to search for a treasure for the cost of an action. That would make it a $3 card for me.

[rinkworks]

Venture's +$1 is subtle but really kind of a big deal.  An extra +$1 is enough for a jump of $3 in cost, if you use the base treasures as a guideline, so a version of Venture only offering +$0 would not be worth much at all.  Basically it would only be as good as the Treasure card you turned up with it, since the end result would be the same as if you'd bought that card in the first place.  Since your average treasure is rarely more than Silver, it probably shouldn't cost more than one.

Similarly, the problem I'm having with Royal Scepter isn't so great here, because this one doesn't Throne Room the action card you turn up.   In other words, the end result of buying and playing one of these is the same as if you'd bought another copy of whatever you turned up.  So at $6, and usually even at $5, why would you buy this over whatever action card you want to use it to play?

I suspect the solution to this is not something constant, like a mandatory discard, but something to reduce the variance of it being either very powerful (duplicating an expensive action card at a cheaper price) or useless (any kind of mixed deck).  I think removing the +1 Action is exactly that -- good suggestion.  It means you can't just repeatedly play your Witch over and over again, because you need support to do that.

I'd want to add some other vanilla bonus in its place, however, or it would be atrociously weak.  I'd say +$1 is perfect, but then it becomes a lot more similar to Venture.

[ChaosRed]

This card is close to Venture. But Venture is limited to Treasure cards. This is not. So basically this seems like a $5-$6 card to me.

Venture is a Treasure though, so it operates differently, but your point is well-taken, because despite the fact Summon is an action card, it is distinctly better.

Another comparism would be Scheme. This is a $3 card which also allows you to play your favourite attack more often. I think at the first few turns both card would play similarly, but Summon would be more faster and more reliable in the mid- and end-game, what definitely makes it better.

Scheme can be more agile too, because it can allow for deeper tactics, while Summon really only functions well with a singular "marquee" card that you tutor for. Otherwise it becomes too random and really starts to sputter. Scheme lets you play more variety, while still keeping the best card of that set in your next hand. Still, again, your point is really well taken.

Also Summon has shuffle issues. Summon can sometimes shuffle to the bottom right next to the card you want to tutor. So you wait 2 turns to finally get back to Summon, you draw 5, then tutor the NEXT card for the attack, then you shuffle all over again and hope Summon isn't at the bottom. (You probably have to waste another buy on another Summon once your deck widens to this point this is a frequent danger).

But I am not really trying to argue with you, just letting you know how it plays and why Scheme, at times, is a stronger card.

Dicarding a card is a good try for a disadvantage.
But what about removing the +1 Action? So if you have no village in your hand, you have to search for a treasure for the cost of an action. That would make it a $3 card for me.

Yeah, this thought has occurred to me too. I was worried the card would lie dead on the board if I made this change. See the thing is, Summon+Village+Some really strong action card, is a really weak tactic. It will rarely come off, usually because the "some really strong action card" is also a terminal. And this is really Summon's strength, it summons that strong terminal to your hand and lets you play it often.

Once you add second and third action cards to the mix, it falters - a lot. I think even rinkwork's found this out with his card (he was initially testing it with two or three supporting cards and didn't see at first how much stronger it is with just  one).

Still Qvist, you are right on every single point. Discarding might slow it down, but the key mechanic of the card is still strong. It is particularly strong with something like Torturer in the kingdom. You can virtually assure your opponent plays with just 3 cards every turn with Summon, and you can do this very early - and often, which is precisely the time you want that strong advantage, as it can catapult you ahead to a point where the opponent can't catch up.

There are several ways I can put an additional governor on the card:

1. I can limit the number of cards it can tutor. This is a pretty key way to kill its power. For example I could say, "reveal up to 5 cards". This does a few things. One of course, is it creates a chance you do not get the card you want. Second is, it slows down the speed at which you mill through your deck, (slowing down the speed at which you get the Summon back into your hand). One of the real strengths of Summon+1 really good card, is it often puts you in a reshuffle condition, (zipping past your green cards along the way, which is nice). A governor of this sort, can slow that ability down.

2. I can make you discard 2 cards. That's a steep price to launch a marquee attack.

3. I can push it to 4$. Although, in my experience, cost adjustments are weird. Because you don't really deal with the power of the card, sometimes adjusting the price just makes the card slower to reach, (which can increase the swing-factor). Putting it at 4$ assures its accessible to both players on the first 2 turns. Actually I'd welcome a whole other thread on costing. Because the difference between 4$ and 5$ is HUGE...while the difference between 3$ and 4$ is largely inconsequential in comparison. How to cost cards is hard, really hard and this Variants forum might benefit from a whole discussion on it. Sometimes LOWERING the cost of a strong card actually makes a card more fair and balanced.

4. I can make the card a one-off, (as in it trashes itself after the main tutor effect is resolved). This might be the more elegant solution, although I might add +1$ or something. This would make it a nice card in early rounds to ensure you get Chapel (or some other highly desired card) in an early shuffle. Of course, the card laughs at you when you get the card you want and Summon in the same hand. (You'd be a fool to play it, and it would become a dead card that turn). In the later rounds you'd buy it just before your next shuffle, to help ensure you can tutor up as your deck widens. Maybe if I made it self-trashing effect, I could also add a Duration to it? This way it kicks in twice, before trashing itself.

My apologies I am essentially thinking out loud here. What I really need to say is, that you are right Qvist and the card still needs more work. Cheers.

[Qvist]

You're right rinkworks. Forgot about the $1 of venture.
So it might not be so strong.

I still like removing the +1 action instead of a penalty like discarding. It makes the card simpler. But as ChaosRed hinted at, it might me not so much fun to play with and exactly the +1 Action ensures that it works as intended. I cannot tell you that, because you were the one who have tested it dozens of times.

So I propose to leave the effect as-is but make it at $4. Your ratings seem to show that it wasn't that broken and making it a $4 card ensures that you can't open Summon/Young Witch or Summon/Sea Hag, what would be a strong opening I think.

[DStu]

First I also want to say that the problem here is a lot smaller than in rinkworks case, as the doubling is really a great deal.

So what you can really do is buying your "second Witch" for $3. Which of course seems quite of unbalanced.  It's probably even a bit better than the second Witch, because it advances cycling, and could be recycled for another card if you would trash the Witch, but that' marginal.

But is it a problem for the game that you buy your second Witch for $3?
a) It does not kill the Witch, as you must buy one Witch anyway.
b) You don't want to load up with lots of these, as a Summon that summons a Summon is a card you would not have had to buy. Colliding Summons are dead cards in this strategy.
c) You would buy a second Witch anyway, so the game does not change much.
d) You can not play this game when you want to support your Witches with Warehouses, or defend with a trasher, or for whatever reason would buy more actions than your two witches.
e) You don't want to start double-Summon, so the best reason for going up to $4 is gone. OK reading Qvists post, Summon/Sea Hag maybe is not what you want to enable, so $4 probably it is not gone at all.

But $4 is ok I think, coming from rinksworks thread it really seems somehow wrong to let you play $5 cards for $4, but when you want to do this you are so limited in your strategy that is is not a big deal.

[ChaosRed]

You guys are great, I really hope I run into some of you at a gaming convention one day. I'd really like to buy all of you a beer.

Qvist - Yeah testing showed the card to not be quite as broken as it would appear, well said. The trick to beating it was being agile enough, that you could counter-attack nearly as often, but then also build a more agile/robust engine. Summon was a "simpler/easier" route, that often worked, but often there was a better, subtler way to win. Removing the +1 Action would, I fear, leave it dead on the board in a lot of games.

I don't think it works at all as a terminal card (or at least I think if its terminal it's a 2$ card). In the situation where you had no ations on the stack, you really wouldn't do anything but tutor your first treasure and so the average gain would be maybe 2$ in the later rounds and far, far worse in the early rounds. On the situation where you got both terminals (Summon+the card you want to tutor for), well the situation is worse. You'd "hit the lottery" on a Village+Summon draw, it means you could tutor the marquee terminal and play it, but that is a lot of work and not easy to ensure you get that. You could build an engine to get that, and if you've built an engine, you don't really need the Summon. Not to mention, the design would ensure you'd never want more than one. But then I guess a lot of terminals wind up being like that. Summon's "appeal" is a fast, quick, instant engine to launch attacks (or some other strong terminal). It soars early, sputters late and isn't particularly agile, but can be extremely effective.

You assessed the card perfectly (in fact it took you just a few minutes to deduce what it took me 100 games to arrive at, I really marvel at how well you guys assess and judge cards). The card is overpowered when a card like Witch or Torturer is in the Kingdom and really lousy when other obvious engines are there. Your 4$ advice, I think is literally right on the money, if you'll forgive the pun.

DStu - Another superb post from you. Cheers.  This line summarizes the issue beautifully:

I think, coming from rinksworks thread it really seems somehow wrong to let you play $5 cards for $4, but when you want to do this you are so limited in your strategy that is is not a big deal

I think given the analysis from DStu and Qvist, I'll bump the price to 4$. Play test it and see how it goes.

Much obliged, for this, thank again.

[ChaosRed]

Moving on...

LAND GRAB

GRADE:  B RATING: 0.92 +/- 0.08 RATING POSITION: 17th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 3rd out of 25 BEST COMBO: This "combo" was really an artifact that Silver Vein was the best and strongest alternate card to gain (more on Silver Vein later it needs revision). Land Grab doesn't really "combine" with anything of course, it fires quickly off the top of your deck and inserts a green into your deck and plops a VP token down for the hassle. ASSESSMENT: I gave this card a "B" because it was, well, a hard card not to like. The card isn't broken, it isn't even really that good, but damn if you don't find yourself reaching for it in the later rounds, when you need it. The fact you do need it, usually means something went wrong of course, it means you fell short of a Province probably, can't afford to buy Gold this late and its too late to tune the engine, you need points, you need them fast and this gets you there. Of course, it all comes at a price, you are essentially forcing yourself to draw just four cards next turn, all for a Dutchy and a VP. Is one card worth 4VP? Well sometimes, you apparently concede that it is and this explains why its gain/buy rating is so high. It also explains why its rating is slightly below average though, because often the card was a last-ditched attempt by a player behind on points. That makes the card pretty decent, it has a niche, that niche comes up often and the end-result of its usage is just about average. It strengthens a little when good alternate victory cards are there and it can accelerate "middle road" games, where 3-piling mechanisms are intriguing (and this certainly helps that tactic). I call this a pretty good card, I hesitated to give it an "A" because let's face it, the card isn't that exciting or creative. RECOMMENDATION: I am going to just adjust the art on this card, that's it. Feel free to discuss the card if you like, but otherwise I'll move on quickly to the next card in the set. SUGGESTED VARIANTS I'll post the new variant later tonight, but only the art will have changed, the card stays exactly the same.

[DStu]

Yeah, I can imagine that it's right. As with the last card, I thought again "Whoot?!?, paying $4 for getting a $5 (Duchy) next turn, AND +1coin+1VP for free? That must be to strong!".

But as you said, you pay for it by having a guaranteed terminal copper next turn, and that is a high cost given you usually want to buy Provinces the times where you want to gain Duchies.

Note that there is no condition on gaining the Victory, so Throne Room/King's Court tricks are possible, which might be a little to strong, esp. as you can gain Land GRap by IW/Workshop without further tricks. So a KC-KC-IW-Draw-Landgrap can clean a stack all of its own.

[ChaosRed]

Note that there is no condition on gaining the Victory, so Throne Room/King's Court tricks are possible, which might be a little to strong, esp. as you can gain Land GRap by IW/Workshop without further tricks. So a KC-KC-IW-Draw-Landgrap can clean a stack all of its own.

Yes, yes, it needs a "if you do" clause. I've been meaning to make that change for a while (in fact I think it might have been you who pointed this out before). Thanks for reminding me!

[popsofctown]

You guys are great, I really hope I run into some of you at a gaming convention one day. I'd really like to buy all of you a beer.

Qvist - Yeah testing showed the card to not be quite as broken as it would appear, well said. The trick to beating it was being agile enough, that you could counter-attack nearly as often, but then also build a more agile/robust engine. Summon was a "simpler/easier" route, that often worked, but often there was a better, subtler way to win. Removing the +1 Action would, I fear, leave it dead on the board in a lot of games.

I don't think it works at all as a terminal card (or at least I think if its terminal it's a 2$ card). In the situation where you had no ations on the stack, you really wouldn't do anything but tutor your first treasure and so the average gain would be maybe 2$ in the later rounds and far, far worse in the early rounds. On the situation where you got both terminals (Summon+the card you want to tutor for), well the situation is worse. You'd "hit the lottery" on a Village+Summon draw, it means you could tutor the marquee terminal and play it, but that is a lot of work and not easy to ensure you get that. You could build an engine to get that, and if you've built an engine, you don't really need the Summon. Not to mention, the design would ensure you'd never want more than one. But then I guess a lot of terminals wind up being like that. Summon's "appeal" is a fast, quick, instant engine to launch attacks (or some other strong terminal). It soars early, sputters late and isn't particularly agile, but can be extremely effective.

You assessed the card perfectly (in fact it took you just a few minutes to deduce what it took me 100 games to arrive at, I really marvel at how well you guys assess and judge cards). The card is overpowered when a card like Witch or Torturer is in the Kingdom and really lousy when other obvious engines are there. Your 4$ advice, I think is literally right on the money, if you'll forgive the pun.

DStu - Another superb post from you. Cheers.  This line summarizes the issue beautifully:

I think, coming from rinksworks thread it really seems somehow wrong to let you play $5 cards for $4, but when you want to do this you are so limited in your strategy that is is not a big deal

I think given the analysis from DStu and Qvist, I'll bump the price to 4$. Play test it and see how it goes.

Much obliged, for this, thank again.

Have you ever played Magic?  There was a card that worked much like Summon : "Destroy target creature.  The destroyed creature's controller reveals cards from the top of his or her deck until he reveals a creature, then he puts that creature into play under his control."  A mechanic called creature tokens pretty much let you cheat around the limitation that would have you hitting runts accidentally when you want to get your "5$" creature, so it worked very similarly.  I didn't like it, you had to use very specific counterstrategies to deal with it.  Summon seems problematic because those counterstrategies don't even seem to exist.  This card might be testing well within your set but if your interested in mixing other sets at all you're going to have problems.  Summon on the board would make 5's like Minion automatic mirrors.  Embassy, mirror.  Expand? Mirror. 

I don't really like the card, even at 4$.  I think terminal is the best answer.  I think you can reward healthy use of the card by removing the +action and adding a quirky "If you chose treasure, +1 action.  If you chose action, +1$".  That forces you to buy villages, diluting your deck to some degree, making things ok.  It's slightly underpowered that way, but I'm just trying to point in the direction that makes the card more of a Scheme and less of a Polymorph.  It could be balanced with the second option being 2$ (more likely than not, actually.)  Or you could add +buy to either option, maybe make it 2$, or add an estate option with a benefit.  There's several directions you could go.



Land grab looks fine.

[ChaosRed]

I should note that I am really grateful for all your help pops, so I don't want this post to come across as ungrateful of your advice:

It complements Minion to be sure, but not that much, it essentially adds one more Minion for 4$. And really after you buy more than one you get diminishing returns out of it.True, you can scatter more Summons in there, but some of the time you just Summon a Summon, which means in the end all you do is eventually tutor one Minion. And now you paid 8$ to get to it (or maybe 12$ who knows). And because you discard to fire each Summon, you are now possibly in danger of killing your Minion engine entirely.

So the most cost-effective way is just to buy one...well congrats you added one more Minion for 4$ and you probably bought it on a turn you didn't have 5$, and early on it let you play one Minion you didn't normally run into...and as we all know Minion engines aren't that strong in the early going. It might allow you to add one more Minion when Minion is piled, but okay, you spend a late-buy to acquire just that. And really Minion is one of the best examples for Summon. It does work really well with it.

Again, I feel really strongly that making it terminal destroys it's usage. It would be often dead on the board. It has marginal utility, because you have to get the actions on the stack and then what you wind up drawing is probably something that just puts actions on the stack (sometimes not of course, but once you add more than action card to summon, you create a randomization scenario that isn't that strong). Making it terminal, kills a fun card, just kills it. It doesn't work that well with engines, even rink discovered this is so. It works, but not as effectively as really just acquiring more of the engine itself. It's real elegance and utility is to summon one powerful card for you.

Actually it's a superb BM-enabler, more than an engine-enabler. Because in a BM+Smithy set up, it can ensure the Smithy fires very often (especially early which is when BM likes to dominate anyway). It tested well when put to this task. One Embassy+one Summon would do well to support Big Money, but I am not sure it would be broken, just effective.

So far, I've seen that Summon is not that great a card to fuel a good engine, because you'd probably rather have the engine card itself. Because usually the cards of the engine itself are better than just tutoring for one piece of the engine. You see your engine card is going to probably keep some of those cards your Summon is going to discard just getting to your engine. (Early in the game for example, that gold can go bye-bye into the discard pile and you won't see it for a few turns, you would have seen it however if you'd just stuck to your engine).

The only real argument I can see against it, is I should govern it somehow so it can't tutor a card that costs more than 5$. That is something I'm willing to concede, but I think making it terminal is no fun at all. The other strong criticism I need to accept is that the "summon treasure" portion is an atrophied limb. It's almost NEVER used, and therefore not really necessary. It helps you only when you do follow the Summon+1 attack tactic, because I guess you can handle the collision of the two by simply tutoring a treasure card.  It's like a weak consolation prize when that happens. I could lose that portion of it and not shed a tear.

I think I can make it work as a non-terminal card though and I'll use this next wave of testing to see if I am right.

[plasticbrain]

@ChaosRed: i feel your pain, man. but Farming Village is the closest comparison to Summon, and it doesn't let you choose what you find, but costs 1 more than Summon. on your side, is the fact that Farming Village is not terminal either, but against you is that it's worse and costs more. what about having what Summon finds dependent on the type of card you discard for it? so, you still have some choice, but it'll depend on what's in your hand when you play it, and basically becomes a trade-up. just an idea. this would limit early shenanigans as well. good luck! keep it non-terminal!

[popsofctown]

I thought you were going to raise the cost to 4$ and add no other penalty.  I misunderstood.  Forced discard is exactly the kind of thing that can balance the card.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks guys, appreciate the support as always, to close the loop on a few items, here is the Summon I will be play testing and here is also the final Land Grab (with new art and the slightly revised text to accommodate King's Court and Throne Room):


I've moved both cards to the beta thread. Meanwhile, I post a new 4$ card report, shortly.

[dondon151]

I gotta say, I liked the previous art for Land Grab better 

Oh, also, have you considered renaming the card to "Land Run" or "Land Rush?" Apparently, looking up "land grab" on Wikipedia redirects you to that page instead. Granted, it's a historical phenomenon restricted to the expanding United States, and it may not be the same as the original intended meaning, but I think it's a good thematic correlation.

[ChaosRed]

I gotta say, I liked the previous art for Land Grab better 

Oh, also, have you considered renaming the card to "Land Run" or "Land Rush?" Apparently, looking up "land grab" on Wikipedia redirects you to that page instead. Granted, it's a historical phenomenon restricted to the expanding United States, and it may not be the same as the original intended meaning, but I think it's a good thematic correlation.

Interesting comment! I can indeed consider a rename for the card. Land Rush is nice, because sometimes you do actually "rush" the card early, in an attempt to 3-pile Dutchies, Land Grabs and Estates. It was too slow when we tested it, but it certainly has a nice ring to it. Loved the comment about the art too, thanks for that. Although I want to see the new version printed out first to truly decide. What a card looks like as a JPG and what it looks like printed out and sleeved can be really different.

[ChaosRed]

AUCTION

GRADE:  B RATING: 1.07 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 12th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 12th out of 25 BEST COMBO: Well this combo was a no-brainer. In fact, really Auction is kind of made for a Silver Vein deck, (it's often a pain in the butt in Province decks). ASSESSMENT: A non-terminal trasher has to get everyone's eyes open. You can trash and you can keep going with your turn! And hey, it gives you +2$ to your buy phase by inserting a silver into your hand. Well come on ChaosRed the card is practically broken. But of course, it really isn't, because it trashes but it does not condense. It replaces what you trash with a Silver. Which is pretty damn cool in turns 3-7, and pretty much a pain in the rear after that. In fact, the best way to play Auction was to buy it early and then find a way to trash the card or set the card aside once you hit the middle rounds. It's also pretty slow, trashing one card and replacing it will a Silver isn't really a great way to consolidate a tight deck. I gave the card a "B" because it blends well with the expansion's theme, it's a nifty little card in the early rounds and overall it tested fairly well. It wound up smack-dab in the middle in terms of both card rating and card popularity. I can't give it an "A", because, well it isn't particularly bold or interesting. RECOMMENDATION: The card stays as is, with just new art. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Here's the variant with new art work only and some minor tweaks to the text. Feel free to discuss, I have the game logs of this card, so I know how it performed the way it did and why, so if you are curious ask, otherwise, I'll move on to the next card report.

[popsofctown]

Auction is tha ultimate torturer counter.


Seems fine.  The second art requires a rename, while the art is good it does not look like an auction.  "Traveller's trade" meshes with the mechanics of the card, but might sound kind of awkward.  "Trusty Dealer" suggests that the man with the pots can always be counted on to give you the same price, one silver.

[dondon151]

Small wording issue: as per Trading Post, Bureaucrat, and Explorer, it should be "Gain a Silver card," instead of "Gain a silver." Trading post and Bureaucrat say "... card; put it into your hand," and Explorer says "... card, putting it into your hand."

You also trash cards "from" your hand. Chapel, Trading Post, etc. use this wording.

[ChaosRed]

Small wording issue: as per Trading Post, Bureaucrat, and Explorer, it should be "Gain a Silver card," instead of "Gain a silver." Trading post and Bureaucrat say "... card; put it into your hand," and Explorer says "... card, putting it into your hand."

You also trash cards "from" your hand. Chapel, Trading Post, etc. use this wording.

Thanks for this, I like to get the wording as consistent as possible. Cheers.

pops, I think you are right, renaming the card is probably a good idea. I tried to find good art that represented an auction, and all I could find was the original black and white line drawing and I wanted to find something in color. Let me see what I can come up with.

EDIT:

Okay here's the revision based on both of your feedback:

[ChaosRed]

GYPSY

GRADE:  B RATING: 1.03 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 14th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 10th out of 25 BEST COMBO: No surprise that Gypsy worked best with cards that put +2 Actions on the stack. And of course this tactic had all the problems Village+Smithy runs into. The one advantage was Gypsy helped your hand the next turn, (which turns out to be really strong, I guess people who love Wharf know this). ASSESSMENT: This expansion is pretty starved for card draw. It has other neat tricks it can do, but getting a lot of cards in your hand is not easy with this expansion. The expansion has lots of ways to keep your deck dense and ways to mitigate the risk of drawing green. In that context, Gypsy did pretty well. I think you can make an argument Gypsy is only worth 3$, but at 4$ it did okay for us. It was purchased slightly above average and performed just slightly below average, but neither statistic was alarming. +2 Cards stinks as a primary ability, it's really only +1 Card, because the first card was the card you would have had in the first place if you hadn't bought Gypsy. But starting your next turn with 6 cards instead of 5 is massive, getting a +VP along the way is just gravy, but there were a few games these tokens made the difference. It's amazing how just having a +3 token advantage can really swing a Province game. I gave this card a "B", because it is just a bit underwhelming for 4$, and of course it steals all its creative thunder from Seaside (apologies, what can I tell you I am just a fan so lots of my cards are going to be derivative). But overall the card did well, it was well liked, it looks cool and I think it deserves a "B". RECOMMENDATION: The card stays as is, no changes at all... SUGGESTED VARIANTS Nothing changes, the card stays the same:

[Arya Stark]

love the gypsy pic, very pretty!

[ChaosRed]

Thanks Arya, yeah I think the card looks pretty cool too.

[ChaosRed]

ARCHITECT

GRADE:  F RATING: 0.6 +/- 0.15 RATING POSITION: 25th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 22nd out of 25 BEST COMBO: No real rhyme or reason to this combo being successful. In fact this "combo" only had a 50% win rating across 4 games, it's just that this happens to be the best rating of them all (as Architect had a DEPLORABLE win-loss rating). ASSESSMENT: This was just a dreadful card. The card was meant to have three utilities, (none of which were really worth 3$). The fact it was versatile though, was supposed to accommodate for the fact that each option was weak. Turns out, those kinds of cards are lousy. This was the WORST rated card of the lot. And by the end, we had to force ourselves to buy it just to get it some more test data. It was hated and my wife loathed the artwork too, so I'm even changing that. RECOMMENDATION: I am going to completely change this awful card. Since Summon is getting moved to 4$, I elect this card to be moved down to 3$. I also recommend the card get some serious revision. I want to keep the fact that card does three things (none of them spectacular), but make each option just a little more broad. One of the utilities is now a reaction. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Complete revamp, similar utility as before (just broadened) and a whole new reaction:

It's the reaction ability I worry about most, how broken is it? Like Tunnel it fires after the discard, so there's no danger of repetitive reactions. My worry though is that you can build a deck to break this pretty easily. Things like Embassy or Inn can focus purely on getting a lot of VP. But I also wanted that to be the appeal of the card, as in, provide an extremely compelling alternate-victory route.

One solution is I can set Architect aside as part of the discard reaction, then put Architect into the discard pile at the end of your turn. But maybe I don't need to?

I do know people have depleted the gold pile with Tunnel (and people have depleted Silver with Traders), so I worry the potential for massive VP-gain is too silly really for me to keep the card the way it is. I can test to be sure, but if any of you feel it's not worth testing (that it is easily broken), then I can adjust accordingly before I test.

Much obliged for any and all advice, as always.

One option is to provide a "gain estate" instead of a +1VP. Although this is significantly more hassle, for 3-pile strategies it could be quite useful.

[Fangz]

That VP gain reaction is just sickeningly powerful. Think about it - Tunnel is balanced by the fact that its effect (gaining golds) works against it, by making it more difficult to chain together combos to discard it. In comparison newArchitect also lets you trash, creating a lean, mean VP scoring machine that never bogs down. Imagine it in a double tactician engine. Or just with hunting party.

Estate gaining is too weak though. I'd suggest duchy-gain as an reaction, and increase the cost to $4.

[ChaosRed]

Estate gaining is too weak though. I'd suggest duchy-gain as an reaction, and increase the cost to $4.

I find that strong, but thank you for the feedback.

I think you are right about the VP accrual being too easily exploited, but the Estate-gain function would be part of a 3-pile strategy, that wanted a fast accrual of green. It is weak, but I think in some cases you'd reach for it, especially in this expansion where some cards want green, and other cards let you put green to the side.

Alternatively, I could award an Estate and a VP, as in "you may gain an Estate, if you do +1VP".

I am looking for a way to deplete the Estates, it's a useful thing to do when combined with other cards in the set.

[Tydude]

Well, this doesn't have to do with the estates, but what do you think of this variant?

You may trash a card. If you do, choose one: (+1 Card; +1 Action) or +1 VP.
When you trash this, you may reveal it. If you do, +2 VP.

The idea is you can choose to either self replicate or get the victory point. I didn't know how to express it without making it seem like there was three choices, so I put parentheses.

[popsofctown]

Actually, even the main effect is at risk for causing VP loop games.  It's not that +card +trash is stronger than Monument's 2$, that's certainly not the case, but trashing a card encourages slim comboing decks, +$ encourages buying Provinces once the 2's start adding up.  Both players could end up looping the card even if you take the reaction off completely.


Tying it to the estate stack is a good idea, it goes with the set and puts a light at the end of the tunnel.

Give it a stabley effect with estates, gain estates on the reaction.  Let it gain VP, then become invisible by stabling



EDIT: Ok I thought about it, and though trashing does encourage looping (provided +buy is available) it's not powerful enough to compete with greening so the main effect isn't issue.  The reaction definitely, definitely is though.


By the way, gypsy might be balanced but it is very, very, very powerful.  Please test it with Big Money, because I see it shining in Big Money more so than in a village deck.  If you try to recreate a village wharf engine with the card, the VP chip is going to feel worse than a card because it doesn't help you assemble a dense engine quickly.  In Big Money the VP chip, I'd expect, feels better than a card because you've less need for momentum and love a slower game with a thickened greening phase engines suffer more from greening than money does, as a rule.  The card looks like Gypsy BM bot beats Smithy BM bot which is cause for concern.  It might be at Envoy strength which is fine - a heavy BM threat but one that loses to a good engine.  But definitely don't limit yourself to engine testing on gypsy, that's not going to be its strength.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks again, all of you. Nice idea you have there Ty, worth considering.

Pops, I did test Gypsy with Big Money, it did fairly well, but like most BM decks, it wasn't that hard to defeat either. It does do well, and I never did test BM+Smithy vs. BM+Gypsy, that's a worthy test.

I'm considering this now for Architect, making it tied to Estates, but changing it now to a reaction on gain, rather than discard. Makes it a tolerable defense against curse attacks. I am tempted to add a +buy to the card now:



I think that's not the most superb card for 3$, but since it can trash, earn VP and fight off Curses (albeit by slogging you with Estates), I think it has some  utility.

What do you think? Did I take it too far in the other direction and now the card is too weak?

My understanding is that like Trader, you can only reveal at the moment you gain, so you could only gain 1 Estate on any gain. I had thought of revising it to:

When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash the gained card, gain an Estate, put it into your hand.

This would ensure, you really could only get 1 Estate, and would also put the card into your hand (where you could perhaps discard it, or trash it, if the reaction happened on an opponent's turn, or you gained the card during the action phase).

[popsofctown]

I've definitely gotten double silvers off of Cache and seen Mountebank do so as well.  Copying Trader's formatting and tacking "to your hand" on the end should work just fine.

The card is weak as printed.  Neither mode is even as good as terminal silver, which the rather versatile Steward offers.

Let it interact with estates like Baron does, it will feel be a funner card that way.  It minimizes the awkward period where you have something that makes estates good or something that gains estates, but not both, and makes it playable on any board.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah, I am cool with getting two Estates off a double-gain (like on a Mountebank attack), just not being able to reveal on the same gain endlessly. I don't think Traders functions that way, so I should be okay.

Agree about putting the Estate into your hand, makes it stronger. Not sure I want a Baron interaction, but you might be on to something there. Interacting with a victory card specifically does make sense for the card.

[popsofctown]

I don't mean that as specifically as discard for money.  Just some sort of victory card interaction.

[ChaosRed]

Well I can add another option, this one essentially turns Architect into a Lab if you have an Estate in your hand:



It might be too much, 3 options and a reaction, might mean that new third option should really be a Village and not a Lab.

[popsofctown]

nah, it's perfect.  It's a stabley effect like I recommended.  The third options lets you pretend that both the Architect and Estate are cantrips.  That's fine as a versatility option.  Spice Merchant does the same thing while trashing a copper, which accomplishes more, and it still has other options available.

It now draws as many cards as Horse Traders when attacked with a curse, but I think that will be fine, you need the strong incentive to keep the Estates in your deck.  Otherwise the reaction is a bad Watchtower (without in-set synergies, at least)

[Fangz]

IMO it's still too weak and useless. The lab effect simply means drawing this + an estate = having neither of those cards in your deck in the first place. And if you haven't drawn those two cards together, you've basically just cursed yourself by buying this card. Using this to gain estates instead of some other card would be useful in a very slim set of circumstances, since usually an estate in deck is about as bad as a curse. I would never ever buy this except as an odd combo with Baron and even then I'd probably prefer Crossroads.

Personally I think the Duchy gain isn't as overpowered as you think. Compare Tunnel, which gains a much better card (gold) and Transmute which offers you the powerful option of gaining Gold as well.

[popsofctown]

I think it's testable.  Having an estate in hand means you made both a card worth 1 VP and a card with reaction utility (that may even have been used this turn) invisible.  People pay 3$ for a Great Hall.  This is a Great Hall that fizzles sometimes but has other utility.  You won't always have an estate in hand of course and that balances out its versatility.

I think it's probably still slightly weak, but I wouldn't call it useless.  And I think testing is necessary to ascertain which of the abilities needs a buff to get it where it needs to be.  Probably just a +buy tacked in somewhere.  This card becomes even cuter with +buy, then it comboes with itself during an estate rush.

I have to agree that Duchy gain is not a good idea.  There's a crucial difference between Tunnel and a Duchy gainer - Golds massive Gold gain doesn't 3-pile and gain VP at the same time.

Though I think it should be tested as-is first, one change I would suggest is switching from Trader wording to Watchtower wording. That allows it to three pile faster by trashing curses, and lets it get along with Ironworks well (Donald ruled that Trader wording does not allow Ironworks to bestow any extra benefits at all ever   ).


Using this card in conjunction with Witches to make your opponent gain all 10 curses is probably rather fun and effective though, so definitely test it as is first. 

[ChaosRed]

I think a +buy might be nice for it. I was thinking that, now it's just a matter of finding the real estate on the card itself.

[popsofctown]

As I was checking to see where there was room for the +Buy, I realized you've got a bigger space issue - the wall to wall lab description needs an "If you do" on the estate discard

[ChaosRed]

Well I could not fit the "if you do" on the card, (but I'll house rule it for now)...



I think this is a decent card now when you want to 3-pile and makes a nice companion to a Gardens deck.

[Tydude]

I think it's probably fairly balanced now, but it still feels so disjointed. There doesn't seem to be an overall theme to the card, it just feels like a bunch of effects. I suppose the estate gaining and +buy help 3 pile, but then why does it let you trash? I think you need to somehow streamline it a bit.

[ChaosRed]

It lets you trash the Estates, if in the situation you've inherited too much green, too quickly. In a lot of cases, you just want to deplete the pile, you don't actually want the +1 the Estate gives you. It sounds odd, but it is sometimes a way you can win. The idea, thematically, is the "architect" builds an alternate victory path.

[plasticbrain]

It lets you trash the Estates, if in the situation you've inherited too much green, too quickly. In a lot of cases, you just want to deplete the pile, you don't actually want the +1 the Estate gives you. It sounds odd, but it is sometimes a way you can win. The idea, thematically, is the "architect" builds an alternate victory path.

but it goes against the flavor of the card. an architect is someone who lays plans to build structures, like estates. saying that he 'builds' a path to victory is malarky. practically every card in Dominion does that. it seems to me you're using that inverted reasoning to justify putting everything on this card. and that would be my one strong and abiding criticism of all your designs: too much on one card. such cards are actually not fun to play with because 1) they're confusing to know how to use, 2) their complexity usually makes them too narrow ironically, and 3) they're complicated rule text kills any flavor you were going for.
needed to be said. simplify.

[dondon151]

Architects also tear down stuff to build new stuff.

[popsofctown]

Noisy cards with lots of choices are uninviting for new players and bad if poorly designed.  I can't agree that they're inferior - X Command cycle in MtG made its standard format way too fun for me to agree with that.

I do agree that the card is going too many directions at once, though, and the choices need to work well together.  The trash ability doesn't go along with the rest of the card.  If you have an estate in your hand you want to cycle it with the lab ability.  If you're trashing estates, turning curses into estates doesn't matter, you just would have trashed the do-nothing card either way so you're better off with a Trade Route.

And trashing in general doesn't go well with three piling.  It makes green cards a larger proportion of your deck.

[ChaosRed]

 The trash ability works well, in cases where you only buy it as a defense against Curse attacks, it makes sense. You can trash what you just gained instead and then replace the traced card with something from your deck, making the Architect a neutral card in that situation.

It goes really well in 3-piling schemes where the VP are coming from other sources and the piling of Estates is there to just to end the game faster. In situations where the VP situation is close, you can elect to discard the Estate for a victory token.

It's not a great card, it's just a card that can help in certain situations. I like it now, and I will be ready to test it.

I'll move on to other cards with a new report shortly.

[Tydude]

Are you still doing this?