There are a lot of cards, so I won't bother quoting them. I'll just copy and paste the text...
On the general concept of draw (man, that should be "card token" for consistency), action and buy tokens -- I think it's OK, but not really that exciting. It's not quite a novel concept since it's so similar to coin tokens, and most fans have already considered the possibility of such tokens.
The bigger issue is that this requires so many more extra components that won't really see use in most games. One thought I've had (and not posted) is to switch to personal player boards instead of tokens. Each player would have a board that would track saved cards/actions/coins/buys. If you gain a "token", you move the marker up on your board. If you spend a "token", you move the marker down. Spinners might be even better than a board.
Rabbit
(Action) $2
+1 action
Take a buy token
XerxesPraelor commented that Buy tokens aren't very good. I disagree. The main effect of tokenizing vanilla bonuses is to make them more consistent. If you have a coin token, you smooth out your purchasing power. If you have a buy token, you can be sure to have +Buy when you need it (i.e. when you have enough money that you want to buy two things). Buy tokens are weaker when you can draw your entire deck, but this is not the usual case. Rabbit is probably good enough to support a middling engine with just 1 or 2 copies. Rabbit is fine for $2.
Walking Stick
(Action) $2
+1 card
Discard any number of cards. +1 action per card discarded
Set up: Each player takes 2 draw tokens.
Is this supposed to be "+1 action token"? If not, it is ridiculously weak. Since the draw token thing is just for setup, it doesn't factor into the card's power level. I'd also note that having card tokens on setup makes the opening swingier. You can draw extra cards on turn 1 to get a chance of playing your opening buy on turn 2. That can be HUGE.
XP's suggestion of making it +2 cards does, in fact, make it OP. At that point, the card would be strictly superior to Donald's sifting lab (+2 cards, +1 action, discard a card) which was too strong for $4.
Bear Trap
(Action/Attack) $3
+1 action
+1 draw token
You may spend draw tokens. Each other player discards 1 card per draw token spent this way.
The wording is a little ambiguous. If you spend draw tokens for this card, do you get to draw cards as well? You could try Butcher's wording of "pay any number of [coin/draw] tokens", though it's a little strange. Or you could go with "return any number of draw tokens". Also, "+1 draw token" should be written out as "Take a Draw token".
This card definitely needs a clause to prevent pins. If that is added, then I think the card is OK.
Cross Bow
(Action) $3
Trash a card from your hand. Take draw tokens equal to the price of the card.
Ehhhh. Pretty sure this is too strong. It's comparable to Apprentice. The utility of saved tokens more than makes up for the loss of +1 action. Draw tokens let you draw non-terminally on their own.
Old Hunter
(Action) $3
Take an action token
While this is in play when you spend an action token, +1 card
Tough to evaluate. At first, this seems pretty weak. If you immediately use the token, it's just a cantrip that does nothing else. Oh, but if you stack them, then the second one is a Lab, and the third one is even better... huh, maybe it's actually too powerful. Yeah, with the third play, it's like all three were Labs on their own. It just gets better if there are other cards that grant action tokens too. I think a stacking card like this would be too powerful for $3 already, even without the option of saving the tokens for the future. I think this would have to be $4 at least, maybe even $5.
Deer Blind
(Action) $4
$3
+2 actions
Take a buy token
-$1 for every buy token you have to a minimum of $0
To clarify, is the -$1 like Poor House, or is it mean to be cost reduction? The cost reduction version would be stupidly overpowered, so I will assume that it's an actual subtraction.
Is the $3 there supposed to be +$3? I will assume so, because you already have a card cost of $4 above that, and it says +$3 in the quote in XP's post. Not sure why you deleted the + in an edit though.
This is almost strictly superior to Festival even though it costs less. The first play is equivalent to Festival if you always spend your Buy token. The fact that it is a savable Buy token makes it even better (it gives you a choice over Festival).
The only way Festival beats it is if you play multiples on the same turn, since you can't spend the Buy token until the Buy phase (the effect is also weakened if you started your turn with Buy tokens, but that would have been a choice on your part so it isn't really a weakness of Deer Blind compared to Festival).
Given that, I think it should probably cost $5.
Out House
(Action)$4
+1 card
+2 actions
While this is in play you may use buy tokens as draw tokens.
When you buy this each player takes a buy token.
Sounds OK.
Bullet
(Treasure)$0
Worth 1$ per draw token you have
(This is not in the supply)
Rifle
(Action) $5
Take 2 draw tokens
Gain a Bullet
Sounds incredibly overpowered. A basic strategy is clear -- buy multiple Rifles, accumulate draw tokens. Always keep a minimum of 8 Draw tokens. Each single Bullet is enough to buy a Province, and Rifle lets you gain more and more of them. Once you've accumulated enough draw tokens, you can spend the excess to cycle and draw more bullets into your hand.
In practice, it's better. You don't need to keep 8 Draw tokens -- keeping 4 makes Bullet better than Gold, and that's probably enough to buy Province with whatever else is in your hand. It also opens up really simple mega-turn strategies with any +Buy cards, where you just accumulate draw tokens until each single Bullet is worth a fortune on its own.
Not to mention, Rifle without Bullet is still pretty close to on par with Laboratory. You don't get the Lab effect on the turn it is played, but you can save it for any turn after that.
The primary fix should be to put a cap on how much coin a Bullet can generate. Maybe make Bullets temporary in the same way as Spoils. Maybe requiring you to pay the draw tokens for each Bullet.
Moose
(Action/Attack) $5
+$2
Each player discards their hand and takes 3 draw tokens
Just realized that you are duplicating names. There was already a previous card named Moose, and a previous one named Rifle too.
I think this card is good to test as is. If the opponents spend all 3 tokens to draw back 3 cards, the attack is much stronger than Militia. It's a more brutal Minion. This is counterbalanced by the fact that the other player could keep some or all of those card tokens. If they just skip their empty hand turn, they could spend the 3 tokens later to make it almost like a Tactician turn. Doesn't need a power boost or lower price, unless testing suggests otherwise.
Mountain
(Action/Victory) $5
Worth 1VP per draw tokens you have
When you discard this or trash this take 2 draw tokens.
When you discard this? As phrased, that would include discarding during clean-up phase, which means that it non-terminally gains 2VP per copy of Mountain. That's just ridiculously good.
If you mean for it to be like Tunnel, then the card is pretty much useless on boards without discarding effects or another draw token card. The trashing effect is not good enough to warrant a $5 opportunity cost (on top of having to line it up with the trasher later).
Wood Stove
(Action) $6
Take a draw token
Take an action token
You may trash cards from your hand equal to the number of draw tokens you have.
I think this is OK. Maybe it could be $5, but I think it's very reasonable to test at $6. The flexibility of tokens should make the effect better than Junk Dealer most of the time.
As written, if you choose to trash, you have to trash exactly the number of draw tokens you have. That means that if you had 4 draw tokens, you would have to trash 0 or 4, no in between. Is that your intention? I think it's probably fine either way (at worse, you just have to spend a few draw tokens before you play the card, if you don't want to trash too many cards).
Elephant
(Action) $7
You may play an action card from your hand up to as many action tokens you have.
While this is in play when you buy a card take an action token.
If there are other action token cards on the board, this is ridiculously overpowered. It quickly becomes better than King's Court.
If there is +Buy readily available, this is ridiculously overpowered. You can quickly ramp it up to be better than King's Court.
If there are no +Buy or action card token cards available, the power level depends on how quickly you can ramp it up. If you can get multiple copies, all the better. It stacks like Goons and Merchant Guild, so you can ramp it up pretty quickly that way. The opportunity cost is well worth it for an uber King's Court.
It's worth noting that it becomes very difficult to track with action token cards. Suppose I have 3 action tokens. I play Elephant(A) and choose to play another Elephant(B). Since I have 3 action tokens, I get to play Elephant(B) thrice. For my first play, I choose to play Old Hunter. I get to play it thrice. The result is that I take 3 action tokens in total. But hey -- now I have 5 action tokens. Does that mean I get to play Old Hunter more times? No, because the number was locked in when I played Elephant(B), but this will probably confuse some people.
Anyway, I now play Elephant(B) for the second time... and now it lets me choose to play a card 5 times. Now I play Elephant(C). I play various other cards many, many times. Eventually I go back to evaluate the third play of Elephant(B), and then I'm confused. Do I have a fourth play of Elephant(B)? How many action tokens did I have back when Elephant(A) was played? Wait, in that chain, how many times did I play Market with Elephant(C), and how many times did I play Village with Elephant(D) which came in at some other part of the chain? How many coins and buys and actions do I have now?
What I'm getting at is that an unbounded King's Court is pretty much insane.
