Usurer in the Black Market seems pretty swingy.
This is something that should be carefully considered. Other cards that are swingy in the Black Market (Tournament, Goons) are so because they are simply strong cards in general, and it's just part of the swinginess of Black Market itself. But here, you have a card that actually functions differently if it came from the Black Market; and it's much stronger than normal, due to both the one-shot nature of it (which is no longer one-shot when bought from Black Market), and due to the fact that you aren't forced to buy more of them.
Other cards that don't work the same when they come from the Black Market are weaker, not stronger (Fool's Gold, Treasure Map, Page. Perhaps the exception being Knights, but then it's still only slightly stronger.
I can make a rewording of it to trash it and then return it to the Supply (and hey, it doesn't even add a line of text!), but is it worth that complexity to fix its interaction with what is likely the most luck-based card in Dominion anyway?
Notably, Tanner (and to a lesser extent, Idol) is also stronger out of the Black Market, assuming the ruling that an "in games using this" in the
Black Market does not affect the Kingdom holds true (which it does for now).
Countess: you usually want to get it at some point since Victory cards are so expensive. The +2 cards just seemed to be the vanilla effect that made the most sense to use as giving coins or actions could easily lead to having better options than gaining a Duchy.
Keeping in theme with
Count, Countess gives you options: Keep going with your turn or discard your hand for a Duchy. The +2 Cards vanilla benefit also makes it easier to stack Countesses than any other benefit would. You can definitely gain more than one Duchy at once by playing multiple Countesses.
Fletcher
Why attack cards? Why an Estate? It all seems weirdly welded together. Fletcher seems weak, it probably isn't though, but it's confusing and I don't know when I would ever want it. With good $4-attacks and a village in the kingdom?
Attack cards were the most fun thing to reduce in cost since Actions make the game too engine friendly, Treasures make the game too Big Money centric, and Victory cards make the game end too quickly. By reducing the cost of Attack cards, the first card I thought would go from being pretty bad to actually pretty decent was
Spy, so gaining Estates combos with that. Fletcher is otherwise pretty good in sloggy games and basically any alternative Victory strategy since it can gain Silvers so fast. It is also quite good in any instance when having an Estate in your deck is not the worst thing in the world (likely because of cards like
Crossroads or
Baron).
Hideout
It just looks awful with so much text and I know the top part isn't that complicated if you think about it. It still seems more flexible than necessary. The part about trashing seems out of place and I dont like that you can put it anywhere in your deck when the top would be just fine. Otherwise it might take too long to resolve.
The Reaction does not take long to resolve since the only consideration of where it goes in your deck is whether or not you will draw it this turn (and whether or not you want to). Now that you point it out though, the trashing can probably be removed. I put trashing onto it in fear of the rest being too weak, but the trashing has proven so weak (since it has to be from a hand of 4) as to practically be a non-option. I will remove that. It should clean up the text quite nicely.
Informant
Seems fine and reasonably strong. I just dislike the fact that you play the Silver prior to trashing it. A lot of the time, people will forget they played an additional Silver. It would be simpler if it said “Trash a Silver from your hand. If you do, +$2 and each other player etc.”
It had this wording for a while, but the coin symbol made the already crowded text look even worse even though it had the exact same effect. I will probably only reinstate the coin symbol if the amount becomes different than $2.
Inquisitor: You can get it early to trash and use it later to discard Provinces/Duchies to hand out curses. The bottom effect gives you something to discard with your Inquisitors, but it is pretty much just tacked on.
The bottom is tacked on primarily to give Inquisitor ammunition to fire out Curses earlier. It slows down the game a hair and makes the timing of Inquisitor trickier.
Missionary: It definitely needs the bonus for trashing Silver. Trashing for actions is usually weak without a bonus. The effect could be just attached to the card instead of being a game effect but then it wouldn't really fit into the rest of the set! Sure it's harder to remember to do, but that argument could be on a significant number of the cards in the set.
We played around with a number of "trash for +Actions" effects, but without some incentive to trash a card with value, you pretty much never use it, so it definitely has to have some sort of benefit for trashing Silvers. Making the Silver trashing effect an "in games using this" both makes it fit better into Greed and also gives it fun considerations with Informant, War Flag, as well as other trash-for-benefits (as Silver is ordinarily a low priority target for trash-for-benefit). I will agree with co0kiel0rd that the "in games using this" can very easily be made optional, so it may as well be.
Ritter
...Why did you use the German word for knight as the card’s name? Doesn’t this appear weird to non-Germans?
I am on the lookout for better names. It needs to bring to mind the military purpose of a Margrave while still not being too legislative in nature. How does "Marquis" sound?
Street: I agree it's weak and is pretty much there just for the plus buy.
I probably buy Street in about a third of games using it, but even when Street doesn't get its time to shine, it still changes the landscape of the game, so I do not believe there is much to complain about with it.
Tanner
I like the action. The IGUT mechanic is uncalled-for, a nuisance. Again, why?
Tanner's Action effect is stupidly powerful without something putting cards it cannot draw into your deck. Of two options (either an "in games using this" that puts junk into your deck or making its draw more finicky), I liked this one better.
War Flag
A brutal attack but it costs $7 so that may just be reasonable. It’s the kind of attack Margrave wants to be but can’t due to its cost. I don’t mind the IGUT mechanic here that much but it might as well not be there.
Donald X has talked about the Attack that is on War Flag and how incredibly powerful and unfun it is. The reason it is so miserable is partially because on a card costing $5 or less it is easy to play, but also because of the high variance of players' decks. Having the best 2 of 5 and 1 average is probably going to suck. War Flag costs $7 and requires the player of it to discard a Treasure, making the Attack harder to reach, but War Flag's "in games using this" is what subtly makes the card. The "In games using this" reduces decks' variance in the middle of the game since players are trashing their junk, so a random draw is probably not going to be nearly so bad as in a normal game, though certainly still bad. However, since players are trashing most of their Coppers to it, players will have a harder time using War Flag's powerful Attack since they might need that Copper to trash when they buy a $5+ card.