Print

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

[Co0kieL0rd]

Greetings, fellow fan card enthusiasts!

Dominion takes place in medieval Europe which has been exposed to the vicissitudes of the Seasons, more so than our modern society. This is not accurately reflected in the gameplay, though. Asper and I proudly present this small expansion that introduces a turn-based card modification mechanic to Dominion.

Dominion: Seasons is a set that wants to change the way games take course and forces the players to adapt their strategy to the current game state. As the game progresses, Seasons change and Season cards get different effects. With this feature come a new level of strategical depth and a unique game style.

Each game that includes one or more Season cards uses the Season mat (see below) on which the progress of Seasons is marked with a Season marker. The game starts in Spring, section 1. After each full turn (e.g. after the last player in turn order took their turn) the Season marker is moved forward one section. After each 5 turns a new Season begins. Summer starts in turn 6, Fall in turn 11, and Winter in 16. After turn 20 it is Spring again.



The set consists of 12 cards (we might add one more) and 1 event. Most of them have been thoroughly tested although we always gladly welcome more playtesting and feedback. Asper and I will present a new card with in-depth commentary every three days or so. Additionally, the next post will be an overview of the set’s contents as a whole.

[Asper]

Note: Since the creation of this thread, Seasons has been re-visited. This brought some changes, like bolding the Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter keywords, as well as several balance changes that came up, a tweaked color scheme, and new cards. You can find the original versions of the Seasons cards at the bottom of this post (click to show them full size).

All Season cards have a pink color scheme. We decided it was necessary to make sure players are reminded to take care of the Season token when the game starts.



Original Seasons:

[Asper]

There are a few kinds of cards every dominion set needs. A village. An alt-VP. A card that is better than Scout. And, of course, a junker that reflects the expansion's theme.

Meet Snow Witch, a Curser that gets going only once everyone is already set. It may look cheap for a card that becomes strictly better than Witch once it goes off, but chances are at the time you actually start cursing people with this chilled lady, Curses have become sparse, or those arrogant jerks from the neighbor kingdom are finished building an impenetrable Watchtower defense.

It optionally returns a card to the top of your deck so you can save another copy for a later turn, and also to set itself apart a bit more from normal Witches. The theme is inspired by Snow Women from Japanese folklore and even the image depicts one – no Sir, we did not just paste some word in front of "Witch" to make this card.

So brace yourselves, when the air gets frosty, when the birds start leaving, and when the supermarkets stock up on gingerbread. Winter is coming.

[Roadrunner7671]

Well, this looks profoundly awesome.
I hope Donald sees this!

[gkrieg13]

this sounds awesome!

[enfynet]

I guess that's an appropriate card considering the winter that is finally arriving in the Midwest and Northeast.

[drsteelhammer]

General concept: I really like it, it is indeed pretty original and there is a lot of potential for great cards. The only thing I would change is the moment you move he Season marker. Obviously I don't know the other cards and how they interact with the seasons, but Snow Witch makes the first player advantage a lot worse since it is not unreasonable to expect that P1 gives out 4-5 curses on t11 when an engine is available. If you would change the moment to the beginning of P2 (P3,4,5 etc) the advantage would not be with P1 which I think would be great for a change.

This concept  obviously hurts P2 on cards where Spring/Summer are the desired seasons so I cant say for sure that this would be a good change but judging only from Snow Witch I think it certainly is.

Other than that I'm pretty excited to see the other cards

Also, giving the cards another colour is definitely a good choice

[Asper]

General concept: I really like it, it is indeed pretty original and there is a lot of potential for great cards. The only thing I would change is the moment you move he Season marker. Obviously I don't know the other cards and how they interact with the seasons, but Snow Witch makes the first player advantage a lot worse since it is not unreasonable to expect that P1 gives out 4-5 curses on t11 when an engine is available. If you would change the moment to the beginning of P2 (P3,4,5 etc) the advantage would not be with P1 which I think would be great for a change.

This concept  obviously hurts P2 on cards where Spring/Summer are the desired seasons so I cant say for sure that this would be a good change but judging only from Snow Witch I think it certainly is.

Other than that I'm pretty excited to see the other cards

Also, giving the cards another colour is definitely a good choice

Good point on the P1 advantage. It's certainly something to look out for. With more players, obviously more junk can be dealt out before it's your turn, although the amount of curses you can give out only by playing Snow Witches decreases relative to the amount of curses in the supply. That said, it's not exactly unique to Snow Witch to favour the first player - think Militia. Still, it's an interesting observation, and certainly something we need to keep in mind.

Changing the Season at another time than after the last player made his turn would mean some players spend less turns in their first Spring than others. With 5 turns, if nothing weird happens, you are guaranteed to see your opening buys at least once before Summer. Let's just say there are cases where it matters.

[drsteelhammer]

Good point on the P1 advantage. It's certainly something to look out for. With more players, obviously more junk can be dealt out before it's your turn, although the amount of curses you can give out only by playing Snow Witches decreases relative to the amount of curses in the supply. That said, it's not exactly unique to Snow Witch to favour the first player - think Militia. Still, it's an interesting observation, and certainly something we need to keep in mind.

Changing the Season at another time than after the last player made his turn would mean some players spend less turns in their first Spring than others. With 5 turns, if nothing weird happens, you are guaranteed to see your opening buys at least once before Summer. Let's just say there are cases where it matters.

Exactly, cards like Militia and situations where P2 shuffles a curse in whereas P1 doesn't made me suggest the above, basically to balance this a bit. However, I didn't consider that the opening buys are guaranteed to be played once after 5 turns, this distinction is probably more important than what I suggested. I take back my previous criticism!

[Asper]

Good point on the P1 advantage. It's certainly something to look out for. With more players, obviously more junk can be dealt out before it's your turn, although the amount of curses you can give out only by playing Snow Witches decreases relative to the amount of curses in the supply. That said, it's not exactly unique to Snow Witch to favour the first player - think Militia. Still, it's an interesting observation, and certainly something we need to keep in mind.

Changing the Season at another time than after the last player made his turn would mean some players spend less turns in their first Spring than others. With 5 turns, if nothing weird happens, you are guaranteed to see your opening buys at least once before Summer. Let's just say there are cases where it matters.

Exactly, cards like Militia and situations where P2 shuffles a curse in whereas P1 doesn't made me suggest the above, basically to balance this a bit. However, I didn't consider that the opening buys are guaranteed to be played once after 5 turns, this distinction is probably more important than what I suggested. I take back my previous criticism!

Nah, don't take it back. It's a pretty interesting observation at least. I suppose in a game where several players build a very tight engine that relies on Snow Witches for draw, a few Curses could make it increasingly hard for players down the line to successfully chain theirs. Of course, only if they shuffle, but still. I guess the fact that you can prepare for a Snow Witch attack is twofold - you can take defensive precautions (making sure your draw pile is big enough not to shuffle might be one), or you can make sure your Witches hit as hard as they can at once.

Helpful criticism like this is very appreciated.

[drsteelhammer]

Good point on the P1 advantage. It's certainly something to look out for. With more players, obviously more junk can be dealt out before it's your turn, although the amount of curses you can give out only by playing Snow Witches decreases relative to the amount of curses in the supply. That said, it's not exactly unique to Snow Witch to favour the first player - think Militia. Still, it's an interesting observation, and certainly something we need to keep in mind.

Changing the Season at another time than after the last player made his turn would mean some players spend less turns in their first Spring than others. With 5 turns, if nothing weird happens, you are guaranteed to see your opening buys at least once before Summer. Let's just say there are cases where it matters.

Exactly, cards like Militia and situations where P2 shuffles a curse in whereas P1 doesn't made me suggest the above, basically to balance this a bit. However, I didn't consider that the opening buys are guaranteed to be played once after 5 turns, this distinction is probably more important than what I suggested. I take back my previous criticism!

Nah, don't take it back. It's a pretty interesting observation at least. I suppose in a game where several players build a very tight engine that relies on Snow Witches for draw, a few Curses could make it increasingly hard for players down the line to successfully chain theirs. Of course, only if they shuffle, but still. I guess the fact that you can prepare for a Snow Witch attack is twofold - you can take defensive precautions (making sure your draw pile is big enough not to shuffle might be one), or you can make sure your Witches hit as hard as they can at once.

Helpful criticism like this is very appreciated.

This surely won't stop me from posting my critique in the future, all I meant was that I (probably) don't agree with my own point anymore. Sure, getting to curse your opponent first is pretty nice regularly, but now I think a card missing the shuffle and "missing spring" sounds worse than the first option. Of course that's speculation since I don't know the card yet, but your explanation made a lot of sense and to me it sounds like a greater design.

[enfynet]

I misunderstood when the "Season Token" moved, until now. Here I was thinking that a 3p game would suck being 3rd player because your 2nd turn is now Summer.

[singletee]

Now I need a deck-building themed Seasons fan expansion called Dominion.

[Asper]

I misunderstood when the "Season Token" moved, until now. Here I was thinking that a 3p game would suck being 3rd player because your 2nd turn is now Summer.

The token is supposed to move with each complete round. Technically, it moves immediately before the first player takes his regular turn. So extra turns caused by Outpost, Possession and Mission are not considered. They will all happen in the same Season as the turn they were played/bought.

To make sure the last player doesn't forget to move the token, we have been using a colorful "Season Reminder" card that's put in front of that player. If anybody has a suggestion how this could be done better, juyt tell.

[Grujah]

I guess that's an appropriate card considering the winter that is finally arriving in the Midwest and Northeast.

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/08/10/11/nedstark.jpg

[Aleimon Thimble]

I can think of a better name for this card!

[Asper]

I can think of a better name for this card!

Please, let it go.

[LastFootnote]

I'm glad these are being posted! I've only played one game with Seasons cards so far, but I'm really excited about the expansion. It's a very cool concept that seems to translate to fun new Dominion experiences!

As it happens, the game I played (with Co0kieL0rd) had Snow Witch, and thanks to his Snow Witches and Bladesmiths (another delayed junking attack, from Enterprise), I suddenly found myself with 8 Curses come Fall. I almost made a comeback, but alas.

I'm a little disappointed that we're only seeing one card every three days, but so it goes. Thanks for the cool set, Asper and Co0kieL0rd. Are you open to feedback with these cards, or are they set in stone?

[Asper]

I'm glad these are being posted! I've only played one game with Seasons cards so far, but I'm really excited about the expansion. It's a very cool concept that seems to translate to fun new Dominion experiences!

As it happens, the game I played (with Co0kieL0rd) had Snow Witch, and thanks to his Snow Witches and Bladesmiths (another delayed junking attack, from Enterprise), I suddenly found myself with 8 Curses come Fall. I almost made a comeback, but alas.

I'm a little disappointed that we're only seeing one card every three days, but so it goes. Thanks for the cool set, Asper and Co0kieL0rd. Are you open to feedback with these cards, or are they set in stone?

We are absolutely open to feedback. There are some cards we are relatively happy with for now, and Snow Witch is - in general - one of them. Allthough, you never know what you missed before you see it. We partially decided to post what we have currently because i felt i needed more time for other things, and so we had the choice between posting it in a not-100%-finished state or keeping it a secret for who-knows-how-long. You know, fan sets, when can you ever say you're finished with them?

Also, when i talked to Co0kieL0rd yesterday, he was already anticipating when he'd be able to post the next card. So if no one feels we are going to fast, i bet he'd love to deliver the next one soon.

[Roadrunner7671]

You guys are not going fast enough. That is my only complaint.

[LastFootnote]

We are absolutely open to feedback. There are some cards we are relatively happy with for now, and Snow Witch is - in general - one of them. Allthough, you never know what you missed before you see it. We partially decided to post what we have currently because i felt i needed more time for other things, and so we had the choice between posting it in a not-100%-finished state or keeping it a secret for who-knows-how-long. You know, fan sets, when can you ever say you're finished with them?

I definitely like Snow Witch as-is. It's simple, but a good example of the mechanic. In fact I think I like the four Seasons cards I've played with better than the ones I haven't, but I don't know how much of that was Co0kieL0rd showing off the best stuff and how much was just, I like them better because I've played with them. Hopefully I'll get to play with the rest soon.

[Roadrunner7671]

We are absolutely open to feedback. There are some cards we are relatively happy with for now, and Snow Witch is - in general - one of them. Allthough, you never know what you missed before you see it. We partially decided to post what we have currently because i felt i needed more time for other things, and so we had the choice between posting it in a not-100%-finished state or keeping it a secret for who-knows-how-long. You know, fan sets, when can you ever say you're finished with them?

I definitely like Snow Witch as-is. It's simple, but a good example of the mechanic. In fact I think I like the four Seasons cards I've played with better than the ones I haven't, but I don't know how much of that was Co0kieL0rd showing off the best stuff and how much was just, I like them better because I've played with them. Hopefully I'll get to play with the rest soon.

You and Cookielord played IRL with them?

[Asper]

We are absolutely open to feedback. There are some cards we are relatively happy with for now, and Snow Witch is - in general - one of them. Allthough, you never know what you missed before you see it. We partially decided to post what we have currently because i felt i needed more time for other things, and so we had the choice between posting it in a not-100%-finished state or keeping it a secret for who-knows-how-long. You know, fan sets, when can you ever say you're finished with them?

I definitely like Snow Witch as-is. It's simple, but a good example of the mechanic. In fact I think I like the four Seasons cards I've played with better than the ones I haven't, but I don't know how much of that was Co0kieL0rd showing off the best stuff and how much was just, I like them better because I've played with them. Hopefully I'll get to play with the rest soon.

He told me which cards you guys used, but i can't remember which exactly. I do remember most were stuff we both are rather happy with for now.

[LastFootnote]

You and Cookielord played IRL with them?

No, on Tabletop Simulator.

[Roadrunner7671]

You and Cookielord played IRL with them?

No, on Tabletop Simulator.

That's a thing? Can you provide a link? Is it an app?

[Drab Emordnilap]

That's a thing? Can you provide a link? Is it an app?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/

[GendoIkari]

You and Cookielord played IRL with them?

No, on Tabletop Simulator.

How does this work with something like Dominion? Is there a Dominion client that's a plugin to this? If so, isn't that in conflict with Making Fun?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Thanks for all the signs of appreciation, guys! With this support I am most eager, and proud, to reveal the second card of the set.



As we all know from countless games of Dominion, the excessive troubles of war can be quite exhausting. From time to time, the nobles and liege lords like to spend a nice vacation at a restorative place. Rustic houses at a clean-water lake, trees and birds and stuff… that’s a place you spend your opening $4 for.

Sanitarium is the draw-up-to-x village that for some reason still doesn’t exist in Dominion. It comes with a very engine-friendly on-gain bonus that only works in Spring. Otherwise it would be overpowered. The trash-on-gain incentivizes you to gain Sanitarium during the opening and, with weak or no other trashing around, as many of them as possible on turns 3 to 5. Of course that’s not always going to be the best strategy but most of the time, Sanitarium’s unique abilities will make the decision not to prematurely gain a village non-trivial.

[Asper]

You and Cookielord played IRL with them?

No, on Tabletop Simulator.

How does this work with something like Dominion? Is there a Dominion client that's a plugin to this? If so, isn't that in conflict with Making Fun?

TS allows mocking up almost any game, and i personally use it as a means of testing a boardgame prototype a friend and i have been working on. It's imaginable Dominion Online and TS might have a conflict sooner or later, although i'm not sure how the boardgame industry as a whole stands on that matter. Apparently some think it's publicity and embrace the idea. Either way, the use cases of both softwares vary a lot. While Tabletop Simulator is fine to test stuff you made yourself (because there's no better way to do it), it's not a comparable experience to an actual Dominion Software. It's pretty slow, and still not as well-arranged as IRL games.

Either way, the issue of TS and Dominion Online is an interesting topic, and i think there's room for discussions here. But maybe not in this thread, if that's okay.

[Roadrunner7671]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

[Asper]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

Thanks. Although the potential depends a bit on what kind of engine you want. With 6 cards in hand, it's a Necropolis.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

Thanks. Although the potential depends a bit on what kind of engine you want. With 6 cards in hand, it's a Necropolis.

But with Necropolis in hand, it's a Lost City

[Roadrunner7671]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

Thanks. Although the potential depends a bit on what kind of engine you want. With 6 cards in hand, it's a Necropolis.

Then don't have six cards!

[Erick648]

Sanitarium is the draw-up-to-x village that for some reason still doesn’t exist in Dominion. It comes with a very engine-friendly on-gain bonus that only works in Spring. Otherwise it would be overpowered. The trash-on-gain incentivizes you to gain Sanitarium during the opening and, with weak or no other trashing around, as many of them as possible on turns 3 to 5. Of course that’s not always going to be the best strategy but most of the time, Sanitarium’s unique abilities will make the decision not to prematurely gain a village non-trivial.

I always assumed there was a reason why non-terminal draw-to-x doesn't exist.  With an action-based deck and a card that lets you discard non-actions, you can easily go through your deck each turn (and the fact that this is a village makes it easier to use non-drawing terminals as payload).  I'm not sure this is enough to be overpowered, but it will definitely require testing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Sanitarium is the draw-up-to-x village that for some reason still doesn’t exist in Dominion. It comes with a very engine-friendly on-gain bonus that only works in Spring. Otherwise it would be overpowered. The trash-on-gain incentivizes you to gain Sanitarium during the opening and, with weak or no other trashing around, as many of them as possible on turns 3 to 5. Of course that’s not always going to be the best strategy but most of the time, Sanitarium’s unique abilities will make the decision not to prematurely gain a village non-trivial.

I always assumed there was a reason why non-terminal draw-to-x doesn't exist.  With an action-based deck and a card that lets you discard non-actions, you can easily go through your deck each turn (and the fact that this is a village makes it easier to use non-drawing terminals as payload).  I'm not sure this is enough to be overpowered, but it will definitely require testing.

I think we had about 10 test games with Sanitarium. It is definitely quite strong and there are powerful enablers. I'm really not sure if it's overpowered. It seems like it's weaker than a normal village at least as often as it's stronger. But maybe we didn't try to exploit its advantages enough. Who knows what a pro Dominion player would be capable of with this card?

[AJD]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

The art is kind of... autumny for a card that gives a bonus during spring, isn't it?

[AJD]

I always assumed there was a reason why non-terminal draw-to-x doesn't exist.

(Minion, sort of)

[Roadrunner7671]

Very stunning art, and nice concept! Is like a village + x (think Farming, Mining, Port) but can have great potential in engine decks. I want to focus on the art more. The pink backgroud with the majestic colors? You guys really came through. I've said this before, but when more cards get released, I hope Donald has a comment or two to make. This looks like it could be an actually good expansion set!

The art is kind of... autumny for a card that gives a bonus during spring, isn't it?

Shhhhh....
Just look at the pretty coors. Just relax and look at them. You are getting very sleepy...

[eHalcyon]

Does the basic idea for Sanitarium come from WanderingWinder's Production Village (from the mini-set design contest) or did it come up independently?

There is some playtesting discussion for Production Village here, which may be interesting to consider.  The card is the same, except Sanitarium has a bonus on-gain effect.  I'm not sure how big a difference that effect makes.  Obviously it's a straight buff, but it could be a balance improvement over PV by improving consistency.

[Asper]

Does the basic idea for Sanitarium come from WanderingWinder's Production Village (from the mini-set design contest) or did it come up independently?

There is some playtesting discussion for Production Village here, which may be interesting to consider.  The card is the same, except Sanitarium has a bonus on-gain effect.  I'm not sure how big a difference that effect makes.  Obviously it's a straight buff, but it could be a balance improvement over PV by improving consistency.

I suppose a Village with fixed draw is one of the simple but not yet existing ideas you just run into sooner or later. I don't think i actively knew PV existed when i first came up with such a card, but i knew when we were talking about how to make Sanitarium more interesting than just a Village that trashes on spring-gain. As the draw-to is much worse than Village for simple drawing engines, i think it's fine if it's better in other deck types. Personally, i think it's fairly priced.

[AdrianHealey]

You might change snow witch to something like: 'In Fall or Winter: if this is the first time this turn you play Snow Witch, all other players get a curse' to avoid the 'play 5 witches in a good engine' problem identified before.

[dedicateddan]

Nice design, bravo!

[LibraryAdventurer]

Sanitarium is also similar to my Restored Village (which people also compared to Production Village), which is to say I like it but I probably won't use it because I already use a very similar card.


PS: I wish I'd heard of Tabletop simulator when that 50% sale was happening last month...

[tristan]

Production Village obviously cannot cost 5$ so 4$ is the right price. Production Village and Outpost is a crazy combo which I encountered in one game (in general Production Village combos of course best with all non-draw terminals such that you draw 2 cards when you PV the second time) and overall I feel that the card is a very good 4$ village, definitely better (on average) than Farming Village and Mining Village, but not overpowered.

As the on-gain bonus of Sanitarium is small and season-conditional I think that Sanitarium should also be OK at 4.

[Asper]

You might change snow witch to something like: 'In Fall or Winter: if this is the first time this turn you play Snow Witch, all other players get a curse' to avoid the 'play 5 witches in a good engine' problem identified before.

Or we could give the Curse in hand so the other players in line do their first Fall turn under roughly the same conditions. Makes it very easy to trash the Curses with something like Forge, though.

For now i think we should keep it as is, but i guess there are a few options if it doesn't work out. Just giving a single Curse is pretty bad, i think.

[drsteelhammer]

You might change snow witch to something like: 'In Fall or Winter: if this is the first time this turn you play Snow Witch, all other players get a curse' to avoid the 'play 5 witches in a good engine' problem identified before.

Or we could give the Curse in hand so the other players in line do their first Fall turn under roughly the same conditions. Makes it very easy to trash the Curses with something like Forge, though.

For now i think we should keep it as is, but i guess there are a few options if it doesn't work out. Just giving a single Curse is pretty bad, i think.

I actually like this idea quite a lot. I mean, Watchtower makes the cursing equally useless as a Forge in hand would, so it's not really gamebreaking.

Also, if that isn't too complicated for your taste, one could use: "opponents gain a curse in hand. If this is the first time you played a Snow Witch this turn, put the curse into the discard" or something similiar.

[Asper]

You might change snow witch to something like: 'In Fall or Winter: if this is the first time this turn you play Snow Witch, all other players get a curse' to avoid the 'play 5 witches in a good engine' problem identified before.

Or we could give the Curse in hand so the other players in line do their first Fall turn under roughly the same conditions. Makes it very easy to trash the Curses with something like Forge, though.

For now i think we should keep it as is, but i guess there are a few options if it doesn't work out. Just giving a single Curse is pretty bad, i think.

I actually like this idea quite a lot. I mean, Watchtower makes the cursing equally useless as a Forge in hand would, so it's not really gamebreaking.

Also, if that isn't too complicated for your taste, one could use: "opponents gain a curse in hand. If this is the first time you played a Snow Witch this turn, put the curse into the discard" or something similiar.

It's good to know we have an idea how to make SW less problematic if it should turn out to cause problems after some further testing. Considering season mechanics add complexity on their own, we'd like to keep her as simple as possible otherwise. So if just gaining curses doesn't work, but putting them in hand does, i think that'enouh complexity.

[LastFootnote]

Sanitarium is another card I've played with, and I'm a big fan of it so far. If the top were just "+1 Card; +2 Actions", it would be an (expensive) regular Village for too much of the game. The "draw up to 5" means the card is just the right amount of exotic.

As to how strong it is, I'm guessing it's probably on the higher end of $4 villages, but still reasonable. It does pretty trivially counter Militia and company, but I don't think that's necessarily a deal-breaker. Tough to say.

[AdrianHealey]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

[LastFootnote]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

[Asper]

Since most comments on the first two cards have been positive, i'll now dare to post something less straightforward.



There are not many Season cards that do something different each Season, because that requires a lot of text. We thought it would be sad to just have none of those, though, and so we made Sojourner. What you can immediately see is that it uses an expansion-specific mechanic, the VP tokens from Prosperity. Seasons is a set by fans for fans, so we decided to neglect restrictions that would be applied to a "real" Dominion set and included a few cards that used such mechanics.

As a one-shot, this guy only visits your kingdom for a short time. And, depending on the Season he leaves in will also leave something different behind to help you with your engine-y needs. All effects are about two things, which I personally wanted a lot because I felt it added some symmetry. Not sure it makes the bonuses easier to remember, as I also hoped. Winter is not as good as the others, but getting that VP now is better than never, right? It costs $2 so getting it back from the trash for some endless-VP engine is impossible.

Co0kieL0rd will be presenting the next card in the set. Fire when ready, your l0rdship.

[eHalcyon]

Why include the +VP at all?  Even without it, it seems like a decent one-shot, especially in the Fall.

[yuma]

I can't help but notice that the all the effects are practically the same used by Knights Sylvia, Destry, Anna and Martin. Given that I really like that the card art is of a knight.

Any reason that the trash phrasing is the way it is against what Dame Anna uses: "trash up to 2 cards from your hand."

[AdrianHealey]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?

[AdrianHealey]

Since most comments on the first two cards have been positive, i'll now dare to post something less straightforward.



There are not many Season cards that do something different each Season, because that requires a lot of text. We thought it would be sad to just have none of those, though, and so we made Sojourner. What you can immediately see is that it uses an expansion-specific mechanic, the VP tokens from Prosperity. Seasons is a set by fans for fans, so we decided to neglect restrictions that would be applied to a "real" Dominion set and included a few cards that used such mechanics.

As a one-shot, this guy only visits your kingdom for a short time. And, depending on the Season he leaves in will also leave something different behind to help you with your engine-y needs. All effects are about two things, which I personally wanted a lot because I felt it added some symmetry. Not sure it makes the bonuses easier to remember, as I also hoped. Winter is not as good as the others, but getting that VP now is better than never, right? It costs $2 so getting it back from the trash for some endless-VP engine is impossible.

Co0kieL0rd will be presenting the next card in the set. Fire when ready, your l0rdship.

My immediate response would be: remove the +1VP-token and add a clause such as 'when you trash this, put it back on the supply'. That would make the card, I think, even more interesting.

[Roadrunner7671]

I like this card quite a bit. It's something I would pretty much always want to pick up on $2, and it will make the game generally more interesting as this looks like a card that takes some skill to utilize. My biggest complaint is that the pink border clashes with the shadowy picture.

I will ask my question again: Where is Donald? Maybe I read somewhere that he doesn't like to comment on fan cards because he doesn't like to break hearts, but this is the most professional fan made expansion I have seen. Are all of the cards seasons, though? That could be good or bad.

[Awaclus]

I will ask my question again: Where is Donald? Maybe I read somewhere that he doesn't like to comment on fan cards because he doesn't like to break hearts, but this is the most professional fan made expansion I have seen. Are all of the cards seasons, though? That could be good or bad.

He doesn't want to read fan cards because when he creates his own cards, he doesn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

[Roadrunner7671]

I will ask my question again: Where is Donald? Maybe I read somewhere that he doesn't like to comment on fan cards because he doesn't like to break hearts, but this is the most professional fan made expansion I have seen. Are all of the cards seasons, though? That could be good or bad.

He doesn't want to read fan cards because when he creates his own cards, he doesn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

Makes sense. Personally, I'd be honored if one of my ideas got stolen and made into a card, but I can easily see why others wouldn't like that.

[AdrianHealey]

I will ask my question again: Where is Donald? Maybe I read somewhere that he doesn't like to comment on fan cards because he doesn't like to break hearts, but this is the most professional fan made expansion I have seen. Are all of the cards seasons, though? That could be good or bad.

He doesn't want to read fan cards because when he creates his own cards, he doesn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

Makes sense. Personally, I'd be honored if one of my ideas got stolen and made into a card, but I can easily see why others wouldn't like that.

How likely is it that he will still make new cards?

I wish there was a way to monetize on fan expansions, in a way that everyone (Donald, the normal distributor and the fan) can profit. I'd buy them all.

[LastFootnote]

As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.

I do appreciate that Sojourner avoids golden decks by being a one-shot. In fact I think you could have such a card be pricier (and therefore gainable from the trash) and it still might never be a problem. I don't really like that the +VP seems a bit tacked-on here, especially since the card is wordy. I do like that the Winter option is weakest, which is when the +VP is strongest.

Maybe if it gave +2 VP it would feel like that part of the card was more significant. Or if the +VP were confined to a season when you don't usually want VP, like Summer (in which case it could be more than +2 VP).

Hopefully I'll get to play with the card soon, and maybe my opinion will change.

[LastFootnote]

I wish there was a way to monetize on fan expansions, in a way that everyone (Donald, the normal distributor and the fan) can profit. I'd buy them all.

From what I know of Donald, I think "profit" is much lower on his priority list than "getting to be the guy who makes the cards".

[AdrianHealey]

I wish there was a way to monetize on fan expansions, in a way that everyone (Donald, the normal distributor and the fan) can profit. I'd buy them all.

From what I know of Donald, I think "profit" is much lower on his priority list than "getting to be the guy who makes the cards".

A sentiment I respect, but I hope that there would be a way to persuade him into 'be the guy that allows more cards for people'. But all resepct for him if he doesn't want to.

[eHalcyon]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?

Trashing is most impactful early in the game.  If you delay it (say, putting it off until Fall) you'll still want to buy it in the Summer because you need +actions and delaying would hurt your deck a lot, and you won't be particularly interested in buying it later because you'll already have villages and the trashing won't make much of a difference at that point in the game.

How likely is it that he will still make new cards?

I don't think we can peg a number, but I'd bet that it's non-zero.  Any chance at all is enough reason for him to avoid looking at fan cards.

[AdrianHealey]

As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.

I do appreciate that Sojourner avoids golden decks by being a one-shot. In fact I think you could have such a card be pricier (and therefore gainable from the trash) and it still might never be a problem. I don't really like that the +VP seems a bit tacked-on here, especially since the card is wordy. I do like that the Winter option is weakest, which is when the +VP is strongest.

Maybe if it gave +2 VP it would feel like that part of the card was more significant. Or if the +VP were confined to a season when you don't usually want VP, like Summer (in which case it could be more than +2 VP).

Hopefully I'll get to play with the card soon, and maybe my opinion will change.

In their defense: it's very easy to count vp-tokens. Just like a separate piece of paper. It's harder when it uses stuf like ruins or spoils. But vp-tokens is easy to count. You don't need thé vp-tokens for that.

[Asper]

I wish there was a way to monetize on fan expansions, in a way that everyone (Donald, the normal distributor and the fan) can profit. I'd buy them all.

From what I know of Donald, I think "profit" is much lower on his priority list than "getting to be the guy who makes the cards".

I think he said that, when he had to build on a fan card, there would still be a lot of work involved, and so it would be the same effort without the fun. (Will try to answer to the Sojourner comments immediately).

[AdrianHealey]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?

Trashing is most impactful early in the game.  If you delay it (say, putting it off until Fall) you'll still want to buy it in the Summer because you need +actions and delaying would hurt your deck a lot, and you won't be particularly interested in buying it later because you'll already have villages and the trashing won't make much of a difference at that point in the game.

That's exactly the reason why I'd delay it. To create the difference in trade off. Now you get the bonus when you are more likely to buy it anyway. I like creating more choices, rather than 'it's optimal to buy here and only then'. But I am not the maker. It's just my sentiment. I like cards with trade offs. (Count is a card I like for this reason.)

[eHalcyon]

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?

Trashing is most impactful early in the game.  If you delay it (say, putting it off until Fall) you'll still want to buy it in the Summer because you need +actions and delaying would hurt your deck a lot, and you won't be particularly interested in buying it later because you'll already have villages and the trashing won't make much of a difference at that point in the game.

That's exactly the reason why I'd delay it. To create the difference in trade off. Now you get the bonus when you are more likely to buy it anyway. I like creating more choices, rather than 'it's optimal to buy here and only then'. But I am not the maker. It's just my sentiment. I like cards with trade offs. (Count is a card I like for this reason.)

But that's what they're doing by putting the bonus in Spring.  It's normally a bad idea to buy a village that early, but now you have an incentive to do it since it comes with trashing, which is good early.  With the bonus in Spring, there's a trade-off.

With the bonus in Summer, it's just totally optimal to continue buying it Summer, just like you'd usually do with Villages anyway.

With the bonus in Fall or Winter, it's still optimal to continue buying it in Summer because you need the village and the bonus is minimal by that point in the game.

[LastFootnote]

I wish there was a way to monetize on fan expansions, in a way that everyone (Donald, the normal distributor and the fan) can profit. I'd buy them all.

From what I know of Donald, I think "profit" is much lower on his priority list than "getting to be the guy who makes the cards".

I think he said that, when he had to build on a fan card, there would still be a lot of work involved, and so it would be the same effort without the fun.

Close. Basically there are two parts to making a card: the idea and the testing (although obviously it's an iterative process unless the first version works perfectly). He has said something like: the ideas are the fun part. For fan cards, he would have to do the work to playtest them anyway (and he did for Summon).

In reality, making the ideas and doing the playtesting are both fun. But I understand that he'd rather be the one having the idea-making fun as well.

[Asper]

Why include the +VP at all?  Even without it, it seems like a decent one-shot, especially in the Fall.

One problem with a card that does something different each Season is that you might be unlucky and not be able to play it in a certain Season. We decided it should have one bonus the card always gives so you can at least rely on that. It's true that this bonus doesn't necessarily have to be a VP. It could have been a Village, but that's bad in Spring, or gain cards, which - depending on what you gain - could enable you to empty the Sojourner pile in one turn. But, as said, the cards are not set in stone. Sojourner in fact had some last-minute changes made to it just yesterday.

I can't help but notice that the all the effects are practically the same used by Knights Sylvia, Destry, Anna and Martin. Given that I really like that the card art is of a knight.

Any reason that the trash phrasing is the way it is against what Dame Anna uses: "trash up to 2 cards from your hand."

Thanks. And, actually, i'm not sure there was a reason. Co0kieL0rd?

As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.

I do appreciate that Sojourner avoids golden decks by being a one-shot. In fact I think you could have such a card be pricier (and therefore gainable from the trash) and it still might never be a problem. I don't really like that the +VP seems a bit tacked-on here, especially since the card is wordy. I do like that the Winter option is weakest, which is when the +VP is strongest.

Maybe if it gave +2 VP it would feel like that part of the card was more significant. Or if the +VP were confined to a season when you don't usually want VP, like Summer (in which case it could be more than +2 VP).

Hopefully I'll get to play with the card soon, and maybe my opinion will change.

I see you share eHalcyon's opinion on the VP. Hm. I can't promise anything, but this feedback will give Co0kieL0rd and me a bit to think about. It's a bit easier to reply to remarks like this when you do your cards alone as you can just say "Will do"/"Won't do". So i can just say that opinions and ideas brought up here are very valuable to both of us

About the idea to give VP in only one specific Season, it might have been there for a while. Personally, i dislike the idea of a card that requires special components and that might get (decently) used in a game without the components ever mattering. It's a bit more likely for a one-shot, as it doesn't stay around for the Seasons to come.

The idea to have it give +2VP seems also interesting, although we might not be able to justify the price anymore, then. Maybe if we removed the +1Action? Hm, still seems really good. Either way, is +2 Cards, +2VP something you want to have in Fall? Hm, maybe, if you prepared for that. Trash two Estates in Summer, keep the VP? Also nice, and even has some sort of elegance. And +2VP, +$2 causes no problem in Spring, as there is a lower risk of terminal collision. The VP still work in Winter. Very interesting. But i'm getting ahead, i'm sure CL will have his share of ideas on this, too.

Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.

Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.

Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?

Trashing is most impactful early in the game.  If you delay it (say, putting it off until Fall) you'll still want to buy it in the Summer because you need +actions and delaying would hurt your deck a lot, and you won't be particularly interested in buying it later because you'll already have villages and the trashing won't make much of a difference at that point in the game.

That's exactly the reason why I'd delay it. To create the difference in trade off. Now you get the bonus when you are more likely to buy it anyway. I like creating more choices, rather than 'it's optimal to buy here and only then'. But I am not the maker. It's just my sentiment. I like cards with trade offs. (Count is a card I like for this reason.)

But that's what they're doing by putting the bonus in Spring.  It's normally a bad idea to buy a village that early, but now you have an incentive to do it since it comes with trashing, which is good early.  With the bonus in Spring, there's a trade-off.

With the bonus in Summer, it's just totally optimal to continue buying it Summer, just like you'd usually do with Villages anyway.

With the bonus in Fall or Winter, it's still optimal to continue buying it in Summer because you need the village and the bonus is minimal by that point in the game.

Yes, that was our idea behind it. Get a Village before you need it and be rewarded. Fall is turns 10 to 15, which is where some games will already have you greening. I don't think any amount of trashing (without benefit) would make waiting that long to get a Village attractive.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Between Asper and myself, I think I've always been the one who was more in favour of +1VP on Sojourner. I think it fits nicely thematically - he's an honourable guest to your kingdom or whatever. Mechanically, the VP bonus is what makes the Sojourner split actually important in very close (2 player) games. Raising it to +2VP, like LFN suggested, is an option to emphasize that factor even more so I'm going to think about that.

Besides, I have no problem with using material from other expansions, especially VP or coin tokens which you can easily replace with pennies or a tally or what have you. One of our cards uses Ruins though so if want to play with the full set but don't own Dark Ages I recommend you get the expansion (it's one of the best IMO) oryou just can't play with that one Season card. Sad thing but not a reason to waste any potential fpr card mechanics. Also I think there should be more Looters in Dominion.

The card started off returning to the Supply instead of being trashed but we changed it in order to avoid endless mid-turn gain shenanigans exploiting the card's ability in a particular season (especially in fall, which has the strongest effect). There are only those 10 Sojourners available so the time you gain and, even more importantly, play them should be a key point of any strategy that uses Sojourners.

When designing the card we didn't think about Knights at all. Maybe it doesn't say "trash up to" to save a line of text. But it also makes the card slightly more edgy - in the unlikely case you draw Sojourner in summer with 4 other cards that contains less than 2 you want to trash, it's not the end of the world; just save it and play it next time you see it. If it's in fall, you get to do something different and perhaps that's just what you need in that turn.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like the card as-is. I don't like the idea of removing the +1 Action to make it +2 VP mainly because a one-shot card is supposed to be powerful, and removing the action making a much bigger differenece in strength than changing +1 VP to +2 VP. I also like having the VP there. In games with only one VP token card, a few VP tokens from cards like this make a significant difference. Seems to me, lots of my games end with the provinces evenly split, so you have to watch the extra bits of VP that make the difference.

[AdrianHealey]

The card started off returning to the Supply instead of being trashed but we changed it in order to avoid endless mid-turn gain shenanigans exploiting the card's ability in a particular season (especially in fall, which has the strongest effect). There are only those 10 Sojourners available so the time you gain and, even more importantly, play them should be a key point of any strategy that uses Sojourners.

That's a fair point, but for a one-shot, I find the card a bit underwhelming. I can't immediately come up with situations where this would be an important point of a strategy. Do you happen to have any suggestions on how to use this card? (I am nto saying you must in order to defend the card: the card is interesting as it is, I am just not sure I'd buy it a lot.)

[Co0kieL0rd]

The card started off returning to the Supply instead of being trashed but we changed it in order to avoid endless mid-turn gain shenanigans exploiting the card's ability in a particular season (especially in fall, which has the strongest effect). There are only those 10 Sojourners available so the time you gain and, even more importantly, play them should be a key point of any strategy that uses Sojourners.

That's a fair point, but for a one-shot, I find the card a bit underwhelming. I can't immediately come up with situations where this would be an important point of a strategy. Do you happen to have any suggestions on how to use this card? (I am nto saying you must in order to defend the card: the card is interesting as it is, I am just not sure I'd buy it a lot.)

If Sojourner is the only card in the kingdom that does what no other card does in at least one season, it should be worth buying. E.g. if it's the only trasher you want to buy a couple of them early, or if it's the only +buy and your deck has a lot of $ payload having them ready in winter might be a key to victory. One situation I can think of right now where the VP matter is where all players have the same points and the game is almost over and the player who gets to play their Sojourners before the others and end the game wins.

[AdrianHealey]

The card started off returning to the Supply instead of being trashed but we changed it in order to avoid endless mid-turn gain shenanigans exploiting the card's ability in a particular season (especially in fall, which has the strongest effect). There are only those 10 Sojourners available so the time you gain and, even more importantly, play them should be a key point of any strategy that uses Sojourners.

That's a fair point, but for a one-shot, I find the card a bit underwhelming. I can't immediately come up with situations where this would be an important point of a strategy. Do you happen to have any suggestions on how to use this card? (I am nto saying you must in order to defend the card: the card is interesting as it is, I am just not sure I'd buy it a lot.)

If Sojourner is the only card in the kingdom that does what no other card does in at least one season, it should be worth buying. E.g. if it's the only trasher you want to buy a couple of them early, or if it's the only +buy and your deck has a lot of $ payload having them ready in winter might be a key to victory. One situation I can think of right now where the VP matter is where all players have the same points and the game is almost over and the player who gets to play their Sojourners before the others and end the game wins.

Yup, that makes sense. Interesting card, for sure.

[GendoIkari]

I have to say that as good as certain fan cards and fan sets have been, this is the first time that I've ever felt an actual desire to print fan cards to play with them.

[Asper]

I guess the good thing about the VP is that, no matter when you play it, and no matter how good you did at that, at least you got that point. Nobody can take that from you. So even if you are unsure you did the right thing getting Sojourner, that point stays and says you got some use out of it.

Also, in the opening it helps you spike $5, like with a Silver, but without a Silver staying in your deck afterwards. That might be a good move when you want to create a really tight, treasureless engine that depends on such a key $5. For now that's the theory, at least...

I have to say that as good as certain fan cards and fan sets have been, this is the first time that I've ever felt an actual desire to print fan cards to play with them.

Wow, thanks. I hope what's to come doesn't disappoint. We got some of my favourites to come still, but also some closer to WIP.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I have to say that as good as certain fan cards and fan sets have been, this is the first time that I've ever felt an actual desire to print fan cards to play with them.

Thank you, this is very flattering. Thanks to everyone for supporting us so enthusiastically although we only released 3 cards so far. We'll keep them coming and it probably won't take 3 days between cards

[trivialknot]

If you wanted to avoid using VP chips, you could have Sojourner set itself aside instead of trashing itself.  Make it worth 1 VP if it's set aside.  Disadvantage: more text, less thematic.

Personally I don't care if it uses VP chips.  I have VP chips, after all.

[LastFootnote]

Besides, I have no problem with using material from other expansions, especially VP or coin tokens which you can easily replace with pennies or a tally or what have you. One of our cards uses Ruins though so if want to play with the full set but don't own Dark Ages I recommend you get the expansion (it's one of the best IMO) oryou just can't play with that one Season card. Sad thing but not a reason to waste any potential fpr card mechanics. Also I think there should be more Looters in Dominion.

I am not one of those people who carries all his Dominion with him; there's too much of it. Usually I will take the base cards and then 3 sets. The tokens (including VP tokens) I always carry. The Ruins are in the Dark Ages box, though. So a single Looter in another set means that I have three options:

1. Always bring Dark Ages when I bring Seasons.
2. Just move the Looter to my Dark Ages box.
3. Don't use the Looter from Seasons at all.

[Jimmmmm]

Besides, I have no problem with using material from other expansions, especially VP or coin tokens which you can easily replace with pennies or a tally or what have you. One of our cards uses Ruins though so if want to play with the full set but don't own Dark Ages I recommend you get the expansion (it's one of the best IMO) oryou just can't play with that one Season card. Sad thing but not a reason to waste any potential fpr card mechanics. Also I think there should be more Looters in Dominion.

I am not one of those people who carries all his Dominion with him; there's too much of it. Usually I will take the base cards and then 3 sets. The tokens (including VP tokens) I always carry. The Ruins are in the Dark Ages box, though. So a single Looter in another set means that I have three options:

1. Always bring Dark Ages when I bring Seasons.
2. Just move the Looter to my Dark Ages box.
3. Don't use the Looter from Seasons at all.

I guess another option would be to put some of the Ruins in the Seasons box.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Besides, I have no problem with using material from other expansions, especially VP or coin tokens which you can easily replace with pennies or a tally or what have you. One of our cards uses Ruins though so if want to play with the full set but don't own Dark Ages I recommend you get the expansion (it's one of the best IMO) oryou just can't play with that one Season card. Sad thing but not a reason to waste any potential fpr card mechanics. Also I think there should be more Looters in Dominion.

I am not one of those people who carries all his Dominion with him; there's too much of it. Usually I will take the base cards and then 3 sets. The tokens (including VP tokens) I always carry. The Ruins are in the Dark Ages box, though. So a single Looter in another set means that I have three options:

1. Always bring Dark Ages when I bring Seasons.
2. Just move the Looter to my Dark Ages box.
3. Don't use the Looter from Seasons at all.

4. Or carry a set of Ruins with you.

Seriously, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do. I'd just like to design my fan cards freely and pleasing for my taste. Of course, in this set Asper has an equal say so if most people are opposed to a Seasons Looter or Asper isn't convinced it's a good idea anymore, we might do something else. But only because you guys have been so positive towards the set

[eHalcyon]

Is it crucial for this card to be a Looter instead of just a Curser?  Could it potentially use other junk, like Estates or Copper?

[Asper]

No, no guys, you miss the obvious solution: Season Ruins!
(I'm kidding here, this is a horrible idea. No, i mean it, everytime somebody makes a joke like this, somebody else will say "Maybe that's not so bad.". But it is bad. Very bad.)

Seriously, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do. I'd just like to design my fan cards freely and pleasing for my taste. Of course, in this set Asper has an equal say so if most people are opposed to a Seasons Looter or Asper isn't convinced it's a good idea anymore, we might do something else. But only because you guys have been so positive towards the set

Well, i always try to change my mind when people point out things i didn't notice yet. Take Snow Witch. Until it was asked, i didn't really notice how it can increase the P1 advantage. Of course, that's something every Season card needs to care about, but it's worse with a junker. That seems like such a dumb mistake, given how important it was to me to make sure every player can play his opening buys in Spring. I still don't think Snow Witch needs changing for now, but it's going to make me look at the card a little different in the future.

That said, i'd like to wait until the Looter is revealed before we discuss it. By then everybody will be able to talk knowing the actual card. Just, to answer eHalcyon's question:

Is it crucial for this card to be a Looter instead of just a Curser?  Could it potentially use other junk, like Estates or Copper?

I think it's crucial in the same sense it's crucial to Marauder or Cultist - Curses would be too strong, Estates are too few, Coppers too many. Of course, there's always the option to replace it with a different attack, but that's another card. Again, i don't feel i should reveal too much on my own, so it would be nice if we could postpone this a bit.

[tristan]

I doubt that the majority of Dominion players who actually use fan cards do not have all sets so the notion that stuff from official expansions should not be used is unnecessarily restrictive. And as Cookielord has pointed out, you can use any kind of tokens for VP tokens or XYZ tokens in general.
About Sojourner, it would probably also be good if it were terminal or not provide a VP. But it does not seem overpowered (if a bit forced if there are no (decent) trashers in the kingdom) and it is above all just a one-shot so balance is not that important in the first place.

[GendoIkari]

Besides, I have no problem with using material from other expansions, especially VP or coin tokens which you can easily replace with pennies or a tally or what have you. One of our cards uses Ruins though so if want to play with the full set but don't own Dark Ages I recommend you get the expansion (it's one of the best IMO) oryou just can't play with that one Season card. Sad thing but not a reason to waste any potential fpr card mechanics. Also I think there should be more Looters in Dominion.

I am not one of those people who carries all his Dominion with him; there's too much of it. Usually I will take the base cards and then 3 sets. The tokens (including VP tokens) I always carry. The Ruins are in the Dark Ages box, though. So a single Looter in another set means that I have three options:

1. Always bring Dark Ages when I bring Seasons.
2. Just move the Looter to my Dark Ages box.
3. Don't use the Looter from Seasons at all.

I would think the solution would be to move ruins to wherever you keep the other "always needed" cards. Unless you just bring the small base-cards box with you.

But now that I think about it, Ruins is a lot of cards for stuff that is only used by a total of 3 kingdom cards. VP chips are also only used by 3 cards, but at least that's a smaller component.

[Limetime]

No, no guys, you miss the obvious solution: Season Ruins!

Maybe that's not so bad.

[GeneralRamos]

No, no guys, you miss the obvious solution: Season Ruins!

Maybe that's not so bad.

[NotSerious]
Perpetual Wasteland
$0-Ruins
In Spring, +1 Card
In Summer, +1 Action
In Fall, +1 Buy
In Winter, +$1
[/NotSerious]

[Roadrunner7671]

No, no guys, you miss the obvious solution: Season Ruins!

Maybe that's not so bad.

[Serious]
Perpetual Wasteland
$0-Ruins
In Spring, +1 Card
In Summer, +1 Action
In Fall, +1 Buy
In Winter, +$1
[/Serious]

This idea doesn't appeal to me.

[AdrianHealey]

I'm planning a future investment in about 80 fancards I found on the internet (majority of them on these forums) to print and add to my dominion sets, as soon as I have found a cheap way to do so.

I actually prefer investing in fancards than 'regular' expansions (although I want prosperity for sure in addition to the ones I have) because I can play with the regular cards online (and the place where I usually play dominion has several boxes in the closet 'free to play'). These seasons cards definitely look like ones I would also add to this collection.

[LastFootnote]

I doubt that the majority of Dominion players who actually use fan cards do not have all sets so the notion that stuff from official expansions should not be used is unnecessarily restrictive.

I actually prefer investing in fancards than 'regular' expansions (although I want prosperity for sure in addition to the ones I have) because I can play with the regular cards online (and the place where I usually play dominion has several boxes in the closet 'free to play').

Hmm…

[AdrianHealey]

I doubt that the majority of Dominion players who actually use fan cards do not have all sets so the notion that stuff from official expansions should not be used is unnecessarily restrictive.

I actually prefer investing in fancards than 'regular' expansions (although I want prosperity for sure in addition to the ones I have) because I can play with the regular cards online (and the place where I usually play dominion has several boxes in the closet 'free to play').

Hmm…

Maybe I am a statistical outlier. Also: I'd say: if you think a card needs to be a looter, keep it a looter. The fact that (good) fan cards provide an additional incentive to buy the regular expansions is a net positive, imo, not a net negative.

[spiralstaircase]

Also: I'd say: if you think a card needs to be a looter, keep it a looter.

Thank you, brain, for reading that as "lobster".

[Asper]

Oh, by the way, i'd like to thank Co0kieL0rd for suggesting to do this set together. We both brought in a lot of ideas and had equal say, but it was him who kicked this off. As somebody who never can get himself up to actually do something, i'm very glad he asked me. It's been a very fun experience and it's cool to see the mechanic we developed together is received this well

[tristan]

I'm planning a future investment in about 80 fancards I found on the internet (majority of them on these forums) to print and add to my dominion sets, as soon as I have found a cheap way to do so.

Printing them will most likely cost more than double of what you would pay for official cards (where I print them they cost around 0.2€ / card).

[AdrianHealey]

I'm planning a future investment in about 80 fancards I found on the internet (majority of them on these forums) to print and add to my dominion sets, as soon as I have found a cheap way to do so.

Printing them will most likely cost more than double of what you would pay for official cards (where I print them they cost around 0.2€ / card).

I know.

[juffowup]

As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.

Even without using 'set this card aside' text like on this card like on island, can't you just use this card itself as a VP token?  Whether this card is in the trash or in my play area makes no difference to any existing card, right?

[GeneralRamos]

I am loving the new concept and concur with the earlier sentiment that this is one of few occasions where I am looking forward to printing out and playing someone else's full custom card set. Please unveil the next one!

And to weigh in on the discussion of components from other expansions: I have no problem with a fan set drawing on components found in one expansion only (I have done the same). This is especially true for tokens, where anything can be used to mark it, not only the official pieces. I don't own Guilds, but it wouldn't stop me from using pennies as coin tokens (what other use is there for pennies?) if I wanted to play with the card. Ruins are a bit trickier, but it's a print-to-play expansion, so if someone doesn't have Ruins, they don't have to print the card, eh?

[drsteelhammer]

As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.

Even without using 'set this card aside' text like on this card like on island, can't you just use this card itself as a VP token?  Whether this card is in the trash or in my play area makes no difference to any existing card, right?

 To the throne room family it does make a difference

[Co0kieL0rd]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!



As your cities prosper they draw more and more attention from merchants who arrive at your ports with greedy desire to enhance their wealth and sell trinkets and junk to your people. Of course you don’t care if your subjects get hornswoggled as long as the merchants pay their tolls. However, they do not appreciate the cold of Winter and will not come during that Season. And you really could have used those buys!

Trade Port, once played, like Hireling, stays in play forever and gives you a small but significant bonus each turn except in Winter. It’s a good card for building an engine, providing you non-terminal +buy each turn, but while greening you have to rely on other sources of payload barring very fast games that end in Fall. Most decks seem to want a Trade Port but I think we haven’t played a single game where anyone bought more than one.

[eHalcyon]

If only those wussy Orientals weren’t so sensitive to cold.

As a Chinese Canadian, I am genuinely offended by this.  I am sure you mean well, but still.

[Co0kieL0rd]

If only those wussy Orientals weren’t so sensitive to cold.

As a Chinese Canadian, I am genuinely offended by this.  I am sure you mean well, but still.

I can't tell if you're serious but if so, I'm sorry. Although I'd like to point out this is just a sarcastic joke at the expensive of theoretical Orientals in a fantasy board game setting which are not related to actual Orientals.

[Roadrunner7671]

If only those wussy Orientals weren’t so sensitive to cold.

As a Chinese Canadian, I am genuinely offended by this.  I am sure you mean well, but still.

I can't tell if you're serious but if so, I'm sorry. Although I'd like to point out this is just a sarcastic joke at the expensive of theoretical Orientals in a fantasy board game setting which are not related to actual Orientals.

If he was joking, I don't think he'd say 'genuinely.'

I like the card, though. Seems about average for a $5 cost, and is very, very thematic.

[eHalcyon]

If only those wussy Orientals weren’t so sensitive to cold.

As a Chinese Canadian, I am genuinely offended by this.  I am sure you mean well, but still.

I can't tell if you're serious but if so, I'm sorry. Although I'd like to point out this is just a sarcastic joke at the expensive of theoretical Orientals in a fantasy board game setting which are not related to actual Orientals.

I am serious.  The cold thing isn't even the big one (that's a mild joking Canadian thing); the term "Oriental" is actually offensive.  It's antiquated and calls back to Bad Times in the past.  You shouldn't use it (or at least think twice before you do), for the same reason you wouldn't normally call somebody a Negro.  That this is for a game in a fictional setting isn't really an excuse.  So, I am sure you mean well, but I'd appreciate it if that particular line was edited.  Maybe refer to merchants or something instead of using an antiquated term that homogenizes an entire continent of diverse peoples.  I'll end it there because this is already well into RSP territory.




On the card itself - I'm guessing the mechanisms here are more driven by flavour than is usual in Dominion?  It's interesting.  +$1 every turn is similar to Treasury (and IIRC, that's how the concept for Treasury began).  This throws in the +1 Buy as well and, unlike Treasury, it doesn't get lost after buying a Victory card.  However, it does go dry every Winter.  In that way, it seems to be good for building up the engine but it doesn't help you as much during the end game.

In your playtests, how much does Winter affect strategy around this card?  If Treasury is on the board, what do you do and why?

[eHalcyon]

Thanks for changing it.  Now I'm not sure if I should edit the commentary as well...

[Co0kieL0rd]

If only those wussy Orientals weren’t so sensitive to cold.

As a Chinese Canadian, I am genuinely offended by this.  I am sure you mean well, but still.

I can't tell if you're serious but if so, I'm sorry. Although I'd like to point out this is just a sarcastic joke at the expensive of theoretical Orientals in a fantasy board game setting which are not related to actual Orientals.

I am serious.  The cold thing isn't even the big one (that's a mild joking Canadian thing); the term "Oriental" is actually offensive.  It's antiquated and calls back to Bad Times in the past.  You shouldn't use it (or at least think twice before you do), for the same reason you wouldn't normally call somebody a Negro.  That this is for a game in a fictional setting isn't really an excuse.  So, I am sure you mean well, but I'd appreciate it if that particular line was edited.  Maybe refer to merchants or something instead of using an antiquated term that homogenizes an entire continent of diverse peoples.  I'll end it there because this is already well into RSP territory.

Oh man, I didn't know that! You really shouldn't feel offended by me, though. Of course I mean well! But I'll refrain from using that term from now on. I blame dict.leo.org for not marking the word as pejorative when I looked it up.

On the card itself - I'm guessing the mechanisms here are more driven by flavour than is usual in Dominion?  It's interesting.  +$1 every turn is similar to Treasury (and IIRC, that's how the concept for Treasury began).  This throws in the +1 Buy as well and, unlike Treasury, it doesn't get lost after buying a Victory card.  However, it does go dry every Winter.  In that way, it seems to be good for building up the engine but it doesn't help you as much during the end game.

In your playtests, how much does Winter affect strategy around this card?  If Treasury is on the board, what do you do and why?

Of course Trade Port would be strictly better than Treasury without the Winter drawback so we couldn't have that. It's still pretty good but I must admit we recently changed it without playtesting this version. The previous, tested version said "At the start of each of your turns, until this leaves play: +1 Buy, +$1, and in Winter discard this from play." This meant you could still play this in Winter to get the +buy next turn which was actually significant if it was the only source of +buy.
LastFootnote mentioned this was incompatible with official rules for Durations and suggested the above wording which we like for its simplicity. But it behaves differently now and we have only theoretically evaluated the impact on Trade Port's performance.

[eHalcyon]

Of course Trade Port would be strictly better than Treasury without the Winter drawback so we couldn't have that. It's still pretty good but I must admit we recently changed it without playtesting this version. The previous, tested version said "At the start of each of your turns, until this leaves play: +1 Buy, +$1, and in Winter discard this from play." This meant you could still play this in Winter to get the +buy next turn which was actually significant if it was the only source of +buy.
LastFootnote mentioned this was incompatible with official rules for Durations and suggested the above wording which we like for its simplicity. But it behaves differently now and we have only theoretically evaluated the impact on Trade Port's performance.

The change should make it weaker, right?  Granted, having the card go back into your deck could a drawback (it is just a Herbalist on the initial play), but being able to get the +Buy during the Winter could be a big deal.

FWIW, a legal alternative wording that I think matches your original version could be, "At the start of each of your turns until the next Winter..." though that might be a bit confusing for whether it applies on the first turn of Winter.  Ah - "until the start of your next Winter turn" might work, and it matches the wording of the attack durations.

Oh, random new thought - you should use Autumn instead of Fall.  Way classier.

[Asper]

I do think Trade Port is better than Treasury. It can't get hit by attacks, gives a buy, and allows picking up green cards early. We have played games that never saw a Winter, although those are not common. On the other hand, Treasury, much like Lab when compared to Hireling, actually does something the turns it's played in, and needs not fear terminal collision. Also unlike Trade Port, it doesn't just stop doing anything. Instead, it becomes a Peddler. I'm not sure i'd pick up Treasury on many boards that have Trade Port, honestly. Colony Games might work, or games with a lot of junking that easily go into Winter for other reasons. I almost listed VP token cards, as those avoid buying Victory cards, but i don't think any works good with Treasury. Goons actively harms it. Games where you gain your VP cards rather than buy them would also work, but man, when do you need Treasury, then?

I guess in general is better than Trade Port the later in the game you are. It's not like you couldn't buy one or two Trade Ports, and then, when Winter approaches, switch for Treasuries. But yes, we're aware of the similarities, and it has been a constant topic when discussing Trade Port.

Also, the theme is actually that your Port freezes over in Winter.

[AdrianHealey]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!

I'd say that it's almost by design that you wouldn't want more than one Trade Port? I mean: +1 buy is nice, but +2 buys gets a little bit... much, probably. (It can happen, but if you want a megaturn where you can buy more than 2 victory cards in one turn, you usually have other possibilities for + buys.)

I'd almost suggest something like: if you have more than one, than you get additional bonusses. It complicates the card, but it also incentivizes buying more than one. If you are into that sort of stuff.

[Asper]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!

I'd say that it's almost by design that you wouldn't want more than one Trade Port? I mean: +1 buy is nice, but +2 buys gets a little bit... much, probably. (It can happen, but if you want a megaturn where you can buy more than 2 victory cards in one turn, you usually have other possibilities for + buys.)

I'd almost suggest something like: if you have more than one, than you get additional bonusses. It complicates the card, but it also incentivizes buying more than one. If you are into that sort of stuff.

Well, it's cutting close to being strictly better than Treasury either way, so i'd rather avoid boosting it even further. I do think there is room to tweak this particular one, but i'd rather have it be something that's sometimes good and sometimes bad - if just to differentiate it more from Treasury.

[AdrianHealey]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!

I'd say that it's almost by design that you wouldn't want more than one Trade Port? I mean: +1 buy is nice, but +2 buys gets a little bit... much, probably. (It can happen, but if you want a megaturn where you can buy more than 2 victory cards in one turn, you usually have other possibilities for + buys.)

I'd almost suggest something like: if you have more than one, than you get additional bonusses. It complicates the card, but it also incentivizes buying more than one. If you are into that sort of stuff.

Well, it's cutting close to being strictly better than Treasury either way, so i'd rather avoid boosting it even further. I do think there is room to tweak this particular one, but i'd rather have it be something that's sometimes good and sometimes bad - if just to differentiate it more from Treasury.

True, the card is basically always better when it's not winter. Mmm. One way to make it slightly worse is add a 'discard a card' clause if you want to use the effect (similar to Oasis.)

[Asper]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!

I'd say that it's almost by design that you wouldn't want more than one Trade Port? I mean: +1 buy is nice, but +2 buys gets a little bit... much, probably. (It can happen, but if you want a megaturn where you can buy more than 2 victory cards in one turn, you usually have other possibilities for + buys.)

I'd almost suggest something like: if you have more than one, than you get additional bonusses. It complicates the card, but it also incentivizes buying more than one. If you are into that sort of stuff.

Well, it's cutting close to being strictly better than Treasury either way, so i'd rather avoid boosting it even further. I do think there is room to tweak this particular one, but i'd rather have it be something that's sometimes good and sometimes bad - if just to differentiate it more from Treasury.

True, the card is basically always better when it's not winter. Mmm. One way to make it slightly worse is add a 'discard a card' clause if you want to use the effect (similar to Oasis.)

It's worse on the turn you play it, but yes, it's basically always better besides this. Not that Treasury is very good, but it's something we haven't found an elegant solution to, yet.

[AdrianHealey]

Here is card number four – enjoy and discuss!

I'd say that it's almost by design that you wouldn't want more than one Trade Port? I mean: +1 buy is nice, but +2 buys gets a little bit... much, probably. (It can happen, but if you want a megaturn where you can buy more than 2 victory cards in one turn, you usually have other possibilities for + buys.)

I'd almost suggest something like: if you have more than one, than you get additional bonusses. It complicates the card, but it also incentivizes buying more than one. If you are into that sort of stuff.

Well, it's cutting close to being strictly better than Treasury either way, so i'd rather avoid boosting it even further. I do think there is room to tweak this particular one, but i'd rather have it be something that's sometimes good and sometimes bad - if just to differentiate it more from Treasury.

True, the card is basically always better when it's not winter. Mmm. One way to make it slightly worse is add a 'discard a card' clause if you want to use the effect (similar to Oasis.)

It's worse on the turn you play it, but yes, it's basically always better besides this. Not that Treasury is very good, but it's something we haven't found an elegant solution to, yet.

'every time you use the plus buy from trade port, gain a copper'? I am just throwing things out here at this point, if you are looking for ways to make it ever so slightly worse. Or make it *either* +$1 or +1 buy? That probably might make it too weak.

And what about a cost increase? Does +6 make it too expensive? What's the strength of Trade Port in a 2/5 opening?

[Asper]

Well, it's strongest if you can open with it. But i don't think it's actually overpowered, so my biggest concern is making it feel more different, not making it weaker.

[drsteelhammer]

From what I can tell, this card is pretty balanced, if not a bit on the weaker side. I don't think "better than Treasury" is a legitimate comparison at all for this.

If you want to tweak this card, giving some incentive to get several of them might be nice. But I quite like it the way it is.

[eHalcyon]

From what I can tell, this card is pretty balanced, if not a bit on the weaker side. I don't think "better than Treasury" is a legitimate comparison at all for this.

If you want to tweak this card, giving some incentive to get several of them might be nice. But I quite like it the way it is.

Why don't you think it's a legitimate comparison?  Do you think that Treasury is too weak as it is?  Do you expect this card to be different enough?


@OPs, some easy ways to differentiate it from Treasury... +1 action instead of +$1? No bonus in an earlier season?  Both of those hurt the theme a lot though.  Maybe it could accelerate season advancement somehow?  Or it could have a different effect in the Fall (+2 Buys instead?) and/or an actively negative effect in the Winter (discard a card from your hand?), which could allow you to make the earlier bonuses more exciting as well...

[Asper]

From what I can tell, this card is pretty balanced, if not a bit on the weaker side. I don't think "better than Treasury" is a legitimate comparison at all for this.

If you want to tweak this card, giving some incentive to get several of them might be nice. But I quite like it the way it is.

Why don't you think it's a legitimate comparison?  Do you think that Treasury is too weak as it is?  Do you expect this card to be different enough?


@OPs, some easy ways to differentiate it from Treasury... +1 action instead of +$1? No bonus in an earlier season?  Both of those hurt the theme a lot though.  Maybe it could accelerate season advancement somehow?  Or it could have a different effect in the Fall (+2 Buys instead?) and/or an actively negative effect in the Winter (discard a card from your hand?), which could allow you to make the earlier bonuses more exciting as well...

I thought about allowing other players to gain Estates as a Winter effect, but that would be a straight nerf. Junking them with Estates just feels too "attack-y". We could, however, go back to a variant that returns to your deck and just does nothing -which i think was the main reason we never got more than one before. Like

"Until Winter, at the start of each of your turns: +1 Buy, +$1. (This stays in play until Winter)"

Season advancement seems cool, but, well... Spoilers gonna spoil.

[faust]

Season advancement seems cool, but, well... Spoilers gonna spoil.

Asper does not yet want to spill the event of the set:

Winter is coming
Event - $2
Move the season marker to the next field.

[sudgy]

I was wondering, is it bad to make it not work in Fall or Winter, and bump the price down a bit?  I think that would differentiate it a bit more.  Maybe give it a bit of an on-play effect to make up for the times you see it in Fall and Winter?

[Roadrunner7671]

Season advancement seems cool, but, well... Spoilers gonna spoil.

Asper does not yet want to spill the event of the set:

Winter is coming
Event - $2
Move the season marker to the next field.

I don't think you're serious, but that actually looks really cool.
+1

[drsteelhammer]

From what I can tell, this card is pretty balanced, if not a bit on the weaker side. I don't think "better than Treasury" is a legitimate comparison at all for this.

If you want to tweak this card, giving some incentive to get several of them might be nice. But I quite like it the way it is.

Why don't you think it's a legitimate comparison?  Do you think that Treasury is too weak as it is?  Do you expect this card to be different enough?


@OPs, some easy ways to differentiate it from Treasury... +1 action instead of +$1? No bonus in an earlier season?  Both of those hurt the theme a lot though.  Maybe it could accelerate season advancement somehow?  Or it could have a different effect in the Fall (+2 Buys instead?) and/or an actively negative effect in the Winter (discard a card from your hand?), which could allow you to make the earlier bonuses more exciting as well...

Cause it's a temporal Market-Hireling

I'm pretty sure that if Trade Port wouldn't have the Winter restriction, it would be still worse than Hireling because Trade port does not increase the reliability of your turn, so I'm pretty sure the pricing is accurate.

Have you considered to use the -1 token as the Winter penalty? I would actually love this since this makes you want to get more of them (The penalty is unique) so you can end the game earlier. It could even get a buff earlier to make up for it.

[Asper]

I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the input right now. Sorry, i'll reply to the rest later. Got to do stuff for university. My sincere apologies for that...

Cause it's a temporal Market-Hireling

Hireling is a lasting +1 Card. Treasury is a lasting +$1. Trade Port is a lasting +1Buy, +$1. It's more similar to Treasury than to Hireling, even though it uses the mechanic of the latter.

[AdrianHealey]

How about the +1 buy and the forgotten gains mechanic (gain a copper in your hand if you need it).

[Co0kieL0rd]

I have noticed something about the comparison between Trade Port and Treasury - point that hasn't come up yet but I think is very significant. While a single Trade Port is almost strictly better than a single Treasury, the latter is easily spammable with little downside. However, each additional Trade Port you gain before Winter is worse than the one you gained before because it will be effectual for fewer turns overall.
As the most recent game Asper, LastFootnote and I played clearly showed, spamming Trade Ports is extremely slow and expensive and in Winter you lose a bunch of payload. So not only am I convinced now that Trade Port is balanced as-is, I'm also growing fond of the idea of giving you an incentive to buy them in multiples. Drsteelhammer made a good suggestion:

From what I can tell, this card is pretty balanced, if not a bit on the weaker side. I don't think "better than Treasury" is a legitimate comparison at all for this.

If you want to tweak this card, giving some incentive to get several of them might be nice. But I quite like it the way it is.

Why don't you think it's a legitimate comparison?  Do you think that Treasury is too weak as it is?  Do you expect this card to be different enough?


@OPs, some easy ways to differentiate it from Treasury... +1 action instead of +$1? No bonus in an earlier season?  Both of those hurt the theme a lot though.  Maybe it could accelerate season advancement somehow?  Or it could have a different effect in the Fall (+2 Buys instead?) and/or an actively negative effect in the Winter (discard a card from your hand?), which could allow you to make the earlier bonuses more exciting as well...

Cause it's a temporal Market-Hireling

I'm pretty sure that if Trade Port wouldn't have the Winter restriction, it would be still worse than Hireling because Trade port does not increase the reliability of your turn, so I'm pretty sure the pricing is accurate.

Have you considered to use the -1 token as the Winter penalty? I would actually love this since this makes you want to get more of them (The penalty is unique) so you can end the game earlier. It could even get a buff earlier to make up for it.

I like it assuming you mean Trade Port stays effectual even in Winter and in addition gives you the -$1 token then. That would make TP too similar to another Season card, though. But it's the one I'm least convinced about so I'm going to talk with Asper about possible changes to that.

[AdrianHealey]

Isn't this an almost permanent market?

How is trade port not also strictly better than market, except in winter?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Isn't this an almost permanent market?

How is trade port not also strictly better than market, except in winter?

Please look at my previous post in which I emphasize the important difference between comparing individual cards and spamming copies of them. The same point can be made for Market. It's much more spammable than Trade Port.

[AdrianHealey]

True, but in a deck with both trade port and
Market: why would you buy a market (except for in winter)?

How many +1 buy, +$1 would you need? And that's just for a single turn.

Yes, you can spam it.
But how useful would it be, given opportunitycosts? I am not sure when you already have a trade port, market would pass the silver test.
Although not necessarily devastating, it does make one wonder, I think. No?

Have you tried a game with trade port,
Market and Treasury?

Cause I am curious how many, if any, would be bought. My estimate: you but a trade port asap, and then it becomes very contigent on specific circumstances wether or not you buy market/treasury. But could be wrong.

[Asper]

True, but in a deck with both trade port and
Market: why would you buy a market (except for in winter)?

How many +1 buy, +$1 would you need? And that's just for a single turn.

Yes, you can spam it.
But how useful would it be, given opportunitycosts? I am not sure when you already have a trade port, market would pass the silver test.
Although not necessarily devastating, it does make one wonder, I think. No?

Have you tried a game with trade port,
Market and Treasury?

Cause I am curious how many, if any, would be bought. My estimate: you but a trade port asap, and then it becomes very contigent on specific circumstances wether or not you buy market/treasury. But could be wrong.

The fact that a card isn't strictly better than another one doesn't mean it isn't better. If a board had Farming Village, Walled Village and Wandering Minstrel, would you buy Walled Village? On a board with Chapel, would you buy Trade Route? Would you buy Trade Route at all? Treasury and Market are not exactly good cards, so the fact that you won't often buy them doesn't tell you much.

If we are late in the game and i didn't already pick up a +Buy piece, and am drawing a lot of my deck, a Market is as good or better than Trade Port, because it will provide me with the buy i need and be more useful in the time remaining. That's enough to work.

Of course, if i already have a Trade Port, i'll think twice about that - but not everybody gets a Trade Port as fast as he can. There are other cards you might want to get at that point, instead. For example, i can hardly see myself skipping Witch for Trade Port, and once Curses are dealt out, isn't it too late to get a Trade Port over a Market?

[AdrianHealey]

All true. I am sorry I come across attacking. That's not my intention.

Here is, maybe, a broader point: I think it's fine that when there is a chapel, you wouldn't buy trade route. However, I'd refrain from making fan cards that are both *similar* and (in a lot of cases) almost (not universal) strictly better than existing cards. Your point is correct: there are situations where market/treasury is better than trade port, but they seem minor and those cards do similar and work similar. (Although trade port seems better in a lot of cases.)

This is not necessarily a problem. And, more importantly, I could very well be wrong in my estimate on the amount of situations where trade port is better than market/treasury. Maybe I am totally overestimaing it. I am, after all, just theorycrafting here.

But *if* I am right, then I'd consider that an argument to tweek it too make it less similar.

But I could be wrong.

I hope my priors on this, sort of the background theory where I am coming from, is not unreasonable to you. If you disagree, that's obviously fine. I have a low degree of certainty in my views on this anyway, but I'd thought I'd share them, to give an alternative view.

I am trying my own fan cards. They aren't as well thought out, beautifully designed or playtested as these. But one thing I try to do is try to think of similar cards and not make them almost universally stricly better. (Wether or not I am succeeding is a different matter...)

[faust]

If a board had Farming Village, Walled Village and Wandering Minstrel, would you buy Walled Village?

I think you just summoned an Awaclus.

[Awaclus]

If a board had Farming Village, Walled Village and Wandering Minstrel, would you buy Walled Village?

Sure, if I still need more splitters after the Wandering Minstrel pile runs out.

[drsteelhammer]

It's more spammable and the initial action is huge on a board without villages.

My suggestion was initially that you get the -1 token in Winter instead of the bonuses. As I said, that would probably be too weak, so keeping the buy would be a good idea in that version.

@Asper I don't really like to compare Topdecking with staying in play since that has other implications

@Awaclus I know you don't like Farming Village, but you can't be serious when you take Walled Village over it AFTER another splitter has run out. Then it's literally a vanilla village.

[Awaclus]

@Awaclus I know you don't like Farming Village, but you can't be serious when you take Walled Village over it AFTER another splitter has run out. Then it's literally a vanilla village.

Farming Village is always literally a vanilla Village, at least Walled Village can be good if you have a dud turn with it in your hand.

[Asper]

If a board had Farming Village, Walled Village and Wandering Minstrel, would you buy Walled Village?

Sure, if I still need more splitters after the Wandering Minstrel pile runs out.

A wild Awaclus appears. Or is it sufficient to say "An Awaclus appears."?

All true. I am sorry I come across attacking. That's not my intention.

Here is, maybe, a broader point: I think it's fine that when there is a chapel, you wouldn't buy trade route. However, I'd refrain from making fan cards that are both *similar* and (in a lot of cases) almost (not universal) strictly better than existing cards. Your point is correct: there are situations where market/treasury is better than trade port, but they seem minor and those cards do similar and work similar. (Although trade port seems better in a lot of cases.)

This is not necessarily a problem. And, more importantly, I could very well be wrong in my estimate on the amount of situations where trade port is better than market/treasury. Maybe I am totally overestimaing it. I am, after all, just theorycrafting here.

But *if* I am right, then I'd consider that an argument to tweek it too make it less similar.

But I could be wrong.

I hope my priors on this, sort of the background theory where I am coming from, is not unreasonable to you. If you disagree, that's obviously fine. I have a low degree of certainty in my views on this anyway, but I'd thought I'd share them, to give an alternative view.

I am trying my own fan cards. They aren't as well thought out, beautifully designed or playtested as these. But one thing I try to do is try to think of similar cards and not make them almost universally stricly better. (Wether or not I am succeeding is a different matter...)

Nah, i think you made good points. In fact, the similarity to Treasury has been one of my main concerns with the card. I can promise i will talk with Co0kieL0rd about this, but for now, again, sorry, i am a bit busy.

I'm not sure whether i said this before, but the reason the set is partially not as flashed out is mostly because i feared i wouldn't have time to work on Seasons for a longer while. I asked CL whether we could post the set in its current state rather than waiting to make sure we post it at all. So that's why some cards are more shiny than others. Either way, the main idea of Trade Port is rather simple: Be good for the longest time, and then become bad.

@Asper I don't really like to compare Topdecking with staying in play since that has other implications

Well, sure. You may be forced to discard Treasury to a Militia or forget to topdeck it, or have yourhand Minion'd away, or activate Conspirator or decrease the price of Peddler, or get the 6th and 7th Treasury hit by a top-decking attack. But those are specific card interactions. Those aside, the outcome stays the same.

[eHalcyon]

I have noticed something about the comparison between Trade Port and Treasury - point that hasn't come up yet but I think is very significant. While a single Trade Port is almost strictly better than a single Treasury, the latter is easily spammable with little downside. However, each additional Trade Port you gain before Winter is worse than the one you gained before because it will be effectual for fewer turns overall.
As the most recent game Asper, LastFootnote and I played clearly showed, spamming Trade Ports is extremely slow and expensive and in Winter you lose a bunch of payload. So not only am I convinced now that Trade Port is balanced as-is, I'm also growing fond of the idea of giving you an incentive to buy them in multiples.

Each subsequent Trade Port is effectual for fewer turns... but that applies to every card you buy.  The closer you get to game end, the fewer chanecs you have to play the card, the fewer times it'll have to make a difference.  That's already a guiding principle for end game purchases.  If the game will end before you see your next buy, maybe you should buy a Duchy instead of another Treasury.

I don't think it's as big a deal as you are making it out to be though.  That is to say, I am not convinced that Treasury (or Market) are significantly more spammable than Trade Port.  Yes, each subsequent Trade Port is less effective than the previous one because there are fewer turns for it to be active until Winter... but that's not the comparison that matters here.  How many turns will it be effective compared to Market or Treasury?  Trade Port is gone for Winter, but Treasury is gone for a full shuffle after you buy a Victory card.  Market is gone for a full shuffle after each play.  So it will depend on how long your shuffles take.  And note, if the game ends before Winter, Market and Treasury will have been almost strictly inferior.

That's why I asked my earlier question about how much Winter affects the strategy.  Winter is turns 16-20, but I think the kind of board where Trade Port, Treasury and Market are best is also the kind of board that is likely to end early, where you get maybe one round of Winter and then it's over.  That's why I was suggesting having the card advance the seasons more quickly, or have a weaker/negative effect in Fall.

All that said, I do get that it still isn't as spammable in that there is some opportunity cost with that first play of each card.  It's more dangerous to buy a bunch before getting them into play because they don't do anything on the very first turn you play them, and if you're lacking +actions then it might end up being a dead card if multiples collide due to overzealous buying.  I'm just not sure that balances out all the positives.  The similarity to Treasury (and Market - also a good comparison) is a concern, especially since Trade Port is arguably so much better.  It's difficult to judge because its unique drawback is very different from the cards we are used to.

[Co0kieL0rd]

You make good points. Asper and I will be talking about Trade Port again but right now I'm not sufficiently sold on nerfing the card, yet.

I can think of an example where you might prefer to gain Markets over Trade Ports. Let's say it's Fall and you already have a deck-drawing engine (which is a reasonable assumption), you play all your action cards and can gain 4 cards this turn. If you gain 4 Markets you immediately increase your payload by $4 as well as your long-term reliability (compared to gaining 4 Silvers e.g.). In the same situation, if you gained 4 Trade Ports, you might not be able to play them all next turn and they won't help you in Winter. This scenario isn't that uncommon. It only applies to Kingdoms with both Market and Trade Port but only there the comparison makes sense.

[XerxesPraelor]

@Awaclus I know you don't like Farming Village, but you can't be serious when you take Walled Village over it AFTER another splitter has run out. Then it's literally a vanilla village.

Farming Village is always literally a vanilla Village, at least Walled Village can be good if you have a dud turn with it in your hand.

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

Edit: To not go off topic, I think your edited trade port (gets discarded at winter) is quite thematic and might make it weak and might be okay, but needs playtesting.

[drsteelhammer]

Any engine without a village will prefer markets over Trade Port. (i.e Highway/Market>>>Highway TP if there is any other terminal worth playing.

[eHalcyon]

Any engine without a village will prefer markets over Trade Port. (i.e Highway/Market>>>Highway TP if there is any other terminal worth playing.

How's that?  Trade Port is only going to be terminal on its first play.  I'd prioritize consistent +Buy for my Highways, and a combo like this is likely to end the game well before Winter arrives.

Depending on the rest of the board, I'd probably be going for 1-2 Trade Ports per shuffle, Highways otherwise.  Market would only be picked up if Highways are gone and I'm especially worried about already-purchasd Trade Ports colliding.  Or if I'm already consistently drawing my entire deck, in which case Market would provide an immediate boost next turn... but I'd expect even in that case to have a couple Trade Ports in play from earlier.

[Awaclus]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

[GendoIkari]

Fwiw, I don't think trade port is at all too similar to Treasury. Just because both have the ability to get an extra coin each turn unless certain things are met? So? That's one small thing that they have in common. That's like saying Goons is too similar to Woodcutter. This is different than Treasury in lots of ways. Doesn't work in winter. Does nothing the turn you play it. Gives a buy. Let's you buy green. Is terminal when played. Can't be hurt by discard attacks.

[GendoIkari]

@Awaclus I know you don't like Farming Village, but you can't be serious when you take Walled Village over it AFTER another splitter has run out. Then it's literally a vanilla village.

Farming Village is always literally a vanilla Village, at least Walled Village can be good if you have a dud turn with it in your hand.

Here we go again. 

[GendoIkari]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

No, obviously not. We're discussing a scenario in which the top card is an Estate. Trivially, in that situation, the top card is not a copper or an action.

[enfynet]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

No, obviously not. We're discussing a scenario in which the top card is an Estate. Trivially, in that situation, the top card is not a copper or an action.

If the top card is an Estate, then perhaps you want this?

[Awaclus]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

No, obviously not. We're discussing a scenario in which the top card is an Estate. Trivially, in that situation, the top card is not a copper or an action.

Why not discuss the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn? In that situation, it's not a Copper or an Action, either, and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

[GendoIkari]

and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

Another trivially false statement. One of these things has never happened, and is impossible to happen. The other is not only possible but has happened.

[Awaclus]

and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

Another trivially false statement. One of these things has never happened, and is impossible to happen. The other is not only possible but has happened.

Out of the 6000+ games of Dominion I've played, I can't remember a single instance of that ever happening to me.

[yuma]

Relevant:

So, you are verifying once and for all what an incredible waste of time it is for anyone to try to argue about this with you.

[GendoIkari]

and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

Another trivially false statement. One of these things has never happened, and is impossible to happen. The other is not only possible but has happened.

Out of the 6000+ games of Dominion I've played, I can't remember a single instance of that ever happening to me.

Well obviously, you don buy Farming Village. But that's irrelevant. Are you denying that it has ever happened to anyone ever? Or are you admitting that your statements here are false?

[Awaclus]

Well obviously, you don buy Farming Village. But that's irrelevant. Are you denying that it has ever happened to anyone ever? Or are you admitting that your statements here are false?

I'm denying that even if it has happened to someone sometimes, it has any significant relevance on how good Farming Village is compared to Village.

[GendoIkari]

Well obviously, you don buy Farming Village. But that's irrelevant. Are you denying that it has ever happened to anyone ever? Or are you admitting that your statements here are false?

I'm denying that even if it has happened to someone sometimes, it has any significant relevance on how good Farming Village is compared to Village.

I don't care about how good or not good FV is compare to Village. I care that you post obviously false and stupid statements about it rather than truthful defenses of your position.

[Awaclus]

Well obviously, you don buy Farming Village. But that's irrelevant. Are you denying that it has ever happened to anyone ever? Or are you admitting that your statements here are false?

I'm denying that even if it has happened to someone sometimes, it has any significant relevance on how good Farming Village is compared to Village.

I don't care about how good or not good FV is compare to Village. I care that you post obviously false and stupid statements about it rather than truthful defenses of your position.

Well, stop caring.

[LastFootnote]

Geez, GendoIkari. Stop letting Awaclus troll you. You know he's never going to admit he's wrong.

[Asper]

Please stop this.

[liopoil]

Guys, Farming Village is strictly worse than Village because you have to reveal the top card of your deck, so everybody knows what card you drew and can make choices accordingly.

[GendoIkari]

Please stop this.

Sorry about continuing this in your thread... back to the set! Show more cards!

[Roadrunner7671]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

No, obviously not. We're discussing a scenario in which the top card is an Estate. Trivially, in that situation, the top card is not a copper or an action.

If the top card is an Estate, then perhaps you want this?

I'm a hit!

[Roadrunner7671]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

What if it is an Estate that is in your deck because you started with it and you play Farming Village and it's the top card of your deck? Then what?

I'm feeding the troll!

[enfynet]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

What if it is an Estate that is in your deck because you started with it and you play Farming Village and it's the top card of your deck? Then what?

I'm feeding the troll!

It sounds like you opened Farming Village.

[Roadrunner7671]

You're using "literally" wrong again. If you play it and the top card of your deck is an estate, then you get to filter that estate.

But it's not an Estate. It's a Copper or an Action.

What if it is an Estate that is in your deck because you started with it and you play Farming Village and it's the top card of your deck? Then what?

I'm feeding the troll!

It sounds like you opened Farming Village.

Or there's no trashing or only treasure trashing.

[nate_w]

Man, I don't read the forums that often but this is the second time I've seen Awaculus post these ridiculous obviously false statements about farming village. It's bazaar!

Maybe my village pun can get the thread back on track to discussing these new cards that, I have to admit, are really cool ideas!

[Asper]

I hope that either me or Co0kieL0rd will be able to post the next card tomorrow. We still have to decide which it's going to be, though.

[Infthitbox]

and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

Another trivially false statement. One of these things has never happened, and is impossible to happen. The other is not only possible but has happened.

Out of the 6000+ games of Dominion I've played, I can't remember a single instance of that ever happening to me.

---------- awaclus: turn 13 ----------
awaclus - plays Farming Village
awaclus - reveals Estate, Duchy, Copper
awaclus - places Copper in hand
awaclus - discards: Estate, Duchy


http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160113/log.0.1452694543813.txt


I'll help you remember.

[enfynet]

and the scenario in which the top card is a flying unicorn is just as realistic as the scenario in which the top card is an Estate.

Another trivially false statement. One of these things has never happened, and is impossible to happen. The other is not only possible but has happened.

Out of the 6000+ games of Dominion I've played, I can't remember a single instance of that ever happening to me.

---------- awaclus: turn 13 ----------
awaclus - plays Farming Village
awaclus - reveals Estate, Duchy, Copper
awaclus - places Copper in hand
awaclus - discards: Estate, Duchy


http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160113/log.0.1452694543813.txt


I'll help you remember.

Wow. It hasn't even been a full week...

[tristan]

Trade Port is to Market what Hireling is to Lab.

Personally I think that Hireling is overpowered but even if it were perfectly balanced at 6$ it is still more expensive than Lab.
Now you could argue that Lab is one of the strongest 5$ cards and Market a fairly weak one such that a perma-Market like Trade Port could cost 5$, but I am not convinced.

One way to nerf the card would be either +1 Buy or +1 Coin.

[Davio]

Having $1, +Buy for 10 - 13 turns seems pretty darn strong to me.

[Accatitippi]

Wow, I saw 2 new pages in the thread and thought "yay! New seasons cards posted!"... 

Trading post feels pretty near to strictly superior to a few cards, being terminal on play only marginally balancing the advantage it has over Treasury, in my opinion.
I think it needs another handicap that would make it more unique and give the other poor Peddler variants a chance to compare favorably.
As a random thought: "while this is in play, if you buy a treasure, trash this" (or discard, but I prefer trash as it's less Treasurish).

[Fragasnap]

I think the point stands that Trade Port feels very strong, comparing too well to Treasury and Market at $5.

Even though Market and Treasury are fairly weak and middling $5 cards respectively, the comparison of Laboratory's strength and the permanence of Hireling seems to suggest that the simplest way to solve Trade Port's balance issues is to cost it at $6. It also solves the problem of how largely automatic it is as an opener.

[Gubump]

My family and I playtested Trade Port yesterday, and it's more balanced than you might think. I had 4 of them, but the whole useless-in-winter part of it cost me the game.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think the point stands that Trade Port feels very strong, comparing too well to Treasury and Market at $5.

Even though Market and Treasury are fairly weak and middling $5 cards respectively, the comparison of Laboratory's strength and the permanence of Hireling seems to suggest that the simplest way to solve Trade Port's balance issues is to cost it at $6. It also solves the problem of how largely automatic it is as an opener.

There are other cards that are fairly weak and have a variant at the same cost that seems stronger in many ways but isn't strictly speaking (Thief and Noble Brigand; Laboratory and Hunting Party). At the cost of $6 on top of the harsh Winter restriction it would be quite worse than Hireling, I think. So if we raise its cost it probably needs a small buff to not suck. I also kinda like Accatitippi's suggestion. We'll think about it.

My family and I playtested Trade Port yesterday, and it's more balanced than you might think. I had 4 of them, but the whole useless-in-winter part of it cost me the game.

Thanks for testing I'm probably letting myself being persuaded too quickly by criticism about balance although we have much more playtest experience with the card. We tested Trade Port extra much and tried to verify the notion it's too strong as-is. But it never was. It has such a hight opportunity cost and will never win you games on its own. Of course the same applies for Market and Treasury but those have lower opportunity cost (non-terminal and do something this turn).

[Asper]

We are going to play a game later and i have the clear intention to abuse Trade Port as badly as i can. If i win, it'll tell us something. Probably that playing with me isn't fun.

Either way, my top priority would still be to make Trade Port a bit more different from Treasury, so i'm relatively open to tweaking it.

As the discussion regarding Trade Port is still rather active, is there interest that we post a new card soon? Or should we wait?

[GeneralRamos]

New card! New card! I think we can maintain discussion of two cards successfully.

[Accatitippi]

Wow, I saw 2 new pages in the thread and thought "yay! New seasons cards posted!"... 

Trading post feels pretty near to strictly superior to a few cards, being terminal on play only marginally balancing the advantage it has over Treasury, in my opinion.
I think it needs another handicap that would make it more unique and give the other poor Peddler variants a chance to compare favorably.
As a random thought: "while this is in play, if you buy a treasure, trash this" (or discard, but I prefer trash as it's less Treasurish).

I just noticed that this wording doesn't really work since it doesn't stop the card from giving you the bonus. So if you are ever going to try something of the kind, you'll have to use something creative like:
"At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn for the rest of the game, if this is in play..."
Or: "At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn until you trash this, ..."

[drsteelhammer]

I still think some drawback in Winter would be quite fun, it would make it a lot more unique and it would also fit nicely to the other Season cards. Thematically, it's also great because an empty port costs money

[Asper]

Wow, I saw 2 new pages in the thread and thought "yay! New seasons cards posted!"... 

Trading post feels pretty near to strictly superior to a few cards, being terminal on play only marginally balancing the advantage it has over Treasury, in my opinion.
I think it needs another handicap that would make it more unique and give the other poor Peddler variants a chance to compare favorably.
As a random thought: "while this is in play, if you buy a treasure, trash this" (or discard, but I prefer trash as it's less Treasurish).

I just noticed that this wording doesn't really work since it doesn't stop the card from giving you the bonus. So if you are ever going to try something of the kind, you'll have to use something creative like:
"At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn for the rest of the game, if this is in play..."
Or: "At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn until you trash this, ..."

At the start of each of your turns until Winter: +1Buy, +1$
At the start of Winter, trash this.
(This stays in play until trashed)

It would make a difference for games that go into a second Spring.

[LastFootnote]

I'm guessing Trade Port is fine as-is. It's very significant that it does nothing in Winter; if you had a Treasury, you may be drawing your deck by that point anyway, in which case Treasury is still a Peddler. And the fact that Trade Port does nothing on the turn you play it is also a big disadvantage.

[eHalcyon]

Fwiw, I don't think trade port is at all too similar to Treasury. Just because both have the ability to get an extra coin each turn unless certain things are met? So? That's one small thing that they have in common. That's like saying Goons is too similar to Woodcutter. This is different than Treasury in lots of ways. Doesn't work in winter. Does nothing the turn you play it. Gives a buy. Let's you buy green. Is terminal when played. Can't be hurt by discard attacks.

I think the extra coin is a big thing, not a small thing. It's not at all like the difference between Goons and Workshop.  The concern is not only that it's too similar, but that the differences are big improvements with only small drawbacks.  And the comparison shouldn't be to Treasury alone, but Market as well. 

If it cost more than $5 or the drawbacks/differences were more pronounced, I don't think there would be nearly as much concern about this.

[GendoIkari]

Wow, I saw 2 new pages in the thread and thought "yay! New seasons cards posted!"... 

Trading post feels pretty near to strictly superior to a few cards, being terminal on play only marginally balancing the advantage it has over Treasury, in my opinion.
I think it needs another handicap that would make it more unique and give the other poor Peddler variants a chance to compare favorably.
As a random thought: "while this is in play, if you buy a treasure, trash this" (or discard, but I prefer trash as it's less Treasurish).

I just noticed that this wording doesn't really work since it doesn't stop the card from giving you the bonus. So if you are ever going to try something of the kind, you'll have to use something creative like:
"At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn for the rest of the game, if this is in play..."
Or: "At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer and Autumn until you trash this, ..."

Hmm, so is the name too similar to Trading Post by any chance? Maybe it's no worse than Mint vs Mine or Hunting Party vs Hunting Grounds, but when I read this post, I didn't realize that he had made a mistake, and it took me a bit of re-reading to realize that the card being discussed here was called Trade Port, not Trading Post.

[GendoIkari]

Fwiw, I don't think trade port is at all too similar to Treasury. Just because both have the ability to get an extra coin each turn unless certain things are met? So? That's one small thing that they have in common. That's like saying Goons is too similar to Woodcutter. This is different than Treasury in lots of ways. Doesn't work in winter. Does nothing the turn you play it. Gives a buy. Let's you buy green. Is terminal when played. Can't be hurt by discard attacks.

I think the extra coin is a big thing, not a small thing. It's not at all like the difference between Goons and Workshop.  The concern is not only that it's too similar, but that the differences are big improvements with only small drawbacks.  And the comparison shouldn't be to Treasury alone, but Market as well. 

If it cost more than $5 or the drawbacks/differences were more pronounced, I don't think there would be nearly as much concern about this.

What about Noble Brigand vs Thief? I know a lot of us have complained about that, but Donald didn't think it was a problem. To me, the drawback that Noble Brigand has is way smaller than the drawback that Trade Port has. And the pluses that Noble Brigand adds to Thief are stronger than the pluses that Trade Port adds to Treasury.

[eHalcyon]

Fwiw, I don't think trade port is at all too similar to Treasury. Just because both have the ability to get an extra coin each turn unless certain things are met? So? That's one small thing that they have in common. That's like saying Goons is too similar to Woodcutter. This is different than Treasury in lots of ways. Doesn't work in winter. Does nothing the turn you play it. Gives a buy. Let's you buy green. Is terminal when played. Can't be hurt by discard attacks.

I think the extra coin is a big thing, not a small thing. It's not at all like the difference between Goons and Workshop.  The concern is not only that it's too similar, but that the differences are big improvements with only small drawbacks.  And the comparison shouldn't be to Treasury alone, but Market as well. 

If it cost more than $5 or the drawbacks/differences were more pronounced, I don't think there would be nearly as much concern about this.

What about Noble Brigand vs Thief? I know a lot of us have complained about that, but Donald didn't think it was a problem. To me, the drawback that Noble Brigand has is way smaller than the drawback that Trade Port has. And the pluses that Noble Brigand adds to Thief are stronger than the pluses that Trade Port adds to Treasury.

Thief is already super weak though, so it seems less a problem to me.  I would rarely get Thief over Noble Brigand, but I would rarely get Thief period so it's not a big change there.  Moreover, on the boards where I do want Thief, it's likely that I would prefer it over Noble Brigand, or at least wouldn't mind much either way.  Whereas I think I'd solidly prefer Trade Port over both Market and Treasury outside of very specific scenarios.

I also disagree that the drawback on Trade Port is bigger, or that the advantage is smaller, compared to Noble Brigand vs. Thief.  But that's just speculation.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm guessing Trade Port is fine as-is. It's very significant that it does nothing in Winter; if you had a Treasury, you may be drawing your deck by that point anyway, in which case Treasury is still a Peddler. And the fact that Trade Port does nothing on the turn you play it is also a big disadvantage.

Asper and I both agree Trade Port is fine balance-wise but we are currently working on giving the card some more unique feature to set it apart more from Treasury. We are tending towards giving you another drawback in Winter while you get to keep either the +$1 or the +1 Buy. Since this will take some more testing, we will post the next card later this evening to make room for new discussion.

[Asper]

Ballroom is a Season card that changes in the middle of the game. For the first half, it plays a cheaper action cards from the supply and adds it to your deck. In the second half, when the supply might or might not be going dry, it switches to playing action cards twice. The right thing at the right time.

[AdrianHealey]

Interesting card. What are the current evaluations based on play testing you guys did?

[Asper]

Interesting card. What are the current evaluations based on play testing you guys did?

Not sure how i should respond to this. It's a rather good card. The fact that you gain the card you play can be either good or bad, depending on the board, the card you want to play, and your engine-building skills. The card changing to Throne Room after a while is actually a buff, not a nerf.

Oh, you mean Trade Port. I'm not sure how i should respond to this, either. We have some ideas, but haven't decided what to do, yet.

[enfynet]

I really like this one. My only concern would be the $5 cost, but it does serve a dual function.

[XerxesPraelor]

I literally opening this page just as the song I was listening to (Helpless from Hamilton) played the word Ballroom.

This is a really nice design, that uses the Season marker interestingly.

[AdrianHealey]

Interesting card. What are the current evaluations based on play testing you guys did?

Not sure how i should respond to this. It's a rather good card. The fact that you gain the card you play can be either good or bad, depending on the board, the card you want to play, and your engine-building skills. The card changing to Throne Room after a while is actually a buff, not a nerf.

Oh, you mean Trade Port. I'm not sure how i should respond to this, either. We have some ideas, but haven't decided what to do, yet.

No, I meant your self-evaluation of Ballroom.

So in your experience: the card is *better* as throneroom than as the gainer?

[Asper]

Interesting card. What are the current evaluations based on play testing you guys did?

Not sure how i should respond to this. It's a rather good card. The fact that you gain the card you play can be either good or bad, depending on the board, the card you want to play, and your engine-building skills. The card changing to Throne Room after a while is actually a buff, not a nerf.

Oh, you mean Trade Port. I'm not sure how i should respond to this, either. We have some ideas, but haven't decided what to do, yet.

No, I meant your self-evaluation of Ballroom.

So in your experience: the card is *better* as throneroom than as the gainer?

No. It's better because it's a gainer as long as the supply is full of cards you want, and a Throne Room when your deck is full of cards you want. Theoretically, that is.

[AdrianHealey]

Interesting card. What are the current evaluations based on play testing you guys did?

Not sure how i should respond to this. It's a rather good card. The fact that you gain the card you play can be either good or bad, depending on the board, the card you want to play, and your engine-building skills. The card changing to Throne Room after a while is actually a buff, not a nerf.

Oh, you mean Trade Port. I'm not sure how i should respond to this, either. We have some ideas, but haven't decided what to do, yet.

No, I meant your self-evaluation of Ballroom.

So in your experience: the card is *better* as throneroom than as the gainer?

No. It's better because it's a gainer as long as the supply is full of cards you want, and a Throne Room when your deck is full of cards you want. Theoretically, that is.

Ah, yes, I see. Yeah: that makes sense.

[eHalcyon]

No, I meant your self-evaluation of Ballroom.

So in your experience: the card is *better* as throneroom than as the gainer?

I think Asper means that it's better as TR at that point in the game, whereas it's better as the gainer early on - thus the comment, "the right thing at the right time".  (PPE: beaten to the punch!)

That sounds about right to me.  Early on, TR is not great because you don't yet have the action density to support it.  Ballroom actually helps you achieve that action density though.  OTOH, the gaining effect is less valuable late game (when you might not see the card again before the end of the game, and when the card you most want might have piled out already) but playing a card twice may be just what you need.

My question is how it compares to Band of Misfits.  Gaining a card and immediately playing it is a lot like what BoM does except you also get the gain.  Unlike the comparison between Trade Port and Market/Treasury, I do think that there are significant differences here.  The functional change in Fall is a major shift, for one thing, and Fall is early enough that you can expect the change to matter a lot in most games.

Even so, I think that it's a good comparison to consider.  My guess is that Ballroom will be a better choice a lot of the time, but it may be very important that BoM continues to provide its flexibility in Fall and Winter.  Also, the gain from Ballroom may quickly go from blessing to curse if you use it on terminals too often.  Empyting piles may also lead to more games ending by 3-pile, which may be good or bad.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm not sure whether we played a game with both BR and BoM but we thought a lot about the similarities and differences. You already summed them up quite nicely. The most important difference are IMO pile control (Ball Room has it) and long-flexibility especially with a lot of terminals in the Kingdom you don't want a ton of in your deck (Band of Misfits provides more benefit here). We are convinced those two cards play out very differently due to the fact that BR gains while BoM doesn't and the mid-year shift which can make BR much stronger. Obviously, both cards are extremely board dependent.

[Asper]

My personal focus was that gaining cards might sometimes not be what you want. If you need terminal draw now, that doesn't necessarily mean you need more cards that do it. Ballroom also empties the pile that BoM would leave untouched, which might work for or against it - you can have 15 "Villages" in your deck thanks to BoM, but the same does not apply to Ballroom. Of course, if both are in the same kingdom, Ballroom "steals" them away from BoM, so it's actually an interaction, too. I think BoM has an advantage if you only got to gain it a bit later (with "late" being much earlier here than with Trade Port), or if some cards in the kingdom are good only for a certain timespan or in certain situations. Moneylender, Baron or Coppersmith might be candidates, maybe even the (few) cheap junkers. I mean, sure, i want to play a lot of Sea Hags. But do i want to own a lot of Sea Hags?

[enfynet]

Does Ballroom actually have pile-control? Assuming you end before turn 21, it has no gain ability for the latter half of the game.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Does Ballroom actually have pile-control? Assuming you end before turn 21, it has no gain ability for the latter half of the game.

Well, maybe I should have rather said "pile influence" in the beginning of the game - it has more of that than BoM, there you go 

[Gubump]

Ballroom is a Season card that changes in the middle of the game. For the first half, it plays a cheaper action cards from the supply and adds it to your deck. In the second half, when the supply might or might not be going dry, it switches to playing action cards twice. The right thing at the right time.

I think this may be my new TR-variant (previous was Royal Carriage).

[scott_pilgrim]

Ballroom is awesome.  I was skeptical at first, but I am now officially a huge fan of this set.  I think this is the only mechanic we've seen besides Alchemy that provides enough space to create an entire set of cards using that mechanic, while still having the set function as a coherent and complete expansion (and also still giving you lots of new room for unique ideas).

Also, I think the name Ballroom is really clever.  In the first half of the game, the card is similar to the first half of its name, Ball.  During the second half of the game, the card is like Throne Room, represented by the second half of its name, room.

[nate_w]

I like Ballroom a lot.  I'm pretty strongly in the "Ballroom > B.O.M." camp, mostly due to this reason:

There are boards where B.O.M. might be better than Ballroom, but most of those boards you don't really want B.O.M. anyway.  When you DO want B.O.M., I think you would almost always just prefer Ballroom. 

But I don't think it's stronger enough to be broken.  I'd probably put this at #15 or so on my list of $5 cards (so, very high). 

I actually think the better comparison in terms of function than to BOM is to Workshop.  It fills the same role as workshop, but is MUCH stronger in the early game, and morphs into a throne room right around the time you want it to.

[Asper]

Also, I think the name Ballroom is really clever.  In the first half of the game, the card is similar to the first half of its name, Ball.  During the second half of the game, the card is like Throne Room, represented by the second half of its name, room.

Thanks. It wasn't always named Ballroom. The name was changed mostly because we didn't like the old picture, and we didn't find any that were better and went with that name. I stumbled over a Ballroom picture when actually looking for another name i thought about, and liked Ballroom better. Now that i think about it, it's more like Summon than like Ball... Just, Summon Room isn't a good name. Either way, the mechanic came first..

[drsteelhammer]

I like this card very much too. The first phase seems super strong, most likely the strongest gainer in the game. However, I think this card is still nicely balanced by reducing the effect for the first 10 turns. It might still get crazy in chapel decks, but usually it should not break the game.

[GendoIkari]

I just realized the similarity between Ballroom and India (the community-created card), as they are both gainers that can play a gained action. India can gain cards costing more than , and it can gain non-Action cards as well. On the other hand, it requires remodeling, which is both a plus and a minus.

[Eistee]

Wow, this looks really awesome! I worked on a similar concept before (with a "Day and Night"-system in a Horror setting), but never got around to finishing it. This looks perfect, though. Well done!

[Davio]

Ballroom seems really strong, but is of course hindered by the fact that most $4- cards are weakish terminals.
It's also hindered by the fact that sometimes you don't want many copies of $4 cards. You might want to play that Baron now with an Estate in your hand, but have little use for it later.
Also, the gaining is forced, so ideally you want some cheap cantrips (Pearl Diver, Great Hall, Spy) to get when other interesting cards are gone to keep playing it.

I can see some use for using Ballroom to gain and play Villages (Farming, Mining, Worker's).

The later TR effect balances it well, I think.

[Auto-Destruct Sequence]

Sojourner is too cheap. It cost $2 but is strictly better than estate since it gives the same 1 vp but also removes itself from the hand as well as offers a bonus benefit depending on the season. Should cost $3?

[Asper]

Sojourner is too cheap. It cost $2 but is strictly better than estate since it gives the same 1 vp but also removes itself from the hand as well as offers a bonus benefit depending on the season. Should cost $3?

It is not strictly better, as if you are not able to play Sojourner before the game ends, it is worth nothing. You often buy Estates as tiebreakers in the final turns of the game, which you can't do with Sojourner.

Also Compare Distand Lands, which is a Victory card costing that is worth 4 if you managed to play it, and worth 0 otherwise. According to your reasoning it's strictly better than Duchy.

Edit: Of course, the fact that it's not strictly better than Estate doesn't mean it can't be too strong.

[faust]

Also, the gaining is forced, so ideally you want some cheap cantrips (Pearl Diver, Great Hall, Spy) to get when other interesting cards are gone to keep playing it.

Eh, well, the gaining is forced, but playing Ballroom isn't... and since the only use of playing Ballroom is to get those cheap Actions (in Spring/Summer), I don't see how the situation would be any better if the gaining was optional, barring Golem/Herald/TR edge cases. (and with TR and Herald around I guess there are good gaining targets)

[Davio]

Hmm, I think what I meant was you are forced to gain the card you want to play right now.

So you can't BoM it to play a Baron without gaining it.

And I also meant that it's helpful to keep gaining cheap cantrips as they rarely hurt (barring discard attacks and such).

[Co0kieL0rd]

Now we kept you waiting for god-knows-how-many days before releasing the next card. We hope with this we can RESTORE your faith in our update schedule 



The Remodel family got offspring! Again. Where are all those coming from? Restore wants to be like Expand but also non-terminal. You can do that in Spring but it gets worse. Although Winter is the only Season where it's actually bad for its cost. Restore benefits the most from action-rich decks and long games that last until second Spring. In that case it can make for an explosive ending. Otherwise its power level is about average for a $5-cost card.

[Roadrunner7671]

This looks very good. Like, unskippable. I usually feel that way about non-terminal trashers (show of hands for who ignores Upgrade/Junk Dealer 90-93% of the time?) but I still like them. It's interesting, for sure, but it is usually better than Remodel or almost any remodel-type cards (not including expand). I'm almost positive you've playtested it, so if it's good, then great, I can be wrong. But man, this card is the one that I've been least sure of throughout the entire expansion.

[Co0kieL0rd]

This looks very good. Like, unskippable. I usually feel that way about non-terminal trashers (show of hands for who ignores Upgrade/Junk Dealer 90-93% of the time?) but I still like them. It's interesting, for sure, but it is usually better than Remodel or almost any remodel-type cards (not including expand). I'm almost positive you've playtested it, so if it's good, then great, I can be wrong. But man, this card is the one that I've been least sure of throughout the entire expansion.

It has been tested in 8-10 games, I reckon, and never has been changed since we came up with it. It works fine but it's still slow. It's certainly worse than Junk Dealer and Upgrade. Drawing a card makes those card significantly better. Restore hates trashing Coppers (unless in Spring). It wants Silvers or Action cards.

[AdrianHealey]

What's wrong with trshing coppers to get silvers? Not fast enough?

[Asper]

What's wrong with trshing coppers to get silvers? Not fast enough?

Assuming you actually open with Restore, you can only use the $3 option once. I usually like my Season cards that do something special in Spring to cost $4 or less, so you can always open with them, but in Restore's case, it's both a consolation price for the +Action being useless, and of course a gigantic boost if (and that's a big if) the game takes until Spring II.

[GendoIkari]

What's wrong with trshing coppers to get silvers? Not fast enough?

It's worse than Mine, which isn't very strong... I mean it's non-terminal of course, but that only matters if you have other terminal actions to play in the same hand.

[sudgy]

The Remodel family got offspring!

I'm guessing this was punintentional?

[faust]

I like that it is nonterminal... but there might be issues with that. The other nonterminal Remodel-family card is Upgrade, and that has "exactly". This one does not, so I'm afraid it enables milling piles. You can really speed up the game by multiple Province -> Province plays. Not sure how big of a problem that is. It might not be a problem,but it would defnitely be a thing to look out for in playtest rounds (if you didn't already).

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like that it is nonterminal... but there might be issues with that. The other nonterminal Remodel-family card is Upgrade, and that has "exactly". This one does not, so I'm afraid it enables milling piles. You can really speed up the game by multiple Province -> Province plays. Not sure how big of a problem that is. It might not be a problem,but it would defnitely be a thing to look out for in playtest rounds (if you didn't already).

That is a good point. I think we never looked out for that. The situation never came up because Restore was never part of any dominant strategy so far. But since we are going to go over the card again, possibly buffing it, we will consider adding "exactly" to it.

The Remodel family got offspring!

I'm guessing this was punintentional?

Wow, no it wasn't. Haha, totally missed that 

[Accatitippi]

I like that it is nonterminal... but there might be issues with that. The other nonterminal Remodel-family card is Upgrade, and that has "exactly". This one does not, so I'm afraid it enables milling piles. You can really speed up the game by multiple Province -> Province plays. Not sure how big of a problem that is. It might not be a problem,but it would defnitely be a thing to look out for in playtest rounds (if you didn't already).

That is a good point. I think we never looked out for that. The situation never came up because Restore was never part of any dominant strategy so far. But since we are going to go over the card again, possibly buffing it, we will consider adding "exactly" to it.

In case the card should turn out to be too unwieldy with "exactly", you can also try "gain a different card costing up to..." to avoid milling. It's unique in Dominion, but I don't think it would be confusing or overcomplex.

[Asper]

I like that it is nonterminal... but there might be issues with that. The other nonterminal Remodel-family card is Upgrade, and that has "exactly". This one does not, so I'm afraid it enables milling piles. You can really speed up the game by multiple Province -> Province plays. Not sure how big of a problem that is. It might not be a problem,but it would defnitely be a thing to look out for in playtest rounds (if you didn't already).

Well, the card gets worse the longer a game takes, so cutting it short might well be in a Restore player's interest. I admit we never actually tried a game in which one of us went to max this interaction out, but as Restore isn't particularly helpful to get a Province, i felt it should be okay.

Remodel does a similar thing, and will be able to do Gold->Province, too, regardless of Season. Of course it's terminal, but if you only mill one Province a turn, they are about equal. If you mill 2, for example from a starting hand of 2 Restores and 2 Provinces, Restore is stronger. But for more, you already need an engine for either card. It's true Remodel's Province-milling-engine needs additional +Actions as well, but Remodel costs $4 and Restore $5. There's got to be a few things where Restore is better, and if milling is what you care for, think of the other $5s you could have included in your mill instead.

[drsteelhammer]

Is it necessary that this card is so much stronger in Spring (Estates->$5 cost) compared to Summer? I feel like this is just giving the 5/2 a huge advantage which doesn't seem needed thematically.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Is it necessary that this card is so much stronger in Spring (Estates->$5 cost) compared to Summer? I feel like this is just giving the 5/2 a huge advantage which doesn't seem needed thematically.

We are going to test a version that is strongest in Summer but no promises, yet. Anyway think of a 5/2 versus 4/3 opening on a board with Witch, Mountebank, Count, Wharf, IGG etc.. I don't think Restore gets any worse than that. You'd still have to align Restore with an Estate and then you can still only expand it for $3 once.

[drsteelhammer]

Is it necessary that this card is so much stronger in Spring (Estates->$5 cost) compared to Summer? I feel like this is just giving the 5/2 a huge advantage which doesn't seem needed thematically.

We are going to test a version that is strongest in Summer but no promises, yet. Anyway think of a 5/2 versus 4/3 opening on a board with Witch, Mountebank, Count, Wharf, IGG etc.. I don't think Restore gets any worse than that. You'd still have to align Restore with an Estate and then you can still only expand it for $3 once.

Yes, my point was that Dominion does not need another card that makes 5/2 so strong   I feel that you can easily avoid such a thing with this card.

[Asper]

Is it necessary that this card is so much stronger in Spring (Estates->$5 cost) compared to Summer? I feel like this is just giving the 5/2 a huge advantage which doesn't seem needed thematically.

We are going to test a version that is strongest in Summer but no promises, yet. Anyway think of a 5/2 versus 4/3 opening on a board with Witch, Mountebank, Count, Wharf, IGG etc.. I don't think Restore gets any worse than that. You'd still have to align Restore with an Estate and then you can still only expand it for $3 once.

Yes, my point was that Dominion does not need another card that makes 5/2 so strong   I feel that you can easily avoid such a thing with this card.

Well, let's assume a board with both Restore and Witch:
If i open Witch, i play Witch during Spring, draw two cards, probably buy somethign decent, and Summer starts with me having Witch and something decent, and you having a Curse.
If i open Restore, i can trash an Estate for a Witch. Summer starts with me having Witch and something decent (because that's what nonterminal Remodel is), and me having an Estate less.

Depending on how lucky or unlucky my Witch draw is, i'd say the Witch opening is at least as good.

I agree with you that increasing the gap between the different openings isn't something we should look for, and that's why we are considering the Summer option right now.

[drsteelhammer]

Well, I think it is in the nature of junkers that they are better the earlier you can play them (besides Snow Witch ) whereas a trash for benefit doesn't have that problem necessarily. It's already better when you get it on 5/2, I just don't see why it would need the bonus of a non-terminal Expand play on top of that.

That said, I like the summer buff, it fits thematically aswell.

[trivialknot]

I like that it is nonterminal... but there might be issues with that. The other nonterminal Remodel-family card is Upgrade, and that has "exactly". This one does not, so I'm afraid it enables milling piles. You can really speed up the game by multiple Province -> Province plays. Not sure how big of a problem that is. It might not be a problem,but it would defnitely be a thing to look out for in playtest rounds (if you didn't already).

Don't forget Transmogrify!  Transmogrify is more closely comparable, since it is also +1 action, and it also only remodels up to $1 more.  Transmogrify is also much better at milling Provinces than Restore.  In my experience, milling Provinces with Transmogrify is definitely a thing, but it's a good thing.  It doesn't ruin games, it adds that extra dimension of strategy.

My first impression of Restore is that it looks weak.  Remodel doesn't especially benefit from being non-terminal, since you can use it to remodel terminal actions that it collides with.  The winter effect is bad at gaining Provinces, which is what you'd want to do at that point, so I'd think that milling Provinces is the only useful winter ability.  But I could be wrong, I didn't playtest it.

[Asper]

Being a student in this Dominion is tough. Economy lessons start much too early. Ugh, why can a person never sleep in without having to fear they won't be able to produce money later? Maybe someone else has taken notes and can share them? I mean, there's really no need for ALL of us to visit that +Buy class. At least those +Action lessons were nice... I heard everything gets better in Winter semester, when you finally graduate and learn how to draw cards. When everybody looks at the things you can do now, and every kingdom wants your skills if you were there from the beginning. Hm... Maybe being a Student isn't that bad, after all.

[GeneralRamos]

To clarify I understand this right, provided there are not other cards moving your tokens around, the possibility is...
In Spring, +1 Action +$1
In Summer, +2 Actions, +$1
In Fall, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
In Winter, +1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
And I presume the first time you play it in a given season, you don't get the token bonus because it was not on the student pile when you played it?
If I did read that correctly, then this sounds like the pile will be a mess covered in all those tokens. It might be advisable that they go onto a mat or something.
It seems like a bit of a late bloomer. The effects of the card are not really "worth $3" or more until Winter. And to get it that good you really need to have stuck with it from the start. I like it conceptually, but it feels like it needs a buff.

[Asper]

To clarify I understand this right, provided there are not other cards moving your tokens around, the possibility is...
In Spring, +1 Action +$1
In Summer, +2 Actions, +$1
In Fall, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
In Winter, +1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
And I presume the first time you play it in a given season, you don't get the token bonus because it was not on the student pile when you played it?
If I did read that correctly, then this sounds like the pile will be a mess covered in all those tokens. It might be advisable that they go onto a mat or something.
It seems like a bit of a late bloomer. The effects of the card are not really "worth $3" or more until Winter. And to get it that good you really need to have stuck with it from the start. I like it conceptually, but it feels like it needs a buff.

Yes, you got all that correct.

Power-wise, we tried a few versions of Student and its power changes a lot depending on which is the basic bonus and what you get in which order. Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end. Another option i thought about recently would be to swap the Spring and Winter bonuses - it starts as a cantrip, becomes a Village, becomes a Worker's Village, becomes a Village-Market. Maybe that would be better.

[GeneralRamos]

I think starting with the +Card and ending with the +$1 makes more sense. I don't mind picking one up early if it's a cantrip and won't get in the way much, probably moreso than a non-terminal copper. It also makes it more valuable in its village stages, because it's more like a true village at comparable cost.
Even so, it might still feel a tad weak, though I haven't played with it to know if this bears out: its end strength depends on your jumping onto it at the beginning of the game. If you miss spring with it, is it still going to be worth buying for the Winter when you only have Summer+Fall+Winter effects? I almost feel like it should have a bigger payoff to encourage early adoption.

[Accatitippi]

To clarify I understand this right, provided there are not other cards moving your tokens around, the possibility is...
In Spring, +1 Action +$1
In Summer, +2 Actions, +$1
In Fall, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
In Winter, +1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1
And I presume the first time you play it in a given season, you don't get the token bonus because it was not on the student pile when you played it?
If I did read that correctly, then this sounds like the pile will be a mess covered in all those tokens. It might be advisable that they go onto a mat or something.
It seems like a bit of a late bloomer. The effects of the card are not really "worth $3" or more until Winter. And to get it that good you really need to have stuck with it from the start. I like it conceptually, but it feels like it needs a buff.

Yes, you got all that correct.

Power-wise, we tried a few versions of Student and its power changes a lot depending on which is the basic bonus and what you get in which order. Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end. Another option i thought about recently would be to swap the Spring and Winter bonuses - it starts as a cantrip, becomes a Village, becomes a Worker's Village, becomes a Village-Market. Maybe that would be better.

I don't know, with the swap it feels you'd have little reason to ever buy a Student if you didn't play one in Spring: Necropolis -> Necropolis+Buy -> One-turn-Fishing-Village+Buy doesn't sound nearly as attractive as Necropolis -> Necropolis+Buy -> Worker's Village (which is pretty yucky on its own). That is, it increases the difference between the early Student and the later Student, at the expense of the latter.

I like it, but my gut tells me it's very weak, comparing unfavourably to all other villages, including Hamlet and CotR which are cheaper.
The fact is, if there are better openers (and I'm afraid there will often be), I'll get those, and then ignore Students for the rest of the game, unless I'm really desperate for actions.

My suggestion is swapping Fall with Winter, making it:
Spring +coin
Summer +Action
Fall +Card
Winter +Buy

This way your Student Engine will start working significantly earlier, and I might still buy a late first Student for the cantrip +Buy. -And the Engine player will get the +Buy just after they wanted to start double-Provincing.
The fact that you have to "activate" each bonus and that you have to junk your opening to get the +coin would still make it comparable to Village at 3, I think.
Of course I might be terribly wrong and suddently getting a deckful of Marketing Bazaars on turn 15 is more powerful than I thought. Even more so since early Students won't really junk you if all you want from life is cheap cards, like uh, Students.

[GeneralRamos]

Would it get too absurd if it were an a cantrip at base?
Cantrip copper -> village + copper -> village market -> village lab market.
Probably.

[Gubump]

Would it get too absurd if it were an a cantrip at base?
Cantrip copper -> village + copper -> village market -> village lab market.
Probably.

Then it would have to cost at least $5, because Cantrip copper has been determined before to be worth $4, and this would be strictly better than that, better enough to cost $5. So yes, it is too crazy, at least if they want to keep it at $3.

Another option i thought about recently would be to swap the Spring and Winter bonuses - it starts as a cantrip, becomes a Village, becomes a Worker's Village, becomes a Village-Market. Maybe that would be better.

I think that would be much better, since it takes until Fall to stop being strictly worse than a Squire, which is pretty bad. Every official card that has a variable effect like this has a cost equal to the average value if the card's multiple effects were split into separate cards (for example, Ironmonger's effects are Village ($3 cost), Peddler ($4 cost), and Lab ($5 cost). It's actual cost is ($3+$4+$5)/3 = $4).

As it is currently, its effects are: Copper ($0 cost), Squire w/ fixed choice ($1 cost), Co0kieL0rd's Suburbia (Reactionless version, $2 or $3, probably $3 cost), and Bazaar + buy ($6 cost). Thus, it's average value is: ($0+$1+$3+$6)/4 = $2.5.

Spring/Winter switched version's effects are: Cantrip ($0 cost), Village ($3 cost), Worker's Village ($4 cost), and Bazaar + buy ($6 cost). It's average value is: ($0+$3+$4+$6)/4 = $3.25.

Mathematically, if the Spring/Winter bonuses are switched like you suggest, the percent error for costing it at $3 would be +8.33% instead of -16.67%; in other words, it would be twice as good an estimate for how much it should cost!

[scott_pilgrim]

I think that would be much better, since it takes until Fall to stop being strictly worse than a Squire, which is pretty bad. Every official card that has a variable effect like this has a cost equal to the average value if the card's multiple effects were split into separate cards (for example, Ironmonger's effects are Village ($3 cost), Peddler ($4 cost), and Lab ($5 cost). It's actual cost is ($3+$4+$5)/3 = $4).

Are there any other cards like this besides Ironmonger?  It's definitely just coincidence, and not a good design principle that should be followed in general.  Ironmonger is intended to hit different kinds of cards with different probabilities, so just averaging the costs obviously doesn't mean it should cost $4.  Plus, costs don't scale linearly with utility in general with Dominion; the difference between $4 and $5 is much larger than the difference between $3 and $4.  Also, Ironmonger is actually better than Village when it hits an action, Peddler when it hits a treasure, and Lab when it hits a victory card, because you also get to spy that card; so if your reasoning was correct, Ironmonger should cost more than $4 (though it'd probably still be a lot closer to $4 than $5).  But most importantly, it's much better to think about how the effects work in combination with each other, rather than just evaluating each effect in a vacuum and averaging them.  A card that is a solid village sometimes and a solid terminal other times (like Tribute) is significantly worse than a card which is always a solid village, or a card which is always a solid terminal.

That being said, I think I agree that the card is too weak as it is, but switching the +1 card and +$1 would probably help out a lot.

[GeneralRamos]

I too am dubious of the math's value and averaging as a pricing solution. But even following the math, we need to factor in the fact that that is an optimal scenario, if one buys and plays it starting in Spring and then again in each successive season. I guess that's my roundabout way of suggesting maybe trying it out at $2 instead of $3.

[Deadlock39]

Technically a cantrip base isn't strictly better than "Peddler" because it is just a cantrip with no benefit the very first time it is played, but that isn't much of a drawback.

I almost posted the idea of making the base a cantrip, but it ends up pretty different from the original concept.  I think if you did that, it would be worth considering removing the +card token bonus from it somehow. If it is a cantrip with all 4 tokens when fully powered up, I would agree the cost would need to be higher than $3. 

[LastFootnote]

After a few tries, this is the wording I suggest in order to have a reasonable font size on Student. (Obviously I don't have the Season background template, so I couldn't duplicate the card exactly.)



I've played one game with Student, in which Co0kieL0rd bought Students and I didn't. I don't remember who won, but I think it was a pretty close game. Student seems reasonable, power-wise. It's a cool card, although I agree with GeneralRamos that—in an IRL game—the pile will often be a mess of tokens.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree with eHalcyon's early post that "Autumn" is way classier than "Fall".

[Asper]

I thought a bit more about this. For Student to be skippable on some boards until Summer, the bonus in Spring has to be either +Action or +Buy. If it is +Card or +$, and you skipped Student in Spring, getting one in Summer is a complete waste of money. If the Spring bonus is +Action or +Buy, though, you may be able to skip it some times.

I do think +Buy belongs in the later half of the game, and even though +Action is very nice, there might be boards where (for a lack of cantrips or better available +Action cards), you will still want Students without it. So, another idea:
Basic bonus: +1 Action
Spring: +1 Action
Summer:+$1
Fall: +1 Card
Winter:+1 Buy

This way, It goes either
Necropolis->Coin-Necropolis->Village-Peddler->Village-Market
or Copper->Peddler->Market
or Cantrip->Market Square

The option to swap +$ and +Card still stands with this scenario, although it seems to me that adding the draw in Fall is still early enough and avoids a "better than Village in Summer already"-scenario.

After a few tries, this is the wording I suggest in order to have a reasonable font size on Student. (Obviously I don't have the Season background template, so I couldn't duplicate the card exactly.)

I've played one game with Student, in which Co0kieL0rd bought Students and I didn't. I don't remember who won, but I think it was a pretty close game. Student seems reasonable, power-wise. It's a cool card, although I agree with GeneralRamos that—in an IRL game—the pile will often be a mess of tokens.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree with eHalcyon's early post that "Autumn" is way classier than "Fall".

Thanks for the wording suggestion, LastFootnote. I think we can go with that one. Also, yes, the pile is a mess of tokens, but it's usually a matter of counting tokens in your color, anyway. Not that this means it's not an issue, but at least it's not a mechanical one.

[eHalcyon]

I think putting +$1 in Spring will actually create more scenarios where you skip the Spring bonus.  Every board has a source of coins (basic Treasures) but not every board has splitters.  I thought that this was the reasoning behind your first posted version having +$1 in Spring.

[Asper]

@ eHalcyon: Good point.

Sorry, i feel i'm not very focused right now, i'll be back somewhere these days.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Thanks for all the feedback. It's good to see so many people care and put thought into the card. In most games we had, Student wasn't too weak because usually, when you want it, you get only one in Spring and don't start gaining more before Fall. Remember you only need one Student per shuffle to make all you subsequent Students better.

I think for now we'll stick with the version we posted intitially because that's the one we tested and it worked well. We might test some other version when Asper can spare more time. Although I'll be happy to playtest with other people or to hear their experiences should anyone play with our cards on their own.

[GendoIkari]

Is Student too crazy if it allows you to move the token to any action supply pile? In this way it's more like the other token cards... obviously a lot stronger, but still way weaker than Teacher due to the limitation of different tokens in different seasons.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Is Student too crazy if it allows you to move the token to any action supply pile? In this way it's more like the other token cards... obviously a lot stronger, but still way weaker than Teacher due to the limitation of different tokens in different seasons.

Well, it would be a completely different card that has nothing to do with our current Student and hasn't been tested at all. So if anyone feels confident enough to tell us if that would be crazy, please be my guest 

[Roadrunner7671]

Hmmm, it's like teacher that you can play once every five turns minimum? Seems crazy at $3.

[drsteelhammer]

Hmmm, it's like teacher that you can play once every five turns minimum? Seems crazy at $3.

A teacher that can only teach himself is not as close to strong as Teacher

[Roadrunner7671]

Hmmm, it's like teacher that you can play once every five turns minimum? Seems crazy at $3.

A teacher that can only teach himself is not as close to strong as Teacher

We're talking about GendoI's post.

[LastFootnote]

Hmmm, it's like teacher that you can play once every five turns minimum? Seems crazy at $3.

A teacher that can only teach himself is not as close to strong as Teacher

We're talking about GendoI's post.

Then you should quote it! 

[Accatitippi]

If you want to avoid cluttering the Student pile you may put the tokens on the Seasons mat. I'd probably do that IRL to avoid the mess, anyway. 

[Davio]

Took me a while to figure out the card keeps getting stronger as the tokens don't get moved off the card in later seasons.

So:
Spring: +1 Action, +$1 (basically just a Copper)
Summer: +1 Action, +$1 (sort of Fishing Village)
Fall: +2 Actions, +$1, +1 Buy (sort of Worker's Village)
Winter: +1 Card, +2 Actions, +$1, +1 Buy (Bazaar/Market hybrid)

I'd argue that Spring and Summer versions are weaker than $3, Fall is around a medium-ish $4 (compare it to Worker's Village, but I'd rather have the card instead of the $1), Winter is like a Bazaar or Market plus and so a strong $5 / weak $6.

[LastFootnote]

Took me a while to figure out the card keeps getting stronger as the tokens don't get moved off the card in later seasons.

So:
Spring: +1 Action, +$1 (basically just a Copper)
Summer: +1 Action, +$1 (sort of Fishing Village)
Fall: +2 Actions, +$1, +1 Buy (sort of Worker's Village)
Winter: +1 Card, +2 Actions, +$1, +1 Buy (Bazaar/Market hybrid)

I'd argue that Spring and Summer versions are weaker than $3, Fall is around a medium-ish $4 (compare it to Worker's Village, but I'd rather have the card instead of the $1), Winter is like a Bazaar or Market plus and so a strong $5 / weak $6.

I would say the Fall version [+2 Actions; +1 Buy; +$1] would cost $2, maybe $3. It's really not until you get to Winter (and play it once in Winter for the Fall effect before you place the token) that Student becomes good. Although you only have to get one Student early, and can buy more later (as long as there are Students left to buy of course).

[Jack Rudd]

+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1 would almost certainly be a $3 card. It is to Festival as Village is to Bazaar.

[Deadlock39]

+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1 would almost certainly be a $3 card. It is to Festival as Village is to Bazaar.

+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1 would almost certainly be a $2 card. It is to Bazaar as CSM is to Baker.

[Awaclus]

+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1 would almost certainly be a $3 card. It is to Festival as Village is to Bazaar.

Not necessarily. The difference between Bazaar and Village is that Bazaar helps your economy while Village doesn't do anything. The difference between Festival and this is that Festival helps your economy while this actually hurts it.

[eHalcyon]

Squire is also a close comparison.



Random bad idea for Student: In games using this, Fall is the first season.

[GeneralRamos]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

I've been running through permutations of this card on my walks the last couple days. The more I think about it, the more I like this as a configuration for the card. It seems to solve the problem of power by not feeling so much weaker than $3 for so long. It seems to solve the problem of not being a dud if you don't get to play it in spring.
If you play consistently from Spring:
Spring: terminal silver (worse than silver)
Summer: non-terminal silver (a little worse than silver)
Fall: non-terminal silver with +buy (on par with silver, situationally better)
Winter: Grand Market (way better than silver)
If you play consistently from Summer:
Summer: non-terminal copper (weak)
Fall: non-terminal copper +Buy (still weak, but at least +buy)
Winter: market (great buy for $3)
In both cases, the card gets WAY better in Winter, but that is how it should be--it blossoms in the late game (a thematic paradox  ) and ramps up the ending. Missing the Spring makes Summer and Fall very weak, but Winter at least is still worth it. It might make sense to change the order in this case to +$; +Action; +Card; +Buy to make the first-play-in-Summer case substantially better.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

Asper forgot to mention that we of course tested this version and discarded it after a few games because it was completely cwazy. No, seriously, Grand Markets available for $3 favour shuffle luck more than anything which often led to one player (in a two-player game) winning the Student split 7-3. Guess which player won the game.

[eHalcyon]

Random bad idea for Student: In games using this, Fall is the first season.

Maybe less bad idea: Introduce a new bonus token that has a (usually) negative effect like "discard a card".  And then do something like...

+1 action, +$1
Spring: +1 Card token
Summer: bad token (because the student is slacking, haha)
Fall: +1 action token AND +$1 token
Winter: +1 buy AND +1 card token (if you missed it in Spring)

I think it might be interesting to have a negative option that makes you not want to play it for a whole season, but still have some incentive to get it early.

For this idea, the specific bonus distribution I have here may not be best.  I'm just throwing it together for the idea -- stronger start, poor middle, strong end.

It's more complicated though, potentially not worth it.

[Asper]

Originally, the basic bonus was +$1, and it was otherwise the same, making it a terminal Silver, a Silver, a +Buy Silver, and a Grand Market in the end.

Asper forgot to mention that we of course tested this version and discarded it after a few games because it was completely cwazy. No, seriously, Grand Markets available for $3 favour shuffle luck more than anything which often led to one player (in a two-player game) winning the Student split 7-3. Guess which player won the game.

I can confirm cwazyness.

[Co0kieL0rd]

eHalcyon, sorry for the late response. I kinda like your idea of introducing a "discard token" but I personally wouldn't like it on Student. There might be a place for it on some other card (or) in some other set, though.

And now for something completely different.



Your kingdom is a mess! Everybody knows it and someone’s got to say it. It’s a mess. Look at all those Coppers flying around – with that inflation going on for years, who still pays with Coppers? No one will accept them. What about those shabby, old Estates no one wants to live in? You need a professional to make a clean sweep and rebuild your domain from scratch.

So you deploy Bailiffs to whip your kingdom into shape. Over the course of the year, they implement a simple two-phase plan. Phase one – withdraw worthless coin from circulation and replace your Estates with infrastructure that’s actually useful. Phase two – acquire… Duchies?

Granted, after a very successful first half of the year they seem so self-complacent they don’t even try to keep up the good work anymore. You hope that by that point you already have almost won, or you throw them all out when they have outlived their purpose. Either way, their help will be much appreciated in nearly every kingdom.

[enfynet]

And now for something completely different.

+1 For this...

I will read the rest of the post now.

[eHalcyon]

Bailiff doesn't feel so cohesive to me.  That is to say, I look at the Spring/Summer effect and it seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at the Fall/Winter effect and it also seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at them together, and I don't see any reason why they are more compelling as a single Seasons card instead of two regular action cards.  What am I missing?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Bailiff doesn't feel so cohesive to me.  That is to say, I look at the Spring/Summer effect and it seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at the Fall/Winter effect and it also seems like it would be fine as its own card.  I look at them together, and I don't see any reason why they are more compelling as a single Seasons card instead of two regular action cards.  What am I missing?

Bailiff is incredibly strong in the first half of the year so we wanted to give it a significantly weaker and niche-y effect for the second half. The upper part benefits engines while the lower part does the opposite which makes Bailiff unique in this set. The two contradictory effects make him suitable for different strategies which we also like about him.

[Asper]

Yes, the joke is that the effects on Bailiff - unlike Ballroom's, which support one another - are very contrary. One destroys junk, one gains it. It's also (probably) true that if the first effect lingered on, it'd be overly strong in the late game, but the two-headedness of Bailiff is the main idea behind that one.

[Fragasnap]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

[eHalcyon]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

Well I recognize that the mini-Forge is powerful, but there are other ways of gating it.  Just limiting it to the first 10 turns doesn't seem that great.

Also worth noting, my intuition is that it's most powerful at the start of the game and less powerful at the end.  Not sure if you guys (Asper and Co0kieL0rd) have tested that effect in the late game or designed it from the start with these two parts.  I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.  In that way, it seems better suited for trashing down early than for gaining VP through TfB later.  I imagine that the Fall/Winter effect you actually have on there right now is stronger for Fall/Winter than the mini-Forge thanks to easy Duchy gaining.  Have you tested the mini-Forge in late game?

I appreciate the thematic joke, though the mechanisms still sound oddly disconnected to me.  FWIW, I think the joke may be better if you name it something with "Committee".

[Asper]

What am I missing?

Bailiff's miniature Forge is ludicrous, but it cannot be used after turn 10. Bailiff changing into a different card after Summer is necessary simply as a gating mechanism to that powerful effect because it would be stupidly strong if it didn't. I think it might still be too strong: trashing so rapidly in the opening portion of the game (and gaining off of trashing Estates) and gaining Duchies in the latter, but I have not played many games with it.

Well I recognize that the mini-Forge is powerful, but there are other ways of gating it.  Just limiting it to the first 10 turns doesn't seem that great.

Also worth noting, my intuition is that it's most powerful at the start of the game and less powerful at the end.  Not sure if you guys (Asper and Co0kieL0rd) have tested that effect in the late game or designed it from the start with these two parts.  I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.  In that way, it seems better suited for trashing down early than for gaining VP through TfB later.  I imagine that the Fall/Winter effect you actually have on there right now is stronger for Fall/Winter than the mini-Forge thanks to easy Duchy gaining.  Have you tested the mini-Forge in late game?

I appreciate the thematic joke, though the mechanisms still sound oddly disconnected to me.  FWIW, I think the joke may be better if you name it something with "Committee".

I can definitely see what you mean. Why make one card out of something that could have been two, right? And i guess you are right about the power curve, too. Trashing 3 cards is a lot for the late game.

On the other hand, while i don't see the halves to be interesting enough on their own, i always felt the two-sidedness gave Bailiff something special. And, well, that's what we wanted.

About power: Honestly, Co0kieL0rd was a bit concerned that Bailiff might be too strong, and it was usually me who was confident $3 would be okay. But maybe i'm wrong.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About power: Honestly, Co0kieL0rd was a bit concerned that Bailiff might be too strong, and it was usually me who was confident $3 would be okay. But maybe i'm wrong.

I like Bailiff as-is mechanically, too, but I am open towards having it cost $4 if that seems necessary.

[pst]

"Gain a Victory card, and then a Treasure card, with a total cost of up to $5."

It's not clear to me how this is supposed to work when there are no Coppers left. I guess the intention is that you can't gain a Duchy and then find out that there is no Treasure card you can gain, so you have to plan forward already when gaining the Victory card (and probably gain Estate + Silver instead).

But it would be more typical of Dominion to do just one thing at a time, like "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card." That's too clunky to be good card text, but it's clearer also what happens when it's not possible to do everything. How about when Coppers and Estates have run out (and there are no extra Treasure or Victory cards)? With the clunky text it's clear you would get (just) a Duchy. With the actual text, what happens? You get nothing?

Is it important to be able to get better Treasures? Otherwise my suggestion would be "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Copper." to just avoid the empty-pile problems.

[GeneralRamos]

I don't think the extra wording is warranted or required for the fringe case where there is no copper left (how many games does that really happen? Only with goons or beggar). I think it's fairly clear that when there is no qualifying card to gain, the effect is moot. Like when you trash a squire on a board with no attacks--there is no need for additional wording to deal with the case of a board with no attacks.

[Asper]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

[scott_pilgrim]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

[Accatitippi]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

[Asper]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

Well, it says "Gain a Victory card and then...". I think that implies an order rather strongly.

But maybe another wordi g would be clearer? I did not expect people would misunderstand it, honestly, but well, i also expected Student to be one of our better received cards... Apparently quite a few people don't read the wording as intended. Hmm...

I guess a wording that jjust always gains Coppers works too - just now, you can't gain Estate/Silver. Not that it's something you usually do...

[drsteelhammer]

I think the wording is perfectly fine. Nobody is confused by Haggler if Coppers and Curses are out, you simply fail to gain a card costing less than the bought one. Why would this be any different?

[Accatitippi]

It's worth nothing, but my interpretation of the current wording was: check the supply for legal victory+treasure combinations. If there are any, choose one of those pairs of cards to gain. Otherwise, gain nothing.
No element in the card text made me suspect that the gaining would not be symultaneous (that is, I'd choose the order after checking the legality of both gains together).

Well, it says "Gain a Victory card and then...". I think that implies an order rather strongly.

Whoops, you're right, I was going from memory rather than re-reading the card, sorry! 

[Asper]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0. Just like Transmute doesn't cost P-1$ after playing Bridge, even though that isn't actually "less than $0". Negative costs simply don't exist. In fact, i don't think Dominion even knows non-natural numbers except $0 at all.

That said, of course you are right the wording counts the price of a set of cards, not a single card. So, how can you know before? I will just say that we thought it was obvious you can't gain a Province with Bailiff, and that the fact it's not entirely logically consistent wasn't worth the extra words - just like Bridge doesn't say "All costs in coins on cards are reduced by one this turn (but don't go lower than $0)" to exclude Potion weirdness. Maybe that was an oversight, but i think even if Donald heard about it today he'd probably decide nobody would go with the logically consistent interpretation, either way.

Anyhow - it appears there are more than one or two people sharing your concern, so maybe what we thought was obvious isn't obvious at all. I'd like to hear a few more voices chime in on this, but a wording change is not out of the question.

[singletee]

You first gain the Victory card and then check whether there is a Treasure card that goes with it. So you gain a Duchy and fail to gain a Treasure card costing $0. It doesn't matter often, either way, but that's what we went for when doing that wording. Also, the wording keeps people from gaining IGG just to fail at gaining a $0 VP card.

If this is the case, I think you can gain a Province, and then fail to gain a Treasure card costing up to $-3.

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0. Just like Transmute doesn't cost P-1$ after playing Bridge, even though that isn't actually "less than $0". Negative costs simply don't exist. In fact, i don't think Dominion even knows non-natural numbers except $0 at all.

That said, of course you are right the wording counts the price of a set of cards, not a single card. So, how can you know before? I will just say that we thought it was obvious you can't gain a Province with Bailiff, and that the fact it's not entirely logically consistent wasn't worth the extra words - just like Bridge doesn't say "All costs in coins on cards are reduced by one this turn (but don't go lower than $0)" to exclude Potion weirdness. Maybe that was an oversight, but i think even if Donald heard about it today he'd probably decide nobody would go with the logically consistent interpretation, either way.

Anyhow - it appears there are more than one or two people sharing your concern, so maybe what we thought was obvious isn't obvious at all. I'd like to hear a few more voices chime in on this, but a wording change is not out of the question.

Well, my thought was that there is nothing particularly special about the number zero in Dominion – which is why the current cost reducers all specify that you can't go below zero. I hadn't thought about the Potion cost, that is a valid point. I would actually leave the wording as-is. The card is already wordy enough. If you wanted to change it I would go with "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5, and then a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the gained card." Or you could leave as-is and put in reminder text like (Neither card can cost more than 5.)

Out of curiosity, why is 5 the max? Raising it to 6 or 7 does not allow you to gain any different combinations of basic cards, and would let you maybe do some neater things with Kingdom Treasures and Victory.

[GendoIkari]

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

[Asper]

Out of curiosity, why is 5 the max? Raising it to 6 or 7 does not allow you to gain any different combinations of basic cards, and would let you maybe do some neater things with Kingdom Treasures and Victory.

Thinking about it just now, i don't remember there being any specific reason why we didn't do that. It definitely sounds like an attractive thing to change. I guess one concern was that Bailiff seemed already rather good for $3, but we might need to buff the price up either way, and then wh not change that, too.

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

The reason was to avoid players gaining a $5 Treasure card like IGG or Counterfeit, and then failing to gain a VP card that went with it. So we wanted the VP card to go first. But i see where the confusion lies.

[Asper]

BTW sorry if i'm keeping things a bit short here right now - tests are approaching, and i decided to give that a bit more priority (not that i really succeed going with what i decided, but that's another story). Either way, i speak for both CL and me when i say we really appreciate all this feedback and are grateful for it. I guess by now you noticed not all cards are as super-flashed out as, let's say, Ballroom, Snow Witch or Sanitarium, and for those that aren't we are especially happy to get that many ideas and thoughts thrown at us.

That said, sorry, i'll be off a few days. I plan on posting the next reveal in time, but don't be disappointed if i don't, okay? I mean, you guys got Empires to talk about, so that's something.

[GendoIkari]

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

The reason was to avoid players gaining a $5 Treasure card like IGG or Counterfeit, and then failing to gain a VP card that went with it. So we wanted the VP card to go first. But i see where the confusion lies.

It's possible I'm wrong, but I don't see that as how the card would work with that wording. The very first requirement in "gain a Victory card and a Treasure card" would be that you MUST gain both a victory card and a treasure card, so long as some combination of both exists that costs up to $5.

In a simpler example, if a card said "Gain 2 cards with a total cost of $4", I don't think it would allow you to gain just a Silver, and then fail to gain a $1. It says to gain 2 cards, so you must gain 2 cards, so long as it is possible to do so.

If you WERE allowed to gain a $3 and then fail to gain a $1, then nothing would really be different about gaining a $8 and failing to gain a -$4.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Bailiff in Fall and Winter does no more and no less than what he's supposed to do because this second effect is supposed to be a counterweight to the powerful first part. It may cost $3 or $4 but either cost would be fine for what it does. There is no need to raise the total cost to $6 or $7 as that would only buff the card in certain kingdoms. You have to gain a Victory card first to avoid a case where you might interpret the order in which you gain the 2 cards as arbitrary (compare to Develop in which the order explicitly doesn't matter). Here it does matter, because you cannot gain 2 cards (or do anything in Dominion) simulateously and since the 2 cards have different types, the order has to be declared somehow. So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

[GendoIkari]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

[Co0kieL0rd]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

Since there's no precedent for a card that gains 2 cards with a total cost of $X and (more importantly) since 2 things cannot happen simultaneously in Dominion, there absolutely has to be an order. And when there's an order, there's going to be cases where someone might fail to gain something (like in a 3-player game with Witch and Moat). Even if that wasn't the case, we want to be absolutely sure no one misunderstands it and are willing to accept some redundancy (it's only one word more, similar to Chancellor's "immediately").

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't see how gaining a Province and then failing to gain a card costing up to $-3 is any different from gaining a Duchy and then failing to gain a card costing up to $0 (when the Coppers are out).  They both don't do exactly what the card tells you to do, so if the Province situation is "deliberately misinterpreting the card", then so is the Duchy situation.

Really what it comes down to is how smart Dominion cards are.  If the card is smart enough to know that there's nothing that can be paired with Province, while there are cards that can be paired with Duchy, then it would try to stop you from doing that.  (I think you'd still run into weirdness after the Coppers/Silvers run out in that case though, because then there'd be no legal combinations of cards to gain.)  But the thing is, I don't think Dominion cards can keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions, and if they could, then you certainly wouldn't be allowed to gain a Duchy with no Copper after the Coppers run out, given that another combination is still available (like Estate/Silver).

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

[Co0kieL0rd]

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

It's okay considering number of words but it doesn't do the thing we want it to do (gain a Victory card first). Admitted, you're right that "Dominion cards [cannot] keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions", still I think it makes no sense to assume someone would try to gain a Province with it because cards in Dominion cannot cost less than $0. Also most players can probably think a little for themselves and aren't intentionally looking for loop holes in fan cards that could be graciously overlooked as it clearly goes against all reason to assume you can gain Provinces with Bailiff even if it's technically possible.

[scott_pilgrim]

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

It's okay considering number of words but it doesn't do the thing we want it to do (gain a Victory card first). Admitted, you're right that "Dominion cards [cannot] keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions", still I think it makes no sense to assume someone would try to gain a Province with it because cards in Dominion cannot cost less than $0. Also most players can probably think a little for themselves and aren't intentionally looking for loop holes in fan cards that could be graciously overlooked as it clearly goes against all reason to assume you can gain Provinces with Bailiff even if it's technically possible.

Well, I think you can probably get away with the current wording, as long as you're willing to say that players can't gain Duchies after the Copper runs out.  My main point is that if you rule that that is allowed, then it's inconsistent to prohibit the gaining of Provinces.

[eHalcyon]

For the record, some things do happen simultaneously in Dominion.  Chapel, for example, trashes up to 4 cards simultaneously.  And Durations can cause different effects to happen "simultaneously" at the start of your next turn (though you have to choose the order to resolve them).  I agree with the others that having the simultaneous gain (or simultaneous choice of gain targets) is simplest and clearest.  I don't see a good reason not to do that.

If there is a good reason to avoid that wording, specifying cost (up to $5, then up to $5 minus cost of gained Victory card) is clearest but possibly not best.  Dominion cards aren't always perfectly literal; sometimes they go for simpler wording because it's sufficient outside of edge cases.  But GendoIkari's wording works just fine.

[GendoIkari]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

Since there's no precedent for a card that gains 2 cards with a total cost of $X and (more importantly) since 2 things cannot happen simultaneously in Dominion, there absolutely has to be an order. And when there's an order, there's going to be cases where someone might fail to gain something (like in a 3-player game with Witch and Moat). Even if that wasn't the case, we want to be absolutely sure no one misunderstands it and are willing to accept some redundancy (it's only one word more, similar to Chancellor's "immediately").

I'm not suggesting simultaneous gains. I'm suggesting that you would get to choose the order of the gains. And that no matter which order you choose, you would end up having to gain 2 total cards, and the total cost of them must be $5. The only exception would be when no combination of cards exists that sums to $5.

[eHalcyon]

I'm not suggesting simultaneous gains. I'm suggesting that you would get to choose the order of the gains. And that no matter which order you choose, you would end up having to gain 2 total cards, and the total cost of them must be $5. The only exception would be when no combination of cards exists that sums to $5.

In which case you can't gain anything, right?

Essentially, this is simultaneously choosing two cards to gain, then gaining them in either order.  It shouldn't matter at that point, though it can (e.g. play Highway, play Bailiff, choose Feodum+Silver, gain Feodum first and trash it to Watchtower, emptying the Silver pile).

[LibraryAdventurer]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

[eHalcyon]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

This is also a discussion about how the rules themselves work, and I'm sure Asper and Cookie aspire to do the best they can.  "It's just a fan card, don't worry about it" isn't conducive to that.  It's not like the discussion is even slightly angry or heated.  What's the harm in discussing text phrasing?

[Fragasnap]

I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.

In case you missed it: Bailiff gains a card costing "up to" the total cost in coins of the trashed cards, not "exactly" like Forge does. That effect never turns weak.

[Co0kieL0rd]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

This is also a discussion about how the rules themselves work, and I'm sure Asper and Cookie aspire to do the best they can.  "It's just a fan card, don't worry about it" isn't conducive to that.  It's not like the discussion is even slightly angry or heated.  What's the harm in discussing text phrasing?

Well; I was basically saying "It's just a fan card, give us a break" because I was a little irritated the other day that people kept misinterpreting Bailiff in a way that seems nonsensical to me. I was also disappointed that Bailiff which is one of our favourite Season cards got so little positive feedback and I'm frustrated that there seems to be no clear and elegant wording which says exactly what Bailiff is supposed to do. The best thing that was suggested here implies that you actually choose the two cards you want to gain simultaneously but gain them consecutively. In that case the order wouldn't matter. But no other card works like this so how do we know this isn't causing confusion as well?

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

The other suggestion "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card you gained." is clunky and a lot of text. I hope we don't have to resort to this.

[pst]

I'm frustrated that there seems to be no clear and elegant wording which says exactly what Bailiff is supposed to do. The best thing that was suggested here implies that you actually choose the two cards you want to gain simultaneously but gain them consecutively. In that case the order wouldn't matter. But no other card works like this so how do we know this isn't causing confusion as well?

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

The other suggestion "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card you gained." is clunky and a lot of text. I hope we don't have to resort to this.

That was never a suggestion on what to put on a card. That was my attempt to understand what the card was supposed to do.

And by the way, my guess on what you actually meant was evidently correct, so I was not misinterpreting Bailiff, and if you get irritated if people help you because "it's just a fan card" then you should just play with it yourselves, but not publicize it.

[Davio]

I don't find the wording on Bailiff confusing at all.

Just break it down into 2 separate steps that have to be performed sequentially (not in parallel):
Step 1: Gain a Victory card costing up to $5
Step 2: Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 - the cost of the Victory card

So without cost reduction:
Duchy first is always Copper next. If there are no Coppers, you do as much as you can, gain a VP card costing up to $5, this succeeds; you try to gain a Copper because you must, this fails.
Estate first means you can get a Silver

[spiralstaircase]

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

[scott_pilgrim]

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

Well I think his issue is that you can only choose the top Harem when you're making the choice, but it will be gone after you've gained it the first time and since you didn't choose the Harem under it, you can't gain that one.  Obviously this is very counterintuitive, but I think it has to be ruled that way, or else you run into problems with piles like Knights that have different cards in them.

[Davio]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

[scott_pilgrim]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

We're talking about this wording:

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

...which would not allow it.  Choose Harem and Harem (assuming you've played enough Highways), both the top card of the Harem pile.  Gain the top Harem first.  Now when you go to gain the other Harem, it's not there; a different Harem is there instead.  It's not the Harem you chose to gain, so you can't gain it.  And you can't choose to gain the top two Harems in the pile, because you can't be sure the second card from the top of the pile will really be a Harem until you see it.

[AdrianHealey]

"Choose a pure victory and a pure tresure card with a total cost up to 5. Gain them. If you don't gain a victory and a treasure card, put the card you do get back on the supply."

'Pure' = only one tag on the bottom.

[Davio]

Why so? There is no specific mention that you can only choose cards you can see right now: the top card.
Just that you have to choose a card, not a specific copy of said card.
At this point it doesn't even matter whether that card exists or not.
You can choose "gain a Curse" for Torturer when there are no more Curses.

It would resolve like this:

1. Choose 2 cards: Harem + Harem
2. Gain them in either order:
 a) Top Harem
 b) (second, now on top) Harem

Voilá, 2 Harems gained.

Let's say there was a Treasure-Knight: Sir Davio, you could do this:
1. Choose 2 cards: Dame Josephine + Sir Davio
2. Gain them in either order:
 a) Josephine is on top, so we'll gain that first
 b) Now the second card may or may not be Sir Davio;
   b-I) If it is Sir Davio, gain it
   b-II) If it's not Sir Davio, don't gain anything

If Duchies and Coppers are both gone, it would be allowed to pick both Duchy and Copper and not gain anything.

There are 3 separate events:
1. Choose a Victory and Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5 (piles don't matter at this point, just the total cost of the two cards)
--> Gain them in either order --> Make a choice between card A and card B
2. Gain either card A or B (whichever you chose to gain first)
3. Gain either card A or B (whichever you chose to gain second)

3 only happens after 2 is completely resolved. So when 3 happens, it only matters whether a copy of the chosen card is available to gain (i.e. on top).

If the text was shortened to:
Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them.

It would have this implication based on Mountebank's rules clarification: A player hit by Mountebank gains the Curse first, and then the Copper., where Mountebank says ...gains a Curse and a Copper.
In this case that would mean you always gain the Victory card first and the Treasure card second.

[Co0kieL0rd]

And by the way, my guess on what you actually meant was evidently correct, so I was not misinterpreting Bailiff, and if you get irritated if people help you because "it's just a fan card" then you should just play with it yourselves, but not publicize it.

I don't remember you misinterpreting Bailiff, either. I was talking about the attempt to gain Provinces and negative $3-cost cards with it that has been suggested earlier. But it seems like there's not much agreement on what Bailiff is capable of doing in general. At first I thought, yes, it can gain two Harems in a specific case. But actually, if you choose two cards simultaneously, this can't be okay. You're not "naming" cards (in which case you can name anything you want) but "choosing" them and the way I understand it is you can only choose cards existing cards (so not "Sir Davio"). Of course then we'd need to specify you have to choose cards from the supply.

The point is, Bailiff is not supposed to give you the option of choosing, and then failing to gain, non-existent cards or cards costing more than $5. And with the current wording it can gain two Harems.

[Davio]

You could just simplify it to say: Gain a Duchy and a Copper.

[Infthitbox]

I'm not sure how you are getting Harems to cost $2.5.

[Davio]

I'm not sure how you are getting Harems to cost $2.5.

Up to is not equal to.

So you can get Harems costing $2 and get 2 for $4 which is up to $5.

[Haddock]

I don't know whether this works, but if we're still worried about gaining negative-cost stuff being technically an option you could put in a "..., gaining the cheaper card first."  The point being that if you can't gain the cheaper card (negative cost) it's implicit that you can't carry on to gain the Province or whatever.

At least that's how I'd read that clause, but it is slightly interpretable - has gain-order restriction ever been used officially?  Can't think of anything off the top of my head.

[singletee]

If Duchies and Coppers are both gone, it would be allowed to pick both Duchy and Copper and not gain anything.

You can't do that. Let's use Workshop as a simpler example. If Estates are gone (and, say, Coppers are not) then you can't choose to gain an Estate and fail to get it. As long as there is a card costing up to $4 in the Supply, you must choose one. The only way Workshop fails to gain something (barring Trader) is if there are no cards costing up to $4 in the supply.

"Gain a card" is shorthand for "Choose a card and gain it". When you choose a card, you are choosing a literal physical card, not the name of a card.

[LastFootnote]

I was also disappointed that Bailiff which is one of our favourite Season cards got so little positive feedback

Cards with penalties—and perceived penalties—are in general going to be less popular than cards without. Trade Port has this, but is more elegant? And Trade Port seems less crazy early on. Bailiff seems insane during the Spring and Summer.

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

Yes, that is what I'd suggest, except you have to specify "in the Supply". "Choose a Victory card and a Treasure from the Supply with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

[GeneralRamos]

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

Yes, that is what I'd suggest, except you have to specify "in the Supply". "Choose a Victory card and a Treasure from the Supply with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

Yeah, this seems to me the easiest solution to the perceived problem. And specifying that they must be cards in the supply further mitigates the problem of hypothetical negative-point cards, since none will ever be present in the supply.

That said, I still don't really perceive this as a problem. I put a "gain two cards costing up to $x" card in my Holy Order set which I suppose could raise similar questions. But I never supposed negative cost cards within the realm of possibility. Because, well, when in the world do things cost a negative amount? We don't conceive of economic transactions in such terms, and though theoretically applicable in the game world, it hardly seems natural to do so. We could have saved lots of breath and card space if there were simply a rule in the book that card costs can never be reduced below $0. There's always the option of dealing with as FAQ.

[GendoIkari]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

We're talking about this wording:

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

...which would not allow it.  Choose Harem and Harem (assuming you've played enough Highways), both the top card of the Harem pile.  Gain the top Harem first.  Now when you go to gain the other Harem, it's not there; a different Harem is there instead.  It's not the Harem you chose to gain, so you can't gain it.  And you can't choose to gain the top two Harems in the pile, because you can't be sure the second card from the top of the pile will really be a Harem until you see it.

This is definitely wrong. If it worked this way, then buying a card with Royal Seal Talisman in place would never get you 2 cards. Choosing a card means choosing a particular card name from a particular pile, not choosing an exact copy of a card.

[GendoIkari]

And by the way, my guess on what you actually meant was evidently correct, so I was not misinterpreting Bailiff, and if you get irritated if people help you because "it's just a fan card" then you should just play with it yourselves, but not publicize it.

I don't remember you misinterpreting Bailiff, either. I was talking about the attempt to gain Provinces and negative $3-cost cards with it that has been suggested earlier. But it seems like there's not much agreement on what Bailiff is capable of doing in general. At first I thought, yes, it can gain two Harems in a specific case. But actually, if you choose two cards simultaneously, this can't be okay. You're not "naming" cards (in which case you can name anything you want) but "choosing" them and the way I understand it is you can only choose cards existing cards (so not "Sir Davio"). Of course then we'd need to specify you have to choose cards from the supply.

The point is, Bailiff is not supposed to give you the option of choosing, and then failing to gain, non-existent cards or cards costing more than $5. And with the current wording it can gain two Harems.

If it helps, I was never suggesting that the wording would allow you to gain an $8 and a -$3. I was using that as an example of why the interpretation of "you can gain a $5 treasure then fail to gain a $0 victory because there are none", is wrong.

[LastFootnote]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

We're talking about this wording:

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

...which would not allow it.  Choose Harem and Harem (assuming you've played enough Highways), both the top card of the Harem pile.  Gain the top Harem first.  Now when you go to gain the other Harem, it's not there; a different Harem is there instead.  It's not the Harem you chose to gain, so you can't gain it.  And you can't choose to gain the top two Harems in the pile, because you can't be sure the second card from the top of the pile will really be a Harem until you see it.

This is definitely wrong. If it worked this way, then buying a card with Royal Seal in place would never get you 2 cards. Choosing a card means choosing a particular card name from a particular pile, not choosing an exact copy of a card.

I think you mean Talisman instead of Royal Seal.

I agree with your general point, but I believe it actually means choosing a particular card name, from the Supply as a whole. If there were somehow the same card on multiple piles, you could choose at the time of each gain which copy you wanted to gain. That's my interpretation of the ruling, anyway.

[eHalcyon]

@Gendo, you mean Talisman.

@Cookie, I think people mostly understand the intent of the card, no misinterpretation, but we're considering inconsistencies in intended effect vs. wording.  This kind of feedback isn't negative (unless you are totally attached to your original wording and not just its effect); if anything, it shows people are interested in talking about it.  The only negative feedback I recall was my own feeling of disjointedness between the effects.  I don't recall anyone else criticizing that so it may just be me.

@Fragasnap I missed that the mini- Forge was "up to".  That makes it easier to use in the late game, but I still think having to trash exactly 3 cards gates it plenty.  Late game cannibalizing of your deck with, say, Remodel is one thing, but doing it 3 cards at a time I'd a tough price to pay.  It still seems to me like the mini-Forge would work fine as a single non-seasonal card.

PPE: ninjas!

[spiralstaircase]

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

Well I think his issue is that you can only choose the top Harem when you're making the choice, but it will be gone after you've gained it the first time and since you didn't choose the Harem under it, you can't gain that one.  Obviously this is very counterintuitive, but I think it has to be ruled that way, or else you run into problems with piles like Knights that have different cards in them.

Thank you for the explanation.

[GendoIkari]

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

Well I think his issue is that you can only choose the top Harem when you're making the choice, but it will be gone after you've gained it the first time and since you didn't choose the Harem under it, you can't gain that one.  Obviously this is very counterintuitive, but I think it has to be ruled that way, or else you run into problems with piles like Knights that have different cards in them.

Thank you for the explanation.

No, that explanation is wrong. Talisman should be sufficient proof. You never choose an exact card, you only choose cards by name.

[singletee]

I remember having a thread about this before. It turns out I misremembered from that thread, as DXV confirms that when you buy a card, you are buying a card with a specific name, not a specific instance of a card:

If I buy a card, do I buy a specific instance of a card, or just whatever is on top of the pile I selected?
(this could be relevant if a card is removed from the pile due to on-buy triggers. This could empty the pile, or maybe the pile isn't uniform, or maybe I just lose track.)

You name what you're buying, and then gain it from the supply if it's available. Black Market modifies where the card can come from.

As has been pointed out, Talisman means you can't be buying a specific card instance.

When exactly in the process do I lose money?
(I don't think there is any card that makes this a relevant question; still I'd like to know)

Name a card you can afford, lose $ equal to its cost, when-buy effects trigger, gain it.

As noted overpay means losing the $ has to come ahead of when-buy triggers.

See
Insight about buying, derived from Talisman,
Talisman + Sir Martin, and
buying a card.

[scott_pilgrim]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

[GendoIkari]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

[scott_pilgrim]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

Yeah I think that works.  I think I was responding to this:

Let's say there was a Treasure-Knight: Sir Davio, you could do this:
1. Choose 2 cards: Dame Josephine + Sir Davio
2. Gain them in either order:
 a) Josephine is on top, so we'll gain that first
 b) Now the second card may or may not be Sir Davio;
   b-I) If it is Sir Davio, gain it
   b-II) If it's not Sir Davio, don't gain anything

[singletee]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

With Stonemason the choice itself is sequential. You choose, then gain, then choose, then gain. Evidence for this is that you can gain 2 Knights in this way. So to your question you'd have to gain the Goons (the horror!).

[GendoIkari]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

With Stonemason the choice itself is sequential. You choose, then gain, then choose, then gain. Evidence for this is that you can gain 2 Knights in this way. So to your question you'd have to gain the Goons (the horror!).

Do we know this? I asked this in the rules forum... the instructions are "gain 2 cards". Does this mean the same as "do this twice: gain a card"? I don't know the answer... but Bailiff should work exactly the same. Which means if you're right about Stonemason (I suspect you are), then with Bailiff you first gain a Harm. Then you gain a Harem assuming there's still another one. No different; same basic wording.

[GendoIkari]

Wait, I'm wrong. If indeed Stonemason does work that way, then it's still confusing how Bailiff would work... because it can't really work the same way, as you have to add up the costs before doing any gaining with Bailiff. With Bailiff, it seems clear that you must first add up the costs (choose 2 visible, legal cards, costing up to a sum of $5), and then do your gaining. Meaning you couldn't gain 2 different $2 treasure/victory Knights.

[scott_pilgrim]

Right, Bailiff can't be choose gain choose gain, because then you could get Province/nothing.  It has to be choose choose gain gain.  But I'm wondering now why you think your explanation was wrong.  As long as you can only choose visible cards, and as long as all same-named cards are identical to each other, you can still put in an order for two Harems, and then gain them both.  The only slight issue is that it allows you to put in an order for two Harems, even if there is only one left, in which case you'd just end up with one Harem.  But this trick doesn't let you gain a Province or anything like that.  It just means you can sometimes gain one fewer card than expected, if you really don't want to use the second gain for some reason and there's only one card left in a pile which costs $2 or less.

[GendoIkari]

Right, Bailiff can't be choose gain choose gain, because then you could get Province/nothing.  It has to be choose choose gain gain.  But I'm wondering now why you think your explanation was wrong.  As long as you can only choose visible cards, and as long as all same-named cards are identical to each other, you can still put in an order for two Harems, and then gain them both.  The only slight issue is that it allows you to put in an order for two Harems, even if there is only one left, in which case you'd just end up with one Harem.  But this trick doesn't let you gain a Province or anything like that.  It just means you can sometimes gain one fewer card than expected, if you really don't want to use the second gain for some reason and there's only one card left in a pile which costs $2 or less.

No, I don't think my explanation was wrong; just that I was wrong in saying that it would be the same as Stonemason (if Stonemason turns out to be choose gain choose gain).

[LastFootnote]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

[GendoIkari]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

@Cookie, I think people mostly understand the intent of the card, no misinterpretation, but we're considering inconsistencies in intended effect vs. wording.  This kind of feedback isn't negative (unless you are totally attached to your original wording and not just its effect); if anything, it shows people are interested in talking about it.  The only negative feedback I recall was my own feeling of disjointedness between the effects.  I don't recall anyone else criticizing that so it may just be me.

You're right, I shouldn't have taken the criticism to heart so much. Bailiff does a new thing that is tricky to spell out correctly with all Dominion mechanics in mind. Balancing-wise we're quite happy with it and we don't think its two effects would be interesting enough as solitary effects on individual cards. We also like that they support very different strategies and make the card more versatile as a whole but also trickier to use. We'd like to read some more criticism on the card's effects.

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

[GendoIkari]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

Sorry to not be clearer; we've been discussing the "gain a treasure card and a victory card costing up to $5" version; where you would pick the order. With the wording you released, I still think that it is impossible to ever gain exactly 1 card with it; you would have to gain 2 cards, except when there's no legal combination, then you gain nothing. The only difference in functionality would be that you can't choose the order.

[GendoIkari]

Sorry to drag this on, but now I'm unclear on what your interpretation/intent is... with the "must gain victory first" wording, did you intend to allow a person to gain a $4 victory card, and then fail to gain a $1 treasure? Because if you were to allow gaining only 1 card in any circumstance, then I'm pretty sure you would have to allow that as well...
 
*Edit
Oops sorry. Forgot it was "up to".

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

Sorry to not be clearer; we've been discussing the "gain a treasure card and a victory card costing up to $5" version; where you would pick the order. With the wording you released, I still think that it is impossible to ever gain exactly 1 card with it; you would have to gain 2 cards, except when there's no legal combination, then you gain nothing. The only difference in functionality would be that you can't choose the order.

Maybe you're right and we would be okay with this being the rule: if there is no legal combination available, you cannot gain any card. But I somehow doubt that everybody will expect it to work that way. To Asper and me it seemed more intuitive to assume you only gain one card then. Intuition seems to play a big role for Bailiff...

Sorry to drag this on, but now I'm unclear on what your interpretation/intent is... with the "must gain victory first" wording, did you intend to allow a person to gain a $4 victory card, and then fail to gain a $1 treasure? Because if you were to allow gaining only 1 card in any circumstance, then I'm pretty sure you would have to allow that as well...

We intended Bailiff to support alt-VP strategies. You can gain e.g. a Gardens with it but then your Treasure would have to be a Copper. You can't gain only one card when there's two available.

[Asper]

On Bailiff: I think i have the problem that i find both our original intent and Gendo's interpretation of the rules plausible. This gives me the impression that a wording removing that uncertainity would be better.

Also, brace yourself, a new card is approaching.......

[singletee]

Maybe you're right and we would be okay with this being the rule: if there is no legal combination available, you cannot gain any card. But I somehow doubt that everybody will expect it to work that way. To Asper and me it seemed more intuitive to assume you only gain one card then. Intuition seems to play a big role for Bailiff...

Dominion's "do as much as you can" principle would seem to say that you would gain at least 1 card, if possible. Victory or Treasure, your choice.

[Asper]

Every self-respecting Dominion expansion needs an Alt-VP card. Here we got two variants of a VP card that is affected by Seasons. I admit that at this point we have entered the realm of "cool ideas that are not quite finished, yet".

The first version is tested quite a bit - it's unimportant how long the game lasts here, which makes it less "luck-based", but on the other hand, the first player to have a turn when the game goes into Spring the second time gets quite a bit of an advantage when these sweeties drop to $4 again.
The second version depends on the Season the game ends in (the marker is NOT moved after the turn the game ends in, btw). This means a bit more strategic depth, but also could be perceived as more of a "luck" thing. I'm saying "may", because it's not tested much. I'm sorry to admit this is mostly because of me, as exams are approaching with dazzling speed. So anybody who wants to test either of these versions, please tell us about it.

Either version has some fun interactions with trash-for-benefit, by the way. Also note that the base costs of both cards differ ever-so-slightly. Let's hear what you think of either

[GeneralRamos]

Merely an aesthetic note as I sit and process the card. Is it just me, or is the saturation of the Green on the banners, etc., too low? And/or too dark? Compared to official Dominion cards.
My gut is also leaning toward the variable-point version. I like the timing calculation required in deciding when and how heavily to invest in it, and how this affects other peoples' plays as well. If an opponent is deep in the timberlands, for instance, and it is late in winter, one might try to stall the game if possible to let spring sap their opponent's VP.

[Asper]

Merely an aesthetic note as I sit and process the card. Is it just me, or is the saturation of the Green on the banners, etc., too low? And/or too dark? Compared to official Dominion cards.

Wow, you are right the color is a bit off. Although, weirdly enough, Nobles and Gardens appear to use entirely different shades of green, too. Fairgrounds also seems much darker than Tunnel, for example... We might have to fix this, thanks for pointing it out. It's weird that it took me until now to realize that the green gets weaker to the center for VP-only cards only, and gets weaker from bottom to top for mixed VP cards.

[Roadrunner7671]

I think I like Variant two more. In any season but Winter, this is a great pickup. I think it's very comparable to Distant Lands as the first version. But the second version doesn't make it 'strictly better' than Duchy. And the second version is more different than something we've seen before. I like both of them though, the first one just seems a little overly good (not overpowered, just overly good).

[singletee]

[Timberland]

I like the TFB synergy. I'm not sure which version I like better. Probably the first one, since I don't like it when points just disappear out from under me.

[GendoIkari]

Neat. I wonder how strong it is with Island?

With the second version, I don't know if it's immediately obvious what season it is when the game is over. Especially if the game ends on a turn that's the last turn of a season. I'm sure the general Seasons rules could spell it out though.

[Asper]

Neat. I wonder how strong it is with Island?

With the second version, I don't know if it's immediately obvious what season it is when the game is over. Especially if the game ends on a turn that's the last turn of a season. I'm sure the general Seasons rules could spell it out though.

The token is moved just before the first player in player order takes his regular turn. If the last player makes an Outpost turn, it still happens in the current Season, and so do other extra turns. This includes Possession turns, which means that the first player in order will play his extra turn in another Season than his regular turn. This ensures every player gets the same effect when playing Outpost or Possession, or buying Mission. If the game ends after the last player's turn, the first player doesn't have a next turn, so the token stays. Again, this is to make sure the last player in order ending the game is consistent with the other players.

[eHalcyon]

On Bailiff: I think i have the problem that i find both our original intent and Gendo's interpretation of the rules plausible. This gives me the impression that a wording removing that uncertainity would be better.

For the record, I think GendoIkari's explanation (gain 2 or none at all) is more plausible for the original wording, though you can still get odd cases like the Feodum-Silver-Watchtower edge case I described before.




New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

[Asper]

New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

Yes, i think for most cases this will be how it works.

Hm, thinking about it, i just noticed the second one always stays withing Knights-range. I like that better.

[Co0kieL0rd]

New card seems cool.  So the TfB synergy only really works if you pick it up early and trash it late, right?

Well, depends on how you see it. Is it really economical to put a dead card into your deck early just to trash-for-benefit it later? Probably not. But I feel like this is one of those cards that could be much better evaluated if playtested by an expert player (which Asper and I aren't). We probably weren't able to max out Timberland's full potential, yet.

[scott_pilgrim]

I really like Timberland.  Maybe it's because I really like alt-VP in general, and this is a clever and simple way to use the Seasons mechanic with it.  Or maybe it's because the color scheme reminds me of watermelon sour patch.  I like the first version a lot better though.  The second version is still a great card too, but the first one seems a lot more elegant and I don't think the extra complexity will make a noticeable enough difference balance-wise to justify doing it the second way.

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

[LastFootnote]

I definitely prefer the first version. It's less complex. I also think singletee has a good point about the feel-bad-ness of VP disappearing out from under you.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Your second suggestion is pretty adequate for what we had in mind and might actually be the most elegant (non-complicated) way of implementing it.

On Timberland: it seems like both versions receive equal appreciation. Asper and I like both of them, too, design-wise but let me emphasise this; we've thoroghly tested and contemplated the first version and came to the conclusion that there's almost never any risk to pick up Timberland, version 1. On most boards you wouldn't want it before fall or winter and even in those seasons Timberland is reasonably priced (for 4VP). If the game happens to last until second spring you can pick it up for $4 which is most certainly too cheap. It makes Duchy very unattractive in any case.

Version 2 supports rush strategies more, due to lower starting cost and makes the decision whether to get Timberland in winter more difficult because you'd have to carefully assess if the game will end in winter or last longer. But that's just my personal taste. I can totally see other people preferring the first version (especially for the sake of lower complexity). I'm just concerned about it being ill-balanced.

Thanks for all the feedback guys

[AdrianHealey]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Your second suggestion is pretty adequate for what we had in mind and might actually be the most elegant (non-complicated) way of implementing it.

On Timberland: it seems like both versions receive equal appreciation. Asper and I like both of them, too, design-wise but let me emphasise this; we've thoroghly tested and contemplated the first version and came to the conclusion that there's almost never any risk to pick up Timberland, version 1. On most boards you wouldn't want it before fall or winter and even in those seasons Timberland is reasonably priced (for 4VP). If the game happens to last until second spring you can pick it up for $4 which is most certainly too cheap. It makes Duchy very unattractive in any case.

Version 2 supports rush strategies more, due to lower starting cost and makes the decision whether to get Timberland in winter more difficult because you'd have to carefully assess if the game will end in winter or last longer. But that's just my personal taste. I can totally see other people preferring the first version (especially for the sake of lower complexity). I'm just concerned about it being ill-balanced.

Thanks for all the feedback guys

Alter the wording of the first that the price never goes down in the second spring? Is that an option?

"This costs $3 less in the first spring. &2 less in the first summer and 1 less in fall and every other summer and spring."

[Accatitippi]

I like timberland, and if I were to vote for the cards as they are I'd vote for version 1 because it's more elegant and simple. (just imagine an average player playing with it the first times: how much did it cost and how much it was worth when?)
But I like the idea of variable vp values more than I like the idea of variable prices, since variable vps can lead to jockeying to end the game when you need it, and to me it sounds more interesting than just having some cards out on sale at some time
My suggestion is to simplify version 2 by having less price and value steps (as is, you have 4 different prices and 3 vp values - a pain to remember!)
To clarify, something like:

Really Big Forest - 4 coins
Worth 2 vp.
------
In winter, this is worth 2 extra points and costs 2 (or 3?) coins more.

Or something completely different of similar complexity. (my example might be problematic because cost increases and cost reductions have an unclear relationship)

[Haddock]

I also just want to say that I think the best conclusion to be drawn from that whole discussion on Bailiff is that you should just go with "a Duchy and a Copper", or if you really want alt-VP to work, "a victory card costing up to $5 and a Copper".  I don't think Estate/Silver or Estate/cheap kingdom treasure will be a very popular choice anyway, and other than that, there's just a few specific combinations that work (Fool's Gold/Tunnel is the only one that comes to mind).

Would the text be too ridiculous to just say "A Duchy and a Copper or an Estate and a Silver."?

Maybe, but that doesn't seem like too too many words.

[chipperMDW]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

[GendoIkari]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

[GendoIkari]

Oh, so Timberland is actually a much improved version of my Swamp idea!

[chipperMDW]

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

[wachsmuth]

We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.

Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

There are also the following cases:

* Trashing a 0-cost card with Stonemason, trying and failing to gain something costing less than 0.

* Play 5 Highways, trash a Catacombs. It tries and fails to gain something costing less than it.

[GendoIkari]

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

Yeah, looking at the official FAQ for Develop, it seems clear. You try and fail to gain a $-1. This is different from "you try and fail to evaluate 1 less than 0".

On the other hand, that FAQ does still say something... it says that a card with cost $-1 can't exist. If it ever did, of if a card were ever reduced to cost $-1, then suddenly the Develop FAQ doesn't make sense anymore. It doesn't say "you try and fail to gain a $-1, assuming there is no $-1 in the supply".

[sudgy]

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

Yeah, looking at the official FAQ for Develop, it seems clear. You try and fail to gain a $-1. This is different from "you try and fail to evaluate 1 less than 0".

On the other hand, that FAQ does still say something... it says that a card with cost $-1 can't exist. If it ever did, of if a card were ever reduced to cost $-1, then suddenly the Develop FAQ doesn't make sense anymore. It doesn't say "you try and fail to gain a $-1, assuming there is no $-1 in the supply".

Donald has said that FAQs aren't the law though, so I don't think that's stopping anything from costing $-1.

[Asper]

This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.

That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

Yeah, looking at the official FAQ for Develop, it seems clear. You try and fail to gain a $-1. This is different from "you try and fail to evaluate 1 less than 0".

On the other hand, that FAQ does still say something... it says that a card with cost $-1 can't exist. If it ever did, of if a card were ever reduced to cost $-1, then suddenly the Develop FAQ doesn't make sense anymore. It doesn't say "you try and fail to gain a $-1, assuming there is no $-1 in the supply".

Donald has said that FAQs aren't the law though, so I don't think that's stopping anything from costing $-1.

The FAQ doesn't. But it's a very bad idea to have such a card.

I mean, i'm not Donald X, i can't just take a look into his mind either, but if i was the creator of Dominion, i'd be damned to make a card costing negative coins. Even as i'm not the creator of Dominion, i'll take the freedom to say i firmly believe such a card will never be a part of official Dominion, and neither will it be a card i do.

If you really want something that gives you back money when you buy it, just have it cost $0 and give +$1 on buy. That works just as well for most cases where negative costs would be interesting, and avoids weirdness with Salvager, Apprentice, Bridge, Bishop, etc... Seriously, how do you draw -1 Card? How do you get -1VP (especially if you have no token yet?). Does Bridge increase the card's cost when played?

[sudgy]

I wasn't saying it was a good idea; it's a horrible idea.  I was just saying Develop's FAQ doesn't say anything against it.

[Asper]

I wasn't saying it was a good idea; it's a horrible idea.  I was just saying Develop's FAQ doesn't say anything against it.

I thought your point was that even though Develop's FAQ does say something against it, such a card could still exist. As such a card existing would lead to rules inconsistencies and it could be implemented differently to avoid those, either way, i felt that that wasn' true.

Either way, when my exams are over, CL and i will certainly talk about alternative wordings.

[chipperMDW]

How do you get -1VP (especially if you have no token yet?).

Gain a Curse. 

Yeah, my view is that Dominion understands what negative coin costs are, and if instructions produce one, it knows how to compare it with other costs (and maybe even do arithmetic with it), but it strives to prevent a negative coin cost from ever appearing on an actual card.

[Asper]

Humble excuses, dear forumites, we are going to take a few days until we reveal the next (possibly final?) Season card we have. A few things we talked about before are changing, so next up won't be a Looter, after all. Either way, here's a little thing:



Co0kieL0rd and i use this reminder to track which of us is the last in play order when we play with Season cards. It's not actually part of the rules, but it helps remembering to move the token. You may say it's too colorful for Dominion, but if it blended in it wouldn't do a good job as a reminder, would it?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Sorry for the longer-than-usual break. This revelation is all the bigger!



Observant followers of this thread might have noticed the lack of big terminal draw in this set. Of course we have such a card! Plantation is at your service, cultivating exotic crops in the sweltering south to feed the wealthy upper class in the north. Due to the warm climate and the lack of annual seasons they can harvest twice a year, resulting in high- and low-profit periods.

Hence in Spring and Fall Plantation is barely even better than a Smithy but in the other Seasons its yield and flexibility are boosted. The best part is you can accelerate your Plantations by gaining more Plantations. Also the presence of this card in a Kingdom throws all regular deliberation and long-term planning regarding other Season cards out of the window. This is the crazy combo card of the set that will warp every game.

[eHalcyon]

Should be forward, not forth?  If that's too long, I think "ahead" would still work better than forth.

I was hoping that there would be a season-manipulation card.  Not sure if it totally works with the theme here (maybe something about weather prediction instead? or how about Groundhog?) but I like it.

[GeneralRamos]

Forth is fine. But more typical to put back first, forth second.

[enfynet]

I like "move the marker back or ahead" if we are openly discussing the written version.

[461.weavile]

I haven't commented here yet, but I've been browsing for a little while and am (and have been) very excited to read these cards, especially with all the comments I received on my own fan cards. I'll go backwards I suppose.

Plantation is certainly a new flavor, even from the other cards in this set. The separation of the effect by a season either way is a nice touch and the instant season-change appears well matched with the card's effect. One thing I think is unclear is where to put the marker; does it go to the beginning of the season? If it's moving exactly 5 spaces, I personally would prefer to say "5 spaces" instead.

My only concern for Timberland (B) is the learning curve. The effect and mechanic are exciting and worthwhile, but would there be much AP before the game trying to estimate which season it will end in, then planning accordingly, then your plan effecting your estimation of which season it will end in? What about some people knowing how many rounds an average game will take and some people not. This could be a non-issue of course. I'm sure there are people which will either buy it or not, independent of how long the game might take, and just one game with a Season card will give players a ballpark of how long a card will make a game. I might change my mind if I would actually play with it, but that was my first impression.

I think the current order for Student is appropriate, especially considering the drawback of not beginning in Spring. Worker's Village is still a fine consolation prize for missing Spring. They say hindsight is 20/20. I think the comedy of trying to put all the counters on one pile is incentive enough to buy the card. It's almost too bad you didn't fit the Trashing and Journey tokens into it somehow. XD

I have to say that I'm surprised that, in all the discussion of Trade Port, and all the comparisons drawn, nobody described an interaction with Throne Room. If you compare anything in the scope of Throne Room, I'd say that Trade Port is clearly worse. You have only 1 chance for Throne Room and Trade Port to collide, and even if they do, you lose the Throne Room. With the non-terminals previously compared to, you're likely to have many [card] to easily collide with Throne Room, and you still have the Throne Room to use in other cases. Especially with the cantrips, you get your 2 played cards replaced in your hand, split actions, and whatever other bonuses, but with a Trade Port, you lose the Throne Room, your current turn is just 3 cards, and you've gotten 1 more coin per turn - unless you were actually going for 3 buys per turn. Either way, it would be way better to actually get a second Trade Port instead of trying to Throne Room it: you still lose 2 cards, but they don't have to collide, and you still get your 2 coins and 2 buys. Am I way off base here?

There isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, and I don't feel like starting a vote.

I'm also curious... at the beginning, 12 or 13 cards was the set size, but if this is the last card, then we only have 10. And what of this mysterious Event we heard of? Perhaps you were just being literal by saying it was the last "card" and the event will still show up, but were the other 2.5 cards so bad as to be cut before there was any feedback? Perhaps it's merely an Alchemy situation and the remaining two aren't Season type, but will still show up.

Are you still looking for TTS players?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Thanks a lot for your elaborate feedback. I'm on a bus trip right now so I'll just give some quick responses. 1 "section" is only one fifth of a season, otherwise plantation would probably be broken. We will replace the word "forth" with ahead or forward.
There's still at least one more card and an event coming up. However we took out one card and are currently llooking for a good replacement. And the second season  attack card has been reworked but needs testing before we release it.
I personally would love to play more dominion games with fan cards of any kind and we would be happy to playtest season cards in more 3+ player games on TTS. You can PM me if you'd like to play some time

[Asper]

I have to say that I'm surprised that, in all the discussion of Trade Port, and all the comparisons drawn, nobody described an interaction with Throne Room. If you compare anything in the scope of Throne Room, I'd say that Trade Port is clearly worse. You have only 1 chance for Throne Room and Trade Port to collide, and even if they do, you lose the Throne Room. With the non-terminals previously compared to, you're likely to have many [card] to easily collide with Throne Room, and you still have the Throne Room to use in other cases. Especially with the cantrips, you get your 2 played cards replaced in your hand, split actions, and whatever other bonuses, but with a Trade Port, you lose the Throne Room, your current turn is just 3 cards, and you've gotten 1 more coin per turn - unless you were actually going for 3 buys per turn. Either way, it would be way better to actually get a second Trade Port instead of trying to Throne Room it: you still lose 2 cards, but they don't have to collide, and you still get your 2 coins and 2 buys. Am I way off base here?

Well, Throne Room doesn't "need" to collide with Trade Port. It can collide with any card it happens to collide with. Unlike when you buy two Trade Ports, having both TR and Trade Port in the same hand is actually an advantage (you might not have the actions to play both). If you draw your Trade Port without Throne Room, its +Buy and coin will help you pick up more action cards to double-play with TR, and of course, TR costs less than Trade Port. TR even stays useful when Trade Port stops being useful. Personally, i think TP interacts better with TR than Treasury does.

[tristan]

Plantation seems a bit weak to me.

You prefer on average "+3 Cards" over "+2 Cards, +1$" so half of the time it is weaker than Smithy. "+3 cards, +1$" (which again is on average preferred over the other option  "+2 Cards, +2$") is only a tiny bit better than Smithy and in my opinion weaker than all the other 5$ terminal drawers (except for perhaps Journeyman).

I think that the card has to be significantly stronger in Summer and Winter to justify a price of 5$.

[drsteelhammer]

I agree with tristan on this one, it is a lot worse in spring and fall, I would even argue that it's worse than Oracle there. In Summer/Winter is not even much better than the 5-card drawers. It really needs something else to justify costing 5. (Giving it +action would make it hilarious by the way). Or it could simply cost 4.

[461.weavile]

[Just to play devil's advocate for a moment:] This probably isn't the best defense for the card, but the on-gain effect is probably what pushes it over to 5. Think of Inn 90% of the time I wouldn't buy the top for (5), but the bottom is what really causes you to pay for it. There are similar situations with Ill-Gotten Gains and Nomad Camp; honestly, how many times would you buy a woodcutter for 4? That extra coin is like a mandatory overpay.

On a slightly smaller relationship, look at Baker; by itself, it's probably not worth 5. I certainly think it's too strong for 4, but I think 5 is too weak sometimes. The little bonus part at the bottom really seals it in at 5 to prevent you from buying 2 at the beginning of the game. DXV said that Throne Room had a similar issue. Throne Room was balanced at 4, but opening 2 Throne Rooms (while seeming silly) can be dangerous on certain boards. Sometimes the mechanic is too powerful to be cheaper, and the only way to do it is to make it expensive.

It's not strictly better than Smithy, but imagine that one of the 3 cards every time you play a Smithy is a Copper. Now you have Plantation in Spring and Fall. Add on the on-gain bonus, it's looking like a really good 4-cost card. Give it a bonus half the time (really, really, super-rough estimate there) and it's probably going to be way too good for just 4, unless you want some drawback on it - but then we ("we" is also a rough estimate) have to add even more words.

It might not make the cut and be a really weak 5-cost. It could potentially have the bottom part activate on both gain AND trash. That might make it more expensive. Just a new idea that I don't know I've seen before. (Feel free to flat-out steal that idea Asper/Cookie, it's not my best, but it's something. XD) It's really a marginal change - look at Squire which would probably still cost 2 without that bottom bonus.

[Asper]

Just for info, at one point i suggested to simply make Plantation +3 cards or +4 cards. It was discarded for being too bland.

[Accatitippi]

I think that in particular as the only Season card in a Kingdom it's worse than most other 5c terminal draw cards, except maybe if you're going for BM-terminal draw.
Would +2/4 cards be too powerful for 4c? A bigger seasonal difference will make the on-buy stronger, and maybe make the card less bland than +3/4?
Anyway, it is looks good (albeit quite weak) as-is, since the on-gain will make it so that you see the strong version more often than the weak one.

[drsteelhammer]

The way I see this card: The on-gain ability makes this card interesting, which is why you want people to get altleast a few of them. In other words, this card should promote engine play because in BM games the season-tweaking doesn't have a great impact.

So how do you get people to play engine with this card? Not with +2cards. So in a mirror, where both people but the marker back and stay in the Summer forever, this probably works. But the non-engine player could just completely mess this up easily, so it's probably not worth the risk to play an engine with this card a lot of the times since the good effect is barely better than a Smithy and costs 5 instead 4.

This is why I suggested to buff the card in its seasonal times. Maybe even give it +action during the harvest, which makes the difference between the seasons the most significant. Which I actually like since you can really mess someone up who relies on them staying non-terminal.

@461.weavile: I agree that you have to consider the on-gain efffect aswell, but Inn doesn't hurt you nearly as much gaining it as this card does (due to being non-terminal)

[eHalcyon]

I think you guys are underestimating the on-play effect in Summer and Winter.  The extra coin over Smithy is useful and the flexibility of choosing coin instead of card has some hidden power there. It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

[tristan]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

[scott_pilgrim]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

Really, you can't fathom a situation?  Torturer: the curses are out.  Margrave: you already have a discard attack and +buy.  Catacombs: you're thin enough you don't need the extra sifting.

I think +3 cards, +$1 would be a reasonably good $5, and I think Plantation is a little worse than that, so it might be on the weak side, but it's not awful compared to other terminal draw $5's.

[tristan]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

Really, you can't fathom a situation?  Torturer: the curses are out.  Margrave: you already have a discard attack and +buy.  Catacombs: you're thin enough you don't need the extra sifting.

I think +3 cards, +$1 would be a reasonably good $5, and I think Plantation is a little worse than that, so it might be on the weak side, but it's not awful compared to other terminal draw $5's.

Little worse than that? For nearly (due to the season control thingy) half of the time it is +2 Cards, 1$. ^^
As drsteelhammer pointed out, this is probably on average worse than Oracle.

About your comparisons with Torturer and Margrave. Torturer is still a Smithy when Curses are out whereas Plantation is nearly half of the time worse than a Smithy. About Margrave, once you have 2 or 3 of them you do indeed rather want another terminal draw lest you help your opponent via playing two of them in one turn.

These are saturation effects though, on average both Torturer and Margrave are still far better than Plantation.

As others have pointed out, the interesting and only strong thing about this card is the season control element. When you play with several Season cards this on gain ability could make purchasing the card worthwhile. Otherwise it is to Smithy like Mining Village (that you never trash) to Village: you pay more than it is worth but you do not mind because you need that terminal draw.

[scott_pilgrim]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

Really, you can't fathom a situation?  Torturer: the curses are out.  Margrave: you already have a discard attack and +buy.  Catacombs: you're thin enough you don't need the extra sifting.

I think +3 cards, +$1 would be a reasonably good $5, and I think Plantation is a little worse than that, so it might be on the weak side, but it's not awful compared to other terminal draw $5's.

About your comparisons with Torturer and Margrave. Torturer is still a Smithy when Curses are out whereas Plantation is nearly half of the time worse than a Smithy. About Margrave, once you have 2 or 3 of them you do indeed rather want another terminal draw lest you help your opponent via playing two of them in one turn.

These are saturation effects though, on average both Torturer and Margrave are still far better than Plantation.

Oops, for some reason I was thinking you always got +3 cards and it was the +$1 that went on and off.  Well, I don't think Plantation is much worse than Smithy in Spring/Fall, so I think you'd still take it over a dead Torturer.

But I was responding specifically to "I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any $5 terminal drawers..." which is just absurd.  The Margrave thing is an obvious example of situation, and it's common enough that it's pretty easy to fathom.  Maybe you're already building an engine with Mercenary and +buy, so the Margrave attack actually helps them and gives you no additional benefit.

[Davio]

The way it's worded, I think I could do:

Draw 2 cards, look at them, then decide whether to draw an extra card or get that +$1.

[tristan]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave adn Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

Really, you can't fathom a situation?  Torturer: the curses are out.  Margrave: you already have a discard attack and +buy.  Catacombs: you're thin enough you don't need the extra sifting.

I think +3 cards, +$1 would be a reasonably good $5, and I think Plantation is a little worse than that, so it might be on the weak side, but it's not awful compared to other terminal draw $5's.

About your comparisons with Torturer and Margrave. Torturer is still a Smithy when Curses are out whereas Plantation is nearly half of the time worse than a Smithy. About Margrave, once you have 2 or 3 of them you do indeed rather want another terminal draw lest you help your opponent via playing two of them in one turn.

These are saturation effects though, on average both Torturer and Margrave are still far better than Plantation.

Oops, for some reason I was thinking you always got +3 cards and it was the +$1 that went on and off.  Well, I don't think Plantation is much worse than Smithy in Spring/Fall, so I think you'd still take it over a dead Torturer.

But I was responding specifically to "I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any $5 terminal drawers..." which is just absurd.  The Margrave thing is an obvious example of situation, and it's common enough that it's pretty easy to fathom.  Maybe you're already building an engine with Mercenary and +buy, so the Margrave attack actually helps them and gives you no additional benefit.

Technically you are right, I made a remark which was too general. But in such a situation even Smithy would be preferrable to Margrave and yet Margrave is on average still better than Smithy.

About your claim that +2 Cards, +1$ is not much worse than +3 Cards, I totally disagree. "+2 Cards, +1$" would be a strong 2$ and a weak 3$. It would do little for an engine and even less for BM. Smithy on the other hand can be a key component for both. Now of course there are situations in which you rather want a coin than a card (and Davio's interpretation of the card would actually make it quite a bit better) but on average you'd rather want a card than an extra coin. The extra coin is more beneficial, relative to the extra card, earlier in the game ... but Planatation is not a card you will buy often when you open with 2/5.

[eHalcyon]

It's not crazy super awesome, but it seems solid enough to me.  They can't all be the best card.

You could argue that Torturer, Margrave and Catacombs are overpowered but I cannot fathom a situation in which I'd pick Plantation over any 5$ terminal drawers except for perhaps Journeyman.

There are many possible reasons and the most trivial one is when the others aren't available.  This card might be a bit on the weaker side for $5 (needs testing) but it has enough going for it overall that $5 works.  Again, they can't all be the best.

You should be able to fathom something.  Torturer and Margrave may be less desirable when there are counters to discard attacks (Menagerie, Tunnel, Watchtower).  You might not want the cycling that comes with Catacombs.  You might prefer the coin on Plantation in a slight deck.

Also note that it will usually be in its stronger version for more than half the game since you won't be playing it much in Spring, if at all, and the on-gain effect will also tilt time in its favour.

And FWIW, i think there was someone (Graystripe77?) who had tested "+2 Cards, +$1" and claimed that it was stronger than Smithy.  I don't buy that, but I don't think it would be a weak $3 either.  (Edit: it was for a similar card, though not quite the same.)

[Asper]

Also note that it will usually be in its stronger version for more than half the game since you won't be playing it much in Spring, if at all, and the on-gain effect will also tilt time in its favour.

This is a very relevant point. From our playtesting experience, Plantation is played as its stronger version about 3/4ths of the time. The first Spring is part of that, but also that being able to skip/replay 1/5th of a Season each time you gain one has a substantial effect.

[Davio]

Moving the season marker mid-turn could be a thing...

[tristan]

And FWIW, i think there was someone (Graystripe77?) who had tested "+2 Cards, +$1" and claimed that it was stronger than Smithy.  I don't buy that, but I don't think it would be a weak $3 either.  (Edit: it was for a similar card, though not quite the same.)

I am with drsteelhammer on this, "+2 Card, +1$" is on average probably weaker than Oracle.  The jump from 2 to 3 and then to 4 cards is quite large and unless you have a lot of villages that combo with "+2 Cards" into a Lab (respectively a Lab and a Peddler in the case of this card) you do not really want such a mediocre card draw as an engine piece, even if it comes with an extra coin.
It is kinda like Squire and Village, more often than not (taking into account that with draw up to X you sometimes want villages with virtual coins which doesn't matter for terminal draws!) you would prefer the extra card of the latter over the extra coin of the latter.

I wonder about Davios' question though as being able to decide between the coin and the card after having drawn two cards would make the card a tiny bit better.

[eHalcyon]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.  I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

[tristan]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

Apples and oranges. A terminal +$2 is worth around 2$ and a terminal +$1, being worse than Copper, worth 0$.
 
Consider that Wharf is usually considered to be stronger than Merchant ship. Independent of whether you play an engine or BM, you want that Wharf. Merchant Ship is only perferable if you need some virtual coins because of Pirate Ship, Grand Market or some other idiosyncracy of the specific Kingdom. In general you want to draw cards and not quasi-draw Coppers.

[eHalcyon]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

Huh?  Drawing additional cards is stronger on a non-terminal than on a terminal.  I don't see how your argument here relates.

I agree that card is better, but the difference is not so big.  Consider that a simple terminal +$3 is usually considered to be decent at $5.

Apples and oranges. A terminal +$2 is worth around 2$ and a terminal +$1, being worse than Copper, worth 0$.
 
Consider that Wharf is usually considered to be stronger than Merchant ship. Independent of whether you play an engine or BM, you want that Wharf. Merchant Ship is only perferable if you need some virtual coins because of Pirate Ship, Grand Market or some other idiosyncracy of the specific Kingdom. In general you want to draw cards and not quasi-draw Coppers.

Again, huh?  This goes back to the first point.  Wharf is so much stronger because the second half of its draw is non-terminal.  Non-terminal draw is way better than terminal draw, whereas the difference with coin is less.  If we're talking apples and oranges, Wharf vs. Merchant Ship isn't even a fruit.  But I don't understand your reason for dismissing the comparison to a terminal +$3.  The point there is that getting coin is not so bad.

[tristan]

Squire/Village isn't a good comparison for this.  +Card is much better on a nonterminal.  This is terminal, so coin and card are closer.

I disagree because of "draw up to X" which combos with degenerate Villages.
With BM that extra coin is worse than the extra card and in an engine the virtual coins only shines if you have decent Village support.
Take the base game and Village plus Moat. They neatly combo into a Lab but it is pretty hard to pull it off to get ample of villages and ample of Moats. You also need a higher village density with Moat than with Smithy.
Now if you can get that village support a terminal draw that provide coins does shine. But if you don't it sucks.

Huh?  Drawing additional cards is stronger on a non-terminal than on a terminal.  I don't see how your argument here relates.

What is not to get? You claimed that extra cards are relatively better on villages than on terminal draws whereas I claimed that extra coins are relatively better on villages than terminal draws due to the existence of "draw up to X cards". As an example, Fishing Village or Festival combos well with Library or Watchtower. They even combo well with ordinary terminal draws.
This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

But I don't understand your reason for dismissing the comparison to a terminal +$3.  The point there is that getting coin is not so bad.

Terminal +$3 would indeed be a strong 5$. But this has nothing to do with what the addition of an extra coin on a terminal draw card would be worth. Hell, the closest comparison would be a terminal virtual coin which would be inferior to Copper so obviously this leads nowhere.
It is a bit more complicated than that. For example we agreed that "+3$" would definitely have to cost more than Smithy yet this doesn't imply that virtuals coins are always inferior extra cards. Usually it is the other way around.

As always the strength of a card is Kingdom-dependent but I think that in general Oracle would be superior to "+2 cards, $1" so the Spring/Autumn part of Plantation would be a weak 3$. The relevant issue seems to be, as always, not these theoretical musings but the empirical facts, i.e. what Asper told about playtesting: that the Winter/Summer part of Plantation is played most often.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Exactly what tristan said in his last sentence, that's the point of Plantation. About 3/4 of the game (I would even say about 90% of the time a Plantation is played) it's in summer unless there's another season card you'd prefer to play in another season so you buy Plantation to get to that season. But if you gain Plantations you play them so that makes you want to move the season marker to summer or winter. As I can tell you based on several test games, Plantation either gets played almost exclusively in the optimal season, or it doesn't get played much at all. The latter is usually the case when there's stronger draw available. But if there is more than one draw card in kingdom, of course you take the strongest one and they can't all be Catacombs.

Also you shouldn't dismiss +$1 instead of +1 card as definitely weaker. Whenever you trashed all your starting cards it happens so easily you overdraw your deck before you start greening. Don't tell me you wouldn't be happy if every single card you overdrew in a turn was an additional $1 instead.

[Davio]

Well, +1 Card is usually better because that card can be a Copper which gives you +$1 anyway.
And if that card is an Estate, well, that's one Estate less in your next hand to worry about.

It's only a problem if the card is a dead action card and if you have dead action cards, well, you don't have enough villages.

I guess the +$1 makes a bigger difference if you need key cards with bad fallback options. Say with $6 you might buy Gold, but with $5 you have to resort to Silver. In that case, the +$1 can be helpful. And of course late game with $7 -> Province.

[eHalcyon]

What is not to get? You claimed that extra cards are relatively better on villages than on terminal draws whereas I claimed that extra coins are relatively better on villages than terminal draws due to the existence of "draw up to X cards". As an example, Fishing Village or Festival combos well with Library or Watchtower. They even combo well with ordinary terminal draws.
This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

That's what I thought you were saying, but I questioned it because it doesn't make sense.  Draw-to-X is not common.  Your argument is like saying that Copper is relatively better than Silver because of Coppersmith.

This isn't just my claim; it's common knowledge.  It isn't just about villages, it's about non-terminals in general.  Simple example:

Say you have a terminal +2 cards and a terminal +2 coins.  As terminals, both are about equal in value -- they are sub $2 cards (reference Moat and Duchess).  Now make them non-terminal.  The +cards are $5 now (Lab), whereas the +coins are $3 (Silver).

Terminal +$3 would indeed be a strong 5$. But this has nothing to do with what the addition of an extra coin on a terminal draw card would be worth. Hell, the closest comparison would be a terminal virtual coin which would be inferior to Copper so obviously this leads nowhere.

I mean, you say that, but you haven't explained why you think an example with terminal coin has nothing to do with discussing this card with terminal coin while your example with Squire somehow does.  Terminal vs. non-terminal is a bigger difference for this comparison.

The theoretical terminal +$3 is relevant because it is another step on subbing vanilla bonus for vanilla bonus.  Here they all are:

A) +3 cards: Smithy, a decent $4 card
B) +2 cards, +$1: the first form of Plantation, under debate
C) +1 card, +$2: something that shouldn't exist
D) +$3: a theoretical decent $5 card

All of one or the other is preferable because you'll buy that card for a specific purpose and being a generalist is generally less useful.  Option C is a special case of unfunness because +1 card isn't enough to be helpful for draw in an engine and can hurt you when you draw something dead.  Option B is still OK though.  I agree that it's weaker than a flat +3 cards, but it's still OK.  +2 cards can suffice for an engine and +$1 is an OK extra bonus.

My overall argument is that +card and +coin are actually pretty close in power on a terminal card.  Card is better overall, but coin is not far behind can become preferable depending on the board.

This is why DXV has done several villages but not even one terminal draw with virtual coins.

Mercenary.

It is a bit more complicated than that. For example we agreed that "+3$" would definitely have to cost more than Smithy yet this doesn't imply that virtuals coins are always inferior extra cards. Usually it is the other way around.

Are you changing your argument, or is this just a typo?  I thought we agreed that +coins are usually inferior to +cards, not "the other way around". 

As always the strength of a card is Kingdom-dependent but I think that in general Oracle would be superior to "+2 cards, $1" so the Spring/Autumn part of Plantation would be a weak 3$. The relevant issue seems to be, as always, not these theoretical musings but the empirical facts, i.e. what Asper told about playtesting: that the Winter/Summer part of Plantation is played most often.

I don't think the comparison to Oracle is clear cut, but even if that's true it doesn't mean that Plantation would be weak at $3.  Oracle is strong.  Even if this isn't as strong, it's still good.

I'm glad that my theoretical musings aligned with the playtesting.

[Gubump]

How many unposted cards are left from this expansion, if any?

[Co0kieL0rd]

There's one event and one card but the card has yet to be tested. We might show it to you early but it might change later.

[faust]

Let me weigh in on the card vs coin issue. I think this is not the problem of Plantation. The problem is that you usually want a card that does one thing well than a card that does two things in a mediocre way. This is why both Smithy and "terminal +3$" are better than Spring-Plantation.

That said, I initially felt that the card was too weak, but Davio's interpretation makes is a lot more interesting and stronger, to the point where it really is decent competition for the other $5 draw cards.

[Davio]

I like my interpretation as well since it gives something unique to the card (other than moving the season marker).

Draw, look, draw or +$1.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like my interpretation as well since it gives something unique to the card (other than moving the season marker).

Draw, look, draw or +$1.

We don't want to make the card more wordy than necessary plus I already gave an explanation why Plantation is good enough as-is. I mean, we could still do your suggestion, it's not a bad idea. I just don't see the necessity since we have sufficiently tested our version and found it to be working out.

[Accatitippi]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

[singletee]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

[tristan]

My overall argument is that +card and +coin are actually pretty close in power on a terminal card.  Card is better overall, but coin is not far behind can become preferable depending on the board.

As I already pointed out, Wharf and Merchant Ship are the clearest illustration of why cards are superior to coins. Of course you can analyze the duration effect of both cards as double Peddler respectively double Lab but this doesn't change the fact that cards are usually better than coins. You wanna get through your deck and usually draw something better than copper midgame.
On a sidenote, I think that it is moderately irrelevant to make this seperation between terminal and non-terminal. Of course you need to stick with this assumption to maintain your argument as everybody knows that Lab is far better than Peddler.

Of course there is nothing wrong with an engine that consists of some villages and some terminal coin cards like Pirate Ship or Harvest or whatever. But usually you want the virtual coins if anywhere on your villages and terminal draws just to terminally draw. As faust has pointed out, the mixture of both seems to be inferior to the pure versions. For example a mixture between Merchant Ship and Wharf sounds pretty weak (it'd probably still be a 5$ but most of the time inferior to either of the individual cards) to me. It neither has enough draw power nor does it provide enough coins to make you able to run a pure engine instead of getting some gold.

About Mercenary, this is obviously a joke. Very often you do not have an extra action when you draw with this card. As it is first and above all a trasher it illustrates that DXV has not done any real mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins except for a trasher which rarely can use its little bonus. Ample of terminal draws, ample of terminal silvers and other terminal virtual coins, only one mixture of both. The reason for this fact is faust's point: the mxiture of both is weak.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Well, I thought that was obvious.

[Davio]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Yes, it follows by this simple logic:

A: When you draw cards, you pull them from the top of your deck and add them to your hand
B: You may look at the cards in your hand at all times
=> You may look at the cards you have drawn

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Yes, it follows by this simple logic:

A: When you draw cards, you pull them from the top of your deck and add them to your hand
B: You may look at the cards in your hand at all times
=> You may look at the cards you have drawn

I mistook your "interpretation" for a "suggestion" but no, of course Plantation works that way. This is why I wrote it gains a lot of flexibility in Summer and Winter. And usually like 70% of Plantation games take place in Summer.

[461.weavile]

This pseudo-complaining about the combination of +Cards and +Coins has gone on long enough. If you don't like it, there are two options here: don't buy it when it's in the Kingdom; or suggest something to Cookie and Asper that will make it better without increasing the word count or changing the flavor - if you do an amazing job, they've been known to thoroughly investigate suggestions. If you can't do better, I suppose you also would never buy Pawn and choose +1 Card and +(1), lest you become a hypocrite; sometimes you just want a card and a coin. (INB4: "Pawn isn't terminal draw.")

The "discussion" has devolved from being constructive criticism and clarifications to arguing over a moot point. If you want to continue debating the relative power of the four possible combinations of +Cards and +Coins totaling 3 bonuses, start a new thread in the appropriate location - I doubt saying "I don't like it" will change the card text.

I apologize for being aggressive, but Weavile have been know to have short tempers, and you guys are diluting my enjoyment.

[Accatitippi]

Yet I dare say Davio's interpretation is the correct one. There's no reason one should resolve the instructions of a card in a different order than they're written in. 

I don't get it. Plantation doesn't instruct you to "look" at any cards.

You look at the cards you've drawn from "+2 Cards" after they're in your hand.

Yes, it follows by this simple logic:

A: When you draw cards, you pull them from the top of your deck and add them to your hand
B: You may look at the cards in your hand at all times
=> You may look at the cards you have drawn

I mistook your "interpretation" for a "suggestion" but no, of course Plantation works that way. This is why I wrote it gains a lot of flexibility in Summer and Winter. And usually like 70% of Plantation games take place in Summer.

Yep, I was confused about what you were meaning but we were on the same page all along.

[eHalcyon]

My overall argument is that +card and +coin are actually pretty close in power on a terminal card.  Card is better overall, but coin is not far behind can become preferable depending on the board.

As I already pointed out, Wharf and Merchant Ship are the clearest illustration of why cards are superior to coins. Of course you can analyze the duration effect of both cards as double Peddler respectively double Lab but this doesn't change the fact that cards are usually better than coins. You wanna get through your deck and usually draw something better than copper midgame.
On a sidenote, I think that it is moderately irrelevant to make this seperation between terminal and non-terminal. Of course you need to stick with this assumption to maintain your argument as everybody knows that Lab is far better than Peddler.

So that was a typo in your previous post then.  Just checking.

Card is better than coin.  I'm not arguing that.  But the gap is smaller and fuzzier when it comes to terminals, as demonstrated by my gradient of vanilla examples above (PPE: and re-quoted below).  Wharf vs. Merchant Ship are not as relevant to the degree of power difference here because they have a non-terminal component.  And in the end, they both cost $5.  The difference between Wharf and Merchant Ship is smaller than the difference between Lab, Peddler and Silver.

If you're going to call the importance of terminality irrelevant, you should provide a counterexample.  I've already provided evidence for this commonly accepted understanding.

Of course there is nothing wrong with an engine that consists of some villages and some terminal coin cards like Pirate Ship or Harvest or whatever. But usually you want the virtual coins if anywhere on your villages and terminal draws just to terminally draw. As faust has pointed out, the mixture of both seems to be inferior to the pure versions. For example a mixture between Merchant Ship and Wharf sounds pretty weak (it'd probably still be a 5$ but most of the time inferior to either of the individual cards) to me. It neither has enough draw power nor does it provide enough coins to make you able to run a pure engine instead of getting some gold.

That is ALSO something that I already pointed out.  You keep arguing against me with stuff I wrote first.  It is a confusing style of rhetoric.

About Mercenary, this is obviously a joke. Very often you do not have an extra action when you draw with this card. As it is first and above all a trasher it illustrates that DXV has not done any real mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins except for a trasher which rarely can use its little bonus. Ample of terminal draws, ample of terminal silvers and other terminal virtual coins, only one mixture of both. The reason for this fact is faust's point: the mxiture of both is weak.

Is it terminal draw?  Does it provide virtual coins?  Then it is a REAL mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins and a counterexample to your earlier claim.  And again, faust's point was my point first.  Man, I'll even quote myself.  It is literally right above the snippet you quoted.

The theoretical terminal +$3 is relevant because it is another step on subbing vanilla bonus for vanilla bonus.  Here they all are:

A) +3 cards: Smithy, a decent $4 card
B) +2 cards, +$1: the first form of Plantation, under debate
C) +1 card, +$2: something that shouldn't exist
D) +$3: a theoretical decent $5 card

All of one or the other is preferable because you'll buy that card for a specific purpose and being a generalist is generally less useful.  Option C is a special case of unfunness because +1 card isn't enough to be helpful for draw in an engine and can hurt you when you draw something dead.  Option B is still OK though.  I agree that it's weaker than a flat +3 cards, but it's still OK.  +2 cards can suffice for an engine and +$1 is an OK extra bonus.

And for fun, I'll also quote this instance of you arguing at me with my own point, in case I was too subtle about it earlier:

The relevant issue seems to be, as always, not these theoretical musings but the empirical facts, i.e. what Asper told about playtesting: that the Winter/Summer part of Plantation is played most often.

Also note that it will usually be in its stronger version for more than half the game since you won't be playing it much in Spring, if at all, and the on-gain effect will also tilt time in its favour.

I guess I should be happy that you agree with my ideas when it's not me posting them?

This pseudo-complaining about the combination of +Cards and +Coins has gone on long enough. If you don't like it, there are two options here: don't buy it when it's in the Kingdom; or suggest something to Cookie and Asper that will make it better without increasing the word count or changing the flavor - if you do an amazing job, they've been known to thoroughly investigate suggestions. If you can't do better, I suppose you also would never buy Pawn and choose +1 Card and +(1), lest you become a hypocrite; sometimes you just want a card and a coin. (INB4: "Pawn isn't terminal draw.")

The "discussion" has devolved from being constructive criticism and clarifications to arguing over a moot point. If you want to continue debating the relative power of the four possible combinations of +Cards and +Coins totaling 3 bonuses, start a new thread in the appropriate location - I doubt saying "I don't like it" will change the card text.

I apologize for being aggressive, but Weavile have been know to have short tempers, and you guys are diluting my enjoyment.

I appreciate the sentiment, but this isn't even close to being a derailment.  Why stop relevant discussion?  I think the card works so I'm going to defend it.

[tristan]

Is it terminal draw?  Does it provide virtual coins?  Then it is a REAL mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins and a counterexample to your earlier claim.

Mercenary is first and above all a trasher and a handsize attack. Pretty hard to use it as a consistent engine piece as you rarely draw a village, Mercenary and two junk cards. ^^

There is a reason no official (except for Mercenary) terminal card that draws and provides coins exists.

Doesn't mean that Plantation is bad. All I argued for is that "+2 Cards, +1$" is a strong 2$ / weak 3$ and thus significantly weaker than Smithy. Empirically speaking Plantation is rarely weak and if you roll with Davio's literal reading of the card the mid-action-choice between card and coin is novel enough to make the card interesting (and decent enough, if not particularly strong, for a 5$).

This pseudo-complaining about the combination of +Cards and +Coins has gone on long enough.

First of all, unless you want a scripted discussion it is fairly natural that a thread gets mildly derailed.
Second, I did not complain about anything but claimed that there is a good reason that only one card exists which combines terminal draw with coins. But even if I would have complained about something, it is not your job to tell somebody to shut up.
Third, this again does not imply that Plantation should not exist as a) you can do all fancy stuff with fan cards and b) Plantation is more complex than a mere combination of card and coins. Being able to choose whether you want another card or a coin after you have already drawn some cards is a significant asset.

[Asper]

Please, guys. I think we can take a little discussion that's only tangantially related to our cards. Better than no discussion, that's for sure. I appreciate you coming to our help, Weavile, but really, we can take it, and you never know wwhat might grow from such a discussion.

[eHalcyon]

Mercenary is first and above all a trasher and a handsize attack. Pretty hard to use it as a consistent engine piece as you rarely draw a village, Mercenary and two junk cards. ^^

There is a reason no official (except for Mercenary) terminal card that draws and provides coins exists.

Yes, but it still suffices as a counterexample to your earlier claim.  So why did you call it "obviously a joke"?  You can add counterexamples to an exception list to make any statement trivially true, but that's not productive.

There may be a reason, but we don't know what it actually is.  My guess is that it's just more fun to have all of one or the other.  Do you have a reference to Secret Histories or something that discusses that?  I'd be interested in reading it.  I think I'll just go ask...

Doesn't mean that Plantation is bad. All I argued for is that "+2 Cards, +1$" is a strong 2$ / weak 3$ and thus significantly weaker than Smithy. Empirically speaking Plantation is rarely weak and if you roll with Davio's literal reading of the card the mid-action-choice between card and coin is novel enough to make the card interesting (and decent enough, if not particularly strong, for a 5$).

It's down 1 card and up $1, which may be weaker but not significantly so.  It would be a strong $3.  You can compare it to Oracle if you want, but it's a pretty even comparison.  Oracle sometimes let's you improve your draw with its sifting, and sometimes it doesn't because your next 2 cards are already good.  Plantation always gives you a bonus +$1.

That's not all you argued.  The importance of terminality was the other thing of note.  But I guess we're mostly in agreement now?  Cool?

@Asper, you can reset the discussion at any point by posting a new card.

[eHalcyon]

Mercenary is the only terminal with both +cards and +coins.  Were other such terminals ever tested?  If so, why were they scrapped?

That's not exactly true. Tribute for example can do that. And uh Storeroom.

The main set at one point had "+2 Cards +$2," for $5. It was dull. It also seemed strong, given my technology at the time.

Smaller amounts, e.g. "+1 Card +$2," always just look wonky to me. Man just go ahead and give +3 of something. Larger amounts have the problem of needing to be really expensive (or saddled with penalties, or expensive in an unusual way like travellers). "+2 Cards +$2" itself isn't impossible; Prosperity could have managed that with a bonus. I had it on a Peasant upgrade when the 5 cards at each level were all unique.

[GendoIkari]

The very fact that there's an on-gain ability pretty much throws comparisons to similar on-play cards out the window. I mean, look at Mandarin vs Count! On-play, Count can be exactly Mandarin, or it can be 8 other options. Way better, for the same cost. But Mandarin has an on-gain.

And Plantation's on-gain is quite relevant. In a game with just Plantation, it gets you to and keeps you in Summer. With other Season cards, it sounds like it could be quite strong.

[wachsmuth]

Is it terminal draw?  Does it provide virtual coins?  Then it is a REAL mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins and a counterexample to your earlier claim.

Mercenary is first and above all a trasher and a handsize attack. Pretty hard to use it as a consistent engine piece as you rarely draw a village, Mercenary and two junk cards. ^^

This is true, but there is an exception in Fortress - with Fortress on the board, Mercenary draw engines are available and actually pretty great. Apparently Beggar-Mercenary is also a thing.

There is a reason no official (except for Mercenary) terminal card that draws and provides coins exists.

This is really edge casey, but Trusty Steed, Tribute and Vault can get terminal draw and coin.

[Davio]

The very fact that there's an on-gain ability pretty much throws comparisons to similar on-play cards out the window. I mean, look at Mandarin vs Count! On-play, Count can be exactly Mandarin, or it can be 8 other options. Way better, for the same cost. But Mandarin has an on-gain.

And Plantation's on-gain is quite relevant. In a game with just Plantation, it gets you to and keeps you in Summer. With other Season cards, it sounds like it could be quite strong.

I feel this isn't emphasized enough.

There are better villages than Inn, but gaining it at with an empty draw deck is amazing.
I feel gaining a Plantation at the right time might also be very nice and gaining it mid-turn could make all the difference.

[tristan]

Is it terminal draw?  Does it provide virtual coins?  Then it is a REAL mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins and a counterexample to your earlier claim.

Mercenary is first and above all a trasher and a handsize attack. Pretty hard to use it as a consistent engine piece as you rarely draw a village, Mercenary and two junk cards. ^^

This is true, but there is an exception in Fortress - with Fortress on the board, Mercenary draw engines are available and actually pretty great.

With Fortress a lot of trashers increases significantly in strength.

[Beyond Awesome]

Is it terminal draw?  Does it provide virtual coins?  Then it is a REAL mixture between terminal draw and virtual coins and a counterexample to your earlier claim.

Mercenary is first and above all a trasher and a handsize attack. Pretty hard to use it as a consistent engine piece as you rarely draw a village, Mercenary and two junk cards. ^^

This is true, but there is an exception in Fortress - with Fortress on the board, Mercenary draw engines are available and actually pretty great.

With Fortress a lot of trashers increases significantly in strength.

There are lots of ways to make Mercenary work in an engine. Fortress helps, but so does having +buys, Beggar helps a lot since the coppers are gained to hand. I once even used Explorer for Merc fuel since those go straight to the hand. But, if you have extra buys or gains, you can pretty much use Mercenary in an engine. I've done it a lot of times.

[tristan]

I once even used Explorer for Merc fuel since those go straight to the hand. But, if you have extra buys or gains, you can pretty much use Mercenary in an engine. I've done it a lot of times.

You need two villages to be able to play Explorer, trash the Silver, play Mercenary and still have an action. Seems highly unlikely.

[Beyond Awesome]

I once even used Explorer for Merc fuel since those go straight to the hand. But, if you have extra buys or gains, you can pretty much use Mercenary in an engine. I've done it a lot of times.

You need two villages to be able to play Explorer, trash the Silver, play Mercenary and still have an action. Seems highly unlikely.

Most engines have villages in them.

[Accatitippi]

Well, even in presence of prosperous gains, I have trouble imagining an engine using Mercenaries as its main draw without Fortress.
In the other cases (except Beggar), Mercenary is at best a sifter that trashes instead of discarding. (it's still worth using, since it attacks and provides money). I of course am not arguing how viable as an engine component it is, it's awesome and ofte playable also in the late game. Only, it's not really terminal draw.

[eHalcyon]

Well, even in presence of prosperous gains, I have trouble imagining an engine using Mercenaries as its main draw without Fortress.
In the other cases (except Beggar), Mercenary is at best a sifter that trashes instead of discarding. (it's still worth using, since it attacks and provides money). I of course am not arguing how viable as an engine component it is, it's awesome and ofte playable also in the late game. Only, it's not really terminal draw.

I'm not arguing viability, but it is literally terminal draw.

[Accatitippi]

Well, even in presence of prosperous gains, I have trouble imagining an engine using Mercenaries as its main draw without Fortress.
In the other cases (except Beggar), Mercenary is at best a sifter that trashes instead of discarding. (it's still worth using, since it attacks and provides money). I of course am not arguing how viable as an engine component it is, it's awesome and ofte playable also in the late game. Only, it's not really terminal draw.

I'm not arguing viability, but it is literally terminal draw.

Just like Warehouse is non-terminal draw.

[Roadrunner7671]

Wait, that can't be it! There are more cards, right?

[eHalcyon]

Well, even in presence of prosperous gains, I have trouble imagining an engine using Mercenaries as its main draw without Fortress.
In the other cases (except Beggar), Mercenary is at best a sifter that trashes instead of discarding. (it's still worth using, since it attacks and provides money). I of course am not arguing how viable as an engine component it is, it's awesome and ofte playable also in the late game. Only, it's not really terminal draw.

I'm not arguing viability, but it is literally terminal draw.

Just like Warehouse is non-terminal draw.

Yes.  That's why I'm not arguing viability.

[tristan]

Only, it's not really terminal draw.

This. Among the 4 things Mercenary does in decreasing order of power comes trashing, handsize attack, virtual coins, card draw. The card draw is least relevant because you often do not have the 4 cards that make it work, i.e. a village, Mercenary itself and two junk cards in your hand when you wanna play Mercenary.

[461.weavile]

Wait, that can't be it! There are more cards, right?

Yeah, there is still another card to be revealed. And if we stay on the Santa's nice list, there's going to be an Event as well.

[Doom_Shark]

Well, I just had a thought. You have all your season cards, but what about a non-season card that does stuff when you have seasons? Like:

Harvest Village-$4
+1 card
+2 actions
You may discard a season card. If you do, +1 card

Or maybe an attack that deals with season cards but is not necessarily a season card itself. like:

Forest Bandits-$3
+$2
Each other player may discard a season card. Each player that does not discards down to three cards in hand

Just some ideas. Granted, Forest bandits is a cheap militia in kingdoms without season cards, but it's just something I came up off the top of my head. Something like that might be interesting to play around with. Also, I would like to add that this could easily be expanded upon and turned into a full 25 card expansion.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Well, I just had a thought. You have all your season cards, but what about a non-season card that does stuff when you have seasons? Like:

Harvest Village-$4
+1 card
+2 actions
You may discard a season card. If you do, +1 card

Or maybe an attack that deals with season cards but is not necessarily a season card itself. like:

Forest Bandits-$3
+$2
Each other player may discard a season card. Each player that does not discards down to three cards in hand

Just some ideas. Granted, Forest bandits is a cheap militia in kingdoms without season cards, but it's just something I came up off the top of my head. Something like that might be interesting to play around with. Also, I would like to add that this could easily be expanded upon and turned into a full 25 card expansion.

This is not a bad idea! We never actually thought about cards that interact with Season cards without being Season cards. However, those two particular card categories are already represented in our set (the last card is going to be, at least partially, a discard attack). Also we're quite happy with Seasons being a small expansion. We still haven't finished testing for each card, yet, and have to decide for some of them which version we want.

Cards that may not be finalized are: Trade Port, Timberland, Restore and the other attack card yet to be revealed.

Sorry for the delayed update schedule in the last two weeks. We're both busy and there has been vivid discussion in this thread so it seemed okay to wait. Anyway, the Season event is coming up this weekend. Hooray!

[Accatitippi]

As a random thought: I think that Restore for 4$ could be a thing, maybe giving it an Autumn nerf. But buffing Summer is probably the way to go.

[Asper]

Please forgive the delayed updates lately. I kind of got sidetracked with tests and stuff...

So, here's the Season-Event: Wayfare. It gives you a pretty awesome boost for one Season, and one Season only. Do you want to use it for Fall, when your deck is exploding either way, and you can use the additional power (possibly)? Or in Spring, where you loose one or two turns because you need to buy it first, but then can skip the "mediocre cards" phase entirely? Or Summer, perhaps, where your engine isn't running that smoothly yet, and you can use those actions? You'll often want to buy Wayfare, but the question is when you do. It's intentional of course it doesn't offer buys - some things people need to care for themselves, life isn't a bowl of cherries.

[Asper]

Oooops, forgot to exchange the $1 in the card template for a ...

[Doom_Shark]

Well, I just had a thought. You have all your season cards, but what about a non-season card that does stuff when you have seasons? Like:

Harvest Village-$4
+1 card
+2 actions
You may discard a season card. If you do, +1 card

Or maybe an attack that deals with season cards but is not necessarily a season card itself. like:

Forest Bandits-$3
+$2
Each other player may discard a season card. Each player that does not discards down to three cards in hand

Just some ideas. Granted, Forest bandits is a cheap militia in kingdoms without season cards, but it's just something I came up off the top of my head. Something like that might be interesting to play around with. Also, I would like to add that this could easily be expanded upon and turned into a full 25 card expansion.

This is not a bad idea! We never actually thought about cards that interact with Season cards without being Season cards. However, those two particular card categories are already represented in our set (the last card is going to be, at least partially, a discard attack).

I wasn't necessarily saying that those cards specifically should be added, I was just coming up with a few quick cards to demonstrate my ideas.

Also we're quite happy with Seasons being a small expansion.

That is perfectly fine, I was just mentioning it as a possibility. And I do realize this post was a bit defensive, and I apologize, I have a tendency to do that when I'm online.

[BlackHole]

Yey guys my fist post in this forum!

Im following this thread since the beginning and was looking forward to every new card is this set
I really like you card compositon so far, the thematical relation is great and I look forward to the card testing - especially the new dimension of strategic depth!
And the pictures are all pretty nice! Good job you two!
Ok now thats enough of praise maybe i have a bit criticism for you

For everyone who doesnt have the time to read over my opinion on the older cards: just go over to the next paragraph
Sojourner: actually a nice idea, though im not sure at the pricepoint it seems pretty strong in fall, but at least the order of the bonuses fits good!
Bailiff: nice idea, but especially the second part is, as never known before, really hard to compare to other cards, further complicated through the season changing thing
Snow Witch: the thematical relation ist soooo nice, and in my view its good balanced too. Of couse you never have to underestimate the first player advantege at this point, I thougt quite a while about it but found no good solution and would play with the card anyway all the time
Student: one of my favourites, though i think i´d let you put the card token erlier on the card, because otherwise it takes such a long time to reach a card thats actually better than a village, espeially if you miss the spring bonus, which is likeley if you dont open with it. As a bad opener and the long long term bulid time to get it running, I think I would prefer the version with this order: Buy, $, Action, Card. I also like the synergie with Plantation but well that card doubles the fun of the whole set doesnt it?
Sanitarium: another top idea which isnt realised in the offical sets, i especially like the mechanic and strategie of the gain part.
Ballroom: also one of my favourites, it was really fun to follow the discussion about that one, and I was thinking about the comparion with a board of throne room and BoM all the time and came out with the thought that ballroom is stronger, at least in average.
Plantation: the mechanical star so far for me, it synergises well with itsself, but with any other seasons card its just amazing! All the cool synergies whith every single other card in this set... But actually i think you could buff it a bit, because the on-buy-effect, though it could be pretty strong could be pretty annoying too, actually it could be used as an attack too! Look at the combination with a card like restore and you just buy a plantation so your opponent couldnt trash his gold into a province any more! At least I can imagine wars between a player going for plantation and one initially not going for it, leading to a massive plantation pile drain and season confusing, which, though it seems funny not necessarily counts towards the 5$ price point. What about substituting the +1$ in Summer and Winter whith +2$ or at most +1$, +1Buy? That should really make the difference between a decent and a great 5$ card!
Restore: on point I dont like with that one is the one that it makes a 5/2 split so much stronger. Apart from that I would still consider it a strong 5$ but with the season-depending nerf it seems still not op. Watch out for the time when the leaf is getting green again! 
Trade Port: this one is pretty good two, for me this ones balace is ok.
Timberland: Of cause any set needs a Alt-VP card! I prefer the one for 7 because its much simpler and accelerates the game in contrdiction to the cheaper one, and I could imagine some situations in which I would just buy a duchy because of reliability. This cheaper one also has a devastating synergy with plantation.
Wayfare: I have to think about that one again , but a first sight i would consider I really strong for 4$, of course the timing is really important. But think about a 4/3 split with a Wayfare in turn one!! Wouldnt your deck get a really huge boost with that?! Maybe that is a bit to strong...

So here my second issue:

from Doom_Shark
on: February 20, 2016, 12:26:06 am

Well, I just had a thought. You have all your season cards, but what about a non-season card that does stuff when you have seasons? Like:
Quote

    Harvest Village-$4
    +1 card
    +2 actions
    You may discard a season card. If you do, +1 card

Or maybe an attack that deals with season cards but is not necessarily a season card itself. like:
Quote

    Forest Bandits-$3
    +$2
    Each other player may discard a season card. Each player that does not discards down to three cards in hand

At first: nice ideas of cause, I always like new mechanics!
But I have one big issue, which often leads to conflics within my own ideas and is actually one of the core rules for me when creating my own cards, or just some overall new mechanics with a rough set of possible cards. In my opinion all cards that you dont use just in case of using it with another 'trigger'-card (like urchin-mercenery) or come in play through such things, should reach a recent power level on their own and without much variation, and a card like your harvest village is just an overpriced village in like 80% of the games, at least if you play a random game with all offical cards. But I think the ideas came just to your head didnt they? So dont take this so seriosly, it was just a good opportunity to say that about creating cards of your own! 

PS: Sry for the typos and the lengthy sentences Im producing all the time not such a good trait of mine

EDIT: sry for messing up the quote I didnt find the right way

[Co0kieL0rd]

Yey guys my fist post in this forum!

Im following this thread since the beginning and was looking forward to every new card is this set
I really like you card compositon so far, the thematical relation is great and I look forward to the card testing - especially the new dimension of strategic depth!
And the pictures are all pretty nice! Good job you two!
Ok now thats enough of praise maybe i have a bit criticism for you

Thank you very much! I'm glad we could allure you to make your first post in our thread

Sojourner: actually a nice idea, though im not sure at the pricepoint it seems pretty strong in fall, but at least the order of the bonuses fits good!

In general it should be noted that all of the presented cards (except for Timberland with varying VP values) have been tested and found functional. Yes, Sojourner's strong for $2 but it's still a one-shot and it's hard to find comparable original cards so it kind of plays in its own league.

Snow Witch: the thematical relation ist soooo nice, and in my view its good balanced too. Of couse you never have to underestimate the first player advantege at this point, I thougt quite a while about it but found no good solution and would play with the card anyway all the time

This has been criticized before but I don’t quite see how the first player advantage is any higher with Snow Witch than with other cursers. First player enters Fall and puts 3 curses into his opponent’s deck. Then the other player puts 3 curses into first player’s deck immediately after. Why is this problematic?

Student: one of my favourites, though i think i´d let you put the card token erlier on the card, because otherwise it takes such a long time to reach a card thats actually better than a village, espeially if you miss the spring bonus, which is likeley if you dont open with it. As a bad opener and the long long term bulid time to get it running, I think I would prefer the version with this order: Buy, $, Action, Card.

Although the current version of Student works fine, I have to say it doesn’t get bought in about half of the games. When you buy, you usually want it for the +buy, so maybe that bonus should not come in Spring. Or maybe it should. Anyway, we might consider moving the +card to an earlier season. Swapping it with the +$1 is an option.

Plantation: the mechanical star so far for me, it synergises well with itsself, but with any other seasons card its just amazing! All the cool synergies whith every single other card in this set... But actually i think you could buff it a bit, because the on-buy-effect, though it could be pretty strong could be pretty annoying too, actually it could be used as an attack too! Look at the combination with a card like restore and you just buy a plantation so your opponent couldnt trash his gold into a province any more! At least I can imagine wars between a player going for plantation and one initially not going for it, leading to a massive plantation pile drain and season confusing, which, though it seems funny not necessarily counts towards the 5$ price point. What about substituting the +1$ in Summer and Winter whith +2$ or at most +1$, +1Buy? That should really make the difference between a decent and a great 5$ card!

Do you own the Hinterlands expansion? Several cards of that set have costs that don’t seem to fit their respective power when played. That is because you pay, at least partially, for the immediate effect when you gain such a card. Plantation is no different. It comes off a little weak on-play sometimes (although the self-synergy ought not to be ignored) but its on-gain impact is significant and even allows you to assert control over your opponents’ plays. You pay for a bug effect and get a slightly weaker than average card with it. And Plantation is still decent.

Restore: on point I dont like with that one is the one that it makes a 5/2 split so much stronger. Apart from that I would still consider it a strong 5$ but with the season-depending nerf it seems still not op. Watch out for the time when the leaf is getting green again! 

We are currently testing a version that is a Remodel in Spring and Fall, and an Expand in Summer, to avoid the arguably huge difference between a 5/2 and a 4/3 opening. That version seems pretty good and also more adequate in power for $5 so we might soon change Restore officially.

Trade Port: this one is pretty good two, for me this ones balace is ok.
Trade Port may be a touch too strong. We would also like it to be more different from Treasury and are testing mechanics that seem novel and interesting. Expect an update to Trade Port eventually.

Timberland: Of cause any set needs a Alt-VP card! I prefer the one for 7 because its much simpler and accelerates the game in contrdiction to the cheaper one, and I could imagine some situations in which I would just buy a duchy because of reliability. This cheaper one also has a devastating synergy with plantation.

Last time Asper and I talked about it we couldn’t decide which version of Timberland we like better. Both have balancing issues and we found that making a good alt-VP cards is actually really hard! It might take a while before we can say that Timberland is definitely finished.

Wayfare: I have to think about that one again , but a first sight i would consider I really strong for 4$, of course the timing is really important. But think about a 4/3 split with a Wayfare in turn!! Wouldnt your deck get a really huge boost with that?! Maybe that is a bit to strong...

Not sure what you mean by “a 4/3 split with a Wayfare in turn”. If you open Wayfare (Spring)/$4-cost card on 4/3, you have the Wayfare bonus for 3 more turns – granted, a significant boost in Spring. However, if you open $4-cost/$3-cost card and buy Wayfare sometime later, you get one more (potentially) good card into your deck early and have the Wayfare bonus for 5 full turns in another Season. Both options can be very good. It depends largely on the board if and when you want to buy Wayfare to boost which Season.

[BlackHole]

Snow Witch: the thematical relation ist soooo nice, and in my view its good balanced too. Of couse you never have to underestimate the first player advantege at this point, I thougt quite a while about it but found no good solution and would play with the card anyway all the time

This has been criticized before but I don’t quite see how the first player advantage is any higher with Snow Witch than with other cursers. First player enters Fall and puts 3 curses into his opponent’s deck. Then the other player puts 3 curses into first player’s deck immediately after. Why is this problematic?

You're right its only a problem when player one manages to play like 7 or more Snow Witches when Fall begings, because a 7/3 curse split isnt that cool (at least for one player) and doesnt occur often when both players are going for Witch or something. Thats why I said I would play with it all the time anyway.

Plantation: the mechanical star so far for me, it synergises well with itsself, but with any other seasons card its just amazing! All the cool synergies whith every single other card in this set... But actually i think you could buff it a bit, because the on-buy-effect, though it could be pretty strong could be pretty annoying too, actually it could be used as an attack too! Look at the combination with a card like restore and you just buy a plantation so your opponent couldnt trash his gold into a province any more! At least I can imagine wars between a player going for plantation and one initially not going for it, leading to a massive plantation pile drain and season confusing, which, though it seems funny not necessarily counts towards the 5$ price point. What about substituting the +1$ in Summer and Winter whith +2$ or at most +1$, +1Buy? That should really make the difference between a decent and a great 5$ card!

Do you own the Hinterlands expansion? Several cards of that set have costs that don’t seem to fit their respective power when played. That is because you pay, at least partially, for the immediate effect when you gain such a card. Plantation is no different. It comes off a little weak on-play sometimes (although the self-synergy ought not to be ignored) but its on-gain impact is significant and even allows you to assert control over your opponents’ plays. You pay for a bug effect and get a slightly weaker than average card with it. And Plantation is still decent.

Of cause I do.
And of cause the comparison with Inn or other cards is, as said in this thread before, obvious. Thats why I pointed out that this effect could be both positiv and negativ, which I think should be seen and maybe also rated differently than on-gain or on-buy effecs that are only 'positiv' (like BV, Inn, Nomad Camp) or 'negativ' (IGG, Noble Brigand). But that doesnt mean the card is bad right now! Is was just an interesting part of the card that should be considered in the discussion.

Wayfare: I have to think about that one again , but a first sight i would consider I really strong for 4$, of course the timing is really important. But think about a 4/3 split with a Wayfare in turn!! Wouldnt your deck get a really huge boost with that?! Maybe that is a bit to strong...

Not sure what you mean by “a 4/3 split with a Wayfare in turn”. If you open Wayfare (Spring)/$4-cost card on 4/3, you have the Wayfare bonus for 3 more turns – granted, a significant boost in Spring. However, if you open $4-cost/$3-cost card and buy Wayfare sometime later, you get one more (potentially) good card into your deck early and have the Wayfare bonus for 5 full turns in another Season. Both options can be very good. It depends largely on the board if and when you want to buy Wayfare to boost which Season.

I forgot the 'one' at that point, corrected it!
I was especially referring to:
Turn 1: 4 Coppers, 1 Estate
4$, buy a Wayfare
Turn 2: 3 Coppers, 2 Estates
4$ (+1$ additionally by drawing another copper, which would be really nice and is for 80% true), buy something else good

The other opening possibilities are ok but not so good.

But that of cause depends on the board (ok but well which opening doesnt depend on the board?)

[GendoIkari]

While there's some very interesting decisions about where to put your Wayfare token (as well as when to purchase Wayfare), I'm not so sure there's an interesting decision about IF to purchase Wayfare. It sounds like it would be suicide to skip it completely.

[Asper]

While there's some very interesting decisions about where to put your Wayfare token (as well as when to purchase Wayfare), I'm not so sure there's an interesting decision about IF to purchase Wayfare. It sounds like it would be suicide to skip it completely.

I think it would only be a reasonable decision in some games where every gain matters, for example if you have no +Buy. Or with powerful gaining instead of buying power. But it's true, usually you will want to get Wayfare somewhere. Which i think isn't a problem, because it isn't a strategy on its own and there's still a lot of room for decision and doing things wrong. Many cursers are very rarely skippable, and they don't break the game.

[461.weavile]

While I do see the need to give Events an opportunity cost of buying them (and choosing to not buy them,) I think the whole Seasons mechanic takes it in a different direction with combining Events and Seasons. I could potentially see Wayfare being bought every time, but there is more strategy to this Event in particular (see Raid) than just whether to buy it or not. I think it's a good point, GI, and I agree that it should be considered, but I think there are some other aspects that might see it through having this downside if push comes to shove.

[Davio]

This is a great event, very well designed, huzzah!

[Accatitippi]

Re: Asper Co0kieL0rd: Snow witch:
I do think Snow witch has a more significant first-player advantage than, say, Witch. Let's consider a case where we both want to junk each other. We'll both have an opportunity to buy witch early, and while you (Player1) will have a chance of playing it earlier than me, it won't affect me as much, since in that window you'll only be able to play one witch, and a single Curse to the discard hurts way less in the short run than a Militia, for example.
So, since it's the early game and everything, your window of advantage (the time where you get to curse me while I can't) gives you the possibility of cursing me once or twice before I can fight back. Sometimes luck of the draw or a better opening may make me hit 5 before you, and then the roles are swapped, ahah.
Now with snow witch, if we've both built an engine, and if we've both chosen that heavy junking is the way to go, by turn 10 we'll probably have built a clunky engine with 3ish SWs. Now, T21, P1 plays his 3-4 snow witches. The window is narrower here, since it most probably only lasts 1 half turn (we both have SW in our deck, so we don't need to hit 5 to start punching). Only, in that window, (which is almost guaranteed to favour P1, unlike Witch's window), P1 gets to curse P2 3-4 times, rather than once or twice. This is bad for the split, but it also means that P2 is most likely to lose pace in the cursing war, since this war is much faster than a Witch war. His engine will suffer, and if on T21 he doesn't manage to play all his SWs (with 3 curses in his deck), then he loses the junk war badly.
So, to summarize:
Witch: the junk war starts when a player hits 5, this slightly favours P1, but since curses are a slow attack, and you can play only one witch/turn at the start of the war, this doesn't set P2 back that much.
Snow Witch: the junk war always starts on P1 turn. Both players start the war with multi-junking power, so the payload/turn is higher, and P1's advantage is most likely to translate in a head start of 3-4 curses, which can significantly slow down P2's cursing.
And, as bonus content: Familiar: the junk war starts when a player is lucky enough to hit a whacky cost, this slightly favours P1, anyway, the window can sometimes be larger than with Witch due to whacky-cost factor. What I want to stress is, this time you can ramp up the curse war much faster (Familiar is a cantrip), so you can easily pack more punch in the window of advantage. Familiar doesn't favour P1 that much, but it is considered a very swingy card.
Even more than Familiar, Snow witch gives a big punch very fast, but this opportunity is reserved to P1.

This is it, sorry for the wall of text, there was probably an easier way to express this but I didn't find it in time.

Edit: so, I think SW can give a significant advantage to P1, should this turn out to be as significant as I suspect it will be, I think the "gain to hand" clause would go a long way to ensure a curse-free engine run to both players (it still guarantees two runs to P1, so I'm not sure it's enough)

[tristan]

A timeable Permaduration Village-Lab-Peddler that dies after 5 turns? Seems like it would be a very good 5$ Event.

[Haddock]

A timeable Permaduration Village-Lab-Peddler that dies after 5 turns? Seems like it would be a very good 5$ Event.

Better, do it with one card!  It's a Permaduration-Pathfound-Bazaar!

[Asper]

Re: Asper Co0kieL0rd: Snow witch:

I think i already expressed that i see putting the Curses in hand a reasonable change. Of course P1 still has an advantage there, but man, when doesn't P1 have an advantage? Also, you got a lot of time to prepare for that one turn. Maybe P2 needs to get more SWs, or make sure his discard is near empty, and of course that's not entirely fair, but again, when is Dominion entirely fair?

[Accatitippi]

Re: Asper Co0kieL0rd: Snow witch:

I think i already expressed that i see putting the Curses in hand a reasonable change. Of course P1 still has an advantage there, but man, when doesn't P1 have an advantage? Also, you got a lot of time to prepare for that one turn. Maybe P2 needs to get more SWs, or make sure his discard is near empty, and of course that's not entirely fair, but again, when is Dominion entirely fair?

Sorry, I should have quoted what I was directly replying to:

This has been criticized before but I don’t quite see how the first player advantage is any higher with Snow Witch than with other cursers. First player enters Fall and puts 3 curses into his opponent’s deck. Then the other player puts 3 curses into first player’s deck immediately after. Why is this problematic?

I think it's problematic because chanses are, the other player is not going to put 3 curses into first player's deck.
 

[Co0kieL0rd]

I don't remember our games with Snow Witch being so strongly biased towards first player but I can see that in theory and on average this must be true. Maybe it's a bigger deal than I think. So, putting the Curses in hand seems like a pretty good way to mitigate that, at least a little bit. It's only a few more words and not any more complex. It would give players a wider window of opportunity to deal with the incoming Curses. I think we can change Snow Witch that way.

[J Reggie]

Do keep in mind, though, that putting the Curses in your opponent's hand can be brutal with Ghost Ship, kind of like Torturer.  This could end up giving the first player an even bigger advantage.  Not sure how much that will come up, but it is a consideration. 

[Asper]

Do keep in mind, though, that putting the Curses in your opponent's hand can be brutal with Ghost Ship, kind of like Torturer.  This could end up giving the first player an even bigger advantage.  Not sure how much that will come up, but it is a consideration.

Truth be told, this interaction is ugly and mean, but it reminds me of older things like Militia/Masquerade. Sure, i can decide to discard good stuff in response to such a Militia, but my turn is screwed either way. Here it's a bit worse, admitted, but you still have 10 turns to do your best and keep it from happening. 10 turns, how many Villages and Snow Witches can a fellow get in that time, considering you also have to get that Ghost Ship? 4 Witches, 4 Villages, one Ghost Ship? If everything runs perfect, you can play them all at Fall turn 1, and play the Ghost Ship last, sure. But consider your opponent can also play Ghost Ship to keep you from reaching a state where you can draw your deck, and that you probably shouldn't play Ghost Ship the last turn before Fall (because your opponent will use it to place his SWs ready).

I'm not sure, but i don't think Ghost Ship on its own is worth making it optional to put the card in hand. And that's the most reasonable solution i can think of. After all, it's just one card, and it only increases the P1 advantage if that player acutally manages to pull it off in one specific turn. Of course, i'll agree it might cost you the game. Then again, you could just buy the majority of Snow Witches/Villages to foil this plan, or do whatever other defense the game throws at you.

[tristan]

Do keep in mind, though, that putting the Curses in your opponent's hand can be brutal with Ghost Ship, kind of like Torturer.  This could end up giving the first player an even bigger advantage.  Not sure how much that will come up, but it is a consideration.

There is one Ghost Ship and a dozen of cards that trash from hand.

[Asper]

Well, I just had a thought. You have all your season cards, but what about a non-season card that does stuff when you have seasons? Like:

Harvest Village-$4
+1 card
+2 actions
You may discard a season card. If you do, +1 card

Or maybe an attack that deals with season cards but is not necessarily a season card itself. like:

Forest Bandits-$3
+$2
Each other player may discard a season card. Each player that does not discards down to three cards in hand

Just some ideas. Granted, Forest bandits is a cheap militia in kingdoms without season cards, but it's just something I came up off the top of my head. Something like that might be interesting to play around with. Also, I would like to add that this could easily be expanded upon and turned into a full 25 card expansion.

This is not a bad idea! We never actually thought about cards that interact with Season cards without being Season cards. However, those two particular card categories are already represented in our set (the last card is going to be, at least partially, a discard attack).

I wasn't necessarily saying that those cards specifically should be added, I was just coming up with a few quick cards to demonstrate my ideas.

Also we're quite happy with Seasons being a small expansion.

That is perfectly fine, I was just mentioning it as a possibility. And I do realize this post was a bit defensive, and I apologize, I have a tendency to do that when I'm online.

Well, the obvious problem with a non-Season card that interacts with Season cards is that it has to make sure there is a Season card in the kingdom. So, the only way would be a setup clause or a non-supply Season card. But then, the Season Type is mostly a reminder to put the Season Mat out and move its token, and so i think it should be on the supply card. So, a Season supply card with a non-Season non-supply card. Something like a Traveller that changes into one of two cards depending on Season, maybe? Just, i'm not sure the Traveller Mechanic isn't a bit too complicated to combine with Seasons, and well, Student is kind of an "evolving" card already. And for another Season card with some non-supply extra, well, we simply never thought about it and didn't have a compelling idea that made it seem worth. I think a card should be a cool idea that happens to nee an extra pile, not the wish to have extra piles and looking for a way to get there.

Last option, a setup clause, but man, that would mean having one of those few cards always in the same game with this one, i'm not sure how i feel about that. Or maybe give another card the Season type? But all of this sounds like it isn't worth the effort. Lastly, the option to make a card that can care for Seasons, but doesn't mind if there are no cards like that, similar to Apprentice. There might be something here, but i think if a card would be fine without naming Seasons, it should not name Seasons. And a card that requires a Season card but does nothing to ensure it's there, well, i think i can be so honest to say i wouldn't want that.

[Doom_Shark]

Well, the obvious problem with a non-Season card that interacts with Season cards is that it has to make sure there is a Season card in the kingdom. So, the only way would be a setup clause or a non-supply Season card. But then, the Season Type is mostly a reminder to put the Season Mat out and move its token, and so i think it should be on the supply card. So, a Season supply card with a non-Season non-supply card. Something like a Traveller that changes into one of two cards depending on Season, maybe? Just, i'm not sure the Traveller Mechanic isn't a bit too complicated to combine with Seasons, and well, Student is kind of an "evolving" card already. And for another Season card with some non-supply extra, well, we simply never thought about it and didn't have a compelling idea that made it seem worth. I think a card should be a cool idea that happens to nee an extra pile, not the wish to have extra piles and looking for a way to get there.

Last option, a setup clause, but man, that would mean having one of those few cards always in the same game with this one, i'm not sure how i feel about that. Or maybe give another card the Season type? But all of this sounds like it isn't worth the effort. Lastly, the option to make a card that can care for Seasons, but doesn't mind if there are no cards like that, similar to Apprentice. There might be something here, but i think if a card would be fine without naming Seasons, it should not name Seasons. And a card that requires a Season card but does nothing to ensure it's there, well, i think i can be so honest to say i wouldn't want that.

Never really thought about the need to ensure the existence of a season card when I thought of this. If you do end up expanding this into a full set anyway, even though that was not your original intention, I think the idea is still worth consideration, but the set looks pretty much good as is for being a half-set. So if you don't feel the need for this type of mechanic, that is perfectly fine. I personally would still like to see this expand into a full set (maybe with a season-treasure or something?) but it definitely isn't necessary. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. This will definitely be something to try playing with either way. Thank you for your amazing job on this.

[Asper]

I think we already did most basic things you can do with Seasons, as Seasons are unique mostly in how they time effects, and there are only so many ways to make use of that. Mostly, it's about wanting different things at certain phases of the game. Maybe the set could use a second attack, and, well, we're at it, or another card where effect timing is to your advantage (as on Ballroom, opposed to e.g. Snow Witch or Sanitarium), which we are also working on. It's of course incredibly tempting to just make a card that is four cards, but Sojourner comes close enough to check that from our list, and you really don't want that many of those. The different effects can't be too complex, either, so the number of different cards you can make this way is limited.

Edit: A Season-Reaction might be a thing, but i'm not sure whether that's too complicated...

[Doom_Shark]

It's of course incredibly tempting to just make a card that is four cards, but Sojourner comes close enough to check that from our list, and you really don't want that many of those. The different effects can't be too complex, either, so the number of different cards you can make this way is limited.

Once again, something I never really thought of. The added complexity of the different seasons is not something I really thought about when saying that this would work as a full set (Although I'm sure it is definitely do-able)

A Season-Reaction might be a thing, but i'm not sure whether that's too complicated...

I'm sure you already know this, but the best way to find that out is to build it, then playtest it. Personally, I think that would be really interesting. Maybe something watchtower or trading post-ish, with the same base effect of blocking in each season, but with added bonuses that vary with the seasons.

Edit: As for the season-treasure I mentioned earlier, a simple way to do that is to make it a cheap gold in some seasons, and an expensive silver in others. Not sure if that's to OP with Plantation though.

[Doom_Shark]

Another thing I just thought of: a season-duration with an extra effect if the season changes while it's in play. And another thing you could do with a season-reaction is to make it react to the change in seasons.

[eHalcyon]

Another thing I just thought of: a season-duration with an extra effect if the season changes while it's in play. And another thing you could do with a season-reaction is to make it react to the change in seasons.

It's a cool idea, but the problem is that seasons usually don't change more than 3 times in a game.  If the effect is weak-to-mediocre, then the unreliability is enough that the reaction simply wouldn't matter; from a design perspective, you might as well not include it at all.  But if the effect is strong enough to make the reaction worthwhile, then it becomes swingy.  The difference between a win and a loss may come down to whether you are lucky enough to have the reaction in your hand when the season changes, and there's not a lot you can do to influence that.  Duration works a little better, but not much.  For this concept, a Reserve would probably be the best way to go.

Edit: grammars

[Doom_Shark]

Another thing I just thought of: a season-duration with an extra effect if the season changes while it's in play. And another thing you could do with a season-reaction is to make it react to the change in seasons.

It's a cool idea, but the problem is that seasons usually don't change more than 3 times in a game.  If the effect is weak-to-mediocre, then the unreliability is enough that the reaction simply wouldn't matter; from a design perspective, you might as well not include it at all.  But if the effect strong enough to make the reaction worthwhile, then it becomes swingy.  The difference between a win and a loss may come down to whether you are lucky enough to have the reaction in my hand when the season changes, and there's not a lot you can do to influence that.  Duration works a little better, but not much.  For this concept, a Reserve would probably be the best way to go.

Yeah, I guess reserve makes the most sense. Didn't think about the option of reserve cards, since they didn't do that in the set already and I haven't had adventures for very long.

On a different topic, another interesting thing that could be done is a season with a dividing line that changes which season the game starts in. Granted, it doesn't affect much if that were the only season card in a game, but that could get really interesting when other seasons are in the game with it. But it's also something that could make things more/less powerful, like making snow witch take shorter/longer to start cursing.

[Asper]

We pondered a Season-Reserve. It was fine, but didn't seem original enough.

[spiralstaircase]

We pondered a Season-Reserve. It was fine, but didn't seem original enough.

Are you taking suggestions?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Are you taking suggestions?

And another thing you could do...

Hey, everyone's free to make their own season cards if they like.  I'm sure Asper and Cookielord wouldn't mind, but OTOH, you don't need their permission anyway.

[Asper]

Are you taking suggestions?

And another thing you could do...

Hey, everyone's free to make their own season cards if they like.  I'm sure Asper and Cookielord wouldn't mind, but OTOH, you don't need their permission anyway.

Careful there. We know where you live.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Hey, everyone's free to make their own season cards if they like.  I'm sure Asper and Cookielord wouldn't mind, but OTOH, you don't need their permission anyway.

Careful there. We know where you live.

yeah, come look for me. I live in the stories I read and write.

[Davio]

We pondered a Season-Reserve. It was fine, but didn't seem original enough.

Hmm, seems like you could lots of fun and original stuff.

Something powerful that you can only call in fall or winter.
So basically you buy and play it in spring or summer and it just slumbers until it's cold enough to come out.

For instance:
Æstivation - $3
Action - Reserve

Put this on your tavern mat.
--------------------------
Once per turn during Fall or Winter: If the previous turn wasn't yours, you may call this to take another turn after this one.
This card may only be gained or played during Spring and Summer

[Accatitippi]

We pondered a Season-Reserve. It was fine, but didn't seem original enough.

Hmm, seems like you could lots of fun and original stuff.

Something powerful that you can only call in fall or winter.
So basically you buy and play it in spring or summer and it just slumbers until it's cold enough to come out.

For instance:
Æstivation - $3
Action - Reserve

Put this on your tavern mat.
--------------------------
Once per turn during Fall or Winter: If the previous turn wasn't yours, you may call this to take another turn after this one.
This card may only be gained or played during Spring and Summer

If I may suggest a tweak (you don't know where I live, do you?):

Pickles -3c
Action Season Reserve
+1coin
If it is Spring or Summer, put this on your Tavern mat.
------
Once per turn during Fall and Winter: If the previous turn wasn't yours, you may call this to take another turn after this one.

[spiralstaircase]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Golden apple
Treasure - Reserve - Season - $4
Worth $3
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
--
At the start of each season, you may discard this from your tavern mat.
If you do, you may put your deck into your discard pile.

[461.weavile]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Golden apple
Treasure - Reserve - Season - $4
Worth $3
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
--
At the start of each season, you may discard this from your tavern mat.
If you do, you may put your deck into your discard pile.

A cheap Gold that you can't use more than 3 times the whole game? Still seems too expensive, even with the deck shuffling, which might even be a drawback sometimes.

Sorry, that was probably unnecessarily critical. It's a potentiall interesting idea, but make it feel more like a one-shot action and it might get you somewhere

[Limetime]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Golden apple
Treasure - Reserve - Season - $4
Worth $3
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
--
At the start of each season, you may discard this from your tavern mat.
If you do, you may put your deck into your discard pile.

even with the deck shuffling, which might even be a drawback sometimes.

It is optional

[Gubump]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Golden apple
Treasure - Reserve - Season - $4
Worth $3
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
--
At the start of each season, you may discard this from your tavern mat.
If you do, you may put your deck into your discard pile.

A cheap Gold that you can't use more than 3 times the whole game? Still seems too expensive, even with the deck shuffling, which might even be a drawback sometimes.

Sorry, that was probably unnecessarily critical. It's a potentially interesting idea, but make it feel more like a one-shot action and it might get you somewhere

The Seasons loop. It can be activated more times than just that.

[461.weavile]

The Seasons loop. It can be activated more times than just that.

Yeah, I was just generalizing, because the games rarely make it to a second year, and have only made it to a second summer once in the history of testing. I would also bet that some Plantation games see less seasons than usual. I could've been more generous and said 4 or 5, but if you get it back in the fifth summer, your deck is probably 40+ cards (or you got locked into a hand of 5 cards while the other player is just playing monument and some attack, then this card would be powerful) and you aren't likely to see it again anyway. I still think it should be a one-shot-esque card to only be called when the season changes.

[spiralstaircase]

I still think it should be a one-shot-esque card to only be called when the season changes.

You wanted a one-shotty action, I wanted a treasure because they haven't got a Season-Treasure yet, and it amused me to see them make a yellow-beige-pink card.

I priced it at $4 so that everyone could have one in time for the first shuffle, so that that one could come out four times.  At $3 it would be fighting with Silver, so I'd start playtesting it at $4, but if it had to come down it would have to come down.  Maybe it wouldn't, though.  People are pretty happy to get a Spoils.

[461.weavile]

I still think it should be a one-shot-esque card to only be called when the season changes.

You wanted a one-shotty action, I wanted a treasure because they haven't got a Season-Treasure yet, and it amused me to see them make a yellow-beige-pink card.

I priced it at $4 so that everyone could have one in time for the first shuffle, so that that one could come out four times.  At $3 it would be fighting with Silver, so I'd start playtesting it at $4, but if it had to come down it would have to come down.  Maybe it wouldn't, though.  People are pretty happy to get a Spoils.

Maybe it isn't too weak for 4 and I just don't understand it without playing it first. I was too critical for no reason, I suppose. 4 is a huge drop down from 6 anyway. Who knows?

[shark_bait]

Regarding Wayfair - I don't like the way that it penalizes the order of having a 4/3 start vs. a 3/4 start.  Maybe this is inconsequential... I don't know because I've never played with it.  But I would wager that a turn 1 Wayfair for Spring almost guarantees $5 or higher for turns 2-5.  That with the early game cycling boost is a huge advantage.  If you buy a turn 2 Warfair for Spring then you only get 3 turns out of it and have a $3 cost card and 3 $5+ cost cards.

The thing about this event is that it's kinda like coin tokens.  In most situations, the best coin token is a spent coin token.  Tokens sitting in your supply are one's that have not been used to improve your deck.  So if you wait until Summer or Fall, then you miss out on a great early opportunity to improve your deck early.  Just like in Colony game where your first Platinum snowballs you into more Platinum, a better early deck will snowball you to a better mid-game deck.

Consider this roller coaster analogy.  Two roller coasters side by side are racing to the bottom of the hill.  The first coaster has a steeper initial drop but levels out slightly at the bottom before the finish.  The second coaster has a more gradual initial slope but has a steep drop to the finish.  The first coaster will win the race because got up to speed faster than the second coaster.

One thought to change it is to make it cost $3.  That way both players can get it on a 3/4 or 4/3 split on turn 1.  But then it really becomes a must buy on turn 1 in almost all games and doesn't change the dynamics of play too much.

My idea is to change it as follows.  Give Wayfair a mat with tokens.  Once per game, when you buy this place 5 Way-tokens on your Way-mat.  Once, at the start of your turn, you may spend a token to receive....... Then make the bonuses scale with the season.  That forces a decision between smaller earlier gains compared to a more sizable end-game boost.  Spring can stay the same.  Summer could maybe get an extra Coin.  Fall gets maybe an extra card.  Then maybe give winter a +Buy.  With each season getting all of the bonuses of the previous season.  Now I don't know how easy it would be to get all of that text concisely written.  But I think it gets in the spirit of having the seasonal boost that Wayfair provides but also the strategic choice of a small early game boon vs. a large end-game payload.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Regarding Wayfair ...

I think it's highly board dependent when it's best to buy Wayfare. Buying it in Spring means forsaking at least one turn with Wayfare bonuses as well as the +action for all Spring turns (as you probably won't have that many terminals in the early game). Maybe the early game boost is still more significant than I think but I reckon you overestimate the advantage of 4/3 vs. 3/4 opening.

Reducing the cost to $3 has the problems you mentioned whereas raising the cost to $5 would mean that you probably won't buy it in Spring and it becomes a tougher decision whether you buy it in general. That would be the change I'd prefer if we find Wayfare to be too linear or un-dynamic. Another possibility would be to take away the +$1 and decrease the cost to $3.

I'm not sure I fully grasp your suggested change but it looks highly complicated and also probably similar to what Student and Sojourner do. The decision which Season gets the Wayfare bonus is already strategic enough in my opinion.

[Asper]

Note: On a $3/$4 opening, you have one less Wayfare turn when putting it on Spring, but also your first buy makes it into the shuffle, meaning you can make better use of Wayfare. I see there's a difference, but it's not as bad as you make it sound. Also, the action bonus already means that you lose part of its power in Spring, as Co0kieL0rd said. That said, ii'd rather not have Wayfare at all than have it require a mat.

[Asper]

Seasons is endangered to leave the front page because CL and me are busy. I admit he's doing more for the set than me right now. I guess we should call this the "post-big-reveal" phase of Seasons. Feel free to discuss your own Season ideas (i hope i didn't say too much there...)

Either way, we will try the following order for Student:
Spring: +1 Action
Summer: +1 Card
Fall Autumn: +1 Buy
Winter: +$1

[AdrianHealey]

Seasons is endangered to leave the front page because CL and me are busy. I admit he's doing more for the set than me right now. I guess we should call this the "post-big-reveal" phase of Seasons. Feel free to discuss your own Season ideas (i hope i didn't say too much there...)

Either way, we will try the following order for Student:
Spring: +1 Action
Summer: +1 Card
Fall Autumn: +1 Buy
Winter: +$1

I just prepared a bunch of the seasons cards (I believe 10 of them) to print and add them to my binder full of fan cards that I always sprinkle in (usually: at least 2) whenever I play in RL. If you want me to add the upgraded student, then, please: post the image. (I might actually have both of them side by side in a game... and see which one gets bought more. )

Either way, I am pretty excited to test the Seasons expansions. Would you mind sharing a Season-card template, in order to allow people to make fan expansions of your fan expansion?

Edit: an interesting idea would be to make the student pile a bit like the knight pile, whereby different students have different 'orders' in which they gain stuff?

[Asper]

Seasons is endangered to leave the front page because CL and me are busy. I admit he's doing more for the set than me right now. I guess we should call this the "post-big-reveal" phase of Seasons. Feel free to discuss your own Season ideas (i hope i didn't say too much there...)

Either way, we will try the following order for Student:
Spring: +1 Action
Summer: +1 Card
Fall Autumn: +1 Buy
Winter: +$1

I just prepared a bunch of the seasons cards (I believe 10 of them) to print and add them to my binder full of fan cards that I always sprinkle in (usually: at least 2) whenever I play in RL. If you want me to add the upgraded student, then, please: post the image. (I might actually have both of them side by side in a game... and see which one gets bought more. )

Either way, I am pretty excited to test the Seasons expansions. Would you mind sharing a Season-card template, in order to allow people to make fan expansions of your fan expansion?

Edit: an interesting idea would be to make the student pile a bit like the knight pile, whereby different students have different 'orders' in which they gain stuff?

Here you go:



I think that would be too complicated. Student already is some kind of Traveller in that it evolves and gets better. Making different Students would mean they is a big difference in power level. Some would only be bought as opening buys, some would stay too bad until late. It would make player order matter more. I mean, sure, the Knights aren't exactly equal in power, but they aim to be roughly the same. Student wouldn't do that.

About a template, i'll talk with CL about this. I guess we kind of want to reveal our last card and the Reserve-Outtake before we call it "done" and offer our template, but, again, i admit we have kind of stopped posting stuff either way. Just bear with us a little longer, it's been a busy time for us all (and kind of continues to be).

[Asper]

Damned, i left out a space... Sorry for that.

[Roadrunner7671]

Damned, i left out a space... Sorry for that.

I forgive you.

[Accatitippi]

Damned, i left out a space... Sorry for that.

Two, actually. But I forgive you for the other one.

[Roadrunner7671]

Damned, i left out a space... Sorry for that.

Two, actually. But I forgive you for the other one.

Where's the second?

[AdrianHealey]

Seasons is endangered to leave the front page because CL and me are busy. I admit he's doing more for the set than me right now. I guess we should call this the "post-big-reveal" phase of Seasons. Feel free to discuss your own Season ideas (i hope i didn't say too much there...)

Either way, we will try the following order for Student:
Spring: +1 Action
Summer: +1 Card
Fall Autumn: +1 Buy
Winter: +$1

I just prepared a bunch of the seasons cards (I believe 10 of them) to print and add them to my binder full of fan cards that I always sprinkle in (usually: at least 2) whenever I play in RL. If you want me to add the upgraded student, then, please: post the image. (I might actually have both of them side by side in a game... and see which one gets bought more. )

Either way, I am pretty excited to test the Seasons expansions. Would you mind sharing a Season-card template, in order to allow people to make fan expansions of your fan expansion?

Edit: an interesting idea would be to make the student pile a bit like the knight pile, whereby different students have different 'orders' in which they gain stuff?

Here you go:



I think that would be too complicated. Student already is some kind of Traveller in that it evolves and gets better. Making different Students would mean they is a big difference in power level. Some would only be bought as opening buys, some would stay too bad until late. It would make player order matter more. I mean, sure, the Knights aren't exactly equal in power, but they aim to be roughly the same. Student wouldn't do that.

About a template, i'll talk with CL about this. I guess we kind of want to reveal our last card and the Reserve-Outtake before we call it "done" and offer our template, but, again, i admit we have kind of stopped posting stuff either way. Just bear with us a little longer, it's been a busy time for us all (and kind of continues to be).

Necropolis => Village => worker's village => bazaar + worker's village

[Accatitippi]

Damned, i left out a space... Sorry for that.

Two, actually. But I forgive you for the other one.

Where's the second?

Between "Fall:" and "+Buy". 

[Asper]

The thought behind this order is that, if you start in Spring, it becomes as good as $3 in Summer and gets betger ftom there. Like Sanitarium, this means getting the Village overly early. If you skip Spring, it's still cantrip, Market Square, Market. Depending on your needs that might be fine. It's Fall where things start being too late now.

[AdrianHealey]

I just printed Bailig, Ballroom, Plantation, Restore, Sanitarium, (the first version of) student and Trade port.

One question: what's the way to use Bailiff? Do I need to try to get two cards, or can I try to get one card and 'fail' to get a second one (in the hypotethical situation that there are no coppers or silvers, for example.)

[Asper]

I just printed Bailig, Ballroom, Plantation, Restore, Sanitarium, (the first version of) student and Trade port.

One question: what's the way to use Bailiff? Do I need to try to get two cards, or can I try to get one card and 'fail' to get a second one (in the hypotethical situation that there are no coppers or silvers, for example.)

It's intended that you first choose a VP card costing at most $3 more, then gain an appropriate Treasure if you can.

[AdrianHealey]

I just printed Bailig, Ballroom, Plantation, Restore, Sanitarium, (the first version of) student and Trade port.

One question: what's the way to use Bailiff? Do I need to try to get two cards, or can I try to get one card and 'fail' to get a second one (in the hypotethical situation that there are no coppers or silvers, for example.)

It's intended that you first choose a VP card costing at most $3 more, then gain an appropriate Treasure if you can.

How do you mean: at most $3 more? Do you mean $5?

[Asper]

I just printed Bailig, Ballroom, Plantation, Restore, Sanitarium, (the first version of) student and Trade port.

One question: what's the way to use Bailiff? Do I need to try to get two cards, or can I try to get one card and 'fail' to get a second one (in the hypotethical situation that there are no coppers or silvers, for example.)

It's intended that you first choose a VP card costing at most $3 more, then gain an appropriate Treasure if you can.

How do you mean: at most $3 more? Do you mean $5?

Oops, yes. I was thinking of my Assemble when writing "$3 more".

[AdrianHealey]

Thanks! That's the most intuïtive way of using that card. I am surprised people were so confused by it.

[ThetaSigma12]

The first post says 12 cards+1 event, But I only count eleven cards. Have you finished the set or is the last card still in the works?

[eHalcyon]

New board: Canadian seasons!  I opted to be realistic instead of going for the old "winter and road construction" joke.



Credit for base images to IrvingGFM.

Made in honour of this week's sudden snowfall where I live after it seemed like winter was over.  I was too lazy to actually put in text, but you get the gist.

[Asper]

The first post says 12 cards+1 event, But I only count eleven cards. Have you finished the set or is the last card still in the works?

We had one additional card which we killed, it was the Season Looter. Recently we worked on a replacement attack, but kind of got too busy with other stuff. Sorry for that. It's sad to admit it, but i think we are done for now.

As a (weak) consolation, here's the Reserve Outtake:



Note: I thought about ramping it up to $4 in Winter, but CL thought it was too much, and either way we didn't feel it was interesting enough so we didn't test it. It's either a Reserve Woodcutter or a bundle of coin tokens (Peltmonger's a Job, right?), and neither is that fantastic.

[Fragasnap]

Peltmonger
Types: Action, Reserve, Season
Cost: $4
Put this on your Tavern Mat.At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this, for +1 Buy, +$2 and an additional +$1 in Winter.

I don't like it for being a reserve card, but beyond that I think the issue is that an unconditional +1 Buy whenever you want it gives fairly boring consistency. Consider Coin of the Realm which makes its on-demand +actions interesting by giving you tons of +actions, more than you can likely use the first chance you get to play Coin of the Realm. Unfortunately, many +actions can be useful in the latter portion of a game, but many +buys is only really useful with cost reduction. I think to make it interesting you would have to make a limitation to the +buy somehow.

Sojourner
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $2
+1 Action, +1VP. Trash this. In Spring: +$2. In Summer: Trash 2 cards from your hand. In Fall: +2 Cards. In Winter: +2 Buys.

I don't like this for using VP tokens. Further I don't like that it is so much better than Estates. You compare it to Distant Lands, but that is hardly a fair comparison. Distant Lands is a junk card that does nothing until you play it and costs you an +action and a card from your hand when you do. You don't want Distant Lands until as late as possible, but you have to play them for them to be worth anything. Sojourner you can buy pretty much any time, is free to play, and even gives you a benefit when you play it in addition to those VP!

Bailiff
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $3
In Spring and Summer: Trash 3 cards from your hand and gain a card costing up to the total cost of the trashed cards in coins. In Fall and Winter: Gain a Victory card, and then a Treasure card, with a total cost of up to $5.

This is too strong. I'll never not open Bailiff and the delta of randomness between getting it to collide with 3 Estates or no Estates is much bigger than the already king of swingy trashing Chapel, and it shifts to gain Duchies rapidly with an effect akin to a $5 card once it is done trashing.

Snow Witch
Types: Action, Attack, Season
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. You may put a card from your hand on top of your deck. In Fall and Winter: Each other player gains a Curse.

This one is neat. I think you overvalue the number of Kingdoms you'll be able to play many of them as soon as Fall starts. I've played games with you before, and I think you construct your Kingdoms a little too much: In more random Kingdoms drawing your deck isn't always possible.

Student
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $3
+1 Action. You may move your following token to the Student pile (when you play a Student, you first get those bonuses): In Spring: +$1 token; In Summer: +1 Action token; In Fall: +1 Buy token; in Winter: +1 Card token.

I don't like that it uses the Adventures tokens, monopolizing all of them in the event that there the other cards that use those tokens, but even without that, I'm not a big fan of cards that you want to piledrive.

Sanitarium
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.When you gain this in Spring, you may trash a card from your hand.

I think this is too strong, even sans the trashing on-gain. Similarly to Lighthouse, I worry about Sanitarium making hand-size Attacks totally irrelevant, especially when Sanitarium is a splitter you'd want to amass in the first place.

Ballroom
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $5
In Spring and Summer: Gain an Action costing less than this. Play it. In Fall and Winter: You may choose an Action from your hand. Play it twice.

Best card in the set.

Plantation
Types: Action, Season
+2 Cards, +$1. In Summer and Winter: Choose one: +1 Card; or +$1.When you gain this, you may move the Season marker forth or back 1 section.

I don't like how hard the "choose one" is to track: I'd rather it be a choose-and-forget option. I like the on-gain though.

Restore
Types: Action, Season
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing . . . up to $3 more than the trashed card in Spring; up to $2 more than in Summer or Fall; up to $1 more in Winter.

I played with this Expanding in Summer and Remodeling in Spring and liked that pretty well. It gets weak enough in Winter and enough games last until Spring that I wouldn't recommend having this Expand in Spring.

Trade Port
Types: Action, Duration, Season
Cost: $5
At the start of each of your turns in Spring, Summer, and Fall for the rest of the game: +1 Buy, +$1. (This stays in play)

I don't like it for being a Duration card, on top of its similarities to Treasury. The latter could possibly be solved. The former cannot.

Timberland
Types: Victory, Season
Cost: $7*
4VP.This costs $3 less in Spring, $2 less in Summer, and $1 less in Fall (but not less than $0).

The big problem is that enough games are going to end in Spring that the cost decrement is just ridiculous and renders Duchies pointless. I would rather see this granting 3VP (costing $6, $3, $3, and $6) so that its variable price would be more fun with trash-for-benefit effects, rather than it being a simple Duchy substitute.

Wayfare
Types: Event, Season
Cost: $4
Once per game: Move your Wayfare token to a Season on the Season mat (at the start of each of your turns in that Season, you get +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.

I think with +1 Card you will always want Wayfare in Summer and possibly even Spring if your first turn is $4. I'd make it +1 Buy instead. +$1 makes you want it now, but +1 Action and +1 Buy would be enough to make you want to push it until later.

[AdrianHealey]

The first post says 12 cards+1 event, But I only count eleven cards. Have you finished the set or is the last card still in the works?

We had one additional card which we killed, it was the Season Looter. Recently we worked on a replacement attack, but kind of got too busy with other stuff. Sorry for that. It's sad to admit it, but i think we are done for now.

As a (weak) consolation, here's the Reserve Outtake:



Note: I thought about ramping it up to $4 in Winter, but CL thought it was too much, and either way we didn't feel it was interesting enough so we didn't test it. It's either a Reserve Woodcutter or a bundle of coin tokens (Peltmonger's a Job, right?), and neither is that fantastic.

It's true, it's not great, but it seems fixable.

[Asper]

I am off to work right now, but a few things:

You do NOT want Distant Lands as late as possible. In fact, you want a continuous stream of Distand Lands over the game. If you think DL sucks because you try to make it work only shortly before the game ends, it's no wonder the comparison with Sojourner makes no sense to you. Also, it's not like Sojourner does anything before you play it, either. In fact, only very few cards do.

I construct my kingdoms to make sure the interactions i want to playtest are included. If i fear Sanitarium's too good with discard attacks, for example, i wouldn't hope to randomly draw a discard attack. I'm not playing a random game of Dominion, it's a test case. In that sense, Sanitarium does make discard attacks unattractive. Compared to normal Village, it has the downside of not working as well with drawing strategies, which keeps it fine, power-wise. I'd often prefer another Village.

Plantation's option ccan't be tracked, and that's admittedly not cool. It's not worse than Minion or Pawn, though.

Your concerns about Timberland are fair and the reason why we haven't decided on its form yet. I admit it has some issues right now.

Not liking Duration, Reserve or token cards is fine, but not an issue for me. Also, Peltmonger's coins are much more important than its buys. The buy is just a bonus. In fact, i'm not sure whether your comlaint is "You will always use this immediately" or "you can keep this until you need it, and that's lame". Using Peltmonger at the first opportunity (this buy phase) is usually much worse than using it next turn, so i disagree to the first. And, being limited by being terminall, it's not all that easy to provide consistency with it. Also, to have so.ething prepared for when you need it is the main point of Reserves. I mean, it's fine if you don't like that, but it's not like everybody can be pleased.

Bailiff might in fact be too strong.

Student uses all the tokens, sure. I don't see why that's a problem, though. It's not like you couldn't use the other cards anymore. You will have to decide, but i can imagine a few decks where you use Training to shift your +action directly to your terminal draw after a while. Also, if you try to piledrive them before they turn actually useful, you are going to have a bad time.

[Accatitippi]

I just thought that the Season mechanic might be a way to implement an auto-attacking Event without it being too oppressive. As an example:

Wolf Packs - 2c Event - Season
+1 Buy
In games using this, at the end of each player's turn in Winter, they trash a card from their hand if they didn't buy this.
(they trash after drawing)

Is it too random? Too expensive? Too weak? A fundamentally bad idea?

[AdrianHealey]

I am thinking about the reserve mechanic and the season mechanic and there must be a great way of combining those two.

[Davio]

I am thinking about the reserve mechanic and the season mechanic and there must be a great way of combining those two.

Sure, you can do some kind of harvesty thing.

For instance:

Orchard
In Spring or Summer: Put this on the tavern mat.
You can call this during Fall or Winter for X

[AdrianHealey]

Haha, yes, this is a great way of doing it.

[Gubump]

Do you guys mind if I create my own thread for making Season card ideas? I'll give credit to you for the original mechanic, of course.

[AdrianHealey]

I already asked, and they wanted to wait a bit,  I think. ^^
A specific thread for fan cards of Seasons would be great, though.

[Asper]

About Season fan cards:
I can not speak for the both of us, but as far as i am concerned, it's cool. We are both very busy right now and i don't know when we'll finish this. So from my point, go for it.

However, if you want to be sure, you might want to wait for CookieLord to reply on this, too. Or wait a sensible amount of time for him to reply, you know. In either case, we demand credit by building life-sized statues of ourselves, preferrably from Baklava. Or writing that the Season idea was ours, whatever you prefer.

[Gubump]

About Season fan cards:
I can not speak for the both of us, but as far as i am concerned, it's cool. We are both very busy right now and i don't know when we'll finish this. So from my point, go for it.

However, if you want to be sure, you might want to wait for CookieLord to reply on this, too. Or wait a sensible amount of time for him to reply, you know. In either case, we demand credit by building life-sized statues of ourselves, preferrably from Baklava. Or writing that the Season idea was ours, whatever you prefer.

I have no idea what either of you look like, so I will go with the 2nd option.

[AdrianHealey]

Man, that sounds hard. :/

I'll just build a life size statue.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About Season fan cards:
I can not speak for the both of us, but as far as i am concerned, it's cool. We are both very busy right now and i don't know when we'll finish this. So from my point, go for it.

However, if you want to be sure, you might want to wait for CookieLord to reply on this, too. Or wait a sensible amount of time for him to reply, you know. In either case, we demand credit by building life-sized statues of ourselves, preferrably from Baklava. Or writing that the Season idea was ours, whatever you prefer.

I have no idea what either of you look like, so I will go with the 2nd option.

That's fine, I hate baklava anyway. I'm cool  with you publishing your own Season card ideas; we're all like a big familiy here.

Although Asper and I put work on Seasons to a halt, it's starting to bug me that the last ideas we talked about, including some updated versions of cards already uploaded, have not been published, yet. So I'm going to make a few mock-ups and post them all together here before the end of the week to to finally conclude my due in this project for the time being. When I'm done with that, please feel free to add and expand on this set.

[AdrianHealey]

Would you also be willing to share the template then? That would be great.

[AdrianHealey]

Peltmonger
Types: Action, Reserve, Season
Cost: $4
+Buy
+$2
If it's spring or summer +2$ and put this on your tavern mat.
------------
If it's fall, you may call this from your tavern mat. If you do: +Buy, +$2
If it's winter, you may call this from tavern mat. If you do: +Buy, +$4

One shot $4 in spring and summer. In fall you can use it, but you *really* want to use it again in winter. It's a sad woodcutter afterwards.

War village
Types: Action, Attack, Looter, Season
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If it's summer or spring: all other players gain a ruin.
If it's fall or winter: all other players draw a card.

Just some quick thoughts.

[Gubump]

Sorry if you guys have mentioned this already, but why was Peltmonger removed from the set?

[Asper]

Sorry if you guys have mentioned this already, but why was Peltmonger removed from the set?

It's a bit weak, and rather similar to coin tokens. But mostly it didn't feel very interesting. It's not like it was broken or we hated it, or anything. I kinda like it actually.

[eHalcyon]

War village
Types: Action, Attack, Looter, Season
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If it's summer or spring: all other players gain a ruin.
If it's fall or winter: all other players gain a card.

Just some quick thoughts.

Do you mean "draw a card", giving them a bonus to balance out the power of a nonterminal junker?  If not, who decides what they gain?  If they get a totally unrestricted choice, that just makes War Village a dead card after Summer.  If you choose, it's basically "gain a Curse".

If "gain a Curse" is indeed what you meant for the second effect, that's way too powerful.  Every game with this would be a race to win two junk splits, and the game would end on Ruins, Curse and War Village to whoever got luckier with the Curse split and maybe buying a few Duchies during the ensuing slog.

[AdrianHealey]

War village
Types: Action, Attack, Looter, Season
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If it's summer or spring: all other players gain a ruin.
If it's fall or winter: all other players gain a card.

Just some quick thoughts.

Do you mean "draw a card", giving them a bonus to balance out the power of a nonterminal junker?  If not, who decides what they gain?  If they get a totally unrestricted choice, that just makes War Village a dead card after Summer.  If you choose, it's basically "gain a Curse".

If "gain a Curse" is indeed what you meant for the second effect, that's way too powerful.  Every game with this would be a race to win two junk splits, and the game would end on Ruins, Curse and War Village to whoever got luckier with the Curse split and maybe buying a few Duchies during the ensuing slog.

I did mean 'draw a card', haha. Sorry, I am binging Daredevil S2 and I am sleep deprived.

So it's your very first option. The specifics in any case don't matter. The idea would be something like: 'attacks in the first part, benefits opponents in the second part of the game'. There is definitely some room there, I think.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Finally I made the mock-ups for the last card ideas Asper and I came up with. I’m just going to list them here without much talk.



Raiders was the last card we thoroughly tested and it’s meant to be one of the 12 cards we originally wanted to post. It’s just much delayed. It seemed to work out fine during our test games but those may have been warped by the presence of many other wacky fan cards and in the end I wasn’t at all sure whether this ordering of attacks isn’t just too swingy and powerful. This second version is an attempt to balance it but it hasn’t seen any testing:






Here’s another idea for a Season alt-VP card. It hasn’t been tested but looks cute and promising to us. Prefecture (I didn’t talk to Asper about the name) is meant to be a replacement for Timberland which has some issues (both versions) we talked about already.




This is an idea to make Peltmonger more interesting. You can see our original card above in one of Asper’s posts. It was okay but really boring. This brings in some new mechanics (in combination with calling, anyways) and hopefully allows for more strategic decisions etc. Again, totally untested.




We haven’t tested Bailiff for $4 but we probably should have. It seems more adequate for a powerful, cheap Forge-variant to not normally give you the option of opening with two copies of it. I also made an adjustment to the second effect. It’s slightly less flexible this way but there should be absolutely no rules confusion. Of course you can feel free to play with any version you like.




Here’s fixed Wayfare with a coin symbol instead of “1$” in the text.

This has been my last contribution to the set for the time being. It's been great working with Asper and thank you guys so much for your feedback and support! I will continue viewing this thread and occasionally write a post but if any Season card turns out to be imbalanced and needs to be fixed, I encourage you to test alternative versions and share your findings here.

[eHalcyon]

For new Bailiff, I suggest listing Copper first.  It parses better that way.

[ThetaSigma12]

You forgot to put reserve at the bottom of the new peltmonger. 

[AdrianHealey]

Raiders 1*: I don't like Saboteur, so I don't like this one either. This card seems like it'llhave the same kind of game: raid each other, don't build on your own deck. It's limited because of fall and winter, but still. :/ Nope; will never like a card like that, so I really couldn't comment on it's strength.

Raiders 2*: Here Raiders is it's own defense: gaining silvers, who can then get trashed by other raiders.

Perfecture seems like great design.

The new peltmonger is great too. It gives a big bonus when you don't really have victory cards, but when you have higher level treasures, you can benefit from that. It even looks a bit cheap at this price.

I think the new Bailiff is better and better priced.

[eHalcyon]

Raiders 1*: I don't like Saboteur, so I don't like this one either. This card seems like it'llhave the same kind of game: raid each other, don't build on your own deck. It's limited because of fall and winter, but still. :/ Nope; will never like a card like that, so I really couldn't comment on it's strength.

Saboteur is super weak most of the time though.  In any case, the attack here will play out a little differently because you have to gain one of the trashed cards.  Whether that's good or bad will depend on the kind of decks the players are building.  In 2p, that does mean that bought cards stay in one player's deck or another instead of just being trashed outright, so decks will get built, though possibly not with what you might have chosen yourself.

The silver+discard attack seems weak too in that it still doesn't give you a bonus this turn, and silver gaining is not amazing.

Overall, it just seems like Raiders will be weak.

[LastFootnote]

Raiders 1*: I don't like Saboteur, so I don't like this one either. This card seems like it'llhave the same kind of game: raid each other, don't build on your own deck. It's limited because of fall and winter, but still. :/ Nope; will never like a card like that, so I really couldn't comment on it's strength.

Saboteur is super weak most of the time though.  In any case, the attack here will play out a little differently because you have to gain one of the trashed cards.  Whether that's good or bad will depend on the kind of decks the players are building.  In 2p, that does mean that bought cards stay in one player's deck or another instead of just being trashed outright, so decks will get built, though possibly not with what you might have chosen yourself.

The silver+discard attack seems weak too in that it still doesn't give you a bonus this turn, and silver gaining is not amazing.

Overall, it just seems like Raiders will be weak.

I recently experimented with my own cheap Saboteur card that looked a lot like this. And it was DEVASTATING to decks. The ability to gain a replacement card is a big part of what makes Saboteur weak.

[AdrianHealey]

Raiders 1*: I don't like Saboteur, so I don't like this one either. This card seems like it'llhave the same kind of game: raid each other, don't build on your own deck. It's limited because of fall and winter, but still. :/ Nope; will never like a card like that, so I really couldn't comment on it's strength.

Saboteur is super weak most of the time though.  In any case, the attack here will play out a little differently because you have to gain one of the trashed cards.  Whether that's good or bad will depend on the kind of decks the players are building.  In 2p, that does mean that bought cards stay in one player's deck or another instead of just being trashed outright, so decks will get built, though possibly not with what you might have chosen yourself.

The silver+discard attack seems weak too in that it still doesn't give you a bonus this turn, and silver gaining is not amazing.

Overall, it just seems like Raiders will be weak.

Fair comments, especially the 'you will still build a deck'. But it's still a mechanic I wouldn't enjoy. But that is, obviously, irrelevant for deciding wether or not it's a good card.

[eHalcyon]

Raiders 1*: I don't like Saboteur, so I don't like this one either. This card seems like it'llhave the same kind of game: raid each other, don't build on your own deck. It's limited because of fall and winter, but still. :/ Nope; will never like a card like that, so I really couldn't comment on it's strength.

Saboteur is super weak most of the time though.  In any case, the attack here will play out a little differently because you have to gain one of the trashed cards.  Whether that's good or bad will depend on the kind of decks the players are building.  In 2p, that does mean that bought cards stay in one player's deck or another instead of just being trashed outright, so decks will get built, though possibly not with what you might have chosen yourself.

The silver+discard attack seems weak too in that it still doesn't give you a bonus this turn, and silver gaining is not amazing.

Overall, it just seems like Raiders will be weak.

I recently experimented with my own cheap Saboteur card that looked a lot like this. And it was DEVASTATING to decks. The ability to gain a replacement card is a big part of what makes Saboteur weak.

Hm, that's a good point.

[Asper]

For what it's worth, we also considered Raiders as a knights variant where you do the basic knight attack and steal one of the trashed cards.

Thanks to CookieLord for posting the remaining cards. It has been a real pleasure for me, too
And thanks to all of you guys. Have fun with our legacy

[Fragasnap]

You do NOT want Distant Lands as late as possible. In fact, you want a continuous stream of Distand Lands over the game. If you think DL sucks because you try to make it work only shortly before the game ends, it's no wonder the comparison with Sojourner makes no sense to you. Also, it's not like Sojourner does anything before you play it, either. In fact, only very few cards do.

Distant Lands is a bad card like Province is a bad card: It makes you win the game, sure, but it doesn't help you build your deck to buy expensive Provinces, Duchies, and Distant Lands.
I "get" Distant Lands and I'd go on about strategy of Distant Lands, but that is irrelevant. When people say "Sojourner compares to well to Estate" the response of "Well, Distant Lands compares too well to Duchy" is malarkey.

Sojourner is a vanishing Silver, a one-shot Laboratory, or possibly the only source of trashing or +Buys.
Since Silver is often a not-so-great card, that one-shot leg-up to your economy can often be reasonably valuable. Expedition and Lastfootnote's Gambler have both shown how surprisingly quickly one-shot Laboratories become better than Silver. We both know that thinning is winning. On top of that, Sojourner gives a Victory point. The only part of Sojourner that can reasonably be called niche is its +Buys effect, and a bet a lot of the time that this effect could be useful it won't be used because everything else Sojourner offers is so good they'll all be gone before you could ever use the +Buys.

Often at $2, your options are simple things like: Estate, Duchess, or nothing. Sojourner, much like Hamlet or Pearl Diver, is a card you will simply buy because it's effectively never bad. Especially in 2-player, where 1VP more commonly decides the game, the split of Sojourner is going to be important (notably, it will also never split evenly outside of 2-player games, which I think is argument enough for it to be a Victory card that is set aside).

With Distant Lands, you have to contend with buying Distant Lands or a $5 card that actually helps your deck get to buying Provinces. That makes it an interesting choice, since you can hamstring yourself by buying them too early. Sojourner is competing with nothing, easy to pick up with +Buys, and free to play once it is in your deck: When is it ever a bad idea to buy Sojourner? Probably only when you have no cards to trash and you'll draw Sojourner in Summer.

In its current form, I would often buy it even without the Victory point. With the Victory point, I think it has to cost $3 or $4.

If it doesn't have the Victory point, the card is much less exciting (outside of when it's the only good trashing available because that's pretty interesting) which might be why you decided to include the Victory point--but why bother? It would lose its contentious use of VP tokens and it remains a good card that you'd often take with a $2 buy anyway.

Student uses all the tokens, sure. I don't see why that's a problem, though. It's not like you couldn't use the other cards anymore. You will have to decide, but i can imagine a few decks where you use Training to shift your +action directly to your terminal draw after a while. Also, if you try to piledrive them before they turn actually useful, you are going to have a bad time.

I misread the card as being mandatory to move your tokens, so monopolizing the tokens is not a problem. Sorry for that. (By the way, Lost Arts is the +1 Action token, not Training which is for the +$1 token)

Certainly you don't want all the Students as soon a possible: Your economy will be sore until Winter unless there are amazing terminals at sub $4. However, in any Kingdom that is going to last long enough for a second Spring, you will have the time to piledrive them in late Fall\early Winter if you got on in Spring to begin with. It is interesting enough and probably not too strong, but I'm already not a fan for its use of Adventures's tokens.
I'm also curious if it will ever become a case that choosing not to contest Student will cost a player the game, because getting cantrips\Market Squares to stop another player from getting Bazaar+Buys sounds like quite a losing proposition if you don't get a Student super early.

[Asper]

You do NOT want Distant Lands as late as possible. In fact, you want a continuous stream of Distand Lands over the game. If you think DL sucks because you try to make it work only shortly before the game ends, it's no wonder the comparison with Sojourner makes no sense to you. Also, it's not like Sojourner does anything before you play it, either. In fact, only very few cards do.

Distant Lands is a bad card like Province is a bad card: It makes you win the game, sure, but it doesn't help you build your deck to buy expensive Provinces, Duchies, and Distant Lands.
I "get" Distant Lands and I'd go on about strategy of Distant Lands, but that is irrelevant. When people say "Sojourner compares to well to Estate" the response of "Well, Distant Lands compares too well to Duchy" is malarkey.

Sojourner is a vanishing Silver, a one-shot Laboratory, or possibly the only source of trashing or +Buys.
Since Silver is often a not-so-great card, that one-shot leg-up to your economy can often be reasonably valuable. Expedition and Lastfootnote's Gambler have both shown how surprisingly quickly one-shot Laboratories become better than Silver. We both know that thinning is winning. On top of that, Sojourner gives a Victory point. The only part of Sojourner that can reasonably be called niche is its +Buys effect, and a bet a lot of the time that this effect could be useful it won't be used because everything else Sojourner offers is so good they'll all be gone before you could ever use the +Buys.

Often at $2, your options are simple things like: Estate, Duchess, or nothing. Sojourner, much like Hamlet or Pearl Diver, is a card you will simply buy because it's effectively never bad. Especially in 2-player, where 1VP more commonly decides the game, the split of Sojourner is going to be important (notably, it will also never split evenly outside of 2-player games, which I think is argument enough for it to be a Victory card that is set aside).

With Distant Lands, you have to contend with buying Distant Lands or a $5 card that actually helps your deck get to buying Provinces. That makes it an interesting choice, since you can hamstring yourself by buying them too early. Sojourner is competing with nothing, easy to pick up with +Buys, and free to play once it is in your deck: When is it ever a bad idea to buy Sojourner? Probably only when you have no cards to trash and you'll draw Sojourner in Summer.

In its current form, I would often buy it even without the Victory point. With the Victory point, I think it has to cost $3 or $4.

If it doesn't have the Victory point, the card is much less exciting (outside of when it's the only good trashing available because that's pretty interesting) which might be why you decided to include the Victory point--but why bother? It would lose its contentious use of VP tokens and it remains a good card that you'd often take with a $2 buy anyway.

Student uses all the tokens, sure. I don't see why that's a problem, though. It's not like you couldn't use the other cards anymore. You will have to decide, but i can imagine a few decks where you use Training to shift your +action directly to your terminal draw after a while. Also, if you try to piledrive them before they turn actually useful, you are going to have a bad time.

I misread the card as being mandatory to move your tokens, so monopolizing the tokens is not a problem. Sorry for that. (By the way, Lost Arts is the +1 Action token, not Training which is for the +$1 token)

Certainly you don't want all the Students as soon a possible: Your economy will be sore until Winter unless there are amazing terminals at sub $4. However, in any Kingdom that is going to last long enough for a second Spring, you will have the time to piledrive them in late Fall\early Winter if you got on in Spring to begin with. It is interesting enough and probably not too strong, but I'm already not a fan for its use of Adventures's tokens.
I'm also curious if it will ever become a case that choosing not to contest Student will cost a player the game, because getting cantrips\Market Squares to stop another player from getting Bazaar+Buys sounds like quite a losing proposition if you don't get a Student super early.

A few things. First, practically every $2 compares favourably to Estate. That's not because all $2s are overpowered. It's because the game is not about Estates. If you buy Estates at all, it's because you are already greening and need every point. Sojourner isn't a useful pickup in this situation as you might never see it. This alone makes the comparison with Estate moot.

Also, assuming Provinces are as important on a Distand Lands board is a daring claim. 4 VP are a lot. Sure, Distand Lands doesn't improve your economy - but it also doesn't harm it. 3 Distand Lands are worth 2 Provinces. As they cost less, and don't make you stall, you can use them to put a lot of pressure on a player going for Provinces. Suddenly i can win picking up 2-3 Provinces in the time it takes you to buy 5-6.

I will not deny Sojourner is often an attractive card, and - provided there are no negative interactions with it - usually the best option if you only have $2. Which is pretty much the same with Vagrant, Pearl Diver or Pawn. True, it's better than those. But which card isn't? It doesn't win you the game, either, instead putting a little pressure on your opponent(s). The fact that you might not be able to draw it in time to use the bonus you want also harms it. All in all i'm not disagreeing it's rather strong. I do not agree it's too strong.

About Student, only few games see a second Sping. Also, please note that we changed the order around a bit. It is far less mandatory to pick it up in Spring, now.

[AdrianHealey]

So, I played two games today with trade port and (the first version of) student.

Take everything what I say here with the necessary 'first impression' caveat. So no need to make any definitive calls.

The first student gave:
Spring: +$1
Summer: +1 Action
Fall: +1 buy
Winter: +1 Card

The new student:
Spring: +1 Action
Summer: +1 Card
Fall: +1 buy
Winter: +$1

We played with the first version and it felt really weak. So weak, I would even say that even the new student will feel pretty weak. You have to play him every season, so you need to buy multiple, but it doesn't get good until really late. We haven't tested the second student yet - which is obviously better - but even there you *have* to buy multiple, to make sure you play them once every season.

I *think* that I would give student +1 action, +$1 from the get go. So that ultimately, you end up with +2 actions, +1 card, +$1, +1 buy.

That looks strong, but you really have to *work* the card to get there. Otherwise it never gets better than a bazaar/worker village; and you don't get it from the get go. In order for it to be attractive, there needs some sort of bonus for it.

I think that the order I would use, if you do that:

Spring: +1 Action  (2 actions and a coin)
Summer: +1 Buy (2 actions, a coin and a buy)
Fall: +$1 (2 actions, $2 coins and a buy)
Winter: (2 actions, $2 coins, a buy and a card)

If you do this, you could also bring the price to $4, maybe. That's a strong card, but remember: it's not that you can use it a lot.

I like the mechanic, but the way it's done with the first student, felt very weak. But again: maybe the second student is already sufficiently better.

Trade port is the other card, and that one just felt very weak. Maybe I didn't use it right, but the fact that it stops being useful in winter is really hard. I mean, if I can open $5/$2, I'd buy it, but after that... it stops being attractive really fast. I definitely has a niche, but it's really not a strong card. One thing I'd consider would be something like:

+$1.
+1 buy, except in winter.

I mean, it needs more testing, but the first experience was that it was pretty weak. But again, more testing is always required. But that was our first experience.

[AdrianHealey]

Regarding game length:

One game ended late in winter, one game ended with the first player to start with his first buy in the second spring. So really '20 turns' is pretty solid.

[Asper]

I can just say that you really don't need to buy a lot of Students usually. If you open with one, you will see it in Spring no matter how you draw, unless of course Plantation cuts Spring short, it gets discarded from your deck or you draw it dead with a terminal. Depending on what kind of deck you build (and you should build an engine if you go for Student in the first place), one should be enough usually. Assuming you gain only one card per turn, you won't have more cards than you see in a Season until Winter starts. If you gain more, and you gained them yourself, they should probably help you drawing instead of keeping you from it. If you have junk, that in fact harms your chances to see Student once per Season, and it's one of the things a single-Student-until-late strategy is sensible to. However, junking games last longer, meaning a late bloomer should be more useful.

All that doesn't change the second version of Student is a lot better than the first. It starts out as Ruined Village, which is basically a dead card in Spring. After that, it's Necropolis until Summer starts. Every Student you play from then on is a Village with potential (i'd say this is usually better than your suggestion for what the card looks like in Summer). So, while you don't need many Students to make sure you play one every turn, each Student you play a Season after the first maxes out its use to you. I guess that this gives a point to Fragasnap, who critizised that you might want to piledrive them. You can, but if you do it too early, you have a lot of weak cards, and if you do it too late, your opponent might have them - or not care.

[AdrianHealey]

The reason why you need 'more than one student' is exactly that: ok, so I have one student. I play it in spring. Now I get my first bonus.

Then I play it again, say, early summer. Second bonus gets added to the card, but I can't use the second bonus yet until, at the earliest, late summer/early fall. If it's fall, I am cursing, because now I can't add the fall bonus, but if it's fall, it took a long time before I can just draw one more card with student.

As a rule, it felt like you couldn't use the spring bonus until summer, the summer bonus until fall, and the fall bonus until winter. So it's a really slow card, if you hav eonlye one. If you have two... well, that's better, but it still kind of sucks that it takes so long to build up to something.

Again: student 2 is obviously better in that regard. But it's a slow card overall.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Asper basically said it all but I just want to emphasize one point about Student that seems really important to me and you, Adrian Healey, may have missed; there is no need to buy multiple Students until late Fall if you only plan to use them in their completely upgraded form. One Student is enough to upgrade them all. In the end, it becomes a card that would normally cost more than $5, and you can buy it for $3! That's already pretty good. The buff you suggested would make it even better than Grand Market. The first version of Student we tested was similar and it was nuts. We think either version we posted here is balanced but the second one is much more attractive and we recommend you use it. Thanks for playtesting and sharing!

Student is slow, yes. And on some boards you might not even want to buy it. That's fine for us though. There's only a few Dominion cards you always want to buy and we felt no need for Student to be another one of those.

[AdrianHealey]

Again: everything I say is based on one game, and that's not a relevant measure. True; 'my' suggestion is probably nuts, but I learned (from conversations in another game) that's how you balance: you make it too strong, and see what happens and then nerf it down accordingly

That said; the second version might solve most of the issues. And I will play with that next time. No problem on the feedback. I love playing with fan cards. It's like a puzzle.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Here's a template with all the published Season cards (except for Timberland with varying points which doesn't work somehow) for use in Tabletop Simulator. Below that is a template for Season cards for use in GIMP. Enjoy!

[eHalcyon]

Again: everything I say is based on one game, and that's not a relevant measure. True; 'my' suggestion is probably nuts, but I learned (from conversations in another game) that's how you balance: you make it too strong, and see what happens and then nerf it down accordingly

That's not the only way to balance.  You can make it weak, and improve it.  Or you may find that it's OK if it's sometimes too strong or sometimes too weak.

[AdrianHealey]

By the way: I used Trade Port & Student because they were the cards that fit two conditions (1) there was lots of discussions around them, (2) I was curious about them and (3) they looked fun. So just because my first impression of those two isn't great, doesn't mean I don't like the other cards by any means!

[AdrianHealey]

Some ideas. Some better than others. (Context: this is my being bored at the bar and just trying to come up with some ideas to keep myself busy.)

Winter God
Action
$4
Trash this and another card like this from your hand. Place the season marker anywhere you want.
---
Set up: Add one season card to the supply.

Action
$4

+1 Action
In Spring & Summer: Everyone discards down to 3 cards.
In Fall & Winter: Everyone discards down to 4 cards.
+1 Action
+1 Card

??
Action
$5

Gain a card costing up to:
Spring: $3
Summer & Fall: $4
Winter: $5
---
This card costs $2 less in spring & Summer.

Action
$4

+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Reveal one season card. Play it.
If you do: discard the remaining cards. If not, put them back in any order.
In Winter: +1 Buy

Herald meets scout.

??
Action
$9

+1 Card
+1 Action
---------
Costs $3 less per season that has passed, but no less than $0. When you buy: gain in VP the $ you paid.

[faust]

Action
$4

+1 Action
In Spring & Summer: Everyone discards down to $3 cards.
In Fall & Winter: Everyone discards down to 4 cards.
+1 Action
+1 Card

Even though this is unintended, cost-specific discard actually sounds like an interesting idea that I haven't seen before. "Reveal your hand and discard a card costing $5 or more (rsp. $3 or less)" could work o the right card.

[AdrianHealey]

Action
$4

+1 Action
In Spring & Summer: Everyone discards down to $3 cards.
In Fall & Winter: Everyone discards down to 4 cards.
+1 Action
+1 Card

Even though this is unintended, cost-specific discard actually sounds like an interesting idea that I haven't seen before. "Reveal your hand and discard a card costing $5 or more (rsp. $3 or less)" could work o the right card.

Hahahahaaha. I don't know how I feel that the most interesting idea I had was unintentional.

On a season card, it could work in the earlier seasons, right?

In spring: discard $3 or more
In summer discard $4 or more
in fall: discard $5 or more
in winter: discard $6 or more.

Probably harsh, though.

[Nflickner]

I just printed out several of the cards--Sojourner, Student, Trade port, and Wayfare, and love each of them!!!! Playing a game with my wife and we are both having a ball with these cards.  I actually printed out ten copies of each on photo paper, so they look amazing.  I sleeve all my cards, so they don't feel very different at all from regular cards.  Anyways, I wonder if I might try my hand at making some of my own card ideas with the Seasons motif.  Of course I will share and post them on this thread.  My one problem is that I don't have the basic format of the Seasons cards--the template for the action card, the action/victory card, the action/duration card, etc.  Would you guys be willing to share those with us?  Thanks again, this is the best fan expansion ever!!!!!!

[Co0kieL0rd]

I just printed out several of the cards--Sojourner, Student, Trade port, and Wayfare, and love each of them!!!! Playing a game with my wife and we are both having a ball with these cards.  I actually printed out ten copies of each on photo paper, so they look amazing.  I sleeve all my cards, so they don't feel very different at all from regular cards.  Anyways, I wonder if I might try my hand at making some of my own card ideas with the Seasons motif.  Of course I will share and post them on this thread.  My one problem is that I don't have the basic format of the Seasons cards--the template for the action card, the action/victory card, the action/duration card, etc.  Would you guys be willing to share those with us?  Thanks again, this is the best fan expansion ever!!!!!!

It's very nice to see people enjoy our set so much Thanks for the feedback! I encourage you experiment with your own Season ideas. Here are two templates. If you need other card types combined with Season, you gotta make the templates yourself, though.

[Nflickner]

I just printed out several of the cards--Sojourner, Student, Trade port, and Wayfare, and love each of them!!!! Playing a game with my wife and we are both having a ball with these cards.  I actually printed out ten copies of each on photo paper, so they look amazing.  I sleeve all my cards, so they don't feel very different at all from regular cards.  Anyways, I wonder if I might try my hand at making some of my own card ideas with the Seasons motif.  Of course I will share and post them on this thread.  My one problem is that I don't have the basic format of the Seasons cards--the template for the action card, the action/victory card, the action/duration card, etc.  Would you guys be willing to share those with us?  Thanks again, this is the best fan expansion ever!!!!!!

It's very nice to see people enjoy our set so much Thanks for the feedback! I encourage you experiment with your own Season ideas. Here are two templates. If you need other card types combined with Season, you gotta make the templates yourself, though.

Thanks so much!  Do you have any templates that just include the basic pink Season action card, like the one used for Bailiff or others?  I promise to give all credit to you and Asper!!!!   (I'm not sure if you just don't have the other templates, or if you are choosing not to share those.  If you are choosing not to share, please, please please reconsider    This is the best Dominion fan made expansion and I think it is even better than Alchemy!!! 
Oh, on second thought, I think I understand now that you included the other types in the file--I just need to fiddle with it.  Thanks so much!  I'm new to Gimp so I got a little confused  

[Nflickner]

New Idea for Seasons!

I love this set so much (definitely the funnest and most balanced and playtested fan set out there I believe!) and have been having fun printing the cards and playing them with my wife, and I've been brainstorming more ideas for cards. 
I just thought of a new card that also brings a new dynamic to the game.  I will mock up the card and post it here when I'm finished, but in the mean-time, I wanted to share my idea because I'm curious to get some feedback.
There are two versions of it.  This is the first:

Name:  Dragon Slayer (probably--I may go for something a little more creative if I or someone else thinks of something better)
Setup:  Place a Legendary Dragon as though it were an event.  This card attacks all players and can only be defeated (placed in trash) if any player plays a dragon slayer and pays 10 coin on their turn.  That player then gets a reward (see below)
Cost: 6 coin (maybe 7 coin?)
Action/season Card (haven't thought yet of what it does

Legendary Dragon
Type: Event (?)  (maybe instead of Event I could call it "Legendary Foe" and drop the "legendary" from the name of the card)
 "Attacks" each player on specified turns
 I haven't thought through all the attacks very well, so the ideas posted below are just some thoughts to get something down on paper.  The main idea that I will keep is that the dragon attacks on various turns throughout the game in different ways depending on the season.  Initially, I'm thinking that these attacks are not blockable by cards such as moat, because they are not typical attacks. 
 
Example:  When it is their turn and the season marker is on the 5th dial of Spring, each player reveals cards from their deck and trash the first card costing at least three coin from their deck. 
Summer:  When it is their turn and the season marker is on each dial of Summer, each player discards down to four cards at the beginning of their turn.
Fall:  When it is their turn and the season marker is on the third dial of Fall, each player reveals treasure cards from their deck until revealing a silver or higher cost treasure card and trash it.
Winter:  (perhaps nothing--dragon needs to sleep.  Or maybe the dragon will sleep during a different season--too hot in summer so it sleeps then?)
When Legendary Dragon is defeated by a player (they play a Dragon Slayer in their turn and pay 10 coins) Legendary Dragon is trashed and the player who defeated it receives 6 Victory tokens and either a Prize (from Cornucopia set) or a gold. 

The second variant of this card that my wife thought of is that instead of the dragon slayer being a typical action card, it would be a traveler, which must "level-up" into a dragon slayer.  It could be a progression like this:
Peon<Mendicant<Vassal<Man-at-Arms<Dragon Slayer
Perhaps the way it could finally kill the Dragon would cost less in this traveler line compared to my other idea due to the fact that you have to progress through the line before being able to kill the dragon anyways. 

Anyways, feel free to offer feedback and thoughts or ideas. 

[Gubump]

I think I like the Traveller version better. Here are my ideas for the Travellers:

Peon:
+2 Actions
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mendicant.
Setup: Add the Legendary Dragon to the Supply.
Cost: $2
Action - Traveller

Mendicant:
Trash a card from your hand. +$1 for every $2 in its cost (rounded up).
You may gain a card costing $3 or $4 from the trash.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Vassal. (This is not in the Supply)
Cost: $3*
Action - Traveller

Vassal:
During Spring and Summer: +$3, each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand.
During Fall and Winter: +$1, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
When you discard this from play during Spring or Summer, you may exchange it for a Man-at-Arms. (This is not in the Supply)
Cost: $4*
Action - Attack - Seasons - Traveller

Man-at-Arms:
Move the Seasons marker up to 2 rounds forward or backward.
During Spring and Summer: +3 Cards, each other player gains a Curse.
During Fall and Winter: +2 Cards, each other player gains a Copper.
When you discard this from play during Spring or Summer, you may exchange it for a Dragon Slayer.
Cost: $5*
Action - Attack - Seasons - Traveller

Dragon Slayer:
Choose one: Discard the Legendary Dragon from use; or +$4; or +$2 and each other player discards the top two cards of his deck and gains a Curse and a Copper, putting them on top of his deck in either order.
Cost: $6*
Action - Attack - Traveller

[ThetaSigma12]

Dragon Slayer shouldn't have the traveller subtype

[Nflickner]

I think I like the Traveller version better. Here are my ideas for the Travellers:

Thanks Gubump!  I  agree that the traveller version is better.  I realize that my initial idea for the names of the progression are not incredibly interesting--it doesn't tell an interesting story as well as the Peasant/Teacher line.  So I think I will adjust it a little, and here is my first idea:
Serf<Outlaw<Convert<Crusader<Dragon Hunter<King (only for the one player who kills the dragon)

Basically, a humble serf of a local medieval lord gets tired of slaving away for him and runs away into the woods, so is now an outlaw.  He then learns some fighting skills from other outlaws in the forest (kind of like Robin Hood) but is exposed to religious teaching and becomes a Convert.  He goes to war as a Crusader, but becomes jaded with the bloodshed and vows to only fight for truth and justice as a Dragon Slayer.  He finally kills the dragon who has been destroying the kingdom, and all the people rise up to make him king of the realm because of his great exploits and strong character. 

I'm going to try as best as I can to make the individual actions as thematic as possible.

Here's an idea for Serf:
Action-Season-Traveller
Cost: 2
In Spring and Fall:
+1 Action
+1 Coin
Each other player gains a copper
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Outlaw
Setup:  Add the Legendary Dragon to the supply

(I realize that this sounds like an attack, and it is an attack in a way, but the "Attack" monicker doesn't fit the theme.  Also, it is a one shot--you are forced to trade it up for an Outlaw if you play it, unlike most travellers.) The reason why it is only during Spring and Fall is because farming is seasonal. 
I'm not sure if it is too strong (or too weak?--I have considered giving it a +1 coin), but I kind of like that it changes up the early game a little. 

(edit--added "king" to traveller progression and +1 coin to serf card)

[Nflickner]

Man-at-Arms:
Move the Seasons marker up to 2 rounds forward or backward.
During Spring and Summer: +3 Cards, each other player gains a Curse.
During Fall and Winter: +2 Cards, each other player gains a Copper.
When you discard this from play during Spring or Summer, you may exchange it for a Dragon Slayer.
Cost: $5*
Action - Attack - Seasons - Traveller

Dragon Slayer:
Choose one: Discard the Legendary Dragon from use; or +$4; or +$2 and each other player discards the top two cards of his deck and gains a Curse and a Copper, putting them on top of his deck in either order.
Cost: $6*
Action - Attack - Traveller

I like your idea for the man at arms--i might use some version of that for my Outlaw card.  Also, in your idea of the Dragon slayer, were you including my original idea of getting a prize of some sort, or no?

[Gubump]

Man-at-Arms:
Move the Seasons marker up to 2 rounds forward or backward.
During Spring and Summer: +3 Cards, each other player gains a Curse.
During Fall and Winter: +2 Cards, each other player gains a Copper.
When you discard this from play during Spring or Summer, you may exchange it for a Dragon Slayer.
Cost: $5*
Action - Attack - Seasons - Traveller

Dragon Slayer:
Choose one: Discard the Legendary Dragon from use; or +$4; or +$2 and each other player discards the top two cards of his deck and gains a Curse and a Copper, putting them on top of his deck in either order.
Cost: $6*
Action - Attack - Traveller

I like your idea for the man at arms--i might use some version of that for my Outlaw card.  Also, in your idea of the Dragon slayer, were you including my original idea of getting a prize of some sort, or no?

I forgot about that. Here's a version that gains a Prize or something similar:

Dragon Slayer:
Choose one: +$2 and discard the Legendary Dragon from use; or +$4; +1 Buy and +$3; or if the Legendary Dragon is no longer in use, exchange this for a Prize from the Prize pile. (This is not in the Supply)
Cost: $6*
Action

I made it a one-shot for Prize-gaining because I thought that it would be too strong otherwise.

[Nflickner]

I think I like the Traveller version better. Here are my ideas for the Travellers:

Thanks Gubump!  I  agree that the traveller version is better.  I realize that my initial idea for the names of the progression are not incredibly interesting--it doesn't tell an interesting story as well as the Peasant/Teacher line.  So I think I will adjust it a little, and here is my first idea:
Serf<Outlaw<Convert<Crusader<Dragon Hunter

Basically, a humble serf of a local medieval lord gets tired of slaving away for him and runs away into the woods, so is now an outlaw.  He then learns some fighting skills from other outlaws in the forest (kind of like Robin Hood) but is exposed to religious teaching and becomes a Convert.  He goes to war as a Crusader, but becomes jaded with the bloodshed and vows to only fight for truth and justice as a Dragon Slayer. 

I'm going to try as best as I can to make the individual actions as thematic as possible.

Here's an idea for Serf:
Action-Season-Traveller
Cost: 2
In Spring and Fall:
+1 Action
Each other player gains a copper
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Outlaw
Setup:  Add the Legendary Dragon to the supply

(I realize that this sounds like an attack, and it is an attack in a way, but the "Attack" monicker doesn't fit the theme.  Also, it is a one shot--you are forced to trade it up for an Outlaw if you play it, unlike most travellers.) The reason why it is only during Spring and Fall is because farming is seasonal. 
I'm not sure if it is too strong (or too weak?--I have considered giving it a +1 coin), but I kind of like that it changes up the early game a little.

I have a new idea for the Traveller line:  there will be a final Traveller after the Dragon Slayer, perhaps named King.  Only one player will be able to acquire the king card--the one who kills the dragon first.  I'm thinking the King will either be an Action/Victory hybrid or will give you some VP tokens when you first gain it.  I won't make the King card too overpowered, because I still want the game to be balanced.  Thoughts?

[Nflickner]

This is a rough draft of the second card in the season traveller line I'm developing: Outlaw.  It may look to be a bit powerful at first, but notice that it is a one shot--you are required to exchange it for the next card in the Traveller line.  Always open to thoughts and critiques.   

[math]

I do

This is a rough draft of the second card in the season traveller line I'm developing: Outlaw.  It may look to be a bit powerful at first, but notice that it is a one shot--you are required to exchange it for the next card in the Traveller line.  Always open to thoughts and critiques.   

I do think this is a bit too powerful.  Compare it to the other $3 Travellers. Treasure Hunter is weak and sometimes actually hurts your deck; Soldier is an extremely weak attack with a terminal silver.  Both would rarely be bought if they weren't Travellers.  It's true that this card is a "one shot", but it will turn into a better card instead of disappearing.

Technical detail: If any of the upgrades distribute Ruins, wouldn't the original Serf need the Looter type so the Ruins would be in the Supply?

[Nflickner]

Thanks Math, I appreciate your comments and I will adjust the power level of this card. 

[Asper]

I think 5 types are more than i'd be willing to accept on a single card. I mean, sure, we need Seasons, so 2 is the minimum and 3 unavoidable if you want to also have attacks. I guess 4 might be acceptable for really special cases, like a Seasons card that distributed Ruins. But i'd rather split the ideas up, and have two distinct cards instead of one that is both Looter and Traveller. Seasons adds complexity, don't forget that. For example, what is the difference between Copper or Ruins junking? Is it worth the Seasons type?

If you think yes, maybe you can solve it without the card being a Traveller, instead? After all, you often forget exchanging your Travellers. This is your own fault and not a problem mechanics-wise, normally. But here you actually break the rules by forgetting something you are supposed to do, but don't expect to have to remember (which is one of the things which annoy me with Treasure Hunter's mandatory "Why did nobody pay attention?"-silver counting). At the very least it makes you look through your discard pile if you forgot exchanging, which isn't allowed by default. I'd rather make exchanging optional or trash it/return it on play to gain the next card in the chain, similar to Urchin. As mentioned, you could drop the Traveller type in this case.

[Nflickner]

I think 5 types are more than i'd be willing to accept on a single card. I mean, sure, we need Seasons, so 2 is the minimum and 3 unavoidable if you want to also have attacks. I guess 4 might be acceptable for really special cases, like a Seasons card that distributed Ruins. But i'd rather split the ideas up, and have two distinct cards instead of one that is both Looter and Traveller. Seasons adds complexity, don't forget that. For example, what is the difference between Copper or Ruins junking? Is it worth the Seasons type?

If you think yes, maybe you can solve it without the card being a Traveller, instead? After all, you often forget exchanging your Travellers. This is your own fault and not a problem mechanics-wise, normally. But here you actually break the rules by forgetting something you are supposed to do, but don't expect to have to remember (which is one of the things which annoy me with Treasure Hunter's mandatory "Why did nobody pay attention?"-silver counting). At the very least it makes you look through your discard pile if you forgot exchanging, which isn't allowed by default. I'd rather make exchanging optional or trash it/return it on play to gain the next card in the chain, similar to Urchin. As mentioned, you could drop the Traveller type in this case.

Thanks Asper-- I think what I will do is make the first card in my line a seasons card, and then have most (or all) the other ones non season cards so that it is less complicated.  So that would mean that this card will be simplified.  I appreciate the comments about the likelihood of people forgetting to exchange it, which is true, so that will probably mean that I will make it into a normal traveler card and drop the junking attack perhaps. 

[eHalcyon]

I haven't read through the Travellers ideas above, but a possible idea for a step 1 traveller for Seasons is for it to exchange to something different depending on the season.  The complicated implementation would have multiple potential lines.  The simple implementation could simply allow the Traveller to skip a step (or steps) depending on the season, e.g. skip when exchanging in Spring to incentivize earlier commitment, or skip in Winter so you can put it off.  The skipped step(s) could maybe be powerful so you don't want to skip it, or especially weak so you really, really do.  I'm sure there are other possibilities too.

[Nflickner]

I haven't read through the Travellers ideas above, but a possible idea for a step 1 traveller for Seasons is for it to exchange to something different depending on the season.  The complicated implementation would have multiple potential lines.  The simple implementation could simply allow the Traveller to skip a step (or steps) depending on the season, e.g. skip when exchanging in Spring to incentivize earlier commitment, or skip in Winter so you can put it off.  The skipped step(s) could maybe be powerful so you don't want to skip it, or especially weak so you really, really do.  I'm sure there are other possibilities too.

Ooh, these are some great ideas--definitely something for me to ponder more   I'm thinking one of the simple implementations will be better, or maybe just a split at the very end, but not early in the line.  Or a one off split that converges again.  (one of the mid travelers splits into two different options, but then the traveler after that is the same again no matter what)

[math]

I haven't read through the Travellers ideas above, but a possible idea for a step 1 traveller for Seasons is for it to exchange to something different depending on the season.  The complicated implementation would have multiple potential lines.  The simple implementation could simply allow the Traveller to skip a step (or steps) depending on the season, e.g. skip when exchanging in Spring to incentivize earlier commitment, or skip in Winter so you can put it off.  The skipped step(s) could maybe be powerful so you don't want to skip it, or especially weak so you really, really do.  I'm sure there are other possibilities too.

Ooh, these are some great ideas--definitely something for me to ponder more   I'm thinking one of the simple implementations will be better, or maybe just a split at the very end, but not early in the line.  Or a one off split that converges again.  (one of the mid travelers splits into two different options, but then the traveler after that is the same again no matter what)

The latter option sounds like a good idea, especially since the last Traveller is usually the best.  I would hate to have my opponent exchange his Traveller one turn before I do and get something better as a result, with no way to come back.

[junkers]

While I haven't gone through all twenty-two pages of analysis and criticism, I'm very much looking forward to giving this expansion a go. And seeing where the continued community discussion might take the project - seeing familiar mechanics (like Travelers) applied to Seasons' central conceit is grand.

I think Bailiff is a standout because he's going to add extra intrigue to alt-VP (and now Castles!) games. But the alternate Timberland that is worth more or less depending on when the game ends is a class act.

Congratulations, too, on choosing largely suitable palettes. Trade Port in particular looks smashing.

I really like the concept of the temporal mechanic, but for those that have had the pleasure of playing it: has it resulted in overtly swingy games? Or have most games tended to be quite close? Maybe it has acted as a "blue shell" that has allowed players who are trailing to turn the tables? Or maybe it really is just an "every kingdom is different" situation and I'm rambling.

[Nflickner]

I really like the concept of the temporal mechanic, but for those that have had the pleasure of playing it: has it resulted in overtly swingy games? Or have most games tended to be quite close? Maybe it has acted as a "blue shell" that has allowed players who are trailing to turn the tables? Or maybe it really is just an "every kingdom is different" situation and I'm rambling.

I have printed and played with most of the cards with my wife, and we have really enjoyed it.  As I said earlier in the forums, Seasons is I think the most balanced and fun fan expansion I've ever come across.  I don't think it's too swingy personally, the games we have played have been close, even when we have played differing strategies from each other. 

My favorite cards from it from best down are: Sojourner, Wayfare, Tradeport, Sanitarium, and Student.  If you want to give it a shot, I recommend using some of those, cause they will really give your games an interesting twist.  There is something about Sojourner that really lets you see the Seasons dynamic dynamically   And the decision of when to use Wayfare is quite nailbiting   (my wife picked Fall, and I picked Winter). 
Hope you enjoy it as much as I have. 

[Nflickner]

Oooh, I'm wondering if making a two pile card for seasons would be fun   Perhaps the buried card is very strong, but is only useful before winter, so there is a mad rush to get through the top half of the pile in order to get to the buried card in order to use it a couple times before it is useless. 

A Landmark will be fun to design for this as well!  Very excited to try out some of these possibilities in the future. 

[junkers]

It'd be neat to see how the printed cards came out if you've used photo paper and sleeves, Nflickner.

And the decision of when to use Wayfare is quite nailbiting   (my wife picked Fall, and I picked Winter).

Do you often buy it well ahead of time, to set a clock on each other? Or pick it up just before entering the season you're going to use it in? When you both commit to a slog early, is the opportunity to cash in on a second spring just too darn tempting?

A Landmark will be fun to design for this as well!

I'm having trouble thinking of anything that isn't simply a variation on Timberland #2, but I think that a Landmark here would definitely have to make use of the titular seasons. Guess that might be made easier once we've seen the rest of the Empires contents...

Perhaps the buried card is very strong, but is only useful before winter, so there is a mad rush to get through the top half of the pile in order to get to the buried card in order to use it a couple times before it is useless.

I don't know if locking a card out of use completely after one period sounds too grand - wouldn't you have to give it a very small effect so it's not totally dead?

Actually, that's got me to thinking about hibernation and renewal... Is there a reason we have to start in Spring every year?

[Nflickner]

It'd be neat to see how the printed cards came out if you've used photo paper and sleeves, Nflickner.

And the decision of when to use Wayfare is quite nailbiting   (my wife picked Fall, and I picked Winter).

Do you often buy it well ahead of time, to set a clock on each other? Or pick it up just before entering the season you're going to use it in? When you both commit to a slog early, is the opportunity to cash in on a second spring just too darn tempting?

A Landmark will be fun to design for this as well!

I'm having trouble thinking of anything that isn't simply a variation on Timberland #2, but I think that a Landmark here would definitely have to make use of the titular seasons. Guess that might be made easier once we've seen the rest of the Empires contents...

Perhaps the buried card is very strong, but is only useful before winter, so there is a mad rush to get through the top half of the pile in order to get to the buried card in order to use it a couple times before it is useless.

I don't know if locking a card out of use completely after one period sounds too grand - wouldn't you have to give it a very small effect so it's not totally dead?

Actually, that's got me to thinking about hibernation and renewal... Is there a reason we have to start in Spring every year?

Yes, I would love to post a picture of the cards that i printed out, but right now they are put away due to a bed bug infestation   So I will have to post pictures later.  If I forget, feel free to remind me.  The cards came out great--they look very professional.  Really the only difference is that they are slightly thinner than normal dominion cards.  Oh--and I use black-backed sleeves.  That way it doesn't matter that the cards I printed don't have the fancy back.  I don't know how it would work if I didn't use sleeves. 
For wayfare--we bought it pretty close to the season we were going to use it in.  We didn't play any slogs, and one of our games ended before we even got to Winter. 
To answer your question about the two pile idea I had, my idea was only that the bottom card would be much less powerful, or would turn into a cantrip perhaps only during the season of winter, but otherwise would be quite powerful.  Perhaps the top card would be a little less interesting, so you have to decide whether you will buy through the top cards to get to the powerful bottom card. 

Your idea about starting the seasons at a different time is a good one.  I think adding a seasons card that says "Setup: start the seasons marker in Winter" would be an interesting twist

[junkers]

So I will have to post pictures later.  If I forget, feel free to remind me.

Don't want you going to too much trouble, but if you do remember the next time you have them out, I'll be far from upset.

To answer your question about the two pile idea I had, my idea was only that the bottom card would be much less powerful, or would turn into a cantrip perhaps only during the season of winter, but otherwise would be quite powerful.  Perhaps the top card would be a little less interesting, so you have to decide whether you will buy through the top cards to get to the powerful bottom card.

Something that clearly puts a clock on itself like that is going to be quite difficult to design.

Are you thinking that the top part would be $2-$3 to encourage digging, or will the underlying card be incentive enough, even if the top is $5-6?

Before you even get there, I guess you've got to decide on a super strong function that has to be buried and only printed five times...

Your idea about starting the seasons at a different time is a good one.  I think adding a seasons card that says "Setup: start the seasons marker in Winter" would be an interesting twist

And it's here where I should probably go back and read the rest of the thread to here the dev's justifications for why it's a one year game, and why each season is five turns exactly...

[Nflickner]

And it's here where I should probably go back and read the rest of the thread to here the dev's justifications for why it's a one year game, and why each season is five turns exactly...

I think the rationale is simply that most dominion games last around 18-22 turns.

[Asper]

And it's here where I should probably go back and read the rest of the thread to here the dev's justifications for why it's a one year game, and why each season is five turns exactly...

I think the rationale is simply that most dominion games last around 18-22 turns.

That's part of it, but not the only reason. It's true that a standard game of Dominion, or at least a game played by halfway skilled players, will be over after about that number of turns. In fact, during playtesting we made the experience that only few games with certain kinds of kingdoms enter the second year. But of course the game is not bound to end after one year.

Still, you can map Seasons to game phases rather well. The first Season is your opening phase. 5 turns ensures you will always be able to play your opening buys in Spring, unless of course some Brigands or other criminal scum discards them. (This is also the reason why i personally prefer to have cards that do something special when played in Spring to cost $4 or less, so you can always open with them. Well, as you see, we have an exception, too.) So, here's an advantage of 5. If we made it 4, not only would the game usually end in Spring instead of Winter, but we also had some people not be able to play their opening buys in Spring. This sucks for some cards, like Student, or Sojourner. What about 6? Well, it just feels too long, the Seasons drift apart, and there's no real advantage over 5. And, well, 5 is a nice number to remember.

The other Seasons are not as tight, but here's the thought behind them: If Spring is opening, Summer is buildup. In Fall (Autumn for the classy ones), you should have your deck running and doing your last preparations to green. Winter is where you green and your deck slowly degrades. And second Spring, well, it's not strictly the same pattern as the first, but still has a similarity: A relatively weak deck with quite a few VP cards. Of course, second Spring still isn't as clearly defined as the first. Which isn't that much of a problem, because first, you don't often get there. Second, if you do, it's probably because you are playing a special kind of kingdom, such as a slog, and then most of the other things don't apply as much either. And: The fact that you might run into a second Spring creates an interesting turning point. If we had the year take 24 turns, it would very, very rarely happen to get into year two. With 20 turns, it feels like something that might happen, and an experienced player might be able to guess it beforehand.

Of course, all that's theory. If you try to set up a kingdom designed to prove how useful Scout is, you might not be finished after year 3...

[Nflickner]

And it's here where I should probably go back and read the rest of the thread to here the dev's justifications for why it's a one year game, and why each season is five turns exactly...

I think the rationale is simply that most dominion games last around 18-22 turns.

That's part of it, but not the only reason. It's true that a standard game of Dominion, or at least a game played by halfway skilled players, will be over after about that number of turns. In fact, during playtesting we made the experience that only few games with certain kinds of kingdoms enter the second year. But of course the game is not bound to end after one year.

Still, you can map Seasons to game phases rather well. The first Season is your opening phase. 5 turns ensures you will always be able to play your opening buys in Spring, unless of course some Brigands or other criminal scum discards them. (This is also the reason why i personally prefer to have cards that do something special when played in Spring to cost $4 or less, so you can always open with them. Well, as you see, we have an exception, too.) So, here's an advantage of 5. If we made it 4, not only would the game usually end in Spring instead of Winter, but we also had some people not be able to play their opening buys in Spring. This sucks for some cards, like Student, or Sojourner. What about 6? Well, it just feels too long, the Seasons drift apart, and there's no real advantage over 5. And, well, 5 is a nice number to remember.

The other Seasons are not as tight, but here's the thought behind them: If Spring is opening, Summer is buildup. In Fall (Autumn for the classy ones), you should have your deck running and doing your last preparations to green. Winter is where you green and your deck slowly degrades. And second Spring, well, it's not strictly the same pattern as the first, but still has a similarity: A relatively weak deck with quite a few VP cards. Of course, second Spring still isn't as clearly defined as the first. Which isn't that much of a problem, because first, you don't often get there. Second, if you do, it's probably because you are playing a special kind of kingdom, such as a slog, and then most of the other things don't apply as much either. And: The fact that you might run into a second Spring creates an interesting turning point. If we had the year take 24 turns, it would very, very rarely happen to get into year two. With 20 turns, it feels like something that might happen, and an experienced player might be able to guess it beforehand.

Of course, all that's theory. If you try to set up a kingdom designed to prove how useful Scout is, you might not be finished after year 3...

Thanks Asper, the last part about the different seasons and what they are generally for is quite helpful.  In my games of Seasons, we found that Spring went extremely fast, to the point where we almost decided to adust it so that the marker doesn't move after the first turn, but then we kept to the rules   The other seasons then slow down quite a bit. 

[Nflickner]

On a random note, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

[ThetaSigma12]

On a random note, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I was going to get TS but I'm waiting till it goes on sale. I'd love to play with you when I get it!

[LibraryAdventurer]

I have TS, and I'll be happy to play Seasons with someone sometimes, but I'll be busy most of the next two weeks...

[Asper]

On a random note, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

[Nflickner]

On a random note, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how TS works in terms of how it is a physics engine.  I've loaded one of the Dominion set ups from the workshop (that's what I meant by "app" in my previous post).  It has all the expansions and tokens (and yes, I own all the physical copies myself).  My question is, I'm not sure how to get the seasons cards into the playing arena along with all the other cards on the table.  Is there some place in TS where you can add elements to the game that you have previously saved?  What I mean is, I saved the seasons deck in the deckbuilder, but I'm not sure how to access it in the actual TS simulator. 

[Nflickner]

On a random note, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I was going to get TS but I'm waiting till it goes on sale. I'd love to play with you when I get it!

It's on sale right now for only ten bucks fifty percent off at humble bundle!  https://www.humblebundle.com/store/tabletop-simulator

[junkers]

The other Seasons are not as tight, but here's the thought behind them: If Spring is opening, Summer is buildup. In Fall (Autumn for the classy ones), you should have your deck running and doing your last preparations to green. Winter is where you green and your deck slowly degrades. And second Spring, well, it's not strictly the same pattern as the first, but still has a similarity: A relatively weak deck with quite a few VP cards. Of course, second Spring still isn't as clearly defined as the first. Which isn't that much of a problem, because first, you don't often get there. Second, if you do, it's probably because you are playing a special kind of kingdom, such as a slog, and then most of the other things don't apply as much either. And: The fact that you might run into a second Spring creates an interesting turning point. If we had the year take 24 turns, it would very, very rarely happen to get into year two. With 20 turns, it feels like something that might happen, and an experienced player might be able to guess it beforehand.

Thanks for the summary, Asper.

I figured that, once set, re-balancing the pros and cons for each individual card based on seasons would be a nightmare. And this is very thematic, without restricting you to a single year: a second spring may pop up, and you may have to deal with it.

TTS

Can only be used with a GabeSoft account? No thanks.

Seasons might be the excuse I need to get to grips with VASSAL...

[Asper]

On a random ote, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how TS works in terms of how it is a physics engine.  I've loaded one of the Dominion set ups from the workshop (that's what I meant by "app" in my previous post).  It has all the expansions and tokens (and yes, I own all the physical copies myself).  My question is, I'm not sure how to get the seasons cards into the playing arena along with all the other cards on the table.  Is there some place in TS where you can add elements to the game that you have previously saved?  What I mean is, I saved the seasons deck in the deckbuilder, but I'm not sure how to access it in the actual TS simulator.

While running TS, you need to load any table (preferrably your Dominion table), and then select "Host" -> "Chest" -> "Custom" -> "Deck". The first two should be accessible from the main selection visible at the top of the screen on any table, somewhere in the middle, and should open a big window showing several previews for components you can load into your game. One of those is "Custom", and when you click there, you should be able to select "deck" in a smaller window. This is where you can load the files into the game. You could also google "tabletop simulator custom deck", they made a video to explain it.

[Nflickner]

TTS

Can only be used with a GabeSoft account? No thanks.

Seasons might be the excuse I need to get to grips with VASSAL...

I'm not sure what Gabesoft is, but I don't remember needing an account with them.  You do need a Steam account for it, but that is it I think.  It's a beautiful little simulator

[Nflickner]

On a random ote, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how TS works in terms of how it is a physics engine.  I've loaded one of the Dominion set ups from the workshop (that's what I meant by "app" in my previous post).  It has all the expansions and tokens (and yes, I own all the physical copies myself).  My question is, I'm not sure how to get the seasons cards into the playing arena along with all the other cards on the table.  Is there some place in TS where you can add elements to the game that you have previously saved?  What I mean is, I saved the seasons deck in the deckbuilder, but I'm not sure how to access it in the actual TS simulator.

While running TS, you need to load any table (preferrably your Dominion table), and then select "Host" -> "Chest" -> "Custom" -> "Deck". The first two should be accessible from the main selection visible at the top of the screen on any table, somewhere in the middle, and should open a big window showing several previews for components you can load into your game. One of those is "Custom", and when you click there, you should be able to select "deck" in a smaller window. This is where you can load the files into the game. You could also google "tabletop simulator custom deck", they made a video to explain it.

Thanks asper, that helps alot.  I finally got it to work.  Seasons is now part of it!   The only trouble I'm having is with loading the seasons changer mat.  Whenever I try to load it into TTS, it is way too small. 

[Asper]

On a random ote, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how TS works in terms of how it is a physics engine.  I've loaded one of the Dominion set ups from the workshop (that's what I meant by "app" in my previous post).  It has all the expansions and tokens (and yes, I own all the physical copies myself).  My question is, I'm not sure how to get the seasons cards into the playing arena along with all the other cards on the table.  Is there some place in TS where you can add elements to the game that you have previously saved?  What I mean is, I saved the seasons deck in the deckbuilder, but I'm not sure how to access it in the actual TS simulator.

While running TS, you need to load any table (preferrably your Dominion table), and then select "Host" -> "Chest" -> "Custom" -> "Deck". The first two should be accessible from the main selection visible at the top of the screen on any table, somewhere in the middle, and should open a big window showing several previews for components you can load into your game. One of those is "Custom", and when you click there, you should be able to select "deck" in a smaller window. This is where you can load the files into the game. You could also google "tabletop simulator custom deck", they made a video to explain it.

Thanks asper, that helps alot.  I finally got it to work.  Seasons is now part of it!   The only trouble I'm having is with loading the seasons changer mat.  Whenever I try to load it into TTS, it is way too small.

Try, um, hovering your mouse over it and pressing "+"? Or maybe try another way to load it into the game, for example as a custom board (if you didn't already do that).

[Asper]

And it's here where I should probably go back and read the rest of the thread to here the dev's justifications for why it's a one year game, and why each season is five turns exactly...

I think the rationale is simply that most dominion games last around 18-22 turns.

That's part of it, but not the only reason. It's true that a standard game of Dominion, or at least a game played by halfway skilled players, will be over after about that number of turns. In fact, during playtesting we made the experience that only few games with certain kinds of kingdoms enter the second year. But of course the game is not bound to end after one year.

Still, you can map Seasons to game phases rather well. The first Season is your opening phase. 5 turns ensures you will always be able to play your opening buys in Spring, unless of course some Brigands or other criminal scum discards them. (This is also the reason why i personally prefer to have cards that do something special when played in Spring to cost $4 or less, so you can always open with them. Well, as you see, we have an exception, too.) So, here's an advantage of 5. If we made it 4, not only would the game usually end in Spring instead of Winter, but we also had some people not be able to play their opening buys in Spring. This sucks for some cards, like Student, or Sojourner. What about 6? Well, it just feels too long, the Seasons drift apart, and there's no real advantage over 5. And, well, 5 is a nice number to remember.

The other Seasons are not as tight, but here's the thought behind them: If Spring is opening, Summer is buildup. In Fall (Autumn for the classy ones), you should have your deck running and doing your last preparations to green. Winter is where you green and your deck slowly degrades. And second Spring, well, it's not strictly the same pattern as the first, but still has a similarity: A relatively weak deck with quite a few VP cards. Of course, second Spring still isn't as clearly defined as the first. Which isn't that much of a problem, because first, you don't often get there. Second, if you do, it's probably because you are playing a special kind of kingdom, such as a slog, and then most of the other things don't apply as much either. And: The fact that you might run into a second Spring creates an interesting turning point. If we had the year take 24 turns, it would very, very rarely happen to get into year two. With 20 turns, it feels like something that might happen, and an experienced player might be able to guess it beforehand.

Of course, all that's theory. If you try to set up a kingdom designed to prove how useful Scout is, you might not be finished after year 3...

Thanks Asper, the last part about the different seasons and what they are generally for is quite helpful.  In my games of Seasons, we found that Spring went extremely fast, to the point where we almost decided to adust it so that the marker doesn't move after the first turn, but then we kept to the rules   The other seasons then slow down quite a bit.

Spring goes by fast because two of those turns are just putting money on the table and buying stuff. Heck, in some games, there's no $2 and a few of those turns might be over immediately. From a gameplay perspective, you need to be aware of the fact that you practically must open with a Season card if you want to play it in Spring. I mean, unless one of your opening buys is Warehouse or something, or you hope to draw it as one of the three second-shuffle cards on turn 5... It's true Spring feels very short, but there's a philosophical nihilist reasoning behind that. One Season just has to include the opening, so let's make that season about the opening alone (pretty much).

[Nflickner]

On a random ote, I just purchased Tabletop simulator, and I think I correctly uploaded the seasons file that CL posted earlier in the thread, but I don't know how to access it in an actual Dominion app to play with in Tabletop Sim.  How do I find it in the game?  I know you've worked with it before Asper, so I'm hoping you will be able to help me with my query.  Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "Dominion app". TS has no apps. It has elements, like cards, tokens and so on, and you can drag them around and do stuff with them. It's a physics simulator. Like with actual cards, you can either use them to actually play the game, or just throw them in another player's face. Long story short, TS just loads the elements and knows no rules, therefore what you are looking for is not an app, but the actual components, like cards and tokens, which you should be able to find in the TS Workshop. You can also just copy a game when playing with somebody who already has it, or at least i imagine you should be able to do that. And of course i encourage you to buy/own the games you download.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how TS works in terms of how it is a physics engine.  I've loaded one of the Dominion set ups from the workshop (that's what I meant by "app" in my previous post).  It has all the expansions and tokens (and yes, I own all the physical copies myself).  My question is, I'm not sure how to get the seasons cards into the playing arena along with all the other cards on the table.  Is there some place in TS where you can add elements to the game that you have previously saved?  What I mean is, I saved the seasons deck in the deckbuilder, but I'm not sure how to access it in the actual TS simulator.

While running TS, you need to load any table (preferrably your Dominion table), and then select "Host" -> "Chest" -> "Custom" -> "Deck". The first two should be accessible from the main selection visible at the top of the screen on any table, somewhere in the middle, and should open a big window showing several previews for components you can load into your game. One of those is "Custom", and when you click there, you should be able to select "deck" in a smaller window. This is where you can load the files into the game. You could also google "tabletop simulator custom deck", they made a video to explain it.

Thanks asper, that helps alot.  I finally got it to work.  Seasons is now part of it!   The only trouble I'm having is with loading the seasons changer mat.  Whenever I try to load it into TTS, it is way too small.

Try, um, hovering your mouse over it and pressing "+"? Or maybe try another way to load it into the game, for example as a custom board (if you didn't already do that).

Thanks, that worked like a charm   I made a randomizer deck with all the cards plus seasons--it is beautiful. 

[Nflickner]

Here is my new mock up of my Serf.  Would love to hear thoughts

[Asper]

Here is my new mock up of my Serf.  Would love to hear thoughts

I like that it's a Traveller that's worse if you pick it up as part of your opening. Nice idea that uses the Season mechanic in a simple but meaningful way. Not sure it's enough to discourage buying it, but it gives waiting another shuffle a small buff. Although of course whether it's a buff or not depends on what exactly Outlaw does. If it's terminal draw, the Silver is (more often) good. If it's a Village, the Silver is usually bad, and i'd intentionally pick it up in Spring so i don't get a Silver. Nice idea either way.

By the way, you can have your images be smaller and only become large on click by using "width=600" or whatever number inside your image tag (quote me to see how it works).

[Nflickner]

I like that it's a Traveller that's worse if you pick it up as part of your opening. Nice idea that uses the Season mechanic in a simple but meaningful way. Not sure it's enough to discourage buying it, but it gives waiting another shuffle a small buff. Although of course whether it's a buff or not depends on what exactly Outlaw does. If it's terminal draw, the Silver is (more often) good. If it's a Village, the Silver is usually bad, and i'd intentionally pick it up in Spring so i don't get a Silver. Nice idea either way.

Thanks Asper,  Here is a new idea that I've touched up:

It makes it more playable later on for a variety of decks.  It also gives a bigger penalty if you want to play it in Spring.  The idea is that you want to play it as early as possible because the later Travellers are kind of a race, but it sucks to play it early. 
I also remembered to add my setup clause for the Dragon card, which is explained in my first post further up.  It's a card that attacks everyone in the game periodically through the seasons until it is destroyed by the last card in the traveller line. 

[Doom_Shark]

So, I just read all of the cards in the set for the first time in a while. A few things about them that I would like to mention:

A) I feel as though Sanitarium should cost . Yes, it can be better than village, but, not strictly better more often than not. The on-gain is nice, yes, but only works in early game. yes, early trashing is powerful, but it loses that ability when, or just after, junking would start. After that, it is strictly worse than village, as it can often function as a necropolis if there is any other draw in your deck at all. I would think that, although the jump from to is not that big, preventing players from opening Sanitarium/Sanitarium is not worth it, considering what is mentioned above.

B) Conversely, I think that Ballroom should be priced higher at , as it is strictly better than BoM. It gains you a card with the same restrictions as BoM, then plays it, thus acting as a BoM that gains the card it mimics. Granted, being a TR in the later half of the game might mitigate this issue, but I think it would be a solid if you restricted it to cards costing or less as opposed to cards costing less than it. Of course, there's the issue of milling the ballroom pile in one turn with cost reducers...if that comes up too often, that could be an issue, but otherwise it might be fun.

C) I think the first Bailiff is marginally more powerful than the second, as it allows the gaining of silver (or CotR, or loan...you get the picture) if used to gain estates.

Also, just a passing thought, have you ever thought about doing recommended sets of ten for Seasons?

[Co0kieL0rd]

So, I just read all of the cards in the set for the first time in a while. A few things about them that I would like to mention:

A) I feel as though Sanitarium should cost . Yes, it can be better than village, but, not strictly better more often than not. The on-gain is nice, yes, but only works in early game. yes, early trashing is powerful, but it loses that ability when, or just after, junking would start. After that, it is strictly worse than village, as it can often function as a necropolis if there is any other draw in your deck at all. I would think that, although the jump from to is not that big, preventing players from opening Sanitarium/Sanitarium is not worth it, considering what is mentioned above.

I don't like players to be able to open Sanitarium/Sanitarium. Trashing two Estates prior to the first shuffle is enormous and warps the game too much for my taste, and it's basically an auto-buy. Also there are cards with worse on-gain effects which still warrant a $1 cost increase (Nomad Camp). Although Sanitarium isn't technically a Village+, it has the potential to draw multiple cards when you reduce your handsize beforehand. It comes up more often than you probably think and we find it reasonably priced for that matter.

B) Conversely, I think that Ballroom should be priced higher at , as it is strictly better than BoM. It gains you a card with the same restrictions as BoM, then plays it, thus acting as a BoM that gains the card it mimics. Granted, being a TR in the later half of the game might mitigate this issue, but I think it would be a solid if you restricted it to cards costing or less as opposed to cards costing less than it. Of course, there's the issue of milling the ballroom pile in one turn with cost reducers...if that comes up too often, that could be an issue, but otherwise it might be fun.

Ballroom is not strictly better than BoM (but it's stronger in many cases). While you can play BoM as some cheap action cards which are only useful in the early game (Curpurse, Chapel, ...) and then switch to something different, you can't effectively do that with Ballroom because those cards end up in your deck. Yes, this will often still be an advantage as you can trash them for benefit or what have you. But upon playtesting we didn't feel any balancing issues with Ballroom. On a board with Ballroom and BoM, you will most certainly play Ballroom because it's usually better. But there are other cards that have a similar relationship with each other, e.g. you would usually buy Margrave or Torturer over Rabble. Ballroom might work at $6, too but I think it's less attractive and we don't have the time to do more tests at $6. But you can feel free to test alternative versions.

C) I think the first Bailiff is marginally more powerful than the second, as it allows the gaining of silver (or CotR, or loan...you get the picture) if used to gain estates.

Yes, the first one is obviously better as it's more flexible. But the wording has its problems and the second version avoids those. We want Bailiff to be primarily a victory card gainer in the second half of the game anyway.

Also, just a passing thought, have you ever thought about doing recommended sets of ten for Seasons?

No but that might be interesting. I have never 'designed' a kingdom before and it's probably not easy to do. Again, I don't know if Asper and I will find the time to test such kingdoms. Please be our guest to come up with a good kingdom involving Season cards; I'd like to see that.

Thanks for your feedback. We like to think of our set as finalized for the most part. Some cards come in two versions so you can play with whichever you prefer. Both are valid cards.

[Doom_Shark]

Something else I just noticed with bailiff. The first half simply says "trash 3 cards..." as opposed to "trash up to 3 cards..." was this intentional?

[Asper]

I do think Sanitarium would be fine at $3 if it didn't have the on-gain, because there are both situations where it's much better (discard attacks, discard for benefit, non-drawing cards, trashers) and situations where it's much worse than Village (handsize increasers). However, it does have the on-gain, and as you usually pay $4 for a Villages either way, so we went with thr path that made it good without being mandatory.

BoM will never clog your deck with Terminals, Ballroom will. I admit Ballroom is better, but far from being strictly better. Also, if you get it too late, you just paid $5 for a Throne Room.

Yes, Bailiff demands 3 cards, no less.

[ThetaSigma12]

I do think Sanitarium would be fine at $3 if it didn't have the on-gain, because there are both situations where it's much better (discard attacks, discard for benefit, non-drawing cards, trashers) and situations where it's much worse than Village (handsize increasers). However, it does have the on-gain, and as you usually pay $4 for a Villages either way, so we went with thr path that made it good without being mandatory.

BoM will never clog your deck with Terminals, Ballroom will. I admit Ballroom is better, but far from being strictly better. Also, if you get it too late, you just paid $5 for a Throne Room.

Yes, Bailiff demands 3 cards, no less.

I actually changed sanitarium to 5 because it's too good at 4. I think nobody really realizes how good a draw to X village is. (Well, except LibraryAdventurer). Adding a sweet on-gain bonus is just the icing on the cake. It may need further changing, but I'm defiantly not using it how it is at 3, or even 4.

[Asper]

I do think Sanitarium would be fine at $3 if it didn't have the on-gain, because there are both situations where it's much better (discard attacks, discard for benefit, non-drawing cards, trashers) and situations where it's much worse than Village (handsize increasers). However, it does have the on-gain, and as you usually pay $4 for a Villages either way, so we went with thr path that made it good without being mandatory.

BoM will never clog your deck with Terminals, Ballroom will. I admit Ballroom is better, but far from being strictly better. Also, if you get it too late, you just paid $5 for a Throne Room.

Yes, Bailiff demands 3 cards, no less.

I actually changed sanitarium to 5 because it's too good at 4. I think nobody really realizes how good a draw to X village is. (Well, except LibraryAdventurer). Adding a sweet on-gain bonus is just the icing on the cake. It may need further changing, but I'm defiantly not using it how it is at 3, or even 4.

What other cards were in that game? Terminal coins, discard attacks? I suppose you didn't go for a Smithy/Sanitarium engine?

[ThetaSigma12]

I do think Sanitarium would be fine at $3 if it didn't have the on-gain, because there are both situations where it's much better (discard attacks, discard for benefit, non-drawing cards, trashers) and situations where it's much worse than Village (handsize increasers). However, it does have the on-gain, and as you usually pay $4 for a Villages either way, so we went with thr path that made it good without being mandatory.

BoM will never clog your deck with Terminals, Ballroom will. I admit Ballroom is better, but far from being strictly better. Also, if you get it too late, you just paid $5 for a Throne Room.

Yes, Bailiff demands 3 cards, no less.

I actually changed sanitarium to 5 because it's too good at 4. I think nobody really realizes how good a draw to X village is. (Well, except LibraryAdventurer). Adding a sweet on-gain bonus is just the icing on the cake. It may need further changing, but I'm defiantly not using it how it is at 3, or even 4.

What other cards were in that game? Terminal coins, discard attacks? I suppose you didn't go for a Smithy/Sanitarium engine?

No discard attacks, but there were plenty of terminals and Ballroom was a great way to gain the sanatariums and reduce handsize later. What  I hate is that it's easily a lost city, and unless you throne it or so it's probbably gonna be a village. Id prefer it as a weaker 5 then a really good 4. Its also annoying when its useless on a board.

[drsteelhammer]

Is it ever useless, though? Not more than a regular Village.

It's also only a Lost City on it's first play, and it gets a lot worse very quickly. It probably shines more than any other card in a draw to X engine, but you need more support for them beyond Sanitariums.

[ThetaSigma12]

Maybe I just got lucky with my collisions, but I still want to try it nerfed before I go back to the original version.

[ThetaSigma12]

I do think Sanitarium would be fine at $3 if it didn't have the on-gain, because there are both situations where it's much better (discard attacks, discard for benefit, non-drawing cards, trashers) and situations where it's much worse than Village (handsize increasers). However, it does have the on-gain, and as you usually pay $4 for a Villages either way, so we went with thr path that made it good without being mandatory.

BoM will never clog your deck with Terminals, Ballroom will. I admit Ballroom is better, but far from being strictly better. Also, if you get it too late, you just paid $5 for a Throne Room.

Yes, Bailiff demands 3 cards, no less.

I actually changed sanitarium to 5 because it's too good at 4. I think nobody really realizes how good a draw to X village is. (Well, except LibraryAdventurer). Adding a sweet on-gain bonus is just the icing on the cake. It may need further changing, but I'm defiantly not using it how it is at 3, or even 4.

What other cards were in that game? Terminal coins, discard attacks? I suppose you didn't go for a Smithy/Sanitarium engine?

Wait, I think it might of had my new version of recruiter and knights, which defiantly added to it's power.

EDIT: Wait, that was production village. Same diff.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I personally don't like Sanitarium at $5, mainly because its on-gain benefit would be used too rarely. We discovered potent combos with this card but didn't see them as an issue. It obviously sucks in other situations which is why overall we think it's fine at $4 (although probably in the upper third within its category). If I had to change it, I would rather just make it a vanilla Village with the on-gain benefit at $4 that it cost $5.

It's still cool that you played with our card and shared your opinion. It's always good to know for other interested people as well.

[AdrianHealey]

One way to fix sanitarium would be to make it cost debt. The on gain is great, but sees little usage at 5 for obvious reasons. But being able to draw up to 3 cards with a village is great.

[Asper]

I feel that the impression it was too good for $4 is taken from a too small sample.

As a rule of thumb, Sanitarium is better than Village with cards that don't draw, and worse than Village with cards that draw 2 or more cards. It's equal with cantrips. It has an on-gain sometimes. It costs more. People think about Horse Traders and Mountebank, but forget about Smithy and Witch. It's obvious sometimes you prefer Sanitarium over Village, but certainly not in any case. People also forget about other $4 Villages Sanitarium competes with. You can't tell me it's a no-brainer to take Sanitarium over Worker's Village, especially not on a board with decent draw.

[Asper]

Now that i think of it, have you tried Sanitarium in games with Cursers? I believe trying to connect Sanitarium with a non-drawing action will be prone to choking, especially if that other card is terminal (so you need to connect with a second Sanitarium to get the order right).

[ThetaSigma12]

Do you guys have a basic Action-Season template? I can't find one to use.

[AdrianHealey]

Do you guys have a basic Action-Season template? I can't find one to use.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.msg582016#msg582016

This post has it.

[ThetaSigma12]

Do you guys have a basic Action-Season template? I can't find one to use.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.msg582016#msg582016

This post has it.

I saw that, but it's a season victory. I must be missing something.

EDIT: Looked at them both again, all prefecture does is crash GIMP and make me restart the computer because GIMP is on some funny setting now.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I uploaded prefecture because it contains both Season and Season/Victory templates. They're in different layers you can toggle on and off in the layers menu. I'm sorry this made your GIMP crash, though. Try this template:

[ThetaSigma12]

So Asper, what's the set like now? I see you've changed a few things over on German FDS.

[Asper]

So Asper, what's the set like now? I see you've changed a few things over on German FDS.

Short backstory for clarification:
When I decided to post my cards on German fds, I obviously needed to re-do them. I started with the cards from my main thread, then did the Spellcasters. Before soon I felt I should also post Seasons, because of how well received it was here (thanks for that, Co0kieL0rd and I were really overwhelmed with your great responses ). However, I didn't have a chance to talk with Co0kie about some things I would have liked to change with the set. For this reason, the following images show my current take on the set and not the "official" state of Seasons. My update also only has 8 cards, although there's nothing incredibly wrong with Bailiff, Sojourner or Wayfare.



Ball Room and Sanitarium are mechanically unchanged. Also, it's Autumn instead of Fall, now.

[AdrianHealey]

I like th Snow witch change (because I was a person who proposed it :p)

[ThetaSigma12]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

[Asper]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

I'm simply not convinced by your reasoning that Sanitarium would be too strong for 4$. It sometimes will be better than Village. It sometimes will be worse. It will be better more often than worse. Big deal, it costs more. It also gives the gaining bonus. Only a few times, though.

Again, if Sanitarium has to compete with Worker's Village, Wandring Minstrel or Port, it doesn't need to be just good enough for 4$. It's fine if it's a strong 4$. Neither a Village, nor trashing, nor draw-to-X are inherently game-winning effects. You need to be able to play them right. And if a strong card leads to more interesting strategies, which I think Sanitarium can, I see no problem.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a cost of <6>. But there's nothing wrong with a price of 4$, either. So I'm going to stick with the more simple thing unless something made me believe that costing Sanitarium at <6> somehow made the card more fun, which I doubt.

[schadd]

timberland has an unnecessary semicolon at the end

[schadd]

incidentally, are you a programmer?

[Asper]

incidentally, are you a programmer?

I am, although the semicolon was just an honest mistake.

[AdrianHealey]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

I'm simply not convinced by your reasoning that Sanitarium would be too strong for 4$. It sometimes will be better than Village. It sometimes will be worse. It will be better more often than worse. Big deal, it costs more. It also gives the gaining bonus. Only a few times, though.

Again, if Sanitarium has to compete with Worker's Village, Wandring Minstrel or Port, it doesn't need to be just good enough for 4$. It's fine if it's a strong 4$. Neither a Village, nor trashing, nor draw-to-X are inherently game-winning effects. You need to be able to play them right. And if a strong card leads to more interesting strategies, which I think Sanitarium can, I see no problem.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a cost of <6>. But there's nothing wrong with a price of 4$, either. So I'm going to stick with the more simple thing unless something made me believe that costing Sanitarium at <6> somehow made the card more fun, which I doubt.

<6> makes it easier to buy on a 5/2 when needed, I guess.

[Nflickner]

I really really like the new Timberland.  It's quite tempting to buy it early, which messes with your deck.  Absolutely love it.  Thanks!!!

[Asper]

I really really like the new Timberland.  It's quite tempting to buy it early, which messes with your deck.  Absolutely love it.  Thanks!!!

Admittedly, Timberland hasn't aged as well as the others, with Battlefield and Castles around now. Ah well...

[Asper]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

I'm simply not convinced by your reasoning that Sanitarium would be too strong for 4$. It sometimes will be better than Village. It sometimes will be worse. It will be better more often than worse. Big deal, it costs more. It also gives the gaining bonus. Only a few times, though.

Again, if Sanitarium has to compete with Worker's Village, Wandring Minstrel or Port, it doesn't need to be just good enough for 4$. It's fine if it's a strong 4$. Neither a Village, nor trashing, nor draw-to-X are inherently game-winning effects. You need to be able to play them right. And if a strong card leads to more interesting strategies, which I think Sanitarium can, I see no problem.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a cost of <6>. But there's nothing wrong with a price of 4$, either. So I'm going to stick with the more simple thing unless something made me believe that costing Sanitarium at <6> somehow made the card more fun, which I doubt.

<6> makes it easier to buy on a 5/2 when needed, I guess.

As I think about that, it in fact allows a Sanitarium/Sanitarium opening regardless of your hand. Which might be one of the reasons why all those debt cards cost <8>.

[AdrianHealey]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

I'm simply not convinced by your reasoning that Sanitarium would be too strong for 4$. It sometimes will be better than Village. It sometimes will be worse. It will be better more often than worse. Big deal, it costs more. It also gives the gaining bonus. Only a few times, though.

Again, if Sanitarium has to compete with Worker's Village, Wandring Minstrel or Port, it doesn't need to be just good enough for 4$. It's fine if it's a strong 4$. Neither a Village, nor trashing, nor draw-to-X are inherently game-winning effects. You need to be able to play them right. And if a strong card leads to more interesting strategies, which I think Sanitarium can, I see no problem.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a cost of <6>. But there's nothing wrong with a price of 4$, either. So I'm going to stick with the more simple thing unless something made me believe that costing Sanitarium at <6> somehow made the card more fun, which I doubt.

<6> makes it easier to buy on a 5/2 when needed, I guess.

As I think about that, it in fact allows a Sanitarium/Sanitarium opening regardless of your hand. Which might be one of the reasons why all those debt cards cost <8>.

Which is cool, because you can trash 2 estates then, making the draw to x more powerful. (If you open 3/4; if you open 5/2 in such a case, well, that's a problem.)

[Asper]

I still want Sanatarium at 6 Debt.

I'm simply not convinced by your reasoning that Sanitarium would be too strong for 4$. It sometimes will be better than Village. It sometimes will be worse. It will be better more often than worse. Big deal, it costs more. It also gives the gaining bonus. Only a few times, though.

Again, if Sanitarium has to compete with Worker's Village, Wandring Minstrel or Port, it doesn't need to be just good enough for 4$. It's fine if it's a strong 4$. Neither a Village, nor trashing, nor draw-to-X are inherently game-winning effects. You need to be able to play them right. And if a strong card leads to more interesting strategies, which I think Sanitarium can, I see no problem.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a cost of <6>. But there's nothing wrong with a price of 4$, either. So I'm going to stick with the more simple thing unless something made me believe that costing Sanitarium at <6> somehow made the card more fun, which I doubt.

<6> makes it easier to buy on a 5/2 when needed, I guess.

As I think about that, it in fact allows a Sanitarium/Sanitarium opening regardless of your hand. Which might be one of the reasons why all those debt cards cost <8>.

Which is cool, because you can trash 2 estates then, making the draw to x more powerful. (If you open 3/4; if you open 5/2 in such a case, well, that's a problem.)

Unless you suggested that cost because you were afraid 4$ was too strong.

[AdrianHealey]

I didn't suggest it, I think. I am just thinking it through.

[Asper]

I didn't suggest it, I think. I am just thinking it through.

Not you, but ThetaSigma. He thinks that Sanitarium is too strong. It might be stronger when it's strong than some other Villages for 4$ are, but my argument was that 5$ is not only too much in general but also ruins the Spring ability. So he came up with <6> and we just talked about which downsides this has if you actually assume Sanitarium was too strong.

[ThetaSigma12]

I didn't suggest it, I think. I am just thinking it through.

Not you, but ThetaSigma. He thinks that Sanitarium is too strong. It might be stronger when it's strong than some other Villages for 4$ are, but my argument was that 5$ is not only too much in general but also ruins the Spring ability. So he came up with <6> and we just talked about which downsides this has if you actually assume Sanitarium was too strong.

Well, it's not just me. We'll just have to agree to disagree about Sanatarium I guess, maybe I'll try to make sure it's in thenext kingdom I play.

[Asper]

I didn't suggest it, I think. I am just thinking it through.

Not you, but ThetaSigma. He thinks that Sanitarium is too strong. It might be stronger when it's strong than some other Villages for 4$ are, but my argument was that 5$ is not only too much in general but also ruins the Spring ability. So he came up with <6> and we just talked about which downsides this has if you actually assume Sanitarium was too strong.

Well, it's not just me. We'll just have to agree to disagree about Sanatarium I guess, maybe I'll try to make sure it's in thenext kingdom I play.

I mean, we're not even disagreeing about the fact it can be rather strong on the right board. We're just disagreeing on whether that means it's too strong in general and whether (or what kind of) action is required. However, I admit I haven't had much of a chance to test the Season cards in recent time. I am trying to not be a stubborn mule, so I hope to be able and change my mind when provided with convincing evidence that I was wrong. I'm not running for president, after all.