Print

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

[Co0kieL0rd]

To my surprise, I haven't seen any Dominion fan cards named Dragon on this forum for a long time... or ever. This might be because no mere mortal dares make a card based on such a fearsome creature without giving it an effect to match its grizzly renown.

Well, I think I found such an effect. It's so strong it has to be at the bottom of a split pile to be delayed. Dragon Tamers assemble on top to come to your protection, provided you can pay them.



Now behold the terrible creature lurking below! Here to bring great wealth unto the player who summoned it, and devastation upon the others!



So the Dragon is at the bottom of a split pile, expensive, even further delayed and a blocking card comes with it... it better had a huge impact!



To some it might feel that your turn phases should never be touched by any attack. I say with the right limitations you can do it. In the end it's all about the fun, though. This isn't going to be for everyone. But I'd be glad to hear your feedback - positive and negative - anyway.

Just to clarify, there are 5 Dragon Tamers and 5 Dragons, just like in a normal split pile.

And yes, you can absolutely choose to skip Clean-up on your turn - you don't get to discard cards from play or your hand (but you don't draw 5 cards either). This might occasionally be the best decision, particulary if you plan to end the game this turn anyway.

The card images were made using Violet CLM's Dominion Card Image Generator v1.3 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16622.0) and I'm very happy with the results It's an awesome program. I wasn't pleased with the image it generated for the Ravaged state so I made my own using GIMP (I was too lazy to replace the "Event" line at the top right, oh well).

[LaLight]

Shouldn't Dragon be Action-Reserve? Or did you intend to gain Golds in Night Phase and call it in another Night Phase?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Shouldn't Dragon be Action-Reserve? Or did you intend to gain Golds in Night Phase and call it in another Night Phase?

No and yes. I feel it's cooler if Dragon's a Night card.

[Gazbag]

I like that Dragon gains you Golds, making it harder to play one every turn. When I saw Dragon was a reserve, I thought you were going to need a Dragon Tamer in play to call it, that seems quite thematic. Although with Dragon Tamer blocking Dragon I suspect Dragon is actually very weak, soit probably doesn't need further restrictions.

[ThetaSigma12]

What if you skip your Clean-up phase with Ravaged? That seems really wacky.

[enfynet]

What if you skip your Clean-up phase with Ravaged? That seems really wacky.

Make sure you don’t get rid of all your actions, so you can do something next turn?

[Gazbag]

What if you skip your Clean-up phase with Ravaged? That seems really wacky.

Make sure you don’t get rid of all your actions, so you can do something next turn?

You wouldn't draw a new hand right? So you better have some Wharves in play! Or something...

Skipping cleanup seems confusing and begging to be broken. Maybe this should just be Action or Buy phase? It would mean you can avoid having the ugly non-Night wording too.

[enfynet]

What about an Enchantress-type effect, where Action cards basically "do nothing" for the turn? It wouldn't outright skip the Action phase, but it would only provide marginal cycling benefit.

[Co0kieL0rd]

What if you skip your Clean-up phase with Ravaged? That seems really wacky.

Make sure you don’t get rid of all your actions, so you can do something next turn?

You wouldn't draw a new hand right? So you better have some Wharves in play! Or something...

Skipping cleanup seems confusing and begging to be broken. Maybe this should just be Action or Buy phase? It would mean you can avoid having the ugly non-Night wording too.

Since the player with Ravaged can choose which phase to skip, it's their problem if they chose Clean-up. It's probably usually the worst option. I played one game with Dragon so far. Clean-up was skipped once - it felt very unusual of course but we stuck to the rulebook and everything worked out.

What about an Enchantress-type effect, where Action cards basically "do nothing" for the turn? It wouldn't outright skip the Action phase, but it would only provide marginal cycling benefit.

I don't want to force players to skip their Action phase (or have their actions annulled) if that's not what they want.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Ifskipping cleanup is usually the worst option, and is also by far the most confusing option, then yeah, don't even let people do it.  It's like building a road, and adding an extra lane that's intentionally full of potholes. Just don't add that lane. Someone will drive down it even though it's a bad decision, and why would you want that?

[Chappy7]

I've actually been thinking about a dragon card too.  I don't mean to take over your thread, but I also didn't want to start a dragon thread right after you did.  Sorry.  But here it is.  My dragon traveller line.  Burn tokens are kinda like Gazbag's ice tokens.  They sit on a card until you pay a coin per token to remove them in your buy phase.  Once a card has no more burn tokens it goes to your discard.

[popsofctown]

It's not clear to me that skipping cleanup will generate a new rules interaction.  We can already modify the number of cards drawn during Cleanup with Outpost.  We can already modify where cards go when they are cleaned up with Scheme.  We can already scoop up cards that are totally marked to be discarded this cleanup, with Crypt.  What component of cleanup is messed that we have never messed with that Dragon will muck with for the first time?  If someone is confused about what happens to their Hermit or Peasant, Scheme could already take some blame (it seems clearcut that the phase doesn't happen at all and there's no return).  If someone is confused about whether they will draw cards due to buying Explore (that's the 2 cards event right), Outpost already raises the question (but again, Dragon is actually more clear cut and easy to figure out than the original card).

So if it's merely a bad line of play, without a true rules ambiguity, it should stay on the card.  "It seems kinda weird and some card out there probably makes things weird" isn't sufficient reason to bail on a new mechanic.  That kind of fearfulness would would have given Masquerade a first time printing of "Each player with four or more cards in hands passes a card to their left", or "Each player may pass a card to their left" since the nature of the potential risk from the passing mechanic unknown at that point.  Things would have been way worse then, it'd be wordier, and the interesting interaction between Militia and Masquerade in 5% of games would be gone just for the benefit of the 0.2% of games with Masquerade-Militia-King's Court.

Anyway, as for Dragon Tamer, I really like the card overall.  I'm a little concerned that in 2 player, the line will go Player A buys Dragon Tamer 2. Player B buys Dragon Tamer 3. Player A buys Dragon Tamer. 4. Player B refuses to buy Dragon Tamer, snickers at player A for having double moneylender unless he purchases 3 curses to make the moneylenders better, gets 5 provinces before the first Dragon is played. Game 2: Player A and B each purchase 1 Dragon Tamer all game and ask if they can rename the card Moneylender.

[Asper]

I would write out which phases you can choose. Simply because if you, Donald, or anybody playing with these cards ever wants to introduce a new phase, say, "funding phase", where you put coin tokens on the projects you fund (whatever that means), suddenly this attack becomes pointless unless such cards are included. Because, technically speaking, I would argue that every game has a night phase, even if there are no Night cards, just as any game has an Action phase even without Action cards in the supply. If you disagree, well, why not just avoid this question? Also, I think expecting a player to recognize names like Action phase or cleanup phase is more reasonable than expecting them to be able to list all the phases there are by heart.

[popsofctown]

I would write out which phases you can choose. Simply because if you, Donald, or anybody playing with these cards ever wants to introduce a new phase, say, "funding phase", where you put coin tokens on the projects you fund (whatever that means), suddenly this attack becomes pointless unless such cards are included. Because, technically speaking, I would argue that every game has a night phase, even if there are no Night cards, just as any game has an Action phase even without Action cards in the supply. If you disagree, well, why not just avoid this question? Also, I think expecting a player to recognize names like Action phase or cleanup phase is more reasonable than expecting them to be able to list all the phases there are by heart.

If you are the designer, you could simply choose to add to the rule book that Stock Trader and all other cards with the Investor subtype generate the funding phase and add it to the game by their presence.

Still, if Stock Trader has Transmute's power level, neutering Dragon completely for that game for a dead card is even more tragic than when Transmute's Potion is the only reason you can't use Upgrade to trash your Silvers freely.  I would agree listing the phases is worth the real estate. 

Side note, it would also allow my household to play the card correctly, because I lie to them and rename the Buy Phase the Treasure Phase to communicate that is when they are allowed to play treasure cards, I find it works better, hahaha

[Co0kieL0rd]

Asper and popsofctown, I think you are both right that it would be clearer and safer if Ravaged just mentioned the three phases (Action, Buy and Clean-up) you are allowed to skip. Also popsofctown, thank you for your encouraging words

Ifskipping cleanup is usually the worst option, and is also by far the most confusing option, then yeah, don't even let people do it.  It's like building a road, and adding an extra lane that's intentionally full of potholes. Just don't add that lane. Someone will drive down it even though it's a bad decision, and why would you want that?

It was just an assumption. In the endgame, the decision is certainly not that clear. You might want to skip Clean-up to be able to finish the game by playing your deck and buying the last Province. I'm not afraid to add such an unusual effect to the game to try out new things. It's a fan card after all. Why would I subject myself to such limitations as "people might find it confusing" when the card text and rule book have it very clear?

Chappy7, your Dragon Traveller line looks very cool but all cards seem to be on the weak side relative to their cost, especially considering they're conditional as well. I think it's weird that the first two stages can only be exchanged under a certain condition whereas Wild Dragon just evolves into Trained Dragon with no effort. Shouldn't it feel more like an accomplishment to train your dragon?
You should definitely make a new thread for them, I won't mind. They're have nothing in common with my Dragon, not even the exact name.

[loneXolf]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

Dragon- A non-terminal gold gainer that's not situational might be too good for 7. However since you cannot buy it early game in most 3 and 2 player games it's probably fine. 

Ravaged- I can see this card really forcing players to not buy actions, if a lot of dragons get into play. An action phase without a buy phase is pretty weak in most cases. Which leads me to my next point which is skipping the Clean-up phase, what would even happen if you skip a clean up phase? Would it just put the game into limbo since the turn won't pass to the next player? Or am I just thinking of it wrong since there isn't much information on this in my rule book unless I missed it.

Chappy7's cards

Dragon egg- I dislike the huge RNG gap within this card. For example, if Dragon egg/Silver is the best opener in a kingdom, the strength of your turns 3 and 4 are defined by colliding the Dragon egg and Silver.

Hatching- Seems okay. The +1 card bonus seems a little weird for trashing a silver but I can see why you did it. 

Wild Dragon- I not a huge fan of knight already, Making the attack more consistent is pretty scary for me if you can rush out a Wild Dragon early. But isn't as devastating as knights and warrior can be. Probably works.

Trained Dragon- Not a huge fan of this card, it's too similar to wild dragon and isn't even definably better since Wild Dragon has the +buy, unless it's a colony game.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

Dragon- A non-terminal gold gainer that's not situational might be too good for 7. However since you cannot buy it early game in most 3 and 2 player games it's probably fine.

The first version put the Golds on top of your deck which was ridiculous. It made gaining additional Dragons and Provinces trivial.

Ravaged- I can see this card really forcing players to not buy actions, if a lot of dragons get into play. An action phase without a buy phase is pretty weak in most cases. Which leads me to my next point which is skipping the Clean-up phase, what would even happen if you skip a clean up phase? Would it just put the game into limbo since the turn won't pass to the next player? Or am I just thinking of it wrong since there isn't much information on this in my rule book unless I missed it.

This could happen in 4-player games but other than that, I don't really see it. If Dragon's any good on a given board, you probably shouldn't go for a pure engine, but nowadays there are plenty of alternatives anyway - hybrid decks can be a lot of fun to play.

What happens if you skip your Clean-up phase?

• You don't discard your hand.
• You don't discard cards you have in play. Any resources they produced expire after your turn ends.
• You don't draw 5 cards.
• The rulebook also says your turn ends in your Clean-up phase, so if you take it literally it wouldn't actually end. But of course your turn still ends - right after your Night phase.

[loneXolf]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

[popsofctown]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

Three and four are virtually equal price points.  It's just, kind of no big deal whether you put cards at 4 or 3.  Generally the main distinction is whether you want people to be able to double open with it, or load up on copies of it.  Moneylender is 4 to rescue players from their own newbtrap opening more than anything.  I suspect Salvager is 4 so that Salvaging salvager is cool, but it might be because loading up on them leads to some unusual strategies that aren't as interesting as when salvager is a light feature. 
Like urchin, this card needs to be available in good quantities for it to do its thing, so you want it to cost 3.  It's similar to Forager in this regard too, where it's really important to be able to get multiple Foragers to validate the work you do powering them up.  And you'll notice that Forager breaks the rule as you've composed it, you can easily trash a Silver and a Copper and then start trashing estates for and curses for 2$.  You can double back and complain about that Silver, but that'd be missing the point that putting something at 3$ is about having the right reasons more so than power level assessments.

[loneXolf]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

Three and four are virtually equal price points.  It's just, kind of no big deal whether you put cards at 4 or 3.  Generally the main distinction is whether you want people to be able to double open with it, or load up on copies of it.  Moneylender is 4 to rescue players from their own newbtrap opening more than anything.  I suspect Salvager is 4 so that Salvaging salvager is cool, but it might be because loading up on them leads to some unusual strategies that aren't as interesting as when salvager is a light feature. 
Like urchin, this card needs to be available in good quantities for it to do its thing, so you want it to cost 3.  It's similar to Forager in this regard too, where it's really important to be able to get multiple Foragers to validate the work you do powering them up.  And you'll notice that Forager breaks the rule as you've composed it, you can easily trash a Silver and a Copper and then start trashing estates for and curses for 2$.  You can double back and complain about that Silver, but that'd be missing the point that putting something at 3$ is about having the right reasons more so than power level assessments.

I disagree the 3 and 4 costing being interchangeable. My main points about cost: 4/3 split, it doesn't just allow you to double buy, but also lets you to start with a 4 cost; it's much easier to get multiple copies of cards that cost 3 with +buys; 3 costed cards are overall easier to buy; some design choices are just left at 4; 4 costed cards are generally more powerful. I didn't include Forager and Trade Route, since they're both situational and required set up, I was looking for pure stats to go along with trashing. Sure the gap between isn't big as 4-5 or 7-8. Support you claim and tell me some 4 costs that could or should cost 3 that aren't scout or spy.

[Gazbag]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

Three and four are virtually equal price points.  It's just, kind of no big deal whether you put cards at 4 or 3.  Generally the main distinction is whether you want people to be able to double open with it, or load up on copies of it.  Moneylender is 4 to rescue players from their own newbtrap opening more than anything.  I suspect Salvager is 4 so that Salvaging salvager is cool, but it might be because loading up on them leads to some unusual strategies that aren't as interesting as when salvager is a light feature. 
Like urchin, this card needs to be available in good quantities for it to do its thing, so you want it to cost 3.  It's similar to Forager in this regard too, where it's really important to be able to get multiple Foragers to validate the work you do powering them up.  And you'll notice that Forager breaks the rule as you've composed it, you can easily trash a Silver and a Copper and then start trashing estates for and curses for 2$.  You can double back and complain about that Silver, but that'd be missing the point that putting something at 3$ is about having the right reasons more so than power level assessments.

I disagree the 3 and 4 costing being interchangeable. My main points about cost: 4/3 split, it doesn't just allowed you to double buy, but also allows you to start with a 4 cost; it's much easier to get multiple copies of cards that cost 3 with +buys; 3 costed cards are generally easier to buy; some design choices are just left at 4; 4 costed cards are generally more powerful. I didn't include Forager and Trade Route, since they're both situational and required set up, I was looking for pure stats to go along with trashing. Sure the gap between isn't big as 4-5 or 7-8. Support you claim and tell me some 4 costs that could or should cost 3 that aren't scout or spy.

Here's what Donald had to say on the matter, although it's from years ago so it might be a bit outdated.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=84.0

[popsofctown]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

Three and four are virtually equal price points.  It's just, kind of no big deal whether you put cards at 4 or 3.  Generally the main distinction is whether you want people to be able to double open with it, or load up on copies of it.  Moneylender is 4 to rescue players from their own newbtrap opening more than anything.  I suspect Salvager is 4 so that Salvaging salvager is cool, but it might be because loading up on them leads to some unusual strategies that aren't as interesting as when salvager is a light feature. 
Like urchin, this card needs to be available in good quantities for it to do its thing, so you want it to cost 3.  It's similar to Forager in this regard too, where it's really important to be able to get multiple Foragers to validate the work you do powering them up.  And you'll notice that Forager breaks the rule as you've composed it, you can easily trash a Silver and a Copper and then start trashing estates for and curses for 2$.  You can double back and complain about that Silver, but that'd be missing the point that putting something at 3$ is about having the right reasons more so than power level assessments.

I disagree the 3 and 4 costing being interchangeable. My main points about cost: 4/3 split, it doesn't just allow you to double buy, but also lets you to start with a 4 cost; it's much easier to get multiple copies of cards that cost 3 with +buys; 3 costed cards are overall easier to buy; some design choices are just left at 4; 4 costed cards are generally more powerful. I didn't include Forager and Trade Route, since they're both situational and required set up, I was looking for pure stats to go along with trashing. Sure the gap between isn't big as 4-5 or 7-8. Support you claim and tell me some 4 costs that could or should cost 3 that aren't scout or spy.

Gaz linked the post I've read before and was hinting at.  According to Donald, Remodel.  And a lot of the 4$ Villages would be nicer at 3$, but sadly the strictly-better rule bugs people too much for us to have such nice things (except when it's not strictly better and we get to have Fishing Village!)

[loneXolf]

Dragon Tamer- Seems Good. But I am not 100% sure if a duration moneylender is balanced at 3 cost. And dragon tamer slightly more flexible. In most 2 player games I don't really see 5 Dragon Tamers being bought which is a shame.

It's made to be in-line with the other Durations that give the same bonuses as more expensive cards but split over two turns. Compare Caravan and Laboratory, Caravan Guard and Poacher, Ghost Town and Lost City. I actually think Dragon Tamer is weaker than Money Lender, and quite weak in general. I intentionally made it a trasher so that it's harder to ignore.
Whether or not five Dragon Tamers will be bought depends on a lot of things - how slow is the game going to be, how important trashing Treasures is, how strong players perceive Dragon to be... your next assertion suggests it's rather strong for $7 so there you go.

I did guess that's why you costed it at 3. My concern came from is that I could not think of a trasher at the cost of 3 that nets more than 1 coin while trashing a correct me if I am wrong. When a card does something not comparable at a cost it always leaves me with a question mark. It's doesn't seem extremely powerful at 3 so it's probably fine. Also, I don't find it stronger than moneylender, I just called it more flexible since it isn't as dead as moneylender can be once you stop drawing it with coppers.

Three and four are virtually equal price points.  It's just, kind of no big deal whether you put cards at 4 or 3.  Generally the main distinction is whether you want people to be able to double open with it, or load up on copies of it.  Moneylender is 4 to rescue players from their own newbtrap opening more than anything.  I suspect Salvager is 4 so that Salvaging salvager is cool, but it might be because loading up on them leads to some unusual strategies that aren't as interesting as when salvager is a light feature. 
Like urchin, this card needs to be available in good quantities for it to do its thing, so you want it to cost 3.  It's similar to Forager in this regard too, where it's really important to be able to get multiple Foragers to validate the work you do powering them up.  And you'll notice that Forager breaks the rule as you've composed it, you can easily trash a Silver and a Copper and then start trashing estates for and curses for 2$.  You can double back and complain about that Silver, but that'd be missing the point that putting something at 3$ is about having the right reasons more so than power level assessments.

I disagree the 3 and 4 costing being interchangeable. My main points about cost: 4/3 split, it doesn't just allow you to double buy, but also lets you to start with a 4 cost; it's much easier to get multiple copies of cards that cost 3 with +buys; 3 costed cards are overall easier to buy; some design choices are just left at 4; 4 costed cards are generally more powerful. I didn't include Forager and Trade Route, since they're both situational and required set up, I was looking for pure stats to go along with trashing. Sure the gap between isn't big as 4-5 or 7-8. Support you claim and tell me some 4 costs that could or should cost 3 that aren't scout or spy.

Gaz linked the post I've read before and was hinting at.  According to Donald, Remodel.  And a lot of the 4$ Villages would be nicer at 3$, but sadly the strictly-better rule bugs people too much for us to have such nice things (except when it's not strictly better and we get to have Fishing Village!)

Lets just stop this discussion about costs, we are starting to take over the thread and it seems endless.

[Asper]

Just one more thing, obviously whether a split pile's second half gets revealed also depends on the player count. Curiously, getting a Dragon Tamer both protects you from Dragons and makes it more likely you will be attacked at all. I wonder whether people who find Dragon annoying or built a strategy vulnerable to it might just get lass than their share of Dragon Tamers to make sure their opponent(s) have/has to get more than they can use if they want Dragon.