Print

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

[LastFootnote]

i love how you just ignored my question entirely 

it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.

I'm sorry, dude! I let the thread slide for so long and then I forgot to go back just now and answer all the stuff. No slight intended! I'm glad that you and Showdown are making those cards. I'll try to find some time soon to critique the set, if you're interested.

[silverspawn]

well, you're arguably the second most experienced guy out there when it comes to creating cards, so naturally i'm very much interested in your critique. and don't worry about it, it worked out fine after all.

[Showdown35]

i love how you just ignored my question entirely 

it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.

I'm sorry, dude! I let the thread slide for so long and then I forgot to go back just now and answer all the stuff. No slight intended! I'm glad that you and Showdown are making those cards. I'll try to find some time soon to critique the set, if you're interested.

Just so it's clear, I'm only creating the visuals for the cards and helping (and sometimes hindering) with wording. I'm glad silverspawn is giving me credit for that, but I don't want to take any creative credit for the card ideas themselves; it is entirely silverspawn's fan expansion. Regarding card design and function, I'm only doing as much as anyone else who comments in the threads.

[Nic]

Coincidently, I got a four-player game going last night, and I finally had an excuse to break out the Enterprise cards. I printed them out 4-5 months ago, but the only difference between them and the updated versions is that Jubilee still trashes itself. They didn't run out in this game, so no big deal.

Jubilee, Redistrict, Market Square, Gambler, Guide, Floodgate, Fund, Rogue, Bandit Camp, Nobles

I ended up tied for second, 31-30-30-29. No one bought Redistrict, I bought the only Gambler, and the winning player bought the only Fund. Guide was far and away the most popular card, and we all grabbed Jubilees for the extra trade tokens. The winning player saved up four tokens, played a Guide as his first action of the turn, and spent all his tokens to draw eight (effectively twelve) more cards. He then played and trashed his Fund to get himself up to $17, 2 buys. I don't think the card's too powerful for $3, but it was a lot of fun.

Two of us bought Floodgates for the sole purpose of slipping a dead Guide into our next hand. It seemed worthwhile, but it might get more play at $3; the effect isn't that much more powerful than Tunnel.

[LastFootnote]

I ended up tied for second, 31-30-30-29. No one bought Redistrict, I bought the only Gambler, and the winning player bought the only Fund. Guide was far and away the most popular card, and we all grabbed Jubilees for the extra trade tokens. The winning player saved up four tokens, played a Guide as his first action of the turn, and spent all his tokens to draw eight (effectively twelve) more cards. He then played and trashed his Fund to get himself up to $17, 2 buys. I don't think the card's too powerful for $3, but it was a lot of fun.

Two of us bought Floodgates for the sole purpose of slipping a dead Guide into our next hand. It seemed worthwhile, but it might get more play at $3; the effect isn't that much more powerful than Tunnel.

Nice! Thanks for testing them. With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I could definitely try Floodgate at $3. That significantly boosts its power, since you can usually save another $1 for next turn that way, but maybe it needs that boost! It probably does. Hmm…

[Nic]

With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.

[silverspawn]

With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.

i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.

that doesn't mean that another way cant be fun. just not as good.

[Nic]

i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.

Rogue was definitely a mistake, and since nobody was serious about trashing, I can't quantify how much it would've helped. But I do think Guide is better for draw than Nobles, and Fund should be bought whenever you hit $5 and you have enough Bandit Camps.

Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.

So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".

Yeah, this needs to be toned down. I really want to playtest Barracks and Recruiter, but I know I won't be able to convince other people to play with Conscripts as it is. I think mechanically, the safest thing to do would be to reverse the cursing and the discard.

If you want to preserve the theme, my vote would be for discard down to 4, then to 3, then start cursing. "Every player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card" is pretty concise, and it has a very fun combo with Wheelwright. (On the flip side, it would anti-synergize with Dignitary, but that's not the end of the world.) At that point you could playtest versions with +1 Action" and "you may play another Attack", to see which one has the appropriate power level.

[Nic]

    Barracks
    Types: Action – Campaign
    Cost: $5
    +1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

    Conscripts
    Types: Action – Attack
    Cost: $0*
    +1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.

I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.

It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.

FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.

It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)

You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.

(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)

Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

[LastFootnote]

FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.

It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)

You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.

(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)

Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

Thanks for the feedback, Nic. I'm going to take your (and others') advice and keep Domains only when Barrister is out. I really like the concept of Barrister/Domain in general, so I'm not ready to cut it entirely.

I haven't been able to get in much Enterprise playtesting lately, but here's what I'm thinking for card changes. I am aiming for simplicity.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.

Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.

Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

I sympathize with Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Investment is definitely dead. I need to remove that from the OP. Lodge is dead for now, as I've said before.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

I need to start testing a bunch of ideas and then cull down to the good ones. I'll go through my list of ideas, but for sure I am testing Conquest:

Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. If you did, each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals one costing from $3 to $6, trashes that card, and discards the rest. Gain one of those trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.

I guess I could just cut cards until I'm back down to 12 or 13.

Anyway, if you have any opinions about these proposed changes, please let me know!

EDIT: I'm going to add a "you may" to General. You may put the card back on the deck when you discard it. It's too easy to forget to do.

[silverspawn]

you kind of sold me on your the idea of domain as a defense. I don't dislike it as much anymore.

What was wrong with wheelwright and lodge? I'd be very interested in stories of cards that failed. also, what about convocation? I recall you talking about cutting it before. it may sound pretentious, but at some point I thought about everything that I could do with "reveal X cards {condition} put some of them in your hand." I really think that if you hadn't already made it, I would've done something almost identical, it's just the simplest way to do it with card types.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.

[LastFootnote]

well, you partly sold me on your the idea of domain as a defense, I don't dislike it as much anymore.

What was wrong with wheelwright and lodge? I'd be very interested in stories of cards that failed. also, what about convocation? I recall you talking about cutting it before. it may sound pretentious, but at some point I thought about everything that I could do with "reveal X cards {condition} put some of them in your hand." I really think that if you hadn't already made it, I would've done something almost identical, it's just the simplest way to do it with card types.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.

Lodge got guff (in this thread) for being too close to Vault. Wheelwright is well-liked and I'm not sure I'll cut it. I'm not planning on removing it from the OP yet, let's put it that way. I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

If I do cut Wheelwright, I can make your proposed change to Terrace without feeling like I have too much cellar in the set. But in addition to being more complex, I wonder if that makes it harder to decide when to use it. Maybe not.

You're right about Mill Town's name; I'll keep it for now. The reason for the 3-Copper threshold is because I didn't want piles of spammable $2 cards to just vanish. But it's worth testing without that limit. We'll see if Clerk/Mill Town is too crazy that way.

[silverspawn]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

[LastFootnote]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

Well, Cornucopia has enough non-terminal draw with Hunting Party and Menagerie. Plus, although Convocation encourages moderation with Actions, Treasures, and Victory cards, it doesn't reward variety the way cards that care about card names do.

[silverspawn]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

Well, Cornucopia has enough non-terminal draw with Hunting Party and Menagerie. Plus, although Convocation encourages moderation with Actions, Treasures, and Victory cards, it doesn't reward variety the way cards that care about card names do.

It's true that it's a different kind of variance. but hunting party doesn't reward variance at all, it actually punishes variance, because you want your hunting parties to dig for other hunting parties. it makes me not buy cards like pearl driver that I would have bought otherwise, which is exactly the opposite of what menagerie does, and what Harvest would do too if it wasn't terribly weak. And you could always move cards to other expansions.

I guess my point is just that it seems like something you would think off to me, almost like wishing well, it had to be made sooner or later. that's quite different with, f.e. Refurbish, even though it's also really simple. there's even a philosophical aspect to this: do you "create" a new idea when designing a card, or do you just "discover" an idea that's worth doing. I think you once said "there are simple cards left to make"

Also, I wouldn't really be afraid to keep some cards that are off theme. In Cornucopia, less then half of the cards actually care about variance, even if you count hunting party.

[Fragasnap]

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

A single hit with this does make a 6VP swing against a player which is big, but not insurmountable since it is stealing a junk card. In a 3-player game, if one person steals a Domain, another basically has to contest the Barristers because one player getting all three gives them 18VP. I think it will be worthwhile now, but I don't know if it will be fun.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I like Recruiter better with this new Conscripts since it is less analagous to Militia. Making Conscripts a curser will probably make Recruiter impossible to ignore though, for better or worse.

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.

I'd rather see Axeman get the axe than Wheelwright since Axeman feels similar to Pillage already, especially if you're going to give Conquest a shot seeing as it fits in with the one-shot themes.

[Nic]

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

I sympathize with Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.

Sorry, I guess I could've been more clear about the point I was trying to make. Trade Tokens are a simple concept: some cards give you them, some cards come with one. When a card gives you the opportunity to spend one, you can choose to do so for the bonus. Domain is also simple: the guy setting up the game already put it into your deck, and it's just a copper until you buy a Remodel or someone else plays a Barrister. Conscripts less so, but anyone who's played Dark Ages will understand it instantly. My point was that they seem a lot more complicated when the majority of your bandwidth is taken up by the wordiest cards. I didn't mean to suggest you should toss really good cards just because they're wordy.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.

Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

OTOH, this I like a whole lot more. I actually had no intention of ever playing with the old Barrister, just because I have my starting decks separated from the Estates and Coppers, and I didn't feel like messing with that setup for a card that didn't really interest me. (Also, I've sleeved over Rebuild, Embargo, a couple of the harsher attacks, and all my blanks to get about half of Enterprise, and fourteen more cards is a lot to ask.) But with the mini-Rabble cut out, the concept works a lot better.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.

Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

Considering how long it takes players to get used to Spoils, it might be wise to keep this guy as simple as possible. I would be okay with this version of Conscripts, but I liked the idea of making them weak on their own but more powerful in multiples. Discard a card to a minimum of four seems about the right power level, and it would give you a decision to make when only one comes up in your hand. Do I want to play it now for +$ and an attack that might not hurt that much, or do I save it and hope I can play both Conscripts on a future turn? With straight curse-giving, I feel like you'll automatically play them as soon as they come into your hand, whether or not you need the $2 -- Spoils requires more strategic thinking than that. (Also, General + 1 Conscripts would give out 1 Curse this way rather than 3 in two turns. I don't know if you see that as a good or a bad thing.)
The change to Recruiter seems fine, but it might not be necessary if you nerf Conscripts more.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Like, Ruined Village, decide whether to mulligan, then rest of village? Not a fan. Besides making the decision too easy, you could really confuse people by putting unconditional effects after conditional ones.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

Farmland and Noble Brigand don't match up with the other Hinterlands cards. Anyway, it wasn't Exchange/Fortress you were trying to fix, it was Exchange -> Exchange to hand -> repeat. I was about to say you shouldn't kneecap the card while also prohibiting novel cost reduction OR would-trash effects  . . . then I noticed 'Exchange/any $3 card' was a thing, and there are already a few official silver flooders. It's a very good card as it is, and the token needs to be on-Buy.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry, I guess I could've been more clear about the point I was trying to make. Trade Tokens are a simple concept: some cards give you them, some cards come with one. When a card gives you the opportunity to spend one, you can choose to do so for the bonus. Domain is also simple: the guy setting up the game already put it into your deck, and it's just a copper until you buy a Remodel or someone else plays a Barrister. Conscripts less so, but anyone who's played Dark Ages will understand it instantly. My point was that they seem a lot more complicated when the majority of your bandwidth is taken up by the wordiest cards. I didn't mean to suggest you should toss really good cards just because they're wordy.

The Axeman change is worth testing regardless. That card is cramped as hell and I'm embarrassed that I even added the buy restriction without testing without it really thoroughly.

Considering how long it takes players to get used to Spoils, it might be wise to keep this guy as simple as possible. I would be okay with this version of Conscripts, but I liked the idea of making them weak on their own but more powerful in multiples. Discard a card to a minimum of four seems about the right power level, and it would give you a decision to make when only one comes up in your hand. Do I want to play it now for +$ and an attack that might not hurt that much, or do I save it and hope I can play both Conscripts on a future turn? With straight curse-giving, I feel like you'll automatically play them as soon as they come into your hand, whether or not you need the $2 -- Spoils requires more strategic thinking than that. (Also, General + 1 Conscripts would give out 1 Curse this way rather than 3 in two turns. I don't know if you see that as a good or a bad thing.)
The change to Recruiter seems fine, but it might not be necessary if you nerf Conscripts more.

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

I don't want or need Conscripts to have the "do I play this or wait" decision that Spoils has. We already have that experience with Spoils! I do want the Barracks decision to be meaningful, which is why Conscripts had that want-more-at-one-time mechanic in the first place. It incentivized you to pull Conscripts into your hand. But the Barracks decision is meaningful anyway with the "new" Conscripts both because Curses can run out and just because it might be worth pulling Conscripts faster to cycle your deck and hand out Curses faster. It's really just a question of if people actually use it. Time and testing will tell.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Like, Ruined Village, decide whether to mulligan, then rest of village? Not a fan. Besides making the decision too easy, you could really confuse people by putting unconditional effects after conditional ones.

Yes, I think I will leave Terrace as-is for now.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

Farmland and Noble Brigand don't match up with the other Hinterlands cards. Anyway, it wasn't Exchange/Fortress you were trying to fix, it was Exchange -> Exchange to hand -> repeat. I was about to say you shouldn't kneecap the card while also prohibiting novel cost reduction OR would-trash effects  . . . then I noticed 'Exchange/any $3 card' was a thing, and there are already a few official silver flooders. It's a very good card as it is, and the token needs to be on-Buy.

I tentatively disagree. Yes, you can conceivably chain Exchange gains to hand by trashing $3 cards. But unless those cards are somehow Fortress, your hand size gets smaller every time you do this. And the kicker is that Exchange isn't a card you want a million of, especially because if you chain-gain them like this, you're spending all your tokens, which are the most powerful part of the card. So I will probably try it this way and if it sucks, I can always go back to "up to" and token-on-buy. I will be sad to see the cost-reduction tricks go, but honestly I don't think I ever used it that way and by reducing the available options, I may also be reducing AP. Not that AP was a real problem with Exchange. Well, whatever. I'll try it the new way, but I'll be happy to go back to the old version if it doesn't work out.

[Nic]

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

I don't want or need Conscripts to have the "do I play this or wait" decision that Spoils has. We already have that experience with Spoils! I do want the Barracks decision to be meaningful, which is why Conscripts had that want-more-at-one-time mechanic in the first place. It incentivized you to pull Conscripts into your hand. But the Barracks decision is meaningful anyway with the "new" Conscripts both because Curses can run out and just because it might be worth pulling Conscripts faster to cycle your deck and hand out Curses faster. It's really just a question of if people actually use it. Time and testing will tell.

Both very good points. I was thinking about other effects with an explicit "If this is the first time you have played a Conscripts . . ." but nothing seemed worth the extra text. I'm on board.

Also, if you can make printable sheets that have the current Craftsman and updated Recruiter/Conscripts, I'd be a happy man and I'd playtest them and report as soon as possible. If I can't get something going at home, I'll take my cards to a game night somewhere downtown. Since I'd be paying by the page, you could fill up the rest of the page with prototypes you want feedback on.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."

I liked Barrister better with the mini-rabble part. The new Barrister does almost nothing if it doesn't hit a domain, then has a strong effect if it does. That seems too luck-dependant.
I would make it like the old Barrister except to have it gain one domain from the trash instead of all of them.

Conquest looks fun, and I like removing the limit on Mill Town.
I'm still kinda sad to see Investment go. Here's a version that removes the penalty for investing multiples copies of a card. Probably too wordy though...

-Investment
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.

Or maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.

[LastFootnote]

You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."

Neat idea. I'm really trying to avoid the Conscripts being too much like Torturer, but maybe this isn't that bad. Hmm…

I liked Barrister better with the mini-rabble part. The new Barrister does almost nothing if it doesn't hit a domain, then has a strong effect if it does. That seems too luck-dependant.
I would make it like the old Barrister except to have it gain one domain from the trash instead of all of them.

I understand and I was aware of the large increase in swinginess that this change created. I still want to test it because it eliminates a lot of words and maybe it's not as crazy as all that. Maybe there's a better way to do it.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Either gain a Treasure from the trash or gain a Silver.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

I submitted a Thief-variant version sort of like this to the Dark Ages contest and it was not well-received. On the other hand, that was back when the starting card was Claim rather than Domain (and Domain is way better). Blarg, I dunno. The set already has a $5 Attack card that gives +$2.

I'm still kinda sad to see Investment go. Here's a version that removes the penalty for investing multiples copies of a card. Probably too wordy though...

-Investment
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.

Or maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.

I like your idea, but the problem was that losing even one copy of the card was too much of a penalty, especially in games with more players.

Investment had a cool concept. I'm dropping it for now, but I am confident that it'll make a comeback.

[Minotaur]

It's been a while since I've looked at this set.  I think I understand Dominion better than I used to, so maybe I can make more informed commentary.

Clerk - Probably ok overall, but potentially brokenly good with Coppersmith.  It also could do weird things to make Warehouse or Cellar engines possible, which wouldn't be too bad.

Jubilee - Seems ok at first glance.

Redistrict - Might be too strong early, but it misses your $4 card on the first shuffle, you could easily far way far behind a player who drew this with their $4 card, gaining a Gold and a top-tier Attack card on turn 3-4.  I'd watch out for this one. 

Barrister/Domain - Probably alright... I was skeptical, but I guess it's ok.  Could be super-swingy in a 4-player game, though. 1, 4, 9, or 16 VP left up to fate... yikes.  Have you tried: Domain, 1VP. $1 for each Domain in play, including this?

Gambler - Really does look nifty to me.  It might be worth $4, though.  It's hard to say, because handsize-neutral cantrip trashing is amazing, but one-shot Laboratories aren't as much.  Off the cuff, here's an idea: $4 cost.  +1 card, +1 action, reveal top card.  Trash it and gain a trade token if the trashed card cost $2 or more, OR draw the card and either trash this card or spend a trade token.

Guide - Another comment pointed out the madness of pairing this with Jubilee.  It's sort of a decent card on its own, but the valuation of trade tokens needs to be carefully monitored.

Mill Town - I'm sort of iffy about this one.  Might be ok though.  Too good with Clerk though?

Refurbish - Gut feeling is that this is way too strong for $3.  Sure, you don't start with 7 Silvers, but Silver doesn't need a terminal action just to be worth a Silver in the first place.  I would easily pay $4 for this card.  On a side note, now I'm trying to think of a variant called Gild.  It would probably only work on cards costing $3 or more, and it would probably need to have a +buy or something...  I'm not sure whether the +$1 per Gold should be a trade token or on-trash effect or whatever, and I'm not sure what Gild should cost.

Committee - Of course the ideal case is when you reveal Gold-Province or Province-Duchy late in the game; some combination of Copper/Curse/Estate is also great, and Curse-Province is only saved from being unreasonably good by the fact that trashing a Curse isn't that amazing.  I'm not sure if you should cap the cost of the card being voted on... Imagine KC-KC-Scavenger-Scavenger-Committee in a Colony game...  Ok, so it's not Bridge, but it's still sort of vile here.  I think capping the cost at $5 would keep this card honest, at least.  Even then, it has a chance of making Pearl Diver look good somehow.

Craftsman - Seems alright, but then you have to keep an eye on how much bang other cards give you per trade token.  Taken in isolation, this card seems fine, and other token generators don't seem like they'd bolster this one unnecessarily.

Dignitary - A weirdly non-restrictive $4 terminal action.  You don't see those every day.

Floodgate - Endless possibilities.  This is for Haven what Farmland is for Remodel.  (But Farmland combos with itself better... the only Floodgate self-synergy I know of would involve gaining another Floodgate through the magic of TFB.)

Recruiter - Probably too strong at $4.  Next turn you get a non-terminal Militia that hands out curses whenever it would whiff.  I guess having to use up two card draws to accomplish this is the trade-off.  I'm not sure if it's really necessary to topdeck the Conscripts or put them in your hand, though.  In the latter case, maybe you meant for the reaction to prevent the player from gaining Curses, in which case maybe keep it, but the topdecking seems to me to make this card too strong for $4.  Then again, it's a self-countering card that probably ends up playing out more like Margrave half the time... so much weirdness here.  I can easily see four-player games turning into a labyrinth of people Margraving their hands into Recruiter-Conscripts-Conscripts until the Conscripts pile is empty, and then suddenly everyone has nothing but Provinces and Curses.  Maybe I withhold final judgment for now.

Terrace - Probably wickedly good on a board with good trade token gain options.  Jubilee or Craftsman especially.  Taken in isolation, it's probably alright as a $4 card.

Vendor - Nice, simple, non-threatening cantrip filter that only works on treasures.  Could lead to engines with Clerk.  Maybe that's the point though.  Could also be a one-shot Laboratory.  I'm not even sure it needs the +buy, but it's thematic, and I wouldn't want this card to cost $3.  "Nice" $2 cards are too much fun.

Axeman - Looks good to me.  At least it's not Saboteur.

Barracks - Seems alright.

Convocation - This one's for the Cornucopia fans, huh?  X-D

Exchange - Might be ok.  Might want to carefully consider the synergy with Jubilee or Craftsman.  But then again, by the time you set all of that up, you don't really want your gained Provinces in your hand anyway, so it's probably fine.  I think.

Fund - It's hard to imagine how this one could go wrong.  $5 is probably the right number.

General - Seems kind of bold.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Lodge - This might be a decent late-game Smithy.  This is a real big money card.  You want to have golds to make use of the +buy, and you want to use the token later on when the Provinces and Duchies start to accumulate to avoid stalling too much before the finish line.

Investment - Ouch, this card looks brokenly good with cheap cantrips.  Clerk-Vendor with an Investment or three could clean out the Province pile in no time.

Wheelwright - Library variant is Library variant.

[LastFootnote]

@Minotaur,

Thanks for the reactions. Some of these cards are still in the OP, but have been removed from the set (Lodge and Investment).

Barrister/Domain - Probably alright... I was skeptical, but I guess it's ok.  Could be super-swingy in a 4-player game, though. 1, 4, 9, or 16 VP left up to fate... yikes.  Have you tried: Domain, 1VP. $1 for each Domain in play, including this?

I originally had another Treasure card instead of Domain where colliding them was beneficial. It just never happened. Stealing the card from others and then colliding them is too many hoops to jump through. So I tried a version where you could also search your discard pile for another copy. That was wordy and wonky and still sucked. That's why it's now a Victory card. You get the benefit just from having multiple in your deck, no collision necessary.

Gambler - Really does look nifty to me.  It might be worth $4, though.  It's hard to say, because handsize-neutral cantrip trashing is amazing, but one-shot Laboratories aren't as much.  Off the cuff, here's an idea: $4 cost.  +1 card, +1 action, reveal top card.  Trash it and gain a trade token if the trashed card cost $2 or more, OR draw the card and either trash this card or spend a trade token.

Thanks for the ideas, but Gambler has been consistently working great as-is for a long time now. People love how simple it is and I really don't want to complicate it.

Refurbish - Gut feeling is that this is way too strong for $3.  Sure, you don't start with 7 Silvers, but Silver doesn't need a terminal action just to be worth a Silver in the first place.  I would easily pay $4 for this card.  On a side note, now I'm trying to think of a variant called Gild.  It would probably only work on cards costing $3 or more, and it would probably need to have a +buy or something...  I'm not sure whether the +$1 per Gold should be a trade token or on-trash effect or whatever, and I'm not sure what Gild should cost.

So far Refurbish seems like a pretty weak $3 card. Maybe still doable, but not super-strong.

Committee - Of course the ideal case is when you reveal Gold-Province or Province-Duchy late in the game; some combination of Copper/Curse/Estate is also great, and Curse-Province is only saved from being unreasonably good by the fact that trashing a Curse isn't that amazing.  I'm not sure if you should cap the cost of the card being voted on... Imagine KC-KC-Scavenger-Scavenger-Committee in a Colony game...  Ok, so it's not Bridge, but it's still sort of vile here.  I think capping the cost at $5 would keep this card honest, at least.  Even then, it has a chance of making Pearl Diver look good somehow.

The card is complex enough without capping the cost, and the idea behind giving your opponent the choice is that you can never use it to gain Province (or Colony in a Colony game). It's on the stronger end of $4, but it's worked out fine so far. I think going through King's Court/Scavenger shenanigans to set up the top cards of your deck is probably not crazy. Seems like a cool combo.

Recruiter - Probably too strong at $4.  Next turn you get a non-terminal Militia that hands out curses whenever it would whiff.  I guess having to use up two card draws to accomplish this is the trade-off.  I'm not sure if it's really necessary to topdeck the Conscripts or put them in your hand, though.  In the latter case, maybe you meant for the reaction to prevent the player from gaining Curses, in which case maybe keep it, but the topdecking seems to me to make this card too strong for $4.  Then again, it's a self-countering card that probably ends up playing out more like Margrave half the time... so much weirdness here.  I can easily see four-player games turning into a labyrinth of people Margraving their hands into Recruiter-Conscripts-Conscripts until the Conscripts pile is empty, and then suddenly everyone has nothing but Provinces and Curses.  Maybe I withhold final judgment for now.

Conscripts is almost certainly getting a nerf. Or rather, a change. I'm probably removing the discarding from it entirely and just having it hand out Curses again. The discarding makes it too hard to trash the Curses you're given. Recruiter may also get a small nerf to its Action portion.

Investment - Ouch, this card looks brokenly good with cheap cantrips.  Clerk-Vendor with an Investment or three could clean out the Province pile in no time.

Oh man, Investment was weeeeeak. So weak. You've gotta keep in mind not only its potential payoff, but how much work it is to get that payoff. Pirate Ship can be worth a huge number of Coins, but the process of getting it there makes it weak. Investment has a big payoff, but having to collide it with a card and then losing a copy of that card is too big a penalty.

Wheelwright - Library variant is Library variant.

I may also cut or overhaul Wheelwright soon. Opponents gaining Copper to hand is the main thrust of the card. Combos with their Mill Towns, etc.

[Minotaur]

If you have +buy in the kingdom, Investment + $2 cantrips should own faces.  Or maybe I'm wrong because I haven't tried it.  Easy to collide them, and you still have a ton of them left to play.  Of course, if everyone else does the same thing, then suddenly you have just 3-4 Peddlers instead of eight peddlers or 5-6 double peddlers...  Maybe it runs into the "attack reflection" problem in the one case where you'd actually think about getting it anyway?  The only time this card would not suck is if different players could run out different cheap cantrip piles, and even then, the question of whether to stock up on yours or snipe someone else's would still be up in the air...

I'm kind of surprised that Refurbish hasn't done well.  Maybe it really needs a faster trasher to get going or something, like Gambler?

EDIT: I also still think that Domain is problematic.  Losing 3-1 is worse than losing a Province...

[silverspawn]

Committee

speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.

moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...

-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester

and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers

so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game