Print

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

[Zappie]

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

[Awaclus]

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

Conspirator is just a $4 terminal Silver in some kingdoms, but that's fine because those kingdoms are rare. Kingdoms where your version of Recruiter would be just a $4 terminal Silver are much more common. Sometimes you might want the Silver gainer just for the Silver gaining, so it's not as bad.

[silverspawn]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

[Awaclus]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

No, because you don't always have the Attack.

[LastFootnote]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

Not exactly, because of what Awaclus said. Or more specifically, because you no longer always return Conscripts to its pile when you play it.



This new Barracks wouldn't have been worthwhile with any of the old versions of Conscripts that were true one-shots. But with this new, conditional one-shot Conscripts, it makes more sense. Chances are good that you won't always have another Attack in hand when you play the Barracks, so the Conscripts that you gain is basically a Silver that turn and it stays in your deck until you connect it with another Attack. So this version of Barracks is kind of like a non-terminal Explorer that can't gain Gold. But of course Conscripts are a bit better than Silvers. Probably it's fine power-wise? I look forward to testing it. It'll really come down to whether these versions of the cards are more or less fun than the old versions.

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

Thanks for the thought, and a flat +$2 is definitely something I've considered. Probably I'll try "Gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile" first (without +$1) and see if that's fun. In a lot of ways, these changes would be like Recruiter and Barracks switching roles. But I like that because:

• It's nicer to have a cheaper card pulling Attacks into your hand.
• "Gain 2 Conscripts" seems better on a terminal Action.

[Fragasnap]

I like the new Conscripts. It is somewhat neat that they are vanishing Silvers when the Curse pile runs out. My only concern would be that they would make the Curse war even more chance based since you need Attacks to collide to give out Curses and Curses in your deck would make that harder.

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.

I'm not such a fan of the new Recruiter. I don't like how strong its Action effect is, nor am I a huge fan of discarding my deck in response to an Attack. Often discarding my deck means my Attack will not only miss the shuffle, but I'll shuffle any Curses that I've gained into my deck immediately! Often I'll have to shuffle immediately as well for the Attack. In many cases, it won't even provide any sort of utility, because I'll be replacing "Gain 2 Silvers" with the one Attack that is in the Kingdom. I don't see that trade-off as being worthwhile since you wouldn't buy Recruiter unless the Silver flooding was actually going to be useful.

I'd like its Reaction more if it let you look for an Attack or Reaction from your discard pile without discarding your deck. I don't know what to do about its Action effect.

[LastFootnote]

No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.

Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure what top-decking the Conscripts really gets you, though. I do think I see what you mean about feeling more separate, though. I'll try the current version and see if it feels too weird. If you're almost always triggering the Conscripts on the turn you gain it, it's probably too strong anyway, so I can then try your idea of top-decking the Conscripts and giving another bonus.

I'm not such a fan of the new Recruiter. I don't like how strong its Action effect is, nor am I a huge fan of discarding my deck in response to an Attack. Often discarding my deck means my Attack will not only miss the shuffle, but I'll shuffle any Curses that I've gained into my deck immediately! Often I'll have to shuffle immediately as well for the Attack. In many cases, it won't even provide any sort of utility, because I'll be replacing "Gain 2 Silvers" with the one Attack that is in the Kingdom. I don't see that trade-off as being worthwhile since you wouldn't buy Recruiter unless the Silver flooding was actually going to be useful.

I'd like its Reaction more if it let you look for an Attack or Reaction from your discard pile without discarding your deck. I don't know what to do about its Action effect.

Well the reaction effect can't search for a Reaction (or an Action) without creating a potential endless loop. Discard the Recruiter, take it out of the discard pile, repeat. You have a really good point about having to shuffle immediately, though. I'm just trying to avoid the situation where you don't remember what you have in your discard pile, you discard the Recruiter, and then have nothing to replace it with. But perhaps it could get you an Attack or a Treasure (and not put your deck into your discard pile). Or it could dig for an Attack, but that's really time-consuming for something that happens on someone else's turn.

The [+$1; Gain 2 Silvers] is very much a placeholder. As mentioned, I will probably try [Gain 2 Conscripts] first. That's also way more thematic.

[Fragasnap]

Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure what top-decking the Conscripts really gets you, though. I do think I see what you mean about feeling more separate, though. I'll try the current version and see if it feels too weird. If you're almost always triggering the Conscripts on the turn you gain it, it's probably too strong anyway, so I can then try your idea of top-decking the Conscripts and giving another bonus.

Top-decking Conscripts would allow the Action effect of Barracks to be secondary to the Conscripts since the Conscripts card is so immediate (though not necessarily played in the same turn). It also maintains strength when played in Throne Room variants. You could flatly gain them if you wanted, top decking is simply more like gaining them to hand.

I don't suspect that it will be too weird. However, if the Conscripts pile is going to be on more than one card, you might want Barracks to feel a little bigger on its own than simply giving you Conscripts.

Well the reaction effect can't search for a Reaction (or an Action) without creating a potential endless loop. Discard the Recruiter, take it out of the discard pile, repeat. You have a really good point about having to shuffle immediately, though. I'm just trying to avoid the situation where you don't remember what you have in your discard pile, you discard the Recruiter, and then have nothing to replace it with.

Infinitely looping to retrieve your Recruiter does nothing though (just like you can infinitely replace the Silver you're going to gain with a Silver using Trader). If Recruiter could retrieve Reactions (i.e. itself) or Attacks from your discard pile, you can discard it to look through your discard pile and, if you don't have an Attack in your discard pile, you can pull the Recruiter back out. You don't have to remember the contents of your discard pile or miss out playing your Recruiter by messing up its Reaction since it can always retrieve itself. As a bonus, you can pull a different Reaction out to react to the Attack taking place.

[pacovf]

I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

PPE 8: there was another page!

For starters, when I said "gain conscripts on top of deck", I meant only one. Not my fault the card name is plural, amirite? I can understand wanting to make the duet simpler though.

Your new version of barracks seems fine, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I don't know if the gimmick of a non-terminal card that gains an attack to hand instead of being an attack itself is really worth it. Before it was a bit more hidden, a bit less one-to-one, so it didn't bother me that much. I don't know, might just be me.

Your current version of recruiter is way too wordy though, but I don't know how to fix it. And it has the problem that, in games with more than one attack card, the reaction may make people have to choose which card to pick, and decisions as reactions seem bad, slows the game too much.

[scott_pilgrim]

Your new version of barracks seems fine, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I don't know if the gimmick of a non-terminal card that gains an attack to hand instead of being an attack itself is really worth it. Before it was a bit more hidden, a bit less one-to-one, so it didn't bother me that much. I don't know, might just be me.

I think this is sort of how I feel about the new version too.  The first version was sort of its own card, and then it had an option to get you a Conscripts, and that synergized with its "main" part.  Now it feels like when you play it, you're playing Conscripts, it's just that you also wind up with an extra Conscripts in your deck afterward.

Also, I thought "dig for an attack" was a pretty cool concept for a card, and Barracks was a good way of doing it (the other option would be to make it an attack itself, not sure if that's better or worse but I'm guessing you thought about it a lot and liked it the way you did it).  The new version has pretty much lost that concept, the concept now is more like gain and play a Conscripts, and I guess Conscripts is not exciting enough to me that "gain and play Conscripts" is an exciting concept.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, maybe I'll just keep Barracks as-is then. I still prefer the new Conscripts, though. And they are weaker, so perhaps Barracks will need a buff.

Probably I'll try both versions of Barracks with the new Conscripts and see which goes over better with my testers.

[NoMoreFun]

The set now has a bit of a "Silver with a Bonus" theme - Refurbish, Fund and now Conscripts.

Limiting Conscripts to Barracks makes me think you could reconfigure Barracks so it doesn't have to have its own pile of special cards. A card that both gains silvers and trashes them for curses perhaps? I don't like wasted piles. Something doesn't seem quite right about the new situation and it might be that, and it might be the fact that you are making a tradeoff between a Silver and a one time attack. Instead of seeming like a delayed attack, the thing that comes to mind when you play a conscripts is "everyone's deck gets worse".

On another note, what's wrong with digging anyway? I haven't had enough IRL dominion playtime to evaluate how annoying it really is. I have a bit of it in my own set (a card that has you dig for a victory card, and a card that makes everyone dig for a card costing 3 or more); should I try and find alternatives?

[NoMoreFun]

Also how has your playtesting of Silver/new conscripts gainers been going? I've had no playtesting opportunities for my own fan cards. I'm wondering for prospector (which is now:

Prospector
Action - $3
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
---
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may put it anywhere in your deck.)

[LastFootnote]

New images in progress…

Kingdom Cards




Ancillary Cards

[LastFootnote]

As a prelude to (hopefully) getting back into working on Enterprise, I have recreated all the cards as they currently exist using my new template.

General Changes
• Brighter gold coin symbols.
• Fonts that I believe are more correct a.k.a. close to what most of the published cards use.
• Thicker, shorter dividing lines.
• Cards now refer to "paying" a token rather than "spending" it, as Butcher does.
• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

Card-Specific Changes
• Redistrict now uses the wording I talked about earlier in the thread, where you "choose" a card. This allows you to e.g. turn a Gold into a Province even if there's no $7 card on the board (as long as you trash your Redistrict).
• Auction has been added.
• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.
• Floodgate costs $3 instead of $4.
• Mill Town allows you to reveal your hand and gain a card regardless of how many Coppers you have in your hand.
• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.
• Axeman's buy restriction has been removed. If players opening with it is a problem, I'll change it back or fix it some other way.
• Barrister is now the new $5 version that can trash any non-Copper Treasures and gains you a Treasure right to hand. It's worked great in the few games I've played with it.
• Exchange has been renamed Barter. I wanted it to line up with the other Trade token cards and get you a token when you gained it (instead of when you bought it), so it now gains you a card costing exactly $2 more than the trashed card rather than up to $2 more. Again, this is because of Fortress. Goddamn Fortress always getting in the way of card design.
• Cathedral has been added. Haven't tested it yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I just hope there's not too much trashing in the set.
• Convocation has been renamed to Conclave and has a new superior wording! I think I've finally got a good one here. Terse, yet straightforward.
• General now gives you the option of topdecking the card you played twice, rather than forcing you to. This is mostly a logistics fix. Sometimes you forget to topdeck your card. Before that meant you were cheating. Now it just means you (probably) shot yourself in the foot. Sometimes you won't want to topdeck the Action, and that's fine too.
• Lodge and Investment are gone. R.I.P., Lodge and Investment.
• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

Tasks Going Forward
• Playtest more! Especially the newer cards.
• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.
• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

[Fragasnap]

• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.

• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.

Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.

• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
I'd like to see that $4 Recruiter that gains 2 Conscripts and pulls Attacks and Reactions from your discard pile in response to Attacks and a Barracks that can do something like either gain a Conscripts with some other vanilla benefit or non-terminally hunt for an Attack (maybe make it a splitter when digging for an Attack? Would that be interesting?).

• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.

The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
You are pretty heavy on non-terminal cards in general. There is not a particularly fast way to trash (save Gambler\Gambler which is always a... you know) within your set, though you have quite a few trashers.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
While Gambler is thematic with both itself and the set, as well as strong, Gambler is a very strong card that is not very much fun to use. The decision to trash the card you look at or draw it is really a non-decision, but trashing the Gambler almost always feels bad because you wished it would have stuck around to trash more.
Trashing is a strong effect that is mildly uncommon and monumentally useful, so with Gambler being a cheap non-terminal trasher, it is nearly impossible to pass on any non-rush board. While cards that are nearly necessary to buy aren't necessarily unhealthy for the game (see Chapel, Witch, Goons), Gambler does not create an unusual game-state the way those games do. All Gambler does is push the game more towards luck as some players will get lucky with the trashing.
Where Gambler is easy to use and always useful, Vendor is hard to use and situational.
Trashing Vendor rarely feels bad because it feels much more like a choice. Its sifting is unusual and only useful if you can get a weird sort of Action deck going that pushes past its Coppers to get to its meaty Actions (though it is utterly neutered by Cursers). And then when your deck starts greening, all your Vendors turn into one-shot Laboratories.
Maybe this will not be a common opinion among those who have played with the cards, but I find Vendor and Gambler to be stepping on each other's toes, and between the two, I like Vendor because it is a card with a higher skill cap and more interesting decisions.

• Playtest more! Especially the newer cards.

Hear, hear!

[LastFootnote]

• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.

Mm, yeah, the abbreviation is a little weird. It's the superfluous comma that makes it sound strange to me. Probably we will get used to it. Or I'll change it back.

I first typed up Conclave with "an Action, a Treasure, and a Victory card" and decided that some moron would invariably read it as meaning a card that was all three types. Having the word "card" after each type underscores the fact that it's talking about up to three different cards.

• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.

Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
I'd like to see that $4 Recruiter that gains 2 Conscripts and pulls Attacks and Reactions from your discard pile in response to Attacks and a Barracks that can do something like either gain a Conscripts with some other vanilla benefit or non-terminally hunt for an Attack (maybe make it a splitter when digging for an Attack? Would that be interesting?).

Well, part of the appeal of my new suggested Barracks is that it's so simple, so I would be loathe to complicate it with more options. Under that scheme, the "put an Attack in your hand" concept would move to Recruiter's reaction, but as some have pointed out, that's a time-consuming thing to do as a reaction. Maybe I'll try the version that fishes out an Attack or a Reaction without the putting your deck into your discard pile. Anyway, enough people were against those changes that I'm not in as much of a hurry to try them out. I guess I'll see how the current versions work with the new Conscripts.

The very first version of Barracks had +2 Actions. I removed it when I realized that villages tend to be less useful in Curse-filled games.

• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.

The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
You are pretty heavy on non-terminal cards in general. There is not a particularly fast way to trash (save Gambler\Gambler which is always a... you know) within your set, though you have quite a few trashers.

I would be happy grudgingly willing to cut some of the off-theme $3 cards if I come up with enough good on-theme cards to replace them. I am trying to think up some more terminal $5 cards. I guess there's no really strong trasher, though there are enough weak trashers and remodels that maybe that's fine.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
While Gambler is thematic with both itself and the set, as well as strong, Gambler is a very strong card that is not very much fun to use. The decision to trash the card you look at or draw it is really a non-decision, but trashing the Gambler almost always feels bad because you wished it would have stuck around to trash more.
Trashing is a strong effect that is mildly uncommon and monumentally useful, so with Gambler being a cheap non-terminal trasher, it is nearly impossible to pass on any non-rush board. While cards that are nearly necessary to buy aren't necessarily unhealthy for the game (see Chapel, Witch, Goons), Gambler does not create an unusual game-state the way those games do. All Gambler does is push the game more towards luck as some players will get lucky with the trashing.
Where Gambler is easy to use and always useful, Vendor is hard to use and situational.
Trashing Vendor rarely feels bad because it feels much more like a choice. Its sifting is unusual and only useful if you can get a weird sort of Action deck going that pushes past its Coppers to get to its meaty Actions (though it is utterly neutered by Cursers). And then when your deck starts greening, all your Vendors turn into one-shot Laboratories.
Maybe this will not be a common opinion among those who have played with the cards, but I find Vendor and Gambler to be stepping on each other's toes, and between the two, I like Vendor because it is a card with a higher skill cap and more interesting decisions.

Well, I think most folks agree that the two are similar and I don't need both. But I believe you're in the minority when it comes to preferring Vendor to Gambler. Gambler has been really popular in both real-life games and here on f.DS. For example, you mentioned in a previous post that it was the favorite fan card of one of your players. You are correct that its "decision" is very rarely an actual decision, but that's not really the point of the card. Lots of Dominion cards have no decisions on-play; when to buy it is the decision. Gambler is also sort of an obviously luck-based card for those players that like obviously luck-based card. In contrast, most people see Vendor as a bit dull. Too close to Stables, etc.

On the other hand, if Gambler really is a must-buy on almost every board, that's reason enough to cut or change it. Specifically, if a Gambler/Gambler opening is strong, I think that's a problem. I don't think that opening is strong, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks as always for the feedback!

[silverspawn]

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

what about "when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."
that's a little bit awkward, but clear in meaning, only slightly longer than the original, and identical in power.

[NoMoreFun]

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

[LastFootnote]

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

what about "when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."
that's a little bit awkward, but clear in meaning, only slightly longer than the original, and identical in power.

You know, I think that just might do it. It doesn't even need "reveal and trash". "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand." Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago. Thanks!

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Dang, does it really nerf it that much? Maybe your'e right and it should just go back to the way it was. It would be nice to have them all be on-gain, but I don't want to make it suck.

[Fragasnap]

Well, I think most folks agree that the two are similar and I don't need both. But I believe you're in the minority when it comes to preferring Vendor to Gambler. Gambler has been really popular in both real-life games and here on f.DS. For example, you mentioned in a previous post that it was the favorite fan card of one of your players. You are correct that its "decision" is very rarely an actual decision, but that's not really the point of the card. Lots of Dominion cards have no decisions on-play; when to buy it is the decision. Gambler is also sort of an obviously luck-based card for those players that like obviously luck-based card. In contrast, most people see Vendor as a bit dull. Too close to Stables, etc.

My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.

On the other hand, if Gambler really is a must-buy on almost every board, that's reason enough to cut or change it. Specifically, if a Gambler/Gambler opening is strong, I think that's a problem. I don't think that opening is strong, but maybe I'm wrong.

Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Your preferred opening with Gambler is Gambler\Terminal-Action because Gambler drawing a terminal Action is obviously the only thing that will make Gambler's one-shot Laboratory effect worthwhile on turn 3, though it remains monumentally frustrating.

Must-buys aren't necessarily bad. The question then becomes whether or not the card plays in interesting ways in spite of being a must-buy. Goons is a card you practically have to buy on every board in which you can hit $6, but Goons creates a game-state that is fun. I don't think Gambler does that, even if it is such a fan favorite.

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).

"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."

Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago.

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

[LastFootnote]

My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.

Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Your preferred opening with Gambler is Gambler\Terminal-Action because Gambler drawing a terminal Action is obviously the only thing that will make Gambler's one-shot Laboratory effect worthwhile on turn 3, though it remains monumentally frustrating.

Must-buys aren't necessarily bad. The question then becomes whether or not the card plays in interesting ways in spite of being a must-buy. Goons is a card you practically have to buy on every board in which you can hit $6, but Goons creates a game-state that is fun. I don't think Gambler does that, even if it is such a fan favorite.

Well, how does it compare to e.g. Lookout? Do you also buy that in 90% of games? I might, personally. Likewise with Chapel and Remake.

It sounds like some of these concerns could be remedied by increasing Gambler's cost to $4. That mostly eliminates Gambler/Gambler openings and it has to compete with stronger cards at that price point. I like it at $3 because you feel less bad when you lose it. Buying another one is pretty trivial. But I could see it costing $4.

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).

I was already considering having Barter/Exchange get you 2 tokens, so this change sounds good to me. That doesn't really fix the buy/gain "problem", since it's such a similar effect, but it's not like it's been a big issue as on-buy in my games.

"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."

Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago.

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

And it looks like I liked it then, too! I guess I just came up with the (formally) better "trash down to" wording and didn't look back.

EDIT: Actually, the newly suggested wording of "Trash all but X cards" is cleaner and better than "Choose X or more cards and trash the rest". So yeah, different thing. It wouldn't have worked back when X = 3, but is reasonable when X = 4.

[Minotaur]

Not sure whether this is a new comment or not, but I think Recruiter should be linked with Conscripts somehow.  If Recruiter causes there to always be an attack card in the game, then its reaction is never completely void.  Granted, most boards will have an attack or two, but just in case...

[LastFootnote]

I just updated Dignitary and Barter in the recent image post. Dignitary is back to "reveal this from your hand" and uses the new "all but 4 cards from your hand" wording. Barter is back to gaining a card "up to" $2 more than the trashed card and now gives you 2 Trade tokens when you buy it. I'll see if that's too strong, especially in conjunction with other Trade token cards. But I'm cautiously optimistic.

Not sure whether this is a new comment or not, but I think Recruiter should be linked with Conscripts somehow.  If Recruiter causes there to always be an attack card in the game, then its reaction is never completely void.  Granted, most boards will have an attack or two, but just in case...

Yes, agreed. Even if Barracks and Recruiter do get an overhaul, Recruiter's top will probably gain Conscripts.

EDIT: Hmm, with the weaker version of Conscripts, maybe it's time to revisit Profiteer.



In a game with no other Attack cards, it'll take awhile for those Curses to start hitting you. Maybe too long. Still, it's tempting to try.

[pacovf]

What's up with profiteer? A better attack than Embassy for less?

Any particular reason why the other players don't get a choice?