Print

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

[yuma]

Tested Recruiter last night with the wife:

Recruiter
$5 - Action-Attack

Choose one: +1 Action and gain an Attack card from the supply; or all other players gain a Curse card.
--
If you have played 2 or more Attack cards this turn (counting this): +$1.

Played two games with it. One with other Attack cards, one w/o.

The first game cards: Recruiter, Margrave, Upgrade, Jester, Harem, Grand Market, Noble Brigand, Watchtower, Farming Village, Spice Merchant

I opened 5/2 gaining Recruiter/nothing

Wife opened 3/4 gaining Watchtower, Spice Merchant

This was a slow moving game where neither of us played optimally. We ended up ending the game on 3-piles with Margraves, Curses and Recruiters running out. Both of us played Recruiters early for the Attack gaining ability, especially going after the Margraves and then buying Farming Villages. Toward mid-game the Recruiters started flinging the curses out and the pile was empty in about 4 turns. My wife had some cool hands were she Upgraded a Recruiter into a Grand Market with a Watchtower in hand and then drew the Grand Market with a Farming Village or Margrave. But I ended up winning 14 to -1 after grabbing a few Provinces and then rushing the last Margrave and Recruiter... with Recruiters.


Second game cards: Recruiter, Fool's Gold, Cartographer, Hamlet, Tunnel, Inn, Secret Chamber, Envoy, Wishing Well.

I opened 3/4 and bought Fool's Gold/Envoy going the Big Money route with Fool's Gold.
My wife opened 5/2 and bought Cartographer/Hamlet and went the Tunnel route. She also ended up getting a 1 Recruiter turn 5 using it exclusively for Cursing. That ended up really hindering my Envoys. She also had some cool synergy with Cartographer and Envoy while she had some WIFOM--too much forum Mafia!--with Envoy and Fool's Gold. She ended up winning pretty solidly as my deck sputtered with too much green and curses.


This card was a bit difficult to play and neither of us played it optimally the first game. We recruited to many Recruiters which then were basically coppers that filled your deck with more attack cards. But we were able to get a few great hands with Farming Village/Margraves and Recruiters for high $ amounts and giving out ~2 curses. On its own, it wasn't as passable as I thought it might be. Curses still hurt, even if you have to pay $5 for a card that isn't as good of a curser as a $4 Sea Hag.

[One Armed Man]

I think part of it might be that Margraves are one of the weakest Attacks to get in bulk. If those were Torturers, Recruiter would have been better.

[yuma]

I think part of it might be that Margraves are one of the weakest Attacks to get in bulk. If those were Torturers, Recruiter would have been better.

very true... I really wanted to try and playtest Mountebank, Witch or Goons with it, but I don't own them and the wife wasn't up for having more than one "fake card" in the kingdom.

[Archetype]

You could change the money output to +2$, otherwise, on a board with an attack like Fortune Teller, I would almost never use the 'gain an attack option', I'd rather just Curse everyone. A bigger money output might help when you get a bunch.

[Archetype]

Or you could change the +1 Action, gain an Attack card to +2 Actions, gain an attack card other than Recruiter, and change the last part to "When you play with this, add an Attack card to the supply."

Though that would probably change it too much.

[eHalcyon]

When I was looking over all the entries, I had this to say about it:

It actually feels a little too weak to me.  Although it is non-terminal, it does not draw.  The first copy does not provide any benefit, and you probably don't want to load up on a bunch of these because the potential benefit is still only +$1.  Not much at all.  It can be useful for gaining attacks, but at $5 this is really only good with Goons.  With the other attacks, why not just buy them to begin with?

I think this might be more compelling if it were +2 Actions instead.  That way, there is actually a decent reason for wanting multiples of these.

I suppose that the attack gaining is stronger when there are villages to buy, but it would almost always be a trap without +actions.

And I suppose it would often be an expensive Sea Hag with a small bonus/options.

Just giving it +2 Actions might be cool, to allow it to support the +card attacks.

[yuma]

When I was looking over all the entries, I had this to say about it:

It actually feels a little too weak to me.  Although it is non-terminal, it does not draw.  The first copy does not provide any benefit, and you probably don't want to load up on a bunch of these because the potential benefit is still only +$1.  Not much at all.  It can be useful for gaining attacks, but at $5 this is really only good with Goons.  With the other attacks, why not just buy them to begin with?

I think this might be more compelling if it were +2 Actions instead.  That way, there is actually a decent reason for wanting multiples of these.

I suppose that the attack gaining is stronger when there are villages to buy, but it would almost always be a trap without +actions.

And I suppose it would often be an expensive Sea Hag with a small bonus/options.

Just giving it +2 Actions might be cool, to allow it to support the +card attacks.

certainly worth a try, as is $2 as the bonus... separately that is, together I think perhaps would be too strong...

[Archetype]

When I was looking over all the entries, I had this to say about it:

It actually feels a little too weak to me.  Although it is non-terminal, it does not draw.  The first copy does not provide any benefit, and you probably don't want to load up on a bunch of these because the potential benefit is still only +$1.  Not much at all.  It can be useful for gaining attacks, but at $5 this is really only good with Goons.  With the other attacks, why not just buy them to begin with?

I think this might be more compelling if it were +2 Actions instead.  That way, there is actually a decent reason for wanting multiples of these.

I suppose that the attack gaining is stronger when there are villages to buy, but it would almost always be a trap without +actions.

And I suppose it would often be an expensive Sea Hag with a small bonus/options.

Just giving it +2 Actions might be cool, to allow it to support the +card attacks.

certainly worth a try, as is $2 as the bonus... separately that is, together I think perhaps would be too strong...

Haha yeah, one or the other. The extra action seems like it would work the best.

[NoMoreFun]

Having an extra action might make it combo too well with torturer, rabble and margrave. The $1 especially might make recruiter engines too strong. +2 actions is a good idea though.

I wonder how the card would go if the gain happens every time; it may become a nuisance on many boards in a strategically interesting way

I'd toy with simply
"+2 actions
Gain an attack card
"Sorry Witch"

And I'd call it Witching Hour or Walpurgis (a play on festival)
Then again that may be a completely different card

[eHalcyon]

I don't know about that.  In an engine, I think I would prefer +1 card over +$1.  And Recruiter's +$1 doesn't even kick in at the start.

[NoMoreFun]

+1 card is better than +$1, but the money does make simply rushing recruiters and attacks with +card (even +2 card attacks) a much more viable strategy.

With +2 actions it won't be the greatest card without support, but it will find itself useful in a lot of situations, even when it's the only attack, and self gaining will be a huge bonus in those situations.

Cards like Nobles, Shanty Town and University do tend to underwhelm though (Festival does fine as a Silver with a bonus). I can't imagine it being particularly strong with Militia and Fortune Teller, and there'll be some resentment when it gains Thieves. It's definitely worth a playtest with +2 actions. Thinking about recruiter/torturer or even recruiter/rabble is scary though.

[yuma]

Another thing that I forgot to mention is more of a rules question:

In the situation where the Curse pile has run out, it is acceptable to play Recruiter and select the "each other player gains a Curse" option correct and not have to gain an attack card right? In the same way that someone Tortured can choose to gain a curse when the curse pile is run out?

[NoMoreFun]

Another thing that I forgot to mention is more of a rules question:

In the situation where the Curse pile has run out, it is acceptable to play Recruiter and select the "each other player gains a Curse" option correct and not have to gain an attack card right? In the same way that someone Tortured can choose to gain a curse when the curse pile is run out?

Every other card works that way.