Print

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

[ChaosRed]

SILVER LINING - A NOOB'S EXPANSION
This is really just a strange way for a noob to become more familiar with how Dominion works, not just for victory strategies, but what makes the game compelling and interesting. Feel free to review the progress of this thread and offer feedback.

RIP THIS APART
As I reveal the cards in the expansion, feel free to rip them apart. I have no ego to bruise here. I am more interested in a discussion of what makes cards interesting and fun to play. This "expansion" is really more about igniting a discussion about balance and what makes for compelling play, than me actually attempting to design a decent expansion.

Some of the cards have gone past "peer review", in which case they are not listed here, they are instead  listed in this thread. I've done this so this this OP can stay "clean" with only cards currently up for review/discussion (it was getting a big long to read and load otherwise).

THE CARDS
I will unveil these cards incrementally, look at feedback (if any) for each card I post. I will modify the thread to add new cards and of course, respond to criticism. So this OP always has the latest cards for peer review, (usually just two at at time) while the others are listed in the beta test thread.

Cards currently under review...

[DsnowMan]

The Servant's Quarters card could be discarded by any discard-for-benefit card on your turn for some nice combos. Discard it to secret chamber, vault, horse traders, HAMLET, etc, and draw a card.

Let's see, a deck made of SQ and Hamlet. Play hamlet, discard a SQ for +1card and +action. Not bad.

Weird things would happen if your deck was small and you could play vault or secret chamber multiple times. You could discard a bunch of SQ and draw them right back through their own discard effect. Then play another vault. Not entirely broken, you can do that with a scrying pool anyway.

[jsh357]

I think the Pauper's Feast would be more worth it if it also gave +1 Action (And would help differentiate it from Feast further).  May be a little overpowered with Golem/KC/TR, though that could be said of many cards.  As you have written it, I would personally buy that card about as often as Adventurer unless it gave some kind of bonus. (same for Embargo if it didn't give the $2)

The others look okay to me, but it's more out of the game currently being starved for more Reaction cards.

[biopower]

Bailey feels strictly superior to Moat, as it has the same effect and is nonterminal, at the cost of being able to draw one fewer card. One fewer card isn't that much of a penalty in exchange for being nonterminal, as it means you can buy as many as you want without clogging your deck.

[ChaosRed]

The Servant's Quarters card could be discarded by any discard-for-benefit card on your turn for some nice combos. Discard it to secret chamber, vault, horse traders, HAMLET, etc, and draw a card. Let's see, a deck made of SQ and Hamlet. Play hamlet, discard a SQ for +1card and +action. Not bad.

Yeah, thanks. I think that card is okay right now, in particular I think the name of the card seems to match its abilities. Serfs are often used as "fodder" to protect against attacks and serfs are often disposable for nobility, which explains why when you discard it you get a small benefit.

I think the Pauper's Feast would be more worth it if it also gave +1 Action (And would help differentiate it from Feast further).  May be a little overpowered with Golem/KC/TR, though that could be said of many cards. The others look okay to me, but it's more out of the game currently being starved for more Reaction cards.

Yeah the card does need something, if it had +1 Action, it might help it. It seems like a flimsy add-on perhaps? What if you could trash the card or any other card worth 2 or less to gain a card worth 3? You could still only trash one card, but it could the Pauper's Feast or any other card worth 2 or less. Too powerful? It would be a very slow trasher...but gives you the option of trashing the card itself if nothing in your hand is worth trashing, which means it gets rid of itself when you no longer need it.

It would add a decent theme to the card too, where you are "feasting" off cheap cards, but really not getting too much in return.

Bailey feels strictly superior to Moat, as it has the same effect and is nonterminal, at the cost of being able to draw one fewer card. One fewer card isn't that much of a penalty in exchange for being nonterminal, as it means you can buy as many as you want without clogging your deck.

Yeah I feel Bailey is broken too. It's a Pawn without one option, but is also a reaction. Perhaps if I remove the +1 Action, and replace that option with just a +1$? It weakens the card significantly, but right now I feel like Bailey is one of the best defenders out there right now and it was my intention to go rather conservative with the set. I wanted one or two "wow" cards, but most of the set I want to be very balanced and fair and to err on the side of "under-powered" rather than broken.

Thanks guys for the feedback, greatly appreciated.

[Davio]

What if you could trash Pauper's Feast to gain 2 cards costing $3?

In that case, it may be bought sometime beyond the 5/2 opening.

[Fangz]

I can't see pauper's feast being at all useful unless you are drowned in + buys. Even with the action. Would you really do the equivalent of doubly cursing yourself for a turn to get two silvers instead of a $4 card you can use immediately? And get a + buy for this purpose?

How about this as an alternative:

Trash this card, gain a card costing $3 or less. Put it in your hand.

I think this will be rather more interesting...

[Tydude]

The problem with Servant's Quarters and Bailey is that they're just so useless when there's no attacks out there. Moat at least gives you something no other 2 cost card gives, while Bailey is just a weaker Pawn at the same cost and Servant's Quarters, if there's no discard for benefit, would be the worst card in the game. These cards need to give some bonus that's not completely dependent on the other cards in the Kingdom.

[rinkworks]

First, a minor point:  If you want to emulate the look and feel of the official cards, go Times New Roman for the interior text.  That font is great for the name of the card and its type, but hard to read when it's used for the instructions.

Another technicality:  the official cards all have a horizontal line dividing "on play" behavior with behavior that happens at other times (e.g., all reactions; "while in play" for Goons and Lighthouse; "setup" for Young Witch and Trade Route).  This is useful whenever there is doubt about which parts of the card get doubled with Throne Room.

Ok, enough of the nitpicky stuff.

Servant's Quarters

Servant's Quarters is quite interesting.  My concern, I guess, is that it will be interesting on too few boards.  How often are cards discarded during the Action phase?  Hamlet, Horse Traders, Cellar, Warehouse, Secret Chamber, Young Witch, Tactician.  Can't even think of any others off the top of my head.  This probably is not enough to justify that card behavior.  That said, when it *does* activate, it's really cool.  With some finagling, you could use it to get double Tactician turns.  (Play Village, play Tactician, discard Servant's Quarters, draw Laboratory, play Laboratory, draw Tactician + one other card, play Tactician.)

However, here's a question:  Do you mean that the Servant's Quarters should be discarded from your hand, or is it not important where it's discarded from?  If it counts if the card is discarded from anywhere, suddenly now it activates when Adventurer skips over it (because those set-aside cards get discarded when Adventurer has found its two treasures), when Harvest turns it up, when you choose the discard option on Navigator, and so on.  Offhand, I can't think of any problems with this, but you'll want to consider all the official cards very carefully for rules complications or broken game states before allowing this.  But if it can work that way, it might be a much more interesting card.  But I would still expect that particular feature to be usable on only a minority of boards, so it's a good thing that it does more than that too.

Still, the card needs to be usable on ANY board, not just these.  And if all you get is +1 Card, then that is strictly worse than nothing.  Maybe add a +1 Buy onto it?  I'd still be worse than Herbalist, but at least then there would be situations you'd want one.

Pauper's Feast

Any reason you don't want to gain a card up to $4?  Workshop does and only costs $3.  A one-shot Workshop would be fine at $2.  I know (and appreciate!) that you are concerned about powering up your cards too much, but honestly I think even with this boost, Pauper's Feast would still be generally undesirable.  But it would at least be "better than nothing" in a wider variety of situations.  It's an okay consolation prize, for example, in Gardens and Conspirator races.

I really can't think of any non-contrived situation where it's worth using a buy and a subsequent action just to get a Silver.  Why wouldn't I just buy nothing?  Then, on the turn where Pauper's Feast *would* have turned up, I'll have both a card and an action I wouldn't have had -- and, therefore, be better able to raise $3 naturally AND preserve the chance I'll be able to raise MORE than that and buy something better.

If you really don't want to raise the limit to $4, then Davio's idea of gaining TWO $3 cards is pretty good.  If you don't like that either, then I'd suggest not only +1 Action but +1 Card as well.  Still weak, but at least then I wouldn't feel like it's basically ALWAYS a bad buy.

Bailey

This one's fine.  A weaker Pawn in exchange for attack immunity is a fair trade.  But it's unfortunate that in non-attack games, which are common, Pawn is strictly superior.  If you can offer a nuance that Pawn doesn't, that would improve the card.  It doesn't even have to be something particularly good, just something slightly different.

For example:

Choose two:  +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy.  The choices may be the same; if they are, discard a card.

Come to think of it, that particular version would make it another card that could activate Servant's Quarters.

[ratxt1]

my thoughts on the expanssion so far
Servants Quarters: quite an interesting card wtih a lot of nuansce if you consider it to include all times when tis discarded (not just from your hand) as ther are a decent amount of times when this happens the cards that havn't been mentioned previously are: sea hag, jeseter, hunting party, chancelor, spy, library, minion sabotauer, tribute, lookout, navigator, scrying pool, loan, rabble, venture, and fourtune teller.

Paupers Feast: needs to be alittle stronger either trash for a 4 cost card or trash for 2 3 cost cards. and even then its still only mediocre. maybe trash for 2 4cost cards?

Bailey: ok i just dont like this it's to similar to pawn and to similar to moat. at something that makes it different.

[DStu]

(Play Village, play Tactician, discard Servant's Quarters, draw Laboratory, play Laboratory, draw Tactician + one other card, play Tactician.)

Or even easier:
Have played Tactician, discard 2x Servante's Quarters, draw Tactician + 1 card, play Tactician.

Still, the card needs to be usable on ANY board, not just these.  And if all you get is +1 Card, then that is strictly worse than nothing.  Maybe add a +1 Buy onto it?  I'd still be worse than Herbalist, but at least then there would be situations you'd want one.

Don't think that has to be the case. On how many boards is Moat usefull? If the on-Discard-feature is powerfull enough when it triggers, and if it also triggers on Adventurer etc you would have interactions with certanily 25* cards + attacks, which should be enough to have an interaction on most random boards.
And I think because of this it's probably more interesting to get the reaction part good enough that it's worth considering with say Loan.

*You mentioned 7 from hand, rarXt named 16, including some attacks where it works not only from hand but also when drawn, I would add Adventurer and Vault.

Bailey
This one's fine.  A weaker Pawn in exchange for attack immunity is a fair trade.  But it's unfortunate that in non-attack games, which are common, Pawn is strictly superior.  If you can offer a nuance that Pawn doesn't, that would improve the card.  It doesn't even have to be something particularly good, just something slightly different.

Also here it's only strictly superior in games without Attacks and with Pawn. Without Pawn it doesn't matter. I think the boards without Attacks where I even feel I should consider thinking about Moat are less common than having no Pawn.
And this one here it way better than Moat when there are attacks. There is no cost to have this on hand, there is just the opportunity cost of buying it, but it also gives an maybe important buy for no cost. And so helping buying more of itselfes.

[Jimmmmm]

I don't think it would be practical for Chancellor to activate Servants Quarters, as you don't generally see what you're discarding, and you would have to look through your deck to find how many SQs you have, which you're not usually allowed to do. And under what conditions would you be allowed to look through your deck when playing Chancellor? If you've gained at least one SQ? If SQ is in the game? I don't think it works. There should be some distinction between Chancellor type discarding, and regular discarding, when you see what you're discarding.

[rinkworks]

Still, the card needs to be usable on ANY board, not just these.  And if all you get is +1 Card, then that is strictly worse than nothing.  Maybe add a +1 Buy onto it?  I'd still be worse than Herbalist, but at least then there would be situations you'd want one.

Don't think that has to be the case. On how many boards is Moat usefull?

Small, I admit, but tough to say exactly.  Which is my point.  It's potentially useful on any board, because +2 Cards is, after all, a benefit.  You have to weigh the opportunity cost against how meager a benefit it is, but it's still a benefit.

+1 Card, however, eats an action, and all it does for you is give you the hand you would have drawn anyway had you not bought the card in the first place.  In other words, it is mathematically impossible to derive a benefit from using the +1 Card.*  Again, it's strictly worse than nothing at all.  [*Fodder for Forge/Remodel, lowering the cost of Peddler, increasing the power of Horn of Plenty, etc, doesn't count.  Any action card does those things.]

It's fine to have a card that's situational, but even a bad card ought to do something.

I agree that the problem is not so severe, though, if the on-discard effect works even if you discard from somewhere besides your hand, allowing Adventurer, etc, to activate it.  Still, there will be boards where it is truly a dead pile.  Not just a weak pile.  A dead one.  In terms of game design, that kind of sucks.

Bailey
This one's fine.  A weaker Pawn in exchange for attack immunity is a fair trade.  But it's unfortunate that in non-attack games, which are common, Pawn is strictly superior.  If you can offer a nuance that Pawn doesn't, that would improve the card.  It doesn't even have to be something particularly good, just something slightly different.

Also here it's only strictly superior in games without Attacks and with Pawn.

It still bothers me.  It's not a big deal, which is why I only said it's "unfortunate."  And if the OP doesn't care, that's fine; I was just pointing it out so he'll be able to consider that.  But my opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that you don't want cards at the same cost that are strictly superior to others at the same cost under ANY circumstance.  "Usually superior" is fine.  Inevitable anyway, but fine.  Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks.  Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category.  Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory.  Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.

These are more aesthetic issues than game balance issues.  Dominion isn't broken if one card is strictly superior to another at the same cost.  But they're aesthetic issues that impact the strategy space of the game.  If Bailey can be subtly altered so that, while still weak, it isn't strictly inferior to Pawn under any circumstance, the strategy space is expanded -- because now, in those games where it would have been a no-brainer, you have to think strategically about which one to pick up.  That's a good thing.

[Jack Rudd]

But my opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that you don't want cards at the same cost that are strictly superior to others at the same cost under ANY circumstance.  "Usually superior" is fine.  Inevitable anyway, but fine.  Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks.  Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category. 

In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?

(I'll admit this is probably a rarer circumstance than a game with no Attacks.)

[DStu]

... and of course by "any cirumstances" you mean "any board", as Witch is strictly worse than Rabble/Ghostship or at most equal to Moat while more expensive once that all curses have run out.

But it's ok, I see your point and I see that you see that's mostly an idiological point. I just wanted to add that Bailey deviates from this principle by about the smallest amount that I can imagine, as it only happens on some boards, and even if it happens you are only limited in your choices, while the card does exactly what Pawn does given you choose the same options with Pawn.

[guided]

In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?

No: Diadem But, the point stands. There are cards that will in rare circumstances be dominated by some other card, and that's OK. But a card that is dominated any significant fraction of the time is IMO a bad card.

The most irksome fan cards for me (and they pop up like weeds, in this thread and so many threads on BGG that the Variant forum for Dominion was one of the first I unsubscribed from) are Reaction cards with the same reaction effect as Moat that are otherwise either plain cantrips (+1 Card +1 Action) or simple copies or near-copies of other cards. I understand that new players don't like being attacked and wish they could buy some cheapo Moat-like card (but one that weighs their deck down less than Moat) on every attacking board, but listen, that's boring. There are much more interesting ways to compensate for being attacked than adding more Moatlike reaction cards, and if you're going to make fan variants there's a whole universe of potentially interesting reaction effects you could invent rather than just copying Moat. And even if you insist on having a cheapo card that's stupidly strong against attacks, there's Lighthouse already!

[Thisisnotasmile]

In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?

No: Diadem

I was going to say the same thing, but then I realised that for Diadem to be in the game, you've also got 2 and a half terminal actions (Followers, Princess, Trusty Steed) which WERE excluded. But yeah, if you take the quote literally, none of these are kingdom cards, so they don't count. If we're amending the quote to make it correct, it should read:

In a game where none of the ten kingdom cards are terminal actions or Tournament, Bazaar is strictly inferior to Market and Treasury, yesno?

[guided]

It's not important, and the "or Tournament" addition was obvious; I was just being cheeky. Winky-face!

[DStu]

But I think guided is right concerning the "more Moats", and I also think that's the real problem with Bailey. Not that it is dominated on < 1/12 of the boards, but that it's just too strong on boards with attacks.

When we don't want more Moats, still the Servant's mechanic is interesting I think, and I think one could make a strong card out of it even without the Moateffect. For example, one could at first drop the "not during discard"-condition and make it a Duration-Reaction (despite the fact that there will be no more Durations) that is triggered whenever it is discarded, and gives +1 Card now +1 Card "next turn" (where the next-turn-mechanic is implemented by the reaction on discarding. Ok, you have to find a wording that this is only triggered once, which might be difficult).
The Reaction would move it to the Durationpile directly.
So it's a Caravan without the +1Action now regularly, which is kind of weak, but defends against Militia et al by redrawing 1 card. And interacts with all the discard-for-benefit, discard-for-whatever-reason cards by strenghtening the next turn.

Might be a little weak still...

[rinkworks]

... and of course by "any circumstances" you mean "any board", as Witch is strictly worse than Rabble/Ghostship or at most equal to Moat while more expensive once that all curses have run out.

I did, yes.  Sorry about that.

...are Reaction cards with the same reaction effect as Moat that are otherwise either plain cantrips (+1 Card +1 Action)...

Actually, now that you've drawn my attention to it, that's actually the larger problem with Bailey.  The "choose one" mechanic disguised it enough that I missed it at first, but as a rule of thumb, you probably don't want a non-terminal Moat-like reaction and definitely not a cantrip Moat-like reaction.  The reason is that then it's cheap and easy (especially if you have spare +Buys) to load up on them without damaging your deck.  Get enough, and you're immune to attacks the majority the time, thereby dissuading others from investing in attacks, thereby devaluing your Moat-like reaction.  The tendency, then, is for players to avoid both the attacks AND the reaction.

Swapping out the +1 Action for +$1 in the bonus list would be the easiest way to fix that.  But as guided says, changing the nature of the reaction itself might be a more interesting change.

[Jimmmmm]

Feel free to ignore this as unimportant, but because it's more fun than going to bed...

I count 58 Kingdom cards which, when on a board together, can never be terminal actions (including Throne Room, King's Court and Golem, since these are only terminal if you have other terminals, and including non-action Kingdom cards, and excluding cards like Pawn which are sometimes terminal).

So for a given game:

Pr(no terminals) = 58 * ... * 49 / (129 * ... * 120) = 58! * 119!/(48! * 129!) ~ 0.0002122

Pr(Bazaar given no terminals) = 1 - 57 * ... * 48 / (58 * ... * 49) = 1 - 57! * 48!/(47! * 58!) ~ 0.1724

Pr(Market or Treasury given Bazaar and no terminals) = 1 - 55 * ... * 47 / (57 * ... * 49) = 1 - 55! * 48! / (48! * 57!) ~ 0.9997

=> Pr(no terminals, Bazaar and Market or Treasury) ~ 0.00003657 or 1 in 27343.

So the situation in which Market or Treasury is strictly superior to Bazaar is very unlikely to happen to any given player, but in the 2612290+ games that have been played on Isotropic since December, it has probably come up somewhere around 95 times.

Just so you know.

[DStu]

So the situation in which Market or Treasury is strictly superior to Bazaar is very unlikely to happen to any given player, but in the 2612290+ games that have been played on Isotropic since December, it has probably come up somewhere around 95 times.

Probably more, as in the beginning there were less cards. On the other hands, you ignore people vetoing on Posession etc., which are mostly terminals.

[Davio]

Mixing Choice AND Reaction can be fun.

Example:

When an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this card once and...
Let the attack happen and gain a Silver, put it on your deck; or you are unaffected by the attack and must discard one card.

Options can be tweaked of course, Silver is often a somewhat harmless middle card that doesn't tilt the game too much either way.

I know the wording is a bit awkward and the mechanics may be too, but it seems like fun to be able to choose whether to be attacked and get a bonus or not be attacked and get a penalty.

[rinkworks]

=> Pr(no terminals, Bazaar and Market or Treasury) ~ 0.00003657 or 1 in 27343.

Excellent work!  A few observations about the cards proposed here:.

Bailey

Bailey and Pawn will appear together in about 0.5% of all games, or 1 in 200*.  Of these, 76.9% will have at least one attack card.  This means that Bailey is strictly inferior to Pawn in 0.37% of all games, or 1 in 271.  This is two orders of magnitude more frequent than the Bazaar counterexample.

Still, I was technically wrong about my earlier claim.  It is indeed possible for Bazaar to be strictly inferior to another official card.

* I've disregarded Young Witch's 11th pile from this calculation.  As both these cards could be the Bane card, the real frequency that these cards will appear on the same board is slightly higher.

Servant's Quarters

I might easily have miscounted, but here's what I have for the 136 official cards:

- 22 attack cards
- 9 discard-from-hand cards (Cellar, Secret Chamber, Minion, Warehouse, Tactician, Vault, Hamlet, Horse Traders, Young Witch, but NOT Baron, Tournament*)
- 11 discard-from-set-aside-land cards (Spy,  Library, Adventurer, Lookout, Navigator, Scrying Pool, Loan, Venture, Harvest, Hunting Party, Envoy, but NOT Chancellor, Golem, Possession, Farming Village**)

* Baron and Tournament can only discard Estates and Provinces, respectively, and so could not discard Servant's Quarters.
** Chancellor doesn't discard from "set aside land," and the specific cards it discards are unknowable per the rules.  Golem and Farming Village can't discard Servant's Quarters.  As for Possession, while an opponent could trash Servant's Quarters from your hand, causing it to eventually wind up in your discard pile, the card doesn't say that trashed cards are discarded, only that they are "returned to your discard pile."  While this is an arguable distinction, its inclusion or exclusion in the list probably doesn't change the outcome of the calculation much.

Disregarding how Young Witch's 11th pile changes the numbers up, my calculations (which might well be wrong; if someone wants to double-check, please do) are that Servant's Quarters that only activates on discard-from-hand will be a dead pile in 9% of the games in which it appears.  That is, 91% of games will include at least either an attack card or a discard-from-hand card.

Allowing discard-from-set-aside-land, Servant's Quarters is a dead pile in 3.2% of the games in which it appears.

Servant's Quarters would appear in 7.3% of all games, by the way, so that translates to the discard-from-hand version being a dead pile in 0.67% of all games, or 1 in 152.   The discard-from-hand-or-set-aside-land version would be a dead pile in 0.23% of all games, or 1 in 428.

[ChaosRed]

I want to thank you all for the kind analysis and feedback.

I am a little stuck on what to do with all the feedback. For now, I'll leave Bailey as it stands. I think the card is useful enough, as a defender with just enough utility that it can stand on its own. It is a conservative card, but I wanted the design to be generally conservative, with a few really "stellar" cards in the expansion.

Pauper's Feast is too weak. It needs more. I will make an adjustment to it.

Servant's Quarters needs a rule clarification, but it might have to be just a clarification the way Throne Room is clarified in the rules and other notations in the game. The only time the discard mechanic does not kick for the card is during cleanup, so in the case of the cards that filter or mill through your deck and the card is discarded, it would still draw a card, (for example when playing an Adventurer card, it could draw another card). That makes it a little more useful. I think it is arguably still weaker than Moat, (and admittedly +1 card just makes it a clog on its own), but the discard mechanic gives it a least a little intrigue, if not outright practical usage in most circumstances.

It also brings up a rule issue though. If you play Adventurer, reveal a Servant's Quarters, you draw a card and that card happens to be a treasure card, does that also count as one of the two treasure cards that Adventurer tutors for, or since it was not the Adventurer that directly drew the card, could you still keep tutoring for two more treasures?

[ChaosRed]

I updated the two most contentious cards of the "cost 2" set. I modified the original post to reflect the changes. Here are the updates here though as well:





Took the suggestion to use Time Roman for rule text as well, as well as separating the base defense mechanic from the "during play" mechanics by a line.

Thoughts are welcome, I'll hold back from posting all four of the "cost 3" cards until I see, everyone is generally okay with the 2-cost cards, (even if many of them are slightly under-powered). Under-powered I don't mind, but utterly useless in almost any context is something I want to avoid.

[Deadlock39]

Adventurer sets cards aside until it finds your two treasures, and then discards them, so you would get your two treasures, and then draw the next available card when your set aside cards got discarded.

There is an interesting ordering issue here as I am not sure there is a ruling on what order you discard your set aside cards.  I would probably rule that it is the same order your drew them.  This means that if you only have one treasure left in your deck (or only 2 and one is the very last card), then you have your entire deck set aside.  If you got to chose the order you discarded these cards, you could chose (sort of) which cards you drew with SQ.  If you discard the card you want first and then SQ, then you have a 50/50 shot of getting the card you wanted or the SQ.  If you have a second SQ in your deck, you are guaranteed that card.

[ChaosRed]

It does bring up a messy rules question as to whether players decide which order cards are discarded, or if they must happen on a "stack" where the first card set aside is discarded first (or perhaps its LIFO or perhaps players get to choose the order).

[ratxt1]

regarding the rules question with adventurer i think it should be that they are all discarded simoultneously and i've alwasys felt thats how the card intended it
another word issue is on the new pupers feast is it
choose 1 trash paupers feast and up to 2 other cards costing less than 2
or gain a card costing up to 3 (as its worded now)

or

trash paupers feast choose 1 trash up to 2 other cards costing less than 2
or gain a card costing up to 3 (the old paupers feast with an added choice)

as how its worded now its more like a workshop than a feast

[biopower]

Mixing Choice AND Reaction can be fun.

Example:

When an opponent plays an attack card, you may reveal this card once and...
Let the attack happen and gain a Silver, put it on your deck; or you are unaffected by the attack and must discard one card.

Options can be tweaked of course, Silver is often a somewhat harmless middle card that doesn't tilt the game too much either way.

I know the wording is a bit awkward and the mechanics may be too, but it seems like fun to be able to choose whether to be attacked and get a bonus or not be attacked and get a penalty.

I rather like this choice: "Reveal Bailey and discard a card. If you do so, you are unaffected by the attack." I'm not sure about the way gaining silvers would work but that's also a good idea. This solves the problem of having a better moat and makes more interactions with servants quarters.

[Jack Rudd]

It also brings up a rule issue though. If you play Adventurer, reveal a Servant's Quarters, you draw a card and that card happens to be a treasure card, does that also count as one of the two treasure cards that Adventurer tutors for, or since it was not the Adventurer that directly drew the card, could you still keep tutoring for two more treasures?

The Adventurer searches for two more Treasures. The Servant's Quarters draws the card before the Adventurer has the chance to reveal it.

[rinkworks]

It also brings up a rule issue though. If you play Adventurer, reveal a Servant's Quarters, you draw a card and that card happens to be a treasure card, does that also count as one of the two treasure cards that Adventurer tutors for, or since it was not the Adventurer that directly drew the card, could you still keep tutoring for two more treasures?

The Adventurer searches for two more Treasures. The Servant's Quarters draws the card before the Adventurer has the chance to reveal it.

I think Deadlock has it right here.  The Servant's Quarters doesn't get activated until Adventurer discards it (not when it merely reveals it), and that doesn't happen until Adventurer is completely done with everything else it does.  So Adventurer would draw stuff to set-aside-land, pull two Treasures into the hand, and then discard the set-aside cards.  If Servant's Quarters is among the set-aside cards, it would then draw a card.

I also agree with ratxt1, that all the set-aside cards are discarded simultaneously.  That wouldn't allow for any kind of strategic ordering of the discarded cards.  They'd all go into the discard pile in a batch.  If a Servant's Quarters among them triggers a reshuffle, they all get reshuffled in.

[Kirian]

Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks.  Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category.  Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory.  Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.

None?  Because I think a case could be made that Ghost Ship, at the very least, is always strictly superior to Counting House...

[rinkworks]

Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks.  Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category.  Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory.  Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.

None?  Because I think a case could be made that Ghost Ship, at the very least, is always strictly superior to Counting House...

That's not even close to true.  In fact it's quite easy to think of situations where you'd rather the Ghost Ship in your hand was a Counting House instead.  Say there's one Province left, and your hand is Silver-Silver-Estate-Estate-X.   There are four Coppers in your discard pile, and only Provinces in your draw pile.  Counting House wins the game.  Ghost Ship doesn't.

What you're talking about is a card that is superior more often than not.  "Strictly superior" means something different.  If Card A is "strictly superior" to Card B, it means there is NEVER a situation where Card B is preferable.*

(*...Although in the domain of Dominion, we seem to allow for exceptions such as differing costs possibly being better suited to some particular use of Forge, Salvager, etc, and a few other side-effect uses like this.)

As was previously pointed out, on a board with no terminals or Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because the extra actions on Bazaar are never needed.  I suppose another example is Conspirator being strictly inferior to Militia, Cutpurse, and Navigator on a board with only terminals.  But these are extremely rare situations.

[Kirian]

Strictly superior -- as in, "in this game, it's mathematically impossible for this card to be a more advantageous buy than this other card," kind of sucks.  Note, by the way, that none of the 100+ official Dominion cards fit this category.  Not even Hunting Party/Laboratory.  Even though, at this point, the chance of any particular card showing up with any particular other one is small and will only decrease as further expansions come out.

None?  Because I think a case could be made that Ghost Ship, at the very least, is always strictly superior to Counting House...

That's not even close to true.  In fact it's quite easy to think of situations where you'd rather the Ghost Ship in your hand was a Counting House instead.  Say there's one Province left, and your hand is Silver-Silver-Estate-Estate-X.   There are four Coppers in your discard pile, and only Provinces in your draw pile.  Counting House wins the game.  Ghost Ship doesn't.

What you're talking about is a card that is superior more often than not.  "Strictly superior" means something different.  If Card A is "strictly superior" to Card B, it means there is NEVER a situation where Card B is preferable.*

(*...Although in the domain of Dominion, we seem to allow for exceptions such as differing costs possibly being better suited to some particular use of Forge, Salvager, etc, and a few other side-effect uses like this.)

As was previously pointed out, on a board with no terminals or Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because the extra actions on Bazaar are never needed.  I suppose another example is Conspirator being strictly inferior to Militia, Cutpurse, and Navigator on a board with only terminals.  But these are extremely rare situations.

Ah, I was misunderstanding your definition of strictly superior.  Carry on

[ChaosRed]

trash paupers feast choose 1 trash up to 2 other cards costing less than 2
or gain a card costing up to 3 (the old paupers feast with an added choice)

as how its worded now its more like a workshop than a feast

Yeah that's the way I currently intend it, it's a blend of a weak workshop or a rather weak chapel. I am not that thrilled with the card. I wanted a cheap upgrade ability, that maybe trashed a card or two. The card's name doesn't really match the theme though.

I am still not happy with the card. So I've changed it again, hopefully it has some utility and is still on theme:



It's now a weaker one-time chapel, or a very decent upgrade card. It doesn't do either function particularly well, but because it has the option and is worth only 2, it might be a decent early card.

As for the other discussion about the discard mechanic, thank you all for the clarification.

As to whether some cards are strictly weaker, I think this can become a bit semantic. Ambassador is a weak card, weaker than most, but there are instances where it is useful. 

Thank you all again for your feedback and I will post the 3-cost cards later today.

[Jack Rudd]

Ambassador is a weak card, weaker than most, but there are instances where it is useful. 

[guided]

Yes, either our OP is as noobish as he claims in the thread title, or he is a clever troll!

ChaosRed: Ambassador is the strongest 4/3 opening card in the 2p game. Yes, stronger than Chapel.

For anybody who's ignorant of the proper use of "strictly": It means what it says! "Strictly", as in, in every possible circumstance, always. If there is one impossibly rare and contrived case where Y is better than X, then X is not "strictly better" than Y. Period! If you say "strictly better" when you just mean "better" (or even "much better" or "usually better"), you're adding the word "strictly" to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means.

[WanderingWinder]

Yes, either our OP is as noobish as he claims in the thread title, or he is a clever troll!

ChaosRed: Ambassador is the strongest 4/3 opening card in the 2p game. Yes, stronger than Chapel.

For anybody who's ignorant of the proper use of "strictly": It means what it says! "Strictly", as in, in every possible circumstance, always. If there is one impossibly rare and contrived case where Y is better than X, then X is not "strictly better" than Y. Period! If you say "strictly better" when you just mean "better" (or even "much better" or "usually better"), you're adding the word "strictly" to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means.

Usually we don't quite take this to this extreme (i.e. almost every card that is strictly worse would be better if you got possessed), but I agree in principle, which is why when I talk about things like this in printable cards, I usually say 'almost strictly better' or 'a strictly better effect' (i.e. Grand Market basically has a strictly better effect than market, which doesn't necessarily make it a better card 'cause it's harder to get) or some other such thing.

[DStu]

For anybody who's ignorant of the proper use of "strictly": It means what it says! "Strictly", as in, in every possible circumstance, always. If there is one impossibly rare and contrived case where Y is better than X, then X is not "strictly better" than Y. Period! If you say "strictly better" when you just mean "better" (or even "much better" or "usually better"), you're adding the word "strictly" to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means.

Just as devil's advocate (or trolling, as you like): You could think that you mean strictly better in the sense of ... really strictly better (see ->recursion). I mean "strictly better" compared to "better" like  ">" to ">=". Which would be quite strange from the context, because comparing two different Dominioncards on equality would be like comparing two particle's positions AND momentums on equality, but anyway, you could maybe think that with "strictly" you want to exclude the equality-case, in which case you of course still talk about average values of cards. In which case GS would be "strictly better" than CH, for this definition of "strictly better".

And the longer I think about it (don't play with the devil....) this would be quite consequent, because if you introduce an ordering "better" that, as everybody seems to agree, compares the average values of cards, than "strictly better" of course also compares the average values of cards. So to be correct, we always should talk about "better on average" and "better in every situation".  That would be a little bit to anoying to really do it, so maybe we should just understand when someone for whatever reason just thinks of the "unconventional" (to avoid "wrong") definitions. Especially as not everybody is native speaker...
[/trolling]

[guided]

There's a difference between speaking imprecisely and speaking precisely and wrongly. If somebody says "Grand Market is better than Counting House", well, we know that's not true 100% of the time, but even without further context it's clear what the speaker means and we can probably agree with their sentiment. If somebody says "Grand Market is strictly better than Counting House," on the other hand, they're saying something with an absolute, mathematically air-tight meaning that is simply false. Truth value of exactly 0.

It's quite clear that nobody is meaning to use "strictly" in the sense of differentiating > from >=, and short of contrariness for its own sake there's no reason to bring it up. What we have here is the same as people using "literally" to mean "figuratively", and man, if you're going to argue that it's OK to do that, at least do it from some kind of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist standpoint rather than pretending that the people speaking this way really know what they're doing.

[DStu]

... and man, if you're going to argue that it's OK to do that, at least do it from some kind of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist standpoint rather than pretending that the people speaking this way really know what they're doing.

I thought that was what I did...

[Captain_Frisk]

Yes, either our OP is as noobish as he claims in the thread title, or he is a clever troll!

I like the clever troll theory better than n00bish.  Just reading that post made me want to go propose a board with some village and an ambassador.  Nothing better than a game where the opponent finishes with 15+ coppers.

[tko]

Just reading that post made me want to go propose a board with some village and an ambassador.  Nothing better than a game where the opponent finishes with 15+ coppers.

I played a game just this morning (too early to find a link) where I opened Walled Village/Ambassador into a 2nd Ambassador against my opponents Potion/Silver into Familiar.  The Walled Village was perfect for this strategy.  My opponent caught on to my 2 Ambassadors and picked up 2 but it was too late.  They ended up with more than 10 Coppers, maybe 14?  It was fun.

Especially considering since my kids have started school and life has become hectic, my rating has skydived to low twenties... a win is very rare for me these days.

And just yesterday I was winning the Torturer chain race when my internet quit on me... arghh, another rare win lost.
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110919-040422-ab8d65f4.html

[ChaosRed]

ChaosRed: Ambassador is the strongest 4/3 opening card in the 2p game. Yes, stronger than Chapel.

 Forgive me, I meant Chancellor not Ambassador. Apologies.

[ChaosRed]

Here are the first two cost 3 cards. I have modified the original post to include them there as well...

Excursion


This is really meant to combo off of other cards in the set, or provide a unique way to recycle the cool victory cards like Harem or Nobles. It works off the discard pile, so you need a victory card in your discard pile to gain it to your hand. It's card neutral (you gain a card back for playing it) and it does not terminate, but of course, its usage is limited and on most boards, I don't see this as a compelling buy. However, with other cards on the board, it becomes extremely powerful.

Too narrow? Perhaps, but I thought it was interesting enough to see if it provoked any discussion.

Villa


This is my one "village" card (every expansion seems to have one). It is a pretty weak village, until you can ensure your deck will likely draw a victory card (or can fish a victory card with a card like Excursion or Scout). At that point, the card is VERY strong (perhaps too strong). I am very tempted to make the reward for having a victory card in your hand just get you +1 card. This way you get to a normal village (+2 actions, +1 card) but with an additional +1$, but you have to have a victory card, otherwise you get no cards (but do get +2 actions).

I do want a village type card, and thought this one might be fun.

There are two cost of 3 cards in the set, but I'll see if there is any harsh criticism or praise for these two cards, before unveiling them. And thank you all again for your great feedback!

[rod-]

Villa is too strong even as an opening buy ; compare to baron.  If it were a duchy/province instead of 'a victory card' it would be different, but then it gets too close to tournament.  Excursion is, however, somewhat interesting.  It may suffer from being too bad on many boards, but as it is nonterminal, it has at least minor synergy with even non-victory based decks. (I could see picking up one or two in a scrying pool or golem engine if there weren't better sources available, although that could just be me trying too hard to make them work)

[rinkworks]

Villa is definitely too strong.  I think at +1 Card for the bonus (which would make it a Bazaar when activated), it might work fine at $3 or might still need a boost to $4.  Not sure.  As is, it might even be too strong at $5.  I mean, Laboratory is +2 Cards, +1 Action with nothing else.  For an extra action AND an extra coin, I think that offsets the necessity of having a Victory card in hand more than you think.  Combined with a draw engine, you could basically activate these every time and enhance that draw engine even further.  It's a great idea, though.

Excursion -- I just really don't see the use.  Yeah, it's neat when there are hybrid Victory cards in play, but most of the time there isn't, and then what?  Obviously it combos with Villa too, but the card ought to be of some kind of use in general, and I think it's just normally good for nothing at all.

[Jimmmmm]

I agree Villa as is is too strong, although I think if it became +1 card instead it would be too weak. I think "Reveal" should probably "Discard" to avoid mega City-like turns. Even then, it is essentially a Shanty Town + coins, and probably easier to activate than Shanty Town. Maybe it would be better priced at $4?
I can see Excursion going unbought in many games, except possibly on a couple of $3 turns when you don't want any more Silvers, but you're not ready for Estates yet. I suppose playing a bunch of them immediately before a reshuffle could set up your next deck pretty well. It would be interesting to see how well it can be used for that purpose.
Also combos well with Baron and other discard for benefit cards, Tournament, any kind of trasher/passer/returner. Possibly an opening of Remake/Excursion could be an efficient way of turning your Estates into Silvers.
Just thinking about the obvious dual-type Victory cards: Great Halls turn Excursion into a Lab. Harems turn it into an activated Conspirator. Nobles turn it into either a Village or +4 Cards. It obviously works great with Islands.
So yeah, it has nice combos. Would it be effective alone in making Victory cards miss reshuffles? I'm not sure.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah it's too powerful, I kinda figured as much, but since the previous cards were perceived as too weak, I thought I'd propose the strongest variant first.

Here's the variant I had in mind. It combos with the Servant's Quarters obviously. It's essentially a weaker/stronger Hamlet, depending on your hand on what's on the board. I wanted Villa to be marquee, most expansions feature a really
nice village or at least one card that chains really nicely for a cost of 3 and I wanted it to be this card.



You do not have to discard the Victory revealed. You could play it, reveal a victory, discard two copper, draw 2 cards and if you draw another Villa, play it again. It's card negative (if you include the villa, it costs you 3 to acquire 2 and even then only if you have a land card), so I don't think its broken, but it seems to have the potential for some really nice combinations if you can keep drawing them on a dense deck. It isn't a Minion change by any means, but I think the card has some potential. It's not earth shattering, but since it combos with Servant Quarters, (and one other card in the expansion), I think it can work.

[guided]

Yes, Villa definitely needed some tweaking, since the original version was probably stronger than any official action card in the entire game The right cost was probably more like $8 than $3.

[rinkworks]

Here's the variant I had in mind.

That looks much better.  I can't tell for sure if it's balanced at $3 without trying it out, but it looks likely.  I like that the decision to discard and replace the Victory card (a no-brainer with Cellar) is an important decision when you have multiple Villas.

Careful with your terminology, though.  "You gain the number of cards discarded" means, technically, that if I discard two cards, I can take two cards from the supply piles and put them in my discard pile.  Cellar's wording, "+1 Card per card discarded," is presumably what you're after.

[ChaosRed]

Careful with your terminology, though.  "You gain the number of cards discarded" means, technically, that if I discard two cards, I can take two cards from the supply piles and put them in my discard pile.  Cellar's wording, "+1 Card per card discarded," is presumably what you're after.

Yes, good point, thanks for that, I got sloppy with the wording.

[ChaosRed]

Took rinkworks fine suggestion on the Bailey card and added the feature that you CAN choose two of the same ability, if you pay with a discard...

Bailey


Here are the last two "cost of 3" cards in the set. I modified the OP to reflect these cards as well. Next I'll post the first two "cost of 4" cards...

Summon


A pretty basic tutor card, that allows you to name an Action of Treasure and put it into your hand. It's non-terminal too, so if you tutor an action you can play it right away.  It's a very useful card. not the most imaginative, but useful mid-to-late game as decks get less dense and you need a means to pull out a card from the clutter of copper and victory cards.

Wooden Bridge


As you can see one of the "themes" of the expansion is to replicate existing cards, with a different cost or  different attribute to them. This is by design. Although it demonstrates a lack of imagination, I am hoping it ignites a conversation about what makes the original card work, why the variant is flawed (too strong or weak) and what variants should cost more or less. One of the key purposes to making this fan expansion for me, is to really learn what makes Dominion such a unique game and what cards have value - and why.

It's another non-terminal card, which makes it quite interesting, but you have to trash the card to activate the "1 less" portion of the bridge. I had considered making it "discard a card" as the penalty to activate the "1 less" portion, but felt that wasn't a strong enough penalty. Maybe discard two cards? Forcing you to trash it, means you don't get a whole lot for 3, other than it can help with early buys and it doesn't terminate, so you can chain them. It also ensures no card is worth less than 1 (rather than 0)...which actually increases the value of coppers and curses, which might provide an interesting combo with other revalue cards.

[rinkworks]

Summon

I like that.  Donald X. talked about a similar card, which was basically this, except it offered +$2 instead of +1 Action and allowed you to name any card type.  It got scrapped, because it was strictly superior to Chancellor (because you could always just name a type of card you didn't have) and too weak to cost at $4.

Restricting it to only actions or treasures does the trick, though, and the +1 Action instead of +$2 seems like a better idea.  But that probably makes it a weaker card.  If you name an action, and that's the next card to show up in your deck, then you've done no better than if you'd never bought the card in the first place.  And while, if you skip green cards to get to it, that's a good thing, this is probably counterbalanced by the treasures you're also liable to skip.  So I think the benefit of the card lies entirely on being able to look at the rest of your hand and deciding which type would help you out most.

That's not insignificant and very possibly worthwhile as a $3 buy.  I'd guess that's probably where it needs to be, but you might playtest it $2, too.

Wooden Bridge

I worry that this is too powerful.  The self-trashing maybe makes it okay, but since it's a non-terminal, it would be perfectly possible to rush the stack and wait until you could play them all at once, in succession, to activate them.  Play 7 in a row, and you can now buy 7 Provinces.   Because they self-trash, you can only do this once, but, then again, you only need to do it once.  Of course you can do this with Bridge too, but the fact that Bridge is a terminal makes it more difficult to play them all together.  You need a more specific kind of outside help.

But I'm not so sure this is brokenly powerful.  For one thing, you don't get any real help from them as you're building up to that mega-turn.  (When not activated, they're essentially Coppers with +Buy.)  And you still do need outside help to get them all together, though that help can be any of lots of things, including Chapel, Hunting Party, Labs, Native Village, Golem, and Warehouse.  But if that help is present, and this is the dominant strategy on the board, so be it.   I think it will be a card that requires more playtesting than the usual, but, again, I don't immediately see any reason this can't work.  Certainly I think it's different enough from Bridge to warrant the attention.

[ChaosRed]

rink, your comments and feedback are precisely what I was looking for, not just a discussion about my noob expansion, but a discussion of what makes cards compelling and balanced. Thank you.

Summon I see a use for in a BM+2 tactic. You'll sometimes want that other key strat and this filters through to get it, or you may have both strats in your hand and since Summon doesn't terminate, it just pulls in a treasure card for you and allows you to fire the key strat. So in a BM+Smithy deck...having one of these is potentially quite useful, especially as you start to acquire victory cards. That's the general idea and I don't think its too broken, since by default, as you say, it's a wasted play if you just tutor for an action you could have potentially drawn anyway.

Yeah Wooden Bridge is potentially too strong. Your thoughts on this echo my own...it appears POTENTIALLY exploitable, but might take too long to get really pull the exploit off. Testing will reveal that, I start testing this soon, once I've revealed all the cards here and gotten good feedback from them. One thought I had was it couldn't reduce cards less than the cost of 2$ (or maybe even 3$). This way, one of the "features" of the card is it revalues the cards in your hand (or your opponents hand) so it can combo with revalue cards, like Remodel, Upgrade and Saboteur. I would probably remove the +1 Action if I did that? The card's main "feature" is to actually pump up the value of cheap cards to combo with a re-evaluation of them, either on an attack or for self-imposed revalue.

It becomes a "niche" card at that point admittedly, something you'd only buy if other revalue cards were on the board. The "never less than 2" would have to trump the "never less than 0" in Bridge and other cards of course, that would be explained in supplemental rules.

It's possible the card's "not less than" is too confusing, because of the potential conflict with Bridge and cards like it, that have a different "not less than" function.

Another initial wording of the card, only affected the value of your SECOND purchase...so your first purchase is at normal value, your second value is discounted and all other buys are at normal value. That nerfs the card significantly, so much so I removed the constraint. It could just discount your first purchase as well, (while the devalue trigger persists throughout the turn of course).

[ratxt1]

some more thoughts
i would really suggest changing bailey and servants couriders reaction because as you havn't already noticed there is no reaction with the same effect. also as people have stated a nonterminal reaction is something you have to be aware of.

ok the new cards.

i really like summon seems fun and id even suggest trying it at the pick any card but it might be too strong at 3 cost but i'd still suggest trying it anyway.

wooden bridge. i doubt your going to be able to pull a mega turn off as your going to need a reliable draw engine going and such and will probably be faster to just get the draw engine and to make it even less likely your opponet can just buy a few to make your mega turn not as strong. also it can't be kings courted (to great effect) which is one of the greatest strengths of bridge so in my opinion its strong as it is but not overpowered.

[ChaosRed]

some more thoughts
i would really suggest changing bailey and servants couriders reaction because as you havn't already noticed there is no reaction with the same effect. also as people have stated a nonterminal reaction is something you have to be aware of.

Yeah saw discussion of that and even a mention in rink's "guide". But I don't think a +1 Action on a Reaction card is so terrible. What am I missing? None of the Reaction cards posted are that overpowered, and in some cases I think you can make the case that a Moat is a more useful reaction.

I see Bailey as a weaker Chapel, with a defensive ability, and I see Servant's Quarters as a weaker moat (with a discard utility that might complement, but not break certain decks). Now your feedback is excellent, so I don't want to come across as ungrateful, but perhaps I just don't see why the cards are broken?

Thanks for the feedback on Summon and Wooden Bridge.

[Jack Rudd]

But I don't think a +1 Action on a Reaction card is so terrible. What am I missing?

Have you ever come across a Lighthouse deck? The characteristics of such a deck are:
(1) It can draw itself every turn.
(2) It contains at least two Lighthouses, one of which gets played every turn.

Once it starts running, such a deck can never be the victim of an Attack, ever.

Cards like Bailey are likely to cause similar effects: a deck can never have too many Baileys (because you can always use one for +Action +Card), so a Laboratory-Bailey deck, or something similar, is essentially unAttackable.

[ChaosRed]

But it sounds like a Lighthouse deck could ensure any deck could not be attacked with the inclusion of any defense card? Or are you suggesting that the +1 Action just enables the Lighthouse deck even more?

I still don't see why +1 Action on a defensive card is so broken. My apologies, I am sure it is true, but I still don't see it. Maybe when I play test the card, I can see the reality of that.

[WanderingWinder]

Sure, lighthouse decks can be come unattackable. I don't know why that's so much of a problem, especially with the effort you need to get there, and then you're using two of your precious card slots in your necessarily thin deck on lighthouse, when probably there's some really killer combo you could otherwise have. Unattackability really doesn't kill the game that much, so long as it's not a piece of cake to get and maintain, IMO.

[ChaosRed]

Going to leave the +1 Action on the defense card there for now and see how it comes out under play-testing. I hope to have the whole expansion printed and ready for play next week and will report how it goes here.

For now, I reveal the first of many 4-point cards in the expansion...

BRIBED OFFICIAL



It's a somewhat stronger Thief I suppose, but without the option to trash, you can also get stuck with a lot of Estates. Still it is a decent, but simple Attack card. I am still trying to err on the side of conservative and also err on the side of SIMPLE (no new complex mechanics or tokens, just base-set like abilities).

Is the card too strong? Initially, I had no minimum value on the card revealed, but feel the new limit makes the card useful, really other than an Estate, it will likely get you useful card. Of course it combos really well with Gardens type tactics.

It isn't that compelling an attack as the opponent can reveal his cheapest, weakest card and pawn it off to you and that card likely isn't optimized to your strategy. But perhaps played with other discard attacks (where already the player discards his weakest cards), it might make a potent second-attack.

Thoughts are very welcome on this card, as I feel Attack cards are the hardest to balance out of the gate.

SHYSTER



A very, very simple card advantage card that probably isn't that compelling. I worry about potential conflicts with other cards that increase or adjust the amount of cards you get next turn, (like the one that gives you a free "mini-turn" of 3 cards). I am not sure how Dominion has handled that kind of thing in the past, and perhaps my wording can be clarified.

I avoided +1 card at the start of your next turn specifically to avoid it being chained, but that of course really nerfs the value of the card.

Again, a very simple, honest card, erring on the side of conservative design.

[AJD]

Shyster is extremely powerful—since it's non-terminal and self-replacing, it's really easy to use a bunch of these to paralyze your opponents to a zero-card hand (see <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9669#msg9669">Rinkworks's item 7 here</a>). There's got to be some "oppenents with hands of more than n cards" stipulation on it.

[ChaosRed]

You are right, it needs a governor. Thanks for pointing that out.

[ratxt1]

shyster is basicly a caravan except it can imoblolize an opponet and caravan is already one of the better 4 cost cards i think the attack you should be worring about is that one instead of bribed official since the bribed official will actually hurt you in the beggining (beecause of estates) i'd say to balance bribed official you should take out the victory point clause as it makes it bettter in the oppening and not as swingy in the end game.

for both cards take out the discard effect or add something else your opponet can do instead of discarding a card (i'd suggest rereading rinkworks expansion guide thing as it really tells you the do's and dont's quite well) here are maybe some improvements on the cards

shyster
+1 card
+1 action
each other player may choose to either discard a card or take a copper in hand

kind of a weaker version of tourter but it could still be too powerful cause its easily spamable. you'd have to playtest it too see.

bribed official
each other opponent must reveal one Treasure card (worth at least 2) put the revealed card into your hand.

essentially you get rid of the discard effect for a card that isn't as hutful to your self early might be a little weak.

[ChaosRed]

Excellent suggestions from both of you, thank you. I went in a similar direction as to the suggestions, here are the updates:



Gaining a Silver for a 4-point card is kind of a tradition, so that's what the card defaults to now. Also I removed the chance of getting a Victory card, to avoid snatching Provinces from your opponents, which I agree is tad too "swingy". It's a weak Thief now I guess, but it can punish a hand that has possibly already been attacked with a discard attack, or steal Gold late in the game and put it in your hand.



You now have the option of gaining a Copper instead of discarding. Meaning the attack is useless if your opponent is going for a Gardens strategy, but in most cases, discarding a single card is preferred.

Nerfed both cards to the point where neither are particularly compelling, I guess Shyster is somewhat compelling with the +1 Action, meaning you can chain attacks, so if you've got a good engine, you can really keep Shyster going forcing your opponent to get clogged or trimmed.

[WanderingWinder]

They both still seem sort of funny and breakable to me. I think a lot of it might be the wordings. But, for one thing at least, it shouldn't be that 'on the next turn' they draw 6 instead of 5 (you'd have to make it a duration to actually get this effect), but it's in THIS turn's cleanup phase that you draw your next hand, so that's when you want to do it.
And it's still nearly strictly better than caravan.

[ratxt1]

yes you want to take out the draw effect as it is strictly better than caravan and should appropitly cost 5 (which even then is probably too powerful and should be playtested).

[AJD]

It's not strictly better than Caravan, since you can chain Caravans for multiple extra cards next turn. It still seems a little overpowered to me, though, but the "gain a copper" option makes it kind of interesting and confuses me about what the right price point for it might be.

[jsh357]

Yeah, with the copper gain it seems almost like a weaker, non-terminal Mountebank.  I could see $5 being a better price point.  Looks like a very powerful card nonetheless. 

I wonder if it might be better to change it so that you only draw an extra card if they choose to gain copper?  That might nerf it down to the $2/$3 level though.

[Jack Rudd]

Shyster looks like it would be very strong in combination with Outpost.

[DStu]

Shyster looks like it would be very strong in combination with Outpost.

Or it would produce a rift in space-time-continuum because of the collision of "3 instead of 5" and "6 instead of 5".

Edit: Thinking about it, we're safe as double-Outpost also leaves space-time undamaged.

Edit: Ok, see that he realized the problem himself. Anyway, maybe one wants to adjust the wording tothe one on Outpost, as WW said. Would be also more interesting (and a nerf), as it's attackable by Milita et al

[DStu]

I am still thinking that Shyster is overpowered as an attack. It's spamable like Familiar, while being way easier to purchase. Gaining a Curse is of course weaker than gaining a Copper, but Curses a more limited than Copper is. So the attack lasts longer in the game. The discardattack also stacks.
I think I would nerf this to "discard down to 4" or "everyone who has more than 3/4 cards discard 1 card or gains a Copper"

With this rules we have of course no stacking effect at all on the card, so maybe second one with 3 is really better than the first to have at least something from the second play.

[WanderingWinder]

If you get rid of the bonus, I don't think it's overpowered at all really. I have a similar, strictly stronger card in the set I'm designing. Of course I haven't playtested.

[ChaosRed]

Got rid of the bonus as you suggested WW, thank you for your advice...



Updated the verbiage on Bribed Official, just some typo corrections:



Two more Cost 4 cards coming up in the next post.

[ChaosRed]

The new 4 point cards for you to rip apart, much thanks in advance for any and all feedback:


CABAL



A pretty basic Victory - Treasure card, an homage to Harem really (one of my favorite basic cards), that's just an Estate-Silver hybrid for the cost of 4. I had debated making this worth 5, but I think at 4 it is a strong card, but not a broken card.

A treasure/victory card at 4 on the board makes Remodel and other revalue cards quite interesting. It also combos off of Bribed Official and Excursion (part of the reason its in the set).

SILVER VEIN



One of the reasons the set is called "Silver Lining" (there are other cards that add to the theme). This card also helps you understand some of the mechanics in the set too. The acquisition of Silver can yield victory points.  I put a 5 VP governor on it, so the card is never worth more than a Province. I have debated knocking the governor down to 4VP.

It's a harder card to get moving than Gardens obviously, but it shouldn't be too difficult to get it to max value (23 silvers are required to do it). This one really needs to be play-tested, as I couldn't wrap my head around the math to justify the cost/benefit of it. Also of course, the ease at which you can pull this card off can depend on the board, also it can be thwarted if you can just acquire Provinces faster than getting the Silver Vein to pay off.

It's probably the most controversial card I have in the set, (and I have other cards in the set that help it out coming out), so feel free to rip it apart, or even convince me the mechanic isn't worth it and abandon it entirely if you feel its really broken.

[ratxt1]

my real concern for silver vein is the games where it will be a good strategy will be the same games where gardens is a good strategy (except for it has a few more cards it combos with namely buerecrat and explorer) and in the standard set up i think it will have the problem that it will be hard to go for a three pile ending as whats your third card (the other 2 being silver vein and an enabler) so in a lot of sets it will be inferior to gardens and also has the problem in that if your not going for a silver vein strategy it is a useless card as most decks have less than 5 silvers. (all these asumptions could be wrong)


cabal seems like a simple cool card and ill let others say if its overpowered or not (as i don't know)

[WanderingWinder]

Silver vein will basically never be worth more than 2 VP with printed cards, and even there, it's going to be a stretch. It's just not worth it.

Cabal shouldn't be printed because silver is supposed to be able to compete with basically every 4-cost under the right circumstances, and it basically never can here. Heck, it's gotta be stronger than stash and royal seal usually, and those are 5s.

[DStu]

Do you really think you need the Cap on Silver Vein? On first glance, it doesn't really feel overpowered. As you said, you need 25 silvers to get it to 5, 30 for 6. Unsupported, thats 38 rounds to get it to the value of Provinces, and 43 to get it above. OK, 42, as 7x7>6x8, but anyway. In 40 turn, BigMoney certainly empties the Provinces (esp. when not grabbing Duchies), so I don't see the danger there.
Supported is also difficult, as while your deck clocks with silver, the support gets weaker. There is of course the possibility of 10xKC->10xExplorer, 9xBureaucrat, gain 57 silvers, and buy the veins then, but that's a real 4cardCombo involving KC from 4 sets, I think that's ok. And I don't think that your opponent will let you get there, he certainly wants some KC for himself.

I don't really see the scenario that without the restriction there is danger very often, and being overpowered sometimes is fun. And even if Explorer+Veins,  Bureaucrat+Veins is dominant against BM, I think these both cards have deserved a little combopotential.

[rinkworks]

Cabal probably isn't game-breaking at $4, but $5 would be better.  Note this remark by Donald on the cost of Silver-with-a-bonus cards.  Basically, at $4 people will buy Cabal because they really want Silver, and this is better than Silver.  At $5, they'll buy Cabal because they want Cabal.

At first I noted to myself that if Silver Vein was on the table, this problem would go away, because then Silver would do something for you that Cabal wouldn't.  Then I realized, no, unless you've got 6 or more Silver Veins -- unlikely, unless the pile is uncontested -- then the Cabal is still worth more VP to you.  In short, rushing the Cabals will be more profitable than rushing the Silver Veins.

Silver Vein just isn't strong enough.  I think the cap is probably unnecessary -- I've never even SEEN a game with 25+ Silvers in play.  Not that people particularly rush Silvers, as there is not much incentive to, but to get 25 Silvers and 4 Silver Veins, you need 29 $3-$4 turns without +Buys, or 15 $6+ turns with.  Even a bad Province strategy will easily overtake that.

As a form of supplemental VP, then, as ratxt1 said, you'll still come up short, because 5+ Silvers in many decks will hurt their ability to earn whatever their primary VP target is.  And of those that aren't hurt by 5+ Silvers, 10 will definitely be too many for most.  So the value of Silver Vein will cap at $1.  Might as well just buy out Estates and save the trouble.

If you want a card like this, I think it needs to be worth a lot more VP.  I also don't think the cap is necessary.  Fairgrounds (with Black Market), Vineyard, Duke, and (less likely) Gardens can all be worth more than Provinces without breaking the game, so why not this?

But when worth enough VP to be an attractive incentive, I'm not sure it promotes the kind of game I'd want to play.  You'd still basically have to buy only Silvers, Silver Veins, and a couple of +Buy cards and ignore everything else on the table, however interesting.

[ChaosRed]

I appreciate the feedback on Silver Vein. I like Cabal @ 4, it makes it one of the few "marquee" cards in the set, but I can certainly see the argument that it should be worth 5. I read Donald X's comments and they are, (of course) right on the money (forgive the pun).

I could alternatively give it a value of 1$ and then add, "this card is worth an additional 1$ if there is silver in play", or perhaps the same general effect but with copper. Alternatively, I could make it worth just 1$, and 1VP, but then add "you may trash this card and any treasure card in your hand, if you do, gain a Dutchy".  I like the idea of "an additional 1$ in play if there is silver in play", as it is thematic. There's a reason I named the expansion "Silver Lining".

As for the Silver Vein, my overvalue on this card comes from the other cards in the set that help you gain and copy Silver, but rink has taught me to never judge cards first and foremost, on their singular abilities, (make no assumptions about the board). I think for Silver Vein, I could help it feed itself, "At the end of your turn if there are no Silver cards in play, gain a Silver" and then remove the governor. It's a dangerous slope though, once  you acquire multiple veins, they'd all fire...so technically a hand of 5 Silver Veins would draw 5 cards, which increments 1VP for each card or a +5 VP turn. Then again, acquiring the silver, also slows down acquiring it, so it might be balanced. It would require a lot of play testing.

This discussion, is precisely why I made this thread. To learn about the game, to be able to judge value of cards more accurately and to get feedback from advanced players on design and approach. I can't thank you guys enough. I wish there was some kind of app, where I could buy you guys a beer at your local watering hole, because I am very grateful indeed.

[WanderingWinder]

I appreciate the feedback on Silver Vein. I like Cabal @ 4, it makes it one of the few "marquee" cards in the set, but I can certainly see the argument that it should be worth 5. I read Donald X's comments and they are, (of course) right on the money (forgive the pun).

I could alternatively give it a value of 1$ and then add, "this card is worth an additional 1$ if there is silver in play", or perhaps the same general effect but with copper. Alternatively, I could make it worth just 1$, and 1VP, but then add "you may trash this card and any treasure card in your hand, if you do, gain a Dutchy".  I like the idea of "an additional 1$ in play if there is silver in play", as it is thematic. There's a reason I named the expansion "Silver Lining".

As for the Silver Vein, my overvalue on this card comes from the other cards in the set that help you gain and copy Silver, but rink has taught me to never judge cards first and foremost, on their singular abilities, (make no assumptions about the board). I think for Silver Vein, I could help it feed itself, "At the end of your turn if there are no Silver cards in play, gain a Silver" and then remove the governor. It's a dangerous slope though, once  you acquire multiple veins, they'd all fire...so technically a hand of 5 Silver Veins would draw 5 cards, which increments 1VP for each card or a +5 VP turn. Then again, acquiring the silver, also slows down acquiring it, so it might be balanced. It would require a lot of play testing.

This discussion, is precisely why I made this thread. To learn about the game, to be able to judge value of cards more accurately and to get feedback from advanced players on design and approach. I can't thank you guys enough. I wish there was some kind of app, where I could buy you guys a beer at your local watering hole, because I am very grateful indeed.

For that modification to work, (and I think it's got huge potential to be broken, but maybe you could find a way to make it work), you'd need a way to play victory cards, which isn't currently possible.

[ChaosRed]

For that modification to work, (and I think it's got huge potential to be broken, but maybe you could find a way to make it work), you'd need a way to play victory cards, which isn't currently possible.

You are referring to the "Silver Vein" mechanic right? Yeah I'd have to reword it, the idea is if at the end of your turn during clean up, if no silver had been played, you'd gain a Silver.

Perhaps the phrase should be:

At the end of your turn, if there is no Silver is in your hand or in play, gain a Silver.

[WanderingWinder]

For that modification to work, (and I think it's got huge potential to be broken, but maybe you could find a way to make it work), you'd need a way to play victory cards, which isn't currently possible.

You are referring to the "Silver Vein" mechanic right? Yeah I'd have to reword it, the idea is if at the end of your turn during clean up, if no silver had been played, you'd gain a Silver.

Perhaps the phrase should be:

At the end of your turn, if there is no Silver is in your hand or in play, gain a Silver.

Yes, but where is this text appearing? On Silver vein itself? In that case, you still need a way to get the silver veins in play, or the effect won't trigger.

[ChaosRed]

I see, I guess I could trigger it when it is discarded in clean up...or alternatively I could add +1$ to it, make it a Victory - Treasure card. Looking for a way to feed itself, so that it can slowly acquire silver. I like the idea of the balance being if you don't have silver in hand or in play, you get one...but as you acquire silver, the effect becomes harder to fire.

[WanderingWinder]

I see, I guess I could trigger it when it is discarded in clean up...or alternatively I could add +1$ to it, make it a Victory - Treasure card. Looking for a way to feed itself, so that it can slowly acquire silver. I like the idea of the balance being if you don't have silver in hand or in play, you get one...but as you acquire silver, the effect becomes harder to fire.

Adding the $1 to it and making it treasure-victory and then adding the gaining-silver text on it (probably something like "When you discard this from play, if you didn't play any silvers this turn, gain a silver") (and getting rid of the VP cap. Caps are ugly and boring. booooooo caps). and you've got yourself a very interesting little card, with some interesting play decisions (do I want to play that silver or not?) and strategy decisions about how much the card will pay off. Probably it's still weak most of the time, but at least it's a thought, and on the right board it can be a powerhouse.

[ChaosRed]

Okay here are the revisions based on feedback:





There cards are weird, and are part of the central theme of the set, so keep bashing away at them. I have no ego to bruise and really enjoy reading the feedback.

[Jack Rudd]

I don't like "in your hand or" on those cards. The cards are more strategically interesting if there's a reason to not play your Silvers with them around (see Grand Market for a similar issue).

[rinkworks]

Agreed with Jack Rudd on the "in your hand or," but that's only a first-reaction kind of thought.  I haven't given the matter the consideration it really needs.  However, it seems like you put "in your hand or" on Silver Vein to prevent the situation where you play those first, gain the Silvers, then play the Silvers you'd had in your hand.  If so, this might accomplish the effect you're after but turn it into a strategic decision (do I play my Silvers or not?) instead of a luck-based decision (did I draw Silvers in my hand or not?):

Silver Vein
$4 - Treasure/Victory
(Big $1)
----
At the end of your buy phase, when this is in play and no Silvers are in play, gain a Silver.
----
Worth 1 VP for every 5 Silver cards in your deck (rounded down).

I might still make it 1 VP for every 3 or 4 Silvers, but without playtesting, it's hard to say for sure.

Unfortunately, Cabal probably can't go without the "in your hand or" part, since it's always trivial just to play your Cabals, then play your Silvers.  So that's unfortunate.  Anyway, I would reword it this way (see Diadem for reference):

Cabal
$4 - Treasure/Victory
(Big $1)
Reveal your hand.  If you have no Silver cards in hand or in play, +$1.
----
(Big 1 VP)

[Newcomer]

Any reason you can't make Silver Vein activate with every 4 Silvers instead of 5?  That might make it more feasible a little more often.  In fact, initially I'd have thought 3 would work well, but now that you've edited the card to give you silvers, too, that might be too strong.

I do like the change, though.  But going back to the question of not being able to play a Victory card, a simple solution would've been to make it a Treasure-Victory worth 0 coins..  Still an option if you need a tweak after play-testing.  I'm not very experienced with this; I'm just throwing out my quick thoughts in case they are helpful.

[chwhite]

Yeah, my preferred fix for Silver Vein would not be to have to give you Silver, but just to be worth 1 VP for either 3 or 4 Silvers instead.  (In that case, maybe a cap of 6 would be in order).

[Thinkaman]

Servant's Quarters seems pretty functional, though it's obviously very similar to Moat. (probably superior?) I'm not sure how much it contributes, from the sound of it you only have it around because you feel it needs to be.  I bet you can get an alternative reaction that can fit better.

-----

Pauper's Feast is cool, just for the ability to trash your trasher.  That's narrow sure, but cool.  Gaining a 4-cost on trash is less cool and also a tad narrow (mostly important in certain openings) but has merit.  All in all, two sort-of narrow options make for a card that brings something to most boards.

-----

Bailey is auto-veto'd for being a cantrip moat.  It totally trivializes attacks, as why wouldn't you just buy a boatload of them?  Heck, it even gives you +Buys and costs $2 to enable just that.  No cantrip reactions; keep those guys terminal.

-----

Excursion is really narrow, even if this set has boatloads of hybrid victory cards.  All the other uses are super obscure.

Also, Dominion currently has no discard pile touching cards except for Counting House; consider why.  Digging and freely selecting a card from discard is a really slow interruption!  Counting House gets away with it because it's a terminal $5 cost with no decision making that has the virtue of opening up an entirely new type of strategy.  In general, it's not something we probably want to do.

-----

Villa seems kinda weird.  My first reaction was "what's this +1 coin doing here?"  My second was "Why don't you just discard the victory card(s) for +Card(s), wouldn't that be cleaner?" My third was "Oh, wait that let's you chain Villas--except wait, you don't want to do that in the first palce because you are still losing cards."

You we end up with this unreliable Village-Warehouse hybrid that gives you +1 money.  I'm having trouble thinking of boards where I'd want this, or broad combos I would get excited about working it into.

-----

Summon is a great card!  Elegant, clean, powerful--but like all good cheap powerful cards, it's power comes from opening the way for the big guns.

-----

Wooden Bridge is really interesting.  It's more narrow than Bridge but much better at achieving the Omega Bridge.  This is okay, because Omega Bridge is *that* interesting. (It's practically an alternate win condition!)

I didn't notice the 1 cost minimum thing first.  At first I didn't like it, but I think it's cool upon reflection.  The niche interactions with Copper and Curse are unexpected, but kinda cool.  No reason to throw this out that I can see.

-----

Bribed Official... steals a high value Treasure from their hand and into yours?  From *all* players?  Or gains you a Silver/Potion in hand?  I've gotta be missing something, because this is pants-on-head crazy powerful.

-----

Shyster seems really strong for a non-terminal $4 attack.  I mean, we're looking at a Spy level of power here.  This guy ain't exactly Torturer or Montebank, but he's still spammable and unlike say Spy, his sting really stacks with that spam.

-----

Cabal is strange.  I believe Donald mentioned in the Intrigue Secret History about testing Harem values and having just really terrible success with 1 value versions.  Bottom line is, no one wants Copper, so you are looking at Cabal only as a potential strict alternative to Silver. 

If there is a good opening $3 out, then that's easy.  Otherwise, it's easy the other way.  So there's really no decision making added by the card, just interactions with certain targeting cards?  Meh, I'm not sold.

-----

Silver Vein is more interesting.  I can't even begin to figure this one out, despite its relative simplicity.  Hilarious combo with SC/Vault.  It's probably like Gardens, where it's dominant if enabled and dubious if not. (And that's okay!  If it isn't like that, you need to nerf it until it is.)

This (Silver Vein) would need so much playtesting, but it deserves it.

[ChaosRed]

Superb comments Think, thanks...my thoughts below...

Servant's Quarters seems pretty functional, though it's obviously very similar to Moat. (probably superior?) I'm not sure how much it contributes, from the sound of it you only have it around because you feel it needs to be.  I bet you can get an alternative reaction that can fit better.

Yeah I think it is a tad superior to Moat, but not by much. 

Pauper's Feast is cool, just for the ability to trash your trasher.  That's narrow sure, but cool.  Gaining a 4-cost on trash is less cool and also a tad narrow (mostly important in certain openings) but has merit.  All in all, two sort-of narrow options make for a card that brings something to most boards.

Yeah its pretty narrow, but when the utility is needed it seems like such a nice buy. It can get you from 2 to 4 in the opening rounds, or trash a couple of copper/estates, which is useful and add +1$ along the way.

Bailey is auto-veto'd for being a cantrip moat.  It totally trivializes attacks, as why wouldn't you just buy a boatload of them?  Heck, it even gives you +Buys and costs $2 to enable just that.  No cantrip reactions; keep those guys terminal.

One of the most contentious cards in the set. I've read a variety of reaction to this, some very much reacting the way you have. I suppose you would buy a boatload of them if the board had a lot of attacks, but its a clogger. Sure you can pull a +1 Action, +1 Card cantrip to push it away and move through, but it is card neutral, it can be action positive, for the price of another card.

I do see some hostile reaction to even the concept of a non-terminal reaction card...just on principle. I've probably seen it enough to remove the +1 Action. What would your reaction to the card be if one of the options on the card was +1$ instead of +1 Action?

Excursion is really narrow, even if this set has boatloads of hybrid victory cards.  All the other uses are super obscure.

I felt the discard pile reuse was the highlight of the card and not a huge time sink, because most of the time, you have a few victory cards. Sure there will be times when the discard pile is 30 cards deep and for some obscure reason you want the one and only province card in the discard pile, but what's the time to retrieve that truly...30 seconds at most? I suppose in tournaments this gets annoying, but in casual play doesn't seem like a big deal.

It is one of those cards, that light up when certain cards are on the board and is a complete dead weight all other times. That makes it a poor design to be sure, but in some situations it could just be nifty as hell. One thought I had for the card was to tack on an ability if the discard pile is empty and give you the option of emptying your discard pile. As in...

If your discard pile is empty +2$. If your discard pile is not empty, you may search your discard pile for a Victory card. Reveal it and place it in your hand. If you do, reshuffle your discard pile.

I've wanted to hinge a couple of abilities on an empty discard pile. This could be the excuse to do so.

Villa seems kinda weird.  My first reaction was "what's this +1 coin doing here?"  My second was "Why don't you just discard the victory card(s) for +Card(s), wouldn't that be cleaner?" My third was "Oh, wait that let's you chain Villas--except wait, you don't want to do that in the first place because you are still losing cards."

Villa was a victim to the reaction as it was first designed, and got nerfed heavily along the way. I don't want to tinker with it too much now, but I understand your reaction. If I change anything it would be to change the "discard up to 2" to "discard any number of cards"...so its essentially +2 Actions, +1$ and then a Chapel, where you aren't limited to the number of discards.

I guess people feel it can chain easily...but to me its card negative, so the chaining potential isn't as strong. It combos really well with Servant's Quarters. In a weird way, it can kind of combo with Excursion, but yeah its not the kind of card you build tactics around. It is a +2 Action card, and those have utility on boards where no other +2 actions are there...(and that happens I know it does).

It was meant to be a "WOW" card in the set (every set has a few), I wanted to be as strong as the elite Village cards, but reaction nerfed it to this. I am okay play testing it though, see how it goes.

Bribed Official... steals a high value Treasure from their hand and into yours?  From *all* players?  Or gains you a Silver/Potion in hand?  I've gotta be missing something, because this is pants-on-head crazy powerful.

It is strong. It is very powerful in multi-player games, but Thief is pretty good in that scenario too. The card does what I want it to do, but probably in an overpowered way. I'd like to add a way to avoid handing the card over, but the verbiage is already a tad verbose. One thing I could do is remove what happens if there are no treasure cards worth 2 or more, which means early in the game, the attack will often produce nothing. Another governor I can place on the card, is insist you have a Victory card in your hand to play it, making you discard it to activate the attack. Or I can just make you choose any card in your hand and discard it. It still needs work though, this I grant you.

Shyster seems really strong for a non-terminal $4 attack.  I mean, we're looking at a Spy level of power here.  This guy ain't exactly Torturer or Montebank, but he's still spammable and unlike say Spy, his sting really stacks with that spam.

It is probably the strongest, and to me, the most intriguing card in the set so far. I personally rarely play attacks, unless its Witch, Torturer or Mountebank. What I think makes it contentious is the +1 Action. I think without the +1 Action, the card becomes less overwhelming, but also probably not the greatest buy at 4, it becomes in the end, a rather weak Militia at that point. Perhaps the +1 Action should come at a price? One of the "themes" of this expansion is requiring cards to activate certain abilities, or requiring a discard to activate. What if the +1 Action required an empty discard pile, or for you to discard a card? I love the card, I want it kept in...its this set's Mountebank, but I don't want it ridiculously broken like Mountebank...and right now it is perilously close to being very broken. I could make it a Potion card, but I hate the Potion mechanic and really wanted to avoid it.

Cabal is strange.  I believe Donald mentioned in the Intrigue Secret History about testing Harem values and having just really terrible success with 1 value versions.  Bottom line is, no one wants Copper, so you are looking at Cabal only as a potential strict alternative to Silver. If there is a good opening $3 out, then that's easy.  Otherwise, it's easy the other way.  So there's really no decision making added by the card, just interactions with certain targeting cards?  Meh, I'm not sold.

I wanted two Treasure cards at 4$. The idea behind the card is you avoid Silver and just buy Cabal, and then hope you can acquire enough to bridge you up to Gold and other treasure. It goes against the rest of the theme of the deck, which often highlights acquiring Silver. It's a "no brainer" card like you say, on some boards, its not worth it, on others it clearly is.

If you avoid Silver the whole game...this card makes tremendous sense. It Remodels nicely to gold and Remodels nicely from an Estate. I want to put a 2% upgrade card in the expansion similar to Remodel as well, (which is why I want two 4$ treasure/victory cards).;

I am going to stick with it, but I understand the reaction of "meh".

Silver Vein is more interesting.  I can't even begin to figure this one out, despite its relative simplicity.  Hilarious combo with SC/Vault.  It's probably like Gardens, where it's dominant if enabled and dubious if not. (And that's okay!  If it isn't like that, you need to nerf it until it is.)

Yeah this one needs play testing. The general reaction is the +1VP for every 5 Silver cards is too difficult to reach to make it worth it. To me, I look at how I can get a 4$ card to 3VP, which means it became a better buy than Dutchy. That means 13 Silver cards make it a Dutchy for 4$ (with just a little money along the way). That's an awful lot of Silver really, and all you've reached is Dutchy levels with it.

One variant I had early on, was the card was worth 1VP by default (a big VP), then an additional +1VP for every 5 silver in your deck. This way, it becomes somewhat compelling even with just a lousy 3 silver (you'll get 2 VP out of the deal, which literally bridges the Estate-Dutchy) gap. At 8 silver cards, it becomes as valuable as a Dutchy. I don't think you can 3-pile this like you do Gardens. I need to play test, but I think anyone who tries to run the gamut and then 3-pile before the Provinces catch up, won't make it...because one of the card you need to fuel the thing is pretty much unlimited in supply.

But I do think, its one of those cards you watch, and if points are needed to catch up, you can start to buy and feed it. I suppose it becomes quite interesting if Cabal is also on the board. I know at times, when I am behind 7 to 8 VP, a card that gets me 2VP is suddenly an intriguing second buy.

People have commented they want the card to pay off at just 4 silvers each. This means your payoff comes at intervals, 3, 7, 11, requiring just 11 silvers to get you to 3VP. I intend to put in a few Silver copy/acquire/steal cards in the set, to help this urchin out, but I've learned I can't really judge cards based on  combinations in a set, it has to be judged on its own and in the context of any board it might become part of.

It was all superb commentary though, and really precisely the reason I delved into this little side-project, to solicit discussion and to learn how advanced players think and judge cards. It becomes more than just an expansion for me, it really becomes a lesson of sorts, so I thank you.

[Newcomer]

ChaosRed, in your posts on Silver Vein, you keep referring to 3, 8, 13 cards, etc., as activating the next VP level.  The card text you presented indicated that the Silver counting should round down, i.e. 14 = 10, and you need to actually reach the next 5 to gain any VP.  If you have 39 cards in a Gardens deck, each Gardens should still be worth 3 VP; the 40th card levels them up.

What you're doing is rounding to the nearest 5.  If that's what you mean for the card to be, then change the language on the card.  But I do think that would cause some confusion, since all of the published cards like this so far have rounded down.

The negative reaction to the card is partly because by rounding down, you need 5 Silvers for 1 VP, 10 Silvers for 2 VP, and a whopping 15 Silvers in your deck for each Silver Vein to become just a Duchy.  If it were every 4 Silvers, rounded down, the level-ups would happen at 4, 8, and 12 Silvers, which is close to the 3, 8, and 13 you've been getting by rounding to the nearest 5.

[ChaosRed]

My assumption was "rounding down" referred to the decimal being at .5. So with 3 cards, you'd be at 0.66 when divided by 5, which would round up to 1. Is that not how Dominion functions with Gardens? I thought you got your first point with Gardens at 6 cards, so 6/16/26 etc etc. Is it specifically 10/20/30?

If that is the case, I really do need to adjust the point structure.

[Newcomer]

From the Gardens FAQ in the Dominion rulebook:

"Round down; if you have 39 cards, Gardens is worth 3 victory points."

Glad I could help to clarify that.  :-)

And again, I'll point out how close every 4 Silvers, rounded down, is to rounding to the nearest 5: 4-8-12-16, 3-8-13-18.
So I'd suggest that as a starting point.

[ChaosRed]

Thank you, yes I'll adjust the card accordingly. A 4-8-12-16 is about the ratio I want.

Several adjustments needed based on the feedback from Think too, I'll post them up tonight, before posting any new cards.

[ratxt1]

ok some comments on thinkaman's coments as i agree with some but disagree with others

Servant's quarters probably the claim i disagree with the most this is probably my favorite card in the set (it and summon)
and if ihad to change one think about it it would be its reaction effect (becaue no reaction has the same effect as another reaction)

seconded on bailey and do again want to point out CHANGE THE REACTION EFFECTS thats probably the easiest way to make bailey not op is to make its reaction weak

second your thoughts on summon

i also find wooden bridge to be a really interesting card (my thirdd favorite) as it is great for a mega turn but does not work with king's court (one of the more infamous ways of acheiving that mega turn) and i liked how you did that (even if you didn't do it on purpose)

bribed official doesn't seem that strong as most of the time your just massing up on silvers (which as we know is pretty bad) but i do feel it should be changed as it's pretty much superior to thief (though its less likely to get golds it doesn't have the problem of trashing there copper for them).

cabla just seems simple and elegant and i don't really see what people are complaing about there no interactions with harem and yet harems a cool card(though i guess thats subjective).

silver vein agree this needs to be playtested.

if i didn't coment on a card it means i dont care either way.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks rat for the feedback!

I've decided to leave Cabal alone, thanks for supporting that card. I am adjusting Silver Vein to only need four silvers for a VP. I am changing Bailey so it no longer as +1 Action as an option (it will have another option). Shyster is going to require a discard to get +1 Action and will no longer draw a card, the rest stays largely the same. Bribed Official is going to get reworked and renamed, it will involve passing treasure to one opponent, then being able to trash a treasure or gain a Silver, so sort of a Masquerade type card but you must pass a treasure card. Working on the mechanics of it and will post it later today or tomorrow.

[ChaosRed]

Okay, so based on continued feedback, the tweaking of the existing cards continued.

SILVER VEIN


Everyone seemed to agree, this was the better start point in which to play test, so its been shifted to just 4 silvers per point.

BAILEY


This has been the most debated card since I posted it. A lot of people felt a strong defensive card should never have a +1 Action to it.  So I changed the +1 Action choice and changed it to my favorite activity in Dominion: trashing a card. It makes the card an extremely good buy at 2. Too much? I suspect it is and I'll have to tweak again. The one thing I'll point out is, because you must discard, when you play it from a base hand, you only have 3 cards to trash, to trashing two of the remaining 3 isn't always optimal. Still it has half the power of Chapel, and can defend all attacks, later in the game it can draw cards for you (although it is never card positive). I could just cost the card at 3, which might solve all problems with it, I could also limit the trashing to just treasure. Discussion here really welcome, this poor little card just can't seem to find its place.

BRIBERY


This is a reworked, retooled and renamed Bribed Official. Now it acts a Masquerade with some nice options. You can pawn off your Coppers, and then rather receive your opponent's trash back, you can trash one of your own cards, filter for a good card, or gain a silver. The one thing to point out here, is nothing happens if you can't pass the Treasure in the first place, or the card is defended. So it is a risk. I know of no other attack that is stopped dead on the reveal of a reaction, so perhaps this is too radical, but I like the idea Bribery can be stopped cold, with no effect.

EXCURSION


A lot of complaints about the utility of this card, so I added a feature where you can trash the card you tutor for. So now it can pull in powerful Victory hybrids, combo with cards that require a Victory card (like Baron I think), or  let you trash those Estates - slowly.

SHYSTER


Removed the +1 Action, so it is harder to chain the attack, but added an option where you can gain a Treasure card. You get the discard a card, gain a silver feature regardless of whether the attack was reacted to.

I feel my tweaks are more radical and cock-eyed that ever, so rip them apart. Let's get these cards as balanced as possible before I play test, I find the discussion really helpful to my understanding of the game as a whole.

[Jack Rudd]

Bad terminology alert! Bribery refers to "your opponent". This is not well-defined for a game with more than two players.

[ChaosRed]

Yes, I want it to apply to just one opponent, not "all other players". I guess it should read, "choose an opponent", or "opponent to your left" something like that. Thanks for pointing that out. It is meant to key off just one opponent though, even in games with more than 2 players.

[Buggz]

In that case, use a specific one (the player to your left/right) to avoid introducing politics.

[ChaosRed]

Got it thanks, at first thought I wanted it to be "choose an opponent", not for politics, but so you could punish the opponent who was furthest ahead, but I see your point about collusion and forced it to be your opponent on your left:

[chwhite]

I liked the old Bailey, actually.  The early trashing is just too powerful, and I am wholly unconvinced that +Action on a Reaction is in any way problematic: Lighthouse doesn't break the game even when you can play it every turn.  Sure, it's going to be stronger than Moat 95 percent of the time- so what?

Just watch as Hinterlands comes with a cantrip Reaction (remember, there are three of them!) and makes all our "you can't spam Reactions!" talk look silly.  Sort of like how everyone once thought that a 7-cost card would break the game.

[rinkworks]

To be clear, it's not that I think a cantrip reaction is bad so much as that I think a cantrip Moat-like reaction is bad.  It's important to consider what the reaction effect is, just like it's important to consider what the effect of a normal action card is when deciding if it's good or bad as a cantrip.  I never want to see a cantrip Mountebank, for example, but a cantrip Upgrade is (obviously) fine.

Lighthouse is okay because it doesn't draw cards.  You can load up on Lighthouses and spam them, yes, but at a certain point you're doing your deck more harm than the protection from attacks is worth.  Were Lighthouse to also draw a card, though, it would be a world of difference.  To illustrate the power increase, consider how much better Peddler (cantrip +$1) is than Copper (essentially a non-terminal +$1 that consumes a card slot).

For Bailey, removing the +Action is one fix, but removing the +Card would have sufficed as well -- at least insofar as that particular problem goes.  I thought removing the +Action was the better option, but the point is very negotiable.

Edit:  Rereading my custom card guide, I see that I did indeed complain of "non-terminal reactions," although the text itself used drawing non-terminals to illustrate the problem.  I'll reword this section to be clearer.

[ChaosRed]

Interesting that you consider the early trashing too powerful though. I would agree, I put it in there, because I love density and tend to gravitate to cards that help me trash my deck.

What do you think of this? I think I'll keep the current choices, but just limit the choice to just one. +1 Buy or +1 Card or Trash one card. I agree this still makes it a great utility card, and becomes useful (if not spectacularly useful) at all stages of the game. A mild trasher early in the game, or an additional buy late, during the middle stages the reaction power and just fishing for that next card in your deck has utility, without burning the opponent's barn down.

I'd pick it over Moat of course, which perhaps demonstrates it still has too much juice, even if it has just one of the three options.

rink, I'll reread your section on reaction cards, as I am still clearly struggling with a strong, but well-balanced reaction card worth 2 points. I wanted one with options, that fully defended the attack, that's the gimmick I'm looking for, but clearly the options I choose are too strong. I really wanted a Pawn/Moat hybrid, but I keep overreaching for it.

[WanderingWinder]

Interesting that you consider the early trashing too powerful though. I would agree, I put it in there, because I love density and tend to gravitate to cards that help me trash my deck.

What do you think of this? I think I'll keep the current choices, but just limit the choice to just one. +1 Buy or +1 Card or Trash one card. I agree this still makes it a great utility card, and becomes useful (if not spectacularly useful) at all stages of the game. A mild trasher early in the game, or an additional buy late, during the middle stages the reaction power and just fishing for that next card in your deck has utility, without burning the opponent's barn down.

I'd pick it over Moat of course, which perhaps demonstrates it still has too much juice, even if it has just one of the three options.

rink, I'll reread your section on reaction cards, as I am still clearly struggling with a strong, but well-balanced reaction card worth 2 points. I wanted one with options, that fully defended the attack, that's the gimmick I'm looking for, but clearly the options I choose are too strong. I really wanted a Pawn/Moat hybrid, but I keep overreaching for it.

I think it's probably okay if you just make it so that you can't pick more than one of the options. Then it's really on a similar level with moat.

[WanderingWinder]

A couple of old problems which you need to fix. The first, changing the wording of villa from gaining the number of cards discarded to drawing them, is absolutely vital. As it is now, any time you have villa with a victory card, you can discard two cards to gain two provinces. Or colonies. Or whatever it is that's most valuable. The game will be over in 8 turns or something crazy like that. Maybe less. On a regular basis. That wording is huge.

Other problem is that I'm still convinced that wooden bridge is way overpowered. Honestly, without the cost reduction, it's probably not great, but printable. And it's going to be very, very easy to get something set up to buy a whole bunch of $1 provinces in one go.

[ChaosRed]

Going to roll with the choice of one on the card for now and move it to the beta thread later today.

FYI, I've moved cards that generally passed peer review over to this thread to keep the discussion (and the OP) focused on cards that still need tweaks and review before I proceed to test. I will be play testing soon (as I've finally got a decent set of cards peer reviewed to test with). My wife's agreed to play test for me. I will also play test solo, using algorithms to buy/test. I'll be blending with base set for almost all test cases until I have 25 cards, then I'll randomize the 25 in the set and test intra-set.

WW, going to reword Villa as you suggested, but leave Wooden Bridge as it is, and see if it can be broken in play testing. I think the adjustment I am considering is removing +1 Action.

[ChaosRed]

Let's see if we can get some final comments/approval for the three cards still up for peer review.  If I can tomorrow, I'll post three more of the 4-Cost cards in the set for discussion. You can click each card for a larger version if you have a hard time reading the text.

I changed Bailey to just one choice, based on WW's feedback. It becomes a pretty good defender of Curse attacks, stopping the imminent attack and then possibly purging a Curse in your hand from a previously successful attack.

[ChaosRed]

Okay moved the three card s in the above post to the beta stage thread. Here are two more new cards for you to rip into:

Fool's Choice


Fool's Choice is hackneyed take on a beloved Magic card, that I also adapted for another game at Wizards when I did some card development for them.

I am curious to see if you feel I've costed it right. I do like the mechanic, even if it produces crowded text on the card.

Church Bell


Church Bell and Fool's Choice are kind of similar in what they provide. This is the last of these kind of cards at this cost point in the expansion. I like what this card does, but I am also unsure of the cost.

[ratxt1]

church bell is cool but way to powerful at 4 and should be priced at 5 heres why

chapel trashes four cards and ruins your hand and is considered one of the better opening buys
if you buy this in the opening the first time you use it your either going to trash four cards and still keep your hand or trash 3 cards and get another good card in your hand effectivly making it probably the best early trasher in the game. even if you changed it into drawing 3 cards it's still probably better than masquerade in how it trashes.

probably how id change it is rase it to 5 and lower it to 3 cards drawn. if you want to keep it at 4 you'd probably have to have lower it to 2 cards drawn

[rinkworks]

Fool's Choice is a really, really intriguing idea, but the implementation bothers me.  I thought about it for a while this morning before realizing why.  I think it comes down to complexity -- complexity of the sort that will result in AP, both on the part of the player and on the part of the opponent sorting the piles.

Basically, the player of the card has two options to pick between:  Put the "good" pile in hand and the "bad" pile in the discard, or put the "good" pile in the discard and the "bad" pile in the trash.  See, even if the player is able to quickly determine which pile is the "good" pile, that doesn't necessarily also tell him anything about where either of the piles should go.  But it might not even be that simple, because the ideal place for victory cards would be in the discard pile, and if that part of the decision is made easily, it's still not clear merely by process of elimination where the other pile should go.  Complicating the picture is that this decision may need to be made differently based on whether or not the player has any spare actions left, allowing him to play any of the action cards he might pull into his hand, or if they'd be dead actions at that point.  It's a slow decision and one that requires weighing a few different factors.

Moreover, if the decision for the player is going to be slow and complicated, this goes exponentially so for the opponent, who, if he is to play optimally, must anticipate what the player's decision will be for all ways that the four cards may be separated into piles.

So here's what I suggest as a way to simplify the idea while hopefully retaining its gameplay value:

Fool's Choice
$4 - Action
+$2
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  The player to your left separates them into two piles [of at least one card each?].  Discard one of the piles and put the other on top of your deck in any order.

That's a much simpler decision.  Good pile goes on deck.  Bad pile gets discarded.  Simple.  Also, by not having "in hand" be one of the destinations, considerations of how many actions the player has left don't muddy the waters.  I threw on a +$2 just so the player would get something on the present turn for playing the card (see also: Navigator), but this could be any number of alternative benefits instead.

If you're stuck on keeping it as a trasher of some sort, then I suggest this as a slightly more complex but still fairly simple version:

Fool's Choice
$4 - Action
+$2
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  The player to your left separates them into two piles [of at least one card each?].  Discard or trash one of the piles and put the other on top of your deck in any order.

As in your original, one of the piles gets a choice of destination, but at least it's clear, once one of the piles is identified as the "good" pile, where it will go.  Thus, the decision of what to do with the "bad" pile can be made without having to take quite as many other factors into account.

Anyway, I think both of my versions (with the +$2 or comparable boon for the present turn) are $4 cards unless playtesting says otherwise.  I suppose that means your version is probably a $4 card as well, although it's a lot harder to evaluate its power level at a glance.

---

Church Bell...kind of dubious about this one.  It seems very situational, as sometimes cleaning out $2- cards (Estates, Coppers, Curses, unneeded Chapels) is nice, sometimes (Pearl Diver, Pawn, Herbalist) close to neutral, and sometimes (still-needed Chapel, Hamlet, Lighthouse) devastating.  This situationality isn't necessary a bad thing; I'm just thinking it through.

Also, I'm unclear as to whether one is supposed to trash ALL cards costing $2 or less or just one of them.  I suppose just one of them, because if it trashed all of them it would be way overpowered for $4.  [Edit: As ratxt1 beat me to explaining, I see.]

Even just trashing one $2- card, though, it may need to go to $5.  Maybe not, but the reason I wonder is because of my experience with this village card, which also draws a few cards from your deck, puts one in hand, and discards the rest.  It turned out that that cherry-picked-cycling effect was vastly more powerful than I had anticipated, to the point where basically if I'm building any kind of village-based engine, that card, bar any of the official villages, is the best candidate for the job.

Now, your card is much weaker for not having any +actions, let alone 2.  But it makes up for that by having trashing instead.  And even though it only trashes one at a time, the cycling effect will cause it to be played more often -- almost doubly as often! -- which makes it a faster trasher than it first appears.

So if it were me, I'd probably start the playtesting at $5 and see how that felt.  But, also if it were me, I think I'd probably remove the cost restrictions.   That would make it more powerful still, but it would simplify the card quite a bit without changing its essential nature or potential.

[ChaosRed]

Your explanation for your concern over Fool's Choice is solid, the original Magic card (and the MLB Showdown card I designed around it), simply provides the choice of discarding one pile and keeping another, so I'll keep that choice only and remove the trashing option. (I tend to obsess over trashing, as you've probably noticed).

I figured Church Bell was over costed, If I keep the card draw to 3, then provide an option of trashing one and keeping one, this would seem balanced. You gain no cards at all (its card neutral), but you trigger a chance you draw a card you want to get rid of. So it would read...

Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and
put it in your hand, discard the rest.

In the case where you draw 3 cards you do not want to trash, you do not get to put a card in your hand.

It's still a strong card, but I can think of other cards at 4 that are stronger.

If you still feel that's too strong, I could change the option to put one in your hand, to "put on top of your deck"...

Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in on top of your deck, discard the rest.

[rinkworks]

Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in on top of your deck, discard the rest.

That's almost exactly a terminal Lookout.

Anyway, I don't have any specific suggestions along these lines.  There are lots of variations of this idea that can work (including some that already do:  Lookout, Navigator, Scout), and I suspect we'll see one or two more before the official series ends.  I'd say just pick what interests you the most and then cost it, rather than costing it first and trying to force its power level to conform.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah it is, and it isn't Terminal and it is only 3. Of course you MUST trash with Lookout, mine you have the option, but you must activate the option to gain a card. Looking at Lookout as a guide:

Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in your hand, discard the rest.

I'll keep it terminal though, don't you think?

[chwhite]

Church Bell is way way too powerful.  Just imagine ringing them on Turn 3.  Boom, that's a Chapel's worth of trashing plus you still can buy stuff AND you've triggered a reshuffle.  Just insane.

Love the idea behind Fool's Choice, though. 

[WanderingWinder]

Yeah it is, and it isn't Terminal and it is only 3. Of course you MUST trash with Lookout, mine you have the option, but you must activate the option to gain a card. Looking at Lookout as a guide:

Reveal the top 3 cards in your deck. You may trash one, if you do, choose one of the revealed cards and put it in your hand, discard the rest.

I'll keep it terminal though, don't you think?

Please please please don't use the word 'gain' when you mean draw.
Card is probably possible, bit similar to lookout, and probably weaker than lookout, which isn't so strong already.

[ChaosRed]

It doesn't compare well to Lookout for sure. I guess it compares better if you draw 4 and wasn't terminal.

Originally, I wanted it to "ring", summoning some cards to your hand, trashing others, but it is too strong early the way it was originally written. I'll put it on the drawing board for now. I like the name and theme of the card, but yeah it needs work, thanks guys for your feedback. I think I am guilty of conceiving cards I wish I had in-game, without really thinking long enough about its value.

[ratxt1]

i really like the idea of chruch bell in how its a trasher that helps your current hand there arn't many of these cards and i think there should be more of them. the problem is how you have it now i think it should be costed at 5 so that it dosn't become to strong of an opening buy. which is fine. i think you are a little to centered on keeping stuff the same cost when in reality the cost should be the think that changes the most. if you read about how donald x made throne room he says that late in the process he realized that after a point with throne room costing 3(as it currently costed) it just became too powerful to mass up towwards the late game with plus buys. so what did he do he didn't change the card so that it was fine at strength three he just kept the simpleness of the card and raised it to cost 4. for this card i think you should do the same

[ChaosRed]

rat, excellent advice thank you. I want the costing structure to mirror base set exactly, so I will take your advice on Church Bell, and cost it at 5 and tone down the power a little, as others have suggested. What this means is, it goes on the drawing board, until I get all the 4-cost completed.

On that note, I took rink's advice and removed the trashing option from Fool's Choice. It significantly reduces the intrigue of the card, but should shorten the decision making the opponent must make which slows down the game. I will also say, that in Magic and other games where this power is common, you eventually get good at creating the piles. This card would have supplemental rule clarification (like other cards sometimes do), which would explain that piles do not have to have equal number of cards, there must be at least one card in the pile (or it isn't pile)...but there are times you may want the player to pay for that Goon card by discarding the other 3 (say a Lab, and two Silver).  Taking the trashing option out, really removes the desire to create a pile with nothing in it anyway, so it helps clarify the card, even if it does reduce the card's utility.

In Magic the card is useful, as you have a superb chance of getting that one card you need or want, at the small price of acquiring (note I did not use the word "gain" this time) one you don't want. The pain in Fool's Choice is seeing two of the card you want drawn...knowing one is going to the discard pile. But hey, that's what reshuffle cards are for right?

Which brings up another question, has anyone ever designed a non-terminal reshuffler, what would such a card cost do you think?

Anyway, here's the updated card:


As "Church Bell" is on the drawing board (it will come back when I reveal the 5-cost cards), here's another 4-point card for you to trash. This is just a nerfed Feast (it can only feast to a Victory), that adds a Duration of +2, if you buy a Victory card. I see the card has possible appeal, but only on certain boards and/or stages of the game. It's not an exciting card at all, but I am curious to see if you feel its costed right, or is just so dull it needs something more to it.

[WanderingWinder]

Land Grab doesn't work. When it goes to the trash, the 'lose track' rule comes into play, and you'll not get it's other effect.

[Jack Rudd]

Suggested rewording for Land Grab:

This turn, gain a victory card costing $5 or less. If you buy a victory card this turn, then next turn, +2$
During next turn's clean-up phase, trash this card.

[ChaosRed]

Yes, thank you for the rewording. Makes much more sense.

[Elyv]

This card would have supplemental rule clarification (like other cards sometimes do), which would explain that piles do not have to have equal number of cards, there must be at least one card in the pile (or it isn't pile)

I'm pretty sure Fact or Fiction lets you split 5-0, not that I have any idea why anyone would want to.
Also, I think Fool's Choice will usually be worse than Envoy now, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah I think you are right about Fact or Fiction. In Magic sometimes cards in the Graveyard are useful and are often activated from the grave, so separating into a pile of 5 and 0 might be useful.

It's not a strong card, although I forgot Fact or Fiction draws 5 (in MLB I changed it to 4). That might be a useful change to give it more zing, since I took the trashing away.

[Titandrake]

Fool's Choice seems a bit weak when you compare it to Smithy. But then again, Smithy is pretty good. I think five cards is the right number, because then you could always take at least three cards, albeit not the good ones, which I think balances out? 4 cards seems fine though.

It's worth noting that splitting the cards only really matters if you still have actions left. Otherwise, it's just "split the money you draw evenly into two piles".

[ChaosRed]

Yeah the cards either needs actions on the stack, or it needs to draw treasure on your terminating play. Your opponent knows this of course and separates the piles accordingly. I'll switch it to 5, it makes for a more compelling split.

[ChaosRed]

Updated Fool's Choice, for 5 cards instead of 4 (to match the Magic card which it pays homage to)...

Then some proper verbiage for Land Grad as my original wording was a complete cluster:

EDIT - I actually gave Land Grab just a tad more juice, making its enchantment a temporary one-time Monument if you buy a land card.

[ChaosRed]

Not happy with Land Grab, possible variants could be:

+1VP
Gain a Victory card worth 5 or less. If you don't buy or gain a Victory card this turn, trash this card. At the start of your next turn: +1 VP.

Does this make sense? It gives you a VP, and a Victory card worth 5. If you buy a Victory card in the turn you play it, you get an additional +1VP next turn. It becomes a potential +5VP play, but you must buy a Victory card to get to it. Is this simpler? Is it more balanced or have I pushed its capabilities too far? I think it is simpler and makes a great late-game card, or makes a Gardens deck shine.

Here's another variant:

When you play Land Grab, gain a Victory card worth 5 or less. Set this and the Victory card you gain aside, return them to your deck
at the end of the game.

Seems pretty cool to me, just like this, but now I wonder what a card like that would be worth. It's a nerfed Feast, but you gain VP that never clogs your hand, which of course, is pretty dynamite. Island is only worth 2, but it doesn't acquire anything, but is worth 2VP.

Last variant:

1VP (Big VP)

You may reveal Victory card from your hand, if you do, discard it, gain a copy of Land Grab. If you do, gain +1VP.

I'd probably rename the card if I took the last variant. Perhaps "Title Deed" or "County" or "Borough". The math on this gets weird, but its essentially a 3VP play, if you reveal a land card and are able to gain the card.

...the game stops when the supply pile ends, but the moment you buy a second one, is the moment you earned 3VP on the card played...but the acquired card earns just 1VP until it can be played.

[Deadlock39]

Duration cards shouldn't need to say "This turn"

Tactician is worded like this:
Discard your hand. If you discarded any cards this way, then at the start of your next turn, +5 Cards; +1 Buy; and +1 Action.

Also, from Feast, the wording is "costing up to $5"

As a personal opinion, I don't like the cleanup phase wording.  I don't think it is necessary as long as the "trash this" instruction is sequentially after the +$2.

I believe Land Grab could be worded as:
Gain a Victory card costing up to $5.
If you buy a Victory card this turn, then at the start of your next turn, +$2; +1VP.
At the start of your next turn trash this card.

(Well, now you are planning on changing this completely, but I am going to go ahead and post anyway.)

[ChaosRed]

(Well, now you are planning on changing this completely, but I am going to go ahead and post anyway.)

It is superb feedback. I am struggling with the wording clearly, which is why I posted variants, to see if a newer approach could make the card a little cleaner or simpler. I really post these things to learn proper syntax and come to understand card balance and value, the expansion itself is a nice artifact of the discussion but not the primary asset of this thread for me. So thank you and if the card remains in the same vein, I'll alter the wording again to make it cleaner and more compatible with other duration cards.

[ChaosRed]

No comments on the Land Grab derivative, so I kept the original abilities and then just reworded it to match Deadlock's comments. Comments welcome on the wording, costing and general abilities of the card. I moved Fool's Choice to beta stage (play testing) and put a new 4-point card out there for peer review. The new card (Township), is just a village-derivative, as I needed 4-points that weren't terminal.

So here are the two cards currently up for review from you guys. My sincere thanks again, for all feedback in advance.

[WanderingWinder]

Township: first off, you want to put the +card before the +action, just for consistency. Also, it's wildly too powerful. It's a menagerie that hits on having a victory card in your hand instead of needing a totally unique hand. This is just much much easier thing to make hit. switch it to just 1 extra card, and it might be balanced.

[Elyv]

I like the idea of Township but it's not a village at all, since it can't net you actions. Functionally, it reminds me of menagerie/wishing well more than any other card. Also as WW said, it's probably a little too good, especially in the early game.

[ChaosRed]

Township: first off, you want to put the +card before the +action, just for consistency. Also, it's wildly too powerful. It's a menagerie that hits on having a victory card in your hand instead of needing a totally unique hand. This is just much much easier thing to make hit. switch it to just 1 extra card, and it might be balanced.

Cheers. Modified...to take the last two comments into consideration:

[rinkworks]

Suggestion:  "You may discard a Victory card.  If you do, +1 Card."

Anyway, that version is, I think, a pretty good and balanced village-with-a-bonus.  Not a million miles removed from Farming Village -- both are villages that let you skip over green cards.  Township is more likely to hit (and when it does, it's on this hand instead of possibly the next one), but Farming Village compensates by potentially being able to cycle through more than one.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks rink, updated the text accordingly:

[WanderingWinder]

Doesn't need or want the "in your hand" wording - it would be "from" your hand, but the mere fact that you're discarding already implies that it's from your hand.

[ChaosRed]

Cheers, yeah, got sloppy with rink's revision, apologies...

[ChaosRed]

Pushed Land Grab and Township to the beta thread...two more 4$ cards to unveil tomorrow, then I can move on to the 5$ batch.

[ChaosRed]

Two more cards for review...

I am worried about the balance of Gypsy, but it seems like a Moat/Monument hybrid, and it takes two turns to invoke the +1VP...so I think it is costed fine...I thought it compared relatively well with the other 4 point Duration cards.

Auction seems like a weaker Trading Post...you have to trash something worse 2 or less and you only get to trash one card. It isn't terminal, so a pretty compelling card I think.

[rinkworks]

I think Gypsy's power level is probably fine.  I've done quite a bit of testing with terminal duration cards that have weak first-turn effects, and the fact is that burning an action on them hurts a lot more than you'd think.  Among the official cards, Tactician and Wharf don't hurt so much because the next-turn effects are very worth waiting for and making sacrifices to earn.  Merchant Ship, however, doesn't seem especially strong.  And all the cheaper duration cards are non-terminals (Haven, Lighthouse, Fishing Village, Caravan).   So it was kind of a surprise to me when I tried making some $3- and $4-cost terminal duration cards and was fairly surprised how much stronger or cheaper I had to make them for them to turn out right.

I suspect Gypsy is probably correct at $4.  It's definitely not a $5 card, and I don't think you want it to be as available as $3 would make it.  But it may not turn out to be an especially strong $4.

On another note, making the +VP the next-turn effect of a duration card is a really great way to have a vanilla +VP card that probably won't lead to a degenerate game state, since you can only play them every other turn at most.

Auction is okay, I guess.  I don't see the $2 or less requirement as particularly necessary, though, since how often would you want to trash a $3+ card for a Silver?  Certainly there are plenty of examples -- dead Sea Hags, obsolete Barons, etc -- but these aren't present every game, and there is one, it's probably just one.

Another thing to watch out for is that, although trashing two cards is more powerful than one, it's significant that Trading Post requires you to trash two, rendering it unplayable even in some instances when you have a Curse in hand.  I'm sure Trading Post is still more powerful on balance, but it's important to keep in mind that Auction is not strictly inferior at trashing.

I can't previsualize the effect of the +1 Action, so I guess that's something to watch in testing.

[ChaosRed]

Another thing to watch out for is that, although trashing two cards is more powerful than one, it's significant that Trading Post requires you to trash two, rendering it unplayable even in some instances when you have a Curse in hand.  I'm sure Trading Post is still more powerful on balance, but it's important to keep in mind that Auction is not strictly inferior at trashing.

Thanks rink, it's true what you say, this was discussed in a thread about Trading Post, when the OP asked "why does it say 'if you do' on Trading Post". There are rare instances Trading Post will let you trash one, but its hard to get to.

I lament that Auction is really too much like Trading Post, at times stronger and at times weaker and I may evaluate the card again based on that.

Your points on Duration cards were really interesting, I think Gypsy is pretty slow, but can't bring myself to knock it down to 3 and like you, don't think its worth 5. Thanks for the feedback there.

[ChaosRed]

Pushed Gypsy and Auction (with the revision rink suggested to the beta page.

Bring back two cards, I still struggle to balance or simplify. For Land Grab, it was too clunky, I simplified it. For Bribery, I also simplified, but I also increased the power, should it be costed at 5? It seems strong, so happy to up the cost if you feel it is warranted. I  like what it does though, a weird Mine/Menagerie hybrid.

[Newcomer]

To me, Bribery works like Remodel, except it only works on Treasures. Yes, it's like Mine, but unlike Mine it can't turn Copper into Silver, etc., so the $2 thing makes me think more like Remodel. But because you're passing to your opponent instead of trashing, I'd be aiming to pass Coppers and pick up $2 cantrips if they're available, and I'd be a little more reluctant to go Gold->Province (or Platinum->Colony) unless I'm about to end the game. So with the Coppers it's basically an Attack/trasher hybrid, if there's anything suitable at $2. Kind of a situational thing. But with the Golds there's a higher cost than just losing a Gold, since you gift it to your opponent. I think that keeps it balanced at $4, but I could be wrong.

As for Land Grab, do you want to add an "if you do" clause? It really only matters in Throne Room/King's Court cases, whether you want them to be able to grab 2 or 3 Duchies with it. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I like the card.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks Newcomer, yeah Land Grab needs an "if you do", thanks for that I will adjust it. Agreed about the governor on Bribery, it's not as strong as mine and less versatile as Remodel, but it does let you pass cak to your opponent. Of course, without a 2 action card, swapping out Copper for an estate isn't a big thrill at all.

[rinkworks]

If you wanted to avoid the targeted attack (or benefit) of Bribery, you can probably make that idea work with what Ambassador does.  Return a card to the supply, each other player gains a copy of it, and you gain a copy of something costing up to $2 more.  Not a necessary change if you don't mind the way it only hits one opponent, but an idea if you do.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah its a superb idea, that way it blends better for multi-player. The real governor on Bribery is you can only pass (or return) treasure, and you can only upgrade by 2. So spamming copper is problematic, because on a lot of boards you're only getting an Estate out of it. So its possibly a dead card on boards where there is no 2-cost action card to acquire. Going from Silver to an 5-cost card is kind of nice, especially if your opponent doesn't want treasure.

Thanks for the comments as always rinkworks.

[ChaosRed]

Play moved the last two to the beta thread, taking rinkwork's great suggestions with Bribery.

This is the last of the 4-pointers!

I could use advice on whether the power level is conservative enough to be worth 4. It might be worth 5. I wanted a Witch/Bureaucrat hybrid. It doesn't infect, but it can keep Curses on top of your opponent's deck.

It's pretty fair I think, it's a lot like Bureaucrat really, except it works off Copper and Curses, which is arguably more powerful, but you have to eat a Silver card rather than get a cleaner +2.

[DStu]

1) You mean "put a Copper/Curse from their hand on top of their deck", or?
2) Silver in hand is a lot stronger than the silver on top from the Bureaucrat, obvious comparison here is Explorer, which is $5, of course not considered as the strongest $5 , but $5. Explorer can gain you a Gold in hand, but most of the time doesn't. And it does not attack.  But I anyway think that, when you want to have it Bureaucrat-like, want a Silver on top of the deck, so I'll wait your answer before thinking further if in this form it is $4.

[ChaosRed]

1) You mean "put a Copper/Curse from their hand on top of their deck", or?
2) Silver in hand is a lot stronger than the silver on top from the Bureaucrat, obvious comparison here is Explorer, which is $5, of course not considered as the strongest $5, but $5. Explorer can gain you a Gold in hand, but most of the time doesn't. And it does not attack.  But I anyway think that, when you want to have it Bureaucrat-like, want a Silver on top of the deck, so I'll wait your answer before thinking further if in this form it is $4.

Yes, from their hand, I'll modify the card to show that after I read more feedback (and probably learn the card needs to be 5$)

Forgot Bureaucrat puts the Silver on top, thought it was +2 like Militia and others. I can change it to Silver on top of your deck, not your hand, while your opponent puts a Curse or Copper on top of their deck. My thought was gaining a Silver can be a pain, as it widens your deck. Useful sometimes, but eventually clogs you up, so gaining the card was useful at first, but tiresome later on. The Silver acquisition could also just be a simple gain, (going to the discard pile).

[DStu]

My thought was gaining a Silver can be a pain, as it widens your deck. Useful sometimes, but eventually clogs you up, so gaining the card was useful at first, but tiresome later on.

Yeah, you are right with that. Might be interesting, just wanted to be sure to think about the right thing before I think. The point is that Silver on top is weaker than in hand, because in hand it is more similar to a terminal silver (beside the fact that you gain one (and Bank etc...) it more or less "is" a terminal silver), while Silver on top is a terminal nothing, with probably a slight improvement for your next turn, if at all.

Edit: So when the effect to yourself is like a Bureaucrat, the question is to compare the attacks. Copper or Curse is a lot more likely to hit (at least in the beginning) than Victory, and I'm not really sure if it is stronger or weaker when it hits. It is (more or less) equal if you choose Curse, when you choose copper it hurts this turn more, but the next one less, probably is a bit stronger than Bureaucrat alltogether. But he himself is not the strongest $4, so think I would test it with $4 to begin with.

[Newcomer]

Death & Taxes is similar to this card I introduced the other day in my Emergence thread:

Bandit
ACTION-ATTACK   $4
---
+1 Card
+$2
Each other player reveals his hand. If it has 5 or more cards, he places one card with the lowest cost on top of his deck.

There was some good discussion if you want to look there. I removed the +1 Card, which was too much.
From that discussion, I'd think your Attack is probably balanced at $4. You'll want to compare it to Bureaucrat and Cutpurse, and both of our cards fit between them.

[rinkworks]

I agree that if you put the Silver on top, it's comparable enough to Bureaucrat to warrant a $4 cost.  However, I suspect this is a touch stronger than Bureaucrat.  Bureaucrat is more likely to hit in the end-game, but this is worse early on and in the mid-game.  Usually it'll hit Copper, and when it does that will not only take you down $1 for the present hand, but it reduces cycling and probably hurts your next hand as well.

The attack is almost certainly stronger than Cutpurse, the only exception being when your deck is so full of junk that Copper is an above-average card.  That does suggest that the benefit to the player needs to be weaker (such as something to do with gaining a Silver) to compensate.  But I think overall I prefer Newcomer's Bandit, with the compensation being a hand-size constraint.  But that's mostly just a personal opinion talking, namely my dislike of Silver-gainers.

If you want to gain a Silver, it IS important to keep Explorer and its $5 price tag in mind.  However, what really makes Explorer a $5 card is its possibility of gaining Gold.  It's rare you can get the Gold, but situations where you can get the Gold are the ones that make Explorer a good buy at $5.

I suspect this is a correct assessment of relative power levels:

1. Gaining Gold in hand is stronger than...
2. +$3, which is stronger than...
3. +$2, which is stronger than...
4. Gaining a Silver in hand.

What I'm leading up to, using way more words than necessary, is that I think you're okay gaining the Silver in hand.  And if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about using any other governor to keep it from being nearly-strictly-superior to Cutpurse.

But there are a lot of combinations of these various features, and I'm not confident I could say what the best mix really is without playtesting.

[ChaosRed]

But there are a lot of combinations of these various features, and I'm not confident I could say what the best mix really is without playtesting.

Thank you as always rinkworks. I wanted to highlight this quote, because the set is designed to complement other cards in the set. It can be very strong when the set stands on its own, and a lot of cards fall off the radar when I bring in other sets. First testing begins exclusively within the set, (which I am very much looking forward to). I wanted synergy across the set revolving around Silver (either avoiding it, or acquiring it). It's a gimmick, but a fun one, but it does diminish the set's appeal once blended with the other sets. I can live with that. It's just a fun exercise in learning the strengths of the game anyway.

I am going to change it to "put the Silver on top", so it is compatible and comparable with Bureaucrat. And even though, (as you rightly point out) it gets a much higher chance of hitting early in the game, (which is when gaining a Silver is useful), I think you and others make a good case to keep it at 4$. Bureaucrat is not that good a card at 4$, this is better at 4$, but I think fair.

I am excited to reveal the 5's, "the big guns", a Curse attack I really like (also involving silver), and some more +Action cards (which are much harder to balance because you have to account for chaining). Thanks you all. Newcomer, I will read and comment on your expansion shortly.

[ChaosRed]

Going to leave "Death & Taxes" as is, for play testing. Moving onto the 5 cards as all the 4s are done!

The first, Church Bell, was widely rejected as being too powerful, is the cost adjustment of 5 now balanced?

Lycanthrope is arguably a very weak Witch, as it is fairly easy to deflect (even easier than a Bane defense), but you always lose the card you defend with, so it deteriorates your hand regardless. I am curious if you all feel the card is balanced, I feel it is, even if it is a weaker card than Witch in many ways. I feel most players would take a -2$ to avoid a curse, so even if the attack always weakens your hand, I feel the Witch is a stronger card.


As you can see, the "Silver" theme of the deck continues, and will have a few more nods in some of the other 5s as well.

[WanderingWinder]

First off, I want to point out that Death and Taxes is just better than bureaucrat, which is a big no-no. Gaining in hand is absolutely huge, and the attack is also going to usually be stronger. It's also probably just better than explorer, which costs 5 rather than 4. Big big problem.
Lycanthrope is strictly worse than witch.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah we discussed Death and Taxes, as being better than Bureaucrat, and I took rinkwork's take on the card, rather than knocking it down to putting the Silver on top of your deck. It will get play tested this way, and then possibly adjusted to just putting the Silver on your deck. As for Lycanthrope, yeah, its weaker than Witch, but since Witch is arguably one of the strongest cards in all Dominion sets, I think its fine that its weaker. I had originally slotted it at 4, but feel because it makes you discard the Silver, 5 might be better. Open to moving it down to 4 though, if you feel it warrants it.

There's a good chance Death & Taxes will simply put the gained Silver on top of your deck after play tests.

Thanks for the feedback.

[WanderingWinder]

The thing is, D&T is just SO much stronger as is, you have to do something. I actually think it would be fairly costed at 5 as is, and if you switch it to rinkworks's suggestion, it's just too close to bureaucrat.
Lycanthrope is certainly too strong at 4. But neither is it okay just because the card that's strictly better is really strong. It might be ok if witch didn't exist, but witch does exist, and this is STRICTLY worse, as in if you ever want this, you'd rather have witch in every single instance, barring your opponent impaling himself on his stupidity.

[ChaosRed]

Hmmm...seems like I can't win with either card based on what you say.

I think both cards have enough merit to disagree with that a little, but I take both your criticisms in stride, they are valid, but I just don't think they invalidate both cards.

For example, I think you can point to other cards that are similar but weaker, in fact, there's an entire article on comparing the Villages, and should two of those Villages appear on the board, one is clearly better than the other. This is part of what DOMINION is about, assessing a card's value, both on its own and in the context of the entire board.

I agree D&T is strong at 4, but I can think of stronger cards at 4.  It's meant to be an homage, and even a boost to the Bureaucrat cards, which sits dead on a lot of boards (it lies dormant for 76% of the decks according to Council Room). The next worst card on that list, is Explorer. So the card compares to both, and is better, but given the weakness of these cards, I think I might be okay (at least to test). Explorer shouldn't be costed at 5 perhaps, I don't know. Either way, Explorer is a lottery for gold, or you inherit a Silver, which really isn't such a great thing as the game progresses.

Anyway, the card compares to two of the weakest and unpopular cards in all sets, and comes away with the assessment that they are better than both. But on its own, its not the greatest terminal play. So while I appreciate your feedback with this, I think testing the card as is, might be worth a try. Arguably, the card could just gain the silver (neither in hand or on top of the deck) and it would be an unspectacular 4, but still probably worth 4.

Comparing Lycanthrope to one of the best cards in the entire pantheon of 5-cost cards is going to find Lycanthrope come up short. I knew this when I made the card (and said so). The thing is, you lose the defense mechanism for the card. So you get two actions out of the card, you give your opponent's a curse, or you take -2$ out of their hand (and they go down to 4 cards). If you could put two actions on the stack, you could Lycanthrope someone, then Torture them, and you probably have them down to 2 cards in their hand. Look, its a really weak Curse attack, I know this, but its too strong at 4 I think. When its on the board, it makes Silver a valuable card, (which is precisely the theme of the expansion).

If its on the same board as Witch, yeah, you take the Witch. But Witch is an amazing card, the stats on CouncilRoom seem to bear this out. It's one of those cards that can warp a game. I don't mind the card comes up short. I think a valid criticism is the +2 cards makes it so obviously similar, but weaker. It was initially +1 Card, +2$, but felt it was too strong, so scaled it back to a Moat with a weak Curse attack. One thing I could add to it is a "buy" mechanic, so you gain something when you first buy the card. That's something I am open to toying with, to give it a uniquely different benefit than Witch, so it is not so directly comparable. But it must come under-powered to Witch, or the card is too strong. I don't want it as strong as Witch, I want it weaker, in just about every single circumstance. I don't think that's an unreasonable governor on the design. Some cards are so monolithic, I wouldn't want to design a card that strong, I leave that privilege to Donald X. When I do create a card, that's too strong, its out of ignorance, not a desire to compete with cards like Mountebank, Torturer and Witch.

I hope that doesn't come across as snide, or resentful of your spot-on analysis. My point is, "yeah of course a lot weaker than Witch", but also concede, "okay maybe it should be more uniquely different than Witch", so that contrasting the cards and seeing Lyncanthope is inherently weaker isn't as obvious. But it most always fall quite short of Witch, in my opinion. Does this make sense?

[WanderingWinder]

No, I'm not taking it as snide or resentful. I actually think there are two pretty entirely different reasons for disliking the two cards. I dislike D&T because it's too powerful - the comparisons to the other cards are merely to demonstrate that. The reason I dislike Sycophant is not for power reasons - you know it's probably fairly balanced and fairly priced. But it's (apart from being extremely similar) strictly, absolutely worse than witch. Because the other player has the choice, there is absolutely no reason you'd prefer this to witch. So what's the big deal? Well, I just think that's bad for the game. So if you were to say force the other players to discard the silver, and then only give them a curse if they couldn't and reveal a hand containing no silvers, then it would be fine, though still usually weaker.
As for strictly weaker, think of it sort of this way - would printing King's Court at 8 break the game? Probably not, but it would look silly with king's court also existing.

[ChaosRed]

So if you were to say force the other players to discard the silver, and then only give them a curse if they couldn't and reveal a hand containing no silvers, then it would be fine, though still usually weaker.

That is how the card works, perhaps I need to update the text? If you have no Silver at all to discard, you get the Curse. You either get a Curse, or you reveal a Silver and discard it. Either way, the opponent loses, (although sometimes doesn't lose as much as a straight Witch, because losing a Silver for a turn isn't a big deal).

[WanderingWinder]

So if you were to say force the other players to discard the silver, and then only give them a curse if they couldn't and reveal a hand containing no silvers, then it would be fine, though still usually weaker.

That is how the card works, perhaps I need to update the text? If you have no Silver at all to discard, you get the Curse. You either get a Curse, or you reveal a Silver and discard it. Either way, the opponent loses, (although sometimes doesn't lose as much as a straight Witch, because losing a Silver for a turn isn't a big deal).

The way you have it worded, the opponent gets to choose whether or not to take the curse even if they can discard silver.
If you update the wording, I'd pretty much be fine with it except that it's so similar to witch.

[ChaosRed]

The way you have it worded, the opponent gets to choose whether or not to take the curse even if they can discard silver.
If you update the wording, I'd pretty much be fine with it except that it's so similar to witch.

Should read like this I guess:

Each other opponent must discard a Silver from their hand or they gain a Curse

Does this clarify it better? I could change the primary ability to something other than +2 Card to distinguish it from Witch. 1 Card, +2$ maybe? Still keeps it weaker than Witch, but helps distinguish it more.

Thanks for your help WW.

[play2draw]

The proper way to word this card would be to compare it to Torturer's wording. As such it should say:

Each other player chooses one:
he discards a Silver card or he gains a Curse card

[WanderingWinder]

The proper way to word this card would be to compare it to Torturer's wording. As such it should say:

Each other player chooses one:
he discards a Silver card or he gains a Curse card

No! This is exactly what we need to avoid. If we give them the choice, it's strictly worse than witch. As such, it should be worded something like:
"Every other player discards a silver or reveals a hand with no silver and gains a curse"

[rinkworks]

Yeah, Lycanthrope is a problem.  As originally written, it's indeed strictly worse than Witch, which is 100% a problem no matter how strong Witch is.  It's not the same as the various Villages, because the Villages are priced accordingly.  Worker's Village is strictly better than Village, but it's priced at $4 instead of $3, so fine.  Lyncanthrope and Witch are both at $5, though, which means when both are on the table, you might as well have only put 9 kingdom cards out.  That really sucks.

See, it's okay if you have a $5 card that is generally weaker than Witch.  But this is a case where a card is always weaker than Witch.  Always always always.  You can't even purposely invent a game state, however contrived or convoluted, where Lyncanthrope is better.  It simply never is.

WW's suggestion is the best way to fix it while remaining closest to the original version.  But I'm not crazy about that version either.  It's just not different enough from Witch to be interesting.  Question:  Why +2 Cards?  Since this card needs differentiation from Witch very desperately, why not make it something different?  +$2 would invite comparisons with Mountebank, but Mountebank is much less similar to Lyncanthrope, and, as such, poses less of a comparison problem.  You could also gain Silver, instead, which is interesting (though I'm undecided on whether it's interesting in a good way) in how it changes how vulnerable you are to Lyncanthrope attacks directed against you.

Is it important that cursing is the secondary attack?  There are other things to try.  How about this?  "Every other player discards a Silver or discards his hand and draws 3 cards."  I don't know if that would be good or not -- top of my head thought there.  But it's another way to have a Silver attack that doesn't duplicate an existing attack most of the time.

[ChaosRed]

While I still disagree with the comparison with Witch makes the card bad. A Fishing Village is better than Village, period. Still, you guys are much more knowledgeable than me, so I must take that into consideration, and all advice you have given me previously has made my cards stronger, so I am grateful. I should listen more and argue less, when I receive good feedback.

Just so we're clear, the card was always a negative to all opponents, that was the original intention. Silver was essentially like the "bane" card, except in this case the bane card is quite common, but has to be discarded to deflect the attack. So you lose a Silver in your hand or gain a Curse. Thematically of course, the Silver represents the "silver bullet" used to dispel the Lycanthrope. Anyway, I reworded the card (below) to make that more clear.

So I agree, in that I think +2 Cards is the thing to change, as this takes the simple comparison to Witch away. I changed it to +2$, +1 Card to start the discussion again. This significantly strengthens the card, but it will still fall short of Witch, which is what I precisely want, because the spam attack is easier to defend.

Here's the variation now, and it makes it quite a strong card this way I think, of course now it compares to Mountebank and still comes up short. It gains a card though. The key piece I want to keep is you avoid infection by having a Silver in your hand. This mechanic matches the theme of the card and the theme of the set. So I can play with cost and primary ability to get the card straight.

And thanks again, I learn a lot in these discussions.


I am inclined to believe the card now is a tad too strong for a variant card, and wonder if +1 Card, +1$ is a more comfortable primary ability.

[Elyv]

While I still disagree with the comparison with Witch makes the card bad. A Fishing Village is better than Village, period.

I have bought village over fishing village. It is very rare(and quite possibly was incorrect), but it can happen. Being strictly worse is not a good thing.

Your new Lycanthrope seems fine, although it's definitely on the strong side.

[rinkworks]

While I still disagree with the comparison with Witch makes the card bad. A Fishing Village is better than Village, period.

No, it isn't.  Fishing Village doesn't draw a card.  Fishing Villages are usually superior, I grant you, but not strictly superior.  Often the extra card is actually more important.  I wonder if the problem we're having is tripping up on this distinction.

Let's exaggerate the Village example:


Silly Village I
$3 - Action
+1 Card, +3 Actions

Silly Village II
$3 - Action
+2 Actions, +5 Buys, +$20


Which card is strictly superior to Village?

It doesn't take a genius to realize that Silly Village II is a monster powerhouse, preferable to every other $3 Village card out there in probably every situation that's ever going to come up in an actual game.  However, it is not "strictly superior" to the base set's Village card.  Why?  Because it doesn't do everything Village does.  In this case, it doesn't draw a card.  That at least opens the door for the theoretical possibility that someone, somewhere, in an actual game, might actually find a regular Village a preferable card.  I can't think of one, but I'm sure you can imagine the possibility that it might be in some very specific situation.

Obviously Silly Village II has balance problems, but being strictly superior to Village is not one of them.  (Note:  It is strictly superior to Woodcutter and Festival, but never mind.)  However, this is exactly the problem that Silly Village I has.  It is strictly superior to Village, because it does everything that Village does and offers something more besides.  Since it's priced at the same price as Village, that means whenever both Village and Silly Village I are on the table at the same time, there is never a situation where the best move is to pass up a Silly Village I in favor of a Village.  Never.  There is provably zero chance that a particular board or a particular situation will cause Village to be a better buy.

Worker's Village is also strictly superior to Village, but it costs $4 instead of $3, so that's okay.  Because what if you only have $3 to spend?

Farming Village, interestingly, is not strictly superior to Village, although it's pretty close.  Suppose you draw a hand consisting of Farming Village, Copper, Copper, Copper, Salvager.  You'd prefer to Salvage an Estate instead of a Copper.  Had you had a regular Village in your hand, you might have drawn an Estate to Salvage, but with Farming Village, you can't.  This is such a tiny edge case that Farming Village still needs to be priced higher.  But it needs to be priced higher simply because it's so much stronger in general, not because it's strictly superior to Village.

Now let's get back to Lyncanthrope:


Lycanthrope I
$5 - Action/Attack
+2 Cards
Every other player chooses one:  he discards a Silver or gains a Curse.

Lycanthrope II
$5 - Action/Attack
+2 Cards
Every other player discards a Silver or reveals a hand with no Silver and gains a Curse.


Lycanthrope I is strictly inferior to Witch.  Why?  Because it does everything for you that Witch does, but its attack is never more severe and sometimes less severe.  If he chooses the curse option, then the card did exactly what Witch would have done.  And if he chooses the Silver discarding option, it will be because discarding Silver is less severe an attack in that particular situation.

Thus, there is no situation, not even a theoretical one unlikely to happen in reality, where you'd prefer Lycanthrope to Witch.  By contrast, there are plenty of other very weak $5 cards you might want in preference to Witch in any given situation:  Explorer, Counting House, Stash, and so on.  They're all generally inferior cards, but that's okay, because there are specific situations when they're the best card on the table.

Lyncanthrope II is not strictly superior or strictly inferior to Witch.  Here, discarding Silver is mandatory if you've got any.  It might still be a lot weaker than Witch in general.  But it's easy enough to imagine situations where Lyncanthrope is the better buy.  I still personally dislike Lycanthrope II because it's too similar to Witch, and also because I suspect it's almost always inferior.  But that's a whole different type of objection, one that is very much more subjective, than if it were strictly inferior.

Note that among the official cards, there aren't any strictly superior/inferior cards priced at the same price.*  Not even Hunting Party and Laboratory, as Hunting Party will sometimes not draw a second card at all.  It's not that having a strictly superior card at the same price would break the game.  Lycanthrope I, as you've correctly observed in your defense of the card, doesn't unbalance the game.  But it does take away strategic choices from the player by removing any possibility that it might, under some circumstances, be a better buy than Witch.  And that's what kind of sucks.

--

(*This is actually not quite true:  on a board with no terminals and no Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because Bazaar's extra actions are never useful without terminals or Diadem.  Obviously this is an extraordinarily rare situation.  I think I thought of one other equally rare situation, but I've forgotten it now.  The point is, there aren't any two official cards that always or even somewhat frequently have this problem.)

[ChaosRed]

Again, thank you rinks, but I did get the point the first time. Truly, I did. I think, again, it is okay to have a variant significantly weaker than Witch. The main beef appears to be that the primary ability was precisely the same, therefore the contrast of the cards was too obvious. But the conclusion should almost always be, "its a weaker card", because that's precisely my intent and I think that intent is correct (at least it was deliberate on my part).

I think the card was corrected,when I modified it earlier to produce a different primary ability, making the contrast less obvious, and at narrow times, perhaps Lycanthrope is more compelling. This to me, is the stronger point, it was the primary ability being the same, that made the secondary ability the only thing to compare/contrast and clearly Lycanthrope was weaker in every case. This I not only concede, but I also valued the feedback. Beyond that, I don't think the discussion yields me much, when clearly my exact intent was to design a card weaker than Witch. I enjoyed it, but I wanted a card that couldn't hang with the Witch's talent. It's one of the strongest card in any expansion. Again, not trying to be argumentative, trying to illustrate my perspective and intent.

Anyway, this is where Lycanthrope stands now...



It has a strong primary now, with the secondary text matching Mountebank's. I still think its weaker than Witch, but worry the primary ability is too strong for a fan variant, feedback on this would be welcome. I think it contrasts with Mountebank now, still coming up weaker (as the "bane" type defense of the card is not only more common, its a reasonably beneficial card to have) and of course the punishment isn't as severe if you can't discard. It draws a card though, which Mountebank doesn't, so its additional primary is marginal, but useful.

Also, curious to see if Church Bell passes mustard. It was vehemently disliked when unveiled at 4 (and it was slightly stronger then too). It has a specific governor on what can be trashed, but clearly, this is a very useful card early in the game. It is definitely one of the strongest cards in my expansion.



It's a "super Chapel" I guess, very strong, very useful, but want to ensure its not completely overpowered. I'd buy one early on a lot of boards I think. Its probably most similar to Lookout, but its terminal and provides a lot more insurance the card yields a positive result (as Lookout can go awry at times). I am open to discussing how to limit the card's power, but I wanted some kind of costing governor on both actions.

Other variants could include:

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you reveal a card costing 3 or less, trash it. Keep any revealed card worth 6 or more, discard the rest of the revealed card.

This actually, (I think) narrows the utility of the card, as it can trash some useful 3-cost cards, and because it can't bring in any card worth 4 or 5, might limit the impact of the card draw. This variant is the kind of thing I'd like to tweak, if you feel the current version is too much.

I have a bunch of other 5s to unveil and I am eager to play test the whole set, so I'll move on quickly if neither card solicits feedback.

And thanks again, for all the superb reviews and comments.

[Karrow]

Just my rambling.

For Lycanthrope, don't forgot about when the curse pile runs out which seems to happen more often in 3-4p.

"Discard a silver, or reveal a hand containing no silvers and gain a curse" causes it to remain a useful attack after the curse pile is gone, but also makes it slower to empty the curse pile.  All of the other curse givers become weaker after the curse pile is gone to some extent with witches being one of the hardest hit 5-cost becoming a $5 moat without the reaction ability.  Where as torturer usually will not empty the curse pile, but stays stronger than a witch as a $5 smithy after the curses are gone.

I wonder how a bigger cutpurse play tests with exact same wording of cutpurse except replace copper with silver, and costing $5. 

Anyhow, I'm just rambling about thoughts I didn't see yet.  Your card, your choice how to make it.  Just keep in mind what happens when the curse pile runs out.

[ChaosRed]

Your point is to make sure the card is worded such that, even if the curses are out, you still must discard a silver if you have at least one in your hand? Do I understand that right?

[Karrow]

Your point is to make sure the card is worded such that, even if the curses are out, you still must discard a silver if you have at least one in your hand? Do I understand that right?

Not at all.  Just pointing out the additional factors that could sway the wording to be one way or the other.  Neither is wrong.  It just gives an additional thing to think about.  I'm probably just over-complicating it, and not being helpful.  And that's why I said I was just rambling.  Your last version seems pretty balanced to me.  After the curses are out, it's just +1 card +$2, but with the silver option the curse pile will empty slower and last longer.  It's probably best the way it is now, as the other versions could be deemed too much like a witch, or too much like a cutpurse.


For Church Bell, one thing I always think about with 5's is the 5-2 start.  If someone opens 5-2 against 4-3, can the 4-3 win?

A 5-2 opening is church bell/nothing.  That's 91% to hit on turn 3 or 4.  Turn 3 would hit 100% copper/estate.  Turn 4 would have a 1 in 3 chance to hit the card bought on turn 3, but if it hits it, it's likely a silver that would go into your hand.

I don't see any 4-3 standing a chance against a 5-2 church bell opening short of a workshop/gardens.

BUT... I also find that a 5-2 opening with witches/mountebank against a 4-3 already breaks the game.  Practically nothing short of workshop/gardens stands a chance there either.  So in that aspect, it's no worse than what already exists.

Pushing it out to a $6 or more pushes it out to mid-late game where it's going to loose all of it's power and not be anywhere near worth the price.

So again, I'm not so helpful.  Balancing out a deck thinning cards is tough.  And if it's not thinning what's in your hand it's even tougher.  For most of the other ones loosing the card in hand is an additional cost to play it.  With this one the only cost is the purchase price, and the action to play.  Overpowered early, weak late.  Not sure what would work.

[ChaosRed]

You are quite helpful. I am going to bite the bullet on Church Bell and move it to testing, even though it is very strong and can really warp the opening of a game on a 5/2 draw against a 4/3 draw. I suspect this is easily solved by costing it at 6, but then, I am not sure its worth it at 6. I'll move it to testing and see how it goes.

Lycanthrope needs work. Nobody really likes it, it is under-powered and although its meant to complement and have synergy with the theme of the expansion, I am not sure it does that. Here is my new radical change to the card:


This is a significantly stronger attack on both fronts. Since some of the expansion's theme is the collection of Silver (for both Victory and to activate some of the abilities on cards), I think the trashing penalty is strong. Traders has no defense for it now, (unless you have no Silver in your hand, which is unlikely if you are playing Traders).

It's really strong now, so I'd like to discuss if its under-costed, but it certainly no longer has the problem of being too similar to Witch. I don't think its as strong as Mountebank but it is close, so I probably need to tweak it some more.

Since I like to have two cards up for review at any one time here's another 5 to review, also quite strong, and as you can see also complements the overall theme of the expansion:


I could use some help with the verbiage of the gain ability, is that worded right? The idea is if you buy or gain a Sprite, you immediately get +1VP. I had started to add "gain" abilities to some of my 5s a few weeks ago, knowing Hinterlands was featuring this. So its a rip-off of that feature in Hinterlands, but one I expect we'll see continued in other expansions so I don't feel guilty "borrowing" a unique feature.

[Tydude]

For Sprite, I think it would just be, "When you gain this, +1 VP".

[Elyv]

I think your old Lycanthrope was actually completely fine. This one probably is too, although both are pretty good I think.

[Jimmmmm]

Unless you end up trashing the Sprite, how is it different to making it Action - Victory and worth 1 VP? Seems a bit odd to have a source of VP tokens that is only likely to get you two or three for the whole game.

[biopower]

Unless you end up trashing the Sprite, how is it different to making it Action - Victory and worth 1 VP? Seems a bit odd to have a source of VP tokens that is only likely to get you two or three for the whole game.

Many cards interact with only Victory cards or differently with Victory cards, like the new Crossroads, Scout, and Jester to name a few. That's the difference.

[Jimmmmm]

Unless you end up trashing the Sprite, how is it different to making it Action - Victory and worth 1 VP? Seems a bit odd to have a source of VP tokens that is only likely to get you two or three for the whole game.

Many cards interact with only Victory cards or differently with Victory cards, like the new Crossroads, Scout, and Jester to name a few. That's the difference.

True. So the card has fewer interactions and is therefore less interesting. Apart from this, I just don't think the +1VP on gain is different enough to a Victory card to be interesting.

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at the OP. It seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this and coming up with some interesting ideas which are obviously generating heaps of discussion.

[ChaosRed]

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at the OP. It seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this and coming up with some interesting ideas which are obviously generating heaps of discussion.

No, no, not at all, your comments are appreciated.

My thought was, this doesn't make it a Victory card and that you have to gain it to get it (getting it passed to you on a Masquerade for example doesn't get you the point). It's a pretty cheap victory point, but it is just slightly different than 1VP outright. Also as you can say, you can trash the card later without losing the VP.

It's not that compelling I agree, but do you think the card is still worth 5? Or does it need more to make it a compelling and competitive buy on the board? One thought I had was to give it the ability of gaining another +1VP if you trashed the card. I like the idea of a Sprite helping you when it arrives and when you get rid of it.

Thank you all for the feedback and don't be shy in your criticism, while I don't take every critical review to heart, I most certainly appreciate all of it.

[Tydude]

(*This is actually not quite true:  on a board with no terminals and no Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because Bazaar's extra actions are never useful without terminals or Diadem.  Obviously this is an extraordinarily rare situation.  I think I thought of one other equally rare situation, but I've forgotten it now.  The point is, there aren't any two official cards that always or even somewhat frequently have this problem.)

Moat and Courtyard with no attacks?

[def]

Close. Courtyard could trigger a reshuffle which you don't want.

[WanderingWinder]

(*This is actually not quite true:  on a board with no terminals and no Tournament, Market is strictly superior to Bazaar, because Bazaar's extra actions are never useful without terminals or Diadem.  Obviously this is an extraordinarily rare situation.  I think I thought of one other equally rare situation, but I've forgotten it now.  The point is, there aren't any two official cards that always or even somewhat frequently have this problem.)

Quarry is strictly worse than silver when there are no actions out, and you don't have cards that care about cost or how many different cards you have in play. So basically no actions and no Horn of Plenty and no Fairgrounds. How frequent is that? Not very.

[Jimmmmm]

It's not that compelling I agree, but do you think the card is still worth 5? Or does it need more to make it a compelling and competitive buy on the board? One thought I had was to give it the ability of gaining another +1VP if you trashed the card. I like the idea of a Sprite helping you when it arrives and when you get rid of it.

I'd say it's probably not worth 5. At worst, it's a Native Village without the mat, which is pretty terrible. At best it's comparable to a Village in that you end up with the same number of cards but with an extra action. Whether or not this card is worth having depends on if your average card is better for you than a Silver, and I'd say at least as often as not, it's not. You also need lots of Silver to regularly activate it, and if most of your cards are better, you probably don't want this.

So, the 1 VP aside, I think at worst this is a terrible Village, at best it's still not very good. If the "discard" were a "reveal instead", I'd say it's more worthy of $5, although then it's probably too powerful.

[Glooble]

What if it gained you 2 VP when you bought it? That would make it more inline with the bonus VP effect of Island or Nobles.

[ChaosRed]

Okay, without taking your direct advice Glooble, I see now the card needs more juice. So I thought I'd throttle it up gradually. I wanted to make it a Duration card anyway (so it matches Gypsy and later, the Druid) in style and presentation...


So a gradual increase in power, is it enough? I could use help with the syntax. The card is supposed to work that you must discard the Silver to get the immediate cards and the duration effect of +1 Card. It's still card neutral on this turn, but provides a card on your next hand.

Alternatively, I wanted to give it the ability to trash itself for an additional Sprite, it would read:

Discard a Silver, if you do +2 Cards.
On your next turn, you may trash Sprite, if you do, gain a Sprite.

The idea would be the Duration puts the card on the side , and on the next turn you can trash it for another Sprite (and gain +1VP in the process). The thematic idea is that a Sprite doesn't last long, but are lucky. Gimmicky to be sure, but a fun card perhaps?

[ChaosRed]

Moved Lycanthrope to the beta thread and I'll start testing the last iteration based on the last feedback.

Sprite needs work, so the two up for review right now are a revised Sprite and a new card called Druid, which is similar in style and theme as the Sprite:


I need help with the syntax on both Druid and Sprite.

Sprite is meant to work this way, on the turn you can play it, you can reveal a Victory card in your hand, discard it and gain 2 cards. Regardless of whether you did that or not, on your next turn the Sprite is trashed and you gain +1 Card and another Sprite.

The idea with the card is its a light, temporary thing that keeps coming back. It's meant to be a bit annoying (Sprites are) but overall, its beneficial. I like the idea that one Sprite, chains into another, until the pile is empty. It can be useful if a 3-pile victory is your strategy, so it kind helps a Gardens deck a little. I could make it more useful for Gardens, and rather have it draw cards, have it give +1$, +1 Buy, both for the discard and for "next turn" effect when you trash it. I want the "gimmick" that it trashes itself and you gain another one to stick though, that's the key gimmick of the Sprite now.

Druids were traditionally care takers of forests and the wild, so I thought it being able to move Victory cards to the side was cool (you can even put Coppers or Curses aside if you want).  So it is strong. Is the power right for the cost? Regardless of whether you put a card aside or not, you gain the +1 Card and +1 Action on your next turn.

Help with verbiage and an assessment of the ability-for-cost for both cards would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Jimmmmm]

I think Druid is definitely not underpowered for a $5, not sure if it should cost more though.

The obvious comparison is with Island. The only disadvantage is that it doesn't give you the 2 VP. You can't put Druid down too, but you probably don't want to. Overall, I think it's way better than Island since it's non-terminal and reusable, and the duration effect is also very good. I think this will make you want to buy green cards ASAP so you have something to tuck away in order to get the duration effect (an empty hand works too).

I think Druid deserves a mat. Using the Island mat works fine if you have Seaside as well, even if you have both Island and Druid in the same game, but at least thematically it deserves its own.

Anyway. It may tread on the design space of at least three Seaside cards, but that might be okay. My gut says it might be a tad powerful for a $5, but I'm not sure.

[Newcomer]

How's this text edit for Sprite?

+2 Actions
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Cards.
At the start of your next turn, trash this. [If you do,] Gain a Sprite and +1 Card.

I wasn't sure if you wanted the "if you do" there. It would come into play if you had Throne Roomed the Sprite on your previous turn. Then you would trash the card once and gain a Sprite and a card. Then you wouldn't be able to trash it again, but you could still gain another Sprite and a card without an "if you do." I suppose that fits the theme of being inundated with Sprites. It could really go either way. It's up to you, what do you want the card to do?

Now for Druid:
"Set aside a card from your hand." Everything else looks good to me. Okay, I'd probably switch +1 Action and +1 Card, but looking at the Duration cards, the ordering doesn't seem as strict--e.g. Tactician puts Buy before Action.

[ChaosRed]

Thanks New, those syntax adjustments are perfect. And yes, in the even you Throne Room the Sprite, you should still get the duration effect on the second, (virtual) sprite, so I'll leave off the [If you do], part of the verbiage. I'll make the +1 Card, +1 Action adjustment to Druid's duration effect as well, thanks for catching that!

[ChaosRed]

Modified the text according to New's suggestions, I'll leave this up until tomorrow for peer review, then unveil the last of the 5s...

[Newcomer]

.. You put the "if you do" in, but said you didn't want to. :-P

[ChaosRed]

.. You put the "if you do" in, but said you didn't want to. :-P

Bummer! You are so right. I'll fix it tonight, thanks for catching that.

[ChaosRed]

Okay moved the Druid and Sprite to beta-testing (after the final minor-modification pointed out by New).

Here are two 4-pointers. These replace 4-pointers that were rejected or needed modification after play testing:


Shyster...well do I have the costing right? Seems like a weak Curse attack to me, but its advantage is when the curses run out it can spam copper. Costs you a Silver every time, so it won't hold up to the 4-cost Witches. But given it goes with the theme of the expansion, what are your thoughts? I had debated make it a +2$, since this essentially helps defer the cost of losing a Silver.

Rummage...lots of cards in the set need Silver to fire or defend, so this is a simple way to get them. It's essentially a +4$ terminal play for 4 bucks, so its pretty strong (assuming the cards in the discard pile). The expansion needed some card draw and rather than create a Smithy hybrid, I went with this card instead.

[DStu]

Okay moved the Druid and Sprite to beta-testing (after the final minor-modification pointed out by New).

Here are two 4-pointers. These replace 4-pointers that were rejected or needed modification after play testing:

Shyster...well do I have the costing right? Seems like a weak Curse attack to me, but its advantage is when the curses run out it can spam copper. Costs you a Silver every time, so it won't hold up to the 4-cost Witches. But given it goes with the theme of the expansion, what are your thoughts? I had debated make it a +2$, since this essentially helps defer the cost of losing a Silver.

Rummage...lots of cards in the set need Silver to fire or defend, so this is a simple way to get them. It's essentially a +4$ terminal play for 4 bucks, so its pretty strong (assuming the cards in the discard pile). The expansion needed some card draw and rather than create a Smithy hybrid, I went with this card instead.

Shyster is much weaker than Sea Hag. The cursing is conditioned on having Silver in hand. You trash a Silver, which usually is a good card in a cursing game. And because of the trashing, it's -1coin in total in contrast to 0 of the Sea Hag.
It can hand out Copper, so it's not strictly weaker, but I doubt I will buy it for $4. I even doubt I will buy it for free, except there really is a card that can give me lots of Silvers and get rid of curses I might get, like TradeRoute or Trader.

Rummage... +4coins for a discard basically, when it works. Compared to Counting House, that is not the strongest $5, might work...

[ChaosRed]

Shyster is much weaker than Sea Hag. The cursing is conditioned on having Silver in hand. You trash a Silver, which usually is a good card in a cursing game. And because of the trashing, it's -1coin in total in contrast to 0 of the Sea Hag. It can hand out Copper, so it's not strictly weaker, but I doubt I will buy it for $4. I even doubt I will buy it for free, except there really is a card that can give me lots of Silvers and get rid of curses I might get, like TradeRoute or Trader.

Yeah I really struggle to design Curse attacks and I wanted two in the set. It needs more, but I am unsure how to do it. If any of you have suggestions, please let me know.

Thanks for your comments.

[ChaosRed]

Three variants of Shyster, please comment if you have time:

SHYSTER 1 - 4$
ACTION - ATTACK
+1 VP
Trash a Silver or a Victory card.
If you do, each other opponent gains a Curse or a Copper (you choose).

Some justification:
There's a Victory card coming later, that specifically activates when it is trashed, not to mention of course, trashing Estates is useful. I took away the +1$ but rewarded you with +1VP, which I thought it a little more unique, as the Curse attack essentially becomes +2VP swing (while also clogging your opponent). Of course, activating the Curse is harder and narrower, so a lot of times you are just stuck with the +1VP (which isn't the worst thing in the world, but pricey at 4$).

Again, I don't think it holds a candle to Sea Hag, which is a simpler, straighter Curse attack. But it does have some additional utility. It can trim Estates early in the game, it can also be non-terminal if you choose to give up the Silver. If you can spam it, you can just accrue VP without activating the curse mechanism.

-----------------------------------------
SHYSTER 2 - 4$
ACTION - ATTACK

You may discard a Silver, if you do, all other players gain a Curse.
You may discard a Silver, if you do, +1 Action

Some justification:
This is a Hamlet-type card, that works off Silver. The first discard spreads Curses and the second discard keeps your turn going. It has danger of creating a nasty chain if your deck is narrow enough and full of Silver. But this is what makes it compelling.

--------------------------------------
SHYSTER 3 - 4$
ACTION - ATTACK

Choose one:
You may trash a Victory card, if you do, all other players gain a Curse.
or
You may trash a Treasure card, if you do, all other players gain a Copper
-----------
When you gain this card, gain a Curse.

Some justification:
I think without the self-curse mechanism the card is far too strong, but with it, I think 4$ is about right. Although IGG (which the gain mechanism copies) is priced at 5$ and Donald said this is how it wound being valued after testing, so maybe this should be worth 5$ too?

For some reason, designing a well-balanced Curse attack at 4$ is really hard for me.

[Jack Rudd]

For some reason, designing a well-balanced Curse attack at 4$ is really hard for me.

That's because Curse attacks are very strong, and usually too strong to work at $4. The two $4 Curse attacks we already have, Sea Hag and Young Witch, both have severe vulnerabilities: Sea Hag grants no benefit to the Attacker and puts the Curse on the deck, where it can be dealt with by Upgrade, Lookout or Masquerade. Young Witch requires you to put a Moat-substitute in the game, in addition to any other defences the victim may have.

[ChaosRed]

Yeah agreed, but I feel both Young Witch and Sea Hag are both very strong cards though. I usually always buy them when they are on the board.

[jonts26]

Sea Hag grants no benefit to the Attacker and puts the Curse on the deck, where it can be dealt with by Upgrade, Lookout or Masquerade.

Putting the curse on top of the deck typically increases the severity of the attack. It is only preferable for the attackee when there are a very select few kingdom cards present, three of which you mentioned.

[Newcomer]

Hmmm... These variants make me think there's a good hybrid somewhere between them that would work better, but I'm not sure what it is.

Shyster 1

I like the VP bonus, and I think tying it to a card that trashes and deals out Curses is good, because it encourages the depletion of piles.  I think this is my favorite version.

Shyster 2

I think this version is way too weak for the player. Sea Hag works at $4 with no benefit to the player, but as a curser this compounds that problem by requiring you to discard Silver. I know you have some other cards in the set that trigger on discard, but typically this means -$2 is all the player gets out of it. If you're not going to be cursing, then there's no point to playing Shyster for the +Action unless you're activating Conspirators or something like that. In order to make this a non-terminal Curser, you have to discard $4, which is a lot of coin, especially since a Silver-centric deck will be light on Golds. Also consider that it will be very hard to chain when you have to discard 2 cards each time in order to keep the chain going. Your hand's only so big, and if your deck is mostly Silver, you won't have tons of card-drawing.

I would consider tying the two options together, as in, "You may discard a Silver. If you do, +1 Action and each other player gains a Curse." I'm not sure quite how strong that is, though.

Shyster 3

My first impression is that this card isn't all that great. It's a one-card trasher that attacks your opponents when you can trash your Estates and Coppers. Silvers are a relatively neutral card, but every time you trash one, that's $2 less you have to spend that turn. So I don't see it as brokenly powerful even without the gain effect.

But I don't think I have a very good idea of how it would play, so take that with several grains of salt. It might very well be as strong as you suspect.


In the end, I guess my main thought is by trashing or discarding Silver, you're hurting your current hand, so the benefit needs to be real. When you play Shyster, you'll go from being able to afford a Gold or a $5 Action to settling for a $4 Action or a Silver. The Silvers can keep the Shyster going, but it's not getting you closer to buying a Province.  Most Attack cards give a benefit to the player other than the attack on the opponents, usually +$2 or +2 Cards. Trashing cards can be a benefit, but trashing Silvers is usually not. So I like Shyster 1 best with its VP bonus.

I like the flavor of the card. I hope it ends up as a good, balanced card. You can certainly play-test with more than one version before deciding which one to include.

[ChaosRed]

Newcomer and Jack, thanks for your feedback. I moved Rummage to beta-testing, but killed another 4-attack card based on last night's testing.

I really want two 4-cost attacks in the game, so I will keep at it until I get it right. Here are two new 4-cost attack cards. One is a Shyster variant, another is an entirely new 4-cost attack, that's kind of like Swindler. I am hopeless in getting balanced attacks right, so please do feel free to criticize. I find attack cards are the hardest to design:


If you didn't see in this thread, we played this expansion for hours last night and had a ball. This is why some 4s are being revisited (or outright removed and replaced). On aggregate though, the expansion was a LOT of fun to play and produced very tight, compelling games.

Shyster breaks two of rinkwork's guidelines, it's a non-terminal source of VP and a non-terminal  Curse attack. However, I think given the price for both the Curse attack and the +1 Action is steep, I might have gotten away with it.

[Biderman]

Ravage seems strange to me. It basically will mill out the Estate pile? I can't see it having any other effect, besides trading coppers for curses if the opp is unlucky. I can't imagine that any 2 cost is worse than having an estate.

[ChaosRed]

Ravage seems strange to me. It basically will mill out the Estate pile? I can't see it having any other effect, besides trading coppers for curses if the opp is unlucky. I can't imagine that any 2 cost is worse than having an estate.

Yeah, it turns coppers into curses and villages into some other action card worth 3 or a silver or pawns into estates. It was initially set at 4 or less, it might need to go back to that.

One thing to factor though is you lose the card in your hand and it gets replaced with a card in the discard pile. So you can, for example take two dollars out of someone's hand and replace it with a  Chancellor in the discard pile. But I do think it might need to bump up to 4.

[ChaosRed]

You are right, Ravager needs more juice here's the latest revision:


It now punishes a strong hand with a discard, or a weak hand by eliminating a card from and making him gain one of same cost. Not the greatest card, a Swindler-derivative that removes cards from people's hands.

[Newcomer]

Re: Shyster and rinkworks's guide. I think the biggest problem with +VP cards is when you can just indefinitely gain VP instead of buying cards, and end up in a state where neither player wants to end the game. You can't go on indefinitely with Shyster, because, like Bishop, you have to trash a card in order to gain VP. Eventually, you'll run out of cards. As for the curse attack, I agree, I think you've made it hard enough to activate that it's probably okay. I like this version.

Here's how I would word Ravage:

[note: I originally wrote this out before your last revision but didn't send it right away. I think it still more or less applies, though.]

"Each other player trashes a card costing $3 [now $4] or less and gains a card with the same cost that you choose, or reveals a hand with no such cards."

As for my thoughts on it. Compare to Swindler: "+$2. Each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a card with the same cost that you choose." Swindler costs $3, gives you +$2, and is not limited to cards costing $3 or less. Since you're trashing from their hand, Ravage is also a weak hand-reducing attack. Weak because you're most likely to hit Estates, Coppers, or Curses, and Coppers are the only ones you want to keep in your hand usually. Ravage is also more likely to turn a Copper into a Curse. But a) if they have more than one cheap card, they get to choose which card they lose, and b) while Swindler will always hit a card, Ravage won't.

So my thoughts are that this is probably weaker than Swindler. I'd add a benefit to the player. That can be +$2 or something else. I think the card will work with that edit. Its attack seems like a weak Swindler and a weak Militia combined, so I think $4 will still work.

[ChaosRed]

Superb change of the wording, thanks! And I'll move Shyster to beta-testing.

Here's a more radical change to Ravage, and once again my inability to design attack cards continues, I'll keep at it:

[biopower]

3 or more means that a person with three cards in hand has to discard down to 2 which is ridiculously good when chained or in combination with any other discard-down-to-3 card (it will prevent BM from ever buying Province...)

[ChaosRed]

3 or more means that a person with three cards in hand has to discard down to 2 which is ridiculously good when chained or in combination with any other discard-down-to-3 card (it will prevent BM from ever buying Province...)

Yeah, that was part of the appeal, but when you point it out, I realize its too strong. I change it to four:



What do you think now?

[Jack Rudd]

...or he gains a copy of the discarded card.

Tunnel looks like quite a strong counter to this one.

[ChaosRed]

...or he gains a copy of the discarded card.

Tunnel looks like quite a strong counter to this one.

Fixed, thanks Jack! And yeah, Tunnel kick's this cards ass if its in your hand.

[ChaosRed]

Moved Ravage to beta-testing (I hope to beta-test it later this week). The card has just four cards left to peer review. Here are the next two:


The Architect is fairly unspectacular,  one of those cards that has a lot of options, all of them fine, but none of them amazing. It works best when it can work with cards that do something when discarded, or you are running a "Gardens" type deck and turning Victories into Cantrip is somewhat useful, (although the overall effect is card negative of course). It's useful in Silver Vein decks, because a lot of times you want to get rid of Silver anyway (because you often don't want to play them, just collect them).

The Black Knight might be broken. I modeled it after IGG obviously. Initially the Curse effect came when you trashed it, (which was kind of fun), but seeing how fun IGG was, I made this variant of it. Since IGG is costed so high though, I wonder if testing will reveal this card should actually be worth 6? I wanted a fun card, where it doesn't do a whole lot, but ruin other people's hands and then you mostly want to get rid of it afterward, being rewarded when you do.

[Biderman]

I fear Ravage is now more powerful than Jester, and cheaper.

What if it was simply: Each opponent trashes a card from there hand and gains a card costing the same of your choice.

I like Black Night, but I would reword it as: "When you trash this"

[ChaosRed]

I was hoping it wouldn't be as strong as Jester, because the opponent gets to chose which card to let go. Essentially the trick to Ravage is to pick a fairly neutral card (silver), or pick one that goes contrary to the engine of your opponent (but would benefit yours). With Jester, you not only have a danger of a Curse, but you often have to watch as a Province goes into your attacker's hand while you gain that Curse.

It's an important point you make though, is losing a card in your hand, more severe than a random copy/gain attack on top of the deck? Perhaps Ravage is worth 5? That is something I am open to. I like the idea of a trash/swindle combination, that's something I need to consider.

Thank you for improving the wording on Black Knight! I'll make that adjustment and post it up tomorrow

[Biderman]

Ah, for some reason I thought you added the words"at random" before "reveals"... That would actually be a stronger Jester.

As is, its an interesting idea, though it might be a little too strong at 4, but it's not bad.

[Deadlock39]

Jester does not gain VP cards for the active player.  It only gives out the Curse.  It would be ridiculous if it could gain you a Province and Curse your opponent (or give them a Curse and an Estate).

[ChaosRed]

Jester does not gain VP cards for the active player.  It only gives out the Curse.  It would be ridiculous if it could gain you a Province and Curse your opponent (or give them a Curse and an Estate).

Yup quite right, still I think Jester is the stronger card, although I do concede that perhaps Ravage needs to be 5$...take a look, it needs to be bumped to 5$, don't you think?



Adjusted the Black Knight text, as per Biderman's suggestion...

[ChaosRed]

Moved the Black Knight and Architect to best testing and hope to beta test them later today.

Also one random utility I added for myself, was an online shuffler, to pick the board. It currently only supports this fan expansion, but will eventually support Base Set and other expansions. It's just written in VBScript, because I happen to have a small server that supports that (but not one that supports PHP or  .NET/C#). It allowed me however to write the silly thing rather fast, here it is:

Silver Lining Shuffler

A tad slow as the images load, but once your cache gets them all, it loads rather quickly. Chalk that up to a rather slow server on my end.

Also there's only 3 more cards to go, until I have a complete 25-card expansion! So I am very grateful to all of you for helping me reach the end-goal. Here's two more heavy-hitters, for the expansion, feel free to rip them apart, as I want the cards to be strong, but also balanced:


My syntax for Emporium is a bit clunky, essentially it sets a card aside (like Island) or you just discard the cards. One of the things coming up in play-testing the expansion (inter-set testing only), is that you can green up fast in Silver Lining, as there are lots of ways to mitigate the green cards in your deck. So Emporium was changed to be compatible with the theme. One early version, let you keep one of the cards, if you put the other aside. Interesting I thought, as you might put a card you kinda like aside, just to get another you need in the later rounds. I worried it was too strong though.

Also some of the more dead cards in the set, might get revised with a discard-reaction (like Tunnel but with different gains), so this complements that as well.

Argent I worry is too strong, but probably only inter-set, (where racing to buy/acquire silver is a large part of the game). But provides superb synergy with the overall expansion, so I want something like it, so feel free to critique so it is balanced, but still compatible with the overall expansion.

[Biderman]

Very cool cards! I think Ravage is indeed too strong at 4, but wasn't the point of it to have a second 4 cost attack?

Love Argent. Perfect.

Emporium could be reworded as:

Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may place one of them on your Emporium mat. Discard the rest.

[rinkworks]

Looks like two potentially solid cards here.  Emporium is an interesting mix of stuff, tough to predict exactly how it will play, or if it's priced right.  I think it's probably a good card, just not sure if it's a $5-cost or not.  Thinking it through:  If what you draw isn't anything you'd want to set aside, it kind of hurts.  "+2 Actions, +1 Buy" is only about a $2-cost card on its own.  Worse, if you didn't want to Island-away one of the two cards you drew, the cycling effect probably hurt you -- because you've probably just skipped over two cards you'd rather have had the chance to use.

If it hits, though, then it's pretty strong.  Every time you successfully Island-away a bad or unplayable card, it's kind of like adding an invisible Laboratory to your deck.  So obviously a card that lets you add an invisible Laboratory to your deck every time you play it is huge.  Are those vanilla bonuses enough compensation for the fact that it will miss sometimes?  Not sure.

It may turn out to be a situational card:  an outright bad buy in high-quality decks, but a strong one to add to a weak deck.  It's probably nice in rush strategies and cursing-without-trashing games, for example.  Probably great with Hoard.  If this is indeed how it turns out, I'd say keep the card exactly as it is.  It's a good thing if it's not useful all the time.

Argent is a tough call.  You may have noticed that WW had a similar card in his Conquest set.  It was essentially the same card without the penalty and priced at $3.  I playtested that, and it turned out to be overpowered even as a $5 card.  But your version has an interesting penalty attached to it.  I'm not convinced it's enough -- because when you use this card at all, you're probably working as hard as you can to increase your Silver density anyhow, and if you're successful at that, the penalty won't matter.  But it's worth trying.  In particular, try benchmarking it in a BM+X strategy, experimenting with buying different numbers of copies before switching to pure money.

I'd also want to try it with key combos (Trader, in particular), not that a single strong combo is necessarily a game-breaker.

[ChaosRed]

Very cool cards! I think Ravage is indeed too strong at 4, but wasn't the point of it to have a second 4 cost attack?

Yeah it was what I wanted. When it was on the board last night, both my wife and I didn't touch it, we both knew it would be like starting nuclear war. I suspect it either needs to move to 5$, or have some kind of governor/tweak put on it. I need to test it and it will become apparent.

Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may place one of them on your Emporium mat. Discard the rest.

Thanks for this, I'll change it to something similar to this, this is much cleaner.

Looks like two potentially solid cards here.  Emporium is an interesting mix of stuff, tough to predict exactly how it will play, or if it's priced right.  I think it's probably a good card, just not sure if it's a $5-cost or not.  Thinking it through:  If what you draw isn't anything you'd want to set aside, it kind of hurts.  "+2 Actions, +1 Buy" is only about a $2-cost card on its own.  Worse, if you didn't want to Island-away one of the two cards you drew, the cycling effect probably hurt you -- because you've probably just skipped over two cards you'd rather have had the chance to use.

Yeah Emporium seems like a lottery card. It's meant to help mitigate the risk of greening early, as this has become an unintended theme of the set. But I think you are right, it might be pricey at 5, and I can move it down to 4, testing will help me figure that out, but I also think you are right that it is worth testing at 5. As you told me long ago, at some point its much better to just re-cost a card rather than rethink it as a specific price. I am learning through play-testing this is precisely correct. I am also learning you need to play with the cards quite a bit to get a real handle on their value. You've been invaluable in this small project of mine rink, I am much obliged. Your advice here and in your article about creating Variants, so far, has been right on.

Argent is a tough call.  You may have noticed that WW had a similar card in his Conquest set.  It was essentially the same card without the penalty and priced at $3.  I playtested that, and it turned out to be overpowered even as a $5 card.  But your version has an interesting penalty attached to it.  I'm not convinced it's enough -- because when you use this card at all, you're probably working as hard as you can to increase your Silver density anyhow, and if you're successful at that, the penalty won't matter.  But it's worth trying.  In particular, try benchmarking it in a BM+X strategy, experimenting with buying different numbers of copies before switching to pure money.

I suspect it is too strong too. And the nice thing about testing a BM+X strategy as you suggest, is I can test it on my own, by having the opponent follow a basic algorithm, similar to what Geronimoo sets up for his simulators.

So, testing will help me figure it out. I might have to add a discard penalty. The governor on it now, is absolutely necessary for it to work I think, but even then, this card can largely make gold irrelevant and the +buy enables you to buy two silver instead of one gold, knowing this card will push you where you need to go. That's the intention of the card obviously, but I wonder if it enables the tactic a little too easily? I'll test it, but I may have overdone the focus on silver. Too many of the card complement one another in the set, but are almost useless when mixed with other sets on their own.

And while that is poor design, perhaps that's not such a terrible thing for a noobish expansion. The set is fun to play on its own (my wife and I have had a ball playing it), but probably doesn't work nearly as well when combined with the whole pantheon of real Dominion.

It's been a great exercise and I'm nearly at the end of this phase of it, which has been fun.

[ChaosRed]

Last card! This is my one and only 6$ in the set and I've worried I've overdone it:



What do you think? Is it too much? I fear that it is. Initially the governor on it was you had to gain a Victory card costing 5 or less, which might be a way to tone it down.

[ChaosRed]

Didn't get any feedback on Paladin and since I worry it is far too strong, thought I'd post up some variants to see which one I get some of you to approve. I am eager to finish this guy off, so I'll have a full 25 cards to play test with. I am hoping to play test a lot this weekend and then start to gather stats on best openings.

The idea of Paladin of course is to combo with Black Knight, essentially the Black Knight can "redeem" himself and become a Paladin, while a Paladin can recruit another Black Knight over to the cause, in hopes of him being redeemed. I am big on thematic stuff like that as you can tell. Here are the two cards together with each variant of the Paladin listed:

VARIANT 1

The strongest of the variants, Paladin can just straight up recruit a 5$ card (like a very strong Workshop). But is a stronger Workshop+2VP worth far more than 6$? I fear that it is, let alone it has a tacked-on discard effect.

VARIANT 2

We take the gain ability and we put a governor on it. Now you have to discard a card to do it. Of course, if you have two Paladins, you discard a Paladin to gain a Silver and if you gain a Black Knight, well you've just propagated another Curse to your opponents. So again, pretty strong stuff. Even without the Black Knight, gaining a Dutchy for a discard, is strong and if there is a Gardens or Silk Road on the board, so much the better.

VARIANT 3

The harshest of the variants, but perhaps the most balanced. Now you must discard a very specific card to activate the gain. And the discard removes 2$ from your hand. So essentially you get a buy of a 5$ card for 2$ this way.

Which version should I play test first? The first one is just too strong I think (compared to Nobles and Harem I think it is). Harem is a 6$ card with 2VP with a 3$ ability (silver). Nobles is a 2VP card with arguably a 4$ or 2$ ability tacked on (+3 Cards, or +2 Actions). I actually think Harem is the stronger card on most boards, but that's a separate debate. I've essentially given Paladin a secondary ability better than Feast (which is 4$), so I think I need either Variant 2 or 3.

Thoughts?

How does on cost or assess a 2VP card? Is Harem the best one invented?

[DStu]

The harshest of the variants, but perhaps the most balanced. Now you must discard a very specific card to activate the gain. And the discard removes 2$ from your hand. So essentially you get a buy of a 5$ card for 2$ this way.

I think you forgot a "when you do", also in front of "gain a Silver". Otherwise you do everything, and skip what you can't do. So if you can't discard a Silver, you gain anyway.  Also, I think technically it's also a Reaction because of the "when you discard this other than", see Tunnel.

To the power, let's see.
At the "start" of the game, before greening, you basically have a University for $6, that will give you 2vps later. Without the actions. With the additional possibiliity to give you a Silver in the situations where Tunnel gives you a Gold. Not sure, but does not need to be overpowered. For building my deck, I usually would prefer a Gold. Probably also Nobles/Harem. Might work.
I'm a little bit more concerend with the end-game power. You could gain a Duchy+1VP, the card already is worth 2VP, so that's a Province. 2 Paladins in your deck which both can grap a Duchy towards the end, and you can efford to lose the Provinces 5-3. And you still have 4 cards in hand, which might buy Duchies also.
The second one leaves you with 3 cards of your choice, the last one with a 3 with a lost silver. The last one is a lot less likely to also buy a Duchy,. On the other hand, your deck is a lot weaker with Paladin (I think) than as if you would have bought Gold, so maybe it's just fair that you can the Duchies.

[rinkworks]

I think "Discard a card" is a good thought.  Why the "If it is a Victory card..." clause, though?  Seems unnecessary to reward the accumulation of victory points with more victory points.

By the way, the third variant, as written, does not require that you discard Silver in order to activate the gain -- it just requires you to discard a Silver if you've got one.

[ChaosRed]

I think you forgot a "when you do", also in front of "gain a Silver". Otherwise you do everything, and skip what you can't do. So if you can't discard a Silver, you gain anyway.  Also, I think technically it's also a Reaction because of the "when you discard this other than", see Tunnel.

By the way, the third variant, as written, does not require that you discard Silver in order to activate the gain -- it just requires you to discard a Silver if you've got one.

Thanks for this, the card was getting crowded and I got lazy, yes most certainly needs the "if you do" clause added.

At the "start" of the game, before greening, you basically have a University for $6, that will give you 2vps later. Without the actions. With the additional possibiliity to give you a Silver in the situations where Tunnel gives you a Gold. Not sure, but does not need to be overpowered. For building my deck, I usually would prefer a Gold. Probably also Nobles/Harem. Might work.

That's interesting analysis. I think Paladin's value increases if another VP card is there for you to gain, like Gardens. In that case, in many ways its more useful than Gold. But on a board where Paladin is the only other alt-victory card, I take your point. Thanks.

I'm a little bit more concerend with the end-game power. You could gain a Duchy+1VP, the card already is worth 2VP, so that's a Province. 2 Paladins in your deck which both can grap a Duchy towards the end, and you can efford to lose the Provinces 5-3. And you still have 4 cards in hand, which might buy Duchies also.

That was part of the math of the card, Paladin+Dutchy Gain=6 VP, of course, for the price of having two greens in your hand. So if you have all Paladins in your hand and gained all Dutchies  with Paladins, you should have 16 Paladin VP, 8 Victory Tokens, 24 Dutchy points = 48 points, the same as having all 8 Provinces.

So it might be too much, as in, I might need to slow down the gain of the cards just a tad.

Great commentary, thank you.

I think "Discard a card" is a good thought.  Why the "If it is a Victory card..." clause, though?  Seems unnecessary to reward the accumulation of victory points with more victory points.

Yeah, I am starting to think a simple discard governor is a good place to start, and if it lies dead on the board, push it back up to the original design.

But in regards to your question, the idea was the math above, where Paladin+Dutchy gain is the equivalent of 1 Province. Also I wanted the VP token accrual to only be rewarded on the risk of adding more green to your hand. But, it could make the card frustrating, meaning you'd buy it in later rounds (because let's face it, you really would prefer gold). If you buy it too late though, you'll never have enough turns to get the total effect. But is it fair to just let you gain a Laboratory for a victory token? I worried that was broken. A strong, non-terminal 5, means gaining the 5$ card +1VP, at almost no-risk, (okay some risk, but minimal). I guess with the discard governor, its less of a concern though.

Also, point taken about the reaction of the discard effect. I don't have a solid image of Tunnel yet, so I could not mimic the coloring of the card or the exact title on the bottom it requires. If someone has a decent image of Tunnel, I'd be obliged if they could post it somewhere.

I need to buy you guys a beer, or a latte, or something, you have been invaluable and kind. Much, much appreciated.