Gizmo: Treasure-Attack, $4*
+$2
If you have another Attack in play, return this to its pile and each other player gains a Curse.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Rubble: Treasure, $0*
+$0
(This is not in the Supply.)
Architect: Action-Activation, $5 ★★★★★
+1 Action
When you trigger this, +3 Cards.
Bookkeeper: Action-Attack, $4 ★★★★☆
+$2
Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If it's not a Copper, they gain a Copper onto their deck.
Boom: Action-Activation, $5 ★★★★☆
Gain a Gold to your hand.
When you trigger this, gain a Copper to your hand.
Borough: Action, $4 ★★★☆☆
+2 Cards
You may play a Silver from your hand. If you did, +2 Actions.
Bursar: Action, $5 ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure from your hand. +$1 per differently named Treasure you have in play.
Cavern: Action-Victory, $6 ★★★☆☆
+1 Gem
Worth 5 VP if you have more Gems than Caverns.
Cliffside Village: Action, $4 ★★★★★
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.
Committee: Action, $4 ★★★★☆
+2 Cards
You may spend a Gem to choose one: +1 Action; or gain a Gizmo; or trash a card from your hand. Otherwise, +1 Gem and the next player chooses for you.
Consul: Action-Activation, $4 ★★★☆☆
You may trash a Treasure from your hand.
When you trigger this, you may play an Action card or Treasure from your discard pile twice.
Convoy: Action-Activation, $3 ★★★★☆
+2 Cards
You may spend a Gem for +2 Cards. Repeat as desired.
When you gain or trigger this, +1 Gem.
Excavation: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
Discard any number of cards, then draw until you have 6 cards in hand.
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.
Fabricate: Action, $5 ★★★★☆
+1 Action
Gain a Gizmo to your hand.
Foundry: Action-Reaction, $5 ★★★★☆
Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the last card you gained this turn, if any.
When you gain a card, you may play this from your hand.
Fund: Treasure-Reaction, $3 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
Choose one: +1 Gem; or you may spend a Gem for +$3.
When you discard this other than in Clean-up, you may reveal it for +1 Gem.
Gambler: Action, $3 ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Choose one: trash it; or put it into your hand and return this to the Supply.
Jeweler: Action, $3 ★★★★★
+1 Gem
Spend up to 3 Gems. If you spent…
0: Trash a card in your hand.
1: +3 Actions.
2: +1 Buy and +$3.
3: Gain an Action and play it.
Jubilee: Action, $2 ★★★★★
+2 Actions
+$2
You may spend a Gem. If you don't, return this to its pile at the start of Clean-up.
When you gain this, +1 Gem.
Knave: Action, $5 ★★★★★
Reveal your hand. Discard a card per Treasure revealed. Gain a Treasure costing up to $6 to your hand.
Middleman: Action, $4 ★★★★☆
Gain the top card of the Imports deck.
Setup: Shuffle together three unused non-Attack Action piles costing $5 face down. This is the Imports deck.
Mill Town: Action, $5 ★★★★☆
+2 Actions
Choose one: +1 Card; or play any number of Treasures from your hand and gain a card, costing exactly $1 per Treasure played.
Miner: Action, $5 ★★★★★
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you've revealed 4 cards or a Treasure. Put all of them into your hand. If you revealed 4 cards, gain a Rubble onto your deck.
Profiteer: Action, $3 ★★★★☆
+1 Buy
+$3
Each other player gains a Gizmo.
Racketeer: Action-Attack, $5 ★★★★★
+$3
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If they trashed a card, they either spend a Gem to gain it back or get +1 Gem.
Redistrict: Action, $2 ★★★★★
Return this to its pile. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it, then gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it.
Refuge: Action-Activation, $2 ★★★★★
+2 Actions
When you trigger this, +1 Buy and you may discard any number of cards for +$1 each.
Regent: Action-Activation, $3 ★★★★☆
Gain a card onto your deck costing up to $5. Put a card from your hand onto your deck, then discard your hand.
When you trigger this, trash it and gain a Duchy.
Rummage: Action, $4 ★★★☆☆
+$2
You may discard a Rubble to gain 2 Gizmos or a card costing up to $5.
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.
Spelunker: Action, $3 ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may spend up to 3 Gems to put that many of the cards into your hand. Discard the rest.
Thaumaturge: Action-Attack, $5 ★★★★★
+2 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand puts one onto their deck.
When you gain this, gain a Gizmo.
Trek: Action-Activation, $3 ★★★☆☆
Discard 2 cards.
When you trigger this, +3 Cards and +2 Actions.
Wanderer: Action, $2 ★★★★☆
+4 Cards
The player to your left gains this card.
Woodsman: Action-Activation, $4 ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
When you trigger this, +$2.
Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. You may reveal then discard a card from your hand that is not a Victory card. If you do, trash this and gain a copy of the revealed card.
Aqueduct
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Victory and Curse cards and put the rest back on top in any order.
Mercenary
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand. If you don't, trash this card. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards from his deck, discarding one that you choose and putting the other back on top.
Monopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.
Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +2 Actions; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, discard the other cards, then play the Attack card.
When you gain this, gain a Conscripts card.
Conscripts
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $0*
+$2. Trash this card. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in his hand. (This is not in the Supply.)
Tax Collector
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. +2 Coins. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand trashes a card from his hand costing 2 Coins or more (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a card costing less than it.
QuoteMonopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.
I'm debating whether this should be labeled as an Attack, since it now affects all other players instead of just the player to the left (a key reason why Possession and Tribute are not Attacks). Then again, it's a one-shot effect, and it doesn't leave junk on top like Rabble or Fortune Teller.
QuoteSurveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. You may reveal then discard a card from your hand that is not a Victory card. If you do, trash this and gain a copy of the revealed card.
I'm guessing that since this is basically the newest card in your set, it hasn't had as much playtesting as the others. Is this true? Either way, what has your testing shown about opening with Surveyor. I would guess that unless you want to gain lots of Caravans or some other spammable $4, you'd want to wait to use the one-shot Mint-that-works-on-most-Actions-but-not-Harems until you draw a spammable expensive card like Grand Market or King's Court. I'd still rather open with this than Prospector, though.
QuoteAqueduct
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Victory and Curse cards and put the rest back on top in any order.
In your previous thread, you mentioned your apprehension about this card's interaction with Ironworks. I actually like that interaction, since you can basically choose what to draw when you use IW to gain Aqueduct, assuming Aqueduct's effect resolves before Ironwork's bonus. What I don't like is how dual-type cards like Nobles and Harem are discarded as well. Have you tried a Farming Village-like wording, such as "Discard the revealed cards that are not Actions or Treasures, then put the rest back on top in any order" or "Put the revealed Action and Treasure cards back on top in any order, then discard the rest"?
QuoteMercenary
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand. If you don't, trash this card. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards from his deck, discarding one that you choose and putting the other back on top.
I have nothing to say about the card itself, which I like. My question is, is that Guts from Berserk depicted in the image?
QuoteMonopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.
I'm debating whether this should be labeled as an Attack, since it now affects all other players instead of just the player to the left (a key reason why Possession and Tribute are not Attacks). Then again, it's a one-shot effect, and it doesn't leave junk on top like Rabble or Fortune Teller.
QuoteBarracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +2 Actions; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, discard the other cards, then play the Attack card.
When you gain this, gain a Conscripts card.
Conscripts
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $0*
+$2. Trash this card. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in his hand. (This is not in the Supply.)
Yeah, without other Attacks available, I wouldn't like this as an IGG-like card. For one, IGG always helps toward buying IGGs or Duchies, especially when you have more than one in hand. The problem with Barracks in the same situation is three-fold: if you have more than one Barracks and only one Conscripts left, all but one of the Barracks are useless unless you have a good drawer; if you have just the one Barracks/Conscripts and you draw both in the same hand, Barracks is once again useless; and once all Conscripts are used, the Barracks are just super-weak Villages, which I see as worse than IGG's "weak Silver" effect, especially with Gardens in play. I still like this with other good attacks in play, though.
QuoteTax Collector
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. +2 Coins. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand trashes a card from his hand costing 2 Coins or more (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a card costing less than it.
Have you tested this against Goons? Both are $6 Woodcutters with Attacks, and I agree that Tax Collector's attack is stronger than Goons' for the most part. However, the real meat of Goons is the +VP with each Buy. I would guess that in games without good +Actions or any way to play more than one Goons at a time, Tax Collector might often be stronger. With the ability to multi-Goons, though, I doubt the efficacy of Tax Collector other than as a way to thwart some mega-Goons hands. Let us know what Goons vs. Tax Collector is like, please.
Great cards and lovely artwork! I wish this was an official expansion.Yeah, the artwork is spectacular and the cards are very interesting!
Well, he says it's a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.
Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.
Great cards and lovely artwork! I wish this was an official expansion.
Yeah, the artwork is spectacular and the cards are very interesting!
This is an interesting and great-looking expansion. Do you have any higher resolution images and/or 9-up PDFs ready for printing? I'd love to print out a set of these.
Is Mercenary really that strong? If I look at it, it seems like a worse version of Spice Merchant, since it discards the coppers instead of trashing them. Only plus being that it first draws and then you have more cards to choose from (thus more chance of there being coppers instead of silvers). Other + is obviously that you can't dead draw it, but if you have to trash it afterwards that doesn't seem like a very nice way to go.
Looking at what happens, it's either just a cantrip if you discard the copper (so it possibly makes your hand a little better) or you lose the Mercenary.
I'm not saying it's a bad card, it possibly has nice synergies with other cards, but I am not quite getting why it would be so strong.
Well, he says it's a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.
Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.
Well, I am saying that I don't see it as a very powerful $4 card, but then again, I have not play tested it and might be missing something vital. For now I'd prefer a Caravan, Moneylender, SpiceMerchant, Militia, etc. over this one. Basically it means I wouldn't start with this card for my first $4 buy (on a 3/4 split) even if there are no other good $4's. I'd rather start silver/silver.
Well, he says [Mercenary]'s a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.Spy can affect the top of your deck which I usually found to be the most beneficial thing it can do (especially with other cantrips in play). Affecting others was just a little bonus. Mercenary only affects other's decks and is trashed if you don't discard one of those Treasures that you could otherwise use.
Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.
I might say Clerk's Action is a bit too good for $2. You get the best of 3 cards and an extra $1 on the side. I might remove the $1 or lower the number of cards that are revealed.
I like Gambler-- though would probably prefer the name refer to the Gambling Hall rather than the man doing the gambling. That's semantics though. Mechanically, its effect is cute as a trasher, but it sucks as a drawer since it is a one-shot. I probably wouldn't buy it unless I wanted its trashing effects or had an extra buy and didn't need more Silver.
I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?
Surveyer is okay. +2 Cards I've always found to be a weak, nearly useless effect thrown onto cards with stronger alternate effects-- and that seems to be the case here. I'm pretty unimpressed by this card overall though. I wouldn't usually buy it-- even with a spare $3 unless there was a really good $6 Action in play that I wanted more than one of.
The price decerement supplied by Fund would rarely be worth anything. The best thing about Bridge is decreasing the price of what you want to buy to nothing so that you are limited by your buys rather than your coins, but Fund can only decrease prices by $1 on its own (which is to say, it would only be worthwhile if Bridges and Highways were in play). I'd only maybe buy one if I needed a Silver and had $4, but I can't think of any scenarios that Fund's effect would be anywhere near as useful as Bridge's or Highway's.
Monopoly sounds like one of those luck-based Kingdom Cards I would veto constantly. Its ability to trash cards from the Supply is something I'd like to play with though...
Barracks might be more useful if Conscripts wasn't gained, but could be purchased while Barracks was in play (and perhaps Conscripts are returned to their Supply instead of being trashed). As it is, I wouldn't pay $5 for Barracks unless a different, better Attack was in play. And now that I think about it, adding a +$1 to it might not be all that bad. Imagine a Market without a +Card... yeah, it has +$2 instead and is called Festival.
Well, he says [Mercenary]'s a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.Spy can affect the top of your deck which I usually found to be the most beneficial thing it can do (especially with other cantrips in play). Affecting others was just a little bonus. Mercenary only affects other's decks and is trashed if you don't discard one of those Treasures that you could otherwise use.
Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.
It looks to me like a weaker Stables with a Spy-like effect thrown on top.
I might say Clerk's Action is a bit too good for $2. You get the best of 3 cards and an extra $1 on the side. I might remove the $1 or lower the number of cards that are revealed.
I agree that the Action effect might be a touch too powerful. I might nerf it back down to looking at the top 2 cards of your deck rather than the top 3. The thing is that the reaction effect is useful, but slow. I wanted to give the action effect a bit more kick to compensate. At one time the reaction effect trashed down to 3 cards in hand, but I thought that would be too constricting. If there were some concise way to word Clerk such that upon revealing it you were allowed to trash any number of cards from your hand as long as you didn't dip below 3 cards in hand, I would go for that.
The most semantically correct and concise method I can think of acquiring your effect is invoking the infinite-reveal clause and abusing that. "When another player plays an Attack card and you have 4 or more cards in your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand."
I feel like something similar might happen with Clerk:...and anything you can do with two copies of a Reaction in hand you can do with one copy of a Reaction in hand.
- You have 4 cards in hand, including two Clerks. Someone plays an attack.
- Both Clerks are triggered.
- You reveal one Clerk and trash a card.
- Now you have less than 4 cards in hand, but you may still reveal the other Clerk, since it has already been triggered (and you merely chose to reveal the other one first).
I feel like something similar might happen with Clerk:...and anything you can do with two copies of a Reaction in hand you can do with one copy of a Reaction in hand.
- You have 4 cards in hand, including two Clerks. Someone plays an attack.
- Both Clerks are triggered.
- You reveal one Clerk and trash a card.
- Now you have less than 4 cards in hand, but you may still reveal the other Clerk, since it has already been triggered (and you merely chose to reveal the other one first).
I'm not sure this is right since reactions do not trigger automatically, but are chosen to be revealed (think about what happens when you have both secret chamber and moat.) If this is the case, you resolve each one sequentially, so only 1 card can be trashed.
"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."
I'm pretty sure that works.
What if Barracks scouted for attack cards instead of searching for them? Then you could combine the + actions and the + card and sketchy players couldn't cheat the system. Even if there is no other attack card, it's still a 5$ village which curses once.
Barracks: +1 card / +2 actions, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Place any revealed attack cards into your hand, and discard the rest. :: When you gain this, gain a conscripts.
I say discard the non-attack cards instead of placing them back on the deck for balance reasons, if you could use it to set up a draw chain it would be way too effective.
*Edit* I'm keeping that idea up for discussion, but I realized that as is in certain trashing heavy games, or with scrying pool, (don't even imagine ambassador) that card as suggested is way too good.
Honestly just make it "+1 card / +2 actions, when you gain this card gain a conscripts." It might be a little boring, but it's balanced and never useless in a kingdom set.
I like fund, one shot gold is never bad. However, you might want to restrict the +buy to only when you trash it, otherwise it blows woodcutter out of the water. Did you have problems in playtesting if it's effect stacked with itself? The upshot of bridge is that you can use it to buy more of itself rapidly, but with fund you can't, since you trash it in the process. It might be slow enough that without other sources of income massing lab/fund isn't automatically a winning strategy.
Cathedral appears to be godly powerful at first glance. Its 1 card draw short of embassy, a card so good it gives your opponent silvers when you buy it. And it even trashes instead of discarding your crap cards! If you want, you can even move money to your next hand if you've gone over 8$. Yikes. Ironically, making it trash more and courtyard more would be really cool. What about "+4 cards, trash up to 4 cards from your hand and place your hand on top of your deck in any order?"
I'm sorry if I'm completely changing how you wanted these cards to be played, but I'm a bit tired and fairly inspired by what you have here. :)
Many thanks for your work on this set! I'll be printing it out and trying it this weekend.
As I was downloading the images, I did notice that the title text "Gambler" on the gambler.png images has some aliasing (jaggies), unlike all of the other cards, which are very smooth. This is the case with both the low and hi-res versions of that card. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to fix it.
In our first game, the initial buys centered around Mercenary which was a popular buy. But the standout card was Cathedral, which made for a rather quick game, though one with interesting decisions about which cards to put back.
Also in that game, Monopoly also allowed one player to get an early gold which helped him to a victory. I do think that Monopoly can lead to some high variance depending on when it is bought. It is easier to predict things early on, but you might draw it right after a reshuffle when it's harder to guess the cards coming up. We quickly discovered that it did synergize well with Mercenary. Once I left a better card on top of the deck with Mercenary so that the Monopoly that immediately followed was guaranteed to hit.
Clerk didn't seem to be too effective a reaction, at least with the attacks that we were using (from this expansion). The ability to trash one or two cards is not always that helpful when the attack itself (e.g. Tax Collector) is going to trash a card worth 2 or more. It generally left a pretty worthless hand at the end.
Gambler was another card that didn't seem to have much impact on the game. Bought early on, it generally led to trashing a card or two before getting trashed itself when it ran into something of value. It didn't seem very worth buying later in the game. So it was probably the most "meh" card of the entire set.
In the second and third games we removed Cathedral, which allowed Inventor to really shine. Careful use of the card allowed for some very finesse endgames (e.g. Platinums trashed for the benefit of Colonies to clinch a win).
Surveyor seemed interesting, but the one time I bought it and used it it matched up with my hand full of Silver, instead of my hand with the Platinum, but I triggered it anyway just to get it out of my deck... Another player bought one and used it three times without using the self-trash effect. So, it didn't do much for us, but perhaps we didn't really try to make it work...
The Barracks and Conscripts combo was used to good effect in the second game, paired with the Tax Collector to ensure that attack got played many times, leading to my only victory of the night. We were using the Hero card that game, which happens to allow you to gain a prize (from Cornucopia) if you have two Curse cards in hand when you play it! So this actually made me avoid playing the second Conscript in one situation since it potentially could set up the Hero perfectly with gaining a curse in hand. So the change you just made to Conscript to make it a regular gain seems wise.
Hmm, it's interesting to hear that Cathedral was so powerful. I'll have to do some more playtesting and see if the card needs to be toned down. Did you use the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, or the version that gained two? Did the trashing even get used much?
Monopoly is one of the cards in the set that I'm least happy with. I like the card concept, but I can't really decide how to balance it. Did it ever not gain a Gold when played?
Clerk is the other card I'm not yet happy with. Mostly I need a better action effect. As for the reaction piece and its use against Tax Collector, the idea was that Clerk would allow you to trash a Copper or Curse, after which Tax Collector would be unable to hurt you. Did you play that Tax Collector only hit if the victim had 5 or more cards in hand?
Yeah, there's no point to buying Gambler after the first few turns. It's definitely an early game card.
Hopefully Inventor is not too powerful.
Maybe Surveyor is underpowered as is, though.
We used the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, and the trashing was definitely used in every case. I don't think the card is too powerful. I think it is just a solid card and some of the other cards might not be powerful enough. It definitely works well with a money-based strategy, similar to how Courtyard works well with money.
I was trying to figure out an easy way to allow the purchasing of additional Cathedral tokens for more money when you buy the Cathedral (i.e. spend another coin (or two?) when purchasing the Cathedral to get another token with it). It could make for an interesting choice between getting a Gold at 6 or getting a Cathedral with 2 trash tokens... Might be worth trying.
I failed to gain a Gold with it when I played it. I think that happened at least one other time. The problem is that if you fail to get a gold with it, it is a significant setback, since it is a one-shot card that costs four and is then gone. To me it was more of a gamble than Gambler (bigger gain when you succeed, bigger loss when you fail). Perhaps make the self-trashing conditional on guessing correctly?
We also didn't think that it lived up to its name, since trashing one card from the supply doesn't significantly affect the supply. Also, it is rare that any one player would buy very many of them, since its main use is to get a Gold earlier on in the game and its utility decreases later on (plus it can be a bit harder to guess the Kingdom card later on).
You could change the text below the line to read "When you buy this or trash this..." so that you get two opportunities to trash from the supply per Monopoly, rather than one.
I agree that the action effect of Clerk is not very good/interesting. Perhaps you could also let the person choose to leave one of the three cards on top of the deck? It seems kind of thematic, shuffling papers around on a desk, from the inbox to the outbox...
As an early game card, I don't find Gambler to have a stronger effect than, say, Masquerade or other good cost 3 openers that have a bit of trashing. And I think its effect should be stronger than a Masquerade, since you're only going to get to play Gambler a few times before you're "forced" to trash it.
It also doesn't "feel" like a Gambling card, since the only gamble is whether or not it will get trashed. I usually think of gambling in association with a chance to make a lot of money, and getting the silver or other (fairly early-game) buy that I don't want to trash just isn't that big of a reward.
To beef Surveyor, how about gaining the card on top of your deck? It seems like it would be fair to get to play it next turn, since you don't get to play it this turn as you have to discard it. You also might want to bump the cost up to 4 with that change since it might compare too favorably to Mint, for instance.
These are amazing cards. I love them!
I'm not sure why aqueduct costs 4 and not 3. It is not clear to me anyway that the effect of aqueduct is more powerful than tunnel. Probably this is a very minor point because the number of situations in which you would actually want to buy aqueduct in most games is limited to endgame, and in those situations rarely does the difference between a 3-cost victory card and a 4-cost victory card matter. However this could come up in the context of a gardens/silk rush, in which case aqueduct is more reasonably costed and much more useful at 3. (unless you argue that its one time effect is so powerful that it automatically merits 4 -- but this strikes me as a weak argument).
Inventor is correctly costed at 5 since it is strictly better than smithy. That said, it seems a somewhat weak 5. I realize that you have been twiddling with inventor but I'm not sure it "fits" quite yet. As you know 5s are the premier level of actions in dominion. This card is something I would envision buying probably only if a) i need drawing power and there is no other viable alternative in the spread or b) by chance if i hit 5 and there is nothing else that i really want. Its remodel effect is potentially helpful, but that you can only use it once makes it exclusively an endgame card. That means that if there are other drawers at 5 I would never buy this thing -- i would take rabble over inventor probably 100% of the time and i think rabble's attack is very weak.
I think barracks could option into a village, but that it is fine as it is. The exact effect of the option seems very unimportant to balancing it, because the real point of the card is the ability to just play an attack from your deck.
Perhaps you could improve Inventor by making it a one-shot Expand instead of Remodel? That might be too powerful though.
Aqueduct, on the other hand, is almost always an endgame card. If you compare it to Tunnel, you should be comparing it to endgame Tunnel. Endgame Tunnel is 2 VP for $3. Endgame Aqueduct is 2 VP plus a bonus for $4. Seems correct to me.
OK, here's a new, slightly altered version of Inventor:
Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Discard one and draw the rest. You may trash this card immediately. If you do, trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
Well done. In Mill Town, you've finally created a card that would make me want a Counting House.
These are all really good!
I haven't had a chance to play with any of these cards, but they certainly look great. I like your designs -- novel, but not unnecessarily complex.
Also, the artwork is incredible. Where did you get it? Did somebody on the forum make those pictures for you?
Clerk's reaction seems very very powerful. If you start Chapel, you might trash four cards and buy a Silver over turns 3 and 4. Clerk can get that all accomplished in one hand! And the Silver will be on top of the deck! I'm not saying that's bad necessarily, for a card to scare people away from Sea Hag.
Hmm. Also, Cathedral big money looks really really really powerful. It's a one-time trasher (that is almost guaranteed to blow 2 Estates) and the best of both worlds in Smithy and Courtyard. A Cathedral - Nothing start is likely super strong.
I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?
Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.
I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?
Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.
First of all, nice mini-set utilizing the one-shot theme!
One thing I thought of when reading the cards:
I don't think your concern about gaining too many cards with Mill Town and running out piles should be limited to just $2 cards. I think Mill Town would be a go-to card a lot of the time.
For instance, have you played any Mill Town - Tactician - terminal draw games? Goal: get a a deck of 2 Tacticians, 8 Coppers, and as many Mill Towns and Smithies as possible (making sure #Smithies < # Mill Towns at all times). Mill Town's gain and your normal buy should accomplish this very quickly. Then double Tac and reveal 8 Coppers for Provinces. I played this solitaire for two games and exhaused the Province pile on turn 11 in game 1 and turn 10 in game 2. Contested, the Mill Town and Smithy pile would run out extremely quickly.
I was thinking about a couple of different ways to reign in Mill Town if you were inclined:
1) Put a clause in the text so that you cannot gain Mill Towns with Mill Towns (and remove the at least 3 Coppers clause) because my feeling is that more problems arise from quickly getting too many Mill Towns than running out a $2 pile.
OR
2) Change "discard a card" to "discard a Copper or reveal a hand without Coppers," reducing the power of multiple gains.
I just found out that maybe Exchange has a problematic wording: Trash this .... For each trashed card gain ... Does this mean that I get $7 card?
One question: Isn't BigMoney + Inventor (where you always buy it at $5 and maybe sometimes at $6) very strong strategy?
Well, I believe that the proper way to compare it with BM/Smithy is to buy one Smithy and then Inventors after that. I think this hybrid should beat both BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor.
Well, I believe that the proper way to compare it with BM/Smithy is to buy one Smithy and then Inventors after that. I think this hybrid should beat both BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor.
Really? Why? That assumes that Smithy and Inventor are always going to be on the same board. Even if it ends up being a powerful combo, I don't think that says much about Inventor's power in a vacuum.
Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 CoinsSo it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards
I played with Inventor several times in my group, and basically any board with +2 actions would yield Inventor extremely powerful, such that it was almost a better investment than some of the best $5s in the game.
I think the power level of the card could be adjusted by having the Inventor set back on top of your deck instead of off to the side, because basically as written you wind up with a card advantage on the following turn (6 cards instead of 5) and you can continue to set it aside forever at no opportunity cost whatsoever if you don't get the +actions draw that you need.
What would you think of this?QuoteInventor - Action - Cost: 5 CoinsSo it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards
Haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, so not sure if this has been discussed... just wondering if you've had a chance to test these along side Graverobber or Rogue. It seems to me that one-shots in general may be more powerful when there is the possibility of getting them back.
I suggest you change up Clerk a bit, the action part is a bit too similar to Scavenger. Maybe it's fine though.
Are you really worried, my version would be a bit confusing? Do you mean it serious? I mean Possession with Dark Ages cards could be very confusing but to look if there is another Inventor in hand isn't more confusing as a Shanty Town.What would you think of this?QuoteInventor - Action - Cost: 5 CoinsSo it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards
I appreciate the suggestion! However, I'm worried that it's a bit confusing and I can't think of a rewording that would really simplify it. However, I will definitely keep it on the table as an option.
Currently, I'm considering two other ways to nerf the card.
Option 1 (Polatrite's suggestion):
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action and put this on top of your deck.
Option 2:
Choose one: +3 Cards; or set this aside, returning it to your hand at the start of your next turn.
Right now I'm leaning strongly toward Polatrite's version. It has some weirdness in that you could play the same Inventor multiple times in a turn, but now that I think about it, Procession/Fortress does that too. With that change, multiple Inventors can collide, because if you put one back on your deck, you'll just draw it dead with the other one. However, you could put them both back and hope there's a village in the three other cards you draw next turn. The more I think about it, the more I like the strategy it could create. I just hope it's still strong enough to be a decent $5 card with this nerf.
Anyhow, I'm thinking of replacing the top half with a card idea I came up with a while ago, which I called Valet.
Clerk/Valet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. For each one, in either order, choose one: draw it; or +$1 and put it back.
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.
How does that strike you? Now that it has the trashing reaction, it's even more like a variation of Steward. The +Cards and +Coins part is much more versatile, but it can only trash when an Attack is played. Weird.
Anyhow, thanks again everybody for your encouragement and feedback!
Are you really worried, my version would be a bit confusing? Do you mean it serious? I mean Possession with Dark Ages cards could be very confusing but to look if there is another Inventor in hand isn't more confusing as a Shanty Town.
There would be only four different possibilities:
1. You have only one Inventor and no other action card in hand. You can play it, and possibly draw cards dead or you can reveal your hand (no other Inventor there) set the card aside und get the action back which has sadly no use (only for Diadem maybe ;) )
2. Same as 1. but you have another action card in hand and can play it.
3. You have more than one Inventor in hand and also other action cards. You can choose +3 cards or set only one Inventor aside and cannot play another action card or you can think if it's more worthwhile to play another action card first.
4. Same as 3. but only Inventors in hand. You can set aside only one Inventor and cannot play another. Or play an Inventor like a Smithy.
I think this is really easy and it would be fun to think about playing it mostly productive. This would definitly be a 5 cost card cause the possibility to set aside more than one is still there and you can get more than 5 cards at beginning of your turn.
At Polatrite's version I don't know why I should put more than one or two of it on top of my deck. It more and more decreases the chance of getting it together with a 'village'. If there isn't a way to get more than 1 action then a carddraw after putting Inventors on top would make absolutly no sense and no fun. For example Inventor and CanTrip in hand. The only wise would be playing the CanTrip first then the Inventor to put it on top (otherwise draw dead problem). The other way around you would draw the Inventor instead of a new card, not a good move. The costs for this version would probably be at 4.5, a weak 5. Option 2 would also be too weak and not really fun.
Anyhow, I'm thinking of replacing the top half with a card idea I came up with a while ago, which I called Valet.
Clerk/Valet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. For each one, in either order, choose one: draw it; or +$1 and put it back.
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.
How does that strike you? Now that it has the trashing reaction, it's even more like a variation of Steward. The +Cards and +Coins part is much more versatile, but it can only trash when an Attack is played. Weird.
Anyhow, thanks again everybody for your encouragement and feedback!
I'm concerned that this reaction is too strong. The problem with very strong attack reactions is you having this makes me not want to buy attacks in the first place, and then your cool reaction ability never happens, so you won't want to buy this card.
I don't think Clerk needs to have its ability changed from "Gain a Silver. TopDeck a discarded card". If anything, a discard should be required when using the trash any number reaction.
I had a trash reaction in mind for a card; I didn't use it because I had seen Clerk, but that reaction was set itself aside and 1 trash. It got your hand size down to 3 for Militia, Ghost Ship, etc.
Maybe 'confusing' is the wrong word. It's more like, if a card gives you two options, it seems…weird to me that if you choose one option, you then reveal your hand and it's like, "Oops! You can't do that option after all." I mean I understand how the card works. If you have another Inventor in your hand, you just wouldn't choose that option. Like if there are no other Action cards in your hand, you wouldn't play Gravedigger for the trash-and-gain option. So it's not unprecedented. It just seems awkward to me. I think 'awkward' is a better word for how I feel about it than 'confusing'.Now you understand it. 8) I think the card text cannot be clearer. If there is a 'Choose one' all until the 'or' is the first option, then the rest until the next 'or' is the second option and so on. If you cannot set aside one Inventor if there are other Inventors in hand it would be really dumb. Such a thing I wouldn't put on a card. Trust me, I have some experience in card design. I only want to limit the too easy way to put all aside for the next turn without thinking.
Actually, now that I look at the card and your description again, I realize that I didn't understand how it worked. So if you choose the set aside option and reveal an Inventor, you still set it aside, but you don't get the +1 Action? It wasn't clear to me which parts of the instructions would happen under which circumstances.
I really appreciate the idea, don't get me wrong. It's possible that the card will end up incorporating this idea. I just have concerns about it.
Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards
Maybe it's better to switch at the first option like this:Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
or
+3 Cards
or completely switch the options:Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
+3 Cards
or
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
But then someone maybe could think that the reveal counts for both options.Would it be OK if I adopted it? I'd at least like to test it out.
When placing it "anywhere" in your deck, does that mean you get to see your deck?
What happens if I gain a Nomad Camp using Exchange? Where does it go? Exchange says that the gained card goes to my hand, while Nomad Camp says that it goes to the top of my deck.
Edit: As a related issue, if you gain an Inn directly to your hand, does that mean you cannot shuffle it into your deck? It's a little ambiguous in Inn's text, since it says to look through your discard pile for actions "(including this)", since ordinarily when you gain the Inn it will be in your discard pile. It seems like if Exchange gains directly to your hand, then when you gain an Inn you'd be able to shuffle in your other actions, but not this new Inn, since it's an action in your hand, and not in fact an action in your discard pile.
Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.
Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.
Looks like a good improvement. Especially removing the choose two from Conscripts. However, now that Barracks allows you to pick up two Conscripts, have you considered how many Conscripts the game should have?
I'd suggest more than 10. Maybe not 20, since they to return to the Conscripts pile with every use. 15 might be good.
as well as being the first +2 actions attack.
Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.
Looks like a good improvement. Especially removing the choose two from Conscripts. However, now that Barracks allows you to pick up two Conscripts, have you considered how many Conscripts the game should have?
I'd suggest more than 10. Maybe not 20, since they to return to the Conscripts pile with every use. 15 might be good.
I'm designing this like a real 150 card set, so it will be either 15 or 16, depending on whether I end up using a card to mark the banned pile for my current version of Boycott. During playtesting, I've been using 16 copies.
You could use the boycott randomiser as the boycott pile.
Also as posted in another thread, have you considered putting +2 actions on Enforcer or Exchange? With Enforcer, there'd be an interesting thing with it being a highly unstable engine piece, as well as being the first +2 actions attack.
Exchange having +2 actions means that you can gain 2 terminal actions and play them both that turn. Very justifiably a $5 oneshot. It also definitely looks like a +2 actions kind of place in the artwork.
Tax collector seems like a much better Pillage (not a oneshot, trashes instead of discards, +$2) because it will usually be a very helpful card that's being trashed. Early game it will be their best card, while late game there'll have to be important greening related tradeoffs.
Perhaps make the cheaper card go on top of the deck to give the affected opponent some strategic opportunities. Thematically it would be like giving THEM a oneshot.
15 has the advantage of matching Spoils, also.
*Clerk seems a bit too similar to Scavenger, but I guess the fact that you don't do a Chancellor effect makes it more similar to Bureaucrat and still interesting. Might be a bit weak for $4; I'd suggest making the gain more flexible but then it's stepping on Armory's turf. The reaction is the card's real power though; it may even be stalemate inducing. I pity the man who decides to build a Scrying Pool deck, only to seriously enable you to build your own much faster. Have you considered "trash this and any number of cards from your hand", or making it a discard reaction?
*Perhaps you could make Conscripts more like Spoils and give multiple cards the power to gain them? It doesn't seem like there's much room though. A card with room for "when you trash this, gain a Conscripts" is Inventor, and it could work thematically (the inventor was out of the job, so he got drafted into the army). Gambler may also have room for something (in terms of words on the card), and that card could do with something to make it more meaningful than a harmless early game trasher. It would need a "Hermit"/"Urchin" sort of clause though, and the card's beauty is in its simplicity.
*For tracking reasons (as well as to give it a bit of a boost for the "miss the reshuffle" power), perhaps set the Floodgate aside as well when you gain it?
EDIT: Mind you, Gambler would be the only non terminal trasher in Dominion that doesn't decrease your hand size
Also the OP has the old version of Conscripts, and is inconsistent about whether inventor has +buy.
I think giving Inventor a when trash Conscripts just helps shoehorn it into the original (one-shot) theme much better, and when trash effects on powerful cards seem mostly arbitrary anyway.
One last thought: Gambler's got the same issue as Wishing Well in that most of the top deck related combos (eg Spy) don't work to ensure safe trashing. Perhaps you could reverse the effects (gamble first, then draw)? I always found that aspect of Wishing Well frustrating. EDIT: Mind you, Gambler would be the only non terminal trasher in Dominion that doesn't decrease your hand size, and one of very few trashers in general (along with Masquerade and potentially JOAT) that doesn't decrease your hand size. Perhaps it's too strong if you can combo it with every top deck related card, but those cards aren't particularly strong in most cases, and you're also forgoing the useful effect of cards like Spy (discarding the junk for sifting) for this potential combo.
I've also printed out new cards for Tax Collector (with putting the gained card on deck), Floodgate (with setting aside the Floodgate), Boycott (with one Boycott pile instead of three), and Exchange (with +2 Actions), but won't update the OP until I've tested out those changes. I'll be without internet access from the 10th to the 17th, but I hope to get some playtesting done over that period. NoMoreFun, thanks again for the various suggestions!
I've also printed out new cards for Tax Collector (with putting the gained card on deck), Floodgate (with setting aside the Floodgate), Boycott (with one Boycott pile instead of three), and Exchange (with +2 Actions), but won't update the OP until I've tested out those changes. I'll be without internet access from the 10th to the 17th, but I hope to get some playtesting done over that period. NoMoreFun, thanks again for the various suggestions!Awesome. This is by far my favorite fan-made expansion.
What was the change to Boycott? I don't recall seeing a post about it.
You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.
You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)
I'd like to see barracks playtested with the conscripts gain used every single time. "+1 action, gain 2 Golds" is obviously too strong for $5, and I'm not convinced that delaying it reshuffle is bad enough to make it balanced, especially considering there's a curse being given. If the bonus is just +$3 then at least there may be a reason not to play your Conscripts immediately. Maybe tether the action to the draw (or even make it +2 actions again with this link)
Market Square: Once Intrigue had the top half. By the time I was working on Intrigue for publication, it didn't seem worth a slot. I brought it back here because I needed a simple top for the reaction. Before that I tried the reaction paired with Fool's Gold's top.
Originally the reaction was, you could trash this to gain a Gold when one of your cards was trashed. Time has shown that gaining a Gold is not as awesome as it looks (btw spoilers), and I eventually got around to testing the stronger version that made it into the set.
You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.
I like that idea. Or, and this is just off the top of my head, you could add one extra pile per player, picked by each player, and initially mark those piles as not yet in the kingdom.
It would be a sort of anti-veto.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)
Holy cow, can I get a King's court with that please! 3 Golds, opponents get 3 curses, and I can play 3 attack cards from my hand! AWESOMEST CARD EVER!
You need wording like madman: Return this to the Conscripts pile. If you do... Maybe add a vanila bonus of +1 something just to make up for not being able to KC/TR/Prosesion it.
The closest existing card to Conscripts is Marauder. It gives a curse instead of a ruins, and instead of being a permanent card that gives a temporary gold it's a temporary card that gives a permanent gold. The non terminal thing is a nice bonus but probably won't come up that often.
Also I've brought it up a lot, but if Inventor had a different name, the when trash Conscripts wouldn't seem forced at all. It wouldn't seem any more forced than Catacombs, Cultist or Hunting Grounds anyway. Having an entire kingdom sized pile for one card does stick out a lot in a small box. Dark ages could get away with having 20 Rats, but that's because it gets compared to all the other large expansions and comes out on top. Tournament prizes are 5 unique cards, and Potion's necessary for 10 cards in Alchemy. When trash conscripts on "Inventor" would just add a little bit. Also if there are balance issues, a when gain conscripts bonus could work.
I'll be sorry to see Boycott go, but I can see why it's tough to make work.
Any ideas what will replace it?
How bout exploring other vanilla for boycott:
+$2, +2 Actions
Now a weak Festival/ Actiony Silver.
Edit: Actually how about something like "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are Actions or Treasures, play one of them. Discard the rest."
With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.
It just seems like an interesting quirk.
EDIT 2: I also glossed over the concern for Clerk's power in countering Scrying Pool decks. An alternative suggestion is to set aside Clerk and trash exactly 1 card from your hand upon getting attacked instead of trashing any number of cards. This still turns discard attacks into a net benefit and also soft counter Curse-givers but not to an extreme extent. I just think that being able to trash your entire hand in response to an attack is really swingy. Compare to Trader, where revealing it in response to a Curse-giver is not so amazing.
So how does this version look?
First, it would have to be a lot more wordy and I'm worried about space on the physical card.
As far as countering Scrying Pool decks specifically, I'm not really concerned about interactions with a single card (see Mill Town/Tactician) unless they create rules ambiguities, are able to shut a player out of the game, or are absurdly powerful combos that you can build without relying on your opponents. If Clerk's presence means players don't buy Scrying Pool, so be it. There are plenty of games where Scrying Pool is dominant.
"Set this aside" and "a card" versus "reveal this" and "any number of cards" seems like a wash to me. It does take a little bit of extra text to instruct the player to return the card to hand.
It doesn't actually counter SP decks in the traditional sense. SP decks benefit from the Clerk trashing as well. In any case, if you do find some combination that is really strong with the current version of Clerk's reaction, the modified version should mitigate it.
With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.I kind of like that. Although, if the revealed Action was also a Reaction, then you *could* discard the Tunnel. Actually, I quite like the card in general, because it doesn't quite match any existing card and it looks like one of those cards that's hard to use right, but powerful when you do.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.
It just seems like an interesting quirk.
With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.I kind of like that. Although, if the revealed Action was also a Reaction, then you *could* discard the Tunnel. Actually, I quite like the card in general, because it doesn't quite match any existing card and it looks like one of those cards that's hard to use right, but powerful when you do.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.
It just seems like an interesting quirk.
Those are amazing *__*
I didn't think i could like a one-shot theme but these are fantastic. My only concern is that Boycot should not be able to remove itself from the supply... Also, where did you get the Artwork from?
With Convocation in the set there'll be 3 Lab variants, as well as Inventor which sort of occupies the same space. I like the card but if you can get Boycott to work it will really fit in with the set, as it is definitely all about the long term strategy considerations.
One card that seems missing in a thorough one shot/instant vs delayed gratification expansion would be a card of this form:
Card:
Effect 1
(You may) trash this
---
When you trash this, Effect 2
You can play the card, but you may want to play it with a good TFB card instead, or you could use it in a pinch with an early game trasher. I don't know where it would fit (possibly on "fund") but if you do end up going for the large expansion, that would be something to consider.
Profiteer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. For each Treasure trashed this way, +$1.
When you gain this, each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
Here's Conscripts, for easy reference:
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)
Basically i think the attack hurts too little compared to the benefit it gives hit players. I mean, it's a Thief, and Thief is not among the worst 4$ cards for no reason. I don't even know if i would ever care to Moat this... Free Gold and an attack at the expense of - in the worst case - another Gold? Hell, yeah.
I think you're misreading the card. Opponents only gain a Conscripts when you gain a Profiteer, not when you play it. You couldn't Moat that part even if you wanted to.
Basically i think the attack hurts too little compared to the benefit it gives hit players. I mean, it's a Thief, and Thief is not among the worst 4$ cards for no reason. I don't even know if i would ever care to Moat this... Free Gold and an attack at the expense of - in the worst case - another Gold? Hell, yeah.
I think the Profiteers buff that you should consider first is looking at the top 3 cards for treasures instead of 2.
If you do a discard-junk card, you can make it more versatile with a Vagrant-like clause.
Another way to make it more versatile is to make it "non-Copper" or "non-Treasure" so that those other card types can be used without calling them out specifically.
- I had discarding victory cards for +$2 each. It started out at $4, went up to $6, moved to Hinterlands, then was dropped for not being interesting enough.
Boycott
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may move the Boycott marker to a Kingdom card pile.
------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Put the Boycott marker on the Province pile. The pile with the Boycott marker is not part of the Supply. Cards in that pile cannot be bought or gained.
Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may discard a card that is not a Victory card. Gain a copy of it.
Tax Collector
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand reveals a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand of all Copper). He discards it or puts it on top of his deck, your choice.
Chiming back in to state: This is my favorite fan expansion.
I love the one-shot theme. Lots of people don't like one-shots (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion"), but I think the conditional one-shot nature of the set gives a brand of tactical thinking that Dominion doesn't usually employ.
This is the only fan set that I have (as of yet) considered putting onto a table with my friends. (Unfortunately, most of them are more apt to playtest the cards they know I have made than other people's, so they haven't come up yet. I'm working on it.)
I really liked the old Surveyor. +2 Cards is usually a pretty weak effect, so I don't usually feel so bad about trashing it to get something much better. I think that putting the card on top of your deck could be a cool idea since then the card you're duplicating doesn't have to miss the shuffle. I think giving it that ability and keeping it as a one-shot would still keep it reasonable at $2.
Mill Town is still my favorite card of the set. It is a wonderful melding of Village and Workshop. I could see it being particularly powerful in a game with a good engine.
Clerk's action effect is pretty boring. I mean, $4 cards can't all be winners, but I would try to get its effect to be a little stronger than it currently is. How about "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2"? Being able to hunt one card deeper would make its deck re-ordering a lot more interesting. I love the flavor of the reaction, as it makes it really strong against Cursers.
Enforcer is my least favorite card of the set. I've played with Attacks like this before and I find the effect is actually pretty underwhelming, particularly since this card is a cantrip that hinders your hand more often than it helps it. The effect for yourself is cool. I like it. My issue is that the Attack effect is not strong enough for its effect for you. What if it could force players to discard a card from a selection from their hand and then draw a card but wouldn't force them to discard anything (in case they had a hand full of junk)?
Something like "Each other player reveals 3 cards from his hand. He discards one that you choose and then draws a card or keeps them (your choice)." This would allow it to synergize in mean ways with cards that decrease hand-size.
Furthermore, trashing it usually feels bad. Maybe its Attack could occur "When you play this or trash this" in line with Noble Brigand's method of two ways to get its effect.
The card's name is also pretty weak though it is a casuality of Dark Ages. Could it possibly be Sheriff or Marshal?
Exchange's one-shot double Remodel to hand is cool, but at the same time, it will likely be hard to use it as intended (gaining and playing Actions), particularly if it is the only source of +Action. Is there any way it could sometimes not trash itself when you play it? Maybe it could be used as a non-terminal Remodel or its one-shot option to double Remodel to hand.
Exchange
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it. You may spend a trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you gain this, take 2 trade tokens.
Fund seems powerful. I am thankful that its +Buy makes trashing it an interesting decision (oh, and I love that you get to keep a Silver afterwards. Feodum could possibly love this). In fact, without that +Buy I would say it's a boring card that just accelerates into Gold, but since that +Buy is there it encourages building engines and other cool combos built out of cheap buys.
Inventor is clever, though it isn't a one-shot. Being able to tuck it away to get it to collide with what I want (or even when I draw multiples together) is an awesome effect. My only complaint is that "Inventor" sounds like it should provide +Cards (production), some sort of Remodel effect (tinkering with things), and\or some sort of Workshop effect (building devices). Could I recommend the name Bursary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursary) instead?
Tax Collector doesn't make me excited. Its new Attack effect is common among Fan-cards (though the exclusion of Coppers is smart).
It also doesn't seem very flavorful since a lot of Tax Collectors were practically thieves in olden times.
Also, the way the parenthetical is positioned makes it sound like if the player reveals a hand of all Coppers I can have him put his entire hand on top of his deck.
I like the idea of Profiteer more-- discarding Victory cards for coins-- but that effect becomes really strong towards the end of the game. It likely would not be purchased until one's later shuffles which would make the Conscripts more damaging to other players than helpful (unless it put the Conscripts into their hands to ensure that they get a chance at gaining Golds that they could use and cursing you).
Thanks for all your feedback! Sorry if I'm pushing back too much.Of course you are not pushing back to much. Enterprise is your set and all feedback should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'll admit that [Clerk's] action effect may not be the most interesting, but I doubt it needs a power boost. The deck-reordering effect is simply a side effect of putting the cards back; it's not meant to be part of the card's power. It's…difficult to describe why Clerk is as strong as it is. You wouldn't necessarily think that a card that's [+2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2] would be powerful. It seems like a weak Steward, but the ability to see what the cards are first really makes all the difference.My concern is that Clerk's reaction is hard to use since it has to be in your hand when an Attack is played and you need to have cards to trash in your hand when those events line up. Of course, that is assuming there is an Attack in the particular game. In a number of games, there will be no way to use Clerk for its reaction, so it will have to be evaluated purely in terms of its action effect which has plenty of utility, but I think could be a smidge stronger without breaking the card or infringing on other card's space.
...
Sort of like Jack of all Trades, Clerk is something you have to play to really get your head around its utility. Not that Clerk's action effect is as strong as Jack's; the reaction bit is definitely a big part of the card's utility.
I guess I haven't had the same experience with [Enforcer] as you have. The effect for you will hurt if your deck is cluttered with Victory cards and Curses, but it's a great asset it most engine decks, especially ones with powerful cantrips and no Copper trashing.Most engine decks will still drop $3 to $6 in Treasures to pick up their Provinces (if not more). There are fewer games where there are enough +actions and virtual coin to get up to Provinces than those that drawing Treasures works better.
The Attack isn't that strong, but it's about on par with Spy.
Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I suppose. Did you prefer the old Tax Collector?I think I do prefer the old Tax Collector (yeah, I am one of those guys who likes to trash others' cards), though I do not like $6 Attacks as reaching $6 can be moderately difficult dependent upon the table and often the Attack will prevent other players from reaching $6 as easily. Maybe Profiteer's "When you gain this, each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile." could be appended to the old Tax Collector for balance at $5?
[Tax Collector's] may be a common attack effect, but I like the way I've implemented it. It works very smoothly and seems appropriate at $5 so far.It is a common Attack effect because it is a good idea (oh, and your implementation is really nice). It is an idea I am quite fond of, in fact, but its deck manipulation seems somewhat out of place in a set about one-shots. I suppose I am somewhat biased as the set I have been working on is actually based around deck manipulation and sifting. It is your call, really.
Yeah, I was aware of that, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. I think it's pretty clear and the hypothetical FAQ could easily clarify it. I suppose I could say that each player sets aside a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand with all Copper), but that seems a little strange.Put the parenthetical at the end. It becomes rather distended, but makes it clearly separate from the rest of the effect.
By the way, how do you feel about the current, persistent version of Surveyor?I do not like it as much. I viewed the $2 one-shot Surveyor as a place-holder: I buy it and use it until it collides with an expensive card I want multiple of, and then it vanishes. +2 Cards as a terminal action is a pretty weak effect that I likely do not want to have in my deck unless there is a Village-type that is more than a cantrip (such as Bazaar or Bandit Camp). The fact that it vanishes from my deck actually makes it easier for me to purchase, simply because I can use it until I get a bunch of better actions and then it throws itself out. If you made it put the card on top of your deck rather than discarding it, I imagine it would be a great $2 one-shot.
I love the ideas for these cards! They are far better than others I have encountered for Dominion. Inventor is my favorite; simple, but highly useful. I'm surprised Donald X. hasn't made a card like this yet! I also really like Fund and Floodgate, and Boycott looks quite interesting, but potentially frustrating!
The only significant problem I see is with Surveyor. It is too strong. +2 Cards and I can duplicate anything that's not a victory card? Wow! I'm filling my deck with Platinum, Goons, Expand, Bank, Grand Market, Forge, and all those other expensive cards with a measly cost 4 card! Not to mention Possession and Golem! (That could get crazy). Whoever invests in these is bound to win. Now, if it trashed itself, it would work. Especially since you are already going for a one-shot theme. If it was something like, "If the card you gain is worth more than 5, trash this." Without a limitation like that, it's OP (overpowered). Especially for someone like me who keeps his deck light. I could buy one or two, cycle through my deck in a few turns, and be ready to boost my inventory significantly, over and over. I would be unstoppable. You could also make it not OP if it were pricier. Say, 7. That makes it a bit of a gamble (as, in my opinion, most cards should be). A prohibitive cost for some, with limited returns, but an investment with a serious payoff for others.
As much as I'd rather not have two $2 cards in this small set, I think I'm going to have to return Surveyor to its $2 one-shot version and possibly buff it a little. However, I'm considering changing Boycott again. Here's the version I'm considering:I think it is bad that the Copper pile can have the Tariff token on it. While awesome for things like Remodel and Salvager, it can possibly (though not likely) lock a player out of the game.
Tariff
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may put the Tariff marker on any nonempty Supply pile.
Setup: Put the Tariff marker on the Tariff pile. Cards in the pile with the Tariff marker cost $2 more.
I think it's more interesting than outright blocking a pile, and could result in some interesting combos as well. Of course you can put the Tariff marker on cards that you don't want your opponents to buy. You could also tariff the Coppers or Estates to help your trash-for-benefit cards. You could tariff Band of Misfits so that it could mimic $5 and $6 Action cards in the Supply.
Tariff | +$3 Trash this. Choose one: Place a Tariff token onto a Supply pile that isn't Copper with no Tariff tokens on it; or remove a Tariff token from a Supply pile. Cards in and from Supply piles with Tariff tokens on them cost $2 more. | $4 ACTION |
The way Tariff is worded now, it only affects cards in the pile, not cards in hands.
Also, does this mean that the first Tariff bought will cost $4?
I think it is bad that the Copper pile can have the Tariff token on it. While awesome for things like Remodel and Salvager, it can possibly (though not likely) lock a player out of the game.
I would still like to see it come back in-theme as a one-shot though.
The biggest issue I see with it is that any fun combo you want to do with it can be undermined by another player buying one and then it becomes a pretty big swingy mess if they don't trash themselves.
This also reintroduces the card order problems for cards of changing long-term prices being introduced to the Kingdom.
Are you talking about the interaction between cost-raising and cost-lowering effects, or something else?In retrospect, that is unclear. I mean the physical order of the Supply piles. I keep the Kingdom in order by price then alphabet in order to let players see what they can afford more quickly. If a card costs $2 more, then it will need to be moved ahead of a bunch of other cards and the other cards need to be moved back. If I do not reorganize the Kingdom, I will have to deal with players forgetting the effect.
Copies of the card that the Tariff marker is on cost 2 Coins more.With this wording, if the Supply is emptied the price drops to normal since there isn't a card under the marker. That is probably okay, but it stifles the fun interaction with cursers and trash-for-benefit since Curses drop to $0 once the pile is inevitably exhausted.
I keep the Kingdom in order by price then alphabet in order to let players see what they can afford more quickly. If a card costs $2 more, then it will need to be moved ahead of a bunch of other cards and the other cards need to be moved back. If I do not reorganize the Kingdom, I will have to deal with players forgetting the effect.
Copies of the card that the Tariff marker is on cost 2 Coins more.With this wording, if the Supply is emptied the price drops to normal since there isn't a card under the marker. That is probably okay, but it stifles the fun interaction with cursers and trash-for-benefit since Curses drop to $0 once the pile is inevitably exhausted.
By the by, I played a game using Clerk. I underestimated how complex the decision is (but not how useful). It probably is best that it does not look at more than 2 cards. Its reaction made the game pretty tense as it was the strongest source of trashing on a table with Attack engine components.
If Tariff tokens on Copper or Silver (or even on basic Victory cards) become too much of problem, I'm sure there's a wording out there that can exclude the basic cards from the clause.
You have a Highway in play and the Tarrif is on the Coppers. Do Coppers cost $2 or $1? What if Tarrif is on Coppers and you play 3 Bridges?
If you have effects that raise cost, it causes ambiguous timing issues with cards that lower cost. There's no rule to say whether you apply Tarrif or Highway or Bridge first, and it matters because of the not less than 0 clause.
For interactions with cost-reduction cards, cost increases would always be applied before cost decreases.
You have a Highway in play and the Tarrif is on the Coppers. Do Coppers cost $2 or $1? What if Tarrif is on Coppers and you play 3 Bridges?
If you have effects that raise cost, it causes ambiguous timing issues with cards that lower cost. There's no rule to say whether you apply Tarrif or Highway or Bridge first, and it matters because of the not less than 0 clause.For interactions with cost-reduction cards, cost increases would always be applied before cost decreases.
There's no rule to say which to apply first because with the existing cards it never comes up. Hence my ruling here. I think it's the only reasonable ruling for such an interaction.
I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.
I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.Wait, I can play 8 markets, them cut purse, then buy all the colonies? Sweet!
QuoteI know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.Wait, I can play 8 markets, them cut purse, then buy all the colonies? Sweet!
Overall, I liked Clerk as written more than I thought I would. I thought its ability would be a too weak to justify 2 card draw, but it generally did feel useful enough. I have to play with it more to formulate a better opinion, as that table was good to Clerk.By the by, I played a game using Clerk. I underestimated how complex the decision is (but not how useful). It probably is best that it does not look at more than 2 cards. Its reaction made the game pretty tense as it was the strongest source of trashing on a table with Attack engine components.
Nice, thanks for testing that. How was the card overall? Was it interesting enough?
Overall, I liked Clerk as written more than I thought I would. I thought its ability would be a too weak to justify 2 card draw, but it generally did feel useful enough. I have to play with it more to formulate a better opinion, as that table was good to Clerk.
My opponent was particularly fond of the card which is always a good sign.
I also played a game with Barracks and no other Attacks. I really like Barracks, but without any Attacks, we have to go off of Conscripts and the result was a resounding "meh."
Because Conscripts gives out both Golds and Curses, it's hard to skip even if it is a little slow to begin with. My opponent and I ended up emptying the Curse pile and the strategy felt way too much like Big Money to me. Really, in any game without one of the power trashers (you know, Chapel, Steward, or Remake), I think Conscripts is going to be too good to pass up on.
My opponent also did not like Conscripts, though I think he believed it to be a stronger than it is.
Do you suppose they could provide virtual coin and a buy? I think that could make them much more interesting.
I'm not convinced this would actually fix anything. In the past, various versions of Conscripts have had +$2 or +$3. In terms of being intrinsically interesting, I think the Gold gaining is more unique; fewer cards gain you Gold than give virtual coin. But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that giving coins instead allows for the player to more easily buy cards other than Gold for a more interesting game overall...I remember when Conscripts had +$2. Gaining Gold certainly is more intrinsically interesting by the very fact you outline, but the virtual coin is not what would make buying other cards easier. Take Spoils as a one-shot Gold for example: One of the first thing one buys with Spoils is another Gold. One-shot Gold is great at grabbing the more permanent kind. Contraband, on the other hand, is a Gold with a +Buy (and card denial, of course). That +Buy is what really makes all the difference because when a player has $6 and 1 Buy he defaults to Gold but with $6-$7 and 2 Buys there are a lot more options available to him.
...I'll think more about going back to a version that gives +$3. For some reason, I'm not crazy about the idea of giving Conscripts +1 Buy. Wouldn't that be sort of tacked on? I'll think about that too, though.
In my experience, it's sometimes more useful to use Barracks to summon Conscripts to your hand than to gain more, which isn't immediately obvious. Because Conscripts gains Gold rather than giving virtual coins, there's also a point when you don't want any more Conscripts; they're effectively dead cards if you're not going to see that Gold before the game ends. Deciding when that point is can also be an interesting puzzle.My initial reaction was pretty binary: If I had Conscripts in my deck, hunt for them, otherwise, gain them. I stopped gaining them after the Curse pile was depleted. Maybe allowing a short-term benefit on Conscripts would make it boring, I really can't tell. I do know that if it has +$3, +1 Buy, copies would be much easier to collect Conscripts even when the Curse pile is empty which would make Barracks less of a dead card without other Attacks.
I'm starting to be convinced that Conscripts could be better with +$2 or +$3. I don't think I'll add the +1 Buy, at least not right away, because that might be too much of what you need all rolled into one package.I've been playing with +1 Buy, +$2. It has shown up in two games, one with Mountebank, another with a deck manipulation Attack (though I went Double Jack\Walled Village\Barracks to surprising effect). I was much happier to gain Conscripts after the Curse pile was empty when they weren't throwing boring Golds into my deck. I rarely got to use the extra buy at +$2, but their ability to play each other made +$2 really good, particularly because I didn't have many other Actions in my deck in either game. +$3 is certainly too good. Go for +$2 and I still recommend the +Buy.
I'm glad you like Mill Town. I assume since you mentioned Floodgate specifically that you were able to use it to advantage in that Mill Town game?Yes. I used Mill Towns to gain Floodgates in order to set aside the Coppers I had revealed with Mill Towns and further Mill Towns for a final turn where I gained 4 of the Provinces and then bought the last one.
Guilds has probably made changing Conscripts yet again necessary, and you'll probably need to rename Tax Collector, but I hope you don't give up on the set.
ConscriptsI'm doubtful that this version of Conscripts will work as a Curser, but I'm probably undervaluing the non-terminal discard of it.
Types: Action
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
It's extra incentive to play multiple Conscripts in a single turn, especially in a 2-player game. I've only been able to test it in one mock game so far, but I'm hopeful it'll work out well.
The card you know as Tax Collector has been renamed Magistrate, and I'm thinking about trying it out at $4. I had another card that I more recently called Tax Collector before Guilds was released. I have renamed that card Assessor for now. You can see its early stages in another thread in this forum.
Clerk has been renamed Dignitary and has different art. I wanted to use the name Clerk for another card. I may strip Dignitary of its Reaction ability and try it out at $3. If I do, I'll try to find another home for the reaction.I don't like this change as much. I thought the effects were pretty flavorful with Clerk.
ConscriptsI'm doubtful that this version of Conscripts will work as a Curser, but I'm probably undervaluing the non-terminal discard of it.
Types: Action
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
It's extra incentive to play multiple Conscripts in a single turn, especially in a 2-player game. I've only been able to test it in one mock game so far, but I'm hopeful it'll work out well.
The card you know as Tax Collector has been renamed Magistrate, and I'm thinking about trying it out at $4. I had another card that I more recently called Tax Collector before Guilds was released. I have renamed that card Assessor for now. You can see its early stages in another thread in this forum.
I like the changes to Tax Collector: Particularly the new name. At a cost of $4 I think it will be very competitive with Militia, but may need to drop the "no Copper" clause.
QuoteClerk has been renamed Dignitary and has different art. I wanted to use the name Clerk for another card. I may strip Dignitary of its Reaction ability and try it out at $3. If I do, I'll try to find another home for the reaction.I don't like this change as much. I thought the effects were pretty flavorful with Clerk.
I've been playing more with Mill Town. I've found that in pretty much every game where I can increase my handsize, Mill Town is just crazy. The fact that I was able to pretty much gain the Duchy pile in a 2-player game in a single turn. I would recommend taking a page from Horn of Plenty and having Mill Town trash itself when gaining Victory cards.
"Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse."
I'm not sure about this; do you mean, each other player who did not discard any cards? Because, Cellar isn't "you may", it's "discard any number of cards", where 0 is any number. If my hand is already 3 cards, I can argue that I discarded 0 cards to make my handsize 3 cards, so I am exempt from the Curse. (Then there's an even nitpickier question of whether I can discard down to 3 cards, if my hand was already smaller than 3 cards?) Otherwise the only reason I can think of for not discarding down to 3 would be Moat/Lighthouse, but they would protect you from the Curse too.
Obviously it's clear what you mean.
ClerkThat is a cute Clerk, but I imagine too good for $2. It's a cantrip when it misses and a Peddler when it doesn't. Conditional Peddlers Ironmonger and Tournament both suggest $4 might be a more appropriate cost.
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.
Really, Mill Town is playing a lot like Horn of Plenty overall, but a bit harder to get working since you need Mill Towns and Coppers in hand.I've been playing more with Mill Town. I've found that in pretty much every game where I can increase my handsize, Mill Town is just crazy. The fact that I was able to pretty much gain the Duchy pile in a 2-player game in a single turn. I would recommend taking a page from Horn of Plenty and having Mill Town trash itself when gaining Victory cards.
I'm definitely open to that idea. I hate stealing unique clauses from other cards, but I can definitely see how it would be warranted here. Could you tell me a bit more about the game where you gained all the Duchies? Did your opponent contest you for Mill Towns? What was his/her strategy?
ClerkThat is a cute Clerk, but I imagine too good for $2. It's a cantrip when it misses and a Peddler when it doesn't. Conditional Peddlers Ironmonger and Tournament both suggest $4 might be a more appropriate cost.
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.
I'll look into testing it in some games.
I may have already said this in this thread, but have you considered making fund:
Fund:
Treasure - $5
Worth $2, +1 buy
When you play this, you may trash this
---
When you trash this, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.
I guess if the concept is that it's strictly a Silver with a one time bonus, then it can't work this way, but I just like versatility, especially when it doesn't ruin simplicity.
I explore the concept in my fan expansion with "Cargo", which is a $4 copper that, among many other things, can trash itself, and you gain a copper in hand when it's trashed.
I think the price difference between $2 and $3 is mainly about how spammable it is, and whether you can open with it and a $5-cost. Whether it's strictly better or worse than another card is also a consideration. But otherwise a mediocre effect could pretty similarly be put on a $2 or a $3.
Clerk also has amazing synergy with discard-for-benefit. Still not sure if it should cost $3 though.
Ironmonger is an even better comparison. Thre are only two situations where Ironmonger "whiffs". One is when you turn over a Curse or Hovel, and even then you at least get to sift past it. The other is when you have nothing left in your deck or discard. Often you'd prefer Ironmonger hit a Victory card, or even an Action depending on your deck. And even when it hits Copper, you get the extra bonus of sifting past that Copper.(Emphasis added)
Ironmonger is an even better comparison. Thre are only two situations where Ironmonger "whiffs". One is when you turn over a Curse or Hovel, and even then you at least get to sift past it. The other is when you have nothing left in your deck or discard. Often you'd prefer Ironmonger hit a Victory card, or even an Action depending on your deck. And even when it hits Copper, you get the extra bonus of sifting past that Copper.(Emphasis added)
Ironmonger's Village option is easily the weakest among them since you can't rely upon it to act as a Village for you. While Tournament is safely a $4 Peddler early on, you can't load up on them because your deck will be hit hard when another player has a Province in hand. The uncertainty of Tournament and Ironmonger are what balance them and make them interesting at $4. If the board lacks good Copper trashing, I can't imagine not picking up 2 or 3 Clerks at $2 a pop (which would be particularly easy with +Buys) just for the times it will be a Peddler.
And this critisism isn't even considering how well Clerk will work with different sifting cards (Warehouse, Embassy, etc.) and cards that want Coppers in hand (Coppersmith, Mill Town, etc.).
This isn't necessarily a problem-- equal opportunity would just make it a pretty good card-- but Clerk might be too much of a no-brainer at $2.
Have you considered a $4 cantrip that dug through the deck for a Copper? It's just a Peddler, but if you want to stack up you can't trash your coppers, and it will have unfortunate implications for late game. All the combos that you intend for Clerk (sifters, copper counters) work more reliably.
I totally forgot to comment on my playtest of Clerk that i did yesterday...
One of the things i noticed was how unreliable it was early in the game. With a more than 50% chance of it being basically useless, it didn't help me take off very much. Even if it works out, it's basically a Silver early. It becomes quite reliable when your deck has started growing, though - that's when Clerks usually will be Peddlers. The problem is that this is the time when you'd prefer getting a 5$ or 6$. So to have a decent Clerk, you need to spend a later buy on it, or buy it while it's very unreliable, passing the chance to get another card. Assuming a price of 3$ (i played with 2$-Clerk), i think Silver will be more helpful to build an early economy. As a 2$, there's often nothing better on the board, so i'd buy Clerk nonetheless, to be amazed how it is one of the 2$s that become better as the game goes on.
Disclaimer: I playtested one of my cards on the same set, so i can't guarantee negative interactions have spoiled this review. Overall i liked Clerk better than my own card.
Edit: To make it easier to consider whether my card changed the playtest too much:
Seer, Action, 3$
Discard a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card. Discard all other revealed cards and play that action card.
I seem to recall that one of the winners of the contest was a $2 Peddler that gained a Copper to your hand? I'm curious how that compares with Clerk, given how similar they are. Clerk should be a regular Peddler more then half the time that you play it (though not if you play several per turn). Whereas the other card always gets you money, but hurts your deck as you use it more.
So this has likely been discussed already (I haven't read much of the discussion about this set), but I'm wondering / concerned about how Craftsman will change the other cards that use the Trade Token mechanic. Normally those other cards basically function as "2-shots". At least, any Kingdom that has just 1 of those cards it will function that way. But it becomes a different type of card once you are able to purchase just 1 copy and use it more than twice. I'm not saying that they're overpowered with Craftsman around, or underpowered without, but it just seems like the presence of Craftsman would change the actual behavior/concept of the card, in a way that's different than how you expect combos to change cards.
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Take a trade token. You may play an Action card from your hand. You may spend a Trade token to play it again. You may spend a Trade token to play it a third time.
(https://i.imgur.com/TZBoHo4.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/jvfuBmn.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/70kBaTJ.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/bgrLoN3.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/fOVLdck.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/5Ktz6G8.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/FE0uFbt.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/4XKwhZL.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/Be6jHfx.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/WwyEtio.png) |
Side note: Jubilee is the only "2-shot". The other cards that give you a single Trade token all just have abilities that you can use Trade tokens to trigger, but none of the others trash themselves.
As an aside, I wanted to share a Kingdom I was testing recently.
Side note: Jubilee is the only "2-shot". The other cards that give you a single Trade token all just have abilities that you can use Trade tokens to trigger, but none of the others trash themselves.
Indeed, I thought of this wrong when looking over the cards. Jubille is a "2-shot", the others are semi-one-shots; they do something like a regular card, but their best ability is one-time (normally). Pretty cool; similar to the Myojin cycle of cards from MTG. I guess sort of like a reversed Mining Village actually... it can only be extra powerful once, but you can use it normally as much as you want. And you can continue using it normally after you've used it for it's powerful effect. Probably leads to slightly less AP than Mining Village.
Lodge
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, reveal then discard any number of Victory cards. +$1 per card discarded.
So I don`t see much of an engine here. Not that I really now the cards, but the easiest thing I see to beat the BM-Wheelwright is Inesting Clerks, maybe twice to make the Conspirator++ and Vendor to draw and buy. It would suck to have to trash a vendor though. I actually think that should kill the BM strategy most of the time. You don't even need to take a lot of the coppers. Investing in a cheap chantrip seems kinda strong. Vagrant with +$2 on it? Count me in!
So I don`t see much of an engine here. Not that I really now the cards, but the easiest thing I see to beat the BM-Wheelwright is Inesting Clerks, maybe twice to make the Conspirator++ and Vendor to draw and buy. It would suck to have to trash a vendor though. I actually think that should kill the BM strategy most of the time. You don't even need to take a lot of the coppers. Investing in a cheap chantrip seems kinda strong. Vagrant with +$2 on it? Count me in!
Hmm, I'll try it again with Investing in Clerks twice. Pricey, but probably worth it. It'll be a good stress test for Investment to see if it needs tweaking. Of course in that case, I'll probably have the BM player also buy Clerks once he "realizes" what's going on. Any reasonable opponent is going to try to deny you a card that's effectively a Super Conspirator.
Why is exchange when buy, but the other trade token cards when gain?
I really like the concept of trade tokens and what you've done with them here. If you somehow published this expansion I'd buy it (of course I might start using the cards anyway, published or not).
I think the Fund could use clearer wording. It's hard to tell if you get still the $2 from the fund on the turn that you trash it in addition to the silver.
Hard to tell how well the Barrister/Domain cards would work. Have you tested the Barrister much yet? It would clearly scale in power with number of players, but probably not too much. Is there any reason that you left Domain at $0 cost? Even though it isn't in the supply, it would seem appropriate for it to have a higher cost.
Dignitary looks especially interesting with a unique mechanic on top and a reaction that works especially well against axeman (like Secret Chamber's reaction works especially well against Swindler and Sabateur). I look forward to finding out how it works in a game.
Why is exchange when buy, but the other trade token cards when gain?
Probably because you can use Exchange to trash, gain an Exchange into your hand, trash something else, gain an Exchange to hand, etc. I personally think it would be fine on gain (since you have to have fuel to trash to get each Exchange), but I can understand why you might prefer to have it be on buy.
My thoughts on the set as a whole (trying to keep this as concise as possible): I like it a lot and compared to official expansions, I think it would rank as my 2nd-4th favorite (somewhere in that range). I don't think there are any "problem" cards in the set (too weak or too strong or too uninteresting cards), which is something I don't think can be said of any official expansion (except maybe Guilds, though it's all subjective anyway), so that is very good. The one-shot theme is very clear and well-executed, and many of them are done in unique and interesting ways.
Gambler is one of my favorite fan cards ever. I also like General a lot, I love throne room variants in general (no pun intended), and have always wanted a good $5 TR. General not only fits very well into the set by comboing with one-shots, but it's also still a pretty reasonable $5 TR even on boards without one-shots.
I don't like Floodgate, though I'm not quite sure why. It makes sense that the way to do a "one-shot" victory card is to give it an on-gain effect, but for some reason I don't really like it. If you leave everything else as is though, I feel like it should cost $3 and not $4. The thing is, if I buy it with $4 to set stuff aside, and that stuff would have given me at least $1, why didn't I just buy Duchy? So I'm sure you've playtested it and found that to not be an issue, but I'm at least interested to hear your comments on it. It's at least nice for stopping terminal collision.
Investment is really cool, and you probably don't need me to tell you this, but you should playtest it A LOT. Of course it's fine if there are some boards where it's dead and others where it's nuts, but it potentially seems like the kind of card that would either be dead on way too many boards, or nuts on way too many boards. If it turns out to be too weak I think just giving it +$x and +1 buy on play would help "make up" for having gone out of your way to get it. If it turns out to be too strong it will be very hard to fix.
About Craftsman gaining trade tokens:
...
There's just something that doesn't feel right about having only a few cards in all of Dominion that make use of a certain mechanic, and then having them combo well together because of that shared mechanic. Most cards combo well together because of their difference in mechanics, because they complement each other by doing different things, and this also creates a lot more diversity in potential combos (all disappearing actions potentially combo with draw-to-X cards, that's a lot more combinations than if, say, all draw-to-X cards comboed with draw-to-X cards). So with all that being said, I have no idea if there's any reasonable fix, I like Craftsman as it is, as well as the other Trade token cards, and having them use different colored tokens is impractical. I just wanted to share my thoughts on that issue.
If you do manage to get the set published, I would certainly buy it (even with no changes from how it is now). I think your cards are definitely at the quality of official cards, but I don't know what would go into arranging a deal with RGG. Good luck if you eventually decide to go through with that!
I just updated the image post.
Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace
Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.
Fund is actually another take on this one-shot-that-you-keep idea. A Fund is just a Silver until you use its ability. Afterward it leaves a normal Silver in your deck.
Fund is actually another take on this one-shot-that-you-keep idea. A Fund is just a Silver until you use its ability. Afterward it leaves a normal Silver in your deck.
Would Fund be overpowered if it used Trade tokens instead?
Treasure - $5
+$2
When you play this, you may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +$2, +1 buy
____
When you gain this, gain a Trade Token.
The effect is almost identical to the version you have if no other cards with Trade Tokens are around; it's slightly stronger because if you buy 2 of them, after you've used the effect once, you can use it the second time no matter which one you draw.
I was just thinking that if that's not overpowered, then it would fit in with the set better because of more Trade Token cards.
I just updated the image post.
Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace
Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.
Redistrict?I just updated the image post.
Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace
Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.
Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.
Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.Redistrict?
For example, Jubilee: Why would i want to buy this for $2 (over another $2, perhaps)? Would i want to buy this for $3 or $4?
Domain: It looks to me that when Domain is on the board, you probably want to force a Domain race, because i'm pretty sure that i wouldn't want to give my opponent a 8*8=64 VP lead. So, what's the deal here? Bump up with +Buys and go for the race? Also, this becomes a lot more interesting with Barrister on the board i suppose, which is an OK card i feel.
Committee: This one looks like really strong card. I'm pretty sure it should cost $5.
Wheelwright: Looks very strong, but has a drawback. Gaining a Copper IS something in this set. I'm just not sure whether the drawback is good enough versus the benefit it offers.
Dignitary: This is the most strange of your cards, as i see it. Now, when would i want to buy this? The reaction part looks nice and unique. But is the Action part good enough to compensate? And is it worth it at $4? Yeah, you can draw 2 cards and you can save a dead Action while getting +$1. That's nice. But what can i generally do with this card? I don't think i could ever go for something like Dignitary-BM.
Convocation: Strange filtering mechanism. I'm not sure whether i like it. I also need some clarifications about double-type Victory cards. If i reveal a Great Hall, an Action and a Victory card and opt to put the Great Hall in my hand, do i discard the other 2 cards? Does the order in which i make the choices matter?
I also feel like you should include one more card that can produce Trade Tokens (Craftsman style). Because, it would be better to give those cards with this one-shot theme a chance to use more Trade Tokens for this "cool effect". Also, Craftsman makes good use of the Tokens by itself. Maybe you would want to create another card that can produce Tokens and be more happy to give them to another card. Additionally, this way, there will be more chances that a card that produces Trade Tokens can be appeared in a given Kingdom.
Quote from: manthos88 on Today at 07:42:30 am
I also feel like you should include one more card that can produce Trade Tokens (Craftsman style). Because, it would be better to give those cards with this one-shot theme a chance to use more Trade Tokens for this "cool effect". Also, Craftsman makes good use of the Tokens by itself. Maybe you would want to create another card that can produce Tokens and be more happy to give them to another card. Additionally, this way, there will be more chances that a card that produces Trade Tokens can be appeared in a given Kingdom.
I appreciate the thought, but this is pretty much the opposite of what I want to do. Any card that produces Trade tokens has to have a good use for them or it'll just be a dead card on boards without other Trade token cards. I usually play with cards from one or two sets at a time, but for people who play full random, such a card would be a dud in almost every game.
Thanks for the questions and comments!
I'm not saying that the card should do nothing with the trade tokens. Just that the Trade Tokens on this card have such an effect that it would feel "ok" if you used them for another card instead of this one.
And... just came up with this:
Trademaster:
Cost: $5
Take a Trade Token. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, choose one: Either spend any number of Trade Tokens and gain a card costing up to the trashed card's cost plus double the number of Trade Tokens spent; or, take a number of Trade Tokens equal to the trashed card's cost (rounded down).
I'm not sure whether you like it. But i just threw it down. Butcher-like remodel, or Bishop-like TfB. Gets very good use out of the Tokens, either by itself, or by handing them to other cards. (Too strong? Probably yes. ;D)
What did you use to do the card images?
Oh, sorry. I thought he was asking for an example. If you're talking about an optional one-shot that also has a 'when you trash this' clause, I don't think there's anything interesting. It would be really tricky to make the one-shot worthwhile without making the card too powerful when paired with strong trashers. You could make a case for writing Feast this way, to remove the unintuitive interaction with Throne Room while making it more appealing on Chapel boards, but that's a topic for the other thread.Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how Redistrict could fit this idea. In general, though, this mechanic is something I'm open to having in the set.Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.Redistrict?
It's unambiguous, it's clear to anyone who's played with Counterfeit, and a whole lot less confusing than TR / any one-shot. If it turns out to be an issue, maybe "While this card is in play, you may trash it" makes the order more clear?I think the Fund could use clearer wording. It's hard to tell if you get still the $2 from the fund on the turn that you trash it in addition to the silver.
I agree that it would be nice if this were clearer. It does still give you the +$2. It's definitely something I would put in a FAQ, but I'm not sure how I would change the card wording itself. Suggestions are welcome, but I'd rather have a clean, concise wording than a messy one.
Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.Gambler is one of my favorite fan cards ever. I also like General a lot, I love throne room variants in general (no pun intended), and have always wanted a good $5 TR. General not only fits very well into the set by comboing with one-shots, but it's also still a pretty reasonable $5 TR even on boards without one-shots.
Thanks! General is pretty new, so I hope it works out. Seems like an appropriate $5 cost, right? The main thing I worry about is its complicated interaction with one-shots that draw (Gambler and Vendor). Play General, play Vendor, draw two, trash Vendor, put Vendor on deck. Then play Vendor again, drawing that same Vendor and another card. Then you can play that same Vendor a third time, but this time the General has lost track of it, so you don't topdeck it when it leaves play. If it turns out to be too crazy, I can change General so that it only topdecks the card if you discard it from play, though obviously I want to keep the one-shot interaction if possible.
I liked Floodgate okay when I looked at the cards yesterday, and I thought it was an unobjectionable filler card. Now I'm really warming up to it. If you have $4 to spend, you can get a mini-Tactician exactly when you need it most, with cards that you choose, but at the cost of some extra green in your deck. Very interesting.I don't like Floodgate, though I'm not quite sure why. It makes sense that the way to do a "one-shot" victory card is to give it an on-gain effect, but for some reason I don't really like it. If you leave everything else as is though, I feel like it should cost $3 and not $4. The thing is, if I buy it with $4 to set stuff aside, and that stuff would have given me at least $1, why didn't I just buy Duchy? So I'm sure you've playtested it and found that to not be an issue, but I'm at least interested to hear your comments on it. It's at least nice for stopping terminal collision.
Generally, if other players don't buy a card, I change or scrap it. A few cards that are still in the OP died for that reason. Floodgate is probably the card my playtesters buy the least that I refuse to scrap. It's one of my favorite cards and I think it has a lot of value for advanced players, but that value is subtle. The cool thing about it is how many different tricks it can do, not all of which are obvious.
* You can save unspent coin for the next turn. Why would you do that instead of buying a Duchy? Maybe you'll afford a Province next turn. Especially nice if you have $7 to spend.
* You can salvage dead Action cards. Say you play a Smithy and draw a Village and a Smithy. Man, put those into your next hand.
* You can make Victory cards miss the reshuffle. Whenever you have fewer than 5 cards in your deck during your Buy phase (like when you've drawn your deck), you can leave Floodgate itself and up to 4 other cards out of your deck.
And that's not to mention any card-specific combos. Think about how it interacts with various gainers (Workshop, Mill Town) trash-for-benefit cards (Develop, Exchange), and discard-for-benefit cards (Cellar, Lodge).
I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. :(Investment is really cool, and you probably don't need me to tell you this, but you should playtest it A LOT. Of course it's fine if there are some boards where it's dead and others where it's nuts, but it potentially seems like the kind of card that would either be dead on way too many boards, or nuts on way too many boards. If it turns out to be too weak I think just giving it +$x and +1 buy on play would help "make up" for having gone out of your way to get it. If it turns out to be too strong it will be very hard to fix.
If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.
I've played some games with Clerk. Clerk is probably one of the best $2 cards in the game. It's not Fool's Gold good-- you're not going to lose because you didn't get enough Clerks-- but it's easily better than Hamlet. You used the example of how Vagrant never hurts a deck: That's true, but Vagrant misses a lot more than Clerk and has a much smaller benefit (and especially a less visible benefit).
It is a fun and powerful card at $2, but I encourage increasing Clerk's price up to $3. It would harder to buy but will still be competitive in that price bracket.
Jubilee I'm not such a fan of. +2 Actions is something I want to use repeatedly and Jubilee won't let me do that. There are also very limited instances when I want Silvers to disappear from my deck. It will be cool in the games you can buy Jubilees as one-shot Silvers to enable other Trade token cards, but I'm not sure their sustainable enough.
I've played with Redistrict. This one I really like. Redistrict I think is best for trashing $4 and $5 cards while building which is really cool since few other trash-for-benefits really work that way. Redistrct can be used to grab $5 and $6 cards with $4 and $5 cards respectively and that can be really strong. I especially like the ability to gain a Gold and a $7 or a $7 and a Province in applicable games. The only thing I would question is again, its price. In the cases where I did bust open my Redistricts, I often had only $2 so it often seemed best to immediately replace my Redistrict. If it cost $3, trashing it would be a harder decision. Though, collecting them by Redistricting Estates would be easier... the cost for trash-for-benefit cards are weird.
I've played with Barrister\Domain, but only 2-player games. This one I do not like. Barrister has an interesting sort of mini-game to it in that it becomes practically impossible to hit other players' Domains after the earliest portion of the game, but Domains are just better Coppers in your deck, so stealing them isn't all that great anyway. I do like that one cannot simply trash Domains in Barrister games since Barrister pulls Domains out of the trash regardless of whether it trashed them or not: That's a nice design touch. The big issue I have is that in multiplayer games, I think it is going to be way too swingy. I usually play 3-player games and the opportunity to pick up 9VP from stealing cards from other players (even using an admittedly weak card) is so swingy that I do not appreciate the sound of it. Just the same, it's a very cool idea and well designed card. I'm not going to really knock it, I don't like it much personally.
I've played with Mill Town. I stand by Mill Town being ridiculous in any game one can increase his hand size consistently. I love the card to death, but recommend adding a trashing clause like Horn of Plenty's.
Committee is a decent bit of player interaction, but I'm not a huge fan. I have an extremely similar card that rather than copying or trashing one of 2 cards copies a found card costing from $3 to $6 which I think is more fun since a player can control it with deck manipulation cards. Dropping Duchies on top of the deck explicitly to copy them makes a player feel clever. Still, Committee's trashing is really good at $4, so I wouldn't mind if both my card and your Committee appeared on the same table.
Terrace is alright. It provides a much needed Village variant with a worthwhile, unique benefit. Have you considered letting it gain 2 Trade tokens instead of only 1? It might make it interact more interestingly with other Trade token cards.
I've played with Vendor and I love it. It is so much better than Enforcer. No complaints with this one.
I've played with Investment. Investment is really nice with a $2 cantrip but I think is not viable otherwise. It simply costs too much-- both price and momentum since you don't get to play the card you're setting aside (and playing the card makes it significantly more complex to resolve which I don't appreciate). I like the idea of it giving coins. +$3 would make it almost a no-brainer with a $2 cantrip, but would make it so much more attractive with $3 and $4 cards.
Have you considered a card that lets you draw by expending Trade tokens? There isn't a Coin token card that does that so I think it would be sufficiently different.
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you didn't, discard 2 cards. +4 Cards.
I don't like Refurbish. It is a good and simple way to get the concept to work, but it is so incredibly off theme that I cannot associate it with the rest of your set.
I don't like Convocation very much because it is off-theme and I feel too often practically better than Laboratory. It's a fine card and a good way to do non-terminal draw.
I was actually a bit worried when you said you were expanding the set and working with tokens, but now I don't even know why. I cannot wait to see what else you do with this set!
It would be really tricky to make the one-shot worthwhile without making the card too powerful when paired with strong trashers. You could make a case for writing Feast this way, to remove the unintuitive interaction with Throne Room while making it more appealing on Chapel boards, but that's a topic for the other thread.
It's unambiguous, it's clear to anyone who's played with Counterfeit, and a whole lot less confusing than TR / any one-shot. If it turns out to be an issue, maybe "While this card is in play, you may trash it" makes the order more clear?
Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.
If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. :(
If you're looking for a 4th attack what was wrong with Tax Collector (other than the name)? It's not too similar to Axeman. Axeman feels like a fixed Saboteur, while Tax Collector feels like a fixed Bureaucrat. It's a great card.
Magistrate
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4 or $5
+$2. Each other player reveals a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand of all Copper). He discards it or puts it on top of his deck, your choice.
Mill Town: The "discard a card" always seemed like a very transparent way of making it weaker than vanilla village at 3. I do like any card that makes interesting use of Coppers. Both this and Clerk contradict Barrister/Domain, but that's probably fine. Importantly you can't ever gain provinces unless you go out of your way to buy a copper. I like that.
Refurbish: I think this card could be more interesting. Copper->Silver is actually not great trashing because of the -$1 (Mine and Taxman both have ways of negating the money loss), nor is Estate->Silver. A niche card, but will it be interesting often enough? This set's "counting house".
Barracks/Conscripts: I keep thinking the gain 2 conscripts action is much better than the attack drawing, but I thought that regardless of what conscripts were. What I like here is that now having 2 conscripts has a thematic edge.
General: I initially liked this card but thinking a bit more it's not really covering any ground that Scheme didn't, except benefiting oneshots (which is somewhat done by Procession). I guess it's a pseudo KC (play twice this turn, once next turn) and multiple generals can be interesting strategically. There are several cards that will work well with General in the set. although the pure oneshot (Investment) doesn't.
Lodge: Doesn't seem to cover any ground that Vault doesn't. Perhaps a cellar effect would be more interesting, or use the draw and discard from wheelwright with "you may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again". I'd love to see a "play this again" effect.
Wheelwright: Just seems like 2 effects tacked on together. Each other player gains a copper in hand is a great effect that I wish was on some official card (with this or ruins), but I wish the first effect were as interesting.
Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:QuotePioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?
First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:QuotePioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?
It seems to me that a "play this again for a token" would be really neat on a non-terminal, because then it can be a village as the special action. With a terminal, the special action doesn't do anything different/unique. Though I do like that with Pioneer, the special action isn't just draw 2, it's specifically draw the 2 cards that you just put back.
I actually recently had a game with Terrace and Tinker (no longer pictured), where it was way too easy to rack up Trade tokens just by gaining Terraces (with Ironworks). ...Fair point. From experience, a mini-Forge (especially with draw) is ludicrously powerful.
That's not to say that I couldn't have some other card that got you two tokens when you gained it. It would probably have to be a less spammable card, though. There's not much opportunity cost for stocking up on Terraces in most games.
King's Court/Embargo already does this, so I cannot imagine that General/Embargo will present any bigger an issue even though General is much more attainable. If it were to present such a problem, you can probably Embargo the Generals before it would be much of an problem.Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.Hmm, that's a good call with Embargo. Especially since I use Embargo tokens as Trade tokens! :D It may be that I'll have to take out the one-shot synergy after more playtesting. Hopefully not, but maybe.
To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to invest in true one-shots anyway. The problem is that Investment is basically nonterminal if built to play cards first which changes the card significantly. The change would further incentivize investing in nonterminal cards because one could invest and get the pay off on the same turn. I would look into making it as viable as possible to invest in good terminal Actions... but I'm not sure how to do that.If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. :(
I also like the "play it first" option except for the fact that it makes it not work with other one-shots because the Investment will lose track of the card before it can be set aside. Maybe that's not a big deal. Investment itself is a one-shot and with that change it would kind of make other cards into one-shots. And as you say, it saves a lot of AP, particularly when you have another terminal in hand you'd like to play.
First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:QuotePioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?
Fund -- a Silver+ that fits the set theme by giving a one-shot +Buy. The way it does it is elegantly done. My main concern is that this does seem a bit weak to me. I think that a Silver with +Buy would be fine at $5, if a bit boring. Fund is pretty much strictly inferior to that. Even so, the elegance argues for leaving it as is. :Pdoesn't the silver you gain go to hand so you can play it in the same turn?
Fund -- a Silver+ that fits the set theme by giving a one-shot +Buy. The way it does it is elegantly done. My main concern is that this does seem a bit weak to me. I think that a Silver with +Buy would be fine at $5, if a bit boring. Fund is pretty much strictly inferior to that. Even so, the elegance argues for leaving it as is. :Pdoesn't the silver you gain go to hand so you can play it in the same turn?
Exchange -- non-terminal Remodel with a one-shot "gain to hand". That's alright. I wonder about having multiple Remodel variants in the set, but Exchange and Redistrict serve very different purposes.
King's Court/Embargo already does this, so I cannot imagine that General/Embargo will present any bigger an issue even though General is much more attainable. If it were to present such a problem, you can probably Embargo the Generals before it would be much of an problem.Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.Hmm, that's a good call with Embargo. Especially since I use Embargo tokens as Trade tokens! :D It may be that I'll have to take out the one-shot synergy after more playtesting. Hopefully not, but maybe.
To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to invest in true one-shots anyway. The problem is that Investment is basically nonterminal if built to play cards first which changes the card significantly. The change would further incentivize investing in nonterminal cards because one could invest and get the pay off on the same turn. I would look into making it as viable as possible to invest in good terminal Actions... but I'm not sure how to do that.If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. :(
I also like the "play it first" option except for the fact that it makes it not work with other one-shots because the Investment will lose track of the card before it can be set aside. Maybe that's not a big deal. Investment itself is a one-shot and with that change it would kind of make other cards into one-shots. And as you say, it saves a lot of AP, particularly when you have another terminal in hand you'd like to play.
First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:QuotePioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?
This should say "look at" instead of "reveal" and "put the rest back in any order." I like it. I especially like that a single Pioneer can be used as many times as you have Trade tokens. That could be a great payoff in games with cards with weaker Trade token abilities like Jubilee and Terrace. I'd like it a bit more if the discard was optional, but it is probably better to keep it simple since most of the time discarding will be the better option.
There are, of course, numerous ways around the "unknown draw" issue. How about making a sort of Embassy whose discard (or penalty otherwise) is made less severe by paying a Trade token?
First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:QuotePioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?
It seems to me that a "play this again for a token" would be really neat on a non-terminal, because then it can be a village as the special action. With a terminal, the special action doesn't do anything different/unique. Though I do like that with Pioneer, the special action isn't just draw 2, it's specifically draw the 2 cards that you just put back.
Although I agree it would be cool to have a card that effectively gives additional Actions through Trade tokens, I'm strongly leaning toward a terminal for "play it again". For one thing, 4 out of the 5 existing Trade token cards are non-terminal. More importantly, Pioneer has the special advantage of needing absolutely no tracking, which is a great asset for a card that can be played an arbitrary number of times. The set already has quite a bit of difficult Action, Coin, and Buy tracking, due to a number of one-shots that give those resources (and General, which might not let you "set aside" those cards on the way to the trash for tracking purposes). With Pioneer, no matter how many times you played it, you have the same number of Actions, Buys, and Coins. Whatever's in your hand is in your hand and whatever's on your deck is on your deck.
How does the investment mat interact with the end game? Do they count towards your deck at the end of the game? This would matter for action-victory cards, Vineyards, Gardens, and possibly Fairgrounds and Silk Road as well.
How does the investment mat interact with the end game? Do they count towards your deck at the end of the game? This would matter for action-victory cards, Vineyards, Gardens, and possibly Fairgrounds and Silk Road as well.
Same as Island, Native Village, Haven, etc. They go back to your deck at the end of the game.
What ratios of card types are you trying to reach? Have you got a checklist you're referring back to?
EDIT: Also want to gush about your two trasher attacks. I'm in the process of making my own set and it seems so hard to come up with a decent trashing attack, and you've come up with two.
One time when we were playing with Taxman, my wife suggested that I should make a card named "Axeman". I decided to bring the old Attack back and add the "can't buy this if you have no Actions in play" clause from some of Donald's outtakes. I haven't done another stress test on it, so it's possible I'll axe it for the same reason. But I'm hoping that 4 turns of build-up before you get hit by it will be enough to make it workable.
LF, do you have printable sheets of these cards, or are there directions somewhere for putting together a template? I'll be spending the weekend up in the mountains, with a crowd that likes Dominion but wouldn't go for playing with proxied cards. I sleeved my entire collection a few months ago, so I can just slip some paper into the sleeves (for blanks, excess Ruins, Rebuild &c.). What I need is a .pdf of properly sized cards that I can just take to Kinko's, order ten copies, and cut them out myself.
Sweet. Feel free to toss in some cards that you want tested. (If there's space left over, I wouldn't say no to Crystal Ball or Archivist, either. ;))
On Barrister, "Treasures" is spelt incorrectly.
Can you make the image post the OP?
Most of the trade token cards seem right for their price points without their trade token ability (with the obvious exception of Terrace), although in some cases it's more in a "strictly better" sense than a "competitive with other cards of the same cost" sense.
I didn't think Guide would be a $3 though. How likely is one of the 3 cards revealed to be dead? It compares favourably to Oracle, and that's before the trade tokens. Excellent card design, but seems a bit strong at $3. Playtesting will have the answer.
Well done on completing a big box set. Now it's time to refine, but this is way, way better than the fan expansions on bgg.
if you want a smithy+, here's an option.
Card, $5
+3 cards (maybe something else).
You may spend a trade token. If you do, +1 action and discard a card.
--
When you gain this take a trade token.
Would it be worth tying Wheelwright's penalty to the discard, so it can combo with exchange and other draw to X enablers? It adds "intent" to the copper when you want it to hurt.
I thought this when I was pondering how strong exchange without the trade token is. It's decent and you don't need to buff it. Being able to turn a gold into a province and still play another action is great. Governor's Remodel is very useful and that has a penalty (although it's also on a card that gains gold).
Will the final card be a 3rd conscripts card? Dark ages has 3 ruins cards and 3 spoils cards. So glad to see a 2nd.
Profiteer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck. Each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
Why does there have to be 3 conscripts cards? There's only 1 Mercenary card, and only 1 Madman card. I thought this was in the same "Card to get another card" boat.
ok, so, first of all: this looks really good. almost all cards are interesting and it feels like there's a lot of thought put into making this expansion.
second, i'd encourage you to put some more stuff into the opening post, like the downloads for the current versions of all cards, and the "picture post", or maybe a link to it. it'd make it easier to find stuff without having to look for it in the thread.
third: i would love to play with these, but but how would go about getting them to be physical cards? I mean, obviously you can print them, but having cards made out of paper isn't exactly ideal. you could glue them onto blanks, but i don't have nearly enough blanks. you can buy them here:
http://boardgamegeekstore.com/products/dominion-blank-cards
but that's ridiculously overpriced. i also don't use sleeves, because i play mostly online. my brother once made a cube of mtg cards by printing and glueing them onto a bunch of basic lands, but that doesn't really work here; there aren't any cards left to spare in dominion. i guess you could buy a copy of dark ages and use all of the cards ans pseudo-blanks, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant way. should i just start using sleeves?
As for the downloads, I'm not planning to update those sheets every time I change the cards. It took me quite a while to make those PDFs. I only put them together because Nic wanted them. If I put them in the OP, they'd become outdated pretty quickly. If I finalize the set and get a 100% assurance that it will never be published, I'll make the downloads more accessible.i see. makes sense.
Unfortunately, the only way I know to proxy up cards is with sleeves. If you want to play with the cards, you'll probably have to sleeve your entire Dominion set. I think that's worth doing in general, though.
Thanar is correct about buying sets to use for sleeved custom cards. Blanks are a waste of money. The most cost-effective way to do this is to buy a couple of Dominion: Base Cards boxes. They're $12 apiece on Amazon for 250 cards each. Then you can use your old Coppers, Provinces, etc. as fan cards. And you get nice, new base cards with art in the bargain! It's win-win. This solution doesn't give you blue-backed randomizers, though. If you need those, Hinterlands is your most cost-effective option.
If you don't already own Seaside, buy that. You can use Embargo tokens for Trade tokens and upside-down mats for Investment.
If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game.I've done that with promos previously, but it's not the same... is misses the certain feeling
If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.
If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.
You can also do this with non-blank cards. "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!" You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.
If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.
You can also do this with non-blank cards. "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!" You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.
If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.
You can also do this with non-blank cards. "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!" You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.
I tried this once. Never again -- I evidently can't pay attention.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/e/ed/Fool%27s_Gold.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/fErjc2m.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/70kBaTJ.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f7/Develop.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/Epic9GP.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/6659QOu.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/6/66/Cache.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/ZEVkvDY.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/0/06/Margrave.jpg) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/d/dd/Border_Village.jpg) |
LastFootnote, I like a lot of the cards in the set, but I am still not sold on some of uses of the trade tokens. Maybe it's my aversion to having more tokens and mats flying around, but to justify having them around, the tokens must be the easiest way to implement the idea of the card.
For example, consider:
Simple Jubilee
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. +$2.
You may play this card again immediately. If you do, trash it.
Much simpler. Easy to understand. No tokens. I think Jubilee has the Merchant Guild problem. There are a few cases where amassing coin tokens via Mercant Guild can be interesting and playing them all at once, but the much simpler Bridge mechanic works just as well most of the time. Sometimes getting coin tokens elsewhere doesn't save the card, either. Same with Jubilee. It's not sufficiently enhanced by trade tokens even if there are other ways to get the tokens.
The trade tokens are at their best when spending them like a limited stimulate resource that temporarily beefs up a card (and it's the easiest way to implement that temporary bonus).
Also, I think there may be too many remodel variants (Redistrict, Craftsman, Exchange). The trade token remodel variants are less interesting now because of Butcher. I would consider replacing Craftsman or Exchange. I really like Redistrict.
Cardinal: $4Most of these are completely useless in kingdoms without other trade token cards.
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-----
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
Cardinal: $4Most of these are completely useless in kingdoms without other trade token cards.
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-----
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
please don't replace trade tokens...
If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:
Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
Do you like them?
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would trash that card or otherwise remove it from play during your Action phase, don't. When you discard that card from play, put it on top of your deck.
Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.
Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.
Then it dies the next turn. Halfway between TR and KC. Although maybe not; you can elect not to play it, or next hand may have an action you want to trash. You also avoid the overshoot (for when you lack +buys). In fact General is better than KC in quite a few situations, but it's not going to make megaturns as often - I think it's probably fine at $5.
Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.
Then it dies the next turn. Halfway between TR and KC. Although maybe not; you can elect not to play it, or next hand may have an action you want to trash. You also avoid the overshoot (for when you lack +buys). In fact General is better than KC in quite a few situations, but it's not going to make megaturns as often - I think it's probably fine at $5.
But you could easily have a General in your next hand, too. There's no reason you can't keep the Death Cart train going indefinitely with a few Generals. You can even General a General, which plays a Death Cart. Then you topdeck a General and a Death Cart.
I'm not saying it needs a fix. Just pointing out that you could easily play a one-shot more than three times using Generals (though not in a single turn).
Not to mention you also need a form of +Buy to really make it worthwhile. Like others have said, DC junks your deck, so I would not really consider this overpowered.
Death Cart+General seems like a very good combo indeed.
Pillage+General is also fantastic; get enough Generals and a single Pillage and you can brutalise the hand of your opponents (possibly preventing them from ever buying a province) every single turn while you fill your deck with Spoils.
Nothing wrong with a combo like that existing; you should only really be worried if the oneshots in Enterprise (especially Conscripts) are made way too powerful by a "General Train", especially Conscripts (remembering that you also need the Conscripts gainers). If people regularly want to avoid games with General+Oneshots because it's too game warping, then the feature is a waste.
General without the trash prevention is still an excellent card that should be in the set. I can't think of any non oneshots that would really be problematic with General. As far as cards that you'd want to play across multiple turns go, I can't think of any that are much, much, better when you play them twice, in which case Scheme is a better enabler.
When you reveal or just look at cards at the top of your deck, sometimes there's an option to return them to the top of the deck. For published cards that happens with Scout, Navigator, Apothecary, Rabble, Oracle, Cartographer, Mandarin (gain effect), Survivors, Wandering Minstrel and Doctor.
For all of those it is pointed out that the deck's owner may choose the order to put them in. That is practical, so you don't have to keep track of what order the revealed/looked-at cards were, and I think your cards Barrister, Guide and Dignitary should do the same. For example Dignitary being "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand and put the other cards on top of your deck in any order. +$1 for each card you put on your deck."
When you reveal or just look at cards at the top of your deck, sometimes there's an option to return them to the top of the deck. For published cards that happens with Scout, Navigator, Apothecary, Rabble, Oracle, Cartographer, Mandarin (gain effect), Survivors, Wandering Minstrel and Doctor.
For all of those it is pointed out that the deck's owner may choose the order to put them in. That is practical, so you don't have to keep track of what order the revealed/looked-at cards were, and I think your cards Barrister, Guide and Dignitary should do the same. For example Dignitary being "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand and put the other cards on top of your deck in any order. +$1 for each card you put on your deck."
This was (unfortunately) a conscious decision on my part to save space on the cards.
[...]
The idea is that the virtual rulebook for Enterprise has the rule, "When a player puts multiple cards onto his deck, he always chooses the order unless a card specifies differently." This is not ideal, but at least it matches all existing cards and it's the natural assumption anyway.
Set aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand.
Here's another thing about Dignitary:
"Trash down to 4 cards" sounds to me like trashing one card at a time until the limit is met, which isn't good because of when-trashed effects, like for Cultist ("When you trash this, +3 Cards.")
On a computer implementation which didn't make something special to avoid this you could make the game go on forever by just repeatedly trashing a Fortress.
I don't think that is the intention, but it's analogous to "discard down" on Militia, which according to the FAQ means that the "attacked players discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand". I'd like something that makes it clear that you trash all of those cards together, (and then take care of all their trash properties, in any order), like you do for Chapel for instance. Here is my suggestion, using formulations found on existing cards:QuoteSet aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand.
"Trash down to 4 cards" sounds to me like trashing one card at a time until the limit is met, which isn't good because of when-trashed effects, like for Cultist ("When you trash this, +3 Cards.")
On a computer implementation which didn't make something special to avoid this you could make the game go on forever by just repeatedly trashing a Fortress.
I don't think that is the intention, but it's analogous to "discard down" on Militia, which according to the FAQ means that the "attacked players discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand".
[...]
Actually, the reason I decided to go with the current wording is because of Militia. Just like trashing multiple cards, discarding multiple cards happens all at once, never one at a time. So on-trash effects aren't really an issue from that perspective.
However, you could reveal a Dignitary, trash a Fortress, reveal Dignitary again, trash the Fortress again, etc. This results in no change in your hand, so it's more or less equivalent to revealing Moat or Secret Chamber forever, so any online implementation has to have code to take that into account. You have to be able to trash Fortress with Dignitary at least once, though, for the purposes of activating Market Square, etc.
Set aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand at the beginning of your next turn.
Put 4 cards from your hand on your deck. Trash your hand. Draw 4 cards at the beginning of your next turn.
On Convocation: It almost necessarily puts an action card into your hand which means switiching the +action to a +buy is a bad idea. It might be better at 6 with a buff (possibly revealing four cards).
On Axeman: This looks fundamentally unfun to me. You have saboteur (which I for one already don't enjoy playing with or against) combined with a discard attack that will usually hit something you want and being a terminal silver seems very likely to break games. I do like the buy restriction though.
On Committee: Based on treasure map I'm pretty sure that, as this is worded, you don't actually need to hit two differently named cards for the effect to trigger. Is this acceptable here?
On the set as a whole: I feel like you have too many gainers: There are three "traditional" gainers (two of which are non-terminal) committee and five (six with windfall) cards that gain specific cards (although these ones are reasonably different mechanically), there are also two cards that let your opponent gain a card and one that forces them to. Half of your set currently uses gain as an imperative which is kind of ridiculous. Also a large portion of these gainers are off theme.
On Committee: Based on treasure map I'm pretty sure that, as this is worded, you don't actually need to hit two differently named cards for the effect to trigger. Is this acceptable here?
It's not ideal. Could you elaborate? I read it differently.
If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:
Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
Do you like them?
If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:
Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
Do you like them?
All these cards use trade tokens, except they either gain them without using them, so use them without gaining them. Like the first card just pointless without any other trade token cards.i know... that wasn't the question. these ones are already talked about a page back.
is this a thing? can we suggest cards here?
Sure, I guess. Just know that I may or may not use themwell, you're most likely not going to use them, if half of all ideas would turn into cards, we'd have a lot more than we have now. anyway, i was thinking of this idea, and then i thought it kind of fits the enterprise theme... in a way. i know you already have two villages, but either way it seems easier than creating a thread for it.
QuoteSure, I guess. Just know that I may or may not use themwell, you're most likely not going to use them, if half of all ideas would turn into cards, we'd have a lot more than we have now. anyway, i was thinking of this idea, and then i thought it kind of fits the enterprise theme... in a way. i know you already have two villages, but either way it seems easier than creating a thread for it.
Action - Ancient Village - 4$
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If you have exactly 5 cards in your hand, +1 Card
it would probably be one of the strongest village-with-bonus, but comparing it to Wandering Minstrel, I don't think it's broken. it may be boring, but you could do some cool stuff with oasis or just terminal silvers. it's also so simple that i wasn't sure whether it has been done before.
Are you going to make investment a Treasure worth $0, or a reaction, or is it working fine as is?
Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
Trash this. You may play an Action card from your hand, then set it aside on your Investment mat.
When a player plays an Action card, he gets +$1 per copy of it on his Investment mat.
Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
Trash this. Set aside an Action card from the Supply onto your Investment mat.
When a player plays an Action card, he gets +$1 per copy of it on his Investment mat.
Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
[Trash this?] Put the Investment marker on an Action card Supply pile.
Copies of the card that the Investment marker is on cost $2 more and generate an extra $1 when played.
Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.
Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.
I like that. The only problem is that you can't set aside a terminal Action without a village. But maybe it could be from hand or from play. Hmm…
Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.
I like that. The only problem is that you can't set aside a terminal Action without a village. But maybe it could be from hand or from play. Hmm…
A treasure that sets aside from play?
Lastfootnote,
Thanks for making Dominion:Enterprise available and continuing to improve it. I've printed out the PDF files and am in the process of printing/cutting/etc so that my gaming group can play it in its entirety.
To that end, would you be able to post the full-size images for (at least) General, Jubilee, Windfall and Investment so that I can print those out in the same quality as the PDF images? The images of those updated cards you posted here recently are only 348x537, which is noticeably lower quality when printed out compared to the ones in the PDFs.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/1/1c/Cellar.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/jvfuBmn.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/5/5a/Village.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/PjrZi6l.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/36/Smithy.jpg) |
(https://i.imgur.com/FE0uFbt.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/4XKwhZL.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/Be6jHfx.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/0/0c/Laboratory.jpg) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f3/Witch.jpg) |
This might be a little random, but why did you choose the card fund to not make use of trade tokens, since that is the idea of this expansion. I know that it wouldn't change too much, but it would be slightly more thematic. Is there any reason you did this? Does it hurt to much for the trade token to be used on something else?
Sorry if the answer is obvious or someone already asked it, but I was just wondering this while playing some of your cards today.
Also, Thanks for the expansion! Best fan expansion I have ever seen. I feel the idea is unique enough to feel like a real expansion. The idea of trade tokens is just genius.
hm, i really don't like the woodcutter version. It just feels tagged on, why would investment provide +buy?
hm, i really don't like the woodcutter version. It just feels tagged on, why would investment provide +buy? I don't like the treasure version either, it just doesn't make any sense for it to be a treasure; it's a card that does stuff with actoin cards, why would it be a treasure?
I really like the basic idea though. I'd suggest this version:
+1 Action.
You may trash this. If you do, you may reveal an Action card from your hand. Put a copy of it from the supply onto your investment mat.
---
When a Player plays an Action card, he gets +1$...
It's basically the "play the action first" idea, but it doesn't have any weird synergies with general or rule issues with one shots. It doesn't work if there aren't any cards left in the supply though.It should have about the same powerlevel, you're getting the effect from the action card instead of the +2$ +1 buy. So, if the action card is a woodcutter, it's identical. If you invest in more exensive cards, it's a little bit better.Well, actually you get the +1$ too, so it's probably stronger than woodcutter bonus.
Herbalist is a card that provides Coin and a Buy and does stuff with Treasures. Why would it be an Action? ;)
But unfortunately it doesn't actually solve the problem I currently have with the card, which is that none of my playtesters ever buy it. I guess they see it and think, "Whoa, too complex for me." [+1 Buy; +$2] gives them another reason to buy it. The value of extra buys is obvious. Then maybe they get it in their hand with a Village and think, "Hmmm…maybe I should seize this opportunity." That's my hope, anyway.
[+1 Buy; +$2] is nice because it helps you potentially pick up another couple copies of the card you just invested in. So it's not just a completely arbitrary bonus.eh.
well, i don't think you should ever ask yourself "why would it be an action," simply because the majority of all kingdom cards are action cards. you can make it a treasure, but if you do, it should feel like a treasure card when playing it. like, if you buy it to produce coins, that's a good start. contraband, cache, hoard, royal seel, venture, phil. stone, fools gold, harem and bank all clearly want to be treasures, you get them, use them in your buying phase and buy stuff with them. talisman, quarry and horn of plenty are a little bit different, but you're still using them to get stuff. counterfeit is a bit of a stretch, but at least it only trashes other treasures. none of these have any weird synergy with actions cards from your hand. when i look at treasure-investment, i don't see a treasure, i see a yellow action card with a +1$ tagged on.
that's, uhm, obv just my opinion. and it's not a big deal, i'm not going to cry if you end up making investment a treasure. it just seems like a very weak fix to me.
CathedralThis may look kind of familiar. Draw is always fun and +3 Cards at $5 isn't too weak. Combined with strong trashing that can be cashed in when desired, Cathedral is actually quite a bit of fun right now.
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each Trade token spent, trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
SorceressThis is somewhat playing around with alternative ways to gain Trade tokens, in addition to a Curser with Trade tokens. It ended up working out in a Kingdom with Jubilee (which is probably one of the best tests for it since Jubilee makes Trade tokens so readily available). In Kingdoms without other Trade tokens cards, a player has to build up a bit of an engine to be able to give out many curses with Sorceress (or with Trade token cards, to cash in for a million Trade tokens that the player needs for other reasons). I gained three tokens at once at one point which made me feel pretty clever.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
When you gain this, gain a Trade token for every 2 Actions you have in play, rounded down.
Donald X was pretty insistent about all the when-trash cards being cards that can't trash (except Rats which can't trash other Rats) because he doesn't like self comboing cards (although he designed Minion), which is interesting since with trade tokens by necessity the cards must both get trade tokens and use them (unlike coin tokens which you can always use).
For what it's worth I don't think that's any problem at all, but I'm now thinking Craftsman should be the only card that gets multiple trade tokens easily, just to really emphasise that they are primarily the triggers for the one time effect of cards, and occasionally you might get to swap one for the other.
Ignore my previous post? Perhaps.
I wasn't specifically avoiding "has a when-trashed ability, also has a way to trash itself," but it's only natural that there isn't one of those. It makes the whole thing less interesting. There is a classic thing they sometimes do in Magic, where they put both pieces of a combo on the same card. It's just much less fun than when you piece the combo together yourself.
• Each other player either pays a trade token or gets attacked (with something situationally strong) / When gain, everyone else gets a trade token
• Strong card with a trade token effect, and when you play everyone else gains a trade token (could be combined with above)
• Related to the above, a card that gives everyone a trade token on play, but only you can exchange it for something right now (and only you own the card that makes it useful)
• A card with a reaction to something that's bound to happen like Province Gains that gives you a trade token (better than reactions to attacks)
• Trade tokens gained upon meeting special conditions (eg Menagerie)
• When trash trade tokens (could work in a similar way to Investment; sacrifice one card to power up the others of its kind)
• Flip the order; you pay trade tokens on gain/buy/trash for effects (on a card that gains trade tokens on play)
• Paying the trade token during a reaction
Disclaimer: Sorry, I haven’t playtested any of your cards, so these are just my thoughts from looking at them. I’m not really going to respond on the strategic value of the cards, but rather if they excite me or not. Although I certainly believe that a card may not look fun but be fun when it’s actually played, I think there is value in player reactions without playtesting. I mean, if a card doesn’t look fun or interesting, I’m not going to buy it in the first place. So this might be too personally subjective, but I hope it’s still useful.
I feel like too many cards in the expansion are conditional labs. There’s Gambler, Convocation, and Vendor. The first two seem sufficiently different and interesting that I think it’s fine, but Vendor just looks so boring next to those cards. It’s an ok card (and I’m sure plays differently than both Gambler and Convocation), but it seems so much less inspired when the other two cards exist in the same set. When I read it, I think “wait, isn’t there already a card like this in the expansion?” rather than, “that looks fun.”
Similarly, there’s too many cards that gain cards based on some other value: Redistrict, Mill Town, Craftsman, and Exchange. Each of these cards turns different resources into cards. I think I remember someone else complaining before about there being too many “remodels” in the set. I can only guess that this is part of the reason. Mill Town looks the most fun because it adds a new goal that doesn’t exist in Dominion (get as many copper in my hand as I can). Redistrict seems ok because of its versatility and low cost for this type of card. Exchange’s trade token ability seems fun, but I don’t find “non-terminal Remodel” to be all that interesting. Craftsman, I’m really not a fan of. First, I anticipate it being confusing. My friends always have to re-read Butcher every time they play it, and this is worse. The fact that trade tokens = two coin increments and that it starts at 1 all make it less intuitive than Butcher. Also, I don’t like the fact that this gets trade tokens on play. I think there’s value in all of the trade tokens being on gain/buy and only one at a time. And now that Jubilee returns itself back to the supply and can be an unbounded supply of trade tokens, Craftsman seems even less necessary.
Would a more standard Workshop variant with a trade token ability to put the gained card in hand be too similar to Workshop/Armory? Oddly, even though this is more similar to existing cards, I find it to be more compelling in this set than Craftsman or Exchange.
Guide – I dream of playing this card 5 times with only one copy.
I feel like too many cards in the expansion are conditional labs. There’s Gambler, Convocation, and Vendor. The first two seem sufficiently different and interesting that I think it’s fine, but Vendor just looks so boring next to those cards. It’s an ok card (and I’m sure plays differently than both Gambler and Convocation), but it seems so much less inspired when the other two cards exist in the same set. When I read it, I think “wait, isn’t there already a card like this in the expansion?” rather than, “that looks fun.”
If anything I'd rather get rid of Convocation. That gets a lot more complaints, mostly that it's too often better than Lab. But even if I did that, I'd maybe want another Lab variant because Mill Town wants a decent amount of draw in the set and I don't consider Gambler and Vendor to really be filling that role, since you have to trash them to increase your handsize. Maybe Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, and another $5 terminal draw are enough, though. Probably, although Conscripts and Axeman are decreasing hand sizes. Anyway, yeah. Convocation is less likely to stay than Vendor. Perhaps I could add something to Vendor to make it more interesting, but I like its simplicity.
Why do all your variants of investment involve it being a oneshot? Would it be too strong for the card to stick around (now it's also a Woodcutter).
How about making it a trade token gainer (on play) that gives you the choice of +$2, investing an action card, or another cards trade token ability?
Edit: Alternatively you could make the invested cards get trashed at the end of the game so it works as a trasher, or as an "island" if you put the cards back.
Barrister continues to be ignored in the Kingdoms I play it in. I think its ability is too swingy and situational. I think the coolest part about Barrister is the interaction Trash-for-benefit cards have with Domain and Barrister's ability to pull Domains back out of the trash. To that end, I might recommend removing the Attack entirely from Barrister. Domain is at the cost bracket that Saboteurs and Knights will trash them now, and Domain is fun to Trash-for-benefit. I think Barrister could be reworked to have a more interesting ability in addition to pulling Domains out of the trash and it would be great fun (and possibly decrease the number of Attacks in the set).
I've found Recruiter to be frustratingly slow and it is basically impossible to use Conscripts as a curser without Throne Room (or some other variant of such) since it puts Conscripts into your next hand. Would it be too much to optionally put the Conscripts into your discard pile?
Convocation is good. I don't think it's really too much better than Laboratory, but it always feels much more satisfying than it even when it's drawing a Copper and Estate from 2 Coppers and an Estate (I guess because of how much sifting exists in Dominion nowadays.
Terrace is good fun. I wish Enterprise had another disappearing card or two in addition to Jubilee to make its Trade token effect stronger.
Now I will talk about the custom cards that worked out. The names are placeholders. Feel free to use, ignore, or build upon anything here:QuoteCathedralThis may look kind of familiar. Draw is always fun and +3 Cards at $5 isn't too weak. Combined with strong trashing that can be cashed in when desired, Cathedral is actually quite a bit of fun right now.
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each Trade token spent, trash up to 3 cards from your hand.
When you gain this, gain a Trade token.QuoteSorceressThis is somewhat playing around with alternative ways to gain Trade tokens, in addition to a Curser with Trade tokens. It ended up working out in a Kingdom with Jubilee (which is probably one of the best tests for it since Jubilee makes Trade tokens so readily available). In Kingdoms without other Trade tokens cards, a player has to build up a bit of an engine to be able to give out many curses with Sorceress (or with Trade token cards, to cash in for a million Trade tokens that the player needs for other reasons). I gained three tokens at once at one point which made me feel pretty clever.
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
When you gain this, gain a Trade token for every 2 Actions you have in play, rounded down.
Similarly, there’s too many cards that gain cards based on some other value:
…
Craftsman, I’m really not a fan of. First, I anticipate it being confusing. My friends always have to re-read Butcher every time they play it, and this is worse. The fact that trade tokens = two coin increments and that it starts at 1 all make it less intuitive than Butcher.
Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token.
I actually considered making Investment a non-one-shot recently. (Man, this set it just hemorrhaging one-shots.) I'm not too concerned about its power level. I'm more concerned that newer players would completely shaft themselves by using it too much. Still, it's perhaps worth trying.I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea. I've played with investment, and the big problem we had is that you have to kill one of your action cards to make it work. 3 player means that, even if you "win" a 4/3/3 split, you just have 4 of them, and if you invest in one you just have 3, that just doesn't seem to be worth it. you can just buy two treasuries and probably get more +$ every turn
QuoteCraftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token.
Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action.Just state the number of actions out loud every time you play an Action card, it's not that hard. You also have to do it with Squire, Trusty Steed, Pawn, Tribute, Ironmonger and a bunch of other official cards.
Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action.Just state the number of actions out loud every time you play an Action card, it's not that hard. You also have to do it with Squire, Trusty Steed, Pawn, Tribute, Ironmonger and a bunch of other official cards.
I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea. I've played with investment, and the big problem we had is that you have to kill one of your action cards to make it work. 3 player means that, even if you "win" a 4/3/3 split, you just have 4 of them, and if you invest in one you just have 3, that just doesn't seem to be worth it. you can just buy two treasuries and probably get more +$ every turn
it's possible that not every player wants that specific action card, but i dare saying that if all players know what they're doing, this will be an exception. and if killing one card hurts, killing more than one will hurt like crazy. also, you'd have to make the card weaker in order to balance it for the situations where it would be useful, so it becomes even more situational, which I think is a bad thing. and lastly it wouldn't fit the set theme anymore.
Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action. Would it be too strong if it always gave +1 Action? As in:
+1 Action. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, and take a Trade token.
Edit: One possible problem with it giving +1 Action all the time is that it may be too good at gaining Duchies. A connected Tournament and Rebuild are the only nonterminals I can think of that gain Duchies.
What was wrong with the old Craftsman, with the formula?
Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. Choose one: Reveal then discard any number of Victory cards from your hand and +$2 per card discarded; or gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
I have admired your enterprise set for a while now and I'm glad that I finally find the time to give you my opinion on it now. I hope it can be of some value to you. I'll start with the card that I find interesting, amazing, and would love to playtest with friends:
Barrister and Domain: One of the first cards that come to my mind when I think of your set (Domain, specifically), because it shapes the game in a unique way. Games with four or more players would get really crazy and start out as a Barrister-war, similarly to Ambassador-war, and with increasing deck sizes, the attacks become less likely to hit. But you still want all those Domains, so you keep playing those Barristers. That one hit in the endgame could make a huge VP difference, which keeps it exciting. I just love the idea, and I really hope it plays out well.
I like most other cards as well, but I also agree with tripwire on most points.
I can see the reason for the complaints about Convocation, but the idea in itself it neat enough. A deck where it might be worse than a Lab would be an engine that does not draw your whole deck - you would often discard a potentially good action card. Otherwise it's just a very good card. Maybe you could nerf the card a little by giving a small boon to your opponents when you play it. Or perhaps make it a "bad Smithy" by strinking the +Action and reducing the cost to 3?
Recruiter and Conscripts: First off, Conscripts is a cool one-shot attack, an even meaner Torturer variant for the attacking part. However, I imagine this would make it very frustrating eventually, especially in a multiplayer game where "revenge" becomes the prevailing theme, to the point where everyone is stalling hard with curses. I think Recuiter might be a bit too fast in gaining Conscripts, for it being such a powerful card, even for a one-shot. But I should playtest this first. I might be mistaken.
I look forward to playtest some of your cards in the future. Would you like to hear some reports then? Are the black and white stars still up-to-date?
EDIT: Barrister's text is missing the term "in any order" after "and puts the rest on top". I know the card is wordy enough, but it just doesn't feel right without it.
that's interesting... now it has similarities to feast.
let me compare some openings:
silver/silver: 15% to get to $5 twice, 91% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver/silver
silver/feast: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver
craftsman/jubilee: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: craftsman
so it's identical to silver/feast except that you get to keep the craftsman instead of the silver. that's definitely preferable on some boards, depending on what the $5's are.
e: another possible opening is craftsman/guide. that will also guarantee you a 5$, and leave both cards in your deck. problem is they might collide, worst case is you draw craftsman with guide and don't get anything.
too bad terrace doesn't cost 3$, that would be an amazing opener
I liked the old Craftsman, and I don't buy any arguments about complexity (I don't think any person that's ever visited these forums has trouble counting odd numbers)
Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token
Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.QuoteBroker (I'm not sold on this name.)...Seems a bit counterintuitive. Is the idea to encourage (and mitigate the harms of) early greening?...
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
The idea looks fine. It's not very exciting though, which is always kind of a bummer for a $5 card.
But it doesn't seem to be fun to me either way (though I could be wrong).
Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Not a bad concept (the bottom, that is), although the way to get trade tokens with this card makes you less likely to want to use them (more cards worth discarding). Seems a bit counterintuitive. Is the idea to encourage (and mitigate the harms of) early greening?
Spending a trade token on sifting would be ideal, instead of spending a trade token to draw instead of sift. Terrace already has that, and I like that card (although a full mulligan wouldn't be confused for optional sifting). You could do "+$X, discard Y cards, pay a trade token to draw to Z" - would that be stepping on Wheelwright's toes?
I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.
QuoteBroker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
I'm not sure how balanced this would be with the rest of your set, but have you considered something like:
Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each token you spend, +$2.
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
This variant seems like it would be really strong with mid-turn gainers like Workshop, but this is terminal so you'd have to work for that. The vanilla bonuses can probably be adjusted, but of course the real question is if it makes the card any more interesting. This version makes you spend the tokens before you draw and get full information, and adds the possibility of token saving similar to Merchant Guild.
I'm having a heck of a time thinking of more good terminal $5 cards to fill two slots now that Investment is probably dead.
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card revealed that's worth between 3$ and 6$
Fair enough. I forgot about Fund as well. I was thinking that it would be more thematic to have to invest trade tokens with incomplete information. But then, Mining Village can lead to all sorts of action paralysis.I'm not sure how balanced this would be with the rest of your set, but have you considered something like:
Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each token you spend, +$2.
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.
This variant seems like it would be really strong with mid-turn gainers like Workshop, but this is terminal so you'd have to work for that. The vanilla bonuses can probably be adjusted, but of course the real question is if it makes the card any more interesting. This version makes you spend the tokens before you draw and get full information, and adds the possibility of token saving similar to Merchant Guild.
I feel like a one-shot +$2 is Fund's schtick. Mining Village did it first, of course, but Fund and Mining Village are in different sets and they're different enough for that to be sufficient. I don't really want to have another Enterprise card do it if I can get away with it, though.
In general, I want players to be informed as possible about what they'll get when they trigger a one-shot ability. That's why I'm against Trade tokens for blind draw. Similarly, I'm not a fan of spending tokens for Coins and then drawing, such that you'll have to guess whether you actually needed those Coins. If you guessed wrong, you either wasted your token or you don't have enough Coins. Fund is way better than Mining Village in this way, since you almost always know how many Coins you have this turn when deciding whether to activate its effect.
There are two reasons I try to design cards this way. First, it makes for fewer times when the players feel like they wasted an ability due to a bad guess. That's no fun. Second, it makes the decision about whether to spend the ability more meaningful. If players have to guess whether it's worth it to spend a token. Terrace is probably as far as I'm willing to go in the direction of blind results. With Terrace, you're often thinking, "My next 5 cards have got to be better than this" and you're usually right.
QuoteI'm having a heck of a time thinking of more good terminal $5 cards to fill two slots now that Investment is probably dead.
ok, this is probably not helpful, but... I got 4 5$'s for my set, and one of them might be useuful, though it's a terminal draw and you already got lodge (and it doesn't fit your theme). still, there is a slim chance you can use the idea for something.QuoteReveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card revealed that's worth between 3$ and 6$
the wording is tricky but the best I came up with, and I think it's clear what it does. there might be some way you can turn this into a trade token effect, like +x cards, you may pay a trade token, if you do reveal your hand, if you revealed Y differently priced cards, good stuff happens; if you gain this take a trade token.
so, if you happen to like the idea and haven't thought of it before, feel free to use it.
Remember that one of the big reasons Cathedral was a game decider was because it initially drew 4 cards. The difference between +3 Cards and +4 Cards is huge in any strategy. This way of acquiring Trade token looks weird since it is a gate rather than a synergy.QuoteCathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Or something. This should eliminate the concern about Cathedral being too powerful as an opening because you can't use the trashing until at least turn 5. Unless you opened Cathedral/Jubilee, but that seems like a fine combo.
In general, I want players to be informed as possible about what they'll get when they trigger a one-shot ability. That's why I'm against Trade tokens for blind draw. Similarly, I'm not a fan of spending tokens for Coins and then drawing, such that you'll have to guess whether you actually needed those Coins. If you guessed wrong, you either wasted your token or you don't have enough Coins.Consider that Broker (and other such cards) have ways to gather Trade tokens, making their ordinarily one-shot abilities significantly less one-shotty and more plain expensive instead. I don't think it would be awful to have a card that can generate Trade tokens with a riskier effect, but definitely appreciate your dedication to making Trade tokens certain, for the most part.
I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.
Could you go into more detail about why it didn't work? What was the card, exactly? It sounds interesting.
TrapperA Smithy+ as a simple effect to see how compelling the selective draw was. The selective draw obviously synergizes with the way one actually acquires Trade tokens since you're increasing the size and variance of your deck by putting Victory cards into it but Trapper reaches through the bloated deck to reuse good cards.
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Look through your discard pile. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Remember that one of the big reasons Cathedral was a game decider was because it initially drew 4 cards. The difference between +3 Cards and +4 Cards is huge in any strategy. This way of acquiring Trade token looks weird since it is a gate rather than a synergy.QuoteCathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Or something. This should eliminate the concern about Cathedral being too powerful as an opening because you can't use the trashing until at least turn 5. Unless you opened Cathedral/Jubilee, but that seems like a fine combo.
That +buy is kind of gross though. Look at it: It's just hanging there. You should do something about it before it gets infected.
QuoteTrapperA Smithy+ as a simple effect to see how compelling the selective draw was. The selective draw obviously synergizes with the way one actually acquires Trade tokens since you're increasing the size and variance of your deck by putting Victory cards into it but Trapper reaches through the bloated deck to reuse good cards.
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Look through your discard pile. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.
Unfortunately, because of its strong draw it was really easy to stack its in-play effect and gain Trade tokens faster than you could really use them with other engine pieces.
Decreasing its draw to +2 Cards would make it a much weaker card-- maybe justifiably so for it being a practically infinite source of Trade tokens-- but it wouldn't fix the stacking problem. It could possibly be made into a sifter of sorts (+2 Cards, +$3, Discard 2 Cards, Pay to draw from discard) which would help its Trade token effect always have something to draw and also make it harder to stack with itself. However, the strength of its draw is one of the big reasons players are encouraged to do more than simply draw the best Treasure from their discard pile. Either of those changes also won't help your set allow players to get more cards into their hands.
Why would you get rid of convocation?
True! But Goons and Merchant Guild are practically all about gaining tokens (Victory point tokens and Coin tokens respectively) where Cathedral trashes, and draws, and gets Trade tokens. It's not a problem, but it is mentally crowded.Disagree! +1 Buy is never superfluous on a card that does something when you buy a card. Just look at Goons, Merchant Guild, etc. If you have two Cathedrals in play, it's probably worth buying an Estate for two tokens.CathedralThat +buy is kind of gross though. Look at it: It's just hanging there. You should do something about it before it gets infected.
As for getting more cards into hands, I'm starting to come around to the idea that I have enough of that. Gambler and Vendor aside, I have Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, Convocation, and Wheelwright (and Dignitary to a lesser extent). And when it comes to getting one big mega-turn for Mill Towns, Gambler and Vendor can help. Probably I'm OK on draw after all (though if I get rid of Convocation, this may change).There is a bit of draw, but Floodgate is a one-shot, Wheelwright only draws to 7, and each other draws only 2 cards (except Guide which is a one-shot for +4 Cards). I'd like to see at least one card that flat-out draws 3 cards.
I can't remember whether I've talked about it in this thread before, but I'm also considering splitting Conscripts into 3 or 4 different cards. Probably 3 different cards (5 copies of each). One would give out Curses. One would be a discard attack. One would be a spy attack. Perhaps this would create more problems than it solves. I'd prefer to have Conscripts not be totally useless once the Curses run out, but maybe that's not such a big deal. After all, Barracks still retains its utility with other Attacks on the board.It's an interesting idea. I also like the idea of having limited Cursing Conscripts that trash themselves so that they can't empty the Curse pile on their own.
Barracks
Types: Action – Campaign
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Because a lot of people think it's too much better than Lab. That's not such a big deal that I'm going to cut it before finding a replacement, though. It may not get cut at all.
Barracks
Types: Action – Campaign
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
QuoteBecause a lot of people think it's too much better than Lab. That's not such a big deal that I'm going to cut it before finding a replacement, though. It may not get cut at all.
that's strange, I've never played it, but it looks a lot weaker than lab to me
QuoteBarracks
Types: Action – Campaign
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.
Well, unless all three cards you reveal are of one type, you draw at least 2 cards. And you get more choice over what those cards are than you would with Lab. Sometimes you do reveal all three cards of the same type and/or you're force to discard a good card, so it's not strictly better. But it's probably usually better. Like Hunting Party.
I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.
It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.
I just thought that you will reveal 3 cards of the same type quite frequently. BM will often have 3 treasures, engines will often have 3 action cards. But that's not important, you know more about how it actually plays out, so I'm probably just flat out wrong.
well, sure, you will block one eventually, but I can still see games being decided by who has a domain in his hand the first two times. There are official cards which are like that too, but I just don't think we need another one. I mean, for swinder and mountebank I can overlook it, because the simplest version of the card just works like that. But conscripts - why should they care about a Domain? It just seems like adding a luck factor for the sake of adding a luck factor, and I don't like that. Moat is luck dependend, but it's also skill dependend, you need to know how many to buy. This "cares about domain" mechanic doesn't involve any skill.
If you just want to make a weaker variant of "each player gets a curse", then I'm sure there is a better way. how about "each other player may discard a silver or two coppers. if he doesn't, he gains a curse". That's similar to Torturer though.
note that I haven't actually played with the old conscripts, so my opinion may be based on wrong assumptions, maybe they kick in later than I think, or you play them more frequently than I think. And it's a personal thing, I tend to dislike luck factors that serve no purpose, but I'm sure a lot of others won't mind it.
The Domain version is meant to fix the brutal nature of the previous version while still somewhat mitigating how fast the Curses fly, etc. I'm definitely not adding it just for the sake of adding randomness. I don't really think it's going to make the card much more random at all, honestly. Before, if you got lucky and got two Conscripts in the same hand, you got to give each other player a Curse. In some ways, that was more random.well, in the end you'll have to playtest it. I'm not that convinced anymore that it's a bad idea, though I still kind of dislike the idea that you just get a protection card assigned
how about this version?
+1 Action
Choose one: +2$, and each other player discard down to 3 cards; or each other player with 3 cards in his hand gains a curse
or would that just make it less fun because you'll choose cursing anyway?
Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.I'm glad you see that Conscripts need to be nerfed. I playtested Recruiter and Conscripts with four players a while ago in a random kingdom with no trashing around, but Swindler and some other attack in addition, which made the game as tedious as it can get. I found that I really like the idea of a reaction that gains you an attack card directly into your hand. I'd appreciate if Recruiter was going to keep sticking around. The attack card gained being Conscripts in its form as it was at the time was the main problem here.
So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".
I was thinking of creating another card or two that used Domains. That way I can have a new type like Looter and can cut the setup text out of Barrister. Also, if you're playing multiple games with Enterprise cards, it's more likely that you won't have to switch up the starting decks between games. I was trying to come up with some sort of trash-for-benefit card in the Mine/Taxman vein. Or maybe they could act as a moat against Conscripts! That would be a nerf. Hmm…Yeah, please integrate Domains into other card texts :D But them moating Conscripts doesn't seem right to me, I agree with silverspawn there. It would create a little too much interlocking between the cards within this set while adding nothing but unnecessary complexity to a random kingdom.
My random thought idea for Conscripts:you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn, even in a solid engine (just nuke the villages). it's also really swingy, because the power heavily depends on the density of your opponents deck
"+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 5 or more cards in his hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose, then draws a card."
- the idea being, replace a good card with a random one.
It stacks, which I think is important for a non-terminal attack, yet even if you play lots there's still the chance that the top card gives your opponent something to do. The turn-killing potential might still be too high, though.
[also, there's a minor theme-related point that in general cursers have witch-names whereas discard attacks have soldier-names]
you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn,Hell, playing it once will sometimes be enough to kill a turn. Not all the time, but probably at least once per game.
you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn,Hell, playing it once will sometimes be enough to kill a turn. Not all the time, but probably at least once per game.
Personally I like Domains just being on one card. It makes them more unique, and that card more unique. Considering Barrister (that is the card that uses Domains right?) is already probably not super strong, the fact that you start with a $3 card already changes a lot with TfB cards. This alone makes that card interesting.
I guess they would be like ruins if they only had 3 cards using them. But despite being interesting sometimes, they don't seem to be game changing, more game enhancing (like the Baker Coin. It wouldn't be so cool if half the Guilds cards had that set-up rule). My 2 cents is to keep Domain on just one card, then it becomes more like Baker and less like Ruins. Not that Ruins are bad, but they are a more impactful (not a word) concept that a small set-up change like Domains.
Have you tried using some variation of "If this is the first action/attack card you have played this turn, ..., otherwise, ... " for conscript? This could be a way to limit how many curses it can deal (make it non-repeatable)
You could also try some variation of "Conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play"*, or some other limiting condition, to force you to build a deck around it for it to be successful.
Basically, go the conspirator way.
*This example is probably a bad idea, but it does make the curse-giving much harder to achieve.
I'm not sure if this really solves anything, but an idea I just thought of for Conscripts: "+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 4 or more cards in his hand discards a card. Each other player who didn't discard anything gains a Curse." So basically a slower version of the original, it takes three plays of Conscripts to deal out Curses. Maybe that's too much and I'm also not sure I like that the first play is only an Urchin attack, so it basically needs to line up with another Conscripts (or other discard attack) to be good, but maybe that's the nerf it needs. Just a thought.
My random thought idea for Conscripts:
"+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 5 or more cards in his hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose, then draws a card."
- the idea being, replace a good card with a random one.
It stacks, which I think is important for a non-terminal attack, yet even if you play lots there's still the chance that the top card gives your opponent something to do. The turn-killing potential might still be too high, though.
[also, there's a minor theme-related point that in general cursers have witch-names whereas discard attacks have soldier-names]
Have you tried using some variation of "If this is the first action/attack card you have played this turn, ..., otherwise, ... " for conscript? This could be a way to limit how many curses it can deal (make it non-repeatable)
You could also try some variation of "Conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play"*, or some other limiting condition, to force you to build a deck around it for it to be successful.
Basically, go the conspirator way.
*This example is probably a bad idea, but it does make the curse-giving much harder to achieve.
I have briefly considered something like this. Originally, I was thinking about Conscripts doing something if it was in play when you played another Attack card. But oops, Conscripts doesn't stay in play (barring General). Maybe I can put something like that on other Attack card later. Your Conspirator version works, although it's a bit harder to track because, again, Conscripts don't stay in play. But it could work!
But I definitely want Conscripts to do some sort of Attack the first time it gets played, because always having to line up two is just too much to ask. The set has enough trashing, and a spy attack would take too many words. It could either give a Copper or discard down to 4. I'll keep this in mind.
Can you tell me a few details about how exactly you go about getting your ideas on cards? I only picked up on that recently. I've made a few cards with these templates (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/426860/fan-made-card-apprentice), but their size is 326*500, which isn't identical to the size of physical cards, and resizing means a loss in quality.
I've created a template in original size (200*307) and did two versions of the same card as an experiment, one by using the 200*307 template, and the other one with the original template and a resize afterwards
they aren't quite identical, I've worded the one a little bit differently, but my point is mostly the font. it's different, but I'm not even sure I like the first one more. It seems closer to actual cards though, and I imagine it'll be easier to read if you have to use even smaller font for more complex cards.
So my question is: what is the best way to do this? None of the images in your OP are in original size. Do you just resize them before printing, or do you have the original versions in phsyical size and just use larger versions for the thread because it looks better? Also, which templates do you use?
And, how do you do the card values on the bottom left corner? I've been using the suggested font from the tutoral, but it doesn't look right.
It also doesn't seem like an elegant way to even use image editing software. everything except the textbox should be doable with a simple program.
Now I'm really curious what Prayer cards do.
I got to play some games using Enterprise cards.
Axeman and Refurbish were in a University game was alongside Pillage. Though Axeman was a fine card, it still felt very similar to Pillage since it forces players to lose a useful card. Refurbish on the other hand was a lot more fun than I expected. Its slow trashing was still fine since I managed +$1 or even +$2 with Silvers eventually as the game moved forward (though trashing Coppers). I imagine in most cases, faster trashing will be better, but Refurbish ultimately worked quite well and felt very different from faster trashers.
Guide in a game using Goons and Familiar. Frustrating game, but Guide was fun. I used it quite effectively. Since there was no trashing, the sifting it gives was incredibly useful, in addition to using its ability for multiple plays on two occasions.
One of my playing partners (probably the best person I tend to play with the game) doesn't care much for the set in general. He finds a lot of the cards are fiddly, weak, or too similar to existing cards. I generally disagree, but can see where he is coming from since a bunch of the cards don't push a singular mechanical flavor.
i love how you just ignored my question entirely ::)
it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.
i love how you just ignored my question entirely ::)
it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.
I'm sorry, dude! I let the thread slide for so long and then I forgot to go back just now and answer all the stuff. No slight intended! I'm glad that you and Showdown are making those cards. I'll try to find some time soon to critique the set, if you're interested.
(https://i.imgur.com/fTAFJIn.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/jvfuBmn.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f1/Market_Square.jpg) | (https://i.imgur.com/hh2zZB1.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/Epic9GP.png) |
(https://i.imgur.com/KWjTl1w.png) | (https://i.imgur.com/4XKwhZL.png) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f6/Rogue.jpg) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/4/43/Bandit_Camp.jpg) | (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/b/b6/Nobles.jpg) |
I ended up tied for second, 31-30-30-29. No one bought Redistrict, I bought the only Gambler, and the winning player bought the only Fund. Guide was far and away the most popular card, and we all grabbed Jubilees for the extra trade tokens. The winning player saved up four tokens, played a Guide as his first action of the turn, and spent all his tokens to draw eight (effectively twelve) more cards. He then played and trashed his Fund to get himself up to $17, 2 buys. I don't think the card's too powerful for $3, but it was a lot of fun.
Two of us bought Floodgates for the sole purpose of slipping a dead Guide into our next hand. It seemed worthwhile, but it might get more play at $3; the effect isn't that much more powerful than Tunnel.
With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.
i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.
i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.
Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.
So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".
QuoteBarracks
Types: Action – Campaign
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.
I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.
It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.
FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.
It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)
You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.
(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)
Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.
Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.
I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.
well, you partly sold me on your the idea of domain as a defense, I don't dislike it as much anymore.
What was wrong with wheelwright and lodge? I'd be very interested in stories of cards that failed. also, what about convocation? I recall you talking about cutting it before. it may sound pretentious, but at some point I thought about everything that I could do with "reveal X cards {condition} put some of them in your hand." I really think that if you hadn't already made it, I would've done something almost identical, it's just the simplest way to do it with card types.QuoteI'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.QuoteI'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.
I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.
QuoteI was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.
i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.
it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.
QuoteI was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.
i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.
it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.
Well, Cornucopia has enough non-terminal draw with Hunting Party and Menagerie. Plus, although Convocation encourages moderation with Actions, Treasures, and Victory cards, it doesn't reward variety the way cards that care about card names do.
So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.A single hit with this does make a 6VP swing against a player which is big, but not insurmountable since it is stealing a junk card. In a 3-player game, if one person steals a Domain, another basically has to contest the Barristers because one player getting all three gives them 18VP. I think it will be worthwhile now, but I don't know if it will be fun.
ConscriptsI like Recruiter better with this new Conscripts since it is less analagous to Militia. Making Conscripts a curser will probably make Recruiter impossible to ignore though, for better or worse.
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.I'd rather see Axeman get the axe than Wheelwright since Axeman feels similar to Pillage already, especially if you're going to give Conquest a shot seeing as it fits in with the one-shot themes.
Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.
I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.
I sympathize with Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.
QuoteBarrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.
Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.
So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.
QuoteConscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.QuoteRecruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.
I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.
Sorry, I guess I could've been more clear about the point I was trying to make. Trade Tokens are a simple concept: some cards give you them, some cards come with one. When a card gives you the opportunity to spend one, you can choose to do so for the bonus. Domain is also simple: the guy setting up the game already put it into your deck, and it's just a copper until you buy a Remodel or someone else plays a Barrister. Conscripts less so, but anyone who's played Dark Ages will understand it instantly. My point was that they seem a lot more complicated when the majority of your bandwidth is taken up by the wordiest cards. I didn't mean to suggest you should toss really good cards just because they're wordy.
Considering how long it takes players to get used to Spoils, it might be wise to keep this guy as simple as possible. I would be okay with this version of Conscripts, but I liked the idea of making them weak on their own but more powerful in multiples. Discard a card to a minimum of four seems about the right power level, and it would give you a decision to make when only one comes up in your hand. Do I want to play it now for +$ and an attack that might not hurt that much, or do I save it and hope I can play both Conscripts on a future turn? With straight curse-giving, I feel like you'll automatically play them as soon as they come into your hand, whether or not you need the $2 -- Spoils requires more strategic thinking than that. (Also, General + 1 Conscripts would give out 1 Curse this way rather than 3 in two turns. I don't know if you see that as a good or a bad thing.)
The change to Recruiter seems fine, but it might not be necessary if you nerf Conscripts more.
I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.
Like, Ruined Village, decide whether to mulligan, then rest of village? Not a fan. Besides making the decision too easy, you could really confuse people by putting unconditional effects after conditional ones.
I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.
Farmland and Noble Brigand don't match up with the other Hinterlands cards. Anyway, it wasn't Exchange/Fortress you were trying to fix, it was Exchange -> Exchange to hand -> repeat. I was about to say you shouldn't kneecap the card while also prohibiting novel cost reduction OR would-trash effects . . . then I noticed 'Exchange/any $3 card' was a thing, and there are already a few official silver flooders. It's a very good card as it is, and the token needs to be on-Buy.
Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.
I don't want or need Conscripts to have the "do I play this or wait" decision that Spoils has. We already have that experience with Spoils! I do want the Barracks decision to be meaningful, which is why Conscripts had that want-more-at-one-time mechanic in the first place. It incentivized you to pull Conscripts into your hand. But the Barracks decision is meaningful anyway with the "new" Conscripts both because Curses can run out and just because it might be worth pulling Conscripts faster to cycle your deck and hand out Curses faster. It's really just a question of if people actually use it. Time and testing will tell.
Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
-InvestmentOr maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.
You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."
I liked Barrister better with the mini-rabble part. The new Barrister does almost nothing if it doesn't hit a domain, then has a strong effect if it does. That seems too luck-dependant.
I would make it like the old Barrister except to have it gain one domain from the trash instead of all of them.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Either gain a Treasure from the trash or gain a Silver.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.
I'm still kinda sad to see Investment go. Here's a version that removes the penalty for investing multiples copies of a card. Probably too wordy though...Quote-InvestmentOr maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.
Barrister/Domain - Probably alright... I was skeptical, but I guess it's ok. Could be super-swingy in a 4-player game, though. 1, 4, 9, or 16 VP left up to fate... yikes. Have you tried: Domain, 1VP. $1 for each Domain in play, including this?
Gambler - Really does look nifty to me. It might be worth $4, though. It's hard to say, because handsize-neutral cantrip trashing is amazing, but one-shot Laboratories aren't as much. Off the cuff, here's an idea: $4 cost. +1 card, +1 action, reveal top card. Trash it and gain a trade token if the trashed card cost $2 or more, OR draw the card and either trash this card or spend a trade token.
Refurbish - Gut feeling is that this is way too strong for $3. Sure, you don't start with 7 Silvers, but Silver doesn't need a terminal action just to be worth a Silver in the first place. I would easily pay $4 for this card. On a side note, now I'm trying to think of a variant called Gild. It would probably only work on cards costing $3 or more, and it would probably need to have a +buy or something... I'm not sure whether the +$1 per Gold should be a trade token or on-trash effect or whatever, and I'm not sure what Gild should cost.
Committee - Of course the ideal case is when you reveal Gold-Province or Province-Duchy late in the game; some combination of Copper/Curse/Estate is also great, and Curse-Province is only saved from being unreasonably good by the fact that trashing a Curse isn't that amazing. I'm not sure if you should cap the cost of the card being voted on... Imagine KC-KC-Scavenger-Scavenger-Committee in a Colony game... Ok, so it's not Bridge, but it's still sort of vile here. I think capping the cost at $5 would keep this card honest, at least. Even then, it has a chance of making Pearl Diver look good somehow.
Recruiter - Probably too strong at $4. Next turn you get a non-terminal Militia that hands out curses whenever it would whiff. I guess having to use up two card draws to accomplish this is the trade-off. I'm not sure if it's really necessary to topdeck the Conscripts or put them in your hand, though. In the latter case, maybe you meant for the reaction to prevent the player from gaining Curses, in which case maybe keep it, but the topdecking seems to me to make this card too strong for $4. Then again, it's a self-countering card that probably ends up playing out more like Margrave half the time... so much weirdness here. I can easily see four-player games turning into a labyrinth of people Margraving their hands into Recruiter-Conscripts-Conscripts until the Conscripts pile is empty, and then suddenly everyone has nothing but Provinces and Curses. Maybe I withhold final judgment for now.
Investment - Ouch, this card looks brokenly good with cheap cantrips. Clerk-Vendor with an Investment or three could clean out the Province pile in no time.
Wheelwright - Library variant is Library variant.
Committee
speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.
moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...
-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester
and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers
so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game
QuoteCommittee
speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.
moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...
-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester
and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers
so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game
Yes, this comparison had not escaped me. I think on average Committee is stronger than Moneylender, but in practice it doesn't edge out Moneylender as much as you might think. Moneylender is a much more reliable Copper trasher. If getting rid of all the Coppers in your deck is a priority, Moneylender does it better. Moreover, when presented with a decision between Copper/Good Card, sometimes Good Card is the correct choice. Just because a card is good doesn't mean you necessarily want a million of it. Caravan? Sure! Militia? Probably not. Haven? Maybe. And sometimes your opponent can't gain a copy of Good Card because it's sold out or was never in the Supply at all.
I don't really have a conclusion here. I like the rare $4 card that's worth getting excited about, but this could also reasonably function at the $5 tier (maybe along with the change where it grants $5, since it can't hand out Curses and it gives a choice). I don't know if you've tried it already.
that's a peddler variant, not really similar.
You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."
Neat idea. I'm really trying to avoid the Conscripts being too much like Torturer, but maybe this isn't that bad. Hmm…
say, if you have given up on investment completely, do you mind if i try to make it work for my set? :P
it's still in the opening post, but you don't seem to update it all that frequently...
If you want to preserve the option to come back for it at some point, feel free to say no.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Either gain a Treasure from the trash or gain a Silver.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. +$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain all the Domains in the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.
I like the woodcutter+ better. noble brigand with a +1$ for 5$ is kinda meh. i'd also imagine that the 5$ will steal domains less often, because you get it later and there are lots of games where you really don't want a thief variant.
did you consider something that trashes domains from the hand rather than the deck?
Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
QuoteWindfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.
QuoteWindfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.
How's Refurbish doing? You said it was sort of weak... It looks good to me, but I could be wrong. How about this:
Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand. Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.
QuoteWindfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.
How's Refurbish doing? You said it was sort of weak... It looks good to me, but I could be wrong. How about this:
Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand. Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.
That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! ;D
When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.
How's Refurbish doing? You said it was sort of weak... It looks good to me, but I could be wrong. How about this:
Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand. Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.
That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! ;D
When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.
Oh wow, I forgot about Trading Post. It's usually weak too... X-D
Seriously, by the time you can buy Trading Post, how many Silvers do you really want in your deck? You probably wanted a Turn 2 Steward or Chapel but they weren't on the board... If you're not getting junk attacks, then you'll need +cards +actions just to find two cards you want to trash in the first place... I guess one of them the very first time you get a $5 hand is ok though, kind of like Mine...
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?
The original version of Nomad Camp gave you a silverAnd then it became a Woodcutter variant which topdecks itself.
*Bandit campThe original version of Nomad Camp gave you a silverAnd then it became a Woodcutter variant which topdecks itself.
QuoteWindfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).
I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.
How's Refurbish doing? You said it was sort of weak... It looks good to me, but I could be wrong. How about this:
Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand. Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.
That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! ;D
When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.
Oh wow, I forgot about Trading Post. It's usually weak too... X-D
Seriously, by the time you can buy Trading Post, how many Silvers do you really want in your deck? You probably wanted a Turn 2 Steward or Chapel but they weren't on the board... If you're not getting junk attacks, then you'll need +cards +actions just to find two cards you want to trash in the first place... I guess one of them the very first time you get a $5 hand is ok though, kind of like Mine...
Haven't kept up with this thread in a while... maybe I should look into it again. Give some attention to a fan expansion that deserves it and all...
So, for Barrister…
I like the $5 Barrister better, but I don't like it costing $5. But if you make the nessesary change to make it cost $4, it's too similar to noble brigand. Hmm...
What if, instead of giving +coin, you have it gain the stolen treasure to hand? That might make it worth having a thief variant that costs $5 (especially if it also has +buy).
I any case, I don't like a version where the only attack function of the card is to steal Domains. Because it only targets a single card in each other player's deck and doesn't do anything significant if it doesn't happen to hit that card, and it never does anything to them if they no longer have a domain.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Gain a Treasure from the trash or a Silver, putting it into your hand.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.
Did you remove investment? I really liked the idea, but I can see how it would be hard to balance. Was there a problem with maing investment non-terminal? Or is it removed because Prince now exists?
Haven't kept up with this thread in a while... maybe I should look into it again. Give some attention to a fan expansion that deserves it and all...
Quote+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?
I don't think the OP has changed since you last looked at it. I haven't had time for testing recently. I'm confident that someday I will be working on this set "full time" again, but not right now. And I don't want to fill the OP with untested cards, since at this point Enterprise has a reputation for having had a fair amount of testing. I guess I could just have them with zero stars, but I'd like to test each card in at least one game before posting it in the OP.Well, you don't have to throw them in the OP just yet, but putting together a mockup of a new card always gets people excited.
Those are all good points. It just feels like it would run into some type of Diadem problem, where pricing it high enough that it doesn't become degenerate makes it worthless on full random boards.Quote+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?
I have considered that. I'm hoping that this won't have the Bandit Camp problem. Gaining Silver works against villages, but not necessarily against cantrips or non-terminals in general. The self-limiting factor of Windfall making future Windfall plays less powerful is intentional, but whether the card is fun remains to be seen. It's certainly different.
The reason I don't want it as a one-shot is that you'll feel crappy when you get it in hand with no other Actions and don't play it. The original version had this Silver-gaining effect as the trade token effect with a vault variant as the main on-play. But it seemed complex and not that exciting. Maybe the entire idea is a dud, but I think it's at least worth trying once.
Well, you don't have to throw them in the OP just yet, but putting together a mockup of a new card always gets people excited.
Those are all good points. It just feels like it would run into some type of Diadem problem, where pricing it high enough that it doesn't become degenerate makes it worthless on full random boards.
One thing that sounds interesting; you could make the silver-gaining a Token ability, but use "While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, gain a Trade Token" instead of the usual free token as soon as you gain it. (Alternately, you could keep it as the action, and have the token ability gain a few silvers to hand.) I saw that clause in this thread a few pages back, and I think it's worth building a card around.
Thanks for these updated cards! I'm about to make a second set of the entire expansion for a friend, so I plan to print these updated ones now. Would you be able to post the higher resolution images (as in the first post)? They look much nicer at full res when I print them.
Looks like I'm going to need more sleeves...
Huh. Buy victory cards to trash? that's new. As you know, I love conditional trashing, so naturally I'm pretty excited about it, much more so than about Auction (I still don't think that one's worth making tbh). It has really cool art, too. I hope it works out.
Jubilee is pretty good I think. it's probably most interesting if you play with several trade token cards. I know that you're one of the guys who likes to do stuff like play with 5base/5enterprise instead of just going full random all the time. but it seems okay even without others. not the most exciting thing ever, but it's nice.
Barrister is... hm. I don't really know, it might be really fun and satisfying to steal domains. it's another one that's hard to judge. power wise it seems okay in 2player, probably more on the weak side, but much better in 3+.
Gambler is the first card I really dislike. It just seems like adding swinginess just because it's fun and exciting and cool if you're lucky. If it works, it's really strong, about as good as Junk dealer early on and even better later in the game. But if you hit your other t1/2 buy the first time you play it, you probably lost the game right there. eh. I haven't played with it, but that has to be how it goes, right? but well that's just me, the card has 5 stars and you said lots of people like it. you don't have to like every card.
Floodgate is slick! Great card! It makes me jealous. It's another of those "simple cards that are left to make"
Vendor sort of seems like a filler. You could probably do lot of variations that would work out, but I guess there's nothing wrong with having one of them around. It seems good, but it doesn't seem to fill an important role.
Barracks is well what I said about Conscripts. The second option is cute though, and the first option is a good way to make sure the second option can continue to be cute. That probably makes Barracks cute too.
General doesn't appeal to me, or maybe I just don't get it. If the throned card isn't a one-shot, it's a sheme+throne room, which is just adding two effects together. If it is, it's a sheme+throne room that's probably kind of broken. Why is that worth making? ???
I want to maybe try the current version of Windfall once before I try to change it, but I think I'll also try that version of Cathedral I posted a while back that gained tokens when you bought a Victory card. Thanks for reminding me!That's the card I was thinking of. Heh, I like how the image is from the same perspective as Chapel. At first I thought the trashing could be buffed, but three cards would be awkward and 'up to three' would be really powerful. Probably in a good place as is.
I've already said I'm on 'team Auction'; it's simple and novel and clever, and not only does it make Floodgate more enticing, it combos with all the draw in this set. I think it's ready to go in the OP.Huh. Buy victory cards to trash? that's new. As you know, I love conditional trashing, so naturally I'm pretty excited about it, much more so than about Auction (I still don't think that one's worth making tbh). It has really cool art, too. I hope it works out.
Well, you can't please everybody all of the time! :) I think Auction looks slick. Maybe not a power card, but different enough and useful in several situations.
Just wondering why it's "When you buy" a victory card, and not "when you gain". Hoard is on-buy but I thought that was just a virtue of being a Treasure. It would be too strong with the old "Craftsman" (get 5 cathedrals in play, then go to town on the colonies), but not with the new one.Probably for the reasons you just posted. It would be weird enough to have a combo that can replenish your tokens before the card is resolved. But you're talking about a combo that would turn "gain a Duchy" into "gain all the Duchies in the Supply". If there's a single alt-VP pile in the supply costing $5 or less, the first person to get a Cathedral and Craftsman in play would end the game instantly and win by a huge margin.
In the OP lodge says "+1$ for each card revealed" is there a reason it's cards discarded? Feels strange to count something I did earlier.
Just wondering why it's "When you buy" a victory card, and not "when you gain". Hoard is on-buy but I thought that was just a virtue of being a Treasure. It would be too strong with the old "Craftsman" (get 5 cathedrals in play, then go to town on the colonies), but not with the new one.
Dignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.
that also changes the powerlevel though, you will have to discard/topdeck one less card against militia/ghost ship.
I just think Silver gainers are tedious.that's a phase. it'll pass.
Hello, I finally got to catch up with this thread and I'm excited for the proposed changes you made. Let's get right to one of my favourite concepts: Barrister and Domain. I really liked the mini-Rabble effect of Barrister. It made it a really nice attack for the early game and the Domain-trashing and -gaining made it way more interesting than Fortune Teller. This new version is definitely better than your other suggestion (only caring about Domains and discarding all the rest). I'm not a fan of Silver-gaining, though. And I think, you should give the 2VP-per-Domain version a try to go with it, to make up for the fact that you are going to buy the $5-Barrister significantly later in the game than the old $3-one which is a good opener.
I'm all for simplicity but the slimmed Conscripts, although powerful, are missing that mean Torturer-spirit they had before. Please try to experiment a little with variants of that. You (or someone) made an alternate suggestion along the lines of "discard to 4 or gain a curse in hand" which I liked.
Windfall never did it for me. I just think Silver gainers are tedious.
Last but not least, I'm pro Auction ;D
I'm going to change Dignitary to use a Horse Traders-like wording so as to avoid Fortress shenanigans. It's clunky and wordy and sad, but I think it needs to be done.What Fortress shenanigans exactly did you have in mind? If you used Dignitary to trash a Fortress, it would return to your hand, and the attack would resolve with your hand exactly the same as it was before. If this were Goko, I suppose you could have a problem with trolls trashing their Fortresses infinitely many times, but it's not, and the same issue exists with Secret Chamber (and every Reaction, in principle).QuoteDignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.
I'm going to change Dignitary to use a Horse Traders-like wording so as to avoid Fortress shenanigans. It's clunky and wordy and sad, but I think it needs to be done.What Fortress shenanigans exactly did you have in mind? If you used Dignitary to trash a Fortress, it would return to your hand, and the attack would resolve with your hand exactly the same as it was before. If this were Goko, I suppose you could have a problem with trolls trashing their Fortresses infinitely many times, but it's not, and the same issue exists with Secret Chamber (and every Reaction, in principle).QuoteDignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.
Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.
Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.
I came here to post exactly this. ninja'd before I even thought about it.
Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.
I came here to post exactly this. ninja'd before I even thought about it.
Take it outside, gentlemen. :) I think that dead horse has been beaten enough.
Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash this. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it and a card costing exactly $2 more than it, in either order.
Some people have trouble parsing Redistrict. I'm considering simplifying it so that you effectively must use the one-shot effect, since that's usually what you're doing anyway.QuoteRedistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash this. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it and a card costing exactly $2 more than it, in either order.
Thoughts? It's worse for trashing Coppers and Curses, but you can use it as a one-shot Remodel from $6 to $8 even if there's no $7 card on the board. I'm not sure I love those changes, but again this version should be much easier to understand. People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.
Alternatively, if you have a better wording that doesn't change the effect, that would be great.
People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.
trash a card from your hand. choose one: gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than the trashed card; or trash this and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it, and a card costing exactly 2$ more than it, in either order
trash a card from your hand. gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it.that's closer to the original wording, and probably a little bit shorter than the choose wording. you could also replace the last "it" with "the trashed card", to make it completely clear.
You may trash this. if you do, also gain a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.
I'm having trouble understanding how the original wording isn't clear.QuotePeople were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.
it means the first gained card. buh?
well, you can always doQuotetrash a card from your hand. choose one: gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than the trashed card; or trash this and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it, and a card costing exactly 2$ more than it, in either order
oh and this should work too:Quotetrash a card from your hand. gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it.that's closer to the original wording, and probably a little bit shorter than the choose wording. you could also replace the last "it" with "the trashed card", to make it completely clear.
You may trash this. if you do, also gain a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.
If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on. It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.
Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.
If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on. It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.
I had considered this. It seems workable, but stilted. I suppose I could say, "Choose a card," since the card gets revealed automatically when you trash it.QuoteRedistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.
How does that look?
If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on. It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.
I had considered this. It seems workable, but stilted. I suppose I could say, "Choose a card," since the card gets revealed automatically when you trash it.
Right, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.
QuoteRight, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.
so, you redistrict a copper. now you can either gain nothing, or trash the redistrict and gain another redistrict. both doesn't get you anything except that there'll be ones less redistrict in the supply with option 2. but i doubt that using a terminal trasher without any benefit on a copper is ever attractive enough for people to do this just to drive down one pile. I don't think it's going to be a problem at all.
QuoteRight, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.
so, you redistrict a copper. now you can either gain nothing, or trash the redistrict and gain another redistrict. both doesn't get you anything except that there'll be ones less redistrict in the supply with option 2. but i doubt that using a terminal trasher without any benefit on a copper is ever attractive enough for people to do this just to drive down one pile. I don't think it's going to be a problem at all.
I think your'e probably right. It's more like, if you're going to trash a Copper anyway, you have the option of hastening the game's end by trashing a Redistrict from the Supply. But I barely even trash Copper with Redistrict, so I'm probably worrying about nothing.
If Poor House is in the Supply, you can do this anyway. Of course, that's going to come up way less often, both because it won't be in the Kingdom with Poor House that often, and also because if it is, you are less likely to trash copper.
I agree that it's a sort of weird thing to basically be given the choice "you may trash one of these cards from the supply". But not weird enough to avoid the otherwise-clearest wording, whatever that may be.
If Poor House is in the Supply, you can do this anyway. Of course, that's going to come up way less often, both because it won't be in the Kingdom with Poor House that often, and also because if it is, you are less likely to trash copper.
Agreed on all points.I agree that it's a sort of weird thing to basically be given the choice "you may trash one of these cards from the supply". But not weird enough to avoid the otherwise-clearest wording, whatever that may be.
It's a problem that plagues all one-shot remodel variants, or at least all the ones I've tried. I think that you're right, though. I'll test it and see if it's actually a problem, but I'd be surprised if it is.
I didn't see a problem with Redistrict's original wording, either. I agree with Silverspawn on all points here. Good alternative wordings have been suggested, so there should be no need to change how the card works.
Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.
Very good! I have a question: how did you embed the images of your cards into your post so that text can be placed in between? Did you upload them somewhere else and then display them here?
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. If he did not discard any cards, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. If you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Supply and each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2.
When you play another Attack card with this in play, you may return this to the Conscripts pile. If you do, each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2.
You may reveal an Attack card from your hand. If you do, return this to the Conscripts pile and each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
I really like this new version of Conscripts!
I don't really understand why you are changing barracks, though.
A random idea I just had. Have you thought about making barracks look for an attack in the discard pile, instead of digging for one? You get a better pick of the attack you get (which makes it combo a bit better with other attack cards in the supply), but if you draw it early in your shuffle it whiffs. I would balance that by gaining conscripts on top of deck instead of the discard pile. These are actually two different ideas, now that I think about it. Don't really know why I am mentioning this, but I guess it can't hurt.
Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$1. Gain 2 Silvers.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, put your deck into your discard pile and look through your discard pile. You may reveal an Attack card from it and put it into your hand.
I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:QuoteBarracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
So, +1 Action, +$2 & gain a Conscript / strong attack? I feel like that compares too favorably with Minion.
I think I was making the most noise earlier in the thread about the revised Conscripts being too boring, but that was before I played IRL games with these cards. The Kingdom cards are necessarily wordy and refer to unfamiliar components, and that can be a big hurdle for new players. If you're adding an 11th or 12th pile to the table on top of that, then something like Treasure - $3 should be the ideal amount you have to read. As it is, Conscripts is succinct, useful, and adds strategic depth to Dominion. Maybe the thematic combo isn't what it needs. If there's a way to simplify Barracks on its own, that's worth exploring, but otherwise my opinion is firmly in favor of the status quo.
Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.Conspirator is just a $4 terminal Silver in some kingdoms, but that's fine because those kingdoms are rare. Kingdoms where your version of Recruiter would be just a $4 terminal Silver are much more common. Sometimes you might want the Silver gainer just for the Silver gaining, so it's not as bad.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.
(https://i.imgur.com/koh4w6w.png)but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?
No, because you don't always have the Attack.Quote(https://i.imgur.com/koh4w6w.png)but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?
but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?
Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.
but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.
No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.
I'm not such a fan of the new Recruiter. I don't like how strong its Action effect is, nor am I a huge fan of discarding my deck in response to an Attack. Often discarding my deck means my Attack will not only miss the shuffle, but I'll shuffle any Curses that I've gained into my deck immediately! Often I'll have to shuffle immediately as well for the Attack. In many cases, it won't even provide any sort of utility, because I'll be replacing "Gain 2 Silvers" with the one Attack that is in the Kingdom. I don't see that trade-off as being worthwhile since you wouldn't buy Recruiter unless the Silver flooding was actually going to be useful.
I'd like its Reaction more if it let you look for an Attack or Reaction from your discard pile without discarding your deck. I don't know what to do about its Action effect.
Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure what top-decking the Conscripts really gets you, though. I do think I see what you mean about feeling more separate, though. I'll try the current version and see if it feels too weird. If you're almost always triggering the Conscripts on the turn you gain it, it's probably too strong anyway, so I can then try your idea of top-decking the Conscripts and giving another bonus.Top-decking Conscripts would allow the Action effect of Barracks to be secondary to the Conscripts since the Conscripts card is so immediate (though not necessarily played in the same turn). It also maintains strength when played in Throne Room variants. You could flatly gain them if you wanted, top decking is simply more like gaining them to hand.
Well the reaction effect can't search for a Reaction (or an Action) without creating a potential endless loop. Discard the Recruiter, take it out of the discard pile, repeat. You have a really good point about having to shuffle immediately, though. I'm just trying to avoid the situation where you don't remember what you have in your discard pile, you discard the Recruiter, and then have nothing to replace it with.Infinitely looping to retrieve your Recruiter does nothing though (just like you can infinitely replace the Silver you're going to gain with a Silver using Trader). If Recruiter could retrieve Reactions (i.e. itself) or Attacks from your discard pile, you can discard it to look through your discard pile and, if you don't have an Attack in your discard pile, you can pull the Recruiter back out. You don't have to remember the contents of your discard pile or miss out playing your Recruiter by messing up its Reaction since it can always retrieve itself. As a bonus, you can pull a different Reaction out to react to the Attack taking place.
I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:QuoteBarracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
Your new version of barracks seems fine, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I don't know if the gimmick of a non-terminal card that gains an attack to hand instead of being an attack itself is really worth it. Before it was a bit more hidden, a bit less one-to-one, so it didn't bother me that much. I don't know, might just be me.
• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.
• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.
• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.
• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
• Playtest more! Especially the newer cards.Hear, hear!
• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.
• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.
• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
I'd like to see that $4 Recruiter that gains 2 Conscripts and pulls Attacks and Reactions from your discard pile in response to Attacks and a Barracks that can do something like either gain a Conscripts with some other vanilla benefit or non-terminally hunt for an Attack (maybe make it a splitter when digging for an Attack? Would that be interesting?).
• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.
You are pretty heavy on non-terminal cards in general. There is not a particularly fast way to trash (save Gambler\Gambler which is always a... you know) within your set, though you have quite a few trashers.
• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
While Gambler is thematic with both itself and the set, as well as strong, Gambler is a very strong card that is not very much fun to use. The decision to trash the card you look at or draw it is really a non-decision, but trashing the Gambler almost always feels bad because you wished it would have stuck around to trash more.
Trashing is a strong effect that is mildly uncommon and monumentally useful, so with Gambler being a cheap non-terminal trasher, it is nearly impossible to pass on any non-rush board. While cards that are nearly necessary to buy aren't necessarily unhealthy for the game (see Chapel, Witch, Goons), Gambler does not create an unusual game-state the way those games do. All Gambler does is push the game more towards luck as some players will get lucky with the trashing.
Where Gambler is easy to use and always useful, Vendor is hard to use and situational.
Trashing Vendor rarely feels bad because it feels much more like a choice. Its sifting is unusual and only useful if you can get a weird sort of Action deck going that pushes past its Coppers to get to its meaty Actions (though it is utterly neutered by Cursers). And then when your deck starts greening, all your Vendors turn into one-shot Laboratories.
Maybe this will not be a common opinion among those who have played with the cards, but I find Vendor and Gambler to be stepping on each other's toes, and between the two, I like Vendor because it is a card with a higher skill cap and more interesting decisions.
"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!
Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.
Quote"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!
Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.
what about "when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."
that's a little bit awkward, but clear in meaning, only slightly longer than the original, and identical in power.
Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.
Well, I think most folks agree that the two are similar and I don't need both. But I believe you're in the minority when it comes to preferring Vendor to Gambler. Gambler has been really popular in both real-life games and here on f.DS. For example, you mentioned in a previous post that it was the favorite fan card of one of your players. You are correct that its "decision" is very rarely an actual decision, but that's not really the point of the card. Lots of Dominion cards have no decisions on-play; when to buy it is the decision. Gambler is also sort of an obviously luck-based card for those players that like obviously luck-based card. In contrast, most people see Vendor as a bit dull. Too close to Stables, etc.My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.
On the other hand, if Gambler really is a must-buy on almost every board, that's reason enough to cut or change it. Specifically, if a Gambler/Gambler opening is strong, I think that's a problem. I don't think that opening is strong, but maybe I'm wrong.Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).
"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago.
"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."
I'm pretty sure that works.
My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.
Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Your preferred opening with Gambler is Gambler\Terminal-Action because Gambler drawing a terminal Action is obviously the only thing that will make Gambler's one-shot Laboratory effect worthwhile on turn 3, though it remains monumentally frustrating.
Must-buys aren't necessarily bad. The question then becomes whether or not the card plays in interesting ways in spite of being a must-buy. Goons is a card you practically have to buy on every board in which you can hit $6, but Goons creates a game-state that is fun. I don't think Gambler does that, even if it is such a fan favorite.
Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).
"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago."When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."
I'm pretty sure that works.
Not sure whether this is a new comment or not, but I think Recruiter should be linked with Conscripts somehow. If Recruiter causes there to always be an attack card in the game, then its reaction is never completely void. Granted, most boards will have an attack or two, but just in case...
If there's no other attacks or conscript gainers, playing profiteer once then trashing it for benefit is probably a good play. It works well with Remodel etc. as you have 2 golds to turn into provinces later. I love the idea thematically - hopefully it works out.
Floodgate is too good for $3 if you work on the assumption that the official reaction cards would be that cost even without the reaction. If the cost distribution isn't right that is an easy fix.
Alternatively, have you tried Axeman at $6? It certainly looks like the kind of attack that should cost $6.
The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.
When are you going to call it done? The expansion is already much better than the Fan Expansions on BGG. It's had more care and consideration than even the official cards. Are you going to eventually try and get simulations or an isotropic/androminion style playtest thing happening?
This may have been discussed already... but with Guide, do you intend for the players to not be able to choose the order that they put the 2 cards back in? It doesn't say "in any order", which means that you can't choose the order, I guess. But this is tricky, because when you are looking at the cards, you would have to remember what order they were in; and it's hard to have accountability that you don't switch the order when you put them back.
This may have been discussed already... but with Guide, do you intend for the players to not be able to choose the order that they put the 2 cards back in? It doesn't say "in any order", which means that you can't choose the order, I guess. But this is tricky, because when you are looking at the cards, you would have to remember what order they were in; and it's hard to have accountability that you don't switch the order when you put them back.
the new version of guide (http://i.imgur.com/FgdRoTw.png) allows you to choose to order. which is definitely a necessary change.
• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.Ehh, I like the old name and art for Guide a lot better. On play, the card is about looking ahead and working around obstacles, and when you're well prepared you're able to traverse more of your deck in a single turn than someone without a Guide could.
• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something like
Vendlord - Action-Victory - $5This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up. I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.
Yeah, you're only saving a few letters, and it doesn't jive with the rest of Dominion text. It's not even consistent with Jubilee, since that effect can't be abbreviated.The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.Yes, I think I'll remove it.
• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.Ehh, I like the old name and art for Guide a lot better. On play, the card is about looking ahead and working around obstacles, and when you're well prepared you're able to traverse more of your deck in a single turn than someone without a Guide could.
I've got plenty of unsolicited advice about the last 1-2 cards. I like Auction, Floodgate, and Gambler, and I feel they all fill important niches in the set, but Refurbish and Vendor seem to me to just fill up space. (That's not to say they're bad cards; if you like Refurbish, then keep it.)
On the other hand, when I look at what's missing from the set, the lack of dual-type cards is a pretty big hole. Obviously Convocationclave would like to see something more than the one Domain that might be in your deck in a small percentage of games -- but more importantly, I'm worried Cathedral could be a dud without Action-Victory cards to buy. Either you wait until you start greening to use the trashing ability, or you pick up an Estate with your second buy, gaining one junk card now for the chance to trash two on the next shuffle. That might be a good deal in a Curse-heavy slog, but it doesn't seem like it'll see use without a lot of support. I would raise the number of cards trashed from two to 'up to three' and then see if that's too strong, but at the very least I would add a second Victory card to the set to improve the odds of a combo.• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something likeQuoteVendlord - Action-Victory - $5This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up. I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.
Yeah, you're only saving a few letters, and it doesn't jive with the rest of Dominion text. It's not even consistent with Jubilee, since that effect can't be abbreviated.The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.Yes, I think I'll remove it.
Profiteer probably isn't worth it if it giving you Conscripts is the only way to give out Curses. In that case, the player who doesn't get Profiteer gains the least Curses. In games where you can start running out the Curse pile *before* you start handing out Conscripts, Profiteer is probably much stronger.
The set now has a bit of a "Silver with a Bonus" theme - Refurbish, Fund and now Conscripts.
Limiting Conscripts to Barracks makes me think you could reconfigure Barracks so it doesn't have to have its own pile of special cards. A card that both gains silvers and trashes them for curses perhaps? I don't like wasted piles. Something doesn't seem quite right about the new situation and it might be that, and it might be the fact that you are making a tradeoff between a Silver and a one time attack. Instead of seeming like a delayed attack, the thing that comes to mind when you play a conscripts is "everyone's deck gets worse".
On another note, what's wrong with digging anyway? I haven't had enough IRL dominion playtime to evaluate how annoying it really is. I have a bit of it in my own set (a card that has you dig for a victory card, and a card that makes everyone dig for a card costing 3 or more); should I try and find alternatives?
Also how has your playtesting of Silver/new conscripts gainers been going? I've had no playtesting opportunities for my own fan cards.
I am not opposed to having an Action-Victory card, but I also don't consider it a hole that needs filling. If anything, Conclave might be too much of an automatic buy with such cards available. I mean it's fine if that combo comes up sometimes, but I don't specifically need it in the same set.
Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
What's up with profiteer? A better attack than Embassy for less? :P
Any particular reason why the other players don't get a choice?
And yet, Dignitary still doesn't specify that you can choose the order. There's just no room on the card, which is unfortunate.
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2.Would the above wording fit onto Dignitary? It does not take many more characters so long as both coin images appear on the same line. It is an annoying card to word considering how simple the effect is.
Um, probably I'm keeping Conscripts rather than trying to use Silver. Probably either Recruiter or Profiteer will survive in some form.I would be happy seeing another version of Barracks or Recruiter with the changes to Conscripts, but if all Recruiter does is gain Conscripts and all Barracks does is gain Conscripts to hand, they are going to feel similar. As a designer I would find that similarity frustrating.
The problem with digging is that it's time consuming, especially when you're digging for one or two specific cards in your deck, which is often enough the case for Barracks. I'm not saying that digging is never worth doing; Committee digs for cards, though it usually finds the cards it needs very quickly. But, along with the fact that it's vastly simpler, avoiding digging is a reason for me to try a Barracks that just gains a Conscripts right to your hand.
BarracksThis would also make it less swingy with $3 Attacks since colliding with Barracks on turn 3 would not give out a Curse.
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Choose one: <Vanilla Benefit>; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack, put it into your hand, and discard the rest. Either way, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
I like the idea of a one-shot Victory card, but I would rather the Victory points be more interesting than your proposed Canton. What if it counted Provinces? Donald discounted it as a "win-more" effect, but if it was a powerful one-shot like Canton that made gaining the Provinces easier it could force players to make some interesting decisions.I am not opposed to having an Action-Victory card, but I also don't consider it a hole that needs filling. If anything, Conclave might be too much of an automatic buy with such cards available. I mean it's fine if that combo comes up sometimes, but I don't specifically need it in the same set.
On the other hand, I have exactly 2 blank cards in the set, assuming 15 copies of Conscripts. That means I could have another Victory card and be fine. It can't really use Trade tokens unless it both gains and spends them on-play (like Craftsman), because it would need two dividing lines. But perhaps I could try an Action-Victory that you can trash for an effect just to see if it's worth doing. It doesn't sound super-exciting because probably you buy it either for the VP or for the effect. If I cost it at $6 and it's worth 3 VP or less, then really the VP is just a consolation prize in case you never get around to trashing it.
Hmm, maybe a one-shot that you have to combo with something in order for it to work well. If you never get the combo off then hey, at least it's worth some VP.QuoteCanton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
QuoteLook at the top 2 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2.Would the above wording fit onto Dignitary? It does not take many more characters so long as both coin images appear on the same line. It is an annoying card to word considering how simple the effect is.
I would be happy seeing another version of Barracks or Recruiter with the changes to Conscripts, but if all Recruiter does is gain Conscripts and all Barracks does is gain Conscripts to hand, they are going to feel similar. As a designer I would find that similarity frustrating.
I like that Barracks hunts for an Attack when you want it to-- especially since having an extra card pile like Conscripts is the only way to make such a card. The problem with the current Barracks is that it costs $5, so hunting for your Witch is useless since you could have just gotten another Witch instead. Eventually you cannot stand to get more Witches, but buying Barrackses does not solve the problem since your Witch will terminally draw them anyway.
A $4 Barracks that could gain a single Conscripts to hand or hunt for an Attack might also struggle to work since the Attack you hunt down probably will not be much better than the non-terminal Silver that a Conscripts is, especially at the cost of gaining another Conscripts. If you did not gain the Conscripts to hand and gave a different flat benefit, I am not sure how it would compare to the two Conscripts gained by your suggested Recruiter update.
What if Barracks gave you some flat benefit or the hunting effect and then gained a Conscripts?QuoteBarracksThis would also make it less swingy with $3 Attacks since colliding with Barracks on turn 3 would not give out a Curse.
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Choose one: <Vanilla Benefit>; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack, put it into your hand, and discard the rest. Either way, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
I like the idea of a one-shot Victory card, but I would rather the Victory points be more interesting than your proposed Canton. What if it counted Provinces? Donald discounted it as a "win-more" effect, but if it was a powerful one-shot like Canton that made gaining the Provinces easier it could force players to make some interesting decisions.QuoteCanton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
I seem to remember discussing the Redistrict wording a bunch already. The current version seems good to me, but I have 1 small suggestion... maybe "If you do, also gain...". While the current wording is completely correct according to the rules, some people (the types who get other stuff wrong because they don't read literally enough) may think that if you trash it, you gain a card costing 2 more instead of a card costing 1 more, not in addition to.
I love Action/Victory cards, but I'm not sure the set needs one. As far as initial impressions go, Conclave (why all the name changes? Exchange, Guide and Convocation were fine...) will show its worth compared to laboratory when you draw 3 cards or when a "good" card is the 3rd card you reveal. More of a problem is showing that it's sometimes worse, which will be when you reveal 3 actions or treasures and are forced to discard two of them, or when the first 2 cards you reveal are "good" cards. Best not be giving Conclave too much to make it good in the one set.
As for Cathedral, if the "gain one junk card to trash 2 later" thing doesn't tip people off, then being a source of trade tokens for something like Guide (I can't get enough of the Cathedral/Guide interaction) or Terrace will. The trade token thing doesn't need to come up in every game.
I don't like Canton at all; the strategy will always be "Do I want a Duchy, or this?", with the answer coming down to a risk calculation rather than anything interesting to do with the way you've built your deck up to that point. It also is sort of in the same territory as farmland. At the very least, the card absolutely can't cost $5.
One more note; Barter now, with the 2 trade tokens, is clearly much, much better than remodel for only $1 more. I guess that's the nature of the 4->5 gap. No need to change anything; remodel would up there with Horse traders in the "cards that benefit least from being non terminal" stakes, but it needs to be non terminal for the trade token effect (and the combo with Draw to X is nice). Official cards like Smithy->Margrave and Young Witch->Witch have much more demonstrable gaps.
That's really cramped, but I guess it fits.In the Finnish translation, Young Witch has 8 lines of text, a dividing line and a vanilla bonus and it fits.
I'm not adding an Action-Victory card specifically for the combos. It's more like, there's space for another Victory card, but I don't really want another pure Victory card. Or maybe it would be fine to have one, though I don't have ideas for one at the moment.
I don't think it's meant to be an opportunity for a tactical decision so much as a gate: you either played a Moat or a Lab, depending on whether you have a green card in hand. The reason it was too weak originally was that you need to be actively rewarded for having junk in your deck, rather than just punished less. (I guess it would be more correct to say that Landlord's niche was more like Baron or Stables; it's more that its vanilla bonuses overlapped with Vendor.) From what HeavyD wrote in the Intrigue thread, the meat of the card is below the line and the top can be any machinery that makes you a credible threat for pulling off a quick three-pile. What I wrote was just an attempt to get the appropriate power level.I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something likeTo my eye, Vendlord seems to lack focus. Maybe if I played with it I'd feel differently. But you usually don't mind discarding Victory cards, so it's weird to be rewarded for doing it. It is itself a Victory card, so you can discard one to another, but probably that feels bad. Like, I tried a card that was [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$1 | When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may set it aside, putting it into your hand at the start of your next turn]. But it rarely felt good to do that trick because often enough you'd rather play it this turn instead.QuoteVendlord - Action-Victory - $5This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up. I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.
Anyway, sorry to be so down on it. I'll think about it more. And I'll think about other possibilities for an Action-Victory card for the set. It might be interesting to have one that you could use as a one-shot, but was worth VP if you kept it around. But maybe that's not interesting. Hmm…
I actually just meant that I'd remove the comma, but perhaps I should go back to the old "If you do" wording for consistency. I've softened quite a bit on using new phrasings, though. The important thing is that it's unambiguous, which "You may spend a token to do X" is.Ah, I see. Without the comma it'd be okay. If there are some cards that need the space, then use the succinct version for all of them but Jubilee. Now that you mention abbreviations, didn't you say that in this expansion the words 'in any order' would be implicit every time you topdeck something? I thought those words were removed from Guide for that reason.
EDIT 2:Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.QuoteCanton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
EDIT 3: You guys think Auction could cost $2? Probably it could cost $2.Now that you mention it, yeah. It'll probably be worth $0 on occasion if you buy it too early, and there won't be any benefit in buying more than two or three. I'll be printing out a bunch of cards in the next few days, so if you mock up a version with the new price, I'll use it. (Is there a step-by-step guide for formatting the .pdf to get the cards the right size?)
Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.I didn't see this, but it's an excellent point, and I agree.
I don't think it's meant to be an opportunity for a tactical decision so much as a gate: you either played a Moat or a Lab, depending on whether you have a green card in hand. The reason it was too weak originally was that you need to be actively rewarded for having junk in your deck, rather than just punished less. (I guess it would be more correct to say that Landlord's niche was more like Baron or Stables; it's more that its vanilla bonuses overlapped with Vendor.) From what HeavyD wrote in the Intrigue thread, the meat of the card is below the line and the top can be any machinery that makes you a credible threat for pulling off a quick three-pile. What I wrote was just an attempt to get the appropriate power level.
Ah, I see. Without the comma it'd be okay. If there are some cards that need the space, then use the succinct version for all of them but Jubilee. Now that you mention abbreviations, didn't you say that in this expansion the words 'in any order' would be implicit every time you topdeck something? I thought those words were removed from Guide for that reason.
EDIT 2:Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.QuoteCanton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
EDIT 3: You guys think Auction could cost $2? Probably it could cost $2.Now that you mention it, yeah. It'll probably be worth $0 on occasion if you buy it too early, and there won't be any benefit in buying more than two or three. I'll be printing out a bunch of cards in the next few days, so if you mock up a version with the new price, I'll use it. (Is there a step-by-step guide for formatting the .pdf to get the cards the right size?)
How about making Canton at $4 as a Duchy-gainer with a similar collision requirement? Or something of the sort.
Hmm. In general, I try to subscribe to the philosophy of "one concept per card" where possible. Sometimes that's not exciting enough and combining with another concept is just what is needed. But I want to at least try the really simple version first.The concept of a one-shot Victory card is "which is more valuable: my victory points or my one-shot?"
Counting Provinces feels a lot like Duke to me. And as Donald said, you already want Provinces in most games, so it's not pushing in a new direction, which formula VP cards generally should. That doesn't mean I won't try any formula, though, if it turns out the cards needs to be more exciting.
The concept of a one-shot Victory card is "which is more valuable: my victory points or my one-shot?"
Canton answers, "my one-shot, 100% of the time."
Canton is not currently pushing in a new direction, Canton is better in a deck with lots of Golds (which you want already) and gives you Provinces (which you want already). The interesting idea to further is to make using its one-shot, even where available, questionable. A $6 Canton worth VP per Province might be worth trying to keep even with the option to throw it out for a Province depending upon what other players are doing.
Canton
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $6
You may trash this and discard a Gold from your hand. If you do, gain a Province.
Worth 1 VP per Province in your deck.
Canton
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $6
You may trash a Canton from your hand. If you do, gain a Province.
Worth 1 VP per Province in your deck.
That still pushes Gold, which is less than idealI do not think pushing Gold is necessarily a bad thing. There are games were Gold is more available than others (like Soothsayer and Hoard games), so I think building around cards at that competing price point might be interesting. While cards costing less than Gold would be boring if they encouraged buying Gold, cards that cost as much as Gold are more interesting simply because they compete with it while encouraging it. Not that the trigger for Canton is perfect, but I would not discount interacting with Gold so quickly.
I don't think that's really the interesting concept, though. I'm not certain there's an interesting concept to be had in the space of "one-shot Victory card", but "Do I want to play this" is usually a bad concept in general. Not playing your Action cards generally isn't fun. I guess this could be fixed by having another on-play option. Like, "Choose one: +$2; or trash this and discard X to gain Province".While "Do I want to play this?" is a concept that leaves bad feelings, a one-shot Victory card needs to be able to function as a Victory card, and sometimes that means it is only a Victory card. You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion. I get the formula part, though again, probably by the time you get this up to 5 VP you've won the game.I had not thought of the formula precisely.
CantonThe semantic complexity of both the formula and rounding up I think is manageable if the card is at all an interesting idea since it is only evaluated once at the end of the game. I've been by myself all day though, so maybe I am simply hemorrhaging numbers as I tend to.
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $6
You may <do something which involves trashing a Canton>. If you do, gain a Province.
Worth 1VP per Province in your deck and 1VP more for every 2 Provinces in your deck, rounded up.
You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.
My post is unclear because the highlighted "this" is unclear. I'm referring to the concept of a one-shot Victory card rather than the Canton presented. I give my apologies; that was poor writing on my part.You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.
I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but to me it seems more like an action that has a "runner-up prize" of 2 VP when it fails to do the thing you wanted to do with it.
The whole point of the pdf format was that I thought it would automatically print the right size. Then I found out from someone that the cards were being printed smaller on their computer/printer. Thanks for nothing, PDF!I do have GIMP, but no printer. I would be getting these done at Kinko's, and I doubt they'd be happy with that format.
I print my cards directly from GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/), which is the image editing program I use to create the card images. I have step-by-step instructions for using that, if you're interested. IN FACT, if you have GIMP I can just give you .xcf documents to print and you won't even need the step-by-step instructions.
Now that I stop to think about it, I could compile my own .pdfs in TeX without any trouble, if I knew the exact dimensions of the image. Either millimeters and pixels would be fine; if I had that, I wouldn't have to bug you for anything but the updated Auction.
Barter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.
What kind of deck does barter help? I haven't tested it, but if it encourages engines, making the trade-gain require silvers may not be the best idea, since engines generally avoid them.
Maybe lodge would be a better fit?
I do like the idea, though!
Yeah, sorry I went by the card list in the OP, instead of the latest list two pages ago, and I didn't remember lodge was scrapped.
I see what you mean with trying to make a card that pushes new deck archetypes... but I am not sure Barter is achieving that. Of course, I can't know without testing, so my opinion isn't worth much.
IMHO, the "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play" seems conducive to a sort of mega-turn approach, in which you first get "tons" of trade tokens, and then spend them all in one go. Otherwise, it is not really different from a straight "When you buy this, take a Trade token". And Trade-powered Barter doesn't seem to have a big enough payoff in a deck filled with silver, compared to a basic Barter in a more usual sort of engine deck.
Maybe convoy fits it better then?
powerlevel aside, it looks like a neat idea. I don't think the silver <-> engine contradiction is a bad thing. but does the card really need a buff? it seems plenty strong already.
Sounds good. Whatever works best for you. I will try to post a zip file with the latest high-resolution images as soon as possible. Each card image is 696px × 1074px. If you arrange them in a 4 × 2 grid (landscape-style), it's a total of 2784px × 2148px. But the actual printing size that you want to scale it to is 236mm × 182mm.Perfect. I was planning on printing out . Will the $2 Auction be in the .zip file?
In other news, I thought of a different Trade token-getting mechanic last night. "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play." At first I was thinking of trying it on Cathedral, but I know from past experience that unless a token trasher provides a way to get more tokens later, players will just buy them out for the trashing alone. But it could work perfectly on Barter. Barter's token gaining is already on-buy, and it's a card that you'd sometimes be willing to buy without Trade tokens, but you'd also like to have several (I guess that last part goes for all Trade token cards). To top it off, Silvers make really excellent Barter targets, gaining you $5 cards into your hand. So…It's clever, and I certainly don't think it's a buff compared to a flat 2 tokens. But that extra line comes at a cost, and it's best to be wary about taking a card that's already fine and merging it with an unrelated idea. If the playtesters really don't get the difference between 'buy' and 'gain', then this could be a good fix. Otherwise, leave it as it is.QuoteBarter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.
Getting pretty wordy (one more line of text), but probably still manageable. What do you guys think?
I print my cards directly from GIMP, which is the image editing program I use to create the card images. I have step-by-step instructions for using that, if you're interested. IN FACT, if you have GIMP I can just give you .xcf documents to print and you won't even need the step-by-step instructions.I would very much like the step-by-step instructions and the .xcf documents :) Could you upload them somewhere?
In other news, I thought of a different Trade token-getting mechanic last night. "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play." At first I was thinking of trying it on Cathedral, but I know from past experience that unless a token trasher provides a way to get more tokens later, players will just buy them out for the trashing alone. But it could work perfectly on Barter. Barter's token gaining is already on-buy, and it's a card that you'd sometimes be willing to buy without Trade tokens, but you'd also like to have several (I guess that last part goes for all Trade token cards). To top it off, Silvers make really excellent Barter targets, gaining you $5 cards into your hand. So…I like it. I thought the card seemed kinda uninteresting before, but this makes it interesting. It could get pretty powerful combined with a silver-gainer (like refurbish) though.QuoteBarter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.
Getting pretty wordy (one more line of text), but probably still manageable. What do you guys think?
Auction: At first glance a few months ago, I said I liked Auction. It's interesting enough to be worth trying. But I can hardly think of any case where it's worth buying, especially multiple copies of it. It doesn't fit in engines because you want to play all the actions and trash the other cards. It doesn't help Big Money more than Silver because with a high treasure density in your deck, especially with Golds, you don't want to discard them all to a "Secret Chamber that can't be drawn dead". Secret Chamber is a bad card. But Auction benefits very little from being a treasure because having multiples in one hand doesn’t help you at all. I would be sad if Auction was the only source of +Buy in a kingdom. It might be okay in a slog-ish game with decent drawing potential and viable Alt-VP. Auction can be a little better than Silver when you open with it, provided you draw it with Estates, but IMO it is outclassed by many $3-cost cards and possibly even by Silver. It might be acceptable at $2.
Opening double Gambler seems pretty strong; If you directly draw your other Gambler with the +1 Card, you end up with 5 cards in hand and trashed 2 from your deck. Even if you reveal your other Gambler and put it into your hand, you end up with 6 cards in hand and trashed 1 from your deck. It seems a touch too powerful for a $3-cost card, so you should at least test it at $4.
Dignitary: This is another card I always liked. It seems pretty useful and innovative. Yes, technically it needs the line “Put the rest back in any order” but you can assume some common sense in players, at least when making a fan expansion. I’m working on a set myself and sometimes feel the need to add more text just to exclude unwanted wonkiness in some edge cases. But it’s a fine line between making things clear and presuming that all players are morons. For the sake of brevity of card texts (which I know you like), just stick with the version on page 28.
Barrister: By now, I made friends with the new version (I liked the old one, too). I just wish that Domains were associated with at least one other card additionally because I think they’re cool ;)
I have a question (now I hope that I don’t seem like a moron): Do you put the treasure from the trash into your hand, too, or just in case you choose the Silver?
Conclave: I liked the old name more but, as I said, do whatever you like best. The change in wording is very elegant, in my opinion! Seems a good card to me.
General: You decided to change the wording a little so that forgetting to top-deck the card isn’t considered cheating. This a tough case to me because on one side, you want to avoid situations like that. On the other side, this makes General a little more powerful if we assume that good players deliberately choose the better option. The old version of General forced you to seed your next hand with the one-shot you played twice this turn, enticing you to play it again and ultimately losing it then (if you don’t have another General). The new version makes it easier to keep your one-shots. But maybe this is the boost General needed to become sufficiently better than Throne Room in order to justify the significant jump from $4 to $5. In general, General a good card and a clever addition to the set =)
I would very much like the step-by-step instructions and the .xcf documents :) Could you upload them somewhere?
I certainly plan to try it at $2 and have (just now) updated the image accordingly. I'm not sure I understand your analysis 100%. You don't have to discard your Golds to Auction. You just play your Golds (and Silvers, etc.) before you play Auction. That's why it can say "discard your hand": under normal circumstances you're not losing anything by playing it last.Oh man, I totally forgot that you can play your treasures in any order :P Okay, it's still a Secret Chamber with +buy that can't be drawn dead but it's not as awful as I said it was. Its lack of stackability is still not great but at least it's strictly better than SC's action part. But SC is also a (bad) reaction so I don't know if it should be $2 or $3 in comparison to it. I'm also not sure how significant the gap between $2 and $3 is - probably not as significant than from $4 to $5. On the other hand, a cost of $2 means you can open Auction/$5-cost which certainly makes a difference...
Review of the set: http://souvagames.blogspot.ca/2014/10/dominion-enterprise.html (http://souvagames.blogspot.ca/2014/10/dominion-enterprise.html)
Redistrict: Man, the whole point of the wording is to be clear. The "chosen card" is the one you "choose" at the top of the card. I'm not sure how I could make that more clear. The fact that you can gain a card costing $2 more without gaining one costing $1 more is a side-effect of this wording.
Auction: All Treasure cards that do something on-play say, "When you play this…" Most that are worth varying amounts say, "Worth…"
Committee: "If you did" is necessary to avoid players gaining Provinces (or Colonies in a Colony game) when they have just one kind of card in their deck/discard. If you didn't reveal 2 differently named cards, you don't gain or trash anything.
Oh, OK, I see now. I like the attention to detail you put into your cards, taking edge cases like this into account.
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[margin=.6in]{geometry}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{landscape}
\noindent
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{auction}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{barrister}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{barter}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{cathedral}\\
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{craftsman}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{floodgate}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{mill_town}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{profiteer}
\end{landscape}
\end{document}
Oh, OK, I see now. I like the attention to detail you put into your cards, taking edge cases like this into account.
LastFootnote is quite the master of all card-creation considerations by now! :D
Courtyard, Lookout, Alchemist, Militia, Plaza, Taxman, Barter, Cathedral, Venture, Border VillageWith Platinum available, Taxman of course dominated the table in a big way.
With Colonies and Estates
Played a two-player game using Barter and Cathedral. To be more specific, it used:QuoteCourtyard, Lookout, Alchemist, Militia, Plaza, Taxman, Barter, Cathedral, Venture, Border VillageWith Platinum available, Taxman of course dominated the table in a big way.
With Colonies and Estates
I played a largely Treasure centric strategy between Taxman, Venture, and Platinum. I later bought a Barter, gaining 3 Trade tokens as I did so. The Barter let me trash for Victory cards as I planned, but I also had unfortunate collision between Taxman and Courtyard that I was able to manipulate thanks to Bartering a Border Village to hand.
My partner played an engine using Cathedral and Border Village, with Barter providing a great deal of flexibility as he gained Trade tokens by purchasing Victory cards with multiple Cathedrals in play. He never used the Trade token ability of Cathedral since his draw engine began to reach critical mass by the time we started greening.
I ended up winning, but it was a close and fun game. My partner enjoyed both Cathedral and Barter.
I thought Wheelwright was out. so why is it still in?
I have a Kingdom generator with Enterprise programmed into it. I recently was generating a bunch of Kingdoms with General in it because I wanted to see some of its interactions with Enterprise's one-shots, but I was surprised at how few Kingdoms appeared that made use of that ability of General's. While I don't worry that General is too weak (though, having not played it, that is simply in my approximation), it struck me as odd that General's fanciest ability was rarely useable even in Enterprise heavy games.
As it stands, there are 5 cards in Enterprise that interact with General's "don't trash it" ability: Conscripts, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, and Vendor-- and Redistrict's on-trash ability requires that it be trashed, so General's interaction is irrelevant.
I'm a bit disappointed reflecting upon how few cards are actually one-shots in Enterprise (not because they don't interact with General, but because that was the purported theme). Accounting for all the cards, 9 of the 24 cards are one-shots or pseudo-one-shots: Barter, Convoy, Floodgate, Fund, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, Terrace, and Vendor. If we add interacting with Coppers as a primary mechanic, that only adds Clerk, Mill Town, and Wheelwright to the mechanically relevant list.
I believe there is still a lot of room for high-level play to be introduced to Dominion through your mechanical theme of effects with limited uses and I would like to encourage you to cut cards that don't fit in with that idea.
Conclave
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may pay a Trade token to put all of them into your hand. Otherwise, put one into your hand and discard the rest.
When you gain this, take a Trade token per different type (Action, Attack, etc.) on cards you have in play.
my 2c: Every expansion has a few off-theme cards, and that's fine. nothing wrong with that. I think Dignitary especially is great as is.
OT PS: I've also made a little kingdom chooser program which includes Enterprise (along with my other favorite fan made cards -several from the fan card contests, my expansion of course, a couple from NoMoreFun's expansion, a few from Silverspawn's expansion, and I'll be adding a few from Co0kieL0rd's expansion too).
Are coin tokens supposed to share a similar value on all cards? Trash one card seems to be worth much less than other effects that other cards can "buy" with tokens.
So, they are supposed to have a similar value?
Vagrant, Oasis, Forager, Develop, Gambler, Committee, Mining Village, Minion, Barrister, Altar
Oracle, Great Hall, Convoy, Ironmonger, Trader, Terrace, Procession, Cathedral, Mandarin, Harem
I think that's a worthy goal. As I come up with more on-theme cards, I am bound to cut some of the off-theme ones. That being said, I think a set full of one-shots—even optional one-shots—is bound to be a little lopsided. Meaning, where are all the Kingdom cards at the end of the game? In the trash. Trade token cards are a way around that, which is why I embraced that mechanic. I would argue that even when a card gives Trade tokens other than on-buy or on-gain, it still falls under the limited-uses theme because the uses are so heavily gated.I agree that too many one-shots would be overwhelming. I also agree that Trade tokens are a smart way to get around too many one-shots, which is why I included them in this list:
Accounting for all the cards, 9 of the 24 cards are one-shots or pseudo-one-shots: Barter, Convoy, Floodgate, Fund, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, Terrace, and Vendor.I did not include Craftsman or Cathedral since they make Trade tokens literally and nearly infinite (respectively) making them not nearly so gated as Convoy or Floodgate-- even Barter can provide many Trade tokens. Conscripts, on the other hand, is not a one-shot at all since the cards that gain them are not one-shots.
my 2c: Every expansion has a few off-theme cards, and that's fine. nothing wrong with that. I think Dignitary especially is great as is.Mechanically off-theme cards are fine, especially if they are necessary to round out all the abilities needed in a set, but on-theme cards are vastly preferred-- and that preference becomes stronger as the mechanic becomes harder to see. Right now, I don't believe a player would immediately identify "conditional one-shots\limited use abilities" as the primary theme of Enterprise without being told.
So... any cards that you are going to remove from Enterprise? ;)
So, yeah. I haven't had much Enterprise playtesting since May because all my Dominion time has been taken up with playtesting the next official expansion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11945.0).
How did you get to playtest?
So, yeah. I haven't had much Enterprise playtesting since May because all my Dominion time has been taken up with playtesting the next official expansion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11945.0).
ohh. is it good?
+2 Actions. You may pay a Trade token to look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
+1 Action. +$1. You may pay a Trade token to look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vagrant, Floodgate, Great Hall, Market Square, Nomad Camp, Fortress, Barracks, Highway, General, Harem
Question: How many Conscripts should the Conscripts pile contain? 10 or 15?
Which post has the most current version of the cards posted?
Is it the first post of the thread?
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action from your hand twice. When it leaves play, you may put it on top of your deck.
Tracking would be a tiny bit stranger (though less technical), but you would maintain the primary functionality of General if you worded it asQuoteGeneral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action from your hand twice. When it leaves play, you may put it on top of your deck.
Is General on General a thing? It looks like a thing.
Thanks for the updates to your cards. It would be great if you could post an updated version of the enterprise_imgs.zip file with the hi-res versions.
Domain
Types: Treasure–Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 2 Domains in your deck (otherwise worth 0 VP).
Another option:QuoteDomain
Types: Treasure–Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 2 Domains in your deck (otherwise worth 0 VP).
Any opinions greatly appreciated.
The aspect that makes me a bit wary though, is that stealing a domain can cause a 6pt swing, and it is mainly luck based...
Yes and no. The old version could only make 4 points swings in two players. Up to 6 points in three players and 8 points in four players (actually, up to 2*Nplayers, it is not very difficult to prove), but then again this version can do up to 12 points swing in 3+ players...
EDIT: well, dunno, just stating my opinion. 4 points is a duchy plus a tiebreaker, 6 points is a province.
You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.
You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.
If there's one Province left in the supply, and I buy it, I have 6 VP and my opponent has 0 VP. If my opponent buys it, he has 6 VP and I have 0 VP. That's a 12-point swing.
Yes. This is why once someone buys the penultimate province, duchies and estates often stop mattering.
I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.
I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.
Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.
... as I said before, this is just rhetoric. The 12 point swing you are talking about comes from buying 2 more provinces than your opponent, not 1.
I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.
Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.
I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.
Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.
If i play with six players, is it a 36-point swing?
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.
So let's assume for the moment that Dignitary is too complex. Both of the effects are fairly simple, but they're both wordy (by necessity) and a bit difficult to parse. The reaction is quite popular and the the action has some fans (including me), so let's say I split it into two cards.
Right now I'd like to talk about the Action part of it. I don't think it's interesting enough to be by itself, so I'd like to add another reaction to it. Here's a reaction that I came up with recently that might be a good fit.QuoteWhen another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.
Pretty simple, but I don't think it's too close to anything that's currently out there. It's closest to Beggar and Market Square, but different. It falls under the set's "cares about Treasures" theme since you have to discard a Treasure. Any opinions?
+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.?
First off, how does one find either of Dignitary's effects complex? I'm reading the current text and there's just no misunderstanding. It's phrased very well.
This reminds me of my (and friends') early games with Secret Chamber and Torturer. These cards are part of what is supposed to be a beginners' set but newbies tend to agonize about which cards to put back and which ones to discard. Dignitary is no more complex than that, and while people resolve one half of the card they don't need to think about the other half of it.
Please don't smack something on there just for the reaction's sake. Your suggestion is not too close to anything but it's also not particularly interesting. And there's already Profiteer as a Gold gainer in your set. I know he does it under completely different circumstances but there's enough cards in your set that "care about treasures" already, anyway. It's not a very intriguing theme, in my opinion.
Whether split up Dignitary or not, have you considered phrasing the action like this:Quote+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.?
This is both easier to comprehend and makes the action more flexible (which I'm not sure is what you want). IMO, this would suffice to be an Action card on it's own. What do you think?
I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.
I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.
You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!
Fortress-Dignitary reads the same as Secret Chamber to me too. The way it's written there is no handsize check at all. Militia and Ghost Ship have an implicit handsize checking loop to them because they say "down to" or "until", but the Dignitary I see in OP says "all but". Which means, select your entire hand, then deselect four of those cards, then trash all selected cards at once, you're done. If they come back somehow you still trashed the set of cards you were supposed to, there is no concern for a special result or goal like "down to" would imply.
Secret Chamber is a Good Thing. Recursion is a Bad Thing.
I don't know about you, but I've been revealing the same moat since 2011. Good point.You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!
When you're losing, you can already reveal Secret Chamber and rearrange the top of your deck indefinitely. There's no design rule that says a player can't delay the game forever if they want to, because no one wants to do that.
The case in which you're forced to do something repeatedly forever would be problematic. Wait, can that situation even happen? You can always just choose not to reveal Dignitary, right? I guess it would be a problem in an online implementation, but IRL, you can just say "whoops, I didn't mean to reveal Dignitary", and if you're playing with reasonable opponents, you can just not do the reaction (and if you're playing with unreasonable opponents you can show them your hand of five fortresses and sit there until they resign).
Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.I love dat s**t :D I would say this all boils down to if you're playing with reasonable opponents. I've never ever shown a newbie Dominion without having to explain the effect of Secret Chamber, or Minion, or Procession (...) at least once. I'd be fine clarifying that Dignitary does trash all chosen (or unchosen) cards at once and on-trash effects are triggered afterwards.
What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.
Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.The number of Fortresses in your hand doesn't make a difference since you trash all of them at once, and only once per revelation of Dignitary.
Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?
We could also apply maths*This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.
Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.
What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.
Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.
Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?
*or something that looks vaguely like it?
We could also apply maths*This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.
Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.
What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.
Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.
Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?
*or something that looks vaguely like it?
Secret Chamber is a Good Thing. Recursion is a Bad Thing.
Could you please Elaborate?
I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.
I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.
I like that idea and recommend you give it a shot! Because when me and 1 or 2 friends played a game with Profiteer, no one bought it either. If there are strong Attack cards on the board you certainly don't want it. If there are non, however, I think the fear of getting Conscripts-attacked after playing some Profiteers is partly unfounded. How likely is your opponent to collide two of them if they're not implementing Conscripts/other Attacks into their strategy? For most deck types, obviously excluding engines that can easily draw your deck, they are rather a liability similar to (or even more so than) the Silver from Embassy.
If it is possible, with certain card combinations, to create an “infinite loop,” then when executing an infinite loop the resolving player must follow these two steps:
1. Clearly display the infinite loop to the opponent (and tournament judge, if the opponent requires it). Thus, the player must display, using all cards involved, one full cycle of the infinite loop.
2. State how many times he or she wishes to execute this loop. For example, the player could say “I will now execute this loop seventeen million times.” Then resolve the loop that many times instantly. If the execution of this loop causes the player to win the game, the game is over and the executing player wins.
Infinite loops should never be abused to cause the game to stal
Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?
Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?
In other news, I don't like Cathedral as it stands. You may or may not have noticed that it took forever for me to finally get around to even testing it. For a long time I thought I needed a card with "+3 Cards", which is why I have tried so many such cards in the set. I am coming around to the idea that I have enough card drawing in the set, though, what with Clerk, Convoy, Conclave, Wheelwright, and to a much lesser extent, Gambler and Floodgate.
But I would like to have more Trade token cards and tokens-for-trashing doesn't seem like a terrible idea, so I may just turn Cathedral into a card that gives +$ instead of +Cards. Or something.
You could always cycle the dignitary though:
"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.
Either way, this wording avoids infinite loop issues, because you can just choose to stop using the reaction.You could always cycle the dignitary though:
"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."
This is perhaps worth trying. The reason I hadn't tried it yet is because I assumed there was a reason it hadn't been done on published cards. That reason was redrawing it and using it again. So, another player plays an Attack. You discard Dignitary and trash a card from your hand, then draw a card. Say that makes you shuffle and you redraw your Dignitary. Then you can do it again, and so on. But really the chance that you're going to keep drawing more Dignitaries is slim. And even if you do, so what? Causing a reshuffle is a logistics issue, but attacks and Secret Chamber already do that. So, yeah, maybe it's worthwhile. I'd probably try:QuoteWhen another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.
Maybe drawing 2 cards is a bit much, but I'd probably try that first. Again, you've got crazy Fortress stuff where you could potentially keep increasing your handsize by trashing Fortresses, but that's not likely to work. And if you do pull it off, woohoo!
You can try the stronger "trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards" version if you feel the current version is too weak. The version that draws only one card is pretty much the same as the current version in terms of power.
When another player plays an attack card, you may discard this. If you do, +1 card and trash a card.The upper half is slightly stronger than it used to be, so I think it's fine to work with a 4 card hand after using the reaction.
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.Because I don't remember reading anywhere official that said you could reveal a reaction multiple times.
Somewhat related to the issue at hand: is there anything preventing a player from revealing a Tunnel multiple times when discarding it? As far as I can tell, there is nothing that differentiates "when another player plays an Attack card" from "when you discard this", in both cases you are sort of interrupting the game flow.
Because I don't remember reading anywhere official that said you could reveal a reaction multiple times.Just looked though the Rules questions forum backwards. Here you are:
Border Village causes something else to happen when you gain it (and Tunnel optionally does when it's discarded). You only gain it once so it only causes that thing to happen once.
The reason "when an opponent plays an attack card" is an exception to this is because we can't tell if you drew that Moat off of Secret Chamber or had it in your hand already, and if you had it in your hand you could use it, because you would just be picking the order to do two things you wanted to do at the same time. So we let you use it whether it was in your hand or not, and ditto a second Secret Chamber.
The reason that we let you reveal Moat / Secret Chamber twice is because we can't tell if you had multiples or what.So you can't reveal Tunnel twice because you just discarded that copy.
When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.would be bad because there's no way of knowing whether the person had more than one dignitary in his hand or not.
The only little issue is that it doesn't block attacks that depend on players having 5 cards in hand (like Minion & Axeman). Wasn't that part of the original idea of the card?
Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
Harbor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. Put the rest back in any order. +$1 per card you put back.
Harvest looks a bit weak in comparison
As long as we're voting, I'd vote to keep Dignitary as you have it*. The problem with Harbor is that it's redundant with Dignitary and Dignitary is better.
(*Except for tweaking the reaction depending on whether +1 or +2 cards works better of course.)
The problem with Harbor is that it's redundant with Dignitary and Dignitary is better.
• Magic Mirror (http://i.imgur.com/2lTG8Qb.png) is not looking promising. The decision of whether to play or gain a copy of a card is no fun.
• I am the only one buying the new Vendor (http://i.imgur.com/SVBmMjs.png), but man did it work for me. I pulled Platinum a few times in one game and Sea Hag in another. It's nice to have another Trade token card working out.
Is Enterprise going to be canon? The artwork looks very much in line with Dominion proper, and the more-finalized cards seem about as stable and varied as the real thing.
• Magic Mirror (http://i.imgur.com/2lTG8Qb.png) is not looking promising. The decision of whether to play or gain a copy of a card is no fun.
Have you tried having it copy an Action card in play and trash the Mirror? Might be more like a $4 card at that point.
i.e.,
Treasure
Cost: $4
$2
You may gain a copy of an Action card you have in play. If you do, trash this card.
Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. You may discard a non-Victory card. If you do, gain a copy of it and trash this.
$5 Peddler variant... It seems fine, but also seems to depend heavily on whether you have a good source of Trade tokens. I'm not sure I'd get it over Scavenger, though. The flexibility of getting the card you want right now exactly with the hand you want it could justify it, maybe. But I can see it being unpopular.
(http://i.imgur.com/Y4T2un5.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/YSq0ne4.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/U24Lz9F.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/hV0OWpv.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/6sJ7Z75.png) |
(http://i.imgur.com/RFTlIFG.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/mh3xTvW.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/d5DJLrg.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/97HDSkq.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/PX133s1.png) |
Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Discard a card. +3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vendor continues to be unpopular. I'm thinking of buffing it like so:QuoteVendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vendor continues to be unpopular. I'm thinking of buffing it like so:QuoteVendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Still depends heavily on the availability of trade tokens.
Wording is slightly simplified, which is nice. It's worded so that you look through your discard pile no matter what, which isn't horrible design, but doesn't strike me as Dominion standard.
I don't know if Vendor actually needs a buff. The Platinum game is a special case and not worth balancing around, but it still might be good enough, and the crazy combos with Jubilee or even being able to buy two Vendors lets you stock tokens and use them to make finesse plays. I favor Scavenger a lot - maybe too heavily. Getting the chosen card in your hand immediately rather than in your next hand seems like it should be a really strong one-shot (or multi-shot if you have Jubilee on the board)
Anyway, if it's balanced, then I wouldn't buff it just to make it more popular. The extra token would stand out as kind of odd anyway.
As far as the lookthrough goes, Scavenger always makes you put a card on your deck. Inn always lets you choose any number of cards on buy. Counting House lets you choose "any number". Herald is the only example where you have to pay to do something with your discard pile, and you don't get to look and then choose whether to overpay (never mind that there isn't a way to "choose later" X-D ). Anyway, the "look through and pick one" feels like a single unit, and I feel like Donald would be like, "what, can't remember where your KC is? Are you asleep?" But he hates fan sets regardless.
Off topic, but is the art that you use public domain somehow, or from DeviantArt or something else?
One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory". Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule. Not that I agree.
One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory". Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule. Not that I agree.
I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?
One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory". Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule. Not that I agree.
I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?
As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.
One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory". Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule. Not that I agree.
I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?
As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.
Tinker
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$1. Trash 2 cards from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to gain a card costing up to their total cost.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4. Poor Trading Post... Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.
Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4. Poor Trading Post... Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.
Well, I compare this to Steward and Remake. As an early-game trasher it's stronger than Steward because it gives +$1. It doesn't become an engine component later, but it will have its Forge ability once. Likewise, Remake gets you Silvers or other $3 cards for your Estates. Tinker makes it overwhelmingly likely that you can buy a $3 card after you play it, possibly more depending on what else is in your hand.
Right, it's sort of "steward-and-a-half" in the $4 version (with no token). The $5 version with no token is even worse than Trading Post.
From looking at it, I think it would be better at $3.
It may be better then Steward for trashing, but in the mid to late game this is usually going to be a dead card when you don't use the trade token because of the forced trashing. If you're able to open tinker/tinker, letting you forge one of them into something else, I think that balances it some to make up for being a dead card sometimes.
Tinker two estates into an engine component, then a tinker and estate into a $5. From then on you can just trash coppers.
Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.
Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.
I think it's pretty atypical, yes. But Tinker is first and foremost a deck thinner. Also, it's not unusual for other TfB cards to have vanilla bonuses (Bishop, Apprentice).
But of course it's really a matter of practicality. I think Tinker would be too weak at any cost without the +$1 bonus. I could add a non-vanilla bonus instead (like Ambassador has), but the card already has a concept (tokens-for-remodel) and doesn't really want another one. Nor does it want more words. I was considering +1 Cards (or +2 Cards for $5), but I prefer that you know what your trashing options are before you play the card.
Tinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, InnA quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Just played 1v1 with Enterprise cards. We mainly wanted to playtest Tinker and, since I assumed you're testing it at $4, we had it cost $3. This was the kingdom:QuoteTinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, InnA quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Besides, my friend used a General twice, I think, then trashed it. Dignitary wasn't gained. Only I used Craftsman to get a Junk Dealer, then trashed it as well. You know, Market Square^^
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.
I'm impressed by your capacity to keep finding new uses for Trade tokens!
Slightly off-topic: what is the current wording of General? I have been thinking that the following wording is a bit simpler, although it works in a different way:QuoteGeneral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.
I can't think of any one-shot that would break this, and it's shorter.
EDIT: Yeah, technically you can choose to put that card on top of your deck instead of putting that card on top of your deck. But you'll probably get slapped it you do that too many times.
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Take a Trade token. You may play an Action card from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to play it again. You may pay another Trade token to play it a third time.
General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. When you discard it from play, you may put it on top of your deck.
It's disappointing to hear that the forge option didn't really come into play much. I guess I'll see if my tests turn out any better in that department.
(http://i.imgur.com/QSn8q5l.png)I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.
I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.
Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may spend a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.
I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this. And Courtyard is pretty awesome. It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option. It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save. It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...
Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this. And Courtyard is pretty awesome. It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option. It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save. It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...
Yes, that is the other point. Spending a token on terminal draw does not seem like a good idea, even if it said "+3 cards, discard a card." Have you thought about "You may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +1 Action"? That might be a nice addition to other kinds of cards as well, now that I think about it.
Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
QuoteConvoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
That's a little less fiddly. The main reason I haven't done it is that it's like a weak Oracle when you're not using the token. But uh, maybe that's the best option.
Also, there's just "Look at the top 3 cards, discard one, and put the rest into your hand". Or look at the top 4 and discard 2. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but at least you'll have options.Isn't that very close to the original Guide? Why not go with that? It's simple and useful.
Yeah, I thought the original was fine. I remember you saying before you didn't like "spend a token to draw" because you didn't know what you were getting, and the original Guide was good because it didn't have that problem. All of the other versions you're suggesting have that problem (though some to a lesser extent than others). I think it would just feel bad to spend a trade token only to draw dead actions, or not get as much money as you wanted. The old version of Guide had a really nice, clean fix to that problem.
Granted, I haven't actually played with it at all, so you should know better than I do. I just don't see anything wrong with the original. Is it really any worse than Oracle? It should be easier to decide what to discard, and you don't have to choose for other players. You can play it multiple times and that will slow it down, but I would think if you're doing that, you have a big turn going anyway so there's already sort of a natural break in the game.
Dunno, maybe "look at the top 5 cards of your deck; put 2 of them in your hand, put the rest on top of your deck in any order" ?
Might be too strong for $4 though, and it's a bit wordy.
The logic behind 5 cards instead of 4 was to give you more information about your next play: you know 60% of the cards you are going to look at, instead of only 50%. The larger the number of cards you look at, the less the extra two unknown cards you will look at will affect your decision.
Of course, you have to put limits somewhere, because "look at your whole deck and discard pile; put two cards from anywhere into your hand" is sort of slightly undercosted at $4.
Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. You may spend a Trade token to choose one: +2 Actions; or take 2 Trade tokens; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand. Otherwise, the player to your left chooses for you.
...so you start without tokens? That doesn't seem like a very good idea.
What about getting tokens whenever you don't choose, and toning down the bonuses?
Well, if the only way to gain tokens is by letting your opponent pick for you, I think that makes it more "different" than the current version, where once you get your first token, you can avoid that event forever and sort of make labs out of committee. Just my two cents.
EDIT: man, I don't know how you manage to understand what I am writing. I'm rereading myself and thinking "dafuq I am saying here?"
Where would the tokens be coming from, then? I am not opposed to the idea.
Well I don't think it will be like that every time there's no other trade token cards. You could imagine a situation where there's strong trashing and you know your opponent is already really trashed down, you choose the trash option for them. Though I guess that just makes it an expensive Smithy, if the trashing is really doing nothing for them. Maybe committees are the only non-terminal and your opponent has gotten way too many of them, and you would rather they all be terminal all the time, so you would choose the trash option (even if it's good for them) because it's better than letting them make the committees non-terminal later. That would be an interesting situation, but probably uncommon.
I don't know how it will actually play out, it's a pretty unique card. But I think there probably will be a concern that the trade token option ends up being the most popular option by a large margin. If you wanted to fix that, you would need to make it be significantly better for the player playing committee to choose than it is for the opponent to choose, and in order to do that, you want the difference between the utility of the two alternate options to be really big (or just have lots of options?). You could accomplish that by making one option really bad, but obviously that's not ideal. So I think what I'm saying is, you want the options to be really situational.
BTW, if you keep a trashing option, I think maybe it should not be optional after it's chosen (so just "trash a card" instead of "trash up to"/"you may trash"). That's easier to word (at least if it's only one card being trashed), and it makes it possible for your opponent to actually hurt you with that option, so they might choose it over the trade token option (if they expect it to hurt you, even if it ends up helping you). Now I'm not sure anymore, because it would suck to be forced to trash a good card, but Lookout can do that too, and it has to be unlikely enough that you just don't play committee if you're really worried about it.
slightly off-topic, have you considered getting a symbol for trade tokens, VP-style? So "take a trade token" could be replaced by "+1 <TTsymbol>" and make some cards easier on the eyes.
Forced trashing seems odd when the effects seem to be meant as benefits. Maybe it'd work better as optional trashing?
I'm surprised that people wouldn't get Fund early. Death Cart variants are great early, especially when there's no penalty. I would get at least two and then only stop when the Golds are rolling in.
I'm surprised that people wouldn't get Fund early. Death Cart variants are great early, especially when there's no penalty. I would get at least two and then only stop when the Golds are rolling in.
Well, Wharves were available, and they sold out first (4-player game).
EDIT: slightly off-topic, have you considered getting a symbol for trade tokens, VP-style? So "take a trade token" could be replaced by "+1 <TTsymbol>" and make some cards easier on the eyes.
Not saying that it is necessarily a good idea, just asking if you have ever considered it.
I think saying "+1☤" and "you may spend ☤" is fine. Afterall, that already happens with cards: we have "+1 card", but we have "discard a card" instead of "-1 card".
The symbol making it unclear that it's a token seems like a weird concern, given that VPs do exactly that.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your concern. Is it because you rather not have to make a "rulebook", so to speak? As in, you would rather have cards spell out any concept they introduce?
AxemanA
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player trashes a card from his hand other than a Curse (or reveals a hand of all Curses). He may gain a cheaper card, putting it on top of his deck. Otherwise, he gains a Curse.
AxemanB
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player trashes a Treasure or Action card from his hand (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a cheaper card, putting it on top of his deck. Otherwise, he gains a Curse.
Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, then puts them back in an order he chooses. Unless he revealed 2 Coppers, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.
I never played with Axeman but I can imagine the frustration, especially since my last game with an even harsher card I made that ruined my friend's deck completely.
I like Axeman B a little better, specifically because trashing an Estate for a Copper could be very beneficial for your opponent. Either way, gaining a Curse when no cheaper card is available is a clever penalty for trashing a Copper (or Curse). But, since you seem to tend towards turning Axeman into a cursing attack, I suggest changing the card's name. In Dominion, cursers tend to be "shady" people - Witches, Mountebanks, Swindlers ... There are probably more members of that group ;)
Possible new version of Bookkeeper, since the current version does not excite me.QuoteBookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, then puts them back in an order he chooses. Unless he revealed 2 Coppers, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.
So you are more excited by this? I can't say that I am. It looks as weak and as the other version.
I have to think that allowing other players to look at and re-arrange their top two cards isn't worth the possibility of giving them a Copper. The only situation I can think of where I would open with such a card is if my opponent opened Mint. Even then I wouldn't. So I would buy this card late-game only. And how much does giving your opponent a Copper matter then, really? Is it worth putting a terminal Silver in your deck this late in the game? Like Noble Brigand, Bookkeeper would rarely be good, and even then it won't be amazing. But at least Noble Brigand discards the top two cards. If Bookkeeper did that, it would be too similar to NB. If you leave it like this, I think $3 might be more appropriate.
Sorry this looks like a long rant. I figured I could be honest with you ;)
Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals one of them. If it's an Action or Treasure, he discards it. Otherwise, he puts it on top of his deck.
Edit 2: One should also compare it to Bureaucrat, which it actually seems inspired by. $2 are pretty on par with the Silver gain i think, but like with Militia, Bookkeeper never fails.
Changing up the vanilla bonus might make the direct Attack comparisons less worrisome. Maybe +2 Cards? That might be easy to set at $4.
Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.
I'm sure you've considered every single one of those points already, but it's nice to list them out. Anyway, I think I like the card; I just have no idea how strong it is.
Time to finally print and test Conquest.
...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...
...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...
Another possible way of making it more useful/powerful is to allow it to target a type, with something like this:
Targeted Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Name a card type. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one of that type costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.
Hmm. If the Silver thing is too much of a concern, maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types, but it'd fit with the way it's set up to play a stolen Action right away.
Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals an Action card. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards; play it. IF it costs less than this, play it again.
Keep the +1 action. Nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. One more thing, it would be nice to find a version that can't hit itself.
Have you considered adding an "if you did" after "trash this"?
From a strictly net deck worth standpoint, your opponent is losing at least $3 and you are losing $5 and gaining at least $3, so you are coming out on top. To me, it doesn't seem like a total dud even if you just hit a Silver (even though it probably isn't that great). Throne/King-ing could be exceptionally nasty, so that probably needs tested (as I'm sure you already know).Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.
Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.
Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.
I don't agree. Thieving a Silver is quite good. It's all those Coppers you Thieve in the mean time that make Thief a bad card. This is guaranteed to hit something good, and it gives it to you right away. Compare to all the Silver with a bonus cards that are at $5. If this only hits Silver, the bonus is, the first time you play it, it removes a silver from your opponents deck. I'm not going to say that is great, but it's not much different than buying a Royal Seal on $5 when there aren't other good options. Now add the additional bonus that you might hit something better.
I'd generally prefer Lab over Explorer too? They can't all be the best $5.
Another option would be to price it at 6 and make it dig for two cards (or look at the top x cards or whatever). You choose the card that gets trashed.
Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.
Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.
But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.
Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.
But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.
Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.
But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.
Sure, buying Conquest over Duchy when you want Duchy isn't actually a good idea. But given that it doesn't matter how long you have the Duchy in your deck, if your Conquest ends up turning into a Duchy you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.
Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.
But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.
Sure, buying Conquest over Duchy when you want Duchy isn't actually a good idea. But given that it doesn't matter how long you have the Duchy in your deck, if your Conquest ends up turning into a Duchy you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.
Well, if you buy a turn 1 Mountebank, you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.
I also just realised that any idea you have since your Dominion: Adventures play-testing means that there is no similar card in the new official set. BAM!
Let's talk about the new Bookkeeper first. This looks promising. I even wonder why such a card isn't there already. It will always be a little nasty and sometimes really screw over your opponent. Which makes me think it should cost $4 but that's just my intuition. I feel like it's often at least as good as Cutpurse in the early game but stays strong later. Even early, if your opponent decides to put back an Estate rather than discard a Copper, it surely screws up their next hand.
Conquest: I am a little surprised you're going for a harsh trashing attack. But I guess since it's a one-shot it's alright. Gaining and playing the gained card immediately afterwards is a good idea. I agree with Awaclus, though that hitting only Silvers with an expensive one-shot would really suck. And there are plenty of Silvers in an average Dominion deck.
I've got an extraordinary suggestion: try Conquest targeting cards from $4 to $7. It would look quite unusual but it changes a lot and would make me rather think "this is gonna be a successful Conquest!"
I also like the version that immediately plays the gained Action card, and twice if it costs less than Conquest, but Pacovf made a valid point in that nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. But you could make both plays optional! I guess that's too many words for your liking, though.
I think the fact that they often get to choose early whether to topdeck an Estate or discard a Copper makes it weaker. It's sort of like a reverse Coin token. If they don't want to be bumped down $1, their next hand suffers for it. But they can choose whichever is more advantageous. But I might make it cost $4 just because the set is hemorrhaging $4 cards and has way too may $3 cards. For $3 right now, it has (new) Bookkeeper, Convoy, Floodgate, Gambler, Mill Town, Refurbish, and Tinker. Assuming I remove the old Committee, it has Craftsman, Dignitary, Profiteer, and Terrace at $4. Bookkeeper and Tinker would probably be fine at $4, although I kind of like Tinker at $3. Refurbish has always been a prime candidate for cutting just because it's 100% off-theme. As much as it saddens me, Mill Town could also be cut. It's a fine card, but the set has a lot of villages (Jubilee, Mill Town, Terrace, General), and Mill Town is the one I need the least.
Conquest is a potential Axeman replacement. I may try a cheaper ($4?) Barrister that makes players trash Domains from their hand.
I'll keep the $4 to $7 option in mind. I do worry that it's easier to trash Provinces with, though. One Highway is all you'd need.
OK, screw this Copper-mucking nonsense. Time for something basic. Here's the version I plan to print for testing on Friday. It's like Magistrate, but allows the targets to discard Copper and doesn't require a choice on the part of the attacking player.
(http://i.imgur.com/ifClQMb.png)QuoteBookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals one of them. If it's an Action or Treasure, he discards it. Otherwise, he puts it on top of his deck.
Yes it will sometimes be Cutpurse, but hey it costs $3. And the victim may choose to e.g. topdeck an Estate if he doesn't want to be down $1 in hand. I'm hoping it'll give the targets interesting options, especially in the later game when they may not have a Copper to discard.
This version sounds weak. I mean, sure it can be as good as Cutpurse on some turns, but then when your opponent draws 2 terminals and no villages, this card just saves them. Sure, Ghost Ship can save you from a bad hand too, but it's really painful the rest of the time.
*Edit* Just read CookieLord's comments on it, and he makes good points too. So I could be completely wrong.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
This version sounds weak. I mean, sure it can be as good as Cutpurse on some turns, but then when your opponent draws 2 terminals and no villages, this card just saves them. Sure, Ghost Ship can save you from a bad hand too, but it's really painful the rest of the time.
*Edit* Just read CookieLord's comments on it, and he makes good points too. So I could be completely wrong.
Bookkeeper doesn't top deck action cards though.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"
If your deck has 9 Golds in a row, the game should end before you have a next turn.
Knowing that people would aim to edge-case me, i purposefully added "under any circumstance" as a way to show that i was aware of possible exceptions.
Terrace
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. You may pay a Trade token to discard your hand and draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
Axeman!
Actually, Taxman too tbh.
Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.
Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.
Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.
Which do you guys think is the better $4 Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?
Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.
Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.
Buy doctor with 5 golds.
[Success Kid]
Trash 4 golds on top of deck so that you can trash the coppers 3 estates and 5 coppers below.
Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.
Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.
Buy doctor with 5 golds.
[Success Kid]
Trash 4 golds on top of deck so that you can trash the coppers 3 estates and 5 coppers below.
Couldn't you just, like, discard those Golds?
Which do you guys think is the better $4 Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?
Which do you guys think is the better Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?
QuoteConvoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Which do you guys think is the better Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?QuoteConvoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals 2 cards from his deck. He trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Action cards. If you do, trash this.
What about making Conquest a Knights variant?QuoteConquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals 2 cards from his deck. He trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Action cards. If you do, trash this.
????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.
If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.
Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.
A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.
"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"
Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.Quote????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.
Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.
Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.Quote????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.
Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.
Band of Misfits?
Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.Quote????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.
Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.
How are you able to get this many playtests in? I try to playtest, but since my family is not that interested in Dominion (especially non-canon versions), I have to call in a favor (not really) to get them to play.
I'd happily exchange playtests with you maybe at a 2-1 ratio if that's interesting to you, because somehow new cards by other people are more real than ones I make up.
I don't think I understand your proposal.
I don't think I understand your proposal.
XP has a fan expansion (progress). His close ones don't feel super thrilled to play with it, but would be ok with playing with someone else's fan expansion. Probably because they feel like XP couldn't be objective about the worth of his own fan cards, as opposed to someone else's, so playing with the latter seems like a safer bet.
His proposal is that you play with his cards from time to time, and he will play with yours. I am not sure who is the advantaged side in his 2-1 proposal, but from common experience with negotiation techniques, I expect you to be the favoured one.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 4 cards in your hand and trash the rest.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 4 cards in your hand and trash the rest of your hand.
Huzzah! I guess I was reading too quickly. Glad to see it lives on, I like trashing. I suppose it looses certain combos with Council Room and whatnot, but those won't come up too often anyway. Only thing is, shouldn't it say "+2 Cards" at the end instead of "draw 2 Cards"? "Draw" is only used when opponents draw cards (exceptions: draw-to-X, Outpost, Envoy).
Dignitary lives, man. It looks like this now:
(http://i.imgur.com/A8KKni6.png)
I was avoiding doing the reaction this way for a long time, since you could potentially do a lot of Dignitary reactions by drawing more Dignitaries. But I've tested it and in practice it's just not an issue.
Anyway, this new version has been working fine for awhile now. I could change the top, but so far nobody in my IRL games is complaining that it's too much like Harbor.
Setting it aside is clunkier and takes at least another line of text. It works great on Horse Traders for multiple reasons, but it's not so great here.
I understand the concern about its power, but I'm really not so worried. If you have enough Dignitaries that you're actually pulling it off, your deck has too many Dignitaries. Especially now that it always reduces your hand size when played, it's just not practical to have so many of them. If it's ever a problem in even one of my playtest games, I'll re-evaluate it. So far this reaction has been working great.
Dignitary lives, man. It looks like this now:
(http://i.imgur.com/A8KKni6.png)
I updated the OP.
• Removed Axeman, Committee, and Cathedral.
• Added Tinker, Harbor, and Conquest.
• Updated Convoy, Vendor, General, Dignitary, and Domain.
• The images are now high-resolution images that have been shrunk down using the img tag. This makes them look way nicer and means that you have easy access to printable versions.
But may I ask what was the problem with Cathedral? I remember play-testing it and it seemed quite strong in combination with a village, especially when it also happens to be a TT gainer (Terrace).
Why is it so important to you that the size of your set is in accordance with original set sizes? Who cares? It's your own expansion, and you can do whatever you want. Why can't you set have 27 cards or 29?
That reminds me: I think i read about somebody who playtested his cards by printing them on normal paper, simply putting them in a sleeve with an official card. Was that you? I find it hard to imagine printing on blanks (or allready printed cards even) would give satisfactory results. If you actually print on the cards, may i ask what printer you use?
On an unrelated note, it seems somehow your comment on Tinker got missing in the OP.
Also, while at it, i should probably mention that i think Convoy is now a much better card than it was before.
(http://i.imgur.com/FDIRPnA.png)
I like it. It's simple, clean, still has something to it. The only thing i'm a bit worried about is that it might make Oasis look a bit superfluous. Sure, Oasis draws a card, but Auction gives a buy, costs less, can't be drawn dead and can make ALL cards in your hand to money. It also seems to be pretty good for Big Money+Draw.
(http://i.imgur.com/FDIRPnA.png)
I like it. It's simple, clean, still has something to it. The only thing i'm a bit worried about is that it might make Oasis look a bit superfluous. Sure, Oasis draws a card, but Auction gives a buy, costs less, can't be drawn dead and can make ALL cards in your hand to money. It also seems to be pretty good for Big Money+Draw.
I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.
I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.
I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.
Try not to think of Oasis as a Peddler, but of a cantrip that turns one of your cards into a Copper. Auction does the same thing, but with all cards left in your hand. As Minotaur said, one Auction equals X Oasises, where X is the number of junk cards in your hand, with the penalty of exactly one card. Draw-to-X is an edge case i didn't think of, where the cards behave different.
I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.
Try not to think of Oasis as a Peddler, but of a cantrip that turns one of your cards into a Copper. Auction does the same thing, but with all cards left in your hand. As Minotaur said, one Auction equals X Oasises, where X is the number of junk cards in your hand, with the penalty of exactly one card. Draw-to-X is an edge case i didn't think of, where the cards behave different.
It looks like you're saying that Auction is a cantrip when obviously it's not. Oasis draws a card while Auction doesn't, and that can make a big difference. I think of Oasis as a sifter rather than a Peddler. Playing multiple Oases helps you cycle your deck and potentially find cards you want right now rather than next turn. Multiple Auctions in your hand do you no good. I'm not even saying that this is a reason for Auction to cost $3 because, from my point of view, these two cards are hardly comparable.
On the other hand, Auction is clearly stronger than Secret Chamber's on-play ability and the only thing that might make Secret Chamber not look utterly terrible next to Auction is its reaction part. And it's not even a good reaction. So Auction might as well cost $3. But, then again, Secret Chamber is like the worst cardin Dominionat the cost of $2. We've had that topic already and I still think Auction would look way less compelling at $3 and it's fine at $2.
If your hand is one Auction and X Estates, you play Auction and discard those Estates, getting $X. If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X. Essentially, Auction's impact is turning the junk in your hand into Oases.
I still don't see it. After you play Oasis, you continue your turn like normal, except now you have an extra coin, a new card, and 1 less total card in hand. Just like having played a Peddler, except the 1 less total card in hand part. The main point is that it's not something you play at the end of your turn. You can follow it with a terminal, or just continue your engine; drawing and playing all sorts of more cards. Auction is forced to always be the last card you play. It won't cycle your deck; and it won't give you any money at all if you have no unused cards in your hand. If your entire hand is 1 Oasis, then Oasis is basically a Copper. If your entire hand it 1 Auction, then Auction is a Ruined Market.
Hmm... I guess you're right. The fact that a multitude of Auctions isn't really great favours a cost of $2. The $4/$5 gap is pretty big, too. I'd suggest to try and pair it up with some big card draw to test how it does there. Smithy/Auction seems like a great opening to me.
If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X.
Hmm... I guess you're right. The fact that a multitude of Auctions isn't really great favours a cost of $2. The $4/$5 gap is pretty big, too. I'd suggest to try and pair it up with some big card draw to test how it does there. Smithy/Auction seems like a great opening to me.
I think Smithy/Auction is a fine opening if you need the extra buy. Especially if you want a bunch of $2 cards (Native Villages, etc.) so that you can buy two with Auction even if they don't collide. I'm guessing that Auction's average Coin value after a Smithy draw is +$2. So, Silver. And of course, you can always open Smithy/Silver.
Thanks a lot for the critique of the whole set, by the way! I'm working on a reply, but I thought I'd get in on the Auction conversation first.
If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X.
Then you've played Oasis terribly wrong. If you do this, you may as well have just bought Copper instead of Oasis for all X of them.
(http://i.imgur.com/alL1j47.png)
Another simple, clever idea. My favourite of your set.
(http://i.imgur.com/jGwIoyz.png)
I'll be honest: I'm not a fan of one-shots. Somehow i feel they go against the whole deckbuilding premise. Sure, not doing any would be wasted design space, but you make it the premise of an entire set. I'm not sure one-shots are a mechanic special enough to carry that. Most certainly it doesn't seem like the kind of set i'd recommend for a beginner to get used to Dominion, if that says anything.
Then again, most of us aren't beginners, and i'm definitely astounded how much variety you achieve while staying inside this one design space. One-shots ARE underrepresented in official Dominion, too, and even if you made a lot of them, there are so many cards that "one-shot-heavy" boards are unlikely anyhow. So i guess personal preference is all i can give as reasons why i'm a bit more sceptical here.
Looking at the individual cards, i see nothing wrong with Jubilee. It's probably balanced, and being the only "hard" trade token one-shot makes it a bit more interesting then it would be without. I guess i can spare you analysis of how good or bad it might be, you know that better than me. Interest-wise, it's good enough, but as there are a few more interesting trade token cards in the set, they steal Jubilee's spotlight. I feel it looks a bit like how Monument would look if Prosperity had not three, but eight +VP cards. So i guess that's another problem i have with having so many trade token cards - individual cards seem less exciting.
(http://i.imgur.com/FrwxVgs.png)
I'm not sure what the best use case for this is. It's interesting that what you get isn't dependant on Redistrict, but the card it trashed. Not sure i like the wording, but i guess "the trashed card" would seem to refer to Redistrict itself. I'm a bit indifferent, but it's obviously okay. I probably underestimate it.
(http://i.imgur.com/3E91tvP.png)
Hmm... Now that i think about it, on-gain/on-buy IS a one-shot mechanic... Maybe i'm misjudging this entire thing... Either way, Floodgate seems cute. And it's cheap enough for its ability to be actually useful. I like it.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7MIukT.png)
I didn't like this one at first, but it has some appeal. At least it's not like it's going to harm you at any point. It probably feels unsatisfying to trash it very early, and i don't think the one-time Lab makes up for it. On the other hand i think the idea is clever and interesting, which is why Gambler made it on my list of "other people's cards that i want to print to use myself".
(http://i.imgur.com/xNYojBg.png)
A Village that rewards you for junk? Hm... I guess gaining some cheap engine components is easy enough, especially early, so you don't have to go for Mill Town megaturns to get something of it. Fine, i think.
(http://i.imgur.com/XSzt5pr.png)
I like the on-play, and i realize it interacts with the bottom. Still, i feel it's not as interesting as a whole, maybe because the bottom part is, well, Silversmith. Sorry if i'm being harsh. I'm a bit tired, i hope it doesn't shine through in me spilling unreflected nonsense...
(http://i.imgur.com/4dOEAuD.png)
One of the trade token cards i meant when i said there are more interesting ones than Jubilee. Actually i like it quite a bit. It's my second favourite of the set, right now.
(http://i.imgur.com/AujWeMl.png)
Not as special as Tinker, but still nice. Very simple to grasp, too. I like it more than Terrace or Jubilee, but i don't really know why. Maybe because it's new?
(http://i.imgur.com/WJZWPCB.png)
Finally, a way to get trade tokens. If you had none of these, something would feel lacking. In that respect, i like it. The effect as such isn't really special, but not every card needs to be. The token gaining is enough to make it stand out, i think.
(http://i.imgur.com/A8KKni6.png)
Dignitary finally gives us a trashing reaction, so that's cool. I'm one of those people who don't like discarding reaction cards, because i always feel it makes me lose something... Beggar is agonizing to me. Dignitarys reaction is something like a counterpart to its on-play, though, so i guess you just have to decide whether the cards in your hand are too good (keep some for later) or too bad (get something else). Don't know what to do when inbetween, but maybe that's the challenge.
(http://i.imgur.com/aEueDKV.png) (http://i.imgur.com/gi1TI9m.png)
I don't really know why, but i kind of dislikeConscriptsProfiteer. Conscripts is basically a Silver most of the time, sure, and it can curse other players (once), but it can also be drawn dead. That alone might make some people feel they have been Swindlered. Still, i think my main concern is that Conscripts is pretty complex, especially for a card you can't decide against. I play with quite a few people who are not experienced Dominion players and if i give them a Curse or a Silver, they immediately get that i do something bad or nice. If they think they don't understand a card in the supply, hey, they can just ignore it and buy Smithy instead. Either way, if you don't want to play a Conscripts deck, i can still make you. I think that's really what i mean with "Swindlered" - not that the card is bad, but that the card isn't something i wanted. Sure, there's Masquerade and Ambassador that can give you different cards, but typically you'll get Estates or Coppers, anyhow.
(http://i.imgur.com/dIKLZBC.png)
It's allright. Like Convoy and Jubilee, it suffers from the fact they act a bit similar. The effect still seems good enough to be worth the spot, though. as i said, i like Convoy a tad more.
(http://i.imgur.com/LCCW3ND.png)
Much better than Profiteer. I can see how this avoids my complaints about Conscripts from before... Hmm. It's also clever how you made a semi-one-shot Curser work :)
(http://i.imgur.com/9QKS49C.png) (http://i.imgur.com/gklUG9P.png)
I don't really like it. It has just too much going on, a bit like a minigame inside a game.Also, isn't Barrister strictly better than Explorer? Again, sorry if i'm harsh.Edit: No, of course it's not. Sorry, i didn't think. Still, i'm not really convinced of the mini game. :/
Bandit
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than a Copper, and discards the rest. Gain one of those trashed cards or a Silver, putting it into your hand.
(http://i.imgur.com/sKVy0UT.png)
Hm, i guess the +1 action makes the most sense when you gain the card in hand... On it's own it probably isn't worth the jump to $5, but i guess buying this with a few Silvers makes it a really worthwile buy. It's good.
(http://i.imgur.com/yxv9Box.png)
It seems like not only Domain, but every dual-type card makes this better. Hmm... A Lab that gets an advantage from dual-type cards? That's new. I like it :)
(http://i.imgur.com/r54EFDH.png)The "to $6" is the only thing keeping this from being strictly better than Saboteur, which seems a bit thin. Sure, Saboteur is weak and has the greatest effect when hitting Provinces (or, heaven forbid, Colonies), but still it will usually just hit Silvers and such. The +1 action makes this really spammable, too. I think it's too good.
I remembered this is a one-shot set and re-read the text. Of course it trashes itself. I think it's fine.
(http://i.imgur.com/IZpSrUl.png)
I had a very similar idea once (Stocks), which also gave a Silver in hand. The biggest difference was that it gave a Silver to the other players, too. That said, your card seems better balanced. I like it.
(http://i.imgur.com/dqFnSpZ.png)
It's very simple and looks good. Not sure about the name, though. I feel it implies an attack type, as if you could only return attack cards with it. Good that that's not the case.
(http://i.imgur.com/ftzb9eU.png)
I think i allready mentioned i like this. Well, if not, i like this. It's nice and easy.
(http://i.imgur.com/63Z70ME.png)Good for you that Donald never made the vanilla $4 Peddler... He couldn't after this. It's not bad, but i'm not sure whether doing a Peddler+ at $4 isn't something you should avoid.
I don't know why, but i thought this costed $4... I'm really tired it seems... Either way, Peddler looks a bit weak for $5, but then again the one-shot bonus is really, really nice. I think it's fine.
(http://i.imgur.com/MLB0sXQ.png)
The drawback is something i've waited to see on a card, and i think it's nice here. A nice mix of Library, discard for benefit, and Council Room (in a way). I think i like it :)
I like most of the cards in your expansion, and a few of them are especially good. Still, there are a few that I don't like, and so here are my thoughts. I haven't read through the rest of this thread, so my apologies if this has already been covered.
Jubilee:
I can imagine myself playing an engine that has to buy 2 of these every other turn because it's the only village on the board. I guess some people like that sort of thing, but not me. Even if this wasn't the case, the card just seems dull.
Redistrict:
Seems rather boring and it adds nothing new, especially considering your expansion has several other (and more interesting) trash-for-benefit cards.
Silversmith:
I feel like this should be a "you may trash". Mandatory trashing is silly when there's below-line text. Also, it sounds very weak.
Profiteer:
This sounds like a trap card. Something beginners buy and then they lose the game because of it.
Barrister:
It seems like the type of card you're forced into buying and causes the game to last longer than it should. I'm not a fan of Pirate Ship and Rogue and so I'm not a fan of Barrister. Now, the Domain card is kinda neat and I wouldn't mind seeing it used elsewhere.
Conquest:
The effect is rather mean. I would buy this because if I wanted to be an asshole, not because I wanted to win the game. Also, it doesn't need to be non-terminal.
Harbor:
I like this a lot card, but have you tested it as a big money enabler? It seems like it would be top-tier there.
Vendor:
So I get to look through my discard pile regardless of whether I paid the token or not? Not super excited about this card, but I suppose nothing's wrong with it.
Which ones do you particularly like? That's good to know as well.Auction, Floodgate, Convoy, Terrace, Harbor, Conclave, and Wheelwright are the cards I really like.
Ah, too bad. So far it's been good in practice. Can't please everybody all the time, I guess.If there are fans then it is probably worth keeping, but have you considered something like this?
Redistrict has some fans. I think it's fairly novel. Basically a one-shot remodel that trashes a card and gains two better cards. No published card does that.Oh, I didn't realize it could gain two cards; I thought it was always just one. That's slightly more interesting, but not fantastic.
Yeah, I hear you. I'm not sure how I'd use Domain as it is without an Attack that could steal it, though. I could have a remodel for Domains, but maybe nobody trashes theirs. Hmm, maybe if it was a really strong remodel.A transmute-style remodel that cared about the type of card it trashed could be an option? I dunno, just throwing out random ideas.
It needs to be non-terminal so that you have an Action to play the Action card you just put into your hand. Anyway, Conquest is new and highly experimental. There's a good chance it won't work out.Oh that's right, the +1 Action is necessary. For some reason I forgot that skipped my mind when posting.
I am considering trying Craftsman with +$2 instead of +1 Card/+1 Action. So when you didn't pay a token, you'd get +$2 and take a token. I guess I don't see gaining a $5 card as being that weak. A $4 card that gains a $5 card when you pay a token seems decent, even if it's not spectacular.
I think you (pacovf and Co0kieL0rd) are correct that Jubilee and Craftsman are probably your worst value for your tokens. Perhaps coincidentally, they're also the least dependent on your hand/deck state in order to do their job.
I am considering trying Craftsman with +$2 instead of +1 Card/+1 Action. So when you didn't pay a token, you'd get +$2 and take a token. I guess I don't see gaining a $5 card as being that weak. A $4 card that gains a $5 card when you pay a token seems decent, even if it's not spectacular.
I'm not saying Craftsman is weak. I am saying that the option to gain a 5$ card is really expensive compared to the other one. I would argue that paying 2 TTs is already more than enough cost to gain a 5$ card, given what one TT can usually do. So, IMHO, whatever else craftsman does, it should do it independently of whether you are spending or taking a TT.
Craftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
QuoteCraftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
So when you take the token, it's sort of like Merchant Ship. You get +$2 now and something that's worth about $2 for later. With villages/thrones you may be able to spend the token this turn instead of next, but you know. It's comparable. When you spend the token, it effectively gains you a card costing up to $5 (you get +$2 and spend a token worth $2), which I think is a pretty solid $5 value. I liked a lot of things about the old version, including that it was a $4 card that gained $5 cards, but I think this new version will potentially be better. Opinions?
I think it makes sense to try Craftsman as a non-terminal.
I don't really get how you calculate the cost-equivalent of "spend a token to gain a card costing up to $5", i.e. why is that ability worth $2? You pay $4 for a Feast and that only works once. I'm not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.
I think it makes sense to try Craftsman as a non-terminal.
Just a flat [+1 Action] and keep it at $4? If I wasn't hurting so badly for terminal $5 cards, I might try that first. But also I think it just looks bad compared to a version that gives +$2. It's just way worse when you play it the first time. Maybe it's not so bad. You can always play it unless you draw it dead. Hmm...
QuoteCraftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
So when you take the token, it's sort of like Merchant Ship. You get +$2 now and something that's worth about $2 for later. With villages/thrones you may be able to spend the token this turn instead of next, but you know. It's comparable. When you spend the token, it effectively gains you a card costing up to $5 (you get +$2 and spend a token worth $2), which I think is a pretty solid $5 value. I liked a lot of things about the old version, including that it was a $4 card that gained $5 cards, but I think this new version will potentially be better. Opinions?
Anyhoo, this version looks good at $5, though I am a bit sad to see the 4$ version go. It looks less exciting now, somehow.
Anyhoo, this version looks good at $5, though I am a bit sad to see the 4$ version go. It looks less exciting now, somehow.
Well, it was cool to have a $4 card that gained $5 cards. I could lower it to +$1 and try it at $4, though it's nice to give +$2 rather than +$1 when possible, I think.
You could always make it a copper variant. It would be somewhere between Talisman and Quarry. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming.
Investment: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
Woh, that craftsman looks quite sexy. Despite the comparison with Merchant Guild, I think you should consider upping it to +2 coins.
EDIT: the big difference with your previous version is that, if you want to gain a card the second time you play Craftsman, you have to buy 2 cards the first time you play it, otherwise you will have to wait until your third Craftsman. The other big difference is that, after that first craftsman, you may be able to gain a 5$ with each Craftsman, as long as you play around it.
The big difference with Merchant Guild is that you have to wait until the next time you play Craftsman to use the tokens, while MG can use them whenever, and that Craftsman can only use tokens to gain 5$ cards, while MG can use tokens to get Provinces and whatnot.
Trade Goods: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a copy of a card of you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
Woh, that craftsman looks quite sexy. Despite the comparison with Merchant Guild, I think you should consider upping it to +2 coins.
EDIT: the big difference with your previous version is that, if you want to gain a card the second time you play Craftsman, you have to buy 2 cards the first time you play it, otherwise you will have to wait until your third Craftsman. The other big difference is that, after that first craftsman, you may be able to gain a 5$ with each Craftsman, as long as you play around it.
The big difference with Merchant Guild is that you have to wait until the next time you play Craftsman to use the tokens, while MG can use them whenever, and that Craftsman can only use tokens to gain 5$ cards, while MG can use tokens to get Provinces and whatnot.
I am considering upping it to +$2. I think it would make it look much more attractive, but I'm leery about its power level. I was initially thinking +$0; just +1 Buy and that's it. But +Buy should almost always be paired with +Cards or +$. The other thing I don't love about the Merchant Guild-style version is, let's say it's the only Trade token card out there. If you get three of them in play and buy 4 cards, that's 12 tokens. Enough that you probably won't run out for the rest of the game. I mocked it up because it would be cool to have a Goons/Merchant Guild style thing for Trade tokens, but I'm not confident it'll work out.
The $4 Treasure version also looks strong to me, but I don't think I can make it weaker. It would probably look awful at $5. I like the idea of a Treasure that gets you tokens when played. In fact, I should really name it Trade Goods or some such. It occurred to me while driving into work today (after mocking up the image this morning) that I could just combine this with the old Investment/Magic Mirror.QuoteTrade Goods: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a copy of a card of you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
How does that look?
(http://i.imgur.com/rFm9cal.png) (http://i.imgur.com/pvZho8T.png)
Maybe you could do a playtest with 2 players where one player can only have Trade Goods while to the other player all cards from the Trade Goods pile are Investments. Have you ever tried something like that? Or is it a stupid idea?
Tricky! You have to buy it in advance, but you don't know how long it will take before it will do something for you, and before then it's just a copper. Hard to tell if its effect will be enticing enough for people to buy it. I wonder how it will play in the presence of other TT cards.
Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.
Maybe you could do a playtest with 2 players where one player can only have Trade Goods while to the other player all cards from the Trade Goods pile are Investments. Have you ever tried something like that? Or is it a stupid idea?
It's not a stupid idea, but I only know one playtester who wouldn't mind putting up with that. Most of the players I test with are pretty casual. And when I play with that one guy, I'm almost always playing with others as well.Tricky! You have to buy it in advance, but you don't know how long it will take before it will do something for you, and before then it's just a copper. Hard to tell if its effect will be enticing enough for people to buy it. I wonder how it will play in the presence of other TT cards.
Yeah. I'm hoping Trade Goods isn't an awful opening, honestly. By the time Turn 5 comes around, you should have at least one card in your deck that you want more copies of.
I think Trade Goods is the version I'm going to test first. I prefer when it's an interesting decision when to use your Trade tokens. Old Craftsman was at least a decision based on whether you had extra Actions. Investment and New Craftsman don't really have that so much. Trade Goods will, I think. Do you spend a token now to get a Village, or do you save it to get something better later?
(http://i.imgur.com/7cRWHy0.png)
I wish I could have found some more colorful artwork, but this could be worse.
More of a Magic Mirror variant? The token gain/use makes it both cheaper and more flexible. The set seems to be getting more token gainers lately. That might not be a bad thing, but it's definitely at the point where you can't balance around the assumption that they're going to be really rare things that you get at most once per buy.
Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.
It's definitely a painting, but it is a bit monochromatic. I think the art on Investment is actually a photo, possibly with a filter applied to it.
Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.
It's definitely a painting, but it is a bit monochromatic. I think the art on Investment is actually a photo, possibly with a filter applied to it.
I personally like the art of Trade Goods. Its monochromatism is something different, and either way not as noticeable on a Treasure. Quarry also didn't fall into a pool of rainbow. The art kind of makes me wish it had some parrallels to IGG, though, with all that Treasures-showing-birds-sitting-on-valuables going on...
(http://i.imgur.com/7cRWHy0.png)
First i thought it was too weak. "Wow, you need to have a good card in play, and even then you have to spend a Token!" Then i realized that if you bought it early enough, you'd have played it a few times before you'd want to gain a card, anyhow. Using its TT for other cards is really just a minor bonus to me.
The only thing comparable i can think of is Talisman. Talisman is limited to non-VP cards, but as you usually can't play those anyhow, it makes only a minor difference. Both cards are Treasures, which you'll play late in your turn, so timing isn't that different, either. The deal-breaker is the fact that Talisman is limited to cards costing $4 or less, which is pretty huge. On the other hand, Trade Goods can only gain cards you allready have, meaning it will take longer to have an effect. That together with the TT restriction seems fine at $4. Of course you also have to spend a buy on Talisman, so i'd say Trade Goods is better all-in-all. Which isn't much, considering that Talisman isn't exactly a power card. I think it's fine.
So how do you find Terrace stacks up to Guide? It seems to me that the Mulligan option on Terrace is more of a bonus, and it's basically just a normal village. It does autocombo with starting engines, because one part is guaranteed, but it's worse when the point of guide is to set up some other combo besides a +Actions/+Cards engine.
Is there any way trade tokes could work as coin tokens from guilds? Set interaction is good, and it would keep people from needing another kind of token.
Also, if there are updated versions of the cards, as I think I see, could the first page be updated?
Why was Convoy changed? It's so much less interesting now, the "play it again" makes less sense and it compares too easily to Smithy. The old card was genius.
Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. "Thrown in" perhaps? Like you had an idea for a card but it was too powerful for its price point, so you added "discard a card"? Again, it's just how it looks - much more "fan card"y than usual.
A bit short on ideas but if you had a third card with "discard a card" then maybe a penalty card like "Cell" from my set Pandemonium? That's definitely overcomplicating things.
It just doesn't seem like there are many official cards that have a complicated effect with an unrelated discard as a penalty (referring mainly to mill town here). "Discard a card" in isolation is only on Oasis (not including the options on Hamlet). There are plenty of cards with multiple discards but they all seem a lot more deliberate.
IDK, just thinking out loud here.
You could do "look at 4, draw 2, put 2 back", but that's a well trodden theme and not too interesting fast or fun.
Maybe make convoy cost 3 then. IIRC we discussed the trade token cards and they all more or less make sense without the Trade token effects at their costs.
Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.
Barrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.
But now I'm thinking, maybe it's good enough to just make you want to gain Domains, not necessarily make you want to have multiple. It should work out mostly the same.QuoteDomain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.
I will probably also change Barrister. Right now I've replaced the Thieves in my main set with Bandits, which is basically Barrister without the Domains. With this new version of "Domain", I may try to create a cheaper version of Barrister, probably one that trashes Domains from others' hands.QuoteBarrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.
However, "gain a Gold", while certainly being a good on-gain effect, seems a little boring to me. Plus you already have Profiteer as a Gold gainer. There's probably lots of compelling alternatives for Domain.
Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.
I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?
I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?
Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).
I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?
It is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?
Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).
Mmh, now I think I dislike the fact that the suggested new version of Barrister only trashes a Domain from players' hands and otherwise whiffs. Maybe it could trash (specifically) a Silver from a hand without a Domain? That might be very frustrating, though, if your opponent trashes your only Silver on T3 so... bad idea :PIt is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?
Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).
*EDIT: The attack is comparable to cutpurse, except it's much more likely to miss and do nothing.
I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.
EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous. It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction. Are you sure (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) is a balanced cost for it?
I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.
EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous. It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction. Are you sure (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) is a balanced cost for it?
While I personally love blue cards, I'm not sure Auction needs a buff, especially if it makes the card more complicated (I thought you were averse to that). However, I think werothegreat way overestimates its power.
Asper and I occasionally test some Enterprise cards, so we might try this version of Auction eventually. It seems more interesting like this and the reaction doesn't make it necessarily stronger because when you use it, you significantly weaken your current hand as well as other Auctions that might be in it.
By the way, we recently tested Harbor and Floodgate (in different games). Harbor is very strong and helped me, like, three times to secure a Province. It's not too strong, a good $5-cost card. In your overview post, you should emphasise more the power that lies in Harbor's versatility. Floodgate is fun to play with and offers some neat interactions (e.g. with Dungeon and Asper's Sultan (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0)).
I have played a couple games with Auction and it seems just fine as-is (without the reaction). I agree with CookieLord that the reaction would make it want to cost $3. It's okay for it to not be that good some games because I think there will be more games when it'll be useful.
BTW, We've played a couple games with Trade Goods too and liked it.
Another multi-fan-expansion game Co0kieL0rd and i had recently featured Redistrict and Conquest. I think the other cards were Sunken City, Decree, Explorer, Hireling, Grand Market and Co0kieL0rd's Provisioner and Builder - the last of which, ironically, provided the cost reduction which enabled one of my Conquests to steal his Province (sorry again for that evil laugh).
Either way, i'd like to state that Conquest, which should improve in multiplayer games, was allready decent in this one (or at leat for me, CL's always seemed to hit my Silvers). Part of this might have been because Sunken City and Redistrict were decent $2s, while there was only one card between $3 and $4, and because there were really nice targets above that to hit. Either way, much fun was had (though it was a more satisfying experience for me, i guess) and Conquest was relatively fun for the kind of attack it is, though maybe a bit swingy.
About Redistrict, it killed the only Explorer ever gained before it got played, and it seemed very helpful that you could trash it when you didn't need it anymore - especially after Sunken City played them automatically. All in all, it seemed nice and small, perfectly priced at $2.
Another multi-fan-expansion game Co0kieL0rd and i had recently featured Redistrict and Conquest. I think the other cards were Sunken City, Decree, Explorer, Hireling, Grand Market and Co0kieL0rd's Provisioner and Builder - the last of which, ironically, provided the cost reduction which enabled one of my Conquests to steal his Province (sorry again for that evil laugh).
Either way, i'd like to state that Conquest, which should improve in multiplayer games, was allready decent in this one (or at leat for me, CL's always seemed to hit my Silvers). Part of this might have been because Sunken City and Redistrict were decent $2s, while there was only one card between $3 and $4, and because there were really nice targets above that to hit. Either way, much fun was had (though it was a more satisfying experience for me, i guess) and Conquest was relatively fun for the kind of attack it is, though maybe a bit swingy.
About Redistrict, it killed the only Explorer ever gained before it got played, and it seemed very helpful that you could trash it when you didn't need it anymore - especially after Sunken City played them automatically. All in all, it seemed nice and small, perfectly priced at $2.
Nice, thanks!
Redistrict has always seemed like good times so far. Glad to see it used on non-Estate cards.
I was honestly planning on replacing Conquest with Raider (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13340.0). It's cool to know that it worked OK, though. Maybe I'll test it a bit more before giving up on it.
About the bad: Clerk is mispriced, Refurbish is too strong, all the Trade token cards only work well when you play incestously with a lot of them (instead of like most people play, by randomizing cards over all sets), Conclave is only not worse than Lab if there are hybrid cards, Conquest is weak.
About the good: Gambler is a great card, General is a nice TR variant, Harbor is great and Trade Goods is the only decent card with the Trade token idea (as it does not realy on interaction with other Trade token cards).
Huge quality variety; the bad ones really suck but the good ones really shine. I am gonna print Gambler, Harbor and Trade Goods.
Monopoly (ack!) works more cleanly as an event than as an action card, now that you mention it.
I like Borough. It's very similar to another fan card I've played with a couple times (don't remember where it's from or who it's by), but Borough is more interesting.
I like that Pickpocket gains directly from the trash, for the interaction with Trash-for-Benefit.
Pickpocket is a Moat that can gain a single Gold over the course of the game in 2P games. It also gains a Copper, clears out an opponent's deck by a tiny bit and harms his hand for a single turn. I'm really not sure this is worth it, but it might be fine.
I still prefer Domain as a VP card... The think I don't like about this version of Doman/Lucky Coin is that has no special value for the player who started with the card in their deck.
I like Pickpocket's basic concept (I also like Barrister) but it will have the same issue as one of the early versions of Barrister in that it will often whiff in 2-player games. Now that might not be a problem because if it hits its both good for you (although you basically gain a Copper in addition to your Gold) and a Cutpurse-ish attack (which means it gets even worse in mid- and late-game. Because Pickpocket is so unreliable and Lucky Coin is a burden, I assume it is often best to trash your Lucky Coin and get stronger draw cards and more reliable attacks or cards that are better for your economy. That's why I like Domains better - you will often want to keep those. Maybe there's room on your set for both Domains and Lucky Coin.
I see you decided to let Wanderer go to the player on your left. Personally, i'm glad you did, though it doesn't change my general concerns with the card.
Pissed off? I have printed three cards from this expansion. ^^About the bad: Clerk is mispriced, Refurbish is too strong, all the Trade token cards only work well when you play incestously with a lot of them (instead of like most people play, by randomizing cards over all sets), Conclave is only not worse than Lab if there are hybrid cards, Conquest is weak.
About the good: Gambler is a great card, General is a nice TR variant, Harbor is great and Trade Goods is the only decent card with the Trade token idea (as it does not realy on interaction with other Trade token cards).
Huge quality variety; the bad ones really suck but the good ones really shine. I am gonna print Gambler, Harbor and Trade Goods.
Looks like somebody is a little pissed off.
Just saying "this card is bad" is no helpful feedback and does not make your point comprehensible. LFN had this coming, though.
Clerk and Redistrict are fine for $2. They aren't that good. I haven't found that a single Trade token card doesn't work well enough if it's the only TT card in the kingdom. From my experience, Conclave is slightly better than Lab about half of the time you play it (I count sifting 3 and drawing 2 as slightly better). It's only worse in decks without Treasures. What experience are your statements based on?
About Clerk, it is a slightly weaker Peddler. First, you cannot throne it, second, it is ineffectual with trashing, third, it does nothing during your first move after shuffling. It has some mild advantages over Peddler: like Apothecary it mitigates copper spamming, i.e. it synchs with Goons and it is a decent defense against cards like Noble Brigand or Mountebank. Like for Oasis a price of 3 would be appropriate (of course 2 vs. 3 is not a big issue).
There is nothing per se wrong with the Trade token mechanism. It is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of cards with this set and a bad idea if you randomized over the base game, 9 expansions and some fan card(s) (expansions).
About specific cards, Vendor is Peddler with a one-shot ability to get one extra card and Terrace is a Village with another one-shot ability. Contrary to your claim neither one-shot is worth the price increase of 1.
As I said in my post, this is no issue as long as you play with a lot of cards from this expansion.
Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.
Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.
As have I said, I have nothing against the trade token mechanism. It all depends on how you use these card, i.e. it is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of the card from this set but otherwise it doesn't work well except for Trade Goods which is cumulative and a brilliant card.
For the zillinoth time, like 99% of all the posts in here mine is theoretical. And of course I never express anything but my own thoughts. And I certainly will not rape the English language via playing these postmodern relativization games, i.e. actually speaking out caveats and natural conditions that underlie one's statement which are obvious to anybody.Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.
It's fine to state your untested opinions about whether or not you think the cards seem strong enough for their cost. Some players have tested Terrace though, and I don't recall any complaints about it being too weak. Certainly I don't want to give out two Trade tokens with it.As have I said, I have nothing against the trade token mechanism. It all depends on how you use these card, i.e. it is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of the card from this set but otherwise it doesn't work well except for Trade Goods which is cumulative and a brilliant card.
What you mean is that you don't think it would work well. It seems to be working fine; not sure what else to tell you.
Co0kieL0rd and i played a game with Pickpocket recently, and we felt it was pretty weak and, sadly, irrelevant. He bought one, trashed my Lucky Coin, and that was it. I lost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for a turn but got rid of a Copper. He gained a Gold, but also gained a Copper and was left with a Moat that made me needlessly reveal my hand. None of us had the impression he had gained a reasonable advantage, and actually i even felt he was worse off than me.
If you want to build on Pickpocket's idea, maybe players should exchange more of their starting Coppers for Lucky Coins. Of course, the more you exchange, the more you have to ask why Lucky Coin is there at all, and why Pickpocket doesn't simply trash Coppers to gain Gold. Also i think this is not what you are going for.
I think it won't be so very long now until I get back into working on Enterprise. I've already got big plans to cut some cards, add some others, and tweak a couple of existing ones. In the meantime, here's a card idea based very loosely on GendoIkari's dream (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13980.0); specifically the idea of a card in play collecting tokens.
(http://i.imgur.com/G9iip0U.png)
At first I thought I could simplify it by just setting aside the top card of your deck instead, but then if you draw your whole deck, you'd just get the cards you're buying. So I went back to using Trade tokens to track it instead. You don't get to keep the tokens; they come from the "supply" and go back there at the start of your next turn. In addition to rewarding you for buying cards (like Merchant Guild and Goons), it's a nifty counter to junking attacks.
I have no idea whether it's balanced yet, but I plan to test it once I have the time to test things again (which will hopefully be soon).
I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.
Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.
I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.
Yes, the thought had occurred to me as well. I am definitely open to having it be "+1 Buy; +$1" instead of "+$2", but I may just test it this way first. There are a lot of ways to gain cards. You can…
• Get +Buy from another source.
• Use workshops to gain cards (requires a village, obviously).
• Buy a card that comes with other cards (Cache, Death Cart, Border Village).
• Get cards handed to you by other players (Witch, Messenger).
And another question is, how often will you buy it even when it just gives +1 Card? Maybe often enough.
Part of it is, it would be nice if it were more different from Merchant Guild. But if it doesn't test well like it is, I am absolutely willing to slap +1 Buy on there.Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.
Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.
Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.
Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.
This might be a terrible idea, but what if the gained cards went on this card, to provide the tracking of how many? And then put in your discard at the start of your next turn? That would weaken it, of course, as it would increase the chance of cards missing the shuffle. But perhaps it would weaken it enough that +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), +1 buy is then balanced? And it would only matter towards the end of a shuffle anyway.
One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though. Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".
One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though. Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".
Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned.
Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned.
That way also there's no confusion as to whether you get to keep the tokens (not that there was much confusion anyway).
Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…Oh yeah obviously. Um dunno.
Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…Oh yeah obviously. Um dunno.
Is the main source of tokens a "Pile"? Or a "Pool"? Or something...
Thanks for the feedback, everybody. For my first tests (which will likely be early November) I've decided to go with the wording you see on that mockup, except with "return" instead of "remove" to make it more clear that the tokens go back to the pile. I'm just not so worried about the Procession interaction as long as there's a consistent ruling.
I'm glad the idea of the card has been well-received. Now that I'm allowing myself to add some Duration cards to Enterprise, hopefully I'll have some more fresh, simple Duration ideas soon.
Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).
As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.
Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).
I don't know, "add" seems fine. But, thank you for making me look at Trade Route! I notice that it doesn't specify which kind of token is being used. Now that I know there is precedent for that, I'll remove the word "Trade" from Merchant Quarter.As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.
Here I agree with you. Unless and until this sort of thing receives an official ruling, let's say that it works even if Merchant Quarter leaves play.
EDIT: Hmm, I'm coming around on "add" already, GendoIkari. "Put a token here" seems good. What do you think?
Everyone seemed to just assume that they could use the coin tokens that came with Prosperity for this; so people would assume they can use a Trade Token that comes with Enterprise.
with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?
with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?
with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?
What Apser said is also important in regards to several other "real" cards. For Minion and Pirate ship, you have to choose to reveal a Moat or Secret Chamber before your opponent chooses what they are going to do with those cards.
But... did you mean Dignitary, or some other card? Auction isn't a reaction.
• I am dropping Conclave.
• I am dropping Conclave.
Nooooo don't do it! :'(
Why isn't Raider an Attack?
Conclave could get some friendly interaction. Everybody loves friendly interaction. On gain, for example.
In the couple games I've played with Conclave, it seemed strong but not too strong. There were times it would reveal three actions or three treasures and only draw one card. Is it really too strong as it is? Maybe it would help
if it put remaining cards back on your deck instead of discarding them?
PS: I like how Donald fixed your old Investment card with the Training event.
• I am dropping Mill Town from the set (at least for now). The set has too many $3 cards and more than enough villages (Jubilee, Terrace, General). Jubilee and Terrace are on-theme, but Mill Town is not.
• I am dropping Conquest. Man, who thought that card was a good idea, amirite?
• I am dropping Clerk. Don't think twice, it's all right.
• I am dropping Refurbish; again I have too many $3 cards. I guess I could try a $5 version.
• Craftsman is being replaced with Trade Goods; I've talked about that elsewhere.
• I am dropping Barrister/Domain (and probably not pursuing Pickpocket/Lucky Coin). Seemed like a cool idea, but I think it's time to let it die.
• I am dropping Conclave. I've been in denial for a while, but it's just too strong too often. I guess I could try it at $6. Hard to say if it's attractive at that price.
• I am dropping Mill Town from the set (at least for now). The set has too many $3 cards and more than enough villages (Jubilee, Terrace, General). Jubilee and Terrace are on-theme, but Mill Town is not.
• I am dropping Conquest. Man, who thought that card was a good idea, amirite?
• I am dropping Clerk. Don't think twice, it's all right.
• I am dropping Refurbish; again I have too many $3 cards. I guess I could try a $5 version.
• Craftsman is being replaced with Trade Goods; I've talked about that elsewhere.
• I am dropping Barrister/Domain (and probably not pursuing Pickpocket/Lucky Coin). Seemed like a cool idea, but I think it's time to let it die.
• I am dropping Conclave. I've been in denial for a while, but it's just too strong too often. I guess I could try it at $6. Hard to say if it's attractive at that price.
I just want to say I applaud your willingness to drop ideas even when they are decent ones that you've worked on. It challenges you and demonstrates faith in yourself that you will find something even better. I know I personally have a hard time letting ideas die when I've already put a fair amount of work into them. I often feel like that means I was wasting my time, even though I know intellectually that's not the case. So I just wanted to applaud you for not falling into that trap. It's one of the many reasons that I think you are one of the best fan card creators, and we can benefit from your example even in non-dominion related contexts.
Also: YAY! Moar discussions about Enterprise!
• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.
• Having a card for $0 would be cool but Redistrict seems a touch too strong for $0 (I might overestimate it though). But having it cost $1 would conversely make it even stronger. I dont't know, it seems weird now but I guess we can try it (I say "we" because you can consider me a fix playtester for your set, as long as I find co-testers).
• I'm in favour of making Conscripts a Treasure-Attack because I like the typing and making a card that gives +actions and +$ a Treasure is more elegant (as you can drop the action). Also, it would nerf Profiteer a little which I feels justified.
• I mentioned somewhere that Barter was sometimes ridiculously strong so it's appropriate you drop it if you don't want to change it.
• Why drop Clerk? It's such a simple and elegant little card? What harm does it do? And with Redistrict possibly becoming $0-card, you'd want to keep other $2-cards in your set.
• I'd be a little sad if you'd drop the concept of Domains completely but that's your decision, man. Pickpocket and Lucky Coin, however neat the idea was in theory, definitely isn't practical at all.
• Why drop Conclave? It's a great and unique concept. I might totally work at $6. It doesn't fit Enterprise thematically, though, so maybe it doesn't belong here any more. But...
• I think it's time you made a thread to showcase your cards that you don't want in your set but are otherwise fine (Mill Town, Barrister, Refurbish etc. come to mind). You don't need to work on those any more but at least keep them available to the community for review, just as a nice gesture.
I just want to say I applaud your willingness to drop ideas even when they are decent ones that you've worked on. It challenges you and demonstrates faith in yourself that you will find something even better. I know I personally have a hard time letting ideas die when I've already put a fair amount of work into them. I often feel like that means I was wasting my time, even though I know intellectually that's not the case. So I just wanted to applaud you for not falling into that trap. It's one of the many reasons that I think you are one of the best fan card creators, and we can benefit from your example even in non-dominion related contexts.
• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.
Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.
• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.
Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.
Isn't Secret Chamber mostly only used when you're planning to re-draw the stuff you discard? That's a clear advantage that it has over Auction, so the presence of Auction on the board probably wouldn't make you less likely to pick up a Secret Chamber anyway.
• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.
Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.
Isn't Secret Chamber mostly only used when you're planning to re-draw the stuff you discard? That's a clear advantage that it has over Auction, so the presence of Auction on the board probably wouldn't make you less likely to pick up a Secret Chamber anyway.
Well, on most boards there's hardly even a chance for you to be less likely to pick up Secret Chamber as you usually don't pick it up at all to begin with.
• The corresponding name for Martyr could be whatever the Conscripts were before being trashed. So something like Annexed Village (based on what that card does)
• What's the condition for the Treasure-Conscripts? "If you have another Sword in play, return this [...]"?
• Also for naming, Bookkeeper does not sound like an attack. I have a similar card called Inspector, maybe that name fits here.
• I agree that Barter is a prime target for replacement. It has a whole lot of words, but it doesn't seem any more compelling than its closest relatives.
• Has Committee gotten tested yet? I really like it!
• I agree with the general consensus about Conclave, don't give up on it yet! The simple version with putting the unmatched cards back sounds like the best nerf, especially because it will occasionally feel better for the player despite being worse- say you reveal Gold and Silver. If it needs more nerfs, would it destroy the soul of the card if it couldn't pick up Victory cards?
Armament: Treasure–Attack, $4*
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.
Bladesmith: Action, $5
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile, putting it into your hand.
Things are getting rolling. I tested a new card, Charlatan (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14263.msg551167#msg551167), last week. Since then I've printed and sleeved the new Redistrict (costs $0) and another new card.
Here is how a Treasure version of Conscripts might look:
(http://i.imgur.com/1VoIoQh.png)QuoteArmament: Treasure–Attack, $4*
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.
It's a bit easier to activate than Conscripts, since you can e.g. play a Margrave, draw this with it, and still play it (for the attack, even). On the other hand, because this is a Treasure rather than an Action, the Barracks equivalent doesn't need +1 Action anymore.
(http://i.imgur.com/Whfh5kj.png)QuoteBladesmith: Action, $5
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile, putting it into your hand.
I think I prefer this, especially since so many of the $5 Action cards in Enterprise are non-terminal already. What do you all think, both about Conscripts vs. Armament, and the corresponding change to Barracks/Bladesmith?
This looks a lot more elegant, as I was hoping for. Could you please repost a link to the complete list of your current cards? I can't find it anywhere and I don't want to search through half the thread to find all the recent changes.
On the other hand, Bladesmith is now terminal. You can't just chain them, and neither can you trivially play an attack after it. Overall i don't think Bladesmith is stronger than Barracks. Possibly weaker.
Thematically, i like Bladesmith more than Barracks, allthough i think just 'Sword' would have been nicer for a Treasure.
Is there a good reason that Armament costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png)? As a general rule, non-supply cards cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png) except when there was a design reason to do otherwise.
How many Armaments are there? I think choosing the right number might be important to make Bladesmith worth it in games without other Attacks. Should be at least 10, but I suggest 15 like Spoils.
Is there a good reason that Armament costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png)? As a general rule, non-supply cards cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png) except when there was a design reason to do otherwise.
Yes! The reason is that Donald changed his stance on it a bit during Adventures testing. Dominion works better when cards cost (at least close to) what they're worth. (Obviously Travellers don't cost exactly what they're worth, but they're closer than $0.) $4 seemed like a nice cost for Armament, so I'm going to try it out a bit. $0 isn't off the table, but there would need to be an actual problem with a higher cost.
Ah, so you think Spoils, Madman, Prizes, etc; would have a different cost if printed today?
I see a good reason to make Travellers cost something else than $0*: It makes it easier to get them in order even if you don't know the cards by heart. I'm not sure i'd like non-ordered non-supply cards to cost something else, personally. Even if the reason is just that it comes off as inconsistent.
Could you please repost a link to the complete list of your current cards? I can't find it anywhere and I don't want to search through half the thread to find all the recent changes.
I would appreciate you doing this as well, LFN.
Many cards (like Prince, noted above) care about the cost of cards. It's good to be able to use remodel and other trash-for-benefit cards on them. And of course Attacks treat the cards differently; $0* cards are strangely immune to Knights, yet Swindlers can give you Curses for them.
They always cost $0. They need a cost because some cards care about card costs. There are various arguments for why they should have what cost, but I think a crucial one in favor of 0$ is, that it makes it extra clear that you cannot actually buy them. I also like that you don't think, "oh man the correct play is to Remodel my prize."
So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it?
So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it?
I was just writing a whole post where I confused myself about the "once this turn" on Wishing Ring, but then I figured it out by the time I got to the end so I deleted it. The "once this turn" is there to clarify that each Wishing Ring can only upgrade one card that gets discarded. Without that phrase, each one can upgrade any cards you want. And as it is written, it is technically correct and consistent with Dominion grammar. But I think it will be very confusing for players who are not already very familiar with Dominion rules. I can't think of a better wording off the top of my head. Right now I would say it's better to just have it do its thing when you play it (I assume LastFootnote didn't do this because of the lose track issues that might arise with things like Herbalist or Alchemist, but those are just a few interactions which I think is not as bad as having a seemingly ambiguous wording every time the card is out).
So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it? For Dignitary this makes sense but is it necessary for Wishing Ring? It looks weak next to Upgrade, at least while you use it for Copper trashing, and it cannot trash Estates! Compared to Procession it doesn't look much better, either, because the action card you want to trash gets played one less time and there's this buzzkill restriction on top of that. The cost difference is significant and for $5 I'd rather see a Silver+. All that aside, the idea is cool and fits in the set thematically.
Racketteer has a bear? ???
I guess Wishing Ring could say: "When you play this, choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it."
It's still more words, but probably it's clearer. It's mostly functionally the same, though if you play e.g. Bank after it, you can't upgrade the Bank.
Couldn't Wishing Ring just do its effect when it itself is discarded from play? Like:
"When you discard this from play, you may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card."
Couldn't Wishing Ring just do its effect when it itself is discarded from play? Like:
"When you discard this from play, you may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card."
1) Counterfeit can't double that.
2) This recreates the whole duration-tracking problem.
1) Counterfeit can't double that.
Man, you show me a good piece of art that better communicates "racketeer" and I will be happy to use it. This is the best I could find!Maybe calling it something like extortionist or arsonist will make it more easy to find good art for? I also think it would fit better into Dominion's general theme. Racketeer sound very modern to my non-native ears.
1) Counterfeit can't double that.
It can if that text is not under a dividing line.
It would be under a dividing line, though, because "this" can only be discarded from play once, just like how it could only be in play once.
Counterfeit will trash Wishing Ring, and thus prevent it from being discarded from play, so the number of effects it tried to create don't matter.
I don't think I understand Redistrict. Could someone explain?
Is this the correct way to handle it?
Let's say my hand is Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate, Redistrict
I play Redistrict and trash my Estate to gain a Silver. Then, I can trash Redistrict to gain a four cost?
BTW: Fantastic Fan Expansion LastFootnote
Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.
That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)
Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.
That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081
Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.
That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081
While we're on the subject of that logical fallacy (somebody agreeing with you is not proof or even evidence), here's a quote two posts later, which says the opposite: http://http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528109#msg528109
Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.
That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081
While we're on the subject of that logical fallacy (somebody agreeing with you is not proof or even evidence), here's a quote two posts later, which says the opposite: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528109#msg528109
I could link my response to that post one post later, which has well-grounded arguments that show why your linked post is wrong, but I think everyone can just read the entire thread without us linking it here post by post.
IIRC after playtesting "Cargo", which is Wishing Ring as it is now with "trash in play" wording, it just didn't seem right. That game had Hoard and I remember lamenting having too many cards costing $6 in my hand to make use of the effect other than to gain more "annoying" Golds and Hoards. Probably not the ideal playtesting game, and I wasn't playing particularly seriously, but I didn't enjoy the card anywhere near as much as I thought I would.
Most recently IIRC I changed it to "Degree", a card costing $4 that could only gain Action cards and produced $0, but I never playtested that version. The idea was to make it more distinct from Counterfeit, and have there be a real decision point between using it to trash Coppers and trashing itself.
There's probably a good card with some combination of effects.
Redistrict, Coin of the Realm, Wanderer, Hermit, Committee, Magpie, Nomad Camp, Council Room, Wine Merchant, StudyAsper opened with a Committee and I, reckless trasher and engine-enthusiast that I am, made him gain green junk before I realised that Magpie might be a pretty good enabler for a Duchy-based strategy. Consequently, with two Duchies in his deck, Asper committed to Committee (see what I did here?) and went for a Duchy-Magpie-rush, trying to pile drive the CotR pile for a surprise ending. Meanwhile I struggled to make the engine work, drew my deck frequently but was lacking payload ($8 per turn max).
Kingdom card .xcf documents!
FloodgateCombo.xcf
2 Auction
2 Redistrict
3 Floodgate
4 Craftsman
4 Terrace
5 Axeman
5 Cathedral
5 Conclave
MillTownCombo.xcf
2 Clerk
3 Gambler
3 Mill Town
4 Committee
4 Dignitary
5 Barrister
5 Barter
5 Wheelwright
GeneralCombo.xcf
2 Jubilee
3 Convoy
3 Refurbish
4 Profiteer
4 Vendor
5 Barracks (put Conscripts in hand version)
5 Fund
5 General
You need GIMP to open and print these, I believe. It's freeware, which you can find here: http://www.gimp.org/
The important thing to remember is that, when you print these, set the height of the image to 236mm (and the width should automatically become 182.09mm or thereabouts). You should be able to do so in your printer dialog, and that seems to be the most reliable place to set it.
You need GIMP to open and print these, I believe. It's freeware, which you can find here: http://www.gimp.org/
The important thing to remember is that, when you print these, set the height of the image to 236mm (and the width should automatically become 182.09mm or thereabouts). You should be able to do so in your printer dialog, and that seems to be the most reliable place to set it.
thanks! this is my first time using gimp, pls bear with me.. when you say set the height, do you mean go to "Image" then "Print Size"?
Would you be willing to update the first page of the thread to show the current version of the cards AND any cards that were once in the set but removed due to non-play balance issues?
I made a new Racketeer to try. Here's the image, but I'm going to test it before putting it in the OP.
(http://i.imgur.com/cj2cwJq.png)
Profiteer was a big hit. In one game, we managed to run down the curses with Charlatan as the only other attack card, and everybody opened Profiteer in the next one. With everyone getting Golds on their deck, the game was over before very many curses came out.
Profiteer was a big hit. In one game, we managed to run down the curses with Charlatan as the only other attack card, and everybody opened Profiteer in the next one. With everyone getting Golds on their deck, the game was over before very many curses came out.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems like when you played with Charlatan you were assuming players have to spend their spare buys on curses when they could just get coppers as their worst choice.
General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.
Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?
"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."
Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?
General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?
"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."
Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?
It'd probably help, but the real bone of contention was whether you drew before or after the card left your hand. Its a meaningless difference, but ". . . when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow its instructions" sounds better to me. I'll ask my brother what wording he prefers.
General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?
"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."
Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?
It'd probably help, but the real bone of contention was whether you drew before or after the card left your hand. Its a meaningless difference, but ". . . when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow its instructions" sounds better to me. I'll ask my brother what wording he prefers.
That difference is as significant as the extra card you draw from playing a Laboratory versus playing a Page. If Study drew one fewer card per Action card you played (because it would still be in your hand while you draw), it would generally be much weaker.
Played a game with Refurbish today. Not great, but decent. Bit slow, though (in the deck we used).
In practice, the card is: turn a curse/estate/copper into a silver. It's slow, but if you have actions to spare, ok. If it's the only trasher with heavy cursing, it get's overwhelmed, though.
Trade Goods: Treasure, $5
Worth $2
You may choose another card you have in play. If you discard it this turn, trash it and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
Didn't know it was an outtake.
Any cards you want to have playtested soon? I am investing a lot in playtesting cards. :)
Didn't know it was an outtake.
Any cards you want to have playtested soon? I am investing a lot in playtesting cards. :)
Well, if you want to test the experimental new stuff, the best cards for that are Wanderer, Charlatan, Stockpile, Conclave, and Study in the OP. Also Racketeer and Trade Goods. I don't have an uploaded version of Trade Goods yet, but here's Racketeer:
(http://i.imgur.com/aVT9Jzm.png)
Thanks!
My suggestion to try would be one of these three:
gaining optional, trashing mandatory
gaining mandatory, trashing optional
or even the strongest one: gaining and trashing optional.
I am open to the point that the third one is too strong, and I am frankly pretty indifferent to the first two. I personally like the card, although it's very slow to shine, but it can shine (and will almost indefinitely if the game goes on long enough.)
I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.
Refurbish: Action, $5
+1 Buy. You may gain a Silver. You may trash a card from your hand.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.
Refurbish: Action, $4
+1 Buy. You may trash a card from your hand, to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.
Played some more Bladesmith games, and hoo boy, I can see what you mean. After complaints about Gambler as the only trasher, we replaced it with Chapel . . . and then I opened 2/5. I cleaned my deck in three shuffles, and then drained the entire Curse pile (two or three at a time) before anyone had a chnce to respond. It helped that we had Throne Room and Harbor on the board, so I could decide what cards would be in my hand each turn. I don't think it's too much to worry about; it's less oppressive than Mountebank, and I was up against people who play far less Dominion than I do. As for Harbor itself, I really liked it, but it has the potential to slow games down considerably. There are dozens of decisions you have to make each time you play the card, and you have to figure out how much money you want to make when you have more actions left to take.
Hi Last Footnote,
Let me first start by saying that I have never played with fan cards before. I have been very hesitant. So, I printed some of your cards and went full random. I used four of your cards, and really enjoyed a couple of them. Overall, this set seems well-designed and Donald X. really needs to play with your cards sometime.
...
Now, please pester Donald and tell him to print this expansion. 8)
Fund did not get bought, but HoP is hard to contend with. So, I would not count that as a strike against it.
The place on top of Harbor never got used. Unfortunately, for this card, I would say the effect is weak most of the time. Or, maybe it was just this board. However, I felt for $5 cost terminal draw, this card is on the weaker end.
General is decent. The top-decking rarely factored in, but it's always nice to have a Throne variant, and it feels fresh.
Now Terrace, holy crap, this card is STRONG! It might be a little to OP. Drawing 5-cards for $4 is very, very good even if it is one-shot. I understand Ranger does the same, but that card is terminal, and doesn't draw 5 cards the first time it is played. I think you should consider having it draw maybe four cards, potentially even three, although, it's probably not as fun then. Although, I really enjoyed playing with Terrace, but I think that had more to do with how strong the card is. Although, considering that I only played one game with the card, perhaps, I am wrong about it's power level. It is fun though.
Overall, I feel like Terrace and General feel like real Dominion cards. I need to play more games though with these cards and your other cards, but I am quite impressed.
Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.
Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.
Thanks :) It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far :) It seems like a really fun card!
Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.
Thanks :) It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far :) It seems like a really fun card!
Well a lot of people like it, but it's a bit random for some tastes.
Whenever I change a card slightly, I reduce the number of stars it has without resetting it to zero. Fund for instance used to have 5 stars of testing, but I recently moved the +1 Buy outside the one-shot effect, and haven't yet tested the new version. So really Gambler is the card that's changed the least recently.
I played with the newer version and it seemed fine. You don't always use it but it's nice having it there.Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"
Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.
Thanks :) It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far :) It seems like a really fun card!
Well a lot of people like it, but it's a bit random for some tastes.
Whenever I change a card slightly, I reduce the number of stars it has without resetting it to zero. Fund for instance used to have 5 stars of testing, but I recently moved the +1 Buy outside the one-shot effect, and haven't yet tested the new version. So really Gambler is the card that's changed the least recently.
For what it's worth, your newer version of Fund looks like it will be more fun and bought more often. Sometimes you just get a sense about a card even without playtesting that you can feel quite confident about.
I'm really looking forward to printing these up and giving them a spin.
- Wheelwright and Auction are both interesting cards individually, but seem like they could be devastating when paired.
- Conclave looks like something I want to build a very particular deck around. I don't know what that deck is yet, but I want to try it.
- Charlatan just looks plain fun.
At first glance, Floodgate appears exceptionally powerful - is that the case? I guess it depends on the hand, on what you're setting aside and what it aligns with next turn, but it seems like Gear on steriods...
• It's so easy to forget about Wheelwright's bonus for other players. My current plan is to give it a name that links thematically to that ability. Patron, Philanthropist, Almoner, etc.
Have you considered "committing" this expansion and starting a new one?
Starting to think about doing some work on Enterprise again. A couple things on my mind.
• Right now the set only has two +Buy cards, and they're both Treasures. It would be nice to have another +Buy, preferably on a terminal Action.
• Study feels wonky to me. I may replace it with some other, vaguely similar Duration.
Starting to think about doing some work on Enterprise again. A couple things on my mind.
• Right now the set only has two +Buy cards, and they're both Treasures. It would be nice to have another +Buy, preferably on a terminal Action.
I thought the latest was that Refurbish was back in the set, and with +Buy?
• Study feels wonky to me. I may replace it with some other, vaguely similar Duration.
Personally I think Study is great. What feels wonky to me about it is that the discard-for-benefit in Enterprise is a Treasure, so doesn't combo with Study. In addition, there's no discard attack in Enterprise, the non-drawing non-terminals (Jubilee, Charlatan), which are the other thing Study combos well with, both have things that make them harder to play lots of (being a 2-shot and being a Duration respectively). For a pretty situational card, to have no combos in its own set is not great.
For me, the wording on Redistrict was a little unclear. I played is as a one-shot expand instead of a one-shot remodel. Perhaps:
Choose a card from your hand and trash it. You may gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card. If you did, trash this. Otherwise, gain a card costing $1 more then the trashed card.
Mostly though some people have issues with Study's "when you play, first draw" wording, and I think having the drawing come after the card opens it up to more abuses with discard-for-benefit.
Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
the outtakes on the original post are not showing up--I think the imgur image is gone.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.
The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.
You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.
The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.
You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.
The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.
If spending a trade token made you unaffected by attacks until the beginning of your next turn, that would increase its ability to defend and therefore would reduce the number of trade tokens it would need to come with.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
I am thinking I will rename this to "Palanquin". Or one of its synonyms: "Litter", "Sedan Chair", etc.
You could just set Dignitary aside until the start of your next turn.Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.
Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.
Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!
Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".
It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.
Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.
It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.
Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)
Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.
I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"
Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.
Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!
Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".
It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.
That's clever, but I agree with you that it's not a good solution. "Set aside" is wordy, but it's what I'd go with if I couldn't think of anything better.
Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.I would also reword it similarly to scheme, so the bottom half would read:
At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than it.This wording allows the change to let it trash itself and IMO is easier to understand.
Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.
Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?
It would also make it a stronger attack when the opponent doesn't have much coin. FWIW, I don't think it needs to give any +buys to be good.Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?
Because that would sometimes help them. Which is maybe not reason enough, but there it is. I may try that version someday. As it is we sometimes buy it just for the Throne and Library combos.
Man, good point about debt. The ruling is that you can't buy anything and are therefore "immune" to the attack while you have any debt.
Wow, Donald X posted in a fan card thread and made a suggestion about a fan card. Truly such a thing is as rare as a good (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/0/02/Coin14.png/16px-Coin14.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png) card.In fact a card from this thread made it into Empires (it was called Clerk here).
Settlers / Bustling Village: This pile started with the flavor of the card names; nice names for a split pile, with the additional nice idea of having a village that wasn't available right away. It was trouble finding a good card to go in the top slot here; some cards left us just never getting to the village. In the end I used a card Matt made for a homemade set. It was perfect.
I tried a few different bonuses on Bustling Village. There was +$1 per Settlers in play; get your top card if it's an Action per Settlers; there was +VP based on the cards in your hand. Then I tried getting a Settlers from your discard pile and I liked that one. Then Settlers became Matt's card and I like how that ends up, where you play Bustling Village to get Settlers and then Settlers to get Copper.
I think this is mostly because LF and Donald know each other from playtesting, and LF was even lead playtester on Empires. I doubt Donald will comment on (or read, for that matter) other people's fan card threads. Not that i'd mind.
You can give up the sexy phrasing while preserving the functionality in most games, by just giving them the Coppers.
Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.
If you're willing to have it be discarded at a weird time in games with extra turns, you can simplify it to:
Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. At the end of each other player's next turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.
Oh man, guys, let's move this portion of the conversation over to the Variants Forum (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2114.1125), what do you say?
If debt takes precedence, that could create interesting strategic plays. For example, if you have $6 and 6 debt, it's probably often best to pay off exactly 5 debt so you don't have to buy a Copper.
So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.
"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.
"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.
"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.
Hmm... People have often talked about how a fan card can't really say "you can't play more than 1 card per turn" because then what happens if you play a Throne Room; suddenly you have 2 different cards; each requiring you to do contradictory things. You seem to be suggesting that things such as this fall under the general "do as much as you can" rule? So basically, Dominion does have a built in "when one effect says 'must' and another effect says 'can't'; that 'can't' always wins"?
"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.
Hmm... People have often talked about how a fan card can't really say "you can't play more than 1 card per turn" because then what happens if you play a Throne Room; suddenly you have 2 different cards; each requiring you to do contradictory things. You seem to be suggesting that things such as this fall under the general "do as much as you can" rule? So basically, Dominion does have a built in "when one effect says 'must' and another effect says 'can't'; that 'can't' always wins"?
Not just Dominion, but almost all games.
Thinking of it, i'll rephrase my second point to clarify: In Dominion, cards override rules. Debt says you can't buy. Charlatan says you must. Debt is in the rules, Charlatan is a card. Charlatan wins. It's like how the rules say you can't buy cards during your action phase, and Black Market also simply says "Yes you can.", and wins out. This isn't necessarily me saying "I think you need to rule it that way", just stating it's not necessarily the only plausible conclusion debt should take precedence.
The point doesn't really help much for Contraband/Charlatan, though - the two-card-contradiction persists there.
Charlatan is probably the card of mine that cribs closest to another fan card idea I saw. And that card was basically what you suggest here, except with giving out Curses instead of Coppers. And well, I think I still prefer "mandatory buys" to "penalty for unused buys", mostly due to the fact that "penalty" stacks and "mandatory" doesn't. It seems kludgy to me that if you've been hit by 3 Charlatan attacks, you can either buy a Copper or you can not do that and gain 3 Coppers instead. So "mandatory" has sexy functionality in addition to sexy phrasing, except when it interacts with debt (and extreme edge cases with Contraband or empty Copper/Curse piles). I also mildly prefer debt cards being a defense against Charlatan rather than being especially vulnerable to it.Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.
For me the big question for Charlatan is: does the attack matter enough. As I believe Donald has said, it's best when you buy Attack cards for the attack effect, rather than buying them for something else and then the Attack just incidentally happening. Charlatan's attack is mild enough to make incidental attacks less worrisome, but that in turn places more pressure on the rest of the card to be decent but not automatic. So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.
Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.
Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.
In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.
I wasn't saying that (though of course I have bought it over Silver in games without attacks), but the proposed card isn't "+1 Action, +$1 this turn and next." It gets to do another thing too. That other thing does not have to be worth the $3, if you follow me; you've got these resources to go with it.Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.
I assume you mean in games without attacks?
In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.
As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.
In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.
It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]
Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."
It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.
In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.
As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.
In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.
It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]
Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."
It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.
Am I understanding correct, that what you are saying here is that the intuitive thing is that it is NOT a contradiction to have "your opponent can't play action cards next turn"; even if he has a Princed card; telling him that he must play an action card?
Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.
I see what you're saying about not stacking certain kinds of penalties, and the "buy Copper vs. gain 3" case; otoh my closest thing to this is Swamp Hag, which stacks and I like that fine (and which also works when there's no +Buy in a game). OTOH sexy wordings are worth something.
Charlatan's attack as it stands (or reworded) does not seem too promising. Maybe there's no +Buy; maybe I'm drawing my deck and can always use that extra +Buy I got; maybe there are Markets but I can just do something else; maybe other attacks are giving us awful hands and man who needs to make that even worse. It seems super-rare, and then when it actually hits, they get a Copper. Of course you know how negative I am.
In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.
As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.
In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.
It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]
Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."
It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.
Am I understanding correct, that what you are saying here is that the intuitive thing is that it is NOT a contradiction to have "your opponent can't play action cards next turn"; even if he has a Princed card; telling him that he must play an action card?
I think he's saying that it's a contradition, but as a card that forbids something would be useless if it was overruled by cards that allow it, and players know they wouldn't exist if they were useless, they will conclude that the solution that makes the card useless can't be right. So, forbidding takes precedence. In a similar fashion, people get confused by the "immediate" on Chancellor, because why is it on no other cards? If all card effects were resolved immediately, the word would be useless on Chancellor, so that makes no sense. As far as i know, Donald has expressed he wouldn't put the word on the card anymore. Not because it's wrong, but because of players trying to figure out the ruling that makes everything meaningful.
I was being hilarious. Maybe I need to work on new material.Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.
Wait, what? When did I "show" you this card?
Thinking of it, i'll rephrase my second point to clarify: In Dominion, cards override rules. Debt says you can't buy. Charlatan says you must. Debt is in the rules, Charlatan is a card. Charlatan wins. It's like how the rules say you can't buy cards during your action phase, and Black Market also simply says "Yes you can.", and wins out. This isn't necessarily me saying "I think you need to rule it that way", just stating it's not necessarily the only plausible conclusion debt should take precedence.
The point doesn't really help much for Contraband/Charlatan, though - the two-card-contradiction persists there.
I don't see how adding "if you can" helps even the debt case. If you can't, then obviously you won't. Otherwise you must. Either Charlatan overrides debt or it doesn't. "If you can" shouldn't make a difference there.
(http://i.imgur.com/k9QxkDm.png)QuoteAuction: Treasure–Reaction, $2 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.
(http://i.imgur.com/k9QxkDm.png)QuoteAuction: Treasure–Reaction, $2 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.
Borderline attack reflection, which I somewhat agree with Donald about as being a Bad Thing. Cursers are probably sort of viable, while Urchin (or any other weak attack) is just about dead in the water. The Treasure is decent for decks that green early or draw a lot of dead actions, I guess. The +Buy is nice, but if you need more than one of them, then they are a very bad collision hazard.
I once had a native village/refurbish megaturn, buying 3 provinces, 4 duchies and an estate beating my opponent with one vp point. That
Was glorious.
Is Refurbish good without an enabler? Delve would have been huge for it. The card strikes me as weak but if it's good in situations where it's supposed to be strong then it's a successful card.
I'd like to see if BM-Refurbish works.
Would something like This (http://gurgur.deviantart.com/art/Medieval-science-room-261829663) work as art for Study?(http://i.imgur.com/HPlnX5N.png)
Refurbish: Action, $4 ★★★☆☆It's coppersmith for silvers, but stronger. if it only had the "coppersmith effect" it would still be worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) because the silvers would hurt your deck less then more coppers
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.
Refurbish: Action, $4 ★★★☆☆It's coppersmith for silvers, but stronger. if it only had the "coppersmith effect" it would still be worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) because the silvers would hurt your deck less then more coppers
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.
Redistrict: Action, $0 ★★★☆☆
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.
Auction: Treasure–Reaction, $2 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.
Jubilee: Action, $2 ★★★★☆
+2 Actions
+$2
You may pay a Trade token. If you don't, set this aside, and return it to the Supply at the start of Clean-up.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Wanderer: Action, $2 ★★☆☆☆
+4 Cards
The player to your left gains this.
When you buy this, put your deck into your discard pile.
Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3 ★★☆☆☆
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, each other player must use all of their Buys during their Buy phase.
Convoy: Action, $3 ★★☆☆☆
+3 Cards
Discard a card. You may pay a Trade token, to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Floodgate: Victory, $3 ★★★★☆
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, aside up to 4 cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.
Gambler: Action, $3 ★★★★★
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck and choose one: Trash that card; or put that card into your hand and trash this.
Tinker: Action, $3 ★★★☆☆
+$1
Trash 2 cards from your hand. You may pay a Trade token, to gain a card costing up to their total cost.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Dignitary: Action–Reaction, $4 ★★★☆☆
+2 Cards
+$2
Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this, to trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.
Profiteer: Action, $4 ★★☆☆☆
Gain a Gold onto your deck. Each other player gains an Armament from the Armament pile.
Stockpile: Treasure, $4 ★★★☆☆
Worth $1
When you play this, you may pay a Trade token, to gain a copy of a card you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.
Terrace: Action, $4 ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand and draw 5 Cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Almoner: Action, $5 ★★★★☆
Discard any number of cards, then draw until you have 7 cards in hand. Each other player may gain a Copper to their hand.
Bladesmith: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile to your hand.
Conclave: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. From those cards, put an Action card, a Treasure, and a Victory card into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
Fund: Treasure, $5 ★★★☆☆
Worth $2
+1 Buy
When you play this, you may trash it, to gain a Silver to your hand.
General: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. When you discard that card from play, you may put it onto your deck.
Harbor: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. Put the rest back in any order. +$1 per card you put back.
Vendor: Action, $5 ★★☆☆☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Look through your discard pile. You may pay a token, to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.
Study: Action–Duration, $6 ★☆☆☆☆
+$3
During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
Armament: Treasure–Attack, $4* ★★★☆☆
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Mill Town: Action, $3 ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card. You may reveal your hand, to gain a card costing up to $1 per Copper in your hand.
Refurbish: Action, $4 ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.
Barter: Action, $5 ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.