FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.
It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)
You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.
(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)
Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.
Thanks for the feedback, Nic. I'm going to take your (and others') advice and keep Domains only when Barrister is out. I really like the concept of Barrister/Domain in general, so I'm not ready to cut it entirely.
I haven't been able to get in much Enterprise playtesting lately, but here's what I'm thinking for card changes. I am aiming for simplicity.
Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.
Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.
So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.
Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)
I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.
Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.
I think I'm going to test
Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.
I sympathize with
Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.
I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on
Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.
I'm thinking of buffing
Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.
Investment is definitely dead. I need to remove that from the OP.
Lodge is dead for now, as I've said before.
I may change
Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.
I need to start testing a bunch of ideas and then cull down to the good ones. I'll go through my list of ideas, but for sure I am testing Conquest:
ConquestTypes: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. If you did, each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals one costing from $3 to $6, trashes that card, and discards the rest. Gain one of those trashed cards, putting it into your hand.
Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing
Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.
I guess I could just cut cards until I'm back down to 12 or 13.
Anyway, if you have any opinions about these proposed changes, please let me know!
EDIT: I'm going to add a "you may" to General. You may put the card back on the deck when you discard it. It's too easy to forget to do.