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.
Unfortunately, that doesn't fit on three lines. And with four lines I could just add "and put the rest back in any order". It would look like this:
That's really cramped, but I guess it fits. It's really a shame it's so wordy since it's otherwise a great top for a Reaction. Sort of interesting but not necessarily a card that can stand on its own. Power-wise it's probably fine, but it's not something you'd be excited to buy. The reaction helps a lot.
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.
Yes, obviously I don't want them to be too similar. I think [+1 Action; Gain a Conscripts into your hand] and [Gain 2 Conscripts] are sufficiently different, but [Gain a gold on your deck; Each other player gains a Conscripts] is way more different. So ideally, Profiteer will test well and I'll keep some version of either Barracks or Recruiter.
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?
Barracks
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.
This would also make it less swingy with $3 Attacks since colliding with Barracks on turn 3 would not give out a Curse.
Having the extra pile isn't the only way to do such a card. You could also go Young Witch style and say, "Setup: Add an extra Attack Kingdom card pile to the Supply". But obviously, this being originally a one-shot themed set, I chose the pile-of-one-shots route.
Buying a Barracks is almost certainly better than buying a second Witch, but not interestingly or excitingly so. You get to cycle more and there's less danger of collision, but it's just not enough bang for your buck at $5. So ideally a card that digs for an Attack costs at most $4. But as cool as digging for an Attack sounds, it's got some factors working against it. It's slow, especially because you're usually hunting for one or two cards in your deck, which might be quite large. In a game without other Attack cards, your suggested version is basically, "Gain a Conscripts to hand unless this is the first time you've played a Barracks this game." Except that you have to dig through your deck for the Conscripts. Maybe the vanilla bonus is good enough that you'll sometimes opt for that. Certainly you will if your Barracks and Conscripts happen to collide of if you get your Conscripts first. But you know. Mostly you're just hunting for your only Conscripts and then gaining another one. You're simply delaying the effect. And Conscripts now has a delay built right into it, so that seems less necessary than it once was.
Really what it comes down to is that, in practice, players use Barracks to gain Conscripts or hunt for Conscripts. In my experience, there has been much less hunting for other Attacks. If Conscripts wants to be paired with another Attack (like the version in the OP or the current version), Barracks can help with that by digging for one. But you still have to collide either your Barracks or an Attack with your Conscripts! So Barracks is just another potential combo piece to increase the chances of connecting. And if Barracks's main function is to match up Conscripts with another Attack in your hand, it's way faster to just gain a Conscripts right into your hand.
I also like "dig for an Attack" as a concept. And I hate to remove cards that people find exciting. But I have to find the right balance between looking exciting and playing well. Barracks plays OK as it is, but I think I want to try the new version and see how it goes over.
Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Redistrict were almost guaranteed to gain a card that costs exactly $1 more than the trashed card, I would go for this wording. But if you trash a Copper and there's no $1 card on the board, then the "also gain" is itself a bit confusing. It kind of implies that the second gain is contingent on the first gain, which it no longer is. I'll think about it more, but I'm leaning toward leaving it as is. Hopefully the space between the two parts will emphasize the fact that the second part is completely separate from the first part in terms of the gain.