Why include the +VP at all? Even without it, it seems like a decent one-shot, especially in the Fall.
One problem with a card that does something different each Season is that you might be unlucky and not be able to play it in a certain Season. We decided it should have one bonus the card always gives so you can at least rely on that. It's true that this bonus doesn't necessarily have to be a VP. It could have been a Village, but that's bad in Spring, or gain cards, which - depending on what you gain - could enable you to empty the Sojourner pile in one turn. But, as said, the cards are not set in stone. Sojourner in fact had some last-minute changes made to it just yesterday.
I can't help but notice that the all the effects are practically the same used by Knights Sylvia, Destry, Anna and Martin. Given that I really like that the card art is of a knight.
Any reason that the trash phrasing is the way it is against what Dame Anna uses: "trash up to 2 cards from your hand."
Thanks. And, actually, i'm not sure there was a reason. Co0kieL0rd?
As I'm sure Asper and Co0kieL0rd have guessed, I'm not so hot on fan sets having just one or two cards that require components from another set. If I don't have Prosperity then I can't use this, etc., etc. But I'll put that aside for a moment.
I do appreciate that Sojourner avoids golden decks by being a one-shot. In fact I think you could have such a card be pricier (and therefore gainable from the trash) and it still might never be a problem. I don't really like that the +VP seems a bit tacked-on here, especially since the card is wordy. I do like that the Winter option is weakest, which is when the +VP is strongest.
Maybe if it gave +2 VP it would feel like that part of the card was more significant. Or if the +VP were confined to a season when you don't usually want VP, like Summer (in which case it could be more than +2 VP).
Hopefully I'll get to play with the card soon, and maybe my opinion will change.
I see you share eHalcyon's opinion on the VP. Hm. I can't promise anything, but this feedback will give Co0kieL0rd and me a bit to think about. It's a bit easier to reply to remarks like this when you do your cards alone as you can just say "Will do"/"Won't do". So i can just say that opinions and ideas brought up here are very valuable to both of us
About the idea to give VP in only one specific Season, it might have been there for a while. Personally, i dislike the idea of a card that requires special components and that might get (decently) used in a game without the components ever mattering. It's a bit more likely for a one-shot, as it doesn't stay around for the Seasons to come.
The idea to have it give +2VP seems also interesting, although we might not be able to justify the price anymore, then. Maybe if we removed the +1Action? Hm, still seems really good. Either way, is +2 Cards, +2VP something you want to have in Fall? Hm, maybe, if you prepared for that. Trash two Estates in Summer, keep the VP? Also nice, and even has some sort of elegance. And +2VP, +$2 causes no problem in Spring, as there is a lower risk of terminal collision. The VP still work in Winter. Very interesting. But i'm getting ahead, i'm sure CL will have his share of ideas on this, too.
Given that the game starts in spring, why not put Sanitarium in Summer, so that there is an incentive to delay buying Sanitarium? Now, there is little reason not to buy it in your very first turn/two turns.
Summer is about when you'd be loading up on villages anyway. Spring is earlier than you might want to buy them ordinarily.
Ah, that's what me and my friends do wrong. But do you understand my point of delaying the advantage of doing it when you normally wouldn't?
Trashing is most impactful early in the game. If you delay it (say, putting it off until Fall) you'll still want to buy it in the Summer because you need +actions and delaying would hurt your deck a lot, and you won't be particularly interested in buying it later because you'll already have villages and the trashing won't make much of a difference at that point in the game.
That's exactly the reason why I'd delay it. To create the difference in trade off. Now you get the bonus when you are more likely to buy it anyway. I like creating more choices, rather than 'it's optimal to buy here and only then'. But I am not the maker. It's just my sentiment. I like cards with trade offs. (Count is a card I like for this reason.)
But that's what they're doing by putting the bonus in Spring. It's normally a bad idea to buy a village that early, but now you have an incentive to do it since it comes with trashing, which is good early. With the bonus in Spring, there's a trade-off.
With the bonus in Summer, it's just totally optimal to continue buying it Summer, just like you'd usually do with Villages anyway.
With the bonus in Fall or Winter, it's still optimal to continue buying it in Summer because you need the village and the bonus is minimal by that point in the game.
Yes, that was our idea behind it. Get a Village before you need it and be rewarded. Fall is turns 10 to 15, which is where some games will already have you greening. I don't think any amount of trashing (without benefit) would make waiting that long to get a Village attractive.