There are a lot of strong opinions about Conscripts, which is cool.
I actually like the idea of starting the game with a card that protects from certain attacks. That's what I (and I think others) originally thought Shelters were going to do before the of Dark Ages previews. Less "rain shelter" and more "bomb shelter". Having that card be Domain is just a convenience. Anyway, it's possible that some of these other solutions could work.
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.
I appreciate all that. I don't have a really strong opinion about how many cards in the set use Domains. I agree that it's more special when it's just one card, but if, say, three cards use them (Barrister, Recruiter, Barracks), it actually simplifies setup for the kinds of games I play. What I mean is that if I'm playing with Enterprise (and maybe another set), it's convenient if there's almost always a card that uses Domains because I don't have to keep changing the starting decks between every game.
In fact, I am seriously considering just using the rule, "Whenever you play with any cards from Enterprise, replace one starting Copper in each player's deck with a Domain."
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.
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.
Thanks for the though, but again, the real problem is not how strong or weak Conscripts is, but the potential harshness of its Attack. Having to deal with Curses when you have a 3-card hand is fine for a few games here and there, but not for every game with Conscripts. Also, if I can do a version that doesn't discard at all, Conscripts will no longer clash with Axeman, which would be a big win in my book.
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]
Nice thought, but I agree with the other posters. The attack is just too harsh. As far as the theme goes, I agree that Conscripts makes you think "discard" more than "Curse-giving", but I'm not sure I really want to retheme Barrack/Conscripts and I think Curse-giving is probably the best fit for a delayed, one-shot Attack.
Co0kieL0rd, thanks for your feedback on Conscripts, Domains, and Lodge. I really need to take Lodge off the OP, since I have yet to test it and I think I can probably do better. I might try the "When you buy a Victory card, gain a Trade token" on a Lodge-type card if the new version of Cathedral doesn't pan out. I'm having trouble coming up with a good Domain-centric trash-for-benefit card that doesn't seem too redundant with Redistrict and Exchange, both of which I really like as they are.
Anyhow, I'm going to test the cares-about-Domains version of Conscripts, but I'll keep an open mind when it comes to other ways to fix it up.
I got three playtesting games in the other day which included another veteran player and a couple of fairly new players. The cards tested over the three games were: Clerk, Jubilee, Redistrict, Guide, Refurbish, Committee, Craftsman, Floodgate, Vendor, Convocation, Fund, General, and Wheelwright. The big hit among the new players was Wheelwright, which was kind of nice since it doesn't get much love here on f.DS. It's good to have some cards that appeal to new players and some that appeal to advanced players.
I believe the other veteran player bought Floodgate at least once, so that was cool. He also went pretty nuts with the new version of Craftsman (now in the OP) in both games we played with it. It's still a pretty versatile card, especially with another Trade token card available.
In stark contrast to my last few tests of Convocation, it didn't perform very well power-wise that night. There were a lot of 3-Treasure pulls. That makes me feel better about keeping it as-is. I think Refurbish might be too weak. I'm really warming up to Redistrict; I think it's probably here to stay. Once again, Jubilee seems fine even when it's the only Trade token card. Guide and Vendor were fine. Clerk didn't see much play. Committee and General are maybe too complex for new players. But I can't make Committee any simpler. General could be fine without the "saves cards from being trashed" part in another set, but if I do make another set, it'll probably be centered around Activation cards, and it already has Balcony as a $5 Throne variant.