(http://snazel.com/silver/ServantsQuarters.jpg) GRADE: F RATING: 0.77 +/- 0.14 RATING POSITION: 23rd out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 21st out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: This is a failed card. This assessment is made knowing it's a 2-Cost Reaction card, meaning its utility is meant to be limited, but even with these factors it still failed and was a miserable card. +1 Card is simply an unffective and useless ability, as BOTH a prime ability and a secondary ability (the discard bonus). The card also suffers from having three basic compartments, and only the last ability (the full-defense of an attack) has any real utility at all. The card also had a high-tendency to go completely unbought and indeed we often had to FORCE ourselves to buy it, just to test it, (which generally signals a disliked, dysfunctional card). RECOMMENDATION: Rename the card "Servant", it's a lighter, tighter name for a card that is essentially a low-priced utility card that is easily acquired. Change the image to artwork rather than a photograph. Keep the main defensive ability, it suits the theme of the card and keeps two defensive cards in the expansion. Change the primary ability and secondary ability to have more synergy and ability. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/2Servant.jpg) |
Maybe it needs to be worded something like "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do: if it is your turn, +$1; otherwise set it aside and at the start of your next turn discard it and +$1."
(First sentence matches Tunnel.)
Maybe it needs to be worded something like "When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do: if it is your turn, +$1; otherwise set it aside and at the start of your next turn discard it and +$1."
(First sentence matches Tunnel.)
Nice, cheers.
Perhaps something like this?
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, at the start of your next Buy phase, +$1
It is very similar, but just a tad shorter.
My Inn feels the sudden need to be staffed with a Servant or two.
Without a strong discard companion, it's a pretty gimped Cellar. I don't think it combos that well with itself, because you need a +action source somewhere.It depends what kind of deck you're building. It's worse than Cellar for your standard cantrip engine deck (such as a Lab deck), but it's probably better for a Big Money deck.
(http://snazel.com/silver/Bailey.jpg) GRADE: D RATING: 0.83 +/- 0.11 RATING POSITION: 20th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 14th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: This is a failed card. Although it did not fail as badly as Servant's Quarters (and was purchased more often), the card was often purchased for its defensive ability alone. Also the card has choices, but none were strong. Even trashing one card, just simply didn't jump you fast enough (especially since the set had other more elegant ways of dealing with cak in your hand). It shined most when it stopped a devastating attack, so I kept the full defensive reaction. It was really the key aspect of the card that truly shined. RECOMMENDATION: Keep the card name but update the card's art. I switched this card, so that it can really shine in those early rounds. I took the +buy feature out, so that other +buy cards in the set can be even more desired. This card's clear intent now is to push your money up in the early going, trashing copper/estates for a +2$ bump. That's nice, (and maybe too nice). Of course, it goes counter to some of the other strategies in the set that LIKE Copper and Estates, but it becomes a relatively nice BM-support card and allows you to smite the Curse you picked up on that turn you failed to draw the Bailey. The card is quite useful in turns 3-6, and then less so after that (other than a defensive reaction). I think it might test okay like this. It's terminal, and quite handy early in the game. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/2Bailey7.jpg) What do you think? Is the power about right for the cost? |
(http://snazel.com/silver/PaupersFeast.jpg) GRADE: A RATING: 1.24 +/- 0.07 RATING POSITION: 3rd out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 4th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: We loved this card. It turns out, even a gimped Chapel for 2$ is still a great card. In this case, the "mini-chapel" goes away and puts +1$ on the stack for you. Chapel is still far superior, but this is a handy card that became a "must buy" in the later rounds of testing. I hesitate to give it an "A" as it rated just a bit high and the second portion of the card was rarely used. It is probably more accurately rated as a "B". Still, it's nice to have a strong, popular 2 in your set and this one fit well. It is not as strong as Chapel (we tested it against Chapel to make sure), but still provides a nice trashing effect. Paupers go away too, which is really nice. So the one issue with Chapel is they linger long after their utility has worn out. One weakness in Pauper is that it is lousy in dealing with Curses. You have to keep it around to get the hit and when you do, it goes away (and usually by then you have another Curse to trash). This card was so well-liked I'd really be foolish to alter it. It was never really ridiculously broken, it was very popular and compared favorably to it's sister-card in the real base set (coming in just slightly weaker than the mighty Chapel). We gave it an "A" because we both loved this card. RECOMMENDATION: I am just making a cosmetic change with this one, trimming the name and updating the art work. SUGGESTED VARIANTS This is not really a variant, it's just an update to name and art: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/2Pauper.jpg) Feel free to discuss the card if you like, otherwise I'll move quickly to the 3's. |
I didn't say Pauper's feast was stronger, I just said it was a better combo enabler. The perfect Goons deck wants a pauper, though a rush might stop it before it sets that up. Chapel is stronger because it's faster.
(http://snazel.com/silver/Excursion.jpg) GRADE: A RATING: 1.23 +/- 0.11 RATING POSITION: 5th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 15th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: I hesitate to give this an "A". It worked well, but it wasn't that popular. However, the success of the card was undeniable and its utility was obvious on certain boards. I gave it an "A" because it really seemed to be more valuable than it looks. I liked that about this card. It's a great card in the early rounds *if* you happen to draw it when there's estates in the discard pile (it is terribly frustrating when you get it with an empty discard pile). It also combined well with Dark Knight and it helped augment Pauper (the light chapel-like trasher in the set). It was a nice defense to when your opponent forced Estates on you (there was a card in the set that could do this). You could also discard a victory/action card on discard attacks, knowing you could fish it back out again when your turn commenced. There were a few Victory/Action hybrids in this set, so it shined when there was one in the kingdom. This card had value, but it has far less value than the rating demonstrates. The popularity rating of the card was more indicative of this card's strength and weakness: on some boards it makes great sense, and other times, it's a wasted purchase and lies dead. That means its not really an "A" card, but because it wasn't broken and served the testing well, I give it an "A". RECOMMENDATION: I am just making a cosmetic change with this one. I updated the verbiage a little to make it clear the victory card you trashed has to be the one you picked up from the discard pile (this was always the card's intent and how we play-tested it, but the wording now makes that abundantly clear). I also updated the artwork from photograph to art. SUGGESTED VARIANTS This is not really a variant, it's just an update to verbiage and art: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/3Excursion4.jpg) Feel free to discuss the card if you like, but I'll move quickly forward, there's other cards I need real help with (this one tested pretty well). |
Not overpowered, not underpowered, but a little bit boring.
Not boring enough to scrap through. Buying estates in order to feed it is amusing.
I'm really liking the new art for the cards, and would like to know where you're getting these illustrations. Also, I just want to add that an excursion usually involves a larger group of people, not just one person. Nothing against the new art used for Excursion -- it's lovely. I just think a group of people shown in the artwork would fit the theme of the name better.
(http://snazel.com/silver/Villa.jpg) GRADE: B RATING: 1.0 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 16th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 11th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: This card's appeal was generally higher than its performance. You can see why, the card looks decent. You can get a +2 Actions, +1$ and up to +2 cards (for discarding cards that you don't want probably). You get it for 3 dollars, so you think, "okay I'll bite". Except of course, now you need to green, because if you don't, this card doesn't get you very far. The card was sometimes the only +2 Actions in the Kingdom, and this was part of the reason its popularity is higher than its actual rating. The rating itself is neutral, which really is true when you dig deeper in the data. This card sometimes enabled some games, and other times it really didn't. We tended to ignore the card more as our testing went on, and gravitated to it when we knew greening early made tactical sense. But the card isn't useless and the card isn't broken and it did, at times, enable some nice combinations. It's the kind of card you want in your expansion, that is to say that it has utility, it is simple to enforce and understand and it isn't overpowered or broken. For a 3$ basic card, that's just fine. It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those right? :) RECOMMENDATION: I will just adjust the art work and leave the rest as is. SUGGESTED VARIANTS The current variant on the table for review for this card is this. It only has an artwork revision, that's it. (http://www.cobiness.com/images/3Villa4.jpg) |
It's another 'boring' card in many ways, but +2 Actions are needed and this provides that, it's just a "village-type", I think every set needs one of those right? :)Two of those (or one if it's a minor expansion). At least, that's what all the published sets have gone with.
(http://snazel.com/silver/WoodenBridge.jpg) GRADE: F RATING: 0.85 +/- 0.18 RATING POSITION: 21st out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 23rd out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: Ever look back on something you've done and wince? Ever look at an old college paper and wonder why and how the prof ever let you get away with it? That's how I feel about Wooden Bridge, quite possibly the worst card I've ever designed (well there's a few others that are really bad that I'll reveal later). Wooden Bridge was an early design, it's not only completely derivative, it does to Bridge what should never be done. It takes away the core feature of price reduction, but then adds the danger of making it non-terminal. Then it allows you to get the main feature back, if you trash the card. The idea was it would produce this mini-game where you'd rush the Wooden Bridge and blow them all up to win, (I think my love of the film Bridge Over River Kwai helped influence me). In theory, with this card, if you rushed 7, got them all out on a single turn and blew them up, you could collect all Provinces in a single swoop. Well what a ridiculous idea to build a card around, and worse it does it by essentially copying verbatim an existing card. YUCK. We tried to pull the trick off several times, in the end, the expansion is too fast and because the set is actually weak on card-draw, you can never pull it off anyway (there's only one really strong terminal-card draw card in the set, and one nice one, but it's mitigated across 2-turns). Even when you do finally get four or five out there and blow them up, most of the Provinces are eaten up, or you are so far behind you lose. The ONLY thing I liked about the card was the gimmick, that all 0-cost cards, got upgraded to 1-cost and you could never get less than 1 for any card. That turned out to be kinda fun (at least interesting). The rest of it was a terrible derivative card, that was against the flavor/theme of the set, with bad art, a bad name and just overall was general suckitude. RECOMMENDATION: Scrap this thing and never mention it again. SUGGESTED VARIANTS So this isn't really a variant, it's an entirely new replacement for the card. For this reason, I'll write a longer intro to the concept than I normally would. One quick note however, is that because this new replacement does not have +buy on it, I'll probably need to add +buy to another card. I want just a few +buy opportunities in the set. There were only 3 in the expansion, and I feel 2 is not enough, so I will find a place to put the +buy on another card. I wanted a thematic card. One of the key themes of the set is that it encourages and rewards greening early. It also has several kingdoms where 3-piling is an optimal strategy (although it doesn't always win, which I also like). In fact, not to sound too arrogant, but I am very proud of how many of our games went, because of the different routes you could take to win. Also victory points are a factor in this expansion, they often tilt the balance with the right cards. Also, I had just removed a full-defensive ability from one of the 2's, and I wanted at least 2 cards that could fully deflect an attack. I wanted a card that gave you a bonus, (in addition to deflecting the attack), but I come up against the way reactions work (they can be revealed endlessly). (This is where I need the most help, although, in general I could use a lot of help with this card) The combination of all these wishes for the card led me to this initial design. Here's the worry I have about the card, right up front. In order to ensure you can't get the additional VP bonus for deflecting an attack, I've made the player discard the card. This causes problems in multi-player games. The player to your left, has a small disadvantage, because his attack is the first one that can get deflected and when it does, the card's primary defense is eliminated. How does on solve the problem? Or is it something I can tolerate? Or is it something that can only be solved with complicated wording and mats (which I want to avoid if possible)? Don't worry about the "gain an Estate" ability for the secondary ability. That's there as part of the set's overall theme. In fact, discarding to gain an Estate has a lot of utility in this expansion. It also helps accommodate the fact I took the +buy away just a little. If you feel strongly the card is broken or weak, let me know as well of course. This has not been play-tested at all. It is purely an artifact of blending elements that the set complements and works with well, rather than careful consideration of balance. (http://www.cobiness.com/images/3Hero.jpg) |
i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.If you don't have to discard/set aside him when defending, you can gain arbitrarily many points whenever an Attack card is played. This might be considered a flaw.
i know you said not to worry about Hero's discard/Estate text but i do. it makes the card overly complex, which makes it seem like a fan card, if you know what i mean. just having the Hero gain +1vp, and then 1 more when defending against an attack is clean and enough. and him being a Hero, i don't think you should need to discard him to defend. this would be a fair card to be able to use against multiple attacks.
This easy to fix because the rules of Dominion are so elegant! Just separate the abilities.
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this. If you do, you are immune to that attack"
and
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, +1 VP."
You can reveal it for the first ability seven times when player two attacks you, then three times when player three attacks you, and then, when player four attacks you, reveal it ten times for redundant immunity to the attack, but you can only reveal it and discard it once for VP.
This means you have to guess whether to cash in on VP or to keep it in case you're attacked again. That's absolutely fine for multiplayer.
As for card power, I think the main ability is a tad bit weak, maybe +action or +buy. +action would be nice for when it fraternizes with other sets because it could be used during greening phase even without attacks on the board.
Removing the estate ability seems like a good idea when I think about it, because the card could get too purely VP oriented, which could stall games. In fact, since the reaction gains VP it's probably best the main effect do something else entirely.
"When you are attacked, you may reveal this and discard it. If you do, +1 VP."
Good to know, thank you rink and pops. I'll adjust the card to something similar to what pops suggested. I'll remove the "gain Estate" function and add it to another card. Much, much obliged to all of you for your help as always.
really? seems good to me. but maybe a +1 Action would be appropriate to a Hero...Good to know, thank you rink and pops. I'll adjust the card to something similar to what pops suggested. I'll remove the "gain Estate" function and add it to another card. Much, much obliged to all of you for your help as always.
Are you going to replace it with something? Because just +1 VP sucks when there's no attacks.
really? seems good to me. but maybe a +1 Action would be appropriate to a Hero...
Are you going to replace it with something? Because just +1 VP sucks when there's no attacks.
Monument is +2$, +1VP @ 4$ with no defensive reaction at all. I think based on that, you can make an argument that Hero is fine as is, at 3$. I think a lot of full-defensive cards suffer a bit on the board when there's no attacks. Still, let's add a little something to it, see how everyone reacts. I'll post the new card shortly.
But hey Moat gets you 2 cards, which for 2 $ ain't bad, but it ain't exactly Chapel either. :)
(http://snazel.com/silver/Summon.jpg) GRADE: C RATING: 1.11 +/- 0.09 RATING POSITION: 10th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 7th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: I gave this card a "C" because it was a bit broken. Actually rinkworks has a similar card he's testing on this thread here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1035.0). His is a 4$ card with a Throne Room ability added in, but the premise is the same you tutor for a single card in your deck, then play it. The best thing you can do with this card is have a deck with no other action cards but Summon and a single, strong attack (or single strong terminal card draw). The Summon essentially assures you can spam that attack every hand. As your deck widens simply buy another Summon, and you can keep the attack going every turn. It's problem is two-fold:
The flip-side to this however are these positive elements:
RECOMMENDATION: I am going to tone down the card, just slightly, forcing you to discard to activate the tutor ability. I think this can slow it down just enough to keep it in check, and keep it at 3$. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Here's the variant with the adjusted rule: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/3Summon2.jpg) I'd welcome comments on whether the tone-down is appropriate, or just a comment in general on how a strategy of buying just one strong action and milling to get to it constantly is an effective strategy. |
This card is close to Venture. But Venture is limited to Treasure cards. This is not. So basically this seems like a $5-$6 card to me.
Another comparism would be Scheme. This is a $3 card which also allows you to play your favourite attack more often. I think at the first few turns both card would play similarly, but Summon would be more faster and more reliable in the mid- and end-game, what definitely makes it better.
Dicarding a card is a good try for a disadvantage.
But what about removing the +1 Action? So if you have no village in your hand, you have to search for a treasure for the cost of an action. That would make it a $3 card for me.
I think, coming from rinksworks thread it really seems somehow wrong to let you play $5 cards for $4, but when you want to do this you are so limited in your strategy that is is not a big deal
(http://snazel.com/silver/landgrab.jpg) GRADE: B RATING: 0.92 +/- 0.08 RATING POSITION: 17th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 3rd out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: I gave this card a "B" because it was, well, a hard card not to like. The card isn't broken, it isn't even really that good, but damn if you don't find yourself reaching for it in the later rounds, when you need it. The fact you do need it, usually means something went wrong of course, it means you fell short of a Province probably, can't afford to buy Gold this late and its too late to tune the engine, you need points, you need them fast and this gets you there. Of course, it all comes at a price, you are essentially forcing yourself to draw just four cards next turn, all for a Dutchy and a VP. Is one card worth 4VP? Well sometimes, you apparently concede that it is and this explains why its gain/buy rating is so high. It also explains why its rating is slightly below average though, because often the card was a last-ditched attempt by a player behind on points. That makes the card pretty decent, it has a niche, that niche comes up often and the end-result of its usage is just about average. It strengthens a little when good alternate victory cards are there and it can accelerate "middle road" games, where 3-piling mechanisms are intriguing (and this certainly helps that tactic). I call this a pretty good card, I hesitated to give it an "A" because let's face it, the card isn't that exciting or creative. RECOMMENDATION: I am going to just adjust the art on this card, that's it. Feel free to discuss the card if you like, but otherwise I'll move on quickly to the next card in the set. SUGGESTED VARIANTS I'll post the new variant later tonight, but only the art will have changed, the card stays exactly the same. |
Note that there is no condition on gaining the Victory, so Throne Room/King's Court tricks are possible, which might be a little to strong, esp. as you can gain Land GRap by IW/Workshop without further tricks. So a KC-KC-IW-Draw-Landgrap can clean a stack all of its own.
You guys are great, I really hope I run into some of you at a gaming convention one day. I'd really like to buy all of you a beer.
Qvist - Yeah testing showed the card to not be quite as broken as it would appear, well said. The trick to beating it was being agile enough, that you could counter-attack nearly as often, but then also build a more agile/robust engine. Summon was a "simpler/easier" route, that often worked, but often there was a better, subtler way to win. Removing the +1 Action would, I fear, leave it dead on the board in a lot of games.
I don't think it works at all as a terminal card (or at least I think if its terminal it's a 2$ card). In the situation where you had no ations on the stack, you really wouldn't do anything but tutor your first treasure and so the average gain would be maybe 2$ in the later rounds and far, far worse in the early rounds. On the situation where you got both terminals (Summon+the card you want to tutor for), well the situation is worse. You'd "hit the lottery" on a Village+Summon draw, it means you could tutor the marquee terminal and play it, but that is a lot of work and not easy to ensure you get that. You could build an engine to get that, and if you've built an engine, you don't really need the Summon. Not to mention, the design would ensure you'd never want more than one. But then I guess a lot of terminals wind up being like that. Summon's "appeal" is a fast, quick, instant engine to launch attacks (or some other strong terminal). It soars early, sputters late and isn't particularly agile, but can be extremely effective.
You assessed the card perfectly (in fact it took you just a few minutes to deduce what it took me 100 games to arrive at, I really marvel at how well you guys assess and judge cards). The card is overpowered when a card like Witch or Torturer is in the Kingdom and really lousy when other obvious engines are there. Your 4$ advice, I think is literally right on the money, if you'll forgive the pun.
DStu - Another superb post from you. Cheers. This line summarizes the issue beautifully:QuoteI think, coming from rinksworks thread it really seems somehow wrong to let you play $5 cards for $4, but when you want to do this you are so limited in your strategy that is is not a big deal
I think given the analysis from DStu and Qvist, I'll bump the price to 4$. Play test it and see how it goes.
Much obliged, for this, thank again.
(http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab8.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4LandGrab8.jpg) | (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Summon.jpg) (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Summon.jpg) |
I gotta say, I liked the previous art for Land Grab better :(
Oh, also, have you considered renaming the card to "Land Run" or "Land Rush?" Apparently, looking up "land grab" on Wikipedia redirects you to that page instead. Granted, it's a historical phenomenon restricted to the expanding United States, and it may not be the same as the original intended meaning, but I think it's a good thematic correlation.
(http://snazel.com/silver/Auction.jpg) GRADE: B RATING: 1.07 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 12th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 12th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: A non-terminal trasher has to get everyone's eyes open. You can trash and you can keep going with your turn! And hey, it gives you +2$ to your buy phase by inserting a silver into your hand. Well come on ChaosRed the card is practically broken. But of course, it really isn't, because it trashes but it does not condense. It replaces what you trash with a Silver. Which is pretty damn cool in turns 3-7, and pretty much a pain in the rear after that. In fact, the best way to play Auction was to buy it early and then find a way to trash the card or set the card aside once you hit the middle rounds. It's also pretty slow, trashing one card and replacing it will a Silver isn't really a great way to consolidate a tight deck. I gave the card a "B" because it blends well with the expansion's theme, it's a nifty little card in the early rounds and overall it tested fairly well. It wound up smack-dab in the middle in terms of both card rating and card popularity. I can't give it an "A", because, well it isn't particularly bold or interesting. RECOMMENDATION: The card stays as is, with just new art. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Here's the variant with new art work only and some minor tweaks to the text. Feel free to discuss, I have the game logs of this card, so I know how it performed the way it did and why, so if you are curious ask, otherwise, I'll move on to the next card report. (http://www.cobiness.com/images/4Auction4.jpg) |
Small wording issue: as per Trading Post, Bureaucrat, and Explorer, it should be "Gain a Silver card," instead of "Gain a silver." Trading post and Bureaucrat say "... card; put it into your hand," and Explorer says "... card, putting it into your hand."
You also trash cards "from" your hand. Chapel, Trading Post, etc. use this wording.
(http://snazel.com/silver/Gypsy.jpg) GRADE: B RATING: 1.03 +/- 0.1 RATING POSITION: 14th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 10th out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: This expansion is pretty starved for card draw. It has other neat tricks it can do, but getting a lot of cards in your hand is not easy with this expansion. The expansion has lots of ways to keep your deck dense and ways to mitigate the risk of drawing green. In that context, Gypsy did pretty well. I think you can make an argument Gypsy is only worth 3$, but at 4$ it did okay for us. It was purchased slightly above average and performed just slightly below average, but neither statistic was alarming. +2 Cards stinks as a primary ability, it's really only +1 Card, because the first card was the card you would have had in the first place if you hadn't bought Gypsy. But starting your next turn with 6 cards instead of 5 is massive, getting a +VP along the way is just gravy, but there were a few games these tokens made the difference. It's amazing how just having a +3 token advantage can really swing a Province game. I gave this card a "B", because it is just a bit underwhelming for 4$, and of course it steals all its creative thunder from Seaside (apologies, what can I tell you I am just a fan so lots of my cards are going to be derivative). But overall the card did well, it was well liked, it looks cool and I think it deserves a "B". RECOMMENDATION: The card stays as is, no changes at all... SUGGESTED VARIANTS Nothing changes, the card stays the same: (http://snazel.com/silver/gypsy.jpg) |
(http://snazel.com/silver/Architect.jpg) GRADE: F RATING: 0.6 +/- 0.15 RATING POSITION: 25th out of 25 POPULARITY POSITION: 22nd out of 25 BEST COMBO:
ASSESSMENT: This was just a dreadful card. The card was meant to have three utilities, (none of which were really worth 3$). The fact it was versatile though, was supposed to accommodate for the fact that each option was weak. Turns out, those kinds of cards are lousy. This was the WORST rated card of the lot. And by the end, we had to force ourselves to buy it just to get it some more test data. It was hated and my wife loathed the artwork too, so I'm even changing that. RECOMMENDATION: I am going to completely change this awful card. Since Summon is getting moved to 4$, I elect this card to be moved down to 3$. I also recommend the card get some serious revision. I want to keep the fact that card does three things (none of them spectacular), but make each option just a little more broad. One of the utilities is now a reaction. SUGGESTED VARIANTS Complete revamp, similar utility as before (just broadened) and a whole new reaction: (http://www.cobiness.com/images/3Architect.jpg) |
Estate gaining is too weak though. I'd suggest duchy-gain as an reaction, and increase the cost to $4.
It lets you trash the Estates, if in the situation you've inherited too much green, too quickly. In a lot of cases, you just want to deplete the pile, you don't actually want the +1 the Estate gives you. It sounds odd, but it is sometimes a way you can win. The idea, thematically, is the "architect" builds an alternate victory path.but it goes against the flavor of the card. an architect is someone who lays plans to build structures, like estates. saying that he 'builds' a path to victory is malarky. practically every card in Dominion does that. it seems to me you're using that inverted reasoning to justify putting everything on this card. and that would be my one strong and abiding criticism of all your designs: too much on one card. such cards are actually not fun to play with because 1) they're confusing to know how to use, 2) their complexity usually makes them too narrow ironically, and 3) they're complicated rule text kills any flavor you were going for.