(https://i.imgur.com/31Dz6UN.png)
This first game was half Base Set, half my cards. I was able to win it, but X-tra had some pretty awful luck, constantly colliding all three of his Estates in his hand (without a Redistrict).
I like this version of my Convoy because the card you put back informs whether you want to spend a Gem (formerly Trade token) to keep going. I got quite a few Convoys and they did good work for me.
We bought and played a lot of Redistricts. X-tra collided his opening Redistrict and Militia on turn 3 or 4 and got a $5 card and a Gold, which could have been worse. I was worried about how often we might Redistrict Estates into Redistricts, but although that did happen it didn't feel like a problem.
Only I got a Foundry and I only played it three times. The first time I just triggered it immediately to gain a $3 and a $4. The second time I left it out for a while and triggered it after gaining a $5 with Redistrict, so it gained me a Gold. The third time it just sat out for the rest of the game, untriggered. So neither a huge success nor an abject failure.
I thought Profiteer would be a pretty weak card you bought in the early game, but the way it ended up I got one late and mostly drew the Gold right after playing it. I did get a Curse from the Swords I gave out, but it wasn't too harsh. I'll try it more like this.
Likewise I went into this game thinking Cliffside Village would be weak, and maybe it is, but we got lots of them this game and it felt good to play. We could use Mine to turn the Rubbles into Silvers or Sentry to trash them. I'll play more games with it, but possibly I'll need to reduce its cost to $4 or give it +1 Buy or some such.
How does Redistrict work with variable-cost cards, i.e., Fisherman, Destrier, and Wayfarer? If I use Redistrict to trash, say, Wayfarer when the last-gained card was a Silver, then the first card I gain would be a $4. Now, is the second card $2 more than the cost at the time it was trashed (thus $3 + $2 = $5) or $2 more than its current cost (thus $4 + $2 = $6)? Likewise, if my discard pile is empty when I use this to trash Fisherman, do I get a $3 and a $7 (the cost having gone up from $2 to $5 after the first gain) or a $3 and a $4?
How does Redistrict work with variable-cost cards, i.e., Fisherman, Destrier, and Wayfarer? If I use Redistrict to trash, say, Wayfarer when the last-gained card was a Silver, then the first card I gain would be a $4. Now, is the second card $2 more than the cost at the time it was trashed (thus $3 + $2 = $5) or $2 more than its current cost (thus $4 + $2 = $6)? Likewise, if my discard pile is empty when I use this to trash Fisherman, do I get a $3 and a $7 (the cost having gone up from $2 to $5 after the first gain) or a $3 and a $4?
That…is an excellent question. I'm not sure I'm 100% up on current rulings, but I think it would check the trashed card's cost right before each gain. So in your examples, trashing the $3 Wayfarer would gain you a $4 card and a $6 card, and trashing the $2 Fisherman would give you a $3 card and a $7 card (assuming the gained card went to the discard pile and stayed there).
My Hidden Village was useful. Maybe a bit strong for $3, even though the actual village portion is a pretty lackluster "+2 Actions; +$1". I came up with this before Ways were a thing, but I think it's still different enough. It helps that no Way gives +3 Cards. Anyway I may bump it up to $4. I'm interested in people's opinions.
We each got a copy of my Committee. It succeeded in providing player interaction and giving us both interesting choices, but I think it needs tweaking. When choosing for the other player, we never chose to give them +2 Gems, which would have effectively allowed them to make the next two choices themselves. My hope was that that would happen at least once so that the player could then choose between perpetuating their own choices by sometimes choosing to get more Gems. If you have a Gem and you choose +2 Gems every other time, the other player can't ever make decisions for you. But as it stands, I think I'm going to reduce it to +1 Gem. That way it can instead be: I choose about half the time and they choose about half the time. Maybe it can cost $2 or $3 at that point, dunno. X-tra did make me trash a good card once this game, so that was cool.
Quote
|
Finally we have my Spelunker, which was obviously super broken in a game with trashing, which this game had. X-tra was drawing 4 cards with it on the regular. So I'm going to try fixing it up a bit, probably giving a Ruins when you draw 4 cards instead of when you gain a Spelunker.
Nice idea to present fan-made cards in Action. I really like it. I have some comments on a few of the cards of your last Kingdom:
My Hidden Village was useful. Maybe a bit strong for $3, even though the actual village portion is a pretty lackluster "+2 Actions; +$1". I came up with this before Ways were a thing, but I think it's still different enough. It helps that no Way gives +3 Cards. Anyway I may bump it up to $4. I'm interested in people's opinions.
I have a related card Town Musician (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20541.msg855831#msg855831), which got a different wording in the mean time, but without changing its functionality. However and importantly, I increased the cost to $5, because I felt it was way too strong for $4. At $5 it seems to be fine. I didn't took the time to directly compare the strength of Hidden Village versus Town Musician, but I have the feeling that Hidden Village is too cheap for $3. In contrast to Town Musician, it is non-terminal on its own and because it is so cheap, it can be easily used on other copies of itself. I don't know whether this helps, but at least it doesn't hurt.
We each got a copy of my Committee. It succeeded in providing player interaction and giving us both interesting choices, but I think it needs tweaking. When choosing for the other player, we never chose to give them +2 Gems, which would have effectively allowed them to make the next two choices themselves. My hope was that that would happen at least once so that the player could then choose between perpetuating their own choices by sometimes choosing to get more Gems. If you have a Gem and you choose +2 Gems every other time, the other player can't ever make decisions for you. But as it stands, I think I'm going to reduce it to +1 Gem. That way it can instead be: I choose about half the time and they choose about half the time. Maybe it can cost $2 or $3 at that point, dunno. X-tra did make me trash a good card once this game, so that was cool.
How do you get the first Gem when no other Gem gainers are in the Kingdom?
What about this:
Quote
+2 Cards
You may spend a Gem to
choose one: +1 Action; or
trash a card from your hand.
Otherwise, +1 Gem and the
player to the left chooses
for you.
Either way, I feel that this card is quite strong early in the game as it is either a Lab or a trasher. With my version I suppose that a player can first let the other player decide to accumulate some Gems in order to be more flexible later in the game. At least it seems that my version offers more interaction between players in relation to spending and gaining Gems.
Finally we have my Spelunker, which was obviously super broken in a game with trashing, which this game had. X-tra was drawing 4 cards with it on the regular. So I'm going to try fixing it up a bit, probably giving a Ruins when you draw 4 cards instead of when you gain a Spelunker.
Do you really consider replacing Rubble with a Ruins?
I think, this card will be strong anyway, when trashing is available and rather weak without Copper trashing. What about getting 2 Rubbles on gain or 1 Rubble (instead of a Ruins) when 4 cards are drawn? Either way, I like the connection to Rubble, and I think this connection is what makes the card more interesting.
[...]How about a combination of Actor and Hidden Village like Asper's Town/Road?
So first we have Belugawhale's Actor. I did get several of these and ended up not immediately using my Villager only once. I like how simple it is, but I'm not sure how often it'll provide a lot of gameplay. As a very cheap Action it was great fodder for Hidden Village, so that was a nice interaction. I'd play more games with it.
[...]
My Hidden Village was useful. Maybe a bit strong for $3, even though the actual village portion is a pretty lackluster "+2 Actions; +$1". I came up with this before Ways were a thing, but I think it's still different enough. It helps that no Way gives +3 Cards. Anyway I may bump it up to $4. I'm interested in people's opinions.
[...]
Talking about card names, I noticed the art of Pier, which I came across just a few days ago when I looked for art of one of my cards. Is there a Pier anywhere on that art?
Jubilee: I have a somehow similar card, Tulip Trader. It is exchanged for the non-Supply card Cart, which is a one-shot doing basically the same as Tulip Trader as long as there are no piles empty (note: any piles, not only Supply piles). The Cart pile contains a limited number of copies; currently 6 copies for 2 players +2 copies for each additional player.
(https://i.ibb.co/JB6tpfK/Tulip-Trader.png) (https://i.ibb.co/s5TFJqM/Cart-lI.png)
Anyway, shouldn't Jubilee have the wording "...return this to the Supply..."?
Jubilee is a Kingdom card like Encampment and Experiment, which have this wording, whereas the non-Supply card Horse uses "...return this to its pile." Not really important, but I thought it doesn't hurt to mention it.
Anyway, shouldn't Jubilee have the wording "...return this to the Supply..."?
Jubilee is a Kingdom card like Encampment and Experiment, which have this wording, whereas the non-Supply card Horse uses "...return this to its pile." Not really important, but I thought it doesn't hurt to mention it.
That's a good question and I'm not sure I know the current correct answer. Still, I like "to its pile", since it's unambiguous and also covers some hypothetical scenario where Kingdom cards are added as non-Supply piles. I don't currently have any card that does that, but I think I've tested such a card and I'm sure other fan cards do that sort of thing.
I like Tulip Trader and Cart. The draw on Cart is very cool. I don't know if I'd say "per empty pile" instead of "per empty Supply pile" just because it's a distinction that a lot of people might miss and I'm not sure how much extra gameplay it really gets you.
In this game I actually did buy Miners. I believe it drew 1 card a bunch of times, 3 cards a bunch, 4 cards a couple of times, and never 2 cards. Weird. Anyway my deck was pretty junky this game, and Miner certainly didn't help by adding Rubbles to my deck. But in return it was good draw, and hey that's the premise of the card!If you haven't already addressed it, I think one could simplify Miner slightly as follows.