Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LastFootnote]

Current Version:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. You may choose one of the revealed cards that is not the named card; trash it or gain a copy of it. Discard the revealed cards.

Previous Versions:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

[GendoIkari]

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

Thoughts on the cost... I think it's been said before that a "Gain a Gold" card would probably be balanced at $5.. and this card is often at it's best a "Gain a Gold" (if you reveal Gold and Province). Of course it can gain other cards as well. So probably the fact that it will often be worse than "Gain a Gold" will be made up for by the fact that it is more flexible and can gain engine components. It's obviously a terrible opener, also... probably this and Hunting Party are the only 5s I can think of that are terrible openers but better later (Not counting Duke).

Anyway, I really like it. Great in HoP/Menagerie decks.

[LastFootnote]

Thoughts on the cost... I think it's been said before that a "Gain a Gold" card would probably be balanced at $5.. and this card is often at it's best a "Gain a Gold" (if you reveal Gold and Province). Of course it can gain other cards as well. So probably the fact that it will often be worse than "Gain a Gold" will be made up for by the fact that it is more flexible and can gain engine components. It's obviously a terrible opener, also... probably this and Hunting Party are the only 5s I can think of that are terrible openers but better later (Not counting Duke).

Anyway, I really like it. Great in HoP/Menagerie decks.

Thanks! If it turns out to be weak at $5, chances are I'll give it a small bonus (+$1 or the like) rather than lowering the cost. This is partly to differentiate it more from Smugglers (the only official non-Attack interaction gainer card), but mostly because I'm hoping this can be slotted into my expansion, which could use another $5-coster.

EDIT: It's neither here nor there, but there are some other $5s that I wouldn't open with that can be good mid-to-late-game. Mint (without Fool's Gold), Horn of Plenty, Tribute, Counting House, Harvest, etc.

[One Armed Man]

How about if the player gets to say what you cannot gain before you reveal the cards? "I know your Province hasn't been reshuffled, so I name Gold!" "There are 3 cards in your deck right now and you don't have a gold in your deck, so I name Laboratory"

[AJD]

You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

Does this mean:

Your opponent names a card, you pick one of the other cards, and gain a copy of it?

or

Your opponent names a card, you gain a copy of a differently named card?

I think you mean the second, but it can be read as the first. So if you reveal two Golds, you can gain a copy of the other one.

[enfynet]

Hmm... I read it as meaning the second there. So if you draw 4 Copper and your opponent says "Copper" you can't gain anything.

[LastFootnote]

You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

Does this mean:

Your opponent names a card, you pick one of the other cards, and gain a copy of it?

or

Your opponent names a card, you gain a copy of a differently named card?

I think you mean the second, but it can be read as the first. So if you reveal two Golds, you can gain a copy of the other one.

The idea is that, no matter how many Golds are revealed, you cannot gain Gold if your opponent names it. That was the idea behind your opponent naming a card, rather than choosing/discarding a revealed card. I'm going to stare at my wording for a while in order to try to wrap my head around the ambiguity you see. (I'm a bit under the weather, so I don't yet see it myself, but I strongly trust your judgment when it comes to rules minutiae, AJD.)

[Asper]

You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

Does this mean:

Your opponent names a card, you pick one of the other cards, and gain a copy of it?

or

Your opponent names a card, you gain a copy of a differently named card?

I think you mean the second, but it can be read as the first. So if you reveal two Golds, you can gain a copy of the other one.

The idea is that, no matter how many Golds are revealed, you cannot gain Gold if your opponent names it. That was the idea behind your opponent naming a card, rather than choosing/discarding a revealed card. I'm going to stare at my wording for a while in order to try to wrap my head around the ambiguity you see. (I'm a bit under the weather, so I don't yet see it myself, but I strongly trust your judgment when it comes to rules minutiae, AJD.)

I think what you mean is: "You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not a copy of the named card. Discard the revealed cards."

Another thought: In Colony games your opponents probably shouldn't play Rabble...

[LastFootnote]

How about, "You may choose one of the revealed cards that is not the named card and gain a copy of it"?

EDIT: Bear in mind that the card named does not have to be one of the revealed cards. As with all such cards (Wishing Well, Mystic, Rebuild), you can name the Ace of Spades if you like.

Another thought: In Colony games your opponents probably shouldn't play Rabble...

Unless Colonies are the only Victory card you have in your deck. Then they can restrict your choices by leaving multiple Colonies on your deck and naming Colony.

[AJD]

You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card. Discard the revealed cards.

Does this mean:

Your opponent names a card, you pick one of the other cards, and gain a copy of it?

or

Your opponent names a card, you gain a copy of a differently named card?

I think you mean the second, but it can be read as the first. So if you reveal two Golds, you can gain a copy of the other one.

The idea is that, no matter how many Golds are revealed, you cannot gain Gold if your opponent names it.

Yeah, that was what I thought you meant.

That was the idea behind your opponent naming a card, rather than choosing/discarding a revealed card. I'm going to stare at my wording for a while in order to try to wrap my head around the ambiguity you see.

The ambiguity I see is as follows:

The player to your left names a card: "Okay, I'll name this Gold. That's a card."

You may gain a copy of one of the revealed cards that is not the named card: "Okay, I'll gain a copy of this other Gold. That's not the card you named."

The ambiguity is whether "names a card" actually means 'names a specific card', or just 'states the name of a card'.

I like Asper's resolution.

(I'm a bit under the weather, so I don't yet see it myself, but I strongly trust your judgment when it comes to rules minutiae, AJD.)

Aw. Thanks.

[eHalcyon]

I can't think of an example of an official Dominion card that phrases itself to get around this ambiguity.  That is to say, I don't think this minor ambiguity is worth worrying about.  The reasonable interpretation is that the act of naming a card applies to all instances of the named card. 

What cards ask you to name cards?  Off the top of my head, Wishing Well and Rebuild.  Never do you have to somehow identify a specific individual card -- the naming of the card applies to all instances.  When I name "Estates" after playing Rebuild, I skip all Estates.  It would be unreasonable for an opponent to stop me when I'm about to skip the second Estate, complaining "hey, you already skipped an Estate back there -- did you mean to name THAT Estate, or THIS one?"





The reasonable interpretation for this card is that, if the opponent names Gold, you cannot gain a Gold even if you revealed two.  The opponent is naming a card, not selecting one of the revealed cards.  If it were the latter, I imagine it would be phrased like Envoy.

[Asper]

What cards ask you to name cards?  Off the top of my head, Wishing Well and Rebuild.  Never do you have to somehow identify a specific individual card -- the naming of the card applies to all instances.  When I name "Estates" after playing Rebuild, I skip all Estates.  It would be unreasonable for an opponent to stop me when I'm about to skip the second Estate, complaining "hey, you already skipped an Estate back there -- did you mean to name THAT Estate, or THIS one?"

I just looked up Rebuild, you're right. I guess the important part is that your opponent names "a" card, and not "one of the cards revealed". I read it like it was saying the latter, and so for me it meant a specific card. Maybe it's a bit more easy to get that if it's specified more, though - Rebuild and Wishing Well make pretty obvious which card the naming is about - the first X or the card on your deck. Committee starts with a handful of hands, and even though the second sentence doesn't say "one of them" you might read it like this. And then it's a short way to argue that you were talking about an instance.

[LastFootnote]

Wording issues aside, initial playtesting indicates that the card is weak. The next version I test will be this:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. Choose a revealed card that is not the named card; trash it or gain a copy of it.

[NoMoreFun]

Wording issues aside, initial playtesting indicates that the card is weak. The next version I test will be this:

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. Choose a revealed card that is not the named card; trash it or gain a copy of it.

So you put the other 4 cards back? "Gain or Trash" means this card is almost always very useful.

[LastFootnote]

Ah, crap. I forgot to specify the other cards get discarded. Well, I'm trying to figure out a way to make it less terrible. It's possible that allowing the trashing effect will make it too universally useful. It's just really awful in an untrimmed deck and I'm searching for fixes.

[dondon151]

A terminal, unreliable single-card trasher at $5 seems pretty weak as well, though. I wouldn't mind keeping the trashing clause. It does trash while letting you retain enough economy for the current turn's buy, but at the same time, if all you reveal are Coppers and Estates, Copper trashing is quite weak.

I do also feel like discarding the other revealed cards is comparatively much stronger than putting the revealed cards back .

[LastFootnote]

Here's the image mock-up. I'll be testing it more tonight or tomorrow.

A terminal, unreliable single-card trasher at $5 seems pretty weak as well, though. I wouldn't mind keeping the trashing clause. It does trash while letting you retain enough economy for the current turn's buy, but at the same time, if all you reveal are Coppers and Estates, Copper trashing is quite weak.

I do also feel like discarding the other revealed cards is comparatively much stronger than putting the revealed cards back .

I think you're correct that the discarding makes the card more powerful. I'm fine with that, as it is a $5 card. Also, it's a card that has enough decisions on it as it is. The decision about which order to put the cards back in would push it over the edge, I think.

[Powerman]

I'd imagine this would be very strong.  Worst 4 choose 5 should still leave a pretty good card for you to gain after about your 3rd reshuffle, and if not... well, you can trash, but that's weaker.  Adding in the +$2, makes it not hurt your current turn.

[LastFootnote]

I'd imagine this would be very strong.  Worst 4 choose 5 should still leave a pretty good card for you to gain after about your 3rd reshuffle, and if not... well, you can trash, but that's weaker.  Adding in the +$2, makes it not hurt your current turn.

Yeah, it looks strong. I've already tested the latest version (but without the trashing ability), and it's really not. Very often you're turning over a good card and a bunch of dreck. If you flip a Province, odds are you'll be gaining a decent card, but at that point the game is nearly over. The cycling that Committee gives at least improves the odds of getting to the card before the game ends.

[Qvist]

What means "reaveled"? 

[LastFootnote]

What means "reaveled"? 

Ha, nice catch! Glad I haven't printed these yet.

The more I think about the trashing option, the more I like it. I think it adds a layer of strategy. If the player to my right reveals Copper/Copper/Estate/Estate/Silver, I think I would usually name Estate. Of course, it depends on his deck.

EDIT: After further testing, I've decided to scrap this card, or at least put it on the back burner. It's too much of a downer most of the time. It's a card that seems like it should be strong but is actually mediocre, which is arguably the worst kind of card. Thanks for all the ideas and feedback, though.

P.S. One Armed Man, I meant to respond to your idea earlier (the one about naming the card before the reveal). I considered it, and it would help boost the power of the card, but I feel like it might introduce too much AP. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, thanks for the idea. If I ever try to fix up the card, that's likely the first change I'll try.