Print

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

[Asper]

Maybe make Key cost 2$ so there are less trashing attacks that can hit it? I'm not sure, but I feel losing your key might be incredibly painful.

How about you just give it a "when you trash this, put it in your discard pile" instead? That would still combo with Caretaker, though not in a way where you sometimes can't win if you lose your key (opponent swindles your key and has the first and only caretaker, uses Lock to cover up the caretaker pile. Now you'll never get back your key and they can lock Province).

I've thought about trashing attacks but I didn't come up with reducing Key's cost to make it avoid some of them. Good idea. Swindler can't be avoided though and I don't feel like making Key more complex than necessary for this one card alone. Anyway, your opponent can't lock Province. Lock can only be put onto a Kingdom card pile.

Oops. Okay, then ignore my comment. If the worst that can happen to you (and only in a Swindler or Hex game) is that you'll have to play Big Money, I think that's fine.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Feels fine power wise, maybe Caretaker is a bit weak.
I didn't raise this before, but there is the issue of errata, and what exactly the Lock on another pile means. Does it count the pile as a Lock Supply pile, or does it maintain its name, types and costs but you can't gain anything under the Lock? In either case, what happens with the exchanging cards? They assume the card they're swapping with is available, and if it isn't it's debatable if the exchange happens at all. Bat into Vampire is the most obvious puzzler.
Ambassador is another one, especially 3+ players where you need to remove a card under the Lock.
Hopefully you get the idea.

You raise a good point. I'd say (and think accoring to the rules) any card that's not visible in the Supply, can't be gained or exchanged for. But Lock still needs errata that make clear Lock can't ever be gained from the Supply, no matter what other cards say. Maybe that's very inelegant but I'm afraid if it just says it can't be bought it would be too easy to gain Locks with gainers.
Is the Encampment pile with a Lock on it still the Encampment pile? Good question. My errata says it is, and you return your Encampments on top of the Lock. But that's again not very intuitive.
Maybe Lock doesn't even need the part below the line. I should definitely test it without it. That would give me more space to make an additional clause saying something like "that pile keeps its name."

[Co0kieL0rd]

Oops. Okay, then ignore my comment. If the worst that can happen to you (and only in a Swindler or Hex game) is that you'll have to play Big Money, I think that's fine.

That's my man as I know him! 

[Gazbag]

The treasure trashing option on Caretaker is very weak - it's a limited Stonemason, it only really seems good when used on Gold. I suppose you get Caretaker to gain locks from the trash and that's just a situational extra though, so it's probably not too bad.
Having unlocking Locks tied to an Heirloom means things will get unlocked faster with more players, which may or may not be bad, just different.

[Co0kieL0rd]

The treasure trashing option on Caretaker is very weak - it's a limited Stonemason, it only really seems good when used on Gold. I suppose you get Caretaker to gain locks from the trash and that's just a situational extra though, so it's probably not too bad.
Having unlocking Locks tied to an Heirloom means things will get unlocked faster with more players, which may or may not be bad, just different.

Everything you mentioned is the result of deliberate decisions and careful consideration when designing these cards. Caretaker isn't meant to be strong, just unique in its function, and to synergize with Lock, of course.

[Gazbag]

The treasure trashing option on Caretaker is very weak - it's a limited Stonemason, it only really seems good when used on Gold. I suppose you get Caretaker to gain locks from the trash and that's just a situational extra though, so it's probably not too bad.
Having unlocking Locks tied to an Heirloom means things will get unlocked faster with more players, which may or may not be bad, just different.

Everything you mentioned is the result of deliberate decisions and careful consideration when designing these cards. Caretaker isn't meant to be strong, just unique in its function, and to synergize with Lock, of course.

I don't see the point in adding a very weak situational ability onto an already complicated card.

[Asper]

Oops. Okay, then ignore my comment. If the worst that can happen to you (and only in a Swindler or Hex game) is that you'll have to play Big Money, I think that's fine.

That's my man as I know him! 

I should probably change my profile picture to Silver. It'll even keep that shade of blue.

[LibraryAdventurer]

As it's worded, you can never play Locks because you can never gain them. It should say "When this is on a supply pile other than the Lock pile, you can't gain it." (How has no one else noticed that yet?)

EDIT: Nevermind, I get it now. They all get trashed before they can be gained. This is convoluted.

[Thanar]

Here are some alternative lock images for your consideration:
https://amyelnash.deviantart.com/art/lock-and-chain-75399157
https://wtek79.deviantart.com/art/I-Lost-The-Key-485587062
https://dwor-kin.deviantart.com/art/Forever-locked-63173871
   

I stretched the last one to correct for perspective distortion, Van Gogh filtered it, cropped it and cloned more border to make this image: https://imgur.com/a/e608L The first two could also be Van Gogh filtered to make them look more like illustrations than photos, and second one could certainly be cropped better, but here’s an idea of what they look like mocked up 1 2 3 in the Dominion Card Image Generator:

[Co0kieL0rd]

The treasure trashing option on Caretaker is very weak - it's a limited Stonemason, it only really seems good when used on Gold. I suppose you get Caretaker to gain locks from the trash and that's just a situational extra though, so it's probably not too bad.
Having unlocking Locks tied to an Heirloom means things will get unlocked faster with more players, which may or may not be bad, just different.

Everything you mentioned is the result of deliberate decisions and careful consideration when designing these cards. Caretaker isn't meant to be strong, just unique in its function, and to synergize with Lock, of course.

I don't see the point in adding a very weak situational ability onto an already complicated card.

I don't think it's a complicated card. The Lock/Caretaker combination certainly benefits from both of Caretaker's effects. Also the Treasure trashing option is very versatile as you can gain two Duchies (6VP) by trashing a Gold, for example. Or any other $5-cost cards.

Here are some alternative lock images for your consideration:

Thank you for the help, although these lock images fall into the same category as most I found - too realistic. Even with the Van Gogh filter they just don't fit the Dominion look at all, sadly

[Gazbag]

The treasure trashing option on Caretaker is very weak - it's a limited Stonemason, it only really seems good when used on Gold. I suppose you get Caretaker to gain locks from the trash and that's just a situational extra though, so it's probably not too bad.
Having unlocking Locks tied to an Heirloom means things will get unlocked faster with more players, which may or may not be bad, just different.

Everything you mentioned is the result of deliberate decisions and careful consideration when designing these cards. Caretaker isn't meant to be strong, just unique in its function, and to synergize with Lock, of course.

I don't see the point in adding a very weak situational ability onto an already complicated card.

I don't think it's a complicated card. The Lock/Caretaker combination certainly benefits from both of Caretaker's effects. Also the Treasure trashing option is very versatile as you can gain two Duchies (6VP) by trashing a Gold, for example. Or any other $5-cost cards.

Sorry I was a bit rushed when I posted that, I should have waited till I had time to write something more constructive.
First of all I should have said that I think the idea of a card that "Locks" supply piles is quite interesting and having an Heirloom tied to the unlocking is very clever.

The point I was trying to make is that if you don't care particularly about Caretaker being strong then the second ability really isn't pulling it's weight to be worth the extra words on the card. I already made the comparison to Stonemason - a card that is so weak that gaining it is basically a downside to balance it's crazy overpay ability. I wouldn't describe it as versatile, quite the opposite really. So if you do care about the power of Caretaker then it probably wants something more than that, I'd suggest just giving it +$1 to keep it simple. I think we might just have different design philosophies on this kind of thing though, I'm a big fan of keeping things as simple as possible.

I'm just going to have to flat out disagree with you on the complexity of this though. It's a split pile, which already means you have to learn twice as many cards as the average card. It then also has an Heirloom, so now in order to know what this is doing you have to learn 3 cards and then on top of that there are weird pile-blocking things going on and gaining from the trash. I can't really think of a way to make a more complicated supply pile - apart from travellers I suppose, maybe Fool and Vamp too. I'm going to use LilbraryAdventurer's initial misunderstanding as evidence for this point 

[Co0kieL0rd]

Sorry I was a bit rushed when I posted that, I should have waited till I had time to write something more constructive.
First of all I should have said that I think the idea of a card that "Locks" supply piles is quite interesting and having an Heirloom tied to the unlocking is very clever.

The point I was trying to make is that if you don't care particularly about Caretaker being strong then the second ability really isn't pulling it's weight to be worth the extra words on the card. I already made the comparison to Stonemason - a card that is so weak that gaining it is basically a downside to balance it's crazy overpay ability. I wouldn't describe it as versatile, quite the opposite really. So if you do care about the power of Caretaker then it probably wants something more than that, I'd suggest just giving it +$1 to keep it simple. I think we might just have different design philosophies on this kind of thing though, I'm a big fan of keeping things as simple as possible.

I'm just going to have to flat out disagree with you on the complexity of this though. It's a split pile, which already means you have to learn twice as many cards as the average card. It then also has an Heirloom, so now in order to know what this is doing you have to learn 3 cards and then on top of that there are weird pile-blocking things going on and gaining from the trash. I can't really think of a way to make a more complicated supply pile - apart from travellers I suppose, maybe Fool and Vamp too. I'm going to use LilbraryAdventurer's initial misunderstanding as evidence for this point 

Yeah, I guess you're right, the whole spilt pile with Heirloom is pretty complicated. I thought you were only talking about Caretaker when saying that.

Our design philosophies differ some but not a lot. I can get behind simplicity and perceive many other fan cards as too complex. Not my Caretaker on its own though, as both his abilities are unique and they wouldn't really make sense on two separate cards.

Anyway, I also came up with alternative effects for Caretaker which still stick to the basic concept. They should give you an idea of what I want him to be like:

Caretaker A, $5, Action
+$2. You may gain a Treasure from the trash onto your deck. You may trash a Treasure from your hand, to gain 2 cards each costing less than it.

Caretaker B, $5, Action/Attack
+$2. You may gain a Treasure from the trash onto your deck. You may trash a Treasure from your hand. If you do, choose a Kingdom card costing less than it. Each other player gains a copy of it.

The wording of Caretaker B isn't the greatest but makes sure the card you choose is the same for each other player. Both alternatives are probably stronger than the current version but neither is simpler. So they're probably not for you either.

Thanks for the constructive criticism anyway. When are you going to check out my other cards?

[Gazbag]

Sorry I was a bit rushed when I posted that, I should have waited till I had time to write something more constructive.
First of all I should have said that I think the idea of a card that "Locks" supply piles is quite interesting and having an Heirloom tied to the unlocking is very clever.

The point I was trying to make is that if you don't care particularly about Caretaker being strong then the second ability really isn't pulling it's weight to be worth the extra words on the card. I already made the comparison to Stonemason - a card that is so weak that gaining it is basically a downside to balance it's crazy overpay ability. I wouldn't describe it as versatile, quite the opposite really. So if you do care about the power of Caretaker then it probably wants something more than that, I'd suggest just giving it +$1 to keep it simple. I think we might just have different design philosophies on this kind of thing though, I'm a big fan of keeping things as simple as possible.

I'm just going to have to flat out disagree with you on the complexity of this though. It's a split pile, which already means you have to learn twice as many cards as the average card. It then also has an Heirloom, so now in order to know what this is doing you have to learn 3 cards and then on top of that there are weird pile-blocking things going on and gaining from the trash. I can't really think of a way to make a more complicated supply pile - apart from travellers I suppose, maybe Fool and Vamp too. I'm going to use LilbraryAdventurer's initial misunderstanding as evidence for this point 

Yeah, I guess you're right, the whole spilt pile with Heirloom is pretty complicated. I thought you were only talking about Caretaker when saying that.

Our design philosophies differ some but not a lot. I can get behind simplicity and perceive many other fan cards as too complex. Not my Caretaker on its own though, as both his abilities are unique and they wouldn't really make sense on two separate cards.

Ah yes that makes sense, I wasn't very clear at all was I? Sorry about that!

I might be underrating trashing Gold with Caretaker and then gaining it back actually. You don't get Provinces like with Graverobbering $5's but you can gain more Caretakers so it should be easier to pull off and I guess 2 Duchies is the same VP as a Province too. I didn't really think about that before, there is synergy between the abilities, I was being a bit of a doofus.

Anyway, I also came up with alternative effects for Caretaker which still stick to the basic concept. They should give you an idea of what I want him to be like:

Caretaker A, $5, Action
+$2. You may gain a Treasure from the trash onto your deck. You may trash a Treasure from your hand, to gain 2 cards each costing less than it.

Caretaker B, $5, Action/Attack
+$2. You may gain a Treasure from the trash onto your deck. You may trash a Treasure from your hand. If you do, choose a Kingdom card costing less than it. Each other player gains a copy of it.

The wording of Caretaker B isn't the greatest but makes sure the card you choose is the same for each other player. Both alternatives are probably stronger than the current version but neither is simpler. So they're probably not for you either.

Thanks for the constructive criticism anyway. When are you going to check out my other cards?

I guess the idea behind the topdecking is to make locking slightly harder to do, which could be a good idea if it's a bit much at the moment and it also means if you draw the treasure then you get an extra +$2 so I guess it's a buff. I think I prefer A to B, B is a little strange to me because it doesn't really reward you for trashing higher value things because I assume you'll want to give out cheap and nasty things? Catapult does the treasure-trashing attack already, I'm a bit tired now so I'm probably missing something though.

Yes I started writing a post a while ago but I lost it somehow and haven't quite found time to have another look, there's a lot of stuff I like skimming through again. I'll try and gather my thoughts soon, it's taken me about 3 hours to write this so maybe not now though!

[Asper]

Let's go through how Caretaker trashes a Gold (purposefully ignoring the back-gaining here):
1. You get to 6$ where you could have bought a 5$ instead.
2. You forego playing that Gold once where you could have played that 5$ instead.
3. You now have 2$ s, having played none, where without Caretaker, you would have one 5$ and whatever its effect gives you.

My gut feeling tells me that Caretaker is great in the endgame to cannibalize your deck for Duchies or if there is Goldspecific gaining (other than Caretaker itself).
On the other hand, Caretaker comes up too late to help you boost your deck early. Gaining Caretaker itself counts against the possible purchases you could have made this turn, and having it in your deck isn't all that great if you miss a target. And worst of all, you might run into the situation that the 5$ you wanted and could have bought before is now hidden under a Lock. I'm not sure how often the exact opposite will apply, that is, you gain Gold because the better cards are locked, and then can get two at once.

Did you consider Lock just being its own pile without Caretaker, and the Heirloom just being "gain a Lock" (expressed to overwrite Lock's text) or "trash a Lock from the supply or gain a Lock from the trash"?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Did you consider Lock just being its own pile without Caretaker, and the Heirloom just being "gain a Lock" (expressed to overwrite Lock's text) or "trash a Lock from the supply or gain a Lock from the trash"?

I did. 10 Locks flying around the Kingdom would overegg the pudding a bit, don't you agree?

[Gazbag]

Okay I had it my mind that you had about 50 cards here but it's actually only about 20, which is much more reasonable to go through. I was probably getting confused between you and Asper because you're the Seasons guys.

Realm Tax: I like that this doesn't fall into the trap of giving +$1 per action in play, that would get ridiculous fast. I also like kingdom treasures that give some utility other than just money and this gives +1 buy which is nice. It seems like a strong card in an engine, Contraband without the restrictions, but you would prefer to buy it later, but then it'll be expensive later so you want to buy it sooner, but then it's just a Pouch which isn't great. I really like this actually. Only real nitpick is the name, because the card has nothing to with the Tax Event, but I can see the logic behind the name. This is a great start though!

Refugees: The top is decent, I don't think there's a card in Dominion that let's you pick the same thing twice like this does so that's something unique. It seems fairly strong for a $2 cantrip actually, +2 actions can be powerful at the right moment. The bottom is interesting, I guess it makes it hard to gain a bunch of these but also means the pile is always empty after you get one, so you have to watch out for those 3 piles! I wonder if the Refugees could just start out in the trash instead of on the mat. Interaction with other cards should be rare (just Lurker and Necromancer right?) and removes the need for the mat. I suppose you've probably already thought of that though!

Salesman: Woooo Prime token! I have no idea how strong the effect of moving the prime token is. Calling this is like playing a Highway, which is great but obviously balanced by this being a crummy terminal on the previous turn (or whenever you played it). Oh and I guess the point is that the Prime token is unaffected by the cost change so you can make something expensive and then call these and Remodel it into something big, or make it so your opponent can't make it cheaper with their Salesmen. My guess is that this can be nice on the right board, but is weak without support, which is a totally fine place for a $2 to be. Hard to say without playing with it.

Trapper/ Forest Hut: I'm not sure about this one, I think I would open 3 of these with the Forest Hut almost every time. It seems kinda similar to Urchin in that it's correct to open with them most of the time and then hope yours line up bettter than your opponents. I like that this costs $2 so Forest Hut can let you get more, but Forest Hut is a bit less exciting now that Heirlooms (Pouch mainly) are a thing. Also I assume that Forest Hut replaces the same shelter for each player? I wouldn't be thrilled if  I lost my Necropolis and my opponent lost their Hovel.

Deposit: This seems quite strong, although I suppose it's hard to make a weak trasher. It trashes 2-3 cards on turn 3 or 4 and then becomes worse as you add more cards to your deck. I don't see the second ability being relevant all that often - apart from this trashing itself. I would guess this is slightly weaker than Steward, but pretty similar in terms of powerlevel and how it plays out (strong trasher that has another use later on). Oh wait it has a below the line - the second part seems more relevant now, I retract that statement. I would guess that 3 piles rarely happen in games with this still.

Provisioner: A non-terminal draw to X thing that gets a bit better when piles empty. The novelty is a little bit lessened by Cursed Village, but this is an uncommon ability anyway so that's not too bad. Based on my experience with Cursed Village I'm going to assume that this is weak, at least until a pile empties. The on-gain is really nice though, so the card should probably be weak to compensate for that. Seems really nice on a $3/$4 open.

Builder/Battlement: Builder's on-play effect seems fine, a mini Embassy. Weird that a card that says +4 cards on it doesn't increase your handsize. It seems on the weaker side of things, but I guess it's one of those things that is stronger when your deck is worse. I doubt Builder BM is ever a thing. I'm not sure on the whole Battlements thing though, you can only get them if your opponent plays an attack, which is already super swingy, especially with junkers and then the battlements can destroy discard attacks or if there's other stuff going on it can destroy the duration attacks too and then there's nothing to track the duration effect. I don't know, maybe it plays out differently to what I'm envisioning, you'll have to convince me on this one.

Mining Camp: This is a weird one. It reminds me of Leprechaun a bit, as a cheap Gold gainer with a penalty that's a bit random when you play it. Gaining a Ruins to hand and playing it is almost like a Boon, apart from that it junks you of course. This being a village is a bit weird at first, but I suppose that is to let you play the Ruin. I don't think the Gold gain has to stop when Ruins run out, I doubt that is too strong? I'd rather have a Silver than a Gold+Ruins a lot of the time so I doubt this is very strong. I have to say I do like the overpay on this though. It avoids the Counting House problem because it's on-gain, very nice.

Orphanage: This seems crazy! The on-play is already really strong and you get a free Silver? Topdecked as well? Crazy! Madness!

Reconvert: Crazy! This is so much better than Salvager, who needs that stupid +buy anyway? Seriously though, this is super powerful because of the versatility.

Reeve: Ah, the $4 village with a marginal bonus, a true dominion classic. There's actually a bit of tricky play with the Estates on the opening turns, depending on whether you want to shuffle on turn 1 or not. That could be cool, I'd be very interested to play with that. I doubt you gain Estates with this very often, but I suppose just starting the game with 3 Action-Estates increases the value of a village. How does this interact with Inheritance? I assume you move the token and Estates become the inherited thing? I guess this marks the end of the crazy cards too.

Shire: I live in shire, well I guess it's a metropolitan borough now, but historically it was a shire! Ah it's like a Smugglers type thing, but it's easier to track which is nice. But it can't gain Duchies so boo. But it's non-terminal which is nice. It'll be worth at least 1VP and often 3. Seems strong to me, and maybe crazy.

Beachcomb: Hmmm can this lead to infinite combos? Oh can it not discard any Beachcombs, or just itself? I think that could be a bit clearer on the card. I guess it can't discard any Beachcombs because otherwise you can get infinite VP with Monument and Bustling Village or a +1 action token. Not sure I'm a fan of that ability in general though honestly, seems like a pain to track. The on-gain is weird too, I guess it's useful with mid-turn gaining or Horn of Plenty or something? Seems like the kind of thing tht would be better suited on a card that can trigger it itself.

Benefit: Seems at it's best with a $2 cantrip on the board to pick up with a $5, or a good $3 and $4 card. It seems potent on the right board, but quite well balanced to me. I wonder if the reaction should exchange the gained card now that that's more of a thing? I suspect that if Trader was a new card in Nocturne it would exchange the gained card for a Silver.

Building Crane: Did I already talk about this one, or was that a different version? $5 is steep for a one-shot, although it does make itself cheaper. This might be crazy with +buys?

Juggler: This is odd, you'll return the Curse unless you need that $2 or have something else to do with the Curse. Keeping a Curse around to try and block opponents Juggler seems bad. It's weak next to Witch and Mountebank but I suppose they're pretty good so that's fine and there are tricks to do with this so it might be fun.

Reparations: If you gain a card with this and empty a pile do you get +$2? The "at the time you play it" wording is confusing me. If you aren't supposed to then I'd switch around the abilities so the +$ ability is on top. This is weak until it starts giving money, but it's a gainer so it's going to have utility when that's a good thing to be doing. I like it apart from the confusion.

Revaluate: Isn't the word Reevaluate? Anyway, I'm a big fan of Remodels. I still don't know how strong moving the Prime token is but this is obvs way weaker than Butcher (what card isn't though?) and seems weaker than Replace to me, but Replace is super good so that's okay too. I also could very easily be underestimating the Prime token. I think the idea is to make an action expensive with the token and then trash it to turn this into an Expand. Graverobber expands actions, but this can also trash other things too. I'll have to play with these Prime token cards to get an idea on how good/fun they are.

Riverside: I used to live on a riverside, although it was in the middle of a city so it wasn't as nice as this one. I suppose you would have to do a calculation, but I guess in most kingdoms this will end up being 4VP without too much work.  I guess the Prime token movement isn't that strong then, because this is usually worth enough VP to justify the $6 cost?

Chancellery: Very similar to Obelisk, but it makes the pile cost more, which is cool. Then in games with Prime token cards this becomes more tricky. Maybe you could have this in the setup of a Prime token card because that seems like the most interesting case for this, to make sure it's different enough from Obelisk. I can see why you wouldn't want to do that though and this is fine as is anyway.

I'll talk about Petty Lord another time because there's so much going on there.

In terms of an overall set I think it could do with another terminal draw card? We normally get about 2 per expansion I think, right? Not much terminal payload either actually, like your Wine Merchants and your Farmers Markets and your Sacred Groves and the like. There's a good number of villages and trashers though. Well there's a lot of stuff I like here, the cards seem pretty coherent with clear concepts for the most part. A few things I'm not convinced by and a couple that I think are crazy. Nocturne might have made a few a little redundant too, but nothing glaring there. I would love a Peddler variant too, everybody loves those! That was my main gripe with Nocturne, although I suppose 2nd edition base is now 50% Peddler variants so I guess we needed a break from that. Oh and this a tree card to justify the Roots and Renewal name. Err well there's my thoughts, hopefully you find them at least slightly useful! Feel free to tell me that I'm an idiot too, if I've just said a load of rubbish.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Okay I had it my mind that you had about 50 cards here but it's actually only about 20, which is much more reasonable to go through. I was probably getting confused between you and Asper because you're the Seasons guys.

Thank you very much for taking the time again to give me feedback! I wish I could give your post multiple likes for each phrase I enjoyed reading

Realm Tax: I like that this doesn't fall into the trap of giving +$1 per action in play, that would get ridiculous fast. I also like kingdom treasures that give some utility other than just money and this gives +1 buy which is nice. It seems like a strong card in an engine, Contraband without the restrictions, but you would prefer to buy it later, but then it'll be expensive later so you want to buy it sooner, but then it's just a Pouch which isn't great. I really like this actually. Only real nitpick is the name, because the card has nothing to with the Tax Event, but I can see the logic behind the name. This is a great start though!

This is an old card that predates even Adventures, and I never got around to changing its name. Although it’s a fitting name, still. Back in the day it used to trigger with 3 actions in play which was too good but with 4 in recent games I rarely got it activated. But then I’m not the best Dominion player and probably overbought this card often.
Did you notice it actually counts ALL actions in play, even those of other players? I used to think this was clever and unique but in practise nobody notices it until there’s another player’s duration in play and I’m like, “Oh, I almost forgot, again!” So I’m inclined to remove the counting actions of other players.

Refugees: The top is decent, I don't think there's a card in Dominion that let's you pick the same thing twice like this does so that's something unique. It seems fairly strong for a $2 cantrip actually, +2 actions can be powerful at the right moment. The bottom is interesting, I guess it makes it hard to gain a bunch of these but also means the pile is always empty after you get one, so you have to watch out for those 3 piles! I wonder if the Refugees could just start out in the trash instead of on the mat. Interaction with other cards should be rare (just Lurker and Necromancer right?) and removes the need for the mat. I suppose you've probably already thought of that though!

I haven’t thought about putting them in the trash but I suppose it would work with the same line of text. Even though in our test games on Tabletop simulator Refugees never actually sat on a mat but right next to the Supply, I wouldn’t mind removing the need for a mat rules-wise altogether. I’ll definitely try it!

Salesman: Woooo Prime token! I have no idea how strong the effect of moving the prime token is. Calling this is like playing a Highway, which is great but obviously balanced by this being a crummy terminal on the previous turn (or whenever you played it). Oh and I guess the point is that the Prime token is unaffected by the cost change so you can make something expensive and then call these and Remodel it into something big, or make it so your opponent can't make it cheaper with their Salesmen. My guess is that this can be nice on the right board, but is weak without support, which is a totally fine place for a $2 to be. Hard to say without playing with it.

There’s a newer version of Salesman that can be found two or three pages back. It has a more unique mechanic, other than the prime token itself, but it’s even more situational which is why I didn’t put it up as the ”official” version, yet.

Trapper/ Forest Hut: I'm not sure about this one, I think I would open 3 of these with the Forest Hut almost every time. It seems kinda similar to Urchin in that it's correct to open with them most of the time and then hope yours line up bettter than your opponents. I like that this costs $2 so Forest Hut can let you get more, but Forest Hut is a bit less exciting now that Heirlooms (Pouch mainly) are a thing. Also I assume that Forest Hut replaces the same shelter for each player? I wouldn't be thrilled if  I lost my Necropolis and my opponent lost their Hovel.

Before there were Heirlooms, Trapper was hot stuff! (Also it was named Poacher, then Tracker, briefly.) It’s still a good opener, but you have to get at least three which sometimes just isn’t an option, e.g. with powerful $5-cost cards around. If you didn’t open with Trappers, you will never buy any for the whole game.
Of course every player replaces the same Shelter. An unprinted update of Trapper simply uses a red band saying “Shelter: Forest Hut” and there’s a rulebook line in my mind saying it’s random each game but the same for all within that game.

Deposit: This seems quite strong, although I suppose it's hard to make a weak trasher. It trashes 2-3 cards on turn 3 or 4 and then becomes worse as you add more cards to your deck. I don't see the second ability being relevant all that often - apart from this trashing itself. I would guess this is slightly weaker than Steward, but pretty similar in terms of powerlevel and how it plays out (strong trasher that has another use later on). Oh wait it has a below the line - the second part seems more relevant now, I retract that statement. I would guess that 3 piles rarely happen in games with this still.

The effect below the line is the whole point of the card. The top part is just a way to interact with it. Balancing is less of an issue but I want this card to be fun. We’ll see about that.

Provisioner: A non-terminal draw to X thing that gets a bit better when piles empty. The novelty is a little bit lessened by Cursed Village, but this is an uncommon ability anyway so that's not too bad. Based on my experience with Cursed Village I'm going to assume that this is weak, at least until a pile empties. The on-gain is really nice though, so the card should probably be weak to compensate for that. Seems really nice on a $3/$4 open.

Cursed Village is strong, man! Very strong! That said, Provisioner isn’t, and that’s fine because its on-gain ability is powerful. It rewards you for good deck-building as it’s hight synergistic (like CV!).

Builder/Battlement: Builder's on-play effect seems fine, a mini Embassy. Weird that a card that says +4 cards on it doesn't increase your handsize. It seems on the weaker side of things, but I guess it's one of those things that is stronger when your deck is worse. I doubt Builder BM is ever a thing. I'm not sure on the whole Battlements thing though, you can only get them if your opponent plays an attack, which is already super swingy, especially with junkers and then the battlements can destroy discard attacks or if there's other stuff going on it can destroy the duration attacks too and then there's nothing to track the duration effect. I don't know, maybe it plays out differently to what I'm envisioning, you'll have to convince me on this one.

Yeah, I don’t know either. The original premise was a reaction card that trashes only trashing attack. Saboteur is gone now, it sucks with Warrior and backfire really hard with the War hex. So I changed it but this is probably too harsh. Builder and Battlement are on the brink of being scratched from the set if I can’t find a new and fun mechanic for them.

Mining Camp: This is a weird one. It reminds me of Leprechaun a bit, as a cheap Gold gainer with a penalty that's a bit random when you play it. Gaining a Ruins to hand and playing it is almost like a Boon, apart from that it junks you of course. This being a village is a bit weird at first, but I suppose that is to let you play the Ruin. I don't think the Gold gain has to stop when Ruins run out, I doubt that is too strong? I'd rather have a Silver than a Gold+Ruins a lot of the time so I doubt this is very strong. I have to say I do like the overpay on this though. It avoids the Counting House problem because it's on-gain, very nice.

Mining Camp has so many versions in consideration. If I had the time, I would test them all. You’re right, this is weak. You gotta really desperately want a Village to even buy this one. This is mainly about the Overpay effect and I can probably come up with a better top part for that.

Orphanage: This seems crazy! The on-play is already really strong and you get a free Silver? Topdecked as well? Crazy! Madness!

It’s not as crazy as you think. It decreases your hand size while only trashing one card, doesn’t thin your deck before the third shuffle (because it adds a Silver) and gives a weak bonus compared to other one-card trashers.

Reconvert: Crazy! This is so much better than Salvager, who needs that stupid +buy anyway? Seriously though, this is super powerful because of the versatility.

Not crazy! It’s one of my oldest cards and I rarely buy it nowadays because there’s usually something better available. It’s not even close to Apprentice in power level, using it as a splitter is dissatisfying, and I’m not even sure I’d buy this over Salvager in the opening.

Reeve: Ah, the $4 village with a marginal bonus, a true dominion classic. There's actually a bit of tricky play with the Estates on the opening turns, depending on whether you want to shuffle on turn 1 or not. That could be cool, I'd be very interested to play with that. I doubt you gain Estates with this very often, but I suppose just starting the game with 3 Action-Estates increases the value of a village. How does this interact with Inheritance? I assume you move the token and Estates become the inherited thing? I guess this marks the end of the crazy cards too.

Reeve is a blast! I stuck with simple top here because the Estate thing will still be crazy to some, despite Inheritance. And yes, you can only have your Estate token on one card at a time. Inheritance permanently moves it off Manor.
It’s funny how you perceive most of my cheap cards as crazy ^^ My more expensive cards are more reasonable, I assume?

Beachcomb: Hmmm can this lead to infinite combos? Oh can it not discard any Beachcombs, or just itself? I think that could be a bit clearer on the card. I guess it can't discard any Beachcombs because otherwise you can get infinite VP with Monument and Bustling Village or a +1 action token. Not sure I'm a fan of that ability in general though honestly, seems like a pain to track. The on-gain is weird too, I guess it's useful with mid-turn gaining or Horn of Plenty or something? Seems like the kind of thing tht would be better suited on a card that can trigger it itself.

This card exists because I wanted to try the bottom part and my set needed terminal draw badly. Discarding three cards from play might be overdoing it though. I might limit it to one and make the on-gain better to balance it out.

Benefit: Seems at it's best with a $2 cantrip on the board to pick up with a $5, or a good $3 and $4 card. It seems potent on the right board, but quite well balanced to me. I wonder if the reaction should exchange the gained card now that that's more of a thing? I suspect that if Trader was a new card in Nocturne it would exchange the gained card for a Silver.

One of my oldest cards that just always worked. Also my personal favourite. You got the gist of it pretty accurately. I will change the wording probably.

Building Crane: Did I already talk about this one, or was that a different version? $5 is steep for a one-shot, although it does make itself cheaper. This might be crazy with +buys?

There’s already a different Building Crane that tries to solve its problems in alpha stage. This just sits here as a placeholder, to be honest.

Juggler: This is odd, you'll return the Curse unless you need that $2 or have something else to do with the Curse. Keeping a Curse around to try and block opponents Juggler seems bad. It's weak next to Witch and Mountebank but I suppose they're pretty good so that's fine and there are tricks to do with this so it might be fun.

Old card, and well-tried. It’s outclassed by the attacks you mentioned but that’s no surprise. Apart from that it’s always relevant in a Kingdom and fun to play with.

Reparations: If you gain a card with this and empty a pile do you get +$2? The "at the time you play it" wording is confusing me. If you aren't supposed to then I'd switch around the abilities so the +$ ability is on top. This is weak until it starts giving money, but it's a gainer so it's going to have utility when that's a good thing to be doing. I like it apart from the confusion.

The “at the time you play it” clause is trying to avoid confusion but I guess it fails at that. The gaining part is on top to make it stronger; it triggers off itself if you empty a pile with it. Maybe that’s not worth the confusion. I could swap it around and give it another slight buff. If it even needs one…

Riverside: I used to live on a riverside, although it was in the middle of a city so it wasn't as nice as this one. I suppose you would have to do a calculation, but I guess in most kingdoms this will end up being 4VP without too much work.  I guess the Prime token movement isn't that strong then, because this is usually worth enough VP to justify the $6 cost?

This comment and the one on Shire made me chuckle. Not much to say about either. Riverside should really just be worth 1 VP per different cost not make it less swingy.

Chancellery: Very similar to Obelisk, but it makes the pile cost more, which is cool. Then in games with Prime token cards this becomes more tricky. Maybe you could have this in the setup of a Prime token card because that seems like the most interesting case for this, to make sure it's different enough from Obelisk. I can see why you wouldn't want to do that though and this is fine as is anyway.

I agree with your last sentiment.

In terms of an overall set I think it could do with another terminal draw card? We normally get about 2 per expansion I think, right? Not much terminal payload either actually, like your Wine Merchants and your Farmers Markets and your Sacred Groves and the like. There's a good number of villages and trashers though. Well there's a lot of stuff I like here, the cards seem pretty coherent with clear concepts for the most part. A few things I'm not convinced by and a couple that I think are crazy. Nocturne might have made a few a little redundant too, but nothing glaring there. I would love a Peddler variant too, everybody loves those! That was my main gripe with Nocturne, although I suppose 2nd edition base is now 50% Peddler variants so I guess we needed a break from that. Oh and this a tree card to justify the Roots and Renewal name. Err well there's my thoughts, hopefully you find them at least slightly useful! Feel free to tell me that I'm an idiot too, if I've just said a load of rubbish.

Thank you again!
Roots and Renewal is supposed to be large expansion which should have three terminal draw cards. Currently it has four that don’t discard: Refugees, Beachcomb, Juggler and Warlord but Beachcomb is the only one that draws at least 3 cards AND is available from the start of the game. The set also has other draw, like Builder, Provisioner, Reconvert, Building Crane and Savior. Two of these might get switched out, though.
You’re right in that my set could use more payload cards, and I’m currently working on some. Caretaker is in alpha state and wants testing. More are on their way.
There’s still a lot of room for improvement. I’m very critical of my own cards and would rework them even more often if I had the time. Eventually, I want there to be 30 good, fun and balanced cards.

[Gazbag]

Orphanage: This seems crazy! The on-play is already really strong and you get a free Silver? Topdecked as well? Crazy! Madness!

It’s not as crazy as you think. It decreases your hand size while only trashing one card, doesn’t thin your deck before the third shuffle (because it adds a Silver) and gives a weak bonus compared to other one-card trashers.

Reconvert: Crazy! This is so much better than Salvager, who needs that stupid +buy anyway? Seriously though, this is super powerful because of the versatility.

Not crazy! It’s one of my oldest cards and I rarely buy it nowadays because there’s usually something better available. It’s not even close to Apprentice in power level, using it as a splitter is dissatisfying, and I’m not even sure I’d buy this over Salvager in the opening.

I should probably elaborate on these a little more, you can probably tell where my concentration waxes and wanes depending on when I was writing.

Orphanage: The on-play is similar to Forager, but I'd say it's better. That's what Woodcutter and Monument are telling me anyway, and I guess VP chips stack better than +buy too, which is more important on a non-terminal card. The main thing Forager has over this is that it costs $3, so you can open 2 but wait this topdecks a Silver so you will often be able to open with 2 of these too. The main drawback of early trashers is the tempo loss, mainly that it's hard to hit $5 if you open with them (this is why Masq is so good, no tempo loss) but man that topdecked Silver is a massive boost to tempo! What 1 card trashers at similar price points are you comparing it too? I guess Spice Merchant is better, but that can't trash Estates and doesn't give you a free Silver. Masq is better but Masq is like top 5 crazy cards of all time. I don't think it's ruins the game crazy like Cultist is sometimes (ruins the game get it?). It's more Remake, Masquerade, Spice Merchant: "wow what a great trasher" crazy.

Reconvert: This is so much better than Salvager in the opening because of +2 cards, it's very difficult to make a card that trashes and draws and for it to not be crazy. Do you rarely buy it because there's something better, or because there's something you think is better? Apprentice is obscene so there is a lot of room for this to be crazy and not be close to Apprentice. Anyway, this has power and versatility in spades so it's crazy in my book.

Edit: I had a couple more things I was going to say, but I had to go.

I didn't realise Realm Tax counted everyone's cards, seems busted in 3+ player games with durations and hard to remember so I would say remove that.

Oh yeah Cursed Village is pretty overrated, it sucks with terminal draw, which is usually the best thing to do with villages, it's expensive, occasionally Delusion makes you lose the game and it needs specific cards to be an engine itself. I've found it really situational - although if it's the only village you'll still go for it. But I probably shouldn't be talking about Cursed Village here... I think Provisioner is fine though.

Reparations would be fine without the "at the time you play it" clause I think. I thought it was saying that at the time you play it you haven't gained the card yet, so if that empties the pile then don't count that, but if it does count a pile that it empties itself then it doesn't  need the clause.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Orphanage: This seems crazy! The on-play is already really strong and you get a free Silver? Topdecked as well? Crazy! Madness!

It’s not as crazy as you think. It decreases your hand size while only trashing one card, doesn’t thin your deck before the third shuffle (because it adds a Silver) and gives a weak bonus compared to other one-card trashers.

Reconvert: Crazy! This is so much better than Salvager, who needs that stupid +buy anyway? Seriously though, this is super powerful because of the versatility.

Not crazy! It’s one of my oldest cards and I rarely buy it nowadays because there’s usually something better available. It’s not even close to Apprentice in power level, using it as a splitter is dissatisfying, and I’m not even sure I’d buy this over Salvager in the opening.

I should probably elaborate on these a little more, you can probably tell where my concentration waxes and wanes depending on when I was writing.

Orphanage: The on-play is similar to Forager, but I'd say it's better. That's what Woodcutter and Monument are telling me anyway, and I guess VP chips stack better than +buy too, which is more important on a non-terminal card. The main thing Forager has over this is that it costs $3, so you can open 2 but wait this topdecks a Silver so you will often be able to open with 2 of these too. The main drawback of early trashers is the tempo loss, mainly that it's hard to hit $5 if you open with them (this is why Masq is so good, no tempo loss) but man that topdecked Silver is a massive boost to tempo! What 1 card trashers at similar price points are you comparing it too? I guess Spice Merchant is better, but that can't trash Estates and doesn't give you a free Silver. Masq is better but Masq is like top 5 crazy cards of all time. I don't think it's ruins the game crazy like Cultist is sometimes (ruins the game get it?). It's more Remake, Masquerade, Spice Merchant: "wow what a great trasher" crazy.

Reconvert: This is so much better than Salvager in the opening because of +2 cards, it's very difficult to make a card that trashes and draws and for it to not be crazy. Do you rarely buy it because there's something better, or because there's something you think is better? Apprentice is obscene so there is a lot of room for this to be crazy and not be close to Apprentice. Anyway, this has power and versatility in spades so it's crazy in my book.

You're probably right about Orphanage. Would it still be crazy if it couldn't trash Treasures? It would obviously still be a great opener but maybe not for two of them. It might also somewhat discourage you from cursing if the curser doesn't accelerate deck building, like Sea Hag.

Perhaps I'm actually underestimating Reconvert or the recent games with it also happened to include cards like Masquerade, Steward and Forager. Either way you still have to convince me it's too powerful at $4 because as I see it, it's not strictly better than any similar $4-cost card. Are you even saying it's imbalanced? If so, would it be balanced with an on-gain penalty like "topdeck a card" or "each other may trash a card from their hand"?

[Gazbag]

Orphanage: This seems crazy! The on-play is already really strong and you get a free Silver? Topdecked as well? Crazy! Madness!

It’s not as crazy as you think. It decreases your hand size while only trashing one card, doesn’t thin your deck before the third shuffle (because it adds a Silver) and gives a weak bonus compared to other one-card trashers.

Reconvert: Crazy! This is so much better than Salvager, who needs that stupid +buy anyway? Seriously though, this is super powerful because of the versatility.

Not crazy! It’s one of my oldest cards and I rarely buy it nowadays because there’s usually something better available. It’s not even close to Apprentice in power level, using it as a splitter is dissatisfying, and I’m not even sure I’d buy this over Salvager in the opening.

I should probably elaborate on these a little more, you can probably tell where my concentration waxes and wanes depending on when I was writing.

Orphanage: The on-play is similar to Forager, but I'd say it's better. That's what Woodcutter and Monument are telling me anyway, and I guess VP chips stack better than +buy too, which is more important on a non-terminal card. The main thing Forager has over this is that it costs $3, so you can open 2 but wait this topdecks a Silver so you will often be able to open with 2 of these too. The main drawback of early trashers is the tempo loss, mainly that it's hard to hit $5 if you open with them (this is why Masq is so good, no tempo loss) but man that topdecked Silver is a massive boost to tempo! What 1 card trashers at similar price points are you comparing it too? I guess Spice Merchant is better, but that can't trash Estates and doesn't give you a free Silver. Masq is better but Masq is like top 5 crazy cards of all time. I don't think it's ruins the game crazy like Cultist is sometimes (ruins the game get it?). It's more Remake, Masquerade, Spice Merchant: "wow what a great trasher" crazy.

Reconvert: This is so much better than Salvager in the opening because of +2 cards, it's very difficult to make a card that trashes and draws and for it to not be crazy. Do you rarely buy it because there's something better, or because there's something you think is better? Apprentice is obscene so there is a lot of room for this to be crazy and not be close to Apprentice. Anyway, this has power and versatility in spades so it's crazy in my book.

You're probably right about Orphanage. Would it still be crazy if it couldn't trash Treasures? It would obviously still be a great opener but maybe not for two of them. It might also somewhat discourage you from cursing if the curser doesn't accelerate deck building, like Sea Hag.

Perhaps I'm actually underestimating Reconvert or the recent games with it also happened to include cards like Masquerade, Steward and Forager. Either way you still have to convince me it's too powerful at $4 because as I see it, it's not strictly better than any similar $4-cost card. Are you even saying it's imbalanced? If so, would it be balanced with an on-gain penalty like "topdeck a card" or "each other may trash a card from their hand"?

I guess it depends on how fun they are, I doubt either of them is as ridiculous as Remake, it's not like they'd break the game or anything. So if they're fun then it doesn't matter so much that they're powerful. Orphanage would be so much worse if it couldn't trash treasures, maybe not useless but it would become more like Jack than an actual deck thinner because it's replacing one Estate with a Silver, the other with itself and only thinning you by 1 card.

Oh and you have tabletop simulator? I'd be interested in playing some test games with you if you have time for that sort of thing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I want to have Night cards in Roots and Renewal, and I've finally come up with a few that seem novel enough to me to consider. Here are two ideas I'd like to try but first it's time for eager fan card enthusiasts to point out any issues with these cards I missed.

   

Pawnshop, <5>, Night
Remove up to <2> you have. Take a Coin token per <1> removed.Setup: When a player buys a card, they take the <> from its pile.
Heirloom: Ancient Coin

Ancient Coin, $0, Treasure/Heirloom
$1. When you play this, add <2> to a Supply pile.

Something that came to my mind very early when thinking about things that can be done best in the Night phase is to pay off debt. Obviously there's no official card that does this (yet) because it would use mechanics from two different expansions (Empires and Nocturne). This even throws a third expansion in the mix by adding Coin tokens (Guilds). The Heirloom is there so that this card isn't worthless without other Supply cards that give debt.
My main concern with Pawnshop is it might be a little swingy if you don't line it up with your Ancient Coin and the next player gets to convert the debt tokens you placed with their Pawnshop. Actually the swing from 2 debt to 2 coin tokens is quite huge - better than having +$4! And there might be no way to balance it because if you're unlucky, it gives you literally nothing. It wouldn't change much in that regard if Pawnshop converted debt into +cards or VP, either. Is there a way to make converting debt during Night consistently useful?

Secret Plan, $5, Night/Reaction
Trash a card you have in play, to gain a card costing exactly $1 more to your hand.When another player plays a Night card, you may first play this from your hand as if it were a copy of that card until it leaves play.

Secret Plan looks very strong compared to Cobbler and even Upgrade but it can't do all the things these do, not getting to use the gained card during your action phase being the biggest downside. The reaction, however, could turn this into a turbo Transmogrify at least, and interact very favorably with other Night cards. I don't think it's broken, though, and it looks like fun to me!
I realize the wording on this card could use some work.

[Gazbag]

Pawnshop: This has a problem where it's useless if you have no debt, okay if you pay off 1 debt and amazing if you pay off 2 debt. I think this needs to do something when you don't have debt and then not reward you more for paying the debt - paying the debt should be the reward itself. Is paying off debt like this actually different enough to just getting money earlier in the turn? Or maybe it could be a night-action and pay off the debt at night and do something else as an action, there probably wouldn't be enough room for an Heirloom then though so I guess the action would have to involve debt in that case.

Ancient Coin: Haha I find the art amusing, I use coins like that all the time! Does this give the first player to play theirs too much of an advantage? Also do you have a rule for if there are 8 Heirloom cards in a kingdom? 11 card starting deck could be fun.

Secret Plan: A night card gaining to had is a bit strange because you can only play nights at night. I guess if your opponent plays a Secret Plan you can react this to trash itself? You won't have other cards in play all that often. Trashing durations has tracking sadness but Procession is worse for that and still exists. Oh and I don't think this is anywhere near as good as Upgrade, I wouldn't worry about that. I love the name and the Night/Reaction colour scheme too.

[Asper]

I think this

When a player buys a card, they take the <> from its pile.

belongs on Ancient Coin, not a Setup text. I like the idea behind Ancient Coin , but I don't like the first player advantage, even if you can't use it on the card you want yourself.

Pawn Shop isn't my cup of tea. It has this weird "get a reward for collecting inherently bad stuff" that those awful "Curse interaction" cards have going on. Such cards are absurdly annoying if they miss their target, as you aren't just lacking the payoff for the efforts you went through, you actively screw yourself over. It's kinda like a VP card that says "+500 VP if after counting all other VP, you have the lowest score below 0." Yeah, it works, you can play towards that, make a strategy out of it, but it creates this super weird "do something bad because that one card makes it good" situation where you arguably play the same game anymore. I'm being overly dramatic, but I think rewarding you for having debt means that people have to decide between a minigame and the actual game (not like e.g. Haunted Mirror, where you can incorporate the minigame in the main game perfectly well).

[Fly-Eagles-Fly]

I love your expansion symbol. Also, really nice cards. I especially like Building Crane and Mining Camp. Deposit seems like it could make games with Cursers or Looters take forever and be not so fun.
Edit: Wow, I just realized how old this thread was.