The basic idea is this:
SavingsTreasure
Cost: ?
?
—
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each
you overpaid, take a coin token.
Assuming its on-play is just money, at which <price, value> points would this be non-broken?
The no-strictly-better rule suggests that it should cost at least
if it provides
, at least
if it gives
and at least
if it gives
.
At
or greater, I wonder when you'd ever buy it.
At
for
, I have a hard time seeing myself taking it over Gold. Maybe when I'm playing big money and hit
and I'm confident I won't shuffle again and a Duchy is no good, which is... nearly never?
At
for
, it feels underwhelming compared to Gold. If you only play it once and you pay
for it, you get more money than a Gold would've gotten you, plus the flexibility of coin tokens.
At
for
, it's a $5 Silver with a coin token. Compared to other $5 Silvers, it seems... reasonable? You'll probably take it for
some times, and it'll probably be quite good for
in some situations.
At
for
it competes with
Masterpiece. Most of the time, I think you'd rather have Silvers in deck, but it's probably worth picking up one. It seems not too different from
for
At
or
for
it seems like it could easily be quite good—it lets you pile up a lot of coin tokens on your penultimate shuffle, which lets you hit Province much more reliably on your last shuffle.
All of this assumes you're playing something moneyish that buys Provinces, preferably one each turn. On most boards, that's not the strongest strategy available. I have a hard time seeing myself buying Savings in an engine: if I can spend all my money I'd rather pick up engine pieces. If I can't, why not? If I'm choked on buys, a large stockpile of coin tokens isn't likely to do me any good.
One exception I can see: if I have a
Surplus of buys and I would rather threaten quad province that buy double province, saving up money on a 1-for-1 basis with a minor deduction seems good. One might worry that it amplifies first player advantage in an engine mirror: if both players save up to octuple province turns, it's no good being the second player to have enough money and buys for eight provinces.
One obvious card to compare Savings to is
Capital: both of them shift your money across time. Capital gives you benefit when you play it in exchange for a later payment. Savings requires payment first and gives benefits later, but that's in relation to when you buy rather than play it, so in some sense you get the benefits earlier than with Capital.
My first guess would that it would be okay but nothing to write home about at
for
. It'd be about the same at
for
, but I should definitely also try out
for
and
for
just to find out how bananas broken it is.