Great set, really cool. These are just some wording changes I suggest to you.
Thanks! And thank you for all of the wording suggestions. I'm working on making most of them.
See Ironmonger for all of the changes.
Thanks for pointing this out, I do like to follow the wording in existing cards when I can, and I didn't think of Ironmonger. In this case I don't think it quite fits. The "it's" in Ironmonger refers to a single "it"--the card revealed--in each subsequent line. Here, two of the "it's" refer to "Rain/Dry" and two refer to "Easy Living/Hard Times" so I don't think it quite works grammatically. Since the lines are relatively short, I think the multiple uses of it's is okay.
First of all, what is the bottom part of this card? I don't understand it. For the removal of "immediately", see Vampire. For the changes with the playing, I think it just makes the wording simpler. For the addition of the "a" during the exchange parts, see Vampire.
The bottom part of the card is to prevent players from buying more than 5 copies of Full Moon. The thing about the way cards with the "Exchange" mechanic is that it is possible for players to buy more than 10 copies of it (even though the idea is that, for example, it's a Vampire that turns into a Bat and back, and therefore (in theory) another player should not be able to buy that Vampire. In the case of Vampire it's not that much of a problem for a few reasons: it's not that likely more than 10 Vampires will be bought; the way Vampire works (changing back and forth between Vampire and Bat) means that 12-14 could probably be bought without one of the piles running out; and even if they did, that's just sort of how the game works (just like how Magpie's self-gaining ability will eventually stop work once the pile is empty, which it almost certainly will be if multiple players are going after it), but the cards still basically function.
Full Moon/Bella Notte/Bad Moon are very different. First, as half a split pile there are only 5 copies of Full Moon, with 5 corresponding copies of the other card. Also, as soon as Full Moon is played for the first time, it changes to one of the two other cards, and never goes back, meaning players would almost always be able to keep buying them, and it would be much easier for one of the two piles to run out. And finally, the nature of the way the cards work is such that if one of the piles is out the cards kind of break. If it's Easy Living, it's not supposed to be possible for Bad Moon to be played without having it immediately change to Bella Notte (and thus, the text says that it would not give out Curses). It needs to be impossible for a player to get stuck with one because the other is bought out, so the Full Moons get set aside instead of returned to the Supply, and after 5 of them get purchased and swapped there are none left.
I suppose in theory I could have more copies of Bella Notte/Bad Moon, but I really intended for all three to function almost like a single card, which changes as it's played under different conditions (they nature of the game prevents them from being one physical object that changes, but if that were possible, it is how I would do it). I also don't think I want that many copies of these bouncing around and firing off again and again.
Regarding "immediately" I felt that I needed to add it to distinguish from how Exchanging usually works. All the cards that currently used the Exchange mechanic only do it during the cleanup phase, and the official rules for Travellers say Exchanging "only happens when the card is discarded from play; discarding it from hand, such as due to not playing it, will not trigger it."
You are right about "a" and I'm making that change.
Dog Days looks like it has the potential to be terribroken: normally fairly weak, but just once in a while it can destroy an opponent's turn.
Regarding Dog Days, my thinking on the attack was this: one thing I have heard (and somewhat observed) about terminal attacks with a cumulative effect (and why, for example, it's important for Sea Hag to discard previous Curses) is less the risk that one player will land numerous attacks, and more that in multiplayer games the attacks can accumulate quickly. My reasoning was that given that each player has the capacity to "turn off" the attack by swapping the condition, there is substantially less risk of that.
That being said, I have thought about it more, and I have realized that there is a fairly high number of potential Kingdoms in which there is a non-negligible possibility of a player building an engine that will, on almost all of her turns, draw her entire deck with enough extra Actions to play Dog Days 4-5 times. This means that there is the real possibility that in 6 of the last 7 rounds, only one player will get to do anything, which is Not Fun. (It doesn't help that along the way Dog Days can actually be useful in building the engine, as it is able to gain onto deck many engine components, including Smithy and most villages).
So I have decide to change it. Now when it's played as an Attack, the players who discarded get to flip, the Conditions, and have the ability to turn off the Attack, preventing endless use. This was actually how the card originally worked, but I felt it was too wordy in an already wordy card. I now realize that the card is wordy anyway, but I like how it works enough that I am at peace with it's wordiness.
DOG DAYS -- $4
ACTION - ATTACK - CONDITIONAL
If it's Easy Living: Gain onto your deck a Dog or a card costing up to $4 which is…
If it's Hard Times: Each other player discards (or reveals a hand without)…
If it's Warm: …an Action card.
If it's Cool: …a Treasure card.
Each player who gained or discarded a card flips Warm/Cool or Easy Living/Hard Times.
To compensate for weakening the attack, it now also gives you the option during Easy Living to gain a Dog, which is a new one-shot I am adding in the spirit of Horse:
DOG -- $2*
ACTION - REACTION
+2 Cards
Return this to its pile.
----------
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may set it aside. If you did, then at the start of your next turn, play it.
(This is not in the Supply.)
I recognize that Dog's reaction is on the strong side, but given that it's a one-shot I don't think it's too strong.