Print

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

[LastFootnote]

December 2021: After a many-year hiatus, I've been spending a lot of time working on and testing fan cards again for the past few months. Years? Time has lost all meaning. But here is the current version of what I, for the moment, am still calling Dominion: Enterprise. It's a 400-card set, and right now the plan is to have 32 Kingdom cards, along with 20 copies of Rubble and 16 copies of Gizmo.

The original theme was one-shots, and I created Trade tokens in order to do one-shot effects that didn't involve trashing the card. They are now called Gems and work the same way: cards give you Gems and also give you ways to use them for various benefits. The Gems have no other intrinsic value. The other one-shot sub-mechanic in the set has been a non-Supply, one-shot attack card, variously called Conscripts, Armament, Sword, and now finally Gizmo. It's a Treasure-Attak card worth $2 that becomes a Curse-giving one-shot if you already have another Attack card in play (including another copy of Gizmo).

Gizmo: Treasure-Attack, $4*
+$2
If you have another Attack in play, return this to its pile and each other player gains a Curse.
(This is not in the Supply.)

The other two major mechanics I also introduced years ago: Activation cards and Rubble. When you play an Activation card, follow the instructions above the dividing line. The card then stays in play until Clean-up on the turn you trigger it. You might trigger it the same turn you play it, one or more turns later, or not at all. You can trigger an Activation card by spending an Action in your Action phase whenever you're not actively resolving another effect. In other words, in your Action phase you can either use an Action "point" to play an Action card from your hand or to trigger an untriggered Activation card you have in play. An Activation card may only be triggered once per time it's put into play, regardless of how many times you played it (with e.g. Throne Room). This means that a Throne Room or similar card that plays an Activation card multiple times never stays out with the Activation card; there's nothing for it to track.

Rubble is a simple card; a Treasure worth $0. It's a self-inflicted penalty for cards with powerful effects. There are 30 Rubbles in the pile, regardless of player count.

Rubble: Treasure, $0*
+$0
(This is not in the Supply.)

The number of stars after each card name indicates how much testing the card has gotten. More black stars = more testing. Generally if a card has a bunch of stars, I'm happy with it or I would have scrapped it by now. Cards with more white stars need much more testing before I can make a judgment.

Kingdom Cards

Architect: Action-Activation, $5  ★★★★★
+1 Action
When you trigger this, +3 Cards.

Bookkeeper: Action-Attack, $4  ★★★★☆
+$2
Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If it's not a Copper, they gain a Copper onto their deck.

Boom: Action-Activation, $5  ★★★★☆
Gain a Gold to your hand.
When you trigger this, gain a Copper to your hand.

Borough: Action, $4  ★★★☆☆
+2 Cards
You may play a Silver from your hand. If you did, +2 Actions.

Bursar: Action, $5  ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure from your hand. +$1 per differently named Treasure you have in play.

Cavern: Action-Victory, $6  ★★★☆☆
+1 Gem
Worth 5 VP if you have more Gems than Caverns.

Cliffside Village: Action, $4  ★★★★★
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.

Committee: Action, $4  ★★★★☆
+2 Cards
You may spend a Gem to choose one: +1 Action; or gain a Gizmo; or trash a card from your hand. Otherwise, +1 Gem and the next player chooses for you.

Consul: Action-Activation, $4  ★★★☆☆
You may trash a Treasure from your hand.
When you trigger this, you may play an Action card or Treasure from your discard pile twice.

Convoy: Action-Activation, $3  ★★★★☆
+2 Cards
You may spend a Gem for +2 Cards. Repeat as desired.
When you gain or trigger this, +1 Gem.

Excavation: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
Discard any number of cards, then draw until you have 6 cards in hand.
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.

Fabricate: Action, $5  ★★★★☆
+1 Action
Gain a Gizmo to your hand.

Foundry: Action-Reaction, $5  ★★★★☆
Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the last card you gained this turn, if any.
When you gain a card, you may play this from your hand.

Fund: Treasure-Reaction, $3  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
Choose one: +1 Gem; or you may spend a Gem for +$3.
When you discard this other than in Clean-up, you may reveal it for +1 Gem.

Gambler: Action, $3  ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Choose one: trash it; or put it into your hand and return this to the Supply.

Jeweler: Action, $3  ★★★★★
+1 Gem
Spend up to 3 Gems. If you spent…
0: Trash a card in your hand.
1: +3 Actions.
2: +1 Buy and +$3.
3: Gain an Action and play it.

Jubilee: Action, $2  ★★★★★
+2 Actions
+$2
You may spend a Gem. If you don't, return this to its pile at the start of Clean-up.
When you gain this, +1 Gem.

Knave: Action, $5  ★★★★★
Reveal your hand. Discard a card per Treasure revealed. Gain a Treasure costing up to $6 to your hand.

Middleman: Action, $4  ★★★★☆
Gain the top card of the Imports deck.
Setup: Shuffle together three unused non-Attack Action piles costing $5 face down. This is the Imports deck.

Mill Town: Action, $5  ★★★★☆
+2 Actions
Choose one: +1 Card; or play any number of Treasures from your hand and gain a card, costing exactly $1 per Treasure played.

Miner: Action, $5  ★★★★★
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you've revealed 4 cards or a Treasure. Put all of them into your hand. If you revealed 4 cards, gain a Rubble onto your deck.

Profiteer: Action, $3  ★★★★☆
+1 Buy
+$3
Each other player gains a Gizmo.

Racketeer: Action-Attack, $5  ★★★★★
+$3
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest. If they trashed a card, they either spend a Gem to gain it back or get +1 Gem.

Redistrict: Action, $2  ★★★★★
Return this to its pile. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it, then gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it.

Refuge: Action-Activation, $2  ★★★★★
+2 Actions
When you trigger this, +1 Buy and you may discard any number of cards for +$1 each.

Regent: Action-Activation, $3  ★★★★☆
Gain a card onto your deck costing up to $5. Put a card from your hand onto your deck, then discard your hand.
When you trigger this, trash it and gain a Duchy.

Rummage: Action, $4  ★★★☆☆
+$2
You may discard a Rubble to gain 2 Gizmos or a card costing up to $5.
When you gain this, gain a Rubble.

Spelunker: Action, $3  ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may spend up to 3 Gems to put that many of the cards into your hand. Discard the rest.

Thaumaturge: Action-Attack, $5  ★★★★★
+2 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand puts one onto their deck.
When you gain this, gain a Gizmo.

Trek: Action-Activation, $3  ★★★☆☆
Discard 2 cards.
When you trigger this, +3 Cards and +2 Actions.

Wanderer: Action, $2  ★★★★☆
+4 Cards
The player to your left gains this card.

Woodsman: Action-Activation, $4  ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
When you trigger this, +$2.

And that's all! Again, I'd like to thank rinkworks for his encouragement during this set's first few baby steps. My, how far we've come. I'd like to thank lympi for helping me learn how to mock up card images. I'd especially like to thank those of you who have playtested my cards and given me feedback. This set would not be as good as it is today without you! I will continue to strive to improve it.

[Tejayes]

So far, these look really good, LastFootnote. I especially like going through the changes made with each card from your earlier thread, from the relatively minor (bumping Mill Town's Copper requirement from 2 to 3) to the major (basically mutating Prospector into Surveyor). I only have a few questions about some of the cards:

Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. You may reveal then discard a card from your hand that is not a Victory card. If you do, trash this and gain a copy of the revealed card.

I'm guessing that since this is basically the newest card in your set, it hasn't had as much playtesting as the others. Is this true? Either way, what has your testing shown about opening with Surveyor. I would guess that unless you want to gain lots of Caravans or some other spammable $4, you'd want to wait to use the one-shot Mint-that-works-on-most-Actions-but-not-Harems until you draw a spammable expensive card like Grand Market or King's Court. I'd still rather open with this than Prospector, though.

Aqueduct
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Victory and Curse cards and put the rest back on top in any order.

In your previous thread, you mentioned your apprehension about this card's interaction with Ironworks. I actually like that interaction, since you can basically choose what to draw when you use IW to gain Aqueduct, assuming Aqueduct's effect resolves before Ironwork's bonus. What I don't like is how dual-type cards like Nobles and Harem are discarded as well. Have you tried a Farming Village-like wording, such as "Discard the revealed cards that are not Actions or Treasures, then put the rest back on top in any order" or "Put the revealed Action and Treasure cards back on top in any order, then discard the rest"?

Mercenary
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand. If you don't, trash this card. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards from his deck, discarding one that you choose and putting the other back on top.

I have nothing to say about the card itself, which I like. My question is, is that Guts from Berserk depicted in the image?

Monopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.

I'm debating whether this should be labeled as an Attack, since it now affects all other players instead of just the player to the left (a key reason why Possession and Tribute are not Attacks). Then again, it's a one-shot effect, and it doesn't leave junk on top like Rabble or Fortune Teller.

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +2 Actions; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, discard the other cards, then play the Attack card.
When you gain this, gain a Conscripts card.

Conscripts
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $0*
+$2. Trash this card. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in his hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

Yeah, without other Attacks available, I wouldn't like this as an IGG-like card. For one, IGG always helps toward buying IGGs or Duchies, especially when you have more than one in hand. The problem with Barracks in the same situation is three-fold: if you have more than one Barracks and only one Conscripts left, all but one of the Barracks are useless unless you have a good drawer; if you have just the one Barracks/Conscripts and you draw both in the same hand, Barracks is once again useless; and once all Conscripts are used, the Barracks are just super-weak Villages, which I see as worse than IGG's "weak Silver" effect, especially with Gardens in play. I still like this with other good attacks in play, though.

Tax Collector
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. +2 Coins. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand trashes a card from his hand costing 2 Coins or more (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a card costing less than it.

Have you tested this against Goons? Both are $6 Woodcutters with Attacks, and I agree that Tax Collector's attack is stronger than Goons' for the most part. However, the real meat of Goons is the +VP with each Buy. I would guess that in games without good +Actions or any way to play more than one Goons at a time, Tax Collector might often be stronger. With the ability to multi-Goons, though, I doubt the efficacy of Tax Collector other than as a way to thwart some mega-Goons hands. Let us know what Goons vs. Tax Collector is like, please.

[timchen]

Very polished cards and very nice graphics too! I like mill town and barracks in particular.

[eHalcyon]

Monopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.

I'm debating whether this should be labeled as an Attack, since it now affects all other players instead of just the player to the left (a key reason why Possession and Tribute are not Attacks). Then again, it's a one-shot effect, and it doesn't leave junk on top like Rabble or Fortune Teller.

Well, Possession technically doesn't hurt the other player because they still get their turn, and Tribute doesn't hurt either because it's just as likely that you're clearing junk from the top of their deck as you are to be discarding good stuff.  Likewise with this card -- it's not an Attack.  Affecting all other players does not make it an attack -- consider Masquerade, which affects all players as well.

[LastFootnote]

Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. You may reveal then discard a card from your hand that is not a Victory card. If you do, trash this and gain a copy of the revealed card.

I'm guessing that since this is basically the newest card in your set, it hasn't had as much playtesting as the others. Is this true? Either way, what has your testing shown about opening with Surveyor. I would guess that unless you want to gain lots of Caravans or some other spammable $4, you'd want to wait to use the one-shot Mint-that-works-on-most-Actions-but-not-Harems until you draw a spammable expensive card like Grand Market or King's Court. I'd still rather open with this than Prospector, though.

Well, Gambler, which is a mutated and much simplified form of Tinker, is technically newer than Surveyor. But yeah, Surveyor is pretty recent. Prospector actually went through a huge number of wacky iterations before it became Surveyor. At one point it was, "+2 Cards. You may reveal your hand. If the total cost of the revealed cards is exactly $7, trash this and gain 2 Golds." I definitely like Surveyor better than any iteration of Prospector, though. It's harsh, but flexible.

Anyhow, as far as openings go, Surveyor hasn't been awful. I wouldn't open with it if, say, Militia were available, but the card draw gives you a bit of a buying power boost until you can trash it for something awesome. Actually, since I posted this thread I played an Alchemy game where I opened Surveyor/Potion. It was good enough to get me to $3P for my first Familiar on turn 3 or 4. Later in the game (but still pretty early), I played a Surveyor and had a Philosopher's Stone in hand. Long story short, Surveyor is great for accumulating Philosopher's Stones because you don't mind discarding them early in the game and it's fantastic having a bunch in the late game. I got two extra Stones that way.

Aqueduct
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Discard the revealed Victory and Curse cards and put the rest back on top in any order.

In your previous thread, you mentioned your apprehension about this card's interaction with Ironworks. I actually like that interaction, since you can basically choose what to draw when you use IW to gain Aqueduct, assuming Aqueduct's effect resolves before Ironwork's bonus. What I don't like is how dual-type cards like Nobles and Harem are discarded as well. Have you tried a Farming Village-like wording, such as "Discard the revealed cards that are not Actions or Treasures, then put the rest back on top in any order" or "Put the revealed Action and Treasure cards back on top in any order, then discard the rest"?

I decided that I liked the Ironworks interaction too, and that it wouldn't slow things down too much. So the ability will stay on-gain!

As far as the wording of the card, I was definitely conscious that it discarded dual-type Victory cards when I designed it, but I honestly couldn't tell you why I decided to go with that wording anyway. I like your "Put the revealed Action and Treasure cards back on top in any order, then discard the rest" wording and I do believe I'll try that version out. Aqueduct hasn't gotten that much play in our test games yet, so it could use the boost.

Mercenary
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand. If you don't, trash this card. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards from his deck, discarding one that you choose and putting the other back on top.

I have nothing to say about the card itself, which I like. My question is, is that Guts from Berserk depicted in the image?

Yes, yes it is. I haven't seen the Berserk anime for many years, but as soon as the image came up in my search, I thought, "That's perfect!"

Monopoly
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash this card. Name a Kingdom card. Each other player reveals then discards the top 4 cards from his deck. If the named card is revealed, gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.
When you buy this, trash a Kingdom card from the Supply.

I'm debating whether this should be labeled as an Attack, since it now affects all other players instead of just the player to the left (a key reason why Possession and Tribute are not Attacks). Then again, it's a one-shot effect, and it doesn't leave junk on top like Rabble or Fortune Teller.

Yeah, like eHalcyon said, I didn't make it an Attack because it doesn't hurt the other players on average. Several iterations of the card did just work on the player to your left, but I think it'll get more play this way. In 2-player games, it's useful when your opponent is buying up most of one card, like Minion, Caravan, or Gardens. I figure that in multi-plalyer games, it'll be useful when all of your opponents open with the same card. Time will tell.

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +2 Actions; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, discard the other cards, then play the Attack card.
When you gain this, gain a Conscripts card.

Conscripts
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $0*
+$2. Trash this card. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it in his hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

Yeah, without other Attacks available, I wouldn't like this as an IGG-like card. For one, IGG always helps toward buying IGGs or Duchies, especially when you have more than one in hand. The problem with Barracks in the same situation is three-fold: if you have more than one Barracks and only one Conscripts left, all but one of the Barracks are useless unless you have a good drawer; if you have just the one Barracks/Conscripts and you draw both in the same hand, Barracks is once again useless; and once all Conscripts are used, the Barracks are just super-weak Villages, which I see as worse than IGG's "weak Silver" effect, especially with Gardens in play. I still like this with other good attacks in play, though.

I agree with everything you said. I kind of like that it's a reliable Curse effect that you nevertheless may not want to use until the Curses run out. The +2 Actions effect is very weak, but the dig-for-an-Attack effect is quite strong, and I felt like it needed some usage for games with no other Attacks. It used to be +1 Card/+2 Actions until I realized that an unscrupulous player could, in theory, glance at the top card of their deck as they picked it up and then decide whether they were drawing or revealing it. I had it at +2 Actions/+$1 for a while on paper, but the version here is the only one that's actually been playtested so far. I had guessed that the +2 Actions/+1 Coin would be too powerful, but I should probably test it at some point.

Tax Collector
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. +2 Coins. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand trashes a card from his hand costing 2 Coins or more (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a card costing less than it.

Have you tested this against Goons? Both are $6 Woodcutters with Attacks, and I agree that Tax Collector's attack is stronger than Goons' for the most part. However, the real meat of Goons is the +VP with each Buy. I would guess that in games without good +Actions or any way to play more than one Goons at a time, Tax Collector might often be stronger. With the ability to multi-Goons, though, I doubt the efficacy of Tax Collector other than as a way to thwart some mega-Goons hands. Let us know what Goons vs. Tax Collector is like, please.

I have yet to play a game with both cards, but I will do so and let you know how it goes. Regardless of how they stack up in a direct confrontation, I really hope Tax Collector isn't as strong as Goons in general. I priced Tax Collector at $6 partly because of its power and partly so that you could never open with it. I've found that it needs a long game in order for it to stop being a liability and start doing some real damage. It seems to work better in conjunction with cursing attacks, for instance.

Thanks for your questions and feedback!

[dor]

Great cards and lovely artwork! I wish this was an official expansion.

[Kenuru]

[Davio]

Great cards and lovely artwork! I wish this was an official expansion.

Yeah, the artwork is spectacular and the cards are very interesting!

[Thanar]

This is an interesting and great-looking expansion. Do you have any higher resolution images and/or 9-up PDFs ready for printing? I'd love to print out a set of these.

[MrZNF]

Is Mercenary really that strong? If I look at it, it seems like a worse version of Spice Merchant, since it discards the coppers instead of trashing them. Only plus being that it first draws and then you have more cards to choose from (thus more chance of there being coppers instead of silvers). Other + is obviously that you can't dead draw it, but if you have to trash it afterwards that doesn't seem like a very nice way to go.

Looking at what happens, it's either just a cantrip if you discard the copper (so it possibly makes your hand a little better) or you lose the Mercenary.

I'm not saying it's a bad card, it possibly has nice synergies with other cards, but I am not quite getting why it would be so strong.

[Davio]

Well, he says it's a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.

Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.

[MrZNF]

Well, he says it's a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.

Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.

Well, I am saying that I don't see it as a very powerful $4 card, but then again, I have not play tested it and might be missing something vital. For now I'd prefer a Caravan, Moneylender, SpiceMerchant, Militia, etc. over this one. Basically it means I wouldn't start with this card for my first $4 buy (on a 3/4 split) even if there are no other good $4's. I'd rather start silver/silver.

[LastFootnote]

Great cards and lovely artwork! I wish this was an official expansion.

Yeah, the artwork is spectacular and the cards are very interesting!

Thanks! Although I obviously can't take credit for the artwork. I wish I could have found out the artists for every image, but a couple of them still elude me. Does anybody know who created the Cathedral image?

This is an interesting and great-looking expansion. Do you have any higher resolution images and/or 9-up PDFs ready for printing? I'd love to print out a set of these.

Thanks for your interest! I do have versions of these cards with twice the resolution that you see here. I'll post them to my photobucket and provide a link tomorrow. If you do end up printing them, please let me know about your experiences with them. The more playtesting, the better these cards will end up being.

Is Mercenary really that strong? If I look at it, it seems like a worse version of Spice Merchant, since it discards the coppers instead of trashing them. Only plus being that it first draws and then you have more cards to choose from (thus more chance of there being coppers instead of silvers). Other + is obviously that you can't dead draw it, but if you have to trash it afterwards that doesn't seem like a very nice way to go.

Looking at what happens, it's either just a cantrip if you discard the copper (so it possibly makes your hand a little better) or you lose the Mercenary.

I'm not saying it's a bad card, it possibly has nice synergies with other cards, but I am not quite getting why it would be so strong.

Well, he says it's a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.

Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.

Well, I am saying that I don't see it as a very powerful $4 card, but then again, I have not play tested it and might be missing something vital. For now I'd prefer a Caravan, Moneylender, SpiceMerchant, Militia, etc. over this one. Basically it means I wouldn't start with this card for my first $4 buy (on a 3/4 split) even if there are no other good $4's. I'd rather start silver/silver.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's a super-powerful $4 card. If it were that powerful, I'd nerf it or bump its cost to $5. Gerenally, though, its power is that even though it doesn't usually increase your handsize, it provides as much deck cycling as a Laboratory. It allows you to build fairly effective Conspirator and Minion type decks without trashing your Coppers. It's slightly better than Spy in this regard.

Also, you're right about not opening with it. To be fair, though, there aren't a lot of non-terminal cards I'd open with, especially at $4. A Mercenary/Swindler opening is the big exception I've found so far. Mercenary makes it really easy to zero in on those Coppers!

[Fragasnap]

I love the way you've handled this one-shot theme. Having most one-shots be optional or avoidable is an interesting risk to the game and is a wonderful bit of decision making.

I might say Clerk's Action is a bit too good for $2. You get the best of 3 cards and an extra $1 on the side. I might remove the $1 or lower the number of cards that are revealed.

I like Gambler-- though would probably prefer the name refer to the Gambling Hall rather than the man doing the gambling. That's semantics though. Mechanically, its effect is cute as a trasher, but it sucks as a drawer since it is a one-shot. I probably wouldn't buy it unless I wanted its trashing effects or had an extra buy and didn't need more Silver.

I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?

Surveyer is okay. +2 Cards I've always found to be a weak, nearly useless effect thrown onto cards with stronger alternate effects-- and that seems to be the case here. I'm pretty unimpressed by this card overall though. I wouldn't usually buy it-- even with a spare $3 unless there was a really good $6 Action in play that I wanted more than one of.

The price decerement supplied by Fund would rarely be worth anything. The best thing about Bridge is decreasing the price of what you want to buy to nothing so that you are limited by your buys rather than your coins, but Fund can only decrease prices by $1 on its own (which is to say, it would only be worthwhile if Bridges and Highways were in play). I'd only maybe buy one if I needed a Silver and had $4, but I can't think of any scenarios that Fund's effect would be anywhere near as useful as Bridge's or Highway's.

Monopoly sounds like one of those luck-based Kingdom Cards I would veto constantly. Its ability to trash cards from the Supply is something I'd like to play with though...

Barracks might be more useful if Conscripts wasn't gained, but could be purchased while Barracks was in play (and perhaps Conscripts are returned to their Supply instead of being trashed). As it is, I wouldn't pay $5 for Barracks unless a different, better Attack was in play. And now that I think about it, adding a +$1 to it might not be all that bad. Imagine a Market without a +Card... yeah, it has +$2 instead and is called Festival.

Well, he says [Mercenary]'s a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.

Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.

Spy can affect the top of your deck which I usually found to be the most beneficial thing it can do (especially with other cantrips in play). Affecting others was just a little bonus. Mercenary only affects other's decks and is trashed if you don't discard one of those Treasures that you could otherwise use.
It looks to me like a weaker Stables with a Spy-like effect thrown on top.

[LastFootnote]

I might say Clerk's Action is a bit too good for $2. You get the best of 3 cards and an extra $1 on the side. I might remove the $1 or lower the number of cards that are revealed.

I agree that the Action effect might be a touch too powerful. I might nerf it back down to looking at the top 2 cards of your deck rather than the top 3. The thing is that the reaction effect is useful, but slow. I wanted to give the action effect a bit more kick to compensate. At one time the reaction effect trashed down to 3 cards in hand, but I thought that would be too constricting. If there were some concise way to word Clerk such that upon revealing it you were allowed to trash any number of cards from your hand as long as you didn't dip below 3 cards in hand, I would go for that.

I like Gambler-- though would probably prefer the name refer to the Gambling Hall rather than the man doing the gambling. That's semantics though. Mechanically, its effect is cute as a trasher, but it sucks as a drawer since it is a one-shot. I probably wouldn't buy it unless I wanted its trashing effects or had an extra buy and didn't need more Silver.

Yeah, the drawing effect is definitely meant to be the consolation prize. A one-shot Laboratory is a terrible investment. Gambler is first and foremost a deck thinner. To say that you probably wouldn't buy it unless you wanted its trashing effects is completely reasonable, but I'd argue that you'd want its trashing effects in most decks.

I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?

Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.

Surveyer is okay. +2 Cards I've always found to be a weak, nearly useless effect thrown onto cards with stronger alternate effects-- and that seems to be the case here. I'm pretty unimpressed by this card overall though. I wouldn't usually buy it-- even with a spare $3 unless there was a really good $6 Action in play that I wanted more than one of.

Yeah, it's a situational card to be sure. They can't all be power cards! I think with a little playtesting, though, you'd find it to be more useful that it seems at first glance. That +2 Cards really does help in the early game and it's a decent opener in the absence of powerful $3 and $4 Attack cards. Then in the midgame, you can trash it for a more powerful $5 or $6 terminal without increasing the density of terminal Action cards in your deck. Or you can trash it for a useful non-terminal that you've drawn dead, like Bazaar. If you get $9 in the early midgame, including a Gold, you can trash your Surveyor and pick up 2 Golds that turn.

I'll continue to test it, and if it turns out to be too weak, I'll buff it in some way. Perhaps in order to gain a copy of the revealed card, you have to put it on your deck instead of discarding it?

The price decerement supplied by Fund would rarely be worth anything. The best thing about Bridge is decreasing the price of what you want to buy to nothing so that you are limited by your buys rather than your coins, but Fund can only decrease prices by $1 on its own (which is to say, it would only be worthwhile if Bridges and Highways were in play). I'd only maybe buy one if I needed a Silver and had $4, but I can't think of any scenarios that Fund's effect would be anywhere near as useful as Bridge's or Highway's.

Well, in the absence of Bridge or Highway, the price-lowering ability of Fund is basically useful in a few situations. First, you trash it early in order to pick up a Gold or other $6 card on turn 3 or 4. Second, if you have $8, $9, or $10 to spend, including a fund, you can trash it to pick up two $5 cards, a $5 and $6 card, or two $6 cards, respectively. Or you can trash it late-game to bump yourself from $7 to $8 for a Province. A one-shot Gold for $4 isn't bad. The price-lowering is there because it's more flexible, and in some ways easier to track, than just giving an extra $1 to spend.

That being said, I'm considering bumping its cost to $5 and removing the hand-discarding penalty. That would completely change the way the card plays and the situations it would be useful in, but I'm open to the possibility.

Monopoly sounds like one of those luck-based Kingdom Cards I would veto constantly. Its ability to trash cards from the Supply is something I'd like to play with though...

Well, the card has three effects: the Supply-trashing, the +$2, and the Gold-gaining. Only one of those three is luck-based. Putting a Gold on your deck is good, but not immediately game-winning.

The card is basically meant to fight decks that load up on a single card without discouraging the buying of Kingdom cards in general. If more playtesting reveals that it leads to boring games, I may have to change which cards can be chosen for each effect.

Barracks might be more useful if Conscripts wasn't gained, but could be purchased while Barracks was in play (and perhaps Conscripts are returned to their Supply instead of being trashed). As it is, I wouldn't pay $5 for Barracks unless a different, better Attack was in play. And now that I think about it, adding a +$1 to it might not be all that bad. Imagine a Market without a +Card... yeah, it has +$2 instead and is called Festival.

Yes, I might add that +$1 back. I just don't want it to be too powerful in games with other Attacks. Curses are bad enough that even in some games without other Attacks, you'd be willing to pick up a Barracks or two. It depends on what's available. As long as it's never completely useless, it's OK with me if it's a poor buy in some games. That's what Dominion is all about!

Well, he says [Mercenary]'s a powerful $4 card. That's different from saying it's a powerful card.

Spy is also $4 and this seems a lot better than Spy to me.

Spy can affect the top of your deck which I usually found to be the most beneficial thing it can do (especially with other cantrips in play). Affecting others was just a little bonus. Mercenary only affects other's decks and is trashed if you don't discard one of those Treasures that you could otherwise use.
It looks to me like a weaker Stables with a Spy-like effect thrown on top.

That's more or less what it is. Keep in mind, though, that while Spy can cycle through the top 2 cards of your deck, Mercenary always does. I originally had the attack effect on Mercenary be identical to Spy (meaning that it could discard the top card and affected you too). That version was stupid powerful with chaining cards like Conspirator. Being able to non-terminally cycle through 3 cards at a time is no joke.

Thanks for your constructive criticism!

[Fragasnap]

I might say Clerk's Action is a bit too good for $2. You get the best of 3 cards and an extra $1 on the side. I might remove the $1 or lower the number of cards that are revealed.

I agree that the Action effect might be a touch too powerful. I might nerf it back down to looking at the top 2 cards of your deck rather than the top 3. The thing is that the reaction effect is useful, but slow. I wanted to give the action effect a bit more kick to compensate. At one time the reaction effect trashed down to 3 cards in hand, but I thought that would be too constricting. If there were some concise way to word Clerk such that upon revealing it you were allowed to trash any number of cards from your hand as long as you didn't dip below 3 cards in hand, I would go for that.

I had no qualms with Clerk's Reaction (and it did seem to be the main event of the card), but it is slow. The most semantically correct and concise method I can think of acquiring your effect is invoking the infinite-reveal clause and abusing that. "When another player plays an Attack card and you have 4 or more cards in your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand."

Otherwise, you could go for something that doesn't require such intense knowledge of how Reactions work: "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you may trash cards from your hand until you have 3 cards in hand." (which is to say, this is a loop that repeats until you have 3 cards in hand or choose not to trash a card)

[AJD]

The most semantically correct and concise method I can think of acquiring your effect is invoking the infinite-reveal clause and abusing that. "When another player plays an Attack card and you have 4 or more cards in your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand."

I'm not quite sure this works. Consider the Mandarin / Royal Seal interaction:

• You have Royal Seal in play; gain Mandarin.
• Two effects are triggered: top-decking Mandarin, and top-decking Royal Seal.
• You choose to top-deck Royal Seal first.
• Now Royal Seal is no longer in play, but you may still top-deck Mandarin, since the effect was already triggered.

I feel like something similar might happen with Clerk:

• You have 4 cards in hand, including two Clerks. Someone plays an attack.
• Both Clerks are triggered.
• You reveal one Clerk and trash a card.
• Now you have less than 4 cards in hand, but you may still reveal the other Clerk, since it has already been triggered (and you merely chose to reveal the other one first).

...and anything you can do with two copies of a Reaction in hand you can do with one copy of a Reaction in hand.

It seems to me that this argument ought to be valid. If it's not, I'm not sure why not, except that Reactions are confusing, man. (I still don't understand how the rules prevent you from revealing the same Tunnel multiple times on one discard.)

[jonts26]

I feel like something similar might happen with Clerk:

• You have 4 cards in hand, including two Clerks. Someone plays an attack.
• Both Clerks are triggered.
• You reveal one Clerk and trash a card.
• Now you have less than 4 cards in hand, but you may still reveal the other Clerk, since it has already been triggered (and you merely chose to reveal the other one first).

...and anything you can do with two copies of a Reaction in hand you can do with one copy of a Reaction in hand.

I'm not sure this is right since reactions do not trigger automatically, but are chosen to be revealed (think about what happens when you have both secret chamber and moat.) If this is the case, you resolve each one sequentially, so only 1 card can be trashed.

EDIT: But back to the topic of the cards wording, Fragansnap is correct. Since you can reveal a reaction (in response to an attack) multiple times, you just have to say 'if you have more than n cards in hand, you may trash a card'. Then just keep revealing it until you've trashed however many cards you want to/can.

[AJD]

I feel like something similar might happen with Clerk:

• You have 4 cards in hand, including two Clerks. Someone plays an attack.
• Both Clerks are triggered.
• You reveal one Clerk and trash a card.
• Now you have less than 4 cards in hand, but you may still reveal the other Clerk, since it has already been triggered (and you merely chose to reveal the other one first).

...and anything you can do with two copies of a Reaction in hand you can do with one copy of a Reaction in hand.

I'm not sure this is right since reactions do not trigger automatically, but are chosen to be revealed (think about what happens when you have both secret chamber and moat.) If this is the case, you resolve each one sequentially, so only 1 card can be trashed.

Hmm, good point. (Which just raises further questions, I think.... Man, reactions are confusing.)

[Big Tuna]

Mercenary seems like a very powerful combo creator. I can forsee a short game with KC and Bridge/Masquerade.

[mangsky]

NICE!

[petrie911]

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

[LastFootnote]

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

Nice! That is beautiful! Thanks for the elegant solution.

I'll edit the card to say that later today and then upload the hi-res versions I promised. I already changed Aquedect to use the 'Treasure and Action' wording (as you can see), and I've updated (but not yet uploaded) Mill Town to say 'gain a card costing up to $1 per Copper revealed'.

[NinjaBus]

I like the set a lot, the trashing on use theme hasn't really been used in dominion. As such, you get to make the one shot cards more interesting. Here's just a few thoughts...

What if Barracks scouted for attack cards instead of searching for them? Then you could combine the + actions and the + card and sketchy players couldn't cheat the system. Even if there is no other attack card, it's still a 5$ village which curses once.

Barracks: +1 card / +2 actions, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Place any revealed attack cards into your hand, and discard the rest. :: When you gain this, gain a conscripts.

I say discard the non-attack cards instead of placing them back on the deck for balance reasons, if you could use it to set up a draw chain it would be way too effective.

*Edit* I'm keeping that idea up for discussion, but I realized that as is in certain trashing heavy games, or with scrying pool, (don't even imagine ambassador) that card as suggested is way too good.

Honestly just make it "+1 card / +2 actions, when you gain this card gain a conscripts." It might be a little boring, but it's balanced and never useless in a kingdom set.

I like fund, one shot gold is never bad. However, you might want to restrict the +buy to only when you trash it, otherwise it blows woodcutter out of the water. Did you have problems in playtesting if it's effect stacked with itself? The upshot of bridge is that you can use it to buy more of itself rapidly, but with fund you can't, since you trash it in the process. It might be slow enough that without other sources of income massing lab/fund isn't automatically a winning strategy.

Cathedral appears to be godly powerful at first glance. Its 1 card draw short of embassy, a card so good it gives your opponent silvers when you buy it. And it even trashes instead of discarding your crap cards! If you want, you can even move money to your next hand if you've gone over 8$. Yikes. Ironically, making it trash more and courtyard more would be really cool. What about "+4 cards, trash up to 4 cards from your hand and place your hand on top of your deck in any order?"

I'm sorry if I'm completely changing how you wanted these cards to be played, but I'm a bit tired and fairly inspired by what you have here.

[LastFootnote]

What if Barracks scouted for attack cards instead of searching for them? Then you could combine the + actions and the + card and sketchy players couldn't cheat the system. Even if there is no other attack card, it's still a 5$ village which curses once.

Barracks: +1 card / +2 actions, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Place any revealed attack cards into your hand, and discard the rest. :: When you gain this, gain a conscripts.

I say discard the non-attack cards instead of placing them back on the deck for balance reasons, if you could use it to set up a draw chain it would be way too effective.

*Edit* I'm keeping that idea up for discussion, but I realized that as is in certain trashing heavy games, or with scrying pool, (don't even imagine ambassador) that card as suggested is way too good.

Honestly just make it "+1 card / +2 actions, when you gain this card gain a conscripts." It might be a little boring, but it's balanced and never useless in a kingdom set.

I like your 'Scout for Attacks' idea. It also gets around the fact that there could potentially someday be an Attack card that isn't an Action (which would throw the current version of Barracks for a loop). As you say, it might easily be too powerful in many decks.

As far as balance goes, the current version of Barracks seems OK in testing so far. Yeah, the +2 Actions is a pretty poor option, but sometimes you need it. Nobles is a good example. Ideally you want to use Nobles for +3 Cards, but it's nice to have the +2 Actions as a backup. Even when there are no other Attack cards available, sometimes it's worth going for Barracks. Curses are powerful enough that if there's no good Curse trashing or there is good trash-for-benefit, Barracks can still be worth the price of admission.

I like fund, one shot gold is never bad. However, you might want to restrict the +buy to only when you trash it, otherwise it blows woodcutter out of the water. Did you have problems in playtesting if it's effect stacked with itself? The upshot of bridge is that you can use it to buy more of itself rapidly, but with fund you can't, since you trash it in the process. It might be slow enough that without other sources of income massing lab/fund isn't automatically a winning strategy.

Well, it definitely does blow Woodcutter out of the water, but to be fair, it does cost (ever so slightly) more and Woodcutter is a pretty weak card. In addition, using an Action chain, you could in theory play multiple Woodcutters on the same turn, which you can't do with Fund. That being said, I'm revamping Clerk at the moment, and if I give it +1 Buy, I'd be more amenable to restricting Fund's +1 Buy to the one-shot effect.

When you ask if I had problems with its effect stacking with itself, do you mean playing and trashing multiple Funds? With just the cards in this set and the official cards, that's impossible. When you play Fund, you discard your hand, so the first Fund you play discards all other Funds in hand. It's the only way I could think of to price a Silver-with a bonus at $4, and I don't think anybody would buy a one-shot Gold at $5. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

As you say, trashing a Fund and buying another Fund on the same turn is a waste of coins, unless you have other cards like Bridge and Highway in play that are lowering costs further.

Cathedral appears to be godly powerful at first glance. Its 1 card draw short of embassy, a card so good it gives your opponent silvers when you buy it. And it even trashes instead of discarding your crap cards! If you want, you can even move money to your next hand if you've gone over 8$. Yikes. Ironically, making it trash more and courtyard more would be really cool. What about "+4 cards, trash up to 4 cards from your hand and place your hand on top of your deck in any order?"

Well, OK, let me tell you about the history of Cathedral. Originally, it was, "+3 Cards. +1 Action. Put 2 cards back on your deck. You may spend a token. If you do, reveal the top 4 (5?) cards of your deck, trashing any of them and discarding the others. When you gain this, take a token." Rinkworks quite rightly pointed out that this could decide the game on a 5/2 split, since it blows Chapel out of the water. So I changed the token spending effect to, "If you do, trash the top 2 cards of your deck."

Then, I tested that version with my wife. It was a game with some Curse-giver. She kept buying up Cathedrals in order to gain tokens and be able to trash the Curses. It was non-terminal, after all, so you could buy up a ton and the only downside was opportunity cost. Well, it turns out that repeatedly drawing 3 cards and putting 2 back, only to draw them when you play your next Cathedral is really annoying. Even if buying a ton wasn't the optimal strategy, I realized that enough players would do it that I couldn't make it non-terminal.

So I took away the +1 Action and gave it two things to compensate. The first was bumping it up from +3 Cards to +4 Cards. The second was having it get you two tokens instead of one. This is the version of the card you currently see in the thread. As recent testing has revealed, this was overkill. I will soon update the card so that you only get one token upon gaining the card.

So, anyhow, I like your whole 'trash up to 4 and put the rest back' idea, but it's a bit far removed from the card I have. It could be a very cool mechanic for a new card, though. Just be careful of it dominating on a 5/2 split.

Once you can only trash once per copy of Cathedral you gain, the rest of the card might be OK as it stands. Yes, you can use it to put excess Treasure back on your deck, but it does only net you 1 card in hand (like Moat) and there are definitely times when you'd rather discard 2 cards than put 2 back (which is part of why Embassy is so powerful).

I'm sorry if I'm completely changing how you wanted these cards to be played, but I'm a bit tired and fairly inspired by what you have here.

Thanks for your feedback! If any of these three cards turns out to need more tweaking, I'll definitely try out your suggestions.

[LastFootnote]

OK, I've updated Clerk and Cathedral and reworded Mill Town. Hi-res versions of the cards can be found here.

[Thanar]

Many thanks for your work on this set! I'll be printing it out and trying it this weekend.

As I was downloading the images, I did notice that the title text "Gambler" on the gambler.png images has some aliasing (jaggies), unlike all of the other cards, which are very smooth. This is the case with both the low and hi-res versions of that card. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to fix it.

[LastFootnote]

Many thanks for your work on this set! I'll be printing it out and trying it this weekend.

As I was downloading the images, I did notice that the title text "Gambler" on the gambler.png images has some aliasing (jaggies), unlike all of the other cards, which are very smooth. This is the case with both the low and hi-res versions of that card. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to fix it.

Unfortunately, those jaggies were there even before I transformed the image into the .PNG format. The 'G' in that font at that size just looks like that, even as you type it in. I noticed it myself when I created the card. Thanks for the attention to detail, though!

Anyhow, if you test out the cards, please let me know how they work out.

EDIT: I just changed Conscripts, partly for set-cohesiveness reasons and partly for simplicity. It no longer gains the Curse into your opponents' hands.

[Thanar]

I playtested all the cards in Dominion:Enterprise tonight with a couple of friends who are familiar with Dominion and several expansions, but had never seen this fan variant.

We played three games, using 7 cards from Enterprise in each game, along with a couple of standard cards, like Village, Remodel, Steward, and Masquerade, and one card from another fan variant, Dominion: Tributary (Dignitary and Hero).

Every game was fun and every game was fairly close. And almost every card was used, and we did work out some interesting combinations of cards as well.

In our first game, the initial buys centered around Mercenary which was a popular buy. But the standout card was Cathedral, which made for a rather quick game, though one with interesting decisions about which cards to put back.

Also in that game, Monopoly also allowed one player to get an early gold which helped him to a victory. I do think that Monopoly can lead to some high variance depending on when it is bought. It is easier to predict things early on, but you might draw it right after a reshuffle when it's harder to guess the cards coming up. We quickly discovered that it did synergize well with Mercenary. Once I left a better card on top of the deck with Mercenary so that the Monopoly that immediately followed was guaranteed to hit.

Aqueduct was also used mostly in an attempt to catch up from being behind in victory points near the end of the game. It definitely helped, but didn't turn the tide.

Clerk didn't seem to be too effective a reaction, at least with the attacks that we were using (from this expansion). The ability to trash one or two cards is not always that helpful when the attack itself (e.g. Tax Collector) is going to trash a card worth 2 or more. It generally left a pretty worthless hand at the end.

Gambler was another card that didn't seem to have much impact on the game. Bought early on, it generally led to trashing a card or two before getting trashed itself when it ran into something of value. It didn't seem very worth buying later in the game. So it was probably the most "meh" card of the entire set.

In the second and third games we removed Cathedral, which allowed Inventor to really shine. Careful use of the card allowed for some very finesse endgames (e.g. Platinums trashed for the benefit of Colonies to clinch a win).

Surveyor seemed interesting, but the one time I bought it and used it it matched up with my hand full of Silver, instead of my hand with the Platinum, but I triggered it anyway just to get it out of my deck... Another player bought one and used it three times without using the self-trash effect. So, it didn't do much for us, but perhaps we didn't really try to make it work...

The Barracks and Conscripts combo was used to good effect in the second game, paired with the Tax Collector to ensure that attack got played many times, leading to my only victory of the night. We were using the Hero card that game, which happens to allow you to gain a prize (from Cornucopia) if you have two Curse cards in hand when you play it! So this actually made me avoid playing the second Conscript in one situation since it potentially could set up the Hero perfectly with gaining a curse in hand. So the change you just made to Conscript to make it a regular gain seems wise.

Mill Town seemed to get used as an OK village variant, since the discard of a card often didn't cause much harm. In our games it rarely triggered the gain of a card, probably because we weren't buying it primarily for that ability and were often trashing Copper.

Finally, Fund was used a couple of times, mostly for the ability to trash it to get a Province with 7 coin, rather than making much use of the extra buy.

After all of that, I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement at the moment, but I might come up with some after a bit more playtesting.

By the end of the night, everyone agreed that the set was interesting, entertaining, and definitely worth playing with again. Kudos to LastFootnote for designing it.

Thanar

[LastFootnote]

Hey, thanks a lot for testing these out! I usually play with 4 or 5 Enterprise cards at a time, but it's cool to hear that games with 7 of the cards were still fun.

In our first game, the initial buys centered around Mercenary which was a popular buy. But the standout card was Cathedral, which made for a rather quick game, though one with interesting decisions about which cards to put back.

Hmm, it's interesting to hear that Cathedral was so powerful. I'll have to do some more playtesting and see if the card needs to be toned down. Did you use the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, or the version that gained two? Did the trashing even get used much?

Also in that game, Monopoly also allowed one player to get an early gold which helped him to a victory. I do think that Monopoly can lead to some high variance depending on when it is bought. It is easier to predict things early on, but you might draw it right after a reshuffle when it's harder to guess the cards coming up. We quickly discovered that it did synergize well with Mercenary. Once I left a better card on top of the deck with Mercenary so that the Monopoly that immediately followed was guaranteed to hit.

Monopoly is one of the cards in the set that I'm least happy with. I like the card concept, but I can't really decide how to balance it. Did it ever not gain a Gold when played?

Clerk didn't seem to be too effective a reaction, at least with the attacks that we were using (from this expansion). The ability to trash one or two cards is not always that helpful when the attack itself (e.g. Tax Collector) is going to trash a card worth 2 or more. It generally left a pretty worthless hand at the end.

Clerk is the other card I'm not yet happy with. Mostly I need a better action effect. As for the reaction piece and its use against Tax Collector, the idea was that Clerk would allow you to trash a Copper or Curse, after which Tax Collector would be unable to hurt you. Did you play that Tax Collector only hit if the victim had 5 or more cards in hand?

In general, though, Clerk is meant to work best against pure discard attacks like Militia and Goons.

Gambler was another card that didn't seem to have much impact on the game. Bought early on, it generally led to trashing a card or two before getting trashed itself when it ran into something of value. It didn't seem very worth buying later in the game. So it was probably the most "meh" card of the entire set.

Yeah, there's no point to buying Gambler after the first few turns. It's definitely an early game card.

In the second and third games we removed Cathedral, which allowed Inventor to really shine. Careful use of the card allowed for some very finesse endgames (e.g. Platinums trashed for the benefit of Colonies to clinch a win).

Sounds good. Hopefully it's not too powerful.

Surveyor seemed interesting, but the one time I bought it and used it it matched up with my hand full of Silver, instead of my hand with the Platinum, but I triggered it anyway just to get it out of my deck... Another player bought one and used it three times without using the self-trash effect. So, it didn't do much for us, but perhaps we didn't really try to make it work...

Yeah, sounds like you got unlucky with it. Maybe it's underpowered as is, though. I'll have to test it some more.

The Barracks and Conscripts combo was used to good effect in the second game, paired with the Tax Collector to ensure that attack got played many times, leading to my only victory of the night. We were using the Hero card that game, which happens to allow you to gain a prize (from Cornucopia) if you have two Curse cards in hand when you play it! So this actually made me avoid playing the second Conscript in one situation since it potentially could set up the Hero perfectly with gaining a curse in hand. So the change you just made to Conscript to make it a regular gain seems wise.

Yeah, I'm glad I changed Conscripts. It just synergized too well with Tax Collector and simpler card wordings are usually better.

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

[Thanar]

Hmm, it's interesting to hear that Cathedral was so powerful. I'll have to do some more playtesting and see if the card needs to be toned down. Did you use the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, or the version that gained two? Did the trashing even get used much?

We used the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, and the trashing was definitely used in every case. I don't think the card is too powerful. I think it is just a solid card and some of the other cards might not be powerful enough. It definitely works well with a money-based strategy, similar to how Courtyard works well with money.

I was trying to figure out an easy way to allow the purchasing of additional Cathedral tokens for more money when you buy the Cathedral (i.e. spend another coin (or two?) when purchasing the Cathedral to get another token with it). It could make for an interesting choice between getting a Gold at 6 or getting a Cathedral with 2 trash tokens... Might be worth trying.

Monopoly is one of the cards in the set that I'm least happy with. I like the card concept, but I can't really decide how to balance it. Did it ever not gain a Gold when played?

I failed to gain a Gold with it when I played it. I think that happened at least one other time. The problem is that if you fail to get a gold with it, it is a significant setback, since it is a one-shot card that costs four and is then gone. To me it was more of a gamble than Gambler (bigger gain when you succeed, bigger loss when you fail). Perhaps make the self-trashing conditional on guessing correctly?

We also didn't think that it lived up to its name, since trashing one card from the supply doesn't significantly affect the supply. Also, it is rare that any one player would buy very many of them, since its main use is to get a Gold earlier on in the game and its utility decreases later on (plus it can be a bit harder to guess the Kingdom card later on).

You could change the text below the line to read "When you buy this or trash this..." so that you get two opportunities to trash from the supply per Monopoly, rather than one.

Clerk is the other card I'm not yet happy with. Mostly I need a better action effect. As for the reaction piece and its use against Tax Collector, the idea was that Clerk would allow you to trash a Copper or Curse, after which Tax Collector would be unable to hurt you. Did you play that Tax Collector only hit if the victim had 5 or more cards in hand?

I agree that the action effect of Clerk is not very good/interesting. Perhaps you could also let the person choose to leave one of the three cards on top of the deck? It seems kind of thematic, shuffling papers around on a desk, from the inbox to the outbox...

And now that you mention it, we didn't play the Tax Collector correctly after using the Clerk reaction. I remember still trashing a card for it even though I had already trashed down to fewer that 5 cards with the Clerk.

Yeah, there's no point to buying Gambler after the first few turns. It's definitely an early game card.

As an early game card, I don't find Gambler to have a stronger effect than, say, Masquerade or other good cost 3 openers that have a bit of trashing. And I think its effect should be stronger than a Masquerade, since you're only going to get to play Gambler a few times before you're "forced" to trash it.

It also doesn't "feel" like a Gambling card, since the only gamble is whether or not it will get trashed. I usually think of gambling in association with a chance to make a lot of money, and getting the silver or other (fairly early-game) buy that I don't want to trash just isn't that big of a reward.

Hopefully Inventor is not too powerful.

I don't think it is too powerful. Probably similar strength to Cathedral (or a bit less), and it works well with money (like Smithy), but is more helpful near the end of the game, where Cathedral is a bit better earlier on.

Maybe Surveyor is underpowered as is, though.

To beef Surveyor, how about gaining the card on top of your deck? It seems like it would be fair to get to play it next turn, since you don't get to play it this turn as you have to discard it. You also might want to bump the cost up to 4 with that change since it might compare too favorably to Mint, for instance.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry I didn't respond to this for so long! I got distracted by Legend of Grimrock and only recently got back to updating this set. I actually wrote most of this post weeks ago but didn't actually submit it. The parts that I've just written today are marked with 'UPDATE'.

We used the version that gave one Cathedral token when gaining it, and the trashing was definitely used in every case. I don't think the card is too powerful. I think it is just a solid card and some of the other cards might not be powerful enough. It definitely works well with a money-based strategy, similar to how Courtyard works well with money.

I was trying to figure out an easy way to allow the purchasing of additional Cathedral tokens for more money when you buy the Cathedral (i.e. spend another coin (or two?) when purchasing the Cathedral to get another token with it). It could make for an interesting choice between getting a Gold at 6 or getting a Cathedral with 2 trash tokens... Might be worth trying.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm too gung-ho about allowing extra tokens for additional cash. I don't want Cathedral to get much more wordy or complex than it already is. It sounds like a good idea for a card in general, though.

I failed to gain a Gold with it when I played it. I think that happened at least one other time. The problem is that if you fail to get a gold with it, it is a significant setback, since it is a one-shot card that costs four and is then gone. To me it was more of a gamble than Gambler (bigger gain when you succeed, bigger loss when you fail). Perhaps make the self-trashing conditional on guessing correctly?

We also didn't think that it lived up to its name, since trashing one card from the supply doesn't significantly affect the supply. Also, it is rare that any one player would buy very many of them, since its main use is to get a Gold earlier on in the game and its utility decreases later on (plus it can be a bit harder to guess the Kingdom card later on).

You could change the text below the line to read "When you buy this or trash this..." so that you get two opportunities to trash from the supply per Monopoly, rather than one.

I really love these ideas. I think the trashing being conditional on a correct guess is a winner for sure. I also like the 'When you buy or trash this' idea, except if I phrase it that way, you'd be able to trash the entire Monopoly pile when you bought your first Monopoly. I'll try to phrase it another way such that you can trash more than one card per Monopoly bought. Perhaps 'When you buy this or play it', like Noble Brigand. I may give the card a dramatic overhaul.

I agree that the action effect of Clerk is not very good/interesting. Perhaps you could also let the person choose to leave one of the three cards on top of the deck? It seems kind of thematic, shuffling papers around on a desk, from the inbox to the outbox...

Yeah, I was trying to keep the theme a bit in mind when designing the action portion, more to give me ideas than anything. Although once I find an effect I like, I can easily change the name and art to match.

The real issue is that I basically need the action effect to be interesting, unique, situationally useful, and to fit on two or three lines, because the reaction effect takes up most of the space on the card. That's a pretty tall order.

UPDATE: I've decided that trying to make Clerk a balanced $2 card is too difficult. I've decided to bump its cost and I've thought up a more unique ability for it. Since its cost is now higher, I feel better about changing the reaction to allow an unlimited number of cards to be trashed.

Clerk
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Gain a Silver. Look through your discard pile and put a card from it on top of your deck.
------------------------------------------------------------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.

I'm going to playtest this version. I'll post later with my findings.

As an early game card, I don't find Gambler to have a stronger effect than, say, Masquerade or other good cost 3 openers that have a bit of trashing. And I think its effect should be stronger than a Masquerade, since you're only going to get to play Gambler a few times before you're "forced" to trash it.

It also doesn't "feel" like a Gambling card, since the only gamble is whether or not it will get trashed. I usually think of gambling in association with a chance to make a lot of money, and getting the silver or other (fairly early-game) buy that I don't want to trash just isn't that big of a reward.

Yeah, I'll admit it's ironic that Gambler is one of the 'safest' cards to buy. Thematically, the idea is that you're giving him stuff from your Kingdom to gamble away. Usually he loses (which is what you want), but eventually he 'wins'.

The big thing that Gambler has over Masquerade is its +1 Action. So it's really more comparable to Lookout, Spice Merchant, or even Loan. So opening Masquerade/Silver is way better than Gambler/Silver, but Gambler/Militia or Gambler/Monument should net you better results.

To beef Surveyor, how about gaining the card on top of your deck? It seems like it would be fair to get to play it next turn, since you don't get to play it this turn as you have to discard it. You also might want to bump the cost up to 4 with that change since it might compare too favorably to Mint, for instance.

I'd also considered this option. My idea was actually to put the revealed card back onto your deck instead of gaining the new card onto your deck, but they amount to the same thing unless the Supply pile for the card is empty, in which case you probably wouldn't reveal a card anyhow.

UPDATE: Instead of changing how the card works, I've decided to drop Surveyor's cost from $3 to $2. I think it'll be much more palatable at the lower price point. It's the kind of card you'd be happy to pick up with an extra buy and a couple of extra coins.

UPDATE: Also, I've decided to try Fund out at $5 and without the 'discard your hand' bit. Even I was forgetting to discard my hand every time I played it. It'll work a lot differently, since before it specifically prevented mega-turns and now you pretty much need one in order for them to really shine. I'm not a big fan of mega-turn-based decks, but I know some people are, and the card's wording is much simpler this way.

[theory]

These are amazing cards.  I love them!

[LastFootnote]

These are amazing cards.  I love them!

Wow! With that vote of confidence, I'm starting to think this expansion may be close to completion. I'd still like to playtest the cards a bit more, but pretty soon I'll finalize it and post it on BGG for wider consumption.

[aestrivex]

I like the set.  I really like fund, cathedral, and barracks.  I have a couple of balancing comments.

I'm not sure why aqueduct costs 4 and not 3.  It is not clear to me anyway that the effect of aqueduct is more powerful than tunnel.  Probably this is a very minor point because the number of situations in which you would actually want to buy aqueduct in most games is limited to endgame, and in those situations rarely does the difference between a 3-cost victory card and a 4-cost victory card matter.  However this could come up in the context of a gardens/silk rush, in which case aqueduct is more reasonably costed and much more useful at 3. (unless you argue that its one time effect is so powerful that it automatically merits 4 -- but this strikes me as a weak argument).

Inventor is correctly costed at 5 since it is strictly better than smithy.  That said, it seems a somewhat weak 5.  I realize that you have been twiddling with inventor but I'm not sure it "fits" quite yet.  As you know 5s are the premier level of actions in dominion.  This card is something I would envision buying probably only if a) i need drawing power and there is no other viable alternative in the spread or b) by chance if i hit 5 and there is nothing else that i really want.  Its remodel effect is potentially helpful, but that you can only use it once makes it exclusively an endgame card.  That means that if there are other drawers at 5 I would never buy this thing -- i would take rabble over inventor probably 100% of the time and i think rabble's attack is very weak.

I think barracks could option into a village, but that it is fine as it is.  The exact effect of the option seems very unimportant to balancing it, because the real point of the card is the ability to just play an attack from your deck.

[LastFootnote]

I'm not sure why aqueduct costs 4 and not 3.  It is not clear to me anyway that the effect of aqueduct is more powerful than tunnel.  Probably this is a very minor point because the number of situations in which you would actually want to buy aqueduct in most games is limited to endgame, and in those situations rarely does the difference between a 3-cost victory card and a 4-cost victory card matter.  However this could come up in the context of a gardens/silk rush, in which case aqueduct is more reasonably costed and much more useful at 3. (unless you argue that its one time effect is so powerful that it automatically merits 4 -- but this strikes me as a weak argument).

Well, the comparison between Tunnel and Aqueduct is misleading. You generally buy Tunnel for one of two things. First, you can buy it in the endgame when you have $3 or $4. At that point, it might as well just be a Victory card worth 2 VP. Even if you happen to use the reaction portion before the game ends, you probably won't be cycling back around to the Gold. Will I pay $3 just for a vanilla Victory card worth 2VP? Of course. It beats buying an Estate.

Second, you can buy it at the start of the game and try to use its reaction as much as possible. That's a fairly big risk. You're buying a card that's going to hurt your economy if you can't get it to fire, when you could have bought a Silver. You get 2 VP to compensate, but you don't see that benefit for a long time and it's rather paltry compared to your potential loss of momentum. So, would I pay $3 for a pure Reaction card that gained me Gold on discard? Given the right helper cards, I definitely would.

It seems like a card that combines these two $3 effects should be worth more than $3. But the fact that you use one portion of the card during the beginning and mid-game and the other only at the end means that the total can cost less than the sum of its parts.

Aqueduct, on the other hand, is almost always an endgame card. If you compare it to Tunnel, you should be comparing it to endgame Tunnel. Endgame Tunnel is 2 VP for $3. Endgame Aqueduct is 2 VP plus a bonus for $4. Seems correct to me.

Inventor is correctly costed at 5 since it is strictly better than smithy.  That said, it seems a somewhat weak 5.  I realize that you have been twiddling with inventor but I'm not sure it "fits" quite yet.  As you know 5s are the premier level of actions in dominion.  This card is something I would envision buying probably only if a) i need drawing power and there is no other viable alternative in the spread or b) by chance if i hit 5 and there is nothing else that i really want.  Its remodel effect is potentially helpful, but that you can only use it once makes it exclusively an endgame card.  That means that if there are other drawers at 5 I would never buy this thing -- i would take rabble over inventor probably 100% of the time and i think rabble's attack is very weak.

Now that I've improved Clerk and replaced Monopoly with Boycott, Inventor has become the card in this set that I'm least happy with. I agree that as an engine component, it's the worst of the card drawers. I was hoping that its endgame remodeling utility would be enough to justify that. Perhaps I was wrong. It's certainly the card in the set that I find the least interesting and that I'm most willing to change at this point. I'll try to brainstorm some ideas for it.

I think barracks could option into a village, but that it is fine as it is.  The exact effect of the option seems very unimportant to balancing it, because the real point of the card is the ability to just play an attack from your deck.

Yes. The idea was that if you had other terminal Actions in your hand, you'd choose the Village-like effect. If not, you'd dig for an Attack card. In reality it shows up in your hand with just one other Action a lot of the time, a la Shanty Town. I'm OK with this, at least for now. I'm willing to alter the non-Attack option, but I'd like it not to be too wordy.

Thanks for your feedback!

[eHalcyon]

Perhaps you could improve Inventor by making it a one-shot Expand instead of Remodel?  That might be too powerful though.

[LastFootnote]

Perhaps you could improve Inventor by making it a one-shot Expand instead of Remodel?  That might be too powerful though.

Well, that is certainly an option, although I think I'd rather improve the non-one-shot component of it to make it a more palatable purchase before the endgame. Perhaps I'll end up doing both.

[LastFootnote]

OK, here's a new, slightly altered version of Inventor:

Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Discard one and draw the rest. You may trash this card immediately. If you do, trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

[aestrivex]

Aqueduct, on the other hand, is almost always an endgame card. If you compare it to Tunnel, you should be comparing it to endgame Tunnel. Endgame Tunnel is 2 VP for $3. Endgame Aqueduct is 2 VP plus a bonus for $4. Seems correct to me.

fair enough.

[aestrivex]

OK, here's a new, slightly altered version of Inventor:

Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Discard one and draw the rest. You may trash this card immediately. If you do, trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

i think this is much better.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry to necro my own thread, but I'm wrapping up this expansion soon and I'm looking for feedback on a few changes I've made.


The original version of Barracks was:

Barracks
Type: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +2 Actions; or reveal cards from your deck until you reavel an Attack card, discard the other revealed cards, and play that Attack card.
When you gain this, gain a Conscripts card (from the Conscripts pile).

One issue with this version was that the +2 Actions was pretty much never useful. A village that doesn't draw is pretty bad in general, but in a game with Curses being thrown around (a.k.a. most games with Barracks), it's nigh useless. Also, in games with no other Attack cards, you had to buy a crappy Barracks for each Conscripts. That's one useless card for you for each round of Curses you gave to your opponents. It's almost never worth it.

So here's the new version, which keeps the core mechanics the same while dramatically changing how it plays.

Barracks
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain a Conscripts card (from the Conscripts pile); or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the other revealed cards.

So far I really like this version. It seems to play quite differently depending on whether there are other Attack cards available or not, but in both cases there are interesting tactical decisions to be made.


After about 4 wildly different iterations of Inventor, I've finally returned to a version very similar to my original idea for the card (which predates this thread).

Inventor
Type: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action and set this card aside on your Inventor mat.
At the start of your turn, you may remove this from your Inventor mat and put it into your hand.

This may not seem like it could be worth $5, but with smart play, you can really get a lot out of it. Just off the top of my head, here are some uses for it:

1. If you've got a Village/Inventor engine and you know that using your last action to play Inventor will probably result in drawing a bunch of dead Action cards, you can instead save it for the next turn you have a Village in hand.
2. In a big money deck, you can save it if you already have enough coins in hand to buy whatever card you want to buy, especially if you don't want to trigger a reshuffle.
3. If you're building a mega-turn deck, you can buy Inventors and put them all onto your mat as they come up, then at the beginning of your last turn, put them all into your hand, giving you a huge initial handsize increase.
4. With Throne Room, you can use the first play of Inventor to draw 3 cards, then if you drew an Action and/or you have enough money in hand, you can play it again for +1 Action and set it aside.


I'm thinking of nerfing Cathedral. It's a really strong big money enabler as it stands, on par with Wharf. I'm considering having it trash 2 cards from your hand rather than the top 2 cards of your deck when you spend a token. Or maybe that wouldn't even be a nerf, depending on what stage of the game you're at. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.


Finally, I've replaced all of the dull-brown coin symbols on the cards with more authentic bright yellow versions.

I'm on the home stretch with this set and I want it to be the best it can be. Thanks in advance for any feedback!

[werothegreat]

Well done.  In Mill Town, you've finally created a card that would make me want a Counting House.

[Ozle]

These are all really good!

[PigFiend]

Really cool theme and very polished presentation. Good job!

Clerk's reaction seems very very powerful. If you start Chapel, you might trash four cards and buy a Silver over turns 3 and 4. Clerk can get that all accomplished in one hand! And the Silver will be on top of the deck! I'm not saying that's bad necessarily, for a card to scare people away from Sea Hag.

Mill Town and Aqueduct are my kind of cards. I'd love to play with them. Can you imagine this turn 3?
Hand: 2 Coppers, Estate, Mill Town, Watchtower.
Mill Town to draw a Copper. Discard the Estate, reveal 3 Coppers to gain a Mill Town that goes on top of the deck via Watchtower.
Watchtower to draw three cards, maybe Mill Town, Copper, Estate.
Mill Town to draw a Copper. Discard the Estate. Reveal 5 Coppers to gain a nasty 5.

On subsequent turns, Mill Towning to gain an Aqueduct (that you might trash with WT) to make sure what you'll get from WTing is just Mill Towns and Coppers is wild. Very exciting!

[PigFiend]

Hmm. Also, Cathedral big money looks really really really powerful. It's a one-time trasher (that is almost guaranteed to blow 2 Estates) and the best of both worlds in Smithy and Courtyard. A Cathedral - Nothing start is likely super strong.

Can you imagine Cathedral with Mint? Cathedral would likely set up a turn with 6 Coppers to buy Mint. Later on it would throw Mint plus Silver/Gold/etc back on top.

[engineer]

I haven't had a chance to play with any of these cards, but they certainly look great.  I like your designs -- novel, but not unnecessarily complex.

Also, the artwork is incredible.  Where did you get it? Did somebody on the forum make those pictures for you?

[LastFootnote]

Well done.  In Mill Town, you've finally created a card that would make me want a Counting House.

These are all really good!

I haven't had a chance to play with any of these cards, but they certainly look great.  I like your designs -- novel, but not unnecessarily complex.

Also, the artwork is incredible.  Where did you get it? Did somebody on the forum make those pictures for you?

Thanks! As for the artwork, I found it mostly through Google searches. Not all of it is in the public domain, but for a fan expansion that won't be published, I figured it wouldn't be a huge deal.

Clerk's reaction seems very very powerful. If you start Chapel, you might trash four cards and buy a Silver over turns 3 and 4. Clerk can get that all accomplished in one hand! And the Silver will be on top of the deck! I'm not saying that's bad necessarily, for a card to scare people away from Sea Hag.

Ah, you have a keen eye. Clerk does make buying Attacks on turns 1 and 2 riskier, but after that it's not really a big factor. The chance that you'll have a Clerk and four cards that you want to trash on turn 5 onwards is pretty slim and it only gets slimmer. So although I was also concerned about it, is hasn't turned out to be a problem in practice.

Hmm. Also, Cathedral big money looks really really really powerful. It's a one-time trasher (that is almost guaranteed to blow 2 Estates) and the best of both worlds in Smithy and Courtyard. A Cathedral - Nothing start is likely super strong.

You are correct, sir, and I'm going to tweak Cathedral again. I'm currently considering something like this:

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+4 Cards. Return 2 cards to the top of your deck. You may spend a Cathedral token. If you do, trash the top card of your deck and gain a card with the same cost.
When you gain this, take 2 Cathedral tokens.

I'm waiting for the rest of the Dark Ages reveal to make sure there isn't a card that's too similar to this effect. There are several other very minor tweaks I'm going to make to the cards at that time as well. (Gambler looks at your top card rather than revealing it. Conscripts gets returned to the Conscripts pile when played rather than being trashed, etc.)

[Polk5440]

I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?

Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.

First of all, nice mini-set utilizing the one-shot theme!

One thing I thought of when reading the cards:

I don't think your concern about gaining too many cards with Mill Town and running out piles should be limited to just $2 cards. I think Mill Town would be a go-to card a lot of the time.

For instance, have you played any Mill Town - Tactician - terminal draw games? Goal: get a a deck of 2 Tacticians, 8 Coppers, and as many Mill Towns and Smithies as possible (making sure #Smithies < # Mill Towns at all times). Mill Town's gain and your normal buy should accomplish this very quickly. Then double Tac and reveal 8 Coppers for Provinces. I played this solitaire for two games and exhaused the Province pile on turn 11 in game 1 and turn 10 in game 2. Contested, the Mill Town and Smithy pile would run out extremely quickly. 

[LastFootnote]

I'm a big fan of this one, but Mill Town might run faster if you "reveal 3 or more Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing up to the number of Coppers revealed" since we wouldn't be stuck in the awkward analysis-paralysis of trying not to reveal too many or too few Coppers. Why can't Mill Town gain a card that costs $2, anyway?

Well, the reason that Mill Town can't gain $2 cards is that I was afraid that it would be too easy to run out piles with it. A hand with 3 Mill Towns and 2 Coppers could gain 4 Estates, after all. Now that I think about it, I see no real problem with the gaining being 'up to' the number of Coppers revealed as long as you still have to reveal at least 3 Coppers. I'll change the wording. I think I actually have to reword the card anyway, because as it's currently written, I think you could gain, say, a Familiar by revealing 3 Coppers.

First of all, nice mini-set utilizing the one-shot theme!

One thing I thought of when reading the cards:

I don't think your concern about gaining too many cards with Mill Town and running out piles should be limited to just $2 cards. I think Mill Town would be a go-to card a lot of the time.

For instance, have you played any Mill Town - Tactician - terminal draw games? Goal: get a a deck of 2 Tacticians, 8 Coppers, and as many Mill Towns and Smithies as possible (making sure #Smithies < # Mill Towns at all times). Mill Town's gain and your normal buy should accomplish this very quickly. Then double Tac and reveal 8 Coppers for Provinces. I played this solitaire for two games and exhaused the Province pile on turn 11 in game 1 and turn 10 in game 2. Contested, the Mill Town and Smithy pile would run out extremely quickly.

I think your point is extremely valid and clearly Tactician/Mill Town is a power combo. Probably it's even better than Tactician/Coppersmith or Tactician/Bank. That being said, it is just one combination and I'm not convinced that it's worth tweaking Mill Town over, when the card works quite well in general as it is. For one thing, even if all the players race for such a double-Tactician deck, I'm guessing the it might still be an interesting game. Even if it's not, at least it's short!

More importantly, there are several attacks that at least hamper that strategy. Junk-givers and discard-based attacks are probably the most effective, although concentrated trashing attacks might be viable as well.

[Polk5440]

I was thinking about a couple of different ways to reign in Mill Town if you were inclined:

1) Put a clause in the text so that you cannot gain Mill Towns with Mill Towns (and remove the at least 3 Coppers clause) because my feeling is that more problems arise from quickly getting too many Mill Towns than running out a $2 pile.
OR
2) Change "discard a card" to "discard a Copper or reveal a hand without Coppers," reducing the power of multiple gains.

[LastFootnote]

I was thinking about a couple of different ways to reign in Mill Town if you were inclined:

1) Put a clause in the text so that you cannot gain Mill Towns with Mill Towns (and remove the at least 3 Coppers clause) because my feeling is that more problems arise from quickly getting too many Mill Towns than running out a $2 pile.
OR
2) Change "discard a card" to "discard a Copper or reveal a hand without Coppers," reducing the power of multiple gains.

Well, change 2 pretty much kills the card dead in any game without Tactician or Counting House. You'd pretty much never want it. So that's not a change I'm willing to make. I'll have to think about change 1. It's possible I can do something along those lines. I also might play a few games with Tactician and see how much of an issue I think it is.

Thanks for the feedback and ideas!

[LastFootnote]

I've completed my post-Dark Ages overhaul of Dominion: Enterprise. This is the third major iteration of this set and I decided to keep the same thread this time, rather than create a whole new one.

Here are the changes I've made:

Surveyor and Gambler received wording changes but are functionally the same. Gambler now has you look at the top card of your deck rather than revealing it, since the reveal wasn't necessary to keep you honest.

Boycott got bumped from +$2 to +$3 when played to give more incentive for going for it. I may also add a +1 Buy.

Mercenary got a name change to Enforcer because of the Dark Ages card with the same name.

I've replaced Aqueduct with Floodgate. They both fulfill the role of, "buy this to make your next hand better", but Floodgate is far more compelling and versatile.

Barracks lost the parentheses around "from the Conscripts pile". I jazzed up Conscripts itself to make it worth gaining when the Curses have run out. It used to just read, "+$2. Trash this card. Each other player gains a Curse." Now you get to choose two options from a list of four. Also, Barracks and Conscripts combo a bit better this way. If they collide, you can use Barracks to dig for another Attack card, then use Conscripts to give out a Curse (or whatever) and then play the other Attack card. Also, rather than Conscripts trashing itself, it now goes back to the Conscripts pile. Finally, the Conscripts pile is 16 cards, using up the remaining cards in the hypothetical 150-card box.

I'm a bit worried that Conscripts will still be too weak. It is a one-shot that you sacrifice quite a lot of time to acquire. I might try it with the '+$2' and 'gain a Silver' options replaced by '+$3' and 'gain a Gold', but that might not be necessary. Cursing is powerful as-is.

I've cut Cathedral from the set entirely. It was too similar to Courtyard and way too powerful for simple big money strategies. In its place I tried 3 different cards that I've posted to this forum, and for now I've settled on an updated version of Exchange. It still needs some more playtesting, but it's the card I like the best so far in this slot. I'd like to have a Remodel variant and it's also nice to have another pure one-shot in the set.

Fund has received another major overhaul. I pulled the cost reduction in favor of just having it produce +$4/+1 Buy once as its one-shot effect, deciding that wasn't too powerful for $5 after all. I also incorporated Cathedral's 'one-shot that doesn't leave your deck' idea into it. See, it's a Silver that you can use once for the extra cash and buy. Then it just reverts to a regular Silver. This was a way I could do this concept without using tokens, which I had to use for Cathedral. If possible, I'd like to have this set be free of extra components.

Inventor is almost functionally identical to its most recent iteration. Before you either drew 3 cards or +1 Action and set it aside on your Inventor mat, where you could pull it back to your hand at the beginning of any turn. I realized that this is pretty much the same as having it just return to your hand at the start of your next turn, since you could then just set it aside again at no penalty. That way it wouldn't need a mat, so I made the change.

Tax Collector lost its +1 Buy (which felt tacked on to me). That leaves the set with only one +Buy card (Fund), but I might be OK with that in a set with so much gaining. Also, the attack no longer hits cards costing $2. I think it needed that buff, but more playtesting could prove me wrong.

That's it! Thanks once again to everybody who has given feedback and suggestions. You've helped make this set as good as it is, and it's a set that I really enjoy playing. So, thanks again and thanks in advance for any future feedback!

[Bron]

I just found out that maybe Exchange has a problematic wording: Trash this .... For each trashed card gain ...  Does this mean that I get $7 card?

One question: Isn't BigMoney + Inventor (where you always buy it at $5 and maybe sometimes at $6) very strong strategy?

[LastFootnote]

I just found out that maybe Exchange has a problematic wording: Trash this .... For each trashed card gain ...  Does this mean that I get $7 card?

Heh, good call. I may have to reword that.

One question: Isn't BigMoney + Inventor (where you always buy it at $5 and maybe sometimes at $6) very strong strategy?

Well, that's a good question. I'll run a test to find out. Thanks!

[SirPeebles]

In Big Money I don't see Inventor being all *that* strong.  Catacombs seems quite a bit stronger, for instance.

Edit:  oh, I didn't notice that you get +1 action if you "haven" it.  yeah, it is seems rather strong now, since that prevents collisions. If you just have Inventor top deck itself along with the +1 action, then you would get a similar sense of saving it for later, but only if you don't continue drawing now.

[LastFootnote]

It's not a statistically significant sample, but preliminary tests suggest that BigMoney/Inventor is way, way weaker than BigMoney/Envoy. Part of it is that Inventor costs $5, which is significantly more expensive than $4 and also means that you can't open Inventor/Silver. Another part of it is that, while Inventors in hand don't collide, any Inventors you draw dead are still dead. I'll run some more tests, but I'm not too worried at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being weaker than BigMoney/Smithy on average.

[SirPeebles]

Well, I believe that the proper way to compare it with BM/Smithy is to buy one Smithy and then Inventors after that.  I think this hybrid should beat both BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor.

[LastFootnote]

Well, I believe that the proper way to compare it with BM/Smithy is to buy one Smithy and then Inventors after that.  I think this hybrid should beat both BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor.

Really? Why? That assumes that Smithy and Inventor are always going to be on the same board. Even if it ends up being a powerful combo, I don't think that says much about Inventor's power in a vacuum.

[SirPeebles]

Well, I believe that the proper way to compare it with BM/Smithy is to buy one Smithy and then Inventors after that.  I think this hybrid should beat both BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor.

Really? Why? That assumes that Smithy and Inventor are always going to be on the same board. Even if it ends up being a powerful combo, I don't think that says much about Inventor's power in a vacuum.

If BM/Smithy and BM/Inventor are competing against one another, it means both Smithy and Inventor are in the supply.  Unless one of the those BMs is Black Market.

[Bron]

But often people would say that if X beats Y then X fares better against Z then Y would. This is often not true but I think that it is a reasonable starting point. So if you want to compare BM+Inventor against some (average) strategy X you can do BM+Inventor vs. BM+Smithy and extrapolate from your "intuitive" knowledge of BM+Smithy. In this sense it is reasonable to prohibit BM+Inventor from buying Smithy since against X it need not be available.

Does this make any sense?

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, the speed of BM+X is more of a benchmark than anything. How fast can it get to 4 Provinces, 5 Provinces, 8 Provinces, etc. The worry here is that BM+Inventor is too powerful, which is concerning because it could make for really boring games where everyone just plays that strategy. However, if I determine that BM+Inventor is no more powerful than BM+Smithy or BM+Envoy, then I'm OK with it. Smithy+Inventor is starting to get into combo territory, and I don't have any issues with that.

[brokoli]

I think this is really the first time I like fan made cards other than mine ! 
Well, not all cards, but Mill town, Floodgate and inventor seems especially promising. Good job !
EDIT : Oh, sorry I forgot Boycott. I think it's even my favourite of your set !

[Qvist]

I don't think Inventor+BM is too strong. It's somewhat similar to Library+BM, but reverse. 2 Libraries in hand could collide but you can't draw Libraries dead. 2 Inventors in hand can't collide, but you can draw them dead.

[Polatrite]

I played with Inventor several times in my group, and basically any board with +2 actions would yield Inventor extremely powerful, such that it was almost a better investment than some of the best $5s in the game.

I think the power level of the card could be adjusted by having the Inventor set back on top of your deck instead of off to the side, because basically as written you wind up with a card advantage on the following turn (6 cards instead of 5) and you can continue to set it aside forever at no opportunity cost whatsoever if you don't get the +actions draw that you need.

[ShinKyo]

What a wonderful Fan-Expansion! Really like the new ideas which seams all well-thought-out. Professional work!
I have a Mod-Suggestion for the Inventor which obviously is a bit too strong for some players.
This would limit the set-aside-flood (inpired by the wonderful Shanty Town):
What would you think of this?

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards

So it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).

[GendoIkari]

Haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, so not sure if this has been discussed... just wondering if you've had a chance to test these along side Graverobber or Rogue. It seems to me that one-shots in general may be more powerful when there is the possibility of getting them back.

[Archetype]

I suggest you change up Clerk a bit, the action part is a bit too similar to Scavenger. Maybe it's fine though.

Still love your cards LastFootnote, nice job!

[LastFootnote]

I played with Inventor several times in my group, and basically any board with +2 actions would yield Inventor extremely powerful, such that it was almost a better investment than some of the best $5s in the game.

I think the power level of the card could be adjusted by having the Inventor set back on top of your deck instead of off to the side, because basically as written you wind up with a card advantage on the following turn (6 cards instead of 5) and you can continue to set it aside forever at no opportunity cost whatsoever if you don't get the +actions draw that you need.

Hey, welcome to the forums! Thanks for testing Inventor! I might test it a bit more in its current form, but now that I've gotten feedback from multiple people about it being too powerful, I'm thinking seriously about tweaking it. Since you've tested it, your feedback is particularly valuable, so if you have anything else to add concerning Inventor, or if you decide to test any of my other cards, please let me know!

What would you think of this?

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards

So it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).

I appreciate the suggestion! However, I'm worried that it's a bit confusing and I can't think of a rewording that would really simplify it. However, I will definitely keep it on the table as an option.

Currently, I'm considering two other ways to nerf the card.

Option 1 (Polatrite's suggestion):
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action and put this on top of your deck.

Option 2:
Choose one: +3 Cards; or set this aside, returning it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Right now I'm leaning strongly toward Polatrite's version. It has some weirdness in that you could play the same Inventor multiple times in a turn, but now that I think about it, Procession/Fortress does that too. With that change, multiple Inventors can collide, because if you put one back on your deck, you'll just draw it dead with the other one. However, you could put them both back and hope there's a village in the three other cards you draw next turn. The more I think about it, the more I like the strategy it could create. I just hope it's still strong enough to be a decent $5 card with this nerf.

Haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, so not sure if this has been discussed... just wondering if you've had a chance to test these along side Graverobber or Rogue. It seems to me that one-shots in general may be more powerful when there is the possibility of getting them back.

I haven't tested those combinations yet, but they sound like fun! I definitely think that Graverobber (and to a lesser extent Rogue) combo well with one-shots, although the pedant in me would argue that those cards don't make one-shots more powerful. Rather, one-shots make those cards more powerful because they make it far more likely that there's something worthwhile in the trash. But that's just me nitpicking. Your point is perfectly valid.

I suggest you change up Clerk a bit, the action part is a bit too similar to Scavenger. Maybe it's fine though.

*sigh*
…You're probably right. It's just a shame because it took so long for me to come up with Clerk's top half. It's an effect that doesn't really change in utility with the number of cards in your hand, which is nice on a reaction that can leave you with a very small hand. Although it might be nice to have that reaction on a card that doesn't fill your deck with Silver, which tends to get in the way of the trashing.

On a side note, I do think it's interesting how Donald and I came up with different ways to make sure the 'pull a card from your discard' effect didn't fail.

Anyhow, I'm thinking of replacing the top half with a card idea I came up with a while ago, which I called Valet.

Clerk/Valet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. For each one, in either order, choose one: draw it; or +$1 and put it back.
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.

How does that strike you? Now that it has the trashing reaction, it's even more like a variation of Steward. The +Cards and +Coins part is much more versatile, but it can only trash when an Attack is played. Weird.

Anyhow, thanks again everybody for your encouragement and feedback!

[ShinKyo]

What would you think of this?

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 Cards

So it's much more difficult to set aside more as one Inventor but it's still possible if you have enough actions or you can play some Inventors before with a 'village' which certainly increase the chance of holding to many of it in hand. The annoying case of holding only one Inventor in hand without 'villages' gives you the set-aside-function and the action for another action card in hand (similar to Shanty Town without action cards in hand).

I appreciate the suggestion! However, I'm worried that it's a bit confusing and I can't think of a rewording that would really simplify it. However, I will definitely keep it on the table as an option.

Currently, I'm considering two other ways to nerf the card.

Option 1 (Polatrite's suggestion):
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action and put this on top of your deck.

Option 2:
Choose one: +3 Cards; or set this aside, returning it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Right now I'm leaning strongly toward Polatrite's version. It has some weirdness in that you could play the same Inventor multiple times in a turn, but now that I think about it, Procession/Fortress does that too. With that change, multiple Inventors can collide, because if you put one back on your deck, you'll just draw it dead with the other one. However, you could put them both back and hope there's a village in the three other cards you draw next turn. The more I think about it, the more I like the strategy it could create. I just hope it's still strong enough to be a decent $5 card with this nerf.

Are you really worried, my version would be a bit confusing? Do you mean it serious? I mean Possession with Dark Ages cards could be very confusing but to look if there is another Inventor in hand isn't more confusing as a Shanty Town.
There would be only four different possibilities:
1. You have only one Inventor and no other action card in hand. You can play it, and possibly draw cards dead or you can reveal your hand (no other Inventor there) set the card aside und get the action back which has sadly no use (only for Diadem maybe )
2. Same as 1. but you have another action card in hand and can play it.
3. You have more than one Inventor in hand and also other action cards. You can choose +3 cards or set only one Inventor aside and cannot play another action card or you can think if it's more worthwhile to play another action card first.
4. Same as 3. but only Inventors in hand. You can set aside only one Inventor and cannot play another. Or play an Inventor like a Smithy.

I think this is really easy and it would be fun to think about playing it mostly productive. This would definitly be a 5 cost card cause the possibility to set aside more than one is still there and you can get more than 5 cards at beginning of your turn.
At Polatrite's version I don't know why I should put more than one or two of it on top of my deck. It more and more decreases the chance of getting it together with a 'village'. If there isn't a way to get more than 1 action then a carddraw after putting Inventors on top would make absolutly no sense and no fun. For example Inventor and CanTrip in hand. The only wise would be playing the CanTrip first then the Inventor to put it on top (otherwise draw dead problem). The other way around you would draw the Inventor instead of a new card, not a good move. The costs for this version would probably be at 4.5, a weak 5. Option 2 would also be too weak and not really fun.
Hope to see your expansion someday as real cards from RGG. After Donald has finished his series maybe an official Fan-Expansion existing of FanCard-Contests winner cards could come out. Perhaps Donald was asked something like that before?

[Drab Emordnilap]

Anyhow, I'm thinking of replacing the top half with a card idea I came up with a while ago, which I called Valet.

Clerk/Valet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. For each one, in either order, choose one: draw it; or +$1 and put it back.
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.

How does that strike you? Now that it has the trashing reaction, it's even more like a variation of Steward. The +Cards and +Coins part is much more versatile, but it can only trash when an Attack is played. Weird.

Anyhow, thanks again everybody for your encouragement and feedback!

I'm concerned that this reaction is too strong. The problem with very strong attack reactions is you having this makes me not want to buy attacks in the first place, and then your cool reaction ability never happens, so you won't want to buy this card.

[One Armed Man]

I don't think Clerk needs to have its ability changed from "Gain a Silver. TopDeck a discarded card". If anything, a discard should be required when using the trash any number reaction.

I had a trash reaction in mind for a card; I didn't use it because I had seen Clerk, but that reaction was set itself aside and 1 trash. It got your hand size down to 3 for Militia, Ghost Ship, etc.

[LastFootnote]

Are you really worried, my version would be a bit confusing? Do you mean it serious? I mean Possession with Dark Ages cards could be very confusing but to look if there is another Inventor in hand isn't more confusing as a Shanty Town.
There would be only four different possibilities:
1. You have only one Inventor and no other action card in hand. You can play it, and possibly draw cards dead or you can reveal your hand (no other Inventor there) set the card aside und get the action back which has sadly no use (only for Diadem maybe )
2. Same as 1. but you have another action card in hand and can play it.
3. You have more than one Inventor in hand and also other action cards. You can choose +3 cards or set only one Inventor aside and cannot play another action card or you can think if it's more worthwhile to play another action card first.
4. Same as 3. but only Inventors in hand. You can set aside only one Inventor and cannot play another. Or play an Inventor like a Smithy.

I think this is really easy and it would be fun to think about playing it mostly productive. This would definitly be a 5 cost card cause the possibility to set aside more than one is still there and you can get more than 5 cards at beginning of your turn.
At Polatrite's version I don't know why I should put more than one or two of it on top of my deck. It more and more decreases the chance of getting it together with a 'village'. If there isn't a way to get more than 1 action then a carddraw after putting Inventors on top would make absolutly no sense and no fun. For example Inventor and CanTrip in hand. The only wise would be playing the CanTrip first then the Inventor to put it on top (otherwise draw dead problem). The other way around you would draw the Inventor instead of a new card, not a good move. The costs for this version would probably be at 4.5, a weak 5. Option 2 would also be too weak and not really fun.

Maybe 'confusing' is the wrong word. It's more like, if a card gives you two options, it seems…weird to me that if you choose one option, you then reveal your hand and it's like, "Oops! You can't do that option after all." I mean I understand how the card works. If you have another Inventor in your hand, you just wouldn't choose that option. Like if there are no other Action cards in your hand, you wouldn't play Gravedigger for the trash-and-gain option. So it's not unprecedented. It just seems awkward to me. I think 'awkward' is a better word for how I feel about it than 'confusing'.

Actually, now that I look at the card and your description again, I realize that I didn't understand how it worked. So if you choose the set aside option and reveal an Inventor, you still set it aside, but you don't get the +1 Action? It wasn't clear to me which parts of the instructions would happen under which circumstances.

I really appreciate the idea, don't get me wrong. It's possible that the card will end up incorporating this idea. I just have concerns about it.

Anyhow, I'm thinking of replacing the top half with a card idea I came up with a while ago, which I called Valet.

Clerk/Valet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. For each one, in either order, choose one: draw it; or +$1 and put it back.
When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.

How does that strike you? Now that it has the trashing reaction, it's even more like a variation of Steward. The +Cards and +Coins part is much more versatile, but it can only trash when an Attack is played. Weird.

Anyhow, thanks again everybody for your encouragement and feedback!

I'm concerned that this reaction is too strong. The problem with very strong attack reactions is you having this makes me not want to buy attacks in the first place, and then your cool reaction ability never happens, so you won't want to buy this card.

Well, I can't speak for the reaction ability with the new top half of the card; I haven't tested that yet. However, the reaction ability seemed fine alongside the 'gain a Silver' top half. It does discourage buying Attacks on turns 1 and 2, but really that's about it. After that, the chance that you'll get it in hand with more than one or two cards you want to trash is pretty slim. Moreover, you get the most out of trashing a bunch of cards when you're building an engine. And with a bunch of Silver in your deck, that becomes less practical. All that being said…

I don't think Clerk needs to have its ability changed from "Gain a Silver. TopDeck a discarded card". If anything, a discard should be required when using the trash any number reaction.

I had a trash reaction in mind for a card; I didn't use it because I had seen Clerk, but that reaction was set itself aside and 1 trash. It got your hand size down to 3 for Militia, Ghost Ship, etc.

The reason I've stuck with revealing the card rather than discarding/setting aside is that I wanted Clerk to have the ability to trash itself once it outlived its utility. That being said, I don't think it's ever happened in a real game, so I should probably let go of that idea. I really like your version of the reaction. Would it be OK if I adopted it? I'd at least like to test it out.

As far as changing the top goes, I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world to leave it the way it is and have it be similar to Scavenger. It's less unique than it was, but it certainly plays differently.

[ShinKyo]

Maybe 'confusing' is the wrong word. It's more like, if a card gives you two options, it seems…weird to me that if you choose one option, you then reveal your hand and it's like, "Oops! You can't do that option after all." I mean I understand how the card works. If you have another Inventor in your hand, you just wouldn't choose that option. Like if there are no other Action cards in your hand, you wouldn't play Gravedigger for the trash-and-gain option. So it's not unprecedented. It just seems awkward to me. I think 'awkward' is a better word for how I feel about it than 'confusing'.

Actually, now that I look at the card and your description again, I realize that I didn't understand how it worked. So if you choose the set aside option and reveal an Inventor, you still set it aside, but you don't get the +1 Action? It wasn't clear to me which parts of the instructions would happen under which circumstances.

I really appreciate the idea, don't get me wrong. It's possible that the card will end up incorporating this idea. I just have concerns about it.

Now you understand it.  I think the card text cannot be clearer. If there is a 'Choose one' all until the 'or' is the first option, then the rest until the next 'or' is the second option and so on. If you cannot set aside one Inventor if there are other Inventors in hand it would be really dumb. Such a thing I wouldn't put on a card. Trust me, I have some experience in card design. I only want to limit the too easy way to put all aside for the next turn without thinking.

Edit: Ah, you probably have missed the important point after the +1 Action. So the wording again:

Code: [Select]

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
or
+3 CardsMaybe it's better to switch at the first option like this:

Code: [Select]

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
or
+3 Cardsor completely switch the options:

Code: [Select]

Inventor - Action - Cost: 5 Coins
Choose one:
+3 Cards
or
Set this card aside, returning it to your hand of the start of your next turn.
Reveal your hand. If you have no Inventor in hand: +1 Action.
But then someone maybe could think that the reveal counts for both options.

[One Armed Man]

Would it be OK if I adopted it? I'd at least like to test it out.

You are more than welcome to. Happy to help.

[LastFootnote]

I've finally gotten a bit more playtesting in with the cards, and I've made a few tweaks.

First of all, the wording on Exchange is fixed so that it doesn't count itself as a 'trashed card' for the purposes of gaining cards. (Thanks, Bron!) The wording of Enforcer has been simplified, but it's functionally the same.

Conscripts has had its '+$2' and 'gain a Silver' options replaced with '+$3' and 'gain a Gold'. It turns out this is not too powerful after all, since Conscripts is a one-shot that you sacrifice a fair bit of time to get your hands on.

I'm testing a new version of Clerk (I'm trying to differentiate it from Scavenger), but I'm not sure I'm happy with it yet. It digs for an Action to leave on top, and my wife used it and some Tunnels to empty the Gold pile and win handily. I probably didn't play my best, but it seems too cheap for a Tunnel enabler that's even better than Young Witch. We'll see how that shakes out.

The biggest reason I'm posting, though, is to get feedback on my latest version of Inventor. The most recent version was this:

Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action and set this card aside, returning it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

There were concerns that it was too powerful (both for BM-strategies and engines) and that the setting aside meant that there was no opportunity cost for repeatedly setting it aside.

To remedy these issues, it was suggested that it put itself back on top of the deck instead. I didn't like this exact solution because it meant that two Inventors in hand always collided. Putting one back on your deck just meant drawing it dead with the other one. Putting both back on your deck meant getting only 3 other cards in your next hand to get a Village.

The new versions looks like this:

Inventor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or +1 Action and put this anywhere in your deck.

So it's never an 'extra' card in hand, like it would be if you set it aside. But if you draw two Inventors in a hand, you can play one, put it four cards down in your deck, and play the other one for +3 Cards. Of course, you can't do this if you don't have at least three cards in your deck, so it's not a guaranteed solution. Also, I gave it an extra buy, having removed the +1 Buy from Tax Collector. I think it'll give it more utility in more situations without boosting its power too much.

I'm going to test it more, of course. I'm hoping this will be the last iteration of the card. If you have an opinion about the new version, I'd love to hear it!

[theory]

When placing it "anywhere" in your deck, does that mean you get to see your deck?

[LastFootnote]

When placing it "anywhere" in your deck, does that mean you get to see your deck?

No, it works similarly to Stash. But since you know where the Inventor is when you're placing it, it doesn't need a different back.

EDIT: A little more background info: at first I was testing a version that said, "+1 Action and put this on the top or bottom of your deck." Then I realized, why not let you put it anywhere? The answer to that question is AP, but I'm hoping that's not going to turn out to be an issue. The 'anywhere in your deck' wording is slightly simpler and much cooler.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Another option would be "Put this on top of your deck, then put the bottom 3 cards of your deck on top of your deck."

Alternatively, the +3 cards could come from the bottom of your deck.

Not that your solution doesn't work; just more options.

[SirPeebles]

What happens if I gain a Nomad Camp using Exchange?  Where does it go?  Exchange says that the gained card goes to my hand, while Nomad Camp says that it goes to the top of my deck. 

You could phrase it as gaining the cards first, and then moving them to your hand.  But if you trash two Estates into Nomad Camps, then one of them will be covered up, so Exchange will lose track of it.  In fact, even without Nomad Camp, this "fix" would cause one of the two cards to be covered up in the discard pile, so I suppose it's no good.

Edit:  As a related issue, if you gain an Inn directly to your hand, does that mean you cannot shuffle it into your deck?  It's a little ambiguous in Inn's text, since it says to look through your discard pile for actions "(including this)", since ordinarily when you gain the Inn it will be in your discard pile.  It seems like if Exchange gains directly to your hand, then when you gain an Inn you'd be able to shuffle in your other actions, but not this new Inn, since it's an action in your hand, and not in fact an action in your discard pile.

[LastFootnote]

These are good questions.

What happens if I gain a Nomad Camp using Exchange?  Where does it go?  Exchange says that the gained card goes to my hand, while Nomad Camp says that it goes to the top of my deck. 

It's not exactly an official ruling, but you can find what Donald has to say about this here. Until and unless an actual ruling is made, I'd go with his semi-ruling and say that you get to choose whether it goes to your hand or the top of your deck.

Edit:  As a related issue, if you gain an Inn directly to your hand, does that mean you cannot shuffle it into your deck?  It's a little ambiguous in Inn's text, since it says to look through your discard pile for actions "(including this)", since ordinarily when you gain the Inn it will be in your discard pile.  It seems like if Exchange gains directly to your hand, then when you gain an Inn you'd be able to shuffle in your other actions, but not this new Inn, since it's an action in your hand, and not in fact an action in your discard pile.

This question has a more concrete answer than the previous one. Even though Inn says "(including this)", that only applies if it's in your discard pile. There are other reasons it might not be. You might have played a Highway and gained an Inn with Armory, for instance.

[Minotaur]

This is a nice little fan expansion. It strikes just the right amount of boldness and feels like it fits in with the effects and wording of other cards. Nothing truly mind-bending, but it feels right at home and convincingly sustains a theme. The art picks fit well too. Maybe if it were a real set, a couple more persistent cards could be added that relate to a theme of "enterprise" in some other way. No point in rushing to add more unless they fit, though.

[LastFootnote]

I've gotten feedback from several people that using Barracks to gain Conscripts seems too weak. People are very perceptive! It was weak. Even when I bumped Conscripts to be "Choose 2: +$3/gain Gold/give Curses/play Attack card", it was beaten by decks that ignored Attacks. This surprised me; that version of Conscripts seemed so powerful! It took me a while to get over my mental block and realize just how slow it is. It's slower than any official Curse-giver out there, even Familiar. You opponents have a lot of time to get a good deck going before you start cursing them, and chances are you won't run out the Curse pile before the game ends.

While thinking about options for changing Barracks and Conscripts, it occurred to me that I've unintentionally added a second theme to the entire set. It's the decision between instant and delayed gratification. Part of this is a natural result of having several cards that can be trashed when played. Do you take the bonus now, or save it for later? But even some of the non-one shots have it. Inventor can give you cards and a buy now or save itself for later. The current version of Clerk I'm testing also has the ability to put cards either in hand or back on your deck.

But nowhere is this theme more pronounced than in Barracks. One option lets you draw an Attack card in place of your Barracks and play it this turn. It often also provides a bunch of cycling, letting you get to your new purchases sooner. The other option does nothing for you this turn. It doesn't even replace the Barracks in your hand. You won't see the Conscripts for another shuffle. It's slow. Anyhow, I've pumped up the cards while embracing this now/later dichotomy.

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: 5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the other revealed cards.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

The first big difference is that you get two Conscripts cards instead of one when you pick the first option on Barracks. The second is that instead of giving you a choice from 2 of 4 effects with Conscripts, you always get the last three. I took off the +$3 option, which (unintentially) amplified the dealyed gratification effect. You won't see the Gold you gain until next shuffle; likewise with your opponent's Curse.

I've tested this version in several mock games, and it seems to strike a good balance. Importantly, it seems to encourage you to use both of Barracks' abilities in most games. Using it just for gaining Conscripts is too slow for many games. Choosing the cycling option gets those Golds into your deck faster.

Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.

[TWoos]

Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.

Looks like a good improvement.  Especially removing the choose two from Conscripts.  However, now that Barracks allows you to pick up two Conscripts, have you considered how many Conscripts the game should have?

I'd suggest more than 10.  Maybe not 20, since they to return to the Conscripts pile with every use.  15 might be good.

[LastFootnote]

Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.

Looks like a good improvement.  Especially removing the choose two from Conscripts.  However, now that Barracks allows you to pick up two Conscripts, have you considered how many Conscripts the game should have?

I'd suggest more than 10.  Maybe not 20, since they to return to the Conscripts pile with every use.  15 might be good.

I'm designing this like a real 150 card set, so it will be either 15 or 16, depending on whether I end up using a card to mark the banned pile for my current version of Boycott. During playtesting, I've been using 16 copies.

[NoMoreFun]

You could use the boycott randomiser as the boycott pile.

Also as posted in another thread, have you considered putting +2 actions on Enforcer or Exchange? With Enforcer, there'd be an interesting thing with it being a highly unstable engine piece,  as well as being the first +2 actions attack.

Exchange having +2 actions means that you can gain 2 terminal actions and play them both that turn. Very justifiably a $5 oneshot. It also definitely looks like a +2 actions kind of place in the artwork.

[NoMoreFun]

Tax collector seems like a much better Pillage (not a oneshot, trashes instead of discards, +$2) because it will usually be a very helpful card that's being trashed. Early game it will be their best card, while late game there'll have to be important greening related tradeoffs.

Perhaps make the cheaper card go on top of the deck to give the affected opponent some strategic opportunities. Thematically it would be like giving THEM a oneshot.

[SirPeebles]

as well as being the first +2 actions attack.

Dame Molly?

[Drab Emordnilap]

Barracks effectively takes up two Kingdom card slots in the "box", so it's got to be a star of the set. Hopefully this version works out. Any opinions on the cards just from looking at them? This community has good instincts, and as always I appreciate any feedback.

Looks like a good improvement.  Especially removing the choose two from Conscripts.  However, now that Barracks allows you to pick up two Conscripts, have you considered how many Conscripts the game should have?

I'd suggest more than 10.  Maybe not 20, since they to return to the Conscripts pile with every use.  15 might be good.

I'm designing this like a real 150 card set, so it will be either 15 or 16, depending on whether I end up using a card to mark the banned pile for my current version of Boycott. During playtesting, I've been using 16 copies.

15 has the advantage of matching Spoils, also.

[LastFootnote]

You could use the boycott randomiser as the boycott pile.

Yes, I may end up doing that, but it might be nice if it looked noticeably different than the normal Boycott cards, to prevent confusion.

Also as posted in another thread, have you considered putting +2 actions on Enforcer or Exchange? With Enforcer, there'd be an interesting thing with it being a highly unstable engine piece,  as well as being the first +2 actions attack.

Exchange having +2 actions means that you can gain 2 terminal actions and play them both that turn. Very justifiably a $5 oneshot. It also definitely looks like a +2 actions kind of place in the artwork.

Well, the reason I haven't done this already is that I think people generally want stable villages. Furthermore, that might very well push Enforcer up out of $4 territory. I could get rid of the attack portion of it, but then it'd be too similar to Gambler in my mind.

I'm strongly leaning toward adding it to Exchange, though, for the reasons you mention. I'll certainly test that out immediately. There are enough one-shots in the set that perhaps having a one-shot village isn't such an issue.

Tax collector seems like a much better Pillage (not a oneshot, trashes instead of discards, +$2) because it will usually be a very helpful card that's being trashed. Early game it will be their best card, while late game there'll have to be important greening related tradeoffs.

Well, Pillage does gain you two Spoils and Tax Collector costs $6, but your point is well taken.

Perhaps make the cheaper card go on top of the deck to give the affected opponent some strategic opportunities. Thematically it would be like giving THEM a oneshot.

Now we're cooking with gas. Regardless of whether Tax Collector needs a nerf, I like this change because it incentivizes gaining Treasures and Actions rather than Victory cards (unless you think you won't get to draw them). The original version of Tax Collector didn't allow you to gain replacement Victory cards at all. I think this is a very nice compromise. I'll test it out.

Thanks for the ideas!

[LastFootnote]

15 has the advantage of matching Spoils, also.

Well, like Conscripts, Prizes, and even Potions, I'm sure the exact number of Spoils included in Dark Ages was a function of how many cards were needed to fill out the box. Obviously the ballpark number for these cards is a function of necessity. It would be crazy to have 16 Prizes or only 5 Potions. But the exact number isn't crucial. For instance, Alchemy could have had another Victory card and I'm sure 14 Potions would have sufficed.

[NoMoreFun]

My other suggestions are:
*Clerk seems a bit too similar to Scavenger, but I guess the fact that you don't do a Chancellor effect makes it more similar to Bureaucrat and still interesting. Might be a bit weak for $4; I'd suggest making the gain more flexible but then it's stepping on Armory's turf. The reaction is the card's real power though; it may even be stalemate inducing. I pity the man who decides to build a Scrying Pool deck, only to seriously enable you to build your own much faster. Have you considered "trash this and any number of cards from your hand", or making it a discard reaction?

*Perhaps you could make Conscripts more like Spoils and give multiple cards the power to gain them? It doesn't seem like there's much room though. A card with room for "when you trash this, gain a Conscripts" is Inventor, and it could work thematically (the inventor was out of the job, so he got drafted into the army).  Gambler may also have room for something (in terms of words on the card), and that card could do with something to make it more meaningful than a harmless early game trasher. It would need a "Hermit"/"Urchin" sort of clause though, and the card's beauty is in its simplicity. Mind you, a degenerate Gambler will probably find himself needing to join the Conscripts when his luck's really far down.

*For tracking reasons (as well as to give it a bit of a boost for the "miss the reshuffle" power), perhaps set the Floodgate aside as well when you gain it?

[LastFootnote]

*Clerk seems a bit too similar to Scavenger, but I guess the fact that you don't do a Chancellor effect makes it more similar to Bureaucrat and still interesting. Might be a bit weak for $4; I'd suggest making the gain more flexible but then it's stepping on Armory's turf. The reaction is the card's real power though; it may even be stalemate inducing. I pity the man who decides to build a Scrying Pool deck, only to seriously enable you to build your own much faster. Have you considered "trash this and any number of cards from your hand", or making it a discard reaction?

Yes, Clerk was one of the casualties of Dark Ages. It was such a unique card before Scavenger was released.
I'm currently testing another version of Clerk.

Clerk
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck and draw any number of them; +$1 for each one you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash any number of cards from your hand.

The reaction hasn't been a problem so far, although I grant you that I haven't played with it and Scrying Pool yet. For most Attacks, you just don't want to buy them on turns 1 and 2. After that, the chance that the player with Clerk having more than two card in hand that he wants to trash is slim. I have considered making it a discard-based Reaction. While I'm not dismissing the idea outright, it would make the card so, so much weaker.

*Perhaps you could make Conscripts more like Spoils and give multiple cards the power to gain them? It doesn't seem like there's much room though. A card with room for "when you trash this, gain a Conscripts" is Inventor, and it could work thematically (the inventor was out of the job, so he got drafted into the army).  Gambler may also have room for something (in terms of words on the card), and that card could do with something to make it more meaningful than a harmless early game trasher. It would need a "Hermit"/"Urchin" sort of clause though, and the card's beauty is in its simplicity.

Nice thought. It had occurred to me as well, but I don't know where I'd stick that.

*For tracking reasons (as well as to give it a bit of a boost for the "miss the reshuffle" power), perhaps set the Floodgate aside as well when you gain it?

I'd considered this as well. That could be quite a power boost, I think. If Floodgate is too weak, it's definitely the first thing I'll try (but I'll probably also limit the number of other set-aside cards to 4 if I make that change).

[NoMoreFun]

Also the OP has the old version of Conscripts, and is inconsistent about whether inventor has +buy.

I think giving Inventor a when trash Conscripts just helps shoehorn it into the original (one-shot) theme much better, and when trash effects on powerful cards seem mostly arbitrary anyway.

One last thought: Gambler's got the same issue as Wishing Well in that most of the top deck related combos (eg Spy) don't work to ensure safe trashing. Perhaps you could reverse the effects (gamble first, then draw)? I always found that aspect of Wishing Well frustrating. EDIT: Mind you, Gambler would be the only non terminal trasher in Dominion that doesn't decrease your hand size, and one of very few trashers in general (along with Masquerade and potentially JOAT) that doesn't decrease your hand size. Perhaps it's too strong if you can combo it with every top deck related card, but those cards aren't particularly strong in most cases, and you're also forgoing the useful effect of cards like Spy (discarding the junk for sifting) for this potential combo.

[SirPeebles]

EDIT: Mind you, Gambler would be the only non terminal trasher in Dominion that doesn't decrease your hand size

There's Spice Merchant, but it only trashes Treasures.

[LastFootnote]

Also the OP has the old version of Conscripts, and is inconsistent about whether inventor has +buy.

Ah, thanks for catching the Inventor inconsistency. I've updated the OP to include the +1 Buy. I'm just about to update the card image for Conscripts now, which is why you see the old one in the OP. For my mock games, I was using the old version as a proxy.

I think giving Inventor a when trash Conscripts just helps shoehorn it into the original (one-shot) theme much better, and when trash effects on powerful cards seem mostly arbitrary anyway.

I appreciate the idea, but it seems a bit forced for my liking. I'm OK with having Inventor not tie directly into the one-shot theme. I definitely want to have a few off-theme cards.

One last thought: Gambler's got the same issue as Wishing Well in that most of the top deck related combos (eg Spy) don't work to ensure safe trashing. Perhaps you could reverse the effects (gamble first, then draw)? I always found that aspect of Wishing Well frustrating. EDIT: Mind you, Gambler would be the only non terminal trasher in Dominion that doesn't decrease your hand size, and one of very few trashers in general (along with Masquerade and potentially JOAT) that doesn't decrease your hand size. Perhaps it's too strong if you can combo it with every top deck related card, but those cards aren't particularly strong in most cases, and you're also forgoing the useful effect of cards like Spy (discarding the junk for sifting) for this potential combo.

Well, Gambler's whole card concept is pretty much the blind trashing. It was definitely balanced around the fact that it's very hard to know what that card's going to be (no handsize reduction, etc.). I think that reversing the effects would probably make it too strong.

On a side note, I've started picking up Gamblers in the mid to late game, and it doesn't seem to be too bad, which surprised me. I guess it makes sense, though. There are lots of situations in which your deck has enough Silver, for instance.

[LastFootnote]

I've updated the first post with new images and descriptions for Clerk, Barracks, and Conscripts.

I've also printed out new cards for Tax Collector (with putting the gained card on deck), Floodgate (with setting aside the Floodgate), Boycott (with one Boycott pile instead of three), and Exchange (with +2 Actions), but won't update the OP until I've tested out those changes. I'll be without internet access from the 10th to the 17th, but I hope to get some playtesting done over that period. NoMoreFun, thanks again for the various suggestions!

[TWoos]

I've also printed out new cards for Tax Collector (with putting the gained card on deck), Floodgate (with setting aside the Floodgate), Boycott (with one Boycott pile instead of three), and Exchange (with +2 Actions), but won't update the OP until I've tested out those changes. I'll be without internet access from the 10th to the 17th, but I hope to get some playtesting done over that period. NoMoreFun, thanks again for the various suggestions!

Awesome.  This is by far my favorite fan-made expansion.

What was the change to Boycott?  I don't recall seeing a post about it.

[LastFootnote]

I've also printed out new cards for Tax Collector (with putting the gained card on deck), Floodgate (with setting aside the Floodgate), Boycott (with one Boycott pile instead of three), and Exchange (with +2 Actions), but won't update the OP until I've tested out those changes. I'll be without internet access from the 10th to the 17th, but I hope to get some playtesting done over that period. NoMoreFun, thanks again for the various suggestions!

Awesome.  This is by far my favorite fan-made expansion.

Thanks! I really appreciate the encouragement.

What was the change to Boycott?  I don't recall seeing a post about it.

I've found that having a three-pile sideboard makes Boycott very cumbersome to set up and not very accessible. I think players avoid the card because they don't want to think about all the options. Also, swapping piles between the Supply and the sideboard often meant that the piles were out of cost order, which many players (including me) like to keep them in. I found myself avoiding games with Boycott just because of all the extra hassle. So, I'm going to try a version of Boycott that adds one additional pile in the Supply (like Young Witch) and uses a marker to indicate the pile that's not currently in the Supply. The marker will either be the Boycott randomizer or a unique marker card, although I plan to use a Settlers robber piece for my testing.

Boycott's probably the most unique card in the set in terms of new game mechanics, and I'd like to keep it if possible. I hope I can get to a version that I feel really works and is different enough from Embargo to be worthwhile. Just in case it doesn't work out, I've been developing a possible replacement card. Hopefully it won't come to that.

[eHalcyon]

You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.

[LastFootnote]

You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.

That thought had occurred to me. As long as it doesn't cut into the Conscripts pile too much, it's a possibility. I'm going to try the one-pile version first, just in the interest of simplicity. If it doesn't work out, I'll try 2 and 3-pile versions again. As I said, though, it's a fair amount of extra setup.

[TWoos]

You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.

I like that idea.  Or, and this is just off the top of my head, you could add one extra pile per player, picked by each player, and initially mark those piles as not yet in the kingdom.

It would be a sort of anti-veto.

[mail-mi]

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

Holy cow, can I get a King's court with that please! 3 Golds, opponents get 3 curses, and I can play 3 attack cards from my hand! AWESOMEST CARD EVER!

You need wording like madman: Return this to the Conscripts pile. If you do... Maybe add a vanila bonus of +1 something just to make up for not being able to KC/TR/Prosesion it.

[dondon151]

... I don't get the impression that it's that good with KC. Most other cursers give out 3 Curses and the Attack card playing part rarely comes into play (and it's not like in most engines you can't play multiple Attacks per turn). Gaining 3 Golds is pretty cool, though.

[NoMoreFun]

I don't think playing Conscripts multiple times has the exponential effect of playing a Madman multiple times, so it's probably not as vital.

The closest existing card to Conscripts is Marauder. It gives a curse instead of a ruins, and instead of being a permanent card that gives a temporary gold it's a temporary card that gives a permanent gold. The non terminal thing is a nice bonus but probably won't come up that often. It will be very nice with cards like Spy and Enforcer so it can be truly non terminal but it will largely be a rare thing. It does mean conscripts will never clash though.

I'd like to see barracks playtested with the conscripts gain used every single time. "+1 action, gain 2 Golds" is obviously too strong for $5, and I'm not convinced that delaying it reshuffle is bad enough to make it balanced, especially considering there's a curse being given. If the bonus is just +$3 then at least there may be a reason not to play your Conscripts immediately. Maybe tether the action to the draw (or even make it +2 actions again with this link)

Also I've brought it up a lot, but if Inventor had a different name, the when trash Conscripts wouldn't seem forced at all. It wouldn't seem any more forced than Catacombs, Cultist or Hunting Grounds anyway. Having an entire kingdom sized pile for one card does stick out a lot in a small box. Dark ages could get away with having 20 Rats, but that's because it gets compared to all the other large expansions and comes out on top. Tournament prizes are 5 unique cards, and Potion's necessary for 10 cards in Alchemy. When trash conscripts on "Inventor" would just add a little bit. Also if there are balance issues, a when gain conscripts bonus could work.

[LastFootnote]

I've just returned from JoCo Cruise Crazy 3. Once again, I won the on-board Dominion tournament, although there was definitely stiffer competition this year. The final games against mconst were both fun and intense. More importantly, the wonderful Dominion players on-board were happy to playtest these cards! (Not in tournament games, obviously.) I'd like to give a big thank-you to them.

Gambler was quite popular. I had considered it the dud of the set, so I was happy that the card was well-liked. Once again, I'm seeing that it's not just a card that you buy on the first two turns. This should have been obvious, in retrospect. In the endgame, a lot of decks would rather have a one-shot Lab than a Silver they're only going to see one time anyway.

I played one Mill Town game where my opponent went for a Mill Town/Council Room/Laboratory deck, attempting to gain Provinces from the Mill Towns. He was successful! I was ahead on Provinces for most of the game, but he ended the game with a megaturn that put him ahead by a few points. It's nice to see that the Mill Town-heavy strategy can work on certain boards.

I only played one game with Boycott (vs. my wife), and it didn't do much beyond the first couple of turns. mconst said that he would probably only use it for the coins and mostly ignore the marker, and I have to say I think he's right. To fix this, he suggested I replace the +$3 bit with something else, like a gain. It's good advice, but at this point I'm leaning toward replacing the card altogether. I know it has its fans, but I feel like it's got too much going against it (too similar to Embargo, not useful often enough, etc.).

The new version of Clerk seems OK so far. I think we only played one game with it, but it wasn't terribly broken there.

I've updated the OP with the new version of Floodgate, which got plenty of testing. I really like this version (which sets itself aside when gained, along with up to 4 other cards). Not only is it nicer for when you're trying to make some dead cards skip a reshuffle, but it's great when you've got a trash-for-benefit card in your hand with no target. Simply buy a Floodgate and save it and the trash-for-benefit card for your next turn, when you can trash the Floodgate. I'm not entirely sure that strategy's always a good one, but it's fun and seems very useful thus far. It works especially well with Exchange.

The new versions of Barracks and Conscripts didn't get as much testing as I would have liked. I played one game with it where I went for it and my opponent didn't in order to help test it. That was nice of him, but there was no good way to deal with Curses, and I crushed him. I don't think that's necessarily indicative of Barracks/Conscripts being too powerful, as I would expect that result with any Curse-giving card. Still, I'd like to test them more.

The version of Exchange with +2 Actions seemed fine. You won't always be using both actions, but I don't see a problem with that. There were concerns that it would be too powerful with King's Court, so we played a 4-player Enterprise/Prosperity game and tried it out. As it turns out, it's not easy to set up a turn where you King's Court and play Exchange, so it never actually happened. It was definitely a fun game, though.

Fund seems like a very solid $5 card and I don't think it's going to change from its current state. It's not a power $5, but there are a lot of reasons to go for it (you've got $5 and your deck needs a money boost; you need an extra buy for the engine you've been building; etc.). I'm very happy with the card as it stands. It got quite a bit of play, both by me and others.

Inventor was in the Enterprise/Prosperity game I mentioned, and although Exchange never got King's Courted, Inventor did. Frequently. It's definitely an interesting King's Court target, and it's part of what made that game so fun. I will need to test it more in games without King's Court, though!

Finally, I only got to play one good game with Tax Collector and Surveyor, and unfortunately, neither really got the chance to shine. It was a game with both Goons and Bishop, so often only one of the 3 other players would actually be hit by the attack. It does seem to cause a lot of AP, unfortunately. I'm not sure if it's too much yet, and I'm also not sure if it'll be lessened once people get more familiar with the card. I suppose time will tell. Regardless, the version where you put the gained card on your deck needs more testing, so I haven't updated the OP with the new version quite yet. Surveyor may not work out, but I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

I can't remember if we playtested Enforcer, but that card's had quite a bit of testing previously. I'm not real worried about it.

Once again, thanks to all the people who helped me playtest the cards! I really appreciate it.

[TWoos]

I'll be sorry to see Boycott go, but I can see why it's tough to make work.

Any ideas what will replace it?

[One Armed Man]

How bout exploring other vanilla for boycott:
+$2, +2 Actions
Now a weak Festival/ Actiony Silver.

Edit: Actually how about something like "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are Actions or Treasures, play one of them. Discard the rest."

[LastFootnote]

I'd like to see barracks playtested with the conscripts gain used every single time. "+1 action, gain 2 Golds" is obviously too strong for $5, and I'm not convinced that delaying it reshuffle is bad enough to make it balanced, especially considering there's a curse being given. If the bonus is just +$3 then at least there may be a reason not to play your Conscripts immediately. Maybe tether the action to the draw (or even make it +2 actions again with this link)

Concerning always using Barracks for gaining Conscripts, exactly how it shakes out will vary from Kingdom to Kingdom, but testing has shown it's almost always a bad idea. I tested the current version of Conscripts before posting it, but I don't remember the specifics. However, I did play a few mock games just now. The deck that inflexibly used Barracks only for the Conscripts gain always lost. A deck with two Barracks lost against BM-double Witch, and that's with the two Witches colliding AND missing the reshuffle TWICE.

Here's a pertinent quote from Donald (emphasis mine):

Market Square: Once Intrigue had the top half. By the time I was working on Intrigue for publication, it didn't seem worth a slot. I brought it back here because I needed a simple top for the reaction. Before that I tried the reaction paired with Fool's Gold's top.

Originally the reaction was, you could trash this to gain a Gold when one of your cards was trashed. Time has shown that gaining a Gold is not as awesome as it looks (btw spoilers), and I eventually got around to testing the stronger version that made it into the set.

The comparison between Barracks/Conscripts and Market Square is very apt. It's not just a matter of the Golds being delayed a shuffle. It's the fact that neither the Conscripts nor the Barracks (when played for the gain) help your current turn, effectively leaving you with a smaller hand size. Furthermore, Conscripts don't provide true +Action, so they can collide with other terminal Actions. Once you play with Market Square a while, you realize that eventually you have to stop gaining Gold and keep the Market Square in your hand in order to maintain your handsize. A similar thing happens in most Barracks games, and if you're the only one giving Curses, it may happen well before the Curse pile runs out.

[LastFootnote]

You could add 2 or 3 piles and just include enough markers to cover the extras.

I like that idea.  Or, and this is just off the top of my head, you could add one extra pile per player, picked by each player, and initially mark those piles as not yet in the kingdom.

It would be a sort of anti-veto.

This is a neat idea, but I think in practice it would draw out the pre-game process even longer, which is not what I want.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

Holy cow, can I get a King's court with that please! 3 Golds, opponents get 3 curses, and I can play 3 attack cards from my hand! AWESOMEST CARD EVER!

You need wording like madman: Return this to the Conscripts pile. If you do... Maybe add a vanila bonus of +1 something just to make up for not being able to KC/TR/Prosesion it.

NoMoreFun and dondon151 have already said everything I would have. King's Court on a Conscripts is good, but not game-breaking. It doesn't feed on itself like King's Court/Madman would if Madman didn't have the "if you do" clause.

The closest existing card to Conscripts is Marauder. It gives a curse instead of a ruins, and instead of being a permanent card that gives a temporary gold it's a temporary card that gives a permanent gold. The non terminal thing is a nice bonus but probably won't come up that often.

Actually, thanks to Barracks's ability to dig for an Attack card, it comes up quite frequently. If a Conscripts and a Barracks collide, you can often chain Attack cards. You wouldn't think this would usually be a good strategy, but the extra cycling you get combined with the fact that it doesn't decrease your handsize (like gaining Conscripts would) means that it's very often worthwhile.

Really, I'm quite pleased with how Barracks and Conscripts work right now. It seems like you'll be getting use out of both of Barracks's effects in most games, which is exactly what I want.

Also I've brought it up a lot, but if Inventor had a different name, the when trash Conscripts wouldn't seem forced at all. It wouldn't seem any more forced than Catacombs, Cultist or Hunting Grounds anyway. Having an entire kingdom sized pile for one card does stick out a lot in a small box. Dark ages could get away with having 20 Rats, but that's because it gets compared to all the other large expansions and comes out on top. Tournament prizes are 5 unique cards, and Potion's necessary for 10 cards in Alchemy. When trash conscripts on "Inventor" would just add a little bit. Also if there are balance issues, a when gain conscripts bonus could work.

Another issue I have with having several cards gain Conscripts is that it means there are effectively several Curse-giving cards in the set. I guess Cornucopia got away with that, but it's not something I'm excited to do.

If I really had to make more use of Conscripts, I'd rather replace Boycott with a new card that makes use of them than muck with Inventor at this point. There's also the possibility of having several types of one-shot "Solidier" cards that do different attacks. Perhaps Barracks could gain any of them, but other cards could only gain certain ones, or something like that. If I did any of these things, I'd probably scrap Tax Collector. Otherwise the set feels way too Attack-heavy. I suppose I could put Tax Collector's attack on one of the one-shots, though. Hmm....

I'll be sorry to see Boycott go, but I can see why it's tough to make work.

Any ideas what will replace it?

I had an idea for a one-shot card called Jubilee that caused everyone to gain a card. It would be something like, "Each player sets aside a differently-named Kingdom card from the Supply. Each player gains a set-aside card." It would probably have a vanilla bonus as well. The thing is, I worry it's too political. Also, it would probably speed the game up quite a bit. Also, it'd probably end up being a cheap card, and I'd really like Boycott's replacement to cost $5 if possible.

Really what I want is a $5 card, probably not a one-shot, that ties into the short-term/long-term theme and has a non-Attack player interaction.

How bout exploring other vanilla for boycott:
+$2, +2 Actions
Now a weak Festival/ Actiony Silver.

Edit: Actually how about something like "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. If any are Actions or Treasures, play one of them. Discard the rest."

Maybe. I won't completely scrap Boycott until I have a good replacement, so I might try out other bonuses first. Thanks for the suggestions!

EDIT: I do have one other option available to make the fact that Barracks/Conscripts takes up 27 cards a little more palatable: add 13 more Kingdom cards to the set and make it a 300-card box with 25 Kingdom cards in it. That seems like a monumental task, but I'm starting to consider it more seriously. I really wish I knew what was in Guilds so that I could make sure there's no overlap before starting work on a bunch of new cards.

[LastFootnote]

Searching through my old card ideas, I found this and tested it on my own a bit. It could be a replacement for Boycott or it could be the first of several new cards. I have yet to decide. If it does replace Boycott, the set will have a dearth of terminal Action cards, so I'm torn.



Convocation
Types: Action
Cost: 5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard revealed cards until no two of them share a type. Put the rest into your hand.

EDIT: I also just updated Tax Collector in the top post, adding the 'gain to the top of the deck' clause.

[NoMoreFun]

With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.

It just seems like an interesting quirk.

[LastFootnote]

With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.

It just seems like an interesting quirk.

Huh, I guess you're right. That is an interesting quirk.

[dondon151]

So I have a couple of ideas for Boycott that may or may not have already been suggested.

First, you can make it a bit like Young Witch and just add an 11th kingdom card instead of making a sideboard. Start out the game with having a Boycott token on that supply pile. A pile with a Boycott token cannot be bought from (but hypothetically you can still circumvent this with gaining; not sure if this is a good enough tradeoff). An alternative is to say that a pile with a Boycott token is not in the supply, which will prevent any buying or gaining. The token method is functionally the same but it looks less complicated. If you decide to keep the sideboard, you can also reduce the number of cards on the sideboard from 3 to 2.

EDIT: seems like you already considered this. I was just going off the cards on the first page. Sorry for the confusion.

Second, you can also take another example from Young Witch and necessitate that the extra kingdom cards cost $5. This will make the sideboard cards much more appealing on average.

I'm not entirely sure that Boycott is an effective card if it is a self-trasher. The problem here is that playing with Boycott is not adaptable because once a pile has been switched out, you need to regain Boycott and play it as a terminal action in order to switch the pile back in. You also have to consider that there will invariably be useless supply piles in the kingdom and those may just be switched out permanently after a single play of Boycott, after which Boycott will just end up being a self-trashing terminal Gold.

Self-trashing was okay with Embargo because it's 1) cheap and 2) you can't "reverse" an Embargo by playing something else. One solution that I can propose is to make Boycott a self-trashing terminal Silver instead (at the same cost) and to gain it to the top of your deck. This adds a little more functional nuance to the card. Unfortunately it does introduce a huge disparity in 4/3 openings because one guy can get 4/5 with trashing Boycott and the other guy can only get 4/4. This is worse than with Nomad Camp because at least Nomad Camp stays in your deck. You can also consider adding an "if you do move the Boycott token, trash this," which would resolve the 4/3 opening problem.



EDIT 2: I also glossed over the concern for Clerk's power in countering Scrying Pool decks. An alternative suggestion is to set aside Clerk and trash exactly 1 card from your hand upon getting attacked instead of trashing any number of cards. This still turns discard attacks into a net benefit and also soft counter Curse-givers but not to an extreme extent. I just think that being able to trash your entire hand in response to an attack is really swingy. Compare to Trader, where revealing it in response to a Curse-giver is not so amazing.

[LastFootnote]

dondon, thanks very much for the ideas! I have to say that I think removing the self-trashing portion of Boycott makes a lot of sense. I think I've got enough one-shots in the set without it at this point. I also really like the idea of making the pile that the token starts on a $5 card. I might test it with and without that part. I wonder if moving the Boycott token should be optional for the version that doesn't trash itself.

So how does this version look?

Boycott
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. You may move the Boycott marker to a nonempty Kingdom card pile in the Supply.
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing 5 Coins to the Supply and put the Boycott marker on it. A pile with the Boycott marker is not part of the Supply.

At this point, I definitely don't want the gained Boycott to go on your deck, since I want all players to be able to buy a copy of Boycott before it gets removed from the Supply. Not that you were necessarily advocating that in combination with the removal of the self-trashing clause. I just thought I'd address it.

EDIT 2: I also glossed over the concern for Clerk's power in countering Scrying Pool decks. An alternative suggestion is to set aside Clerk and trash exactly 1 card from your hand upon getting attacked instead of trashing any number of cards. This still turns discard attacks into a net benefit and also soft counter Curse-givers but not to an extreme extent. I just think that being able to trash your entire hand in response to an attack is really swingy. Compare to Trader, where revealing it in response to a Curse-giver is not so amazing.

Hmm, I understand your concern. There are two reasons I haven't changed Clerk's reaction to [set aside/trash one] as you suggest. First, it would have to be a lot more wordy and I'm worried about space on the physical card. Second, I haven't actually had balance issues with Clerk's current reaction. As I've said, it discourages buying Attacks on turns 1 and 2. After that, the chance that you're trashing more than 1 or 2 cards from your hand is pretty slim. I mean sure, you might get lucky and be able to trash 4 Curses, but you might also be able to buy 8 Provinces by turn 13 using Chancellor. The odds just aren't in your favor.

As far as countering Scrying Pool decks specifically, I'm not really concerned about interactions with a single card (see Mill Town/Tactician) unless they create rules ambiguities, are able to shut a player out of the game, or are absurdly powerful combos that you can build without relying on your opponents. If Clerk's presence means players don't buy Scrying Pool, so be it. There are plenty of games where Scrying Pool is dominant. If Clerk turns out to be too powerful against all, most, or even a large proportion of Attacks, I'll definitely change it. I'm definitely open to the possibility that it's too powerful and I just haven't playtested it enough yet. It certainly does look powerful, I'll grant you.

[dondon151]

So how does this version look?

It looks fine. Definitely playtest it to make sure that it isn't a little weak or too strong, though. I don't know how strong the supply blocking is if only one person gets the card.

First, it would have to be a lot more wordy and I'm worried about space on the physical card.

"Set this aside" and "a card" versus "reveal this" and "any number of cards" seems like a wash to me. It does take a little bit of extra text to instruct the player to return the card to hand.

As far as countering Scrying Pool decks specifically, I'm not really concerned about interactions with a single card (see Mill Town/Tactician) unless they create rules ambiguities, are able to shut a player out of the game, or are absurdly powerful combos that you can build without relying on your opponents. If Clerk's presence means players don't buy Scrying Pool, so be it. There are plenty of games where Scrying Pool is dominant.

It doesn't actually counter SP decks in the traditional sense. SP decks benefit from the Clerk trashing as well. In any case, if you do find some combination that is really strong with the current version of Clerk's reaction, the modified version should mitigate it.

[LastFootnote]

"Set this aside" and "a card" versus "reveal this" and "any number of cards" seems like a wash to me. It does take a little bit of extra text to instruct the player to return the card to hand.

Yeah, that's the part that takes the extra text.

It doesn't actually counter SP decks in the traditional sense. SP decks benefit from the Clerk trashing as well. In any case, if you do find some combination that is really strong with the current version of Clerk's reaction, the modified version should mitigate it.

I do miss the old version of Clerk that gained a Silver. It diluted your deck and mitigated how powerful the trashing usually got.

[ConMan]

With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.

It just seems like an interesting quirk.

I kind of like that. Although, if the revealed Action was also a Reaction, then you *could* discard the Tunnel. Actually, I quite like the card in general, because it doesn't quite match any existing card and it looks like one of those cards that's hard to use right, but powerful when you do.

[LastFootnote]

With Convocation, if you reveal an Action, a Treasure and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think not.
If you reveal 2 Coppers and a Tunnel, do you have the option of discarding the Tunnel? I would think so.

It just seems like an interesting quirk.

I kind of like that. Although, if the revealed Action was also a Reaction, then you *could* discard the Tunnel. Actually, I quite like the card in general, because it doesn't quite match any existing card and it looks like one of those cards that's hard to use right, but powerful when you do.

Thanks. I thought it would be too close to Laboratory, but it's different enough to be interesting. If you let your deck get too Treasure-heavy, for instance, it may only draw you one card. It also cuts through Curses like nothing, making it a decent Witch counter. If I actually end up doubling the size of this set, I'll almost certainly add it.

[Asper]

Those are amazing *__*
I didn't think i could like a one-shot theme but these are fantastic. My only concern is that Boycot should not be able to remove itself from the supply... Also, where did you get the Artwork from?

[LastFootnote]

Those are amazing *__*
I didn't think i could like a one-shot theme but these are fantastic. My only concern is that Boycot should not be able to remove itself from the supply... Also, where did you get the Artwork from?

The artwork I got from anywhere I could find it on the internet. It's definitely not all licensed for commercial use, but for the purpose of mocking up fan cards, I'm not too concerned about it. If—miracle of miracles—this set were to be published, the cards would have to have new art.

As for Boycott, I'm testing a new version of it now, but I may be scrapping it from the set. It's likely I'd replace it with Convocation (above), but then the set would only have 4 terminal Actions (5 if you count Conscripts). I wonder if that's an issue. I suppose Alchemy only has 3 terminal Action cards, but the question is if one-shots justify that as much as Potion-costs do. I'll have to think about it more.

[NoMoreFun]

With Convocation in the set there'll be 3 Lab variants, as well as Inventor which sort of occupies the same space. I like the card but if you can get Boycott to work it will really fit in with the set, as it is definitely all about the long term strategy considerations.

[LastFootnote]

With Convocation in the set there'll be 3 Lab variants, as well as Inventor which sort of occupies the same space. I like the card but if you can get Boycott to work it will really fit in with the set, as it is definitely all about the long term strategy considerations.

Yeah, as much as I like Convocation, I agree that it's not the best fit for the set as it currently exists. I'm trying out another new card (Committee) to fill Boycott's slot, but I won't take fixing Boycott off the table.

[LastFootnote]

I've been testing yet another possible card for the set. So far it seems OK. I have no idea how it will work out with a large number of players, though. Opinions welcome!

? ? ? ?
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$3. Trash a card from your hand. Each other player may gain a Copper, putting it into his hand.

The name is still up in the air. Back in the very first version of this set, I had a card called Philanthropist, which was a $5 card that was [+2 Cards/+$2/Each other player may gain a Copper in hand]. Rinkworks thought its was too powerful and I agreed. It was the first card I scrapped from the set. I filled that slot with Monopoly, then with Boycott. Come to think of it, this is the most troublesome slot in the set.

I thought I'd bring back the idea of letting other players gain Copper. It seems like a decent non-Attack interactive effect.

Anyhow, I can't find any good art for "Philanthropist". I might call it "Almsgiver", but that might step on the toes of Schneau's winning submission to the Mini-Set Design Contest, Almoner. I suppose it could be "Patron" or "Donor", but I don't think I'll have any better luck finding art for those. If you all have any suggestions, I'm happy to hear them.

Name aside, the card seems pretty balanced from my preliminary tests, but I have some concerns. I can't tell if it's too much a solution to itself. If you have the ability to gain Copper in hand, I think that makes you want this card, since after you've trashed your Estates, you may want a bigger hand in order to offset the trashing you have to do. After all, when you're trashing Copper, this is an expensive Moneylender that helps your opponents. I could make the trashing optional. I could also bump it to +$4, but that seems obscene. I'll try to test it some more.

As usual, thanks for any feedback and suggestions!

[NoMoreFun]

One card that seems missing in a thorough one shot/instant vs delayed gratification expansion would be a card of this form:

Card:
Effect 1
(You may) trash this
---
When you trash this, Effect 2

You can play the card, but you may want to play it with a good TFB card instead, or you could use it in a pinch with an early game trasher. I don't know where it would fit (possibly on "fund") but if you do end up going for the large expansion, that would be something to consider.

[LastFootnote]

One card that seems missing in a thorough one shot/instant vs delayed gratification expansion would be a card of this form:

Card:
Effect 1
(You may) trash this
---
When you trash this, Effect 2

You can play the card, but you may want to play it with a good TFB card instead, or you could use it in a pinch with an early game trasher. I don't know where it would fit (possibly on "fund") but if you do end up going for the large expansion, that would be something to consider.

That is a cool idea, and I have considered it. I don't think I could shoehorn it into any of the existing cards, though. As you say, Fund is pretty much the only viable option and it's already a really solid $5 card, from what my testing shows. I'm even concerned it's too powerful, since it's way better than Gold if you're only going to see it once before the game ends. But I probably worry too much. Most players can't predict which shuffle is going to be their last with 100% certainty.

I will, however, continue to keep the mechanic in mind for any future cards I design.

[LastFootnote]

You know what I've never heard someone say? "I really like Tax Collector." I haven't heard it in this thread and I haven't heard it in my playtest games. People don't usually buy them unless I buy one first, and not always then. I also don't like the fact that it costs $6, which is hard to justify in a 12-card set that needs more $5 cards. Luckily, I have come up with a replacement card that I'm quite excited about. I hope it works out (after playtesting and tweaking, of course).

Profiteer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. For each Treasure trashed this way, +$1.
When you gain this, each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

Here's Conscripts, for easy reference:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

This card has so many things going for it. It's going to be a real shame if I can't make it work.

• It costs $5.
• It fills the trashing attack slot.
• It has a non-Attack interaction (in addition to its Attack interaction).
• It's another use for Conscripts, which I know at least NoMoreFun will appreciate.
• It's thematic; supply troops to the other players, then profit from the Gold they've gained.
• It fits the theme of the expansion and pulls Conscripts into that theme as well.

I have in the past discouraged others from creating cards that trashed opponents' Treasures and provided coins based on how many Treasures were trashed. I think it scales badly. I'm hoping that this card gets around that for two reasons. First, you're going to be hit with Curses faster the more players they are, so the fact that the card scales up faster might be justified. Second, your opponents are going to have more Curses in their decks, which makes it less likely that you'll be hitting each one as the number of them increases. If testing reveals that it scales poorly, I'll nix it.

In general, I'm guessing the card is on the weak side right now. If it turns out I'm right, I'll try letting the player gain the trashed Treasures (in addition to getting the coins) and I'll try bumping the vanilla bonus to +$3 (or something similar).

As always, comments and feedback are welcome! Please let me know what you think.

[Asper]

Profiteer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. For each Treasure trashed this way, +$1.
When you gain this, each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

Here's Conscripts, for easy reference:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
Return this to the Conscripts pile. Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Curse. You may play an Attack card from your hand. (This is not in the Supply.)

So in a two player game, i will play this for at most +3$ (or, if improved, +4$) and let my opponent gain a curser that makes him gain Gold, maybe even trashing his Coppers?

Basically i think the attack hurts too little compared to the benefit it gives players on gain. I mean, it's a Thief, and Thief is not among the worst 4$ cards for no reason. I don't even know if i would care to Moat this... Free Gold and an attack at the expense of - in the worst case - another Gold? Hell, yeah. But seriously, your attack only hurts if Gold (or Platinum) is hit, and even then the hit deck has not become that much worse - i would go so far as to call it a benefit in games with good cycling (and without Platinum). Also Throne Room and moneyless Engines, Secret Chamber all the way.

Edit: I think what you should work on is the attack - only making the card better for the player "attacking" with it doesn't change that (usually) i'd gladly get hit by it.

Basically i think the attack hurts too little compared to the benefit it gives hit players. I mean, it's a Thief, and Thief is not among the worst 4$ cards for no reason. I don't even know if i would ever care to Moat this... Free Gold and an attack at the expense of - in the worst case - another Gold? Hell, yeah.

I think you're misreading the card. Opponents only gain a Conscripts when you gain a Profiteer, not when you play it. You couldn't Moat that part even if you wanted to.

Edit 2: Ooops, i really misread that. Sorry.

[LastFootnote]

Basically i think the attack hurts too little compared to the benefit it gives hit players. I mean, it's a Thief, and Thief is not among the worst 4$ cards for no reason. I don't even know if i would ever care to Moat this... Free Gold and an attack at the expense of - in the worst case - another Gold? Hell, yeah.

I think you're misreading the card. Opponents only gain a Conscripts when you gain a Profiteer, not when you play it. You couldn't Moat that part even if you wanted to.

[enfynet]

Is the +$1 for trashing at that moment or for the game? Because in 4p this could be worth $5 or in 2p worth $3

[NoMoreFun]

Interesting thing with Profiteer:

After everyone has played their Conscripts, for each purchase of this card:
You gain Curses equal to (number of players - 1)
Everyone else gains Curses equal to (number of players - 2)

This means, on average, it doesn't actually hurt you more to buy this in games with more players.

I like the "everyone else gains a Conscripts" thing (as you predicted ), but it's not an effect that balances out this cards' scaling in Multiplayer.
I was also worried about Copper trashing, but this is definitely not a card you want to open with anyway.

[One Armed Man]

I think the Profiteers buff that you should consider first is looking at the top 3 cards for treasures instead of 2.

[LastFootnote]

I think the Profiteers buff that you should consider first is looking at the top 3 cards for treasures instead of 2.

Right now I'm actually testing a non-Attack version that discards Victory and Curses for $2 each. I'll keep fiddling with different ideas until I find one that works. Or I'll just stop altogether. Lately I've been feeling like making this set (or any fan cards) is less and less worthwhile. Until Guilds comes out, I worry that any card I make might be too similar to existing cards. I also feel that at this point a good expansion should have a more novel mechanic than one-shots.

[One Armed Man]

If you do a discard-junk card, you can make it more versatile with a Vagrant-like clause.

[LastFootnote]

If you do a discard-junk card, you can make it more versatile with a Vagrant-like clause.

If you're suggesting that I add Shelters and Ruins to the list, thanks but no. I know this isn't an official expansion, but I still don't think cards in one expansion should directly reference cards that only appear in another expansion.

[One Armed Man]

Another way to make it more versatile is to make it "non-Copper" or "non-Treasure" so that those other card types can be used without calling them out specifically.

[LastFootnote]

Another way to make it more versatile is to make it "non-Copper" or "non-Treasure" so that those other card types can be used without calling them out specifically.

I was considering having it discard cards that aren't Treasures or Actions, but that wouldn't change much. Ruins and Necropolises still couldn't be discarded. It would really only change Hovel (and perhaps some future cards). It's not going to make much difference in most games anyhow.

Here's a clip from The Secret History of the Dark Ages Cards:

- I had discarding victory cards for +$2 each. It started out at $4, went up to $6, moved to Hinterlands, then was dropped for not being interesting enough.

So if discarding Victory cards for $2 is powerful enough to cost $6 (in Dark Ages no less), I think this version of Profiteer might be balanced. It can also discard Curses, but giving each other player a delayed Gold and yourself an additional delayed Curse is a pretty stiff penalty.

[LastFootnote]

I've just made what will probably be the last update to Enterprise before the release of Dominion: Guilds.

I've decided not to get rid of Boycott yet, especially because it has quite a few fans. I was avoiding costing it at $2 for a long time, mostly because I wanted to differentiate it from Embargo as much as possible. Now that it's no longer a one-shot, that's less of a concern and I'm finally pricing it at $2.

Boycott
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may move the Boycott marker to a Kingdom card pile.
------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Put the Boycott marker on the Province pile. The pile with the Boycott marker is not part of the Supply. Cards in that pile cannot be bought or gained.

Instead of adding a new Supply pile, I decided to try something a little more radical: starting the Boycott marker on the Province pile. I've seen some fan cards that say, "In games using this, the game doesn't end when the Province pile is empty." This is a milder version of that. If nobody moves the Boycott marker, the game will have to end on piles. Luckily, now that Boycott costs $2, that's at least easier to pull off.

Will you buy a Boycott in order to break the seal on Provinces? Or will you wait for your opponent to do it? Or will you build a Duchy-based strategy? I'm hopeful that it will be more interesting and fun than annoying. Initial tests are promising.


I liked Surveyor as a cheap Feast variant, but it was too weak even at $2. I've made a non-one-shot version. Boy, the one-shots are just leaking out of this set! So it goes. Surveyor is exactly the same as before except it doesn't trash itself when you gain a card (which saves a surprising amount of text on the card) and it costs $4. I tried it at $5. It was expensive, and most of the cards you want to duplicate cost at least $5. You only have so many $5 buys in some games.

Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may discard a card that is not a Victory card. Gain a copy of it.

The potential problem with it is lack of fun. In general, you want to play your good Actions and Treasures, not discard them. I suppose many trash-for-benefit cards also have this issue, so maybe it's not a dealbreaker. I could make a version that puts the gained card onto your deck, although that might have to cost $5 or put not draw 2 cards.

The other issue with the card is that it's not a great fit for the set. Where are the expensive cards that you want several of? There's Fund. I may replace Exchange with Vendor to give the set another good Surveyor combo. Exchange is OK, but suffers from, "When do I buy this?" syndrome.


Finally, I've revamped Tax Collector. It no longer trahses cards and is now a combination discard/deck mucking attack.

Tax Collector
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand reveals a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand of all Copper). He discards it or puts it on top of his deck, your choice.

This kind of Attack where each other player reveals a card from his hand that you either discard or put onto his deck is one that's been suggested a few times here in the Variants forum. I've (hopefully) improved it by not allowing the revealed card to be Copper. It's an anti-Cutpurse! This boosts the power of the card and makes it resolve faster. The victim's decision resolves a bit faster because the number of possible cards he can reveal is cut down. The attacker's decision resolves much faster because non-Copper cards are usually either obviously bad cards you want to topdeck or good cards you want to discard. I can't speak for everybody, but when I play a Spy and turn up an opponent's Copper, the decision of whether to discard it takes longer than for any other revealed card.

Also, this version costs $5 instead of $6. I'm not sure most $6 Attack cards are such a hot idea. Goons is an exception because it's in Prosperity and—more importantly—it's an alternate path to victory. Anyhow, I felt the set needed more $5 cards and that with only 12 cards, a $6 card wasn't a high priority.

That's it for now. I've already updated the images and text on the front page. I may soon replace Exchange with Vendor. It's nice to have a trash-for-benefit card in the set, but I suppose not mandatory. Comments and criticisms are welcome.

[Fragasnap]

Chiming back in to state: This is my favorite fan expansion.
I love the one-shot theme. Lots of people don't like one-shots, but I think the conditional one-shot nature of the set gives a brand of tactical thinking that Dominion doesn't usually employ.
This is the only fan set that I have (as of yet) considered putting onto a table with my friends. (Unfortunately, most of them are more apt to playtest the cards they know I have made than other people's, so they haven't come up yet. I'm working on it.)

I really liked the old Surveyor. +2 Cards is usually a pretty weak effect, so I don't usually feel so bad about trashing it to get something much better. I think that putting the card on top of your deck could be a cool idea since then the card you're duplicating doesn't have to miss the shuffle. I think giving it that ability and keeping it as a one-shot would still keep it reasonable at $2.

Gambler looks really strong in terms of light trashing. One card trashing is often times weak, so the strength of Gambler is not a bad thing, I think.

Mill Town is still my favorite card of the set. It is a wonderful melding of Village and Workshop. I could see it being particularly powerful in a game with a good engine.

Clerk's action effect is pretty boring. I mean, $4 cards can't all be winners, but I would try to get its effect to be a little stronger than it currently is. How about "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2"? Being able to hunt one card deeper would make its deck re-ordering a lot more interesting. I love the flavor of the reaction, as it makes it really strong against Cursers.

Enforcer is my least favorite card of the set. I've played with Attacks like this before and I find the effect is actually pretty underwhelming, particularly since this card is a cantrip that hinders your hand more often than it helps it. The effect for yourself is cool. I like it. My issue is that the Attack effect is not strong enough for its effect for you. What if it could force players to discard a card from a selection from their hand and then draw a card but wouldn't force them to discard anything (in case they had a hand full of junk)?
Something like "Each other player reveals 3 cards from his hand. He discards one that you choose and then draws a card or keeps them (your choice)." This would allow it to synergize in mean ways with cards that decrease hand-size.
Furthermore, trashing it usually feels bad. Maybe its Attack could occur "When you play this or trash this" in line with Noble Brigand's method of two ways to get its effect.
The card's name is also pretty weak though it is a casuality of Dark Ages. Could it possibly be Sheriff or Marshal?

Floodgate's on-gain is really nice and the strength of 2VP is often underestimated.

Barracks and Conscripts have amazing flavor to them. Barracks sifting ability is really cool to get to those Conscripts faster or any other Attack if the set actually has a nice one.

Exchange's one-shot double Remodel to hand is cool, but at the same time, it will likely be hard to use it as intended (gaining and playing Actions), particularly if it is the only source of +Action. Is there any way it could sometimes not trash itself when you play it? Maybe it could be used as a non-terminal Remodel or its one-shot option to double Remodel to hand.

Fund seems powerful. I am thankful that its +Buy makes trashing it an interesting decision (oh, and I love that you get to keep a Silver afterwards. Feodum could possibly love this). In fact, without that +Buy I would say it's a boring card that just accelerates into Gold, but since that +Buy is there it encourages building engines and other cool combos built out of cheap buys.

Inventor is clever, though it isn't a one-shot. Being able to tuck it away to get it to collide with what I want (or even when I draw multiples together) is an awesome effect. My only complaint is that "Inventor" sounds like it should provide +Cards (production), some sort of Remodel effect (tinkering with things), and\or some sort of Workshop effect (building devices). Could I recommend the name Bursary instead?

Tax Collector doesn't make me excited. Its new Attack effect is common among Fan-cards (though the exclusion of Coppers is smart). It also doesn't seem very flavorful since a lot of Tax Collectors were practically thieves in olden times. Also, the way the parenthetical is positioned makes it sound like if the player reveals a hand of all Coppers I can have him put his entire hand on top of his deck.
I like the idea of Profiteer more-- discarding Victory cards for coins-- but that effect becomes really strong towards the end of the game. It likely would not be purchased until one's later shuffles which would make the Conscripts more damaging to other players than helpful (unless it put the Conscripts into their hands to ensure that they get a chance at gaining Golds that they could use and cursing you).

[LastFootnote]

Chiming back in to state: This is my favorite fan expansion.
I love the one-shot theme. Lots of people don't like one-shots, but I think the conditional one-shot nature of the set gives a brand of tactical thinking that Dominion doesn't usually employ.
This is the only fan set that I have (as of yet) considered putting onto a table with my friends. (Unfortunately, most of them are more apt to playtest the cards they know I have made than other people's, so they haven't come up yet. I'm working on it.)

Thanks! I hope it goes well if you end up playtesting it.

I really liked the old Surveyor. +2 Cards is usually a pretty weak effect, so I don't usually feel so bad about trashing it to get something much better. I think that putting the card on top of your deck could be a cool idea since then the card you're duplicating doesn't have to miss the shuffle. I think giving it that ability and keeping it as a one-shot would still keep it reasonable at $2.

The issue I had with the old Surveyor is that nobody seemed to buy it, and it's hard to argue with those results. The new version at $4 is at least getting bought, although it's a little underwhelming. I'm coming around more and more to the idea of having it put the gained card on your deck, but I'll be trying a persistent version of that before a one-shot version. It's quite possible that I'll try a one-shot version of Surveyor again at some point, but it's not the way I'm leaning right now.

Mill Town is still my favorite card of the set. It is a wonderful melding of Village and Workshop. I could see it being particularly powerful in a game with a good engine.

Yes, I have seen Mill Town engines that pick up 3 or more Provinces on the last turn. It can definitely be used for a long-term strategy.

Clerk's action effect is pretty boring. I mean, $4 cards can't all be winners, but I would try to get its effect to be a little stronger than it currently is. How about "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2"? Being able to hunt one card deeper would make its deck re-ordering a lot more interesting. I love the flavor of the reaction, as it makes it really strong against Cursers.

I'll admit that the action effect may not be the most interesting, but I doubt it needs a power boost. The deck-reordering effect is simply a side effect of putting the cards back; it's not meant to be part of the card's power. It's…difficult to describe why Clerk is as strong as it is. You wouldn't necessarily think that a card that's [+2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2] would be powerful. It seems like a weak Steward, but the ability to see what the cards are first really makes all the difference.

Compare it to a card that just gives +2 Cards. Say you play such a card and draw two Estates, and have $4 in your hand. Say you could put one of those Estates back onto your deck to bump your hand to $5. It allows for Courtyard-like tactics, but in a unique way. In fact, it's more Action-friendly than Courtyard because you can put back Actions you draw dead for $1 apiece.

Sort of like Jack of all Trades, Clerk is something you have to play to really get your head around its utility. Not that Clerk's action effect is as strong as Jack's; the reaction bit is definitely a big part of the card's utility.

Enforcer is my least favorite card of the set. I've played with Attacks like this before and I find the effect is actually pretty underwhelming, particularly since this card is a cantrip that hinders your hand more often than it helps it. The effect for yourself is cool. I like it. My issue is that the Attack effect is not strong enough for its effect for you. What if it could force players to discard a card from a selection from their hand and then draw a card but wouldn't force them to discard anything (in case they had a hand full of junk)?
Something like "Each other player reveals 3 cards from his hand. He discards one that you choose and then draws a card or keeps them (your choice)." This would allow it to synergize in mean ways with cards that decrease hand-size.
Furthermore, trashing it usually feels bad. Maybe its Attack could occur "When you play this or trash this" in line with Noble Brigand's method of two ways to get its effect.
The card's name is also pretty weak though it is a casuality of Dark Ages. Could it possibly be Sheriff or Marshal?

I guess I haven't had the same experience with the card as you have. The effect for you will hurt if your deck is cluttered with Victory cards and Curses, but it's a great asset it most engine decks, especially ones with powerful cantrips and no Copper trashing.

The Attack isn't that strong, but it's about on par with Spy. Your Attack effect is interesting, although I worry it'd cause a bit much AP as the other players have to choose which 3 cards to reveal every time. I'd rather have that attack on a terminal card.

I'd be willing to change its name, but I'm not sure I love Sheriff or Marshall. If possible, it'd be nice to have a name that still implied you had to pay the person to retain his services.

Exchange's one-shot double Remodel to hand is cool, but at the same time, it will likely be hard to use it as intended (gaining and playing Actions), particularly if it is the only source of +Action. Is there any way it could sometimes not trash itself when you play it? Maybe it could be used as a non-terminal Remodel or its one-shot option to double Remodel to hand.

Yes, I was considering something similar.

Exchange
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it. You may spend a trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you gain this, take 2 trade tokens.

I was going to wait until Guilds came out to see if its coin token mechanics were too similar to this. If not, I would develop several cards to use these trade tokens. However, I could simply make the card an optional one-shot as you suggest. I don't know if I'd keep the double-remodel part, though, even on the one-shot. It'd take a lot of extra text. I'll probably come up with a few versions to test.

Fund seems powerful. I am thankful that its +Buy makes trashing it an interesting decision (oh, and I love that you get to keep a Silver afterwards. Feodum could possibly love this). In fact, without that +Buy I would say it's a boring card that just accelerates into Gold, but since that +Buy is there it encourages building engines and other cool combos built out of cheap buys.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm really hoping Fund is OK as it is. I like its simplicity. I have some concerns about it, but that's true for all my cards to some extent.

Inventor is clever, though it isn't a one-shot. Being able to tuck it away to get it to collide with what I want (or even when I draw multiples together) is an awesome effect. My only complaint is that "Inventor" sounds like it should provide +Cards (production), some sort of Remodel effect (tinkering with things), and\or some sort of Workshop effect (building devices). Could I recommend the name Bursary instead?

I'll consider changing the name, although like some Dominion cards, my group is pretty used to calling it Inventor now. At one point it drew 3 cards and then you could trash it for a Remodel effect. The name Inventor made more sense then.

Tax Collector doesn't make me excited. Its new Attack effect is common among Fan-cards (though the exclusion of Coppers is smart).

Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I suppose. Did you prefer the old Tax Collector?

It may be a common attack effect, but I like the way I've implemented it. It works very smoothly and seems appropriate at $5 so far.

It also doesn't seem very flavorful since a lot of Tax Collectors were practically thieves in olden times.

I kept the name out of convenience because searching for art is difficult. I'd be happy to change it. I'll try to brainstorm better options.

Also, the way the parenthetical is positioned makes it sound like if the player reveals a hand of all Coppers I can have him put his entire hand on top of his deck.

Yeah, I was aware of that, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. I think it's pretty clear and the hypothetical FAQ could easily clarify it. I suppose I could say that each player sets aside a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand with all Copper), but that seems a little strange.

I like the idea of Profiteer more-- discarding Victory cards for coins-- but that effect becomes really strong towards the end of the game. It likely would not be purchased until one's later shuffles which would make the Conscripts more damaging to other players than helpful (unless it put the Conscripts into their hands to ensure that they get a chance at gaining Golds that they could use and cursing you).

Yes, these issues had also occurred to me, which is why I have yet to even playtest the card, let alone post it here. I'm no longer considering adding it to this 12-card version of the set, but I am trying to fix up a good version of it for when I expand the set to 25 cards.

Thanks for all your feedback! Sorry if I'm pushing back too much. I appreciate your ideas, especially those concerning Exchange. By the way, how do you feel about the current, persistent version of Surveyor?

[Fragasnap]

Thanks for all your feedback! Sorry if I'm pushing back too much.

Of course you are not pushing back to much. Enterprise is your set and all feedback should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'll admit that [Clerk's] action effect may not be the most interesting, but I doubt it needs a power boost. The deck-reordering effect is simply a side effect of putting the cards back; it's not meant to be part of the card's power. It's…difficult to describe why Clerk is as strong as it is. You wouldn't necessarily think that a card that's [+2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2] would be powerful. It seems like a weak Steward, but the ability to see what the cards are first really makes all the difference.
...
Sort of like Jack of all Trades, Clerk is something you have to play to really get your head around its utility. Not that Clerk's action effect is as strong as Jack's; the reaction bit is definitely a big part of the card's utility.

My concern is that Clerk's reaction is hard to use since it has to be in your hand when an Attack is played and you need to have cards to trash in your hand when those events line up. Of course, that is assuming there is an Attack in the particular game. In a number of games, there will be no way to use Clerk for its reaction, so it will have to be evaluated purely in terms of its action effect which has plenty of utility, but I think could be a smidge stronger without breaking the card or infringing on other card's space.
You are probably right though. Card organization tends to be underestimated.

I guess I haven't had the same experience with [Enforcer] as you have. The effect for you will hurt if your deck is cluttered with Victory cards and Curses, but it's a great asset it most engine decks, especially ones with powerful cantrips and no Copper trashing.

The Attack isn't that strong, but it's about on par with Spy.

Most engine decks will still drop $3 to $6 in Treasures to pick up their Provinces (if not more). There are fewer games where there are enough +actions and virtual coin to get up to Provinces than those that drawing Treasures works better.
As such, discarding Treasures is generally a bad thing, so in many games Enforcer will be measured primarily by its Attack, which is frankly too hit or miss to be incredibly useful. Is there any way it could be worded nicely to allow Attackers to leave both cards on the deck?
Also, it still feels bad when you trash Enforcer: Did you think about letting it attack when it is played or trashed it the same way Noble Brigand attacks when you play or buy it?

Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I suppose. Did you prefer the old Tax Collector?

I think I do prefer the old Tax Collector (yeah, I am one of those guys who likes to trash others' cards), though I do not like $6 Attacks as reaching $6 can be moderately difficult dependent upon the table and often the Attack will prevent other players from reaching $6 as easily. Maybe Profiteer's "When you gain this, each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile." could be appended to the old Tax Collector for balance at $5?
Though then you would probably want to give Tax Collector some kind of military name like Infantry or Cavalry to fit with Militia's hand attack and Knights' trashing.

[Tax Collector's] may be a common attack effect, but I like the way I've implemented it. It works very smoothly and seems appropriate at $5 so far.

It is a common Attack effect because it is a good idea (oh, and your implementation is really nice). It is an idea I am quite fond of, in fact, but its deck manipulation seems somewhat out of place in a set about one-shots. I suppose I am somewhat biased as the set I have been working on is actually based around deck manipulation and sifting. It is your call, really.

Yeah, I was aware of that, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. I think it's pretty clear and the hypothetical FAQ could easily clarify it. I suppose I could say that each player sets aside a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand with all Copper), but that seems a little strange.

Put the parenthetical at the end. It becomes rather distended, but makes it clearly separate from the rest of the effect.

By the way, how do you feel about the current, persistent version of Surveyor?

I do not like it as much. I viewed the $2 one-shot Surveyor as a place-holder: I buy it and use it until it collides with an expensive card I want multiple of, and then it vanishes. +2 Cards as a terminal action is a pretty weak effect that I likely do not want to have in my deck unless there is a Village-type that is more than a cantrip (such as Bazaar or Bandit Camp). The fact that it vanishes from my deck actually makes it easier for me to purchase, simply because I can use it until I get a bunch of better actions and then it throws itself out. If you made it put the card on top of your deck rather than discarding it, I imagine it would be a great $2 one-shot.

I completely missed Boycott somehow. I really liked it when it was a one-shot gold at $4, but moving Supply piles was fiddly and the fact that it was a one-shot meant its unique ability would be ignored pretty shortly after the game begins.
I do like cards that manipulate the start and end of the game, like this new Boycott does to some extent. I lament that it is no longer a one-shot, but it probably was a necessary change. Now its vanilla effect is kind of boring, but that could be all right.
Now I mostly worry that it can only cut Kingdom cards out of the Supply. The problem is that some really fun strategies need a variety of cards to work, but Big Money works on every table. Could Boycott allow its token to be moved to any non-empty pile that costs $1 or more? Could there possibly be more than 1 Boycott token (and disallow Boycotting Boycott)? Could it have an optional Peddler effect (+1 Action, +$1, your may trash this for +1 Card)? You set is missing one of those. Also the phrase "Cards in that pile cannot be bought or gained" is redundant and better suited to the hypothetical FAQ.

[probbins79]

I love the ideas for these cards! They are far better than others I have encountered for Dominion.  Inventor is my favorite; simple, but highly useful.  I'm surprised Donald X. hasn't made a card like this yet!  I also really like Fund and Floodgate, and Boycott looks quite interesting, but potentially frustrating!  The only significant problem I see is with Surveyor.  It is too strong.  +2 Cards and I can duplicate anything that's not a victory card? Wow! I'm filling my deck with Platinum, Goons, Expand, Bank, Grand Market, Forge, and all those other expensive cards with a measly cost 4 card! Not to mention Possession and Golem! (That could get crazy). Whoever invests in these is bound to win. Now, if it trashed itself, it would work.  Especially since you are already going for a one-shot theme.  If it was something like, "If the card you gain is worth more than 5, trash this."  Without a limitation like that, it's OP (overpowered).  Especially for someone like me who keeps his deck light.  I could buy one or two, cycle through my deck in a few turns, and be ready to boost my inventory significantly, over and over.  I would be unstoppable.  You could also make it not OP if it were pricier. Say, 7.  That makes it a bit of a gamble (as, in my opinion, most cards should be).  A prohibitive cost for some, with limited returns, but an investment with a serious payoff for others.

[LastFootnote]

I love the ideas for these cards! They are far better than others I have encountered for Dominion.  Inventor is my favorite; simple, but highly useful.  I'm surprised Donald X. hasn't made a card like this yet!  I also really like Fund and Floodgate, and Boycott looks quite interesting, but potentially frustrating!

Thanks! I'm really glad you like the cards. The set's been a long time in development and is still undergoing changes.

The only significant problem I see is with Surveyor.  It is too strong.  +2 Cards and I can duplicate anything that's not a victory card? Wow! I'm filling my deck with Platinum, Goons, Expand, Bank, Grand Market, Forge, and all those other expensive cards with a measly cost 4 card! Not to mention Possession and Golem! (That could get crazy). Whoever invests in these is bound to win. Now, if it trashed itself, it would work.  Especially since you are already going for a one-shot theme.  If it was something like, "If the card you gain is worth more than 5, trash this."  Without a limitation like that, it's OP (overpowered).  Especially for someone like me who keeps his deck light.  I could buy one or two, cycle through my deck in a few turns, and be ready to boost my inventory significantly, over and over.  I would be unstoppable.  You could also make it not OP if it were pricier. Say, 7.  That makes it a bit of a gamble (as, in my opinion, most cards should be).  A prohibitive cost for some, with limited returns, but an investment with a serious payoff for others.

The funny thing is, Surveyor was a one-shot that cost $2 less than a week ago. I just changed it to its current state because it wasn't a very popular card in my playtest games. Since then I've got a fair amount of negative feedback here in this thread, so I'm leaning more and more toward making it a one-shot again.

In either form, it's not as powerful as it looks, unfortunately. The fact that you have to discard the card you're duplicating really hurts. You can duplicate a Platinum, sure. But it still likely costs you $5 this turn to do so and in the meantime you've got a mediocre +2 Cards action in your deck. I first tried the persistent version at $5, but it seemed quite weak, so I bumped it down to $4.

As much as I'd rather not have two $2 cards in this small set, I think I'm going to have to return Surveyor to its $2 one-shot version and possibly buff it a little. However, I'm considering changing Boycott again. Here's the version I'm considering:

Tariff
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may put the Tariff marker on any nonempty Supply pile.
Setup: Put the Tariff marker on the Tariff pile. Cards in the pile with the Tariff marker cost $2 more.


I think it's more interesting than outright blocking a pile, and could result in some interesting combos as well. Of course you can put the Tariff marker on cards that you don't want your opponents to buy. You could also tariff the Coppers or Estates to help your trash-for-benefit cards. You could tariff Band of Misfits so that it could mimic $5 and $6 Action cards in the Supply.

For interactions with cost-reduction cards, cost increases would always be applied before cost decreases. It's quite possible this card leads to some crazy broken combos, but I hope not. The idea seems promising.

[math]

The way Tariff is worded now, it only affects cards in the pile, not cards in hands.  Also, does this mean that the first Tariff bought will cost $4?

[Fragasnap]

As much as I'd rather not have two $2 cards in this small set, I think I'm going to have to return Surveyor to its $2 one-shot version and possibly buff it a little. However, I'm considering changing Boycott again. Here's the version I'm considering:

Tariff
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+$2. You may put the Tariff marker on any nonempty Supply pile.
Setup: Put the Tariff marker on the Tariff pile. Cards in the pile with the Tariff marker cost $2 more.


I think it's more interesting than outright blocking a pile, and could result in some interesting combos as well. Of course you can put the Tariff marker on cards that you don't want your opponents to buy. You could also tariff the Coppers or Estates to help your trash-for-benefit cards. You could tariff Band of Misfits so that it could mimic $5 and $6 Action cards in the Supply.

I think it is bad that the Copper pile can have the Tariff token on it. While awesome for things like Remodel and Salvager, it can possibly (though not likely) lock a player out of the game.

It's funny, but I was going to suggest almost exactly this to you in order to turn Boycott back into a one-shot. Here's the card I had:

Tariff

+$3 Trash this. Choose one: Place a Tariff token onto a Supply pile that isn't Copper with no Tariff tokens on it; or remove a Tariff token from a Supply pile.Cards in and from Supply piles with Tariff tokens on them cost $2 more.

$4 ACTION

By letting it add or remove tokens, it makes the ability just as interactive (and further differentiates it from Embargo), the problem obviously being that it would allow the entire Supply to cost $2 more, so your version with only one token is probably better. I would still like to see it come back in-theme as a one-shot though.

The biggest issue I see with it is that any fun combo you want to do with it can be undermined by another player buying one and then it becomes a pretty big swingy mess if they don't trash themselves. This also reintroduces the card order problems for cards of changing long-term prices being introduced to the Kingdom.

[LastFootnote]

The way Tariff is worded now, it only affects cards in the pile, not cards in hands.

Thanks for catching that! New wording:

Tariff
Types: Action
Cost: 2
+2 Coins. You may put the Tariff marker on any card in the Supply.
------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Put the Tariff marker on the Tariff pile. Copies of the card that the Tariff marker is on cost 2 Coins more.

Also, does this mean that the first Tariff bought will cost $4?

Correct. I'm going to test it like that first and then perhaps test it with the marker starting off-board.

I think it is bad that the Copper pile can have the Tariff token on it. While awesome for things like Remodel and Salvager, it can possibly (though not likely) lock a player out of the game.

I see what you mean, but I'm not too worried about it. If it's a problem in playtesting, I'll try to fix it up. Honestly, I'm more concerned with a Tariff token on Silver. Although Tariffs after the first are a cheap source of coin (that can move the marker off of Silver), so it's probably not a big deal.

I would still like to see it come back in-theme as a one-shot though.

Although the set still has plenty of one-shots, it's slowly migrating toward a now-vs.-later theme. It's nice to have more than one theme in a set anyhow. Barracks, Inventor, Tax Collector, and Mill Town all fit that theme, as do many of the one-shots themselves (Fund, Floodgate, etc.).

The biggest issue I see with it is that any fun combo you want to do with it can be undermined by another player buying one and then it becomes a pretty big swingy mess if they don't trash themselves.

Well, you can still pull off the cool combos with an engine. I still have to playtest it to determine how it works in practice. As was discussed earlier in the thread, since the effects of Tariff are reversible, it makes more sense for it to be a persistent card.

This also reintroduces the card order problems for cards of changing long-term prices being introduced to the Kingdom.

Are you talking about the interaction between cost-raising and cost-lowering effects, or something else?

[Fragasnap]

Are you talking about the interaction between cost-raising and cost-lowering effects, or something else?

In retrospect, that is unclear. I mean the physical order of the Supply piles. I keep the Kingdom in order by price then alphabet in order to let players see what they can afford more quickly. If a card costs $2 more, then it will need to be moved ahead of a bunch of other cards and the other cards need to be moved back. If I do not reorganize the Kingdom, I will have to deal with players forgetting the effect.

Copies of the card that the Tariff marker is on cost 2 Coins more.

With this wording, if the Supply is emptied the price drops to normal since there isn't a card under the marker. That is probably okay, but it stifles the fun interaction with cursers and trash-for-benefit since Curses drop to $0 once the pile is inevitably exhausted.

By the by, I played a game using Clerk. I underestimated how complex the decision is (but not how useful). It probably is best that it does not look at more than 2 cards. Its reaction made the game pretty tense as it was the strongest source of trashing on a table with Attack engine components.

[LastFootnote]

I keep the Kingdom in order by price then alphabet in order to let players see what they can afford more quickly. If a card costs $2 more, then it will need to be moved ahead of a bunch of other cards and the other cards need to be moved back. If I do not reorganize the Kingdom, I will have to deal with players forgetting the effect.

Ah, I see. That's something I'll keep an eye out for when I playtest it. I'm hoping that with a large enough Tariff marker it won't be an issue. Currently I'm using the robber from my copy of Settlers of Catan.

Copies of the card that the Tariff marker is on cost 2 Coins more.

With this wording, if the Supply is emptied the price drops to normal since there isn't a card under the marker. That is probably okay, but it stifles the fun interaction with cursers and trash-for-benefit since Curses drop to $0 once the pile is inevitably exhausted.

Hmm, good call. I think I'm fine with this. It's an interesting interaction with Barracks/Conscripts, since in my experience the Curse pile often doesn't completely run out when Conscripts is the only curser available.

By the by, I played a game using Clerk. I underestimated how complex the decision is (but not how useful). It probably is best that it does not look at more than 2 cards. Its reaction made the game pretty tense as it was the strongest source of trashing on a table with Attack engine components.

Nice, thanks for testing that. How was the card overall? Was it interesting enough?

[SirPeebles]

With a clear marker, I can't see it being any more confusing than Peddler, and surely you don't move the Peddler pile during each Buy phase.

[dondon151]

If Tariff tokens on Copper or Silver (or even on basic Victory cards) become too much of problem, I'm sure there's a wording out there that can exclude the basic cards from the clause.

[Asper]

If Tariff tokens on Copper or Silver (or even on basic Victory cards) become too much of problem, I'm sure there's a wording out there that can exclude the basic cards from the clause.

"You may put the Tariff marker on any kingdom card in the Supply."

I think blocking Copper should be impossible, in any case. One of the unwritten rules in Dominion is "You can always at least buy a Copper".

Edit: At least i like to think so.

[GendoIkari]

You have a Highway in play and the Tarrif is on the Coppers. Do Coppers cost $2 or $1? What if Tarrif is on Coppers and you play 3 Bridges?

If you have effects that raise cost, it causes ambiguous timing issues with cards that lower cost. There's no rule to say whether you apply Tarrif or Highway or Bridge first, and it matters because of the not less than 0 clause.

[LastFootnote]

You have a Highway in play and the Tarrif is on the Coppers. Do Coppers cost $2 or $1? What if Tarrif is on Coppers and you play 3 Bridges?

If you have effects that raise cost, it causes ambiguous timing issues with cards that lower cost. There's no rule to say whether you apply Tarrif or Highway or Bridge first, and it matters because of the not less than 0 clause.

For interactions with cost-reduction cards, cost increases would always be applied before cost decreases.

There's no rule to say which to apply first because with the existing cards it never comes up. Hence my ruling here. I think it's the only reasonable ruling for such an interaction.

I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.

[GendoIkari]

You have a Highway in play and the Tarrif is on the Coppers. Do Coppers cost $2 or $1? What if Tarrif is on Coppers and you play 3 Bridges?

If you have effects that raise cost, it causes ambiguous timing issues with cards that lower cost. There's no rule to say whether you apply Tarrif or Highway or Bridge first, and it matters because of the not less than 0 clause.

For interactions with cost-reduction cards, cost increases would always be applied before cost decreases.

There's no rule to say which to apply first because with the existing cards it never comes up. Hence my ruling here. I think it's the only reasonable ruling for such an interaction.

I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.

Oops, didn't see that you'd already addressed it. Yeah, so long as there's a consistant ruling in the actual Dominion rules (or variation-cards-Dominion rules) that addresses it, should be fine. It just shouldn't be a specific card ruling.

[mail-mi]

I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.

Wait, I can play 8 markets, them cut purse, then buy all the colonies? Sweet!

[LastFootnote]

I know how you feel, but this isn't a huge taboo mechanic, dude. The original version of Cutpurse was, "Cards cost $1 during your turn and then $1 more until your next turn." That version got canned because it didn't follow standard Duration timings, not because it raised costs.

Wait, I can play 8 markets, them cut purse, then buy all the colonies? Sweet!

Ha ha! Whoops. In case it's not clear to everybody else, that should read, "Cards cost $1 less during your turn…"

[Fragasnap]

By the by, I played a game using Clerk. I underestimated how complex the decision is (but not how useful). It probably is best that it does not look at more than 2 cards. Its reaction made the game pretty tense as it was the strongest source of trashing on a table with Attack engine components.

Nice, thanks for testing that. How was the card overall? Was it interesting enough?

Overall, I liked Clerk as written more than I thought I would. I thought its ability would be a too weak to justify 2 card draw, but it generally did feel useful enough. I have to play with it more to formulate a better opinion, as that table was good to Clerk.
My opponent was particularly fond of the card which is always a good sign.

I also played a game with Barracks and no other Attacks. I really like Barracks, but without any Attacks, we have to go off of Conscripts and the result was a resounding "meh." Because Conscripts gives out both Golds and Curses, it's hard to skip even if it is a little slow to begin with. My opponent and I ended up emptying the Curse pile and the strategy felt way too much like Big Money to me. Really, in any game without one of the power trashers (you know, Chapel, Steward, or Remake), I think Conscripts is going to be too good to pass up on.
My opponent also did not like Conscripts, though I think he believed it to be a stronger than it is.
Do you suppose they could provide virtual coin and a buy? I think that could make them much more interesting.

[LastFootnote]

Overall, I liked Clerk as written more than I thought I would. I thought its ability would be a too weak to justify 2 card draw, but it generally did feel useful enough. I have to play with it more to formulate a better opinion, as that table was good to Clerk.
My opponent was particularly fond of the card which is always a good sign.

Nice. Thanks for taking the time to let me know how it went! This is neither here nor there, but I'm renaming the card 'Dignitary'. I'm stealing 'Clerk' for a different card that fits the flavor better.

I also played a game with Barracks and no other Attacks. I really like Barracks, but without any Attacks, we have to go off of Conscripts and the result was a resounding "meh."

Ah, Barracks. Such a tough card to balance. It has to be sometimes worth going for in games without other Attack cards, but not be overpowered in games with other Attack cards. It has to be worth using both options (dig for Attack, gain Conscripts) in both kinds of games. Barracks and Conscripts have both gone through a LOT of iterations and I'm fairly happy with how they are right now. That being said, I'm not completely opposed to changing them.

Because Conscripts gives out both Golds and Curses, it's hard to skip even if it is a little slow to begin with. My opponent and I ended up emptying the Curse pile and the strategy felt way too much like Big Money to me. Really, in any game without one of the power trashers (you know, Chapel, Steward, or Remake), I think Conscripts is going to be too good to pass up on.
My opponent also did not like Conscripts, though I think he believed it to be a stronger than it is.

For better or worse, I've tried to bring Barracks and Conscripts' power in line with other Curse givers. I'd rather err on the side of being weaker than Witch/Mountebank rather than stronger, but existing Curse-givers were my benchmark. I posit that any game with a Curse-giver and no good Curse trashing is going to end up as a Big Money slog of sorts, so I don't think Conscripts really stands out here. For what it's worth, while testing the current versions of the cards I tried a mock game of Barracks vs. Masquerade and double-Masq just destroys a Barracks strategy, free Golds and all.

Do you suppose they could provide virtual coin and a buy? I think that could make them much more interesting.

I'm not convinced this would actually fix anything. In the past, various versions of Conscripts have had +$2 or +$3. In terms of being intrinsically interesting, I think the Gold gaining is more unique; fewer cards gain you Gold than give virtual coin. But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that giving coins instead allows for the player to more easily buy cards other than Gold for a more interesting game overall. I think that's valid. However, here are some things to consider.

• As a card that digs for Attack cards, Barracks isn't meant to be in a really efficient engine. If you're drawing your whole deck anyway, there's not much need to dig for your Attacks; they're already in your hand.
• Because Conscripts gains you Gold, you don't have to use as many of your $6 buys on Gold. Often you won't have to buy any at all. You know your deck is going to have the Gold from Conscripts, so you can focus your buys on more interesting $5 and $6 cards.
  

The game you described seems like just about the worst case for a Barracks game: no other Attacks or trashers. I agree that it would be very difficult to win such a game by ignoring Barracks if your opponent goes for them. Again, that's by design to put it in line with the existing Curse givers. The one saving grace of the cards in those situations is that—if I've designed them correctly—there's still some skill in actually playing the Barracks and Conscripts. In my experience, it's sometimes more useful to use Barracks to summon Conscripts to your hand than to gain more, which isn't immediately obvious. Because Conscripts gains Gold rather than giving virtual coins, there's also a point when you don't want any more Conscripts; they're effectively dead cards if you're not going to see that Gold before the game ends. Deciding when that point is can also be an interesting puzzle.

Anyhow, it's also possible I'm misjudging the cards. I've played a lot of games with them in their current form, but that doesn't mean I've been playing optimally. It sucks that you guys had a bad experience with them. At the risk of sounding like I'm saying, "Go playtest my cards more!", I'm hoping you'll have a better experience if you play Barracks and Conscripts with some other Attacks, trashers, or any way to deal with Curses, really. Since you took the time to mock up or proxy both Barracks and Conscripts, might as well give them at least one more shot, right?    I'll think more about going back to a version that gives +$3. For some reason, I'm not crazy about the idea of giving Conscripts +1 Buy. Wouldn't that be sort of tacked on? I'll think about that too, though.

Thanks as always for the playtesting and feedback! I really appreciate it.

[Fragasnap]

I played two games with Mill Town. One had Apothecary and Floodgate and the other had Stables and a decent custom draw card. They both ended just about how you think they would.
I quite like Mill Town. I'm not certain how useful its Copper revealing effect will generally be, but I am stricken with how useful it seems in any case with card-draw and no Cursers.

I'm not convinced this would actually fix anything. In the past, various versions of Conscripts have had +$2 or +$3. In terms of being intrinsically interesting, I think the Gold gaining is more unique; fewer cards gain you Gold than give virtual coin. But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that giving coins instead allows for the player to more easily buy cards other than Gold for a more interesting game overall...
...I'll think more about going back to a version that gives +$3. For some reason, I'm not crazy about the idea of giving Conscripts +1 Buy. Wouldn't that be sort of tacked on? I'll think about that too, though.

I remember when Conscripts had +$2. Gaining Gold certainly is more intrinsically interesting by the very fact you outline, but the virtual coin is not what would make buying other cards easier. Take Spoils as a one-shot Gold for example: One of the first thing one buys with Spoils is another Gold. One-shot Gold is great at grabbing the more permanent kind. Contraband, on the other hand, is a Gold with a +Buy (and card denial, of course). That +Buy is what really makes all the difference because when a player has $6 and 1 Buy he defaults to Gold but with $6-$7 and 2 Buys there are a lot more options available to him.
Furthermore, the fact that Conscripts can play Attacks from the hand is rather confusing to their Gold gaining. Gaining Gold is a long-term benefit but it detriments players in the short run because it costs them an Action and a card slot from their hands (which will decrease the value of the hand that contained Conscripts), then another Attack can be played from the hand. It is confusing when most effects on Attacks are short-term benefits like Milita's +$2 and Rabble's +3 Cards.

In my experience, it's sometimes more useful to use Barracks to summon Conscripts to your hand than to gain more, which isn't immediately obvious. Because Conscripts gains Gold rather than giving virtual coins, there's also a point when you don't want any more Conscripts; they're effectively dead cards if you're not going to see that Gold before the game ends. Deciding when that point is can also be an interesting puzzle.

My initial reaction was pretty binary: If I had Conscripts in my deck, hunt for them, otherwise, gain them. I stopped gaining them after the Curse pile was depleted. Maybe allowing a short-term benefit on Conscripts would make it boring, I really can't tell. I do know that if it has +$3, +1 Buy, copies would be much easier to collect Conscripts even when the Curse pile is empty which would make Barracks less of a dead card without other Attacks.

[LastFootnote]

Fragasnap, I'm starting to be convinced that Conscripts could be better with +$2 or +$3. I don't think I'll add the +1 Buy, at least not right away, because that might be too much of what you need all rolled into one package.

I worry a bit that this change will make players always choose the Conscripts gain over the digging for an Attack, but I'm probably overestimating that. You still want to get to your existing Conscripts quickly in order to dole out Curses faster and get your new buys into your deck sooner.

One of the reasons I want to try it is that Conscripts with +$3 makes Profiteer easier to balance. Other players won't usually want a Gold-gaining Conscripts at the end of the game, but a money-producing Conscripts is a different story.

If Conscripts turns out to be too good at +$3—especially with Barracks as an opener—I'll experiment with other vanilla bonuses. I could nerf Barracks back to gaining one Conscripts, but I feel that would pretty much make gaining Conscripts with every play a given. I have that concern with the +$3 bonus in general, but I'll see how it works in practice.

I'm glad you like Mill Town. I assume since you mentioned Floodgate specifically that you were able to use it to advantage in that Mill Town game?

[Fragasnap]

I'm starting to be convinced that Conscripts could be better with +$2 or +$3. I don't think I'll add the +1 Buy, at least not right away, because that might be too much of what you need all rolled into one package.

I've been playing with +1 Buy, +$2. It has shown up in two games, one with Mountebank, another with a deck manipulation Attack (though I went Double Jack\Walled Village\Barracks to surprising effect). I was much happier to gain Conscripts after the Curse pile was empty when they weren't throwing boring Golds into my deck. I rarely got to use the extra buy at +$2, but their ability to play each other made +$2 really good, particularly because I didn't have many other Actions in my deck in either game. +$3 is certainly too good. Go for +$2 and I still recommend the +Buy.

I'm glad you like Mill Town. I assume since you mentioned Floodgate specifically that you were able to use it to advantage in that Mill Town game?

Yes. I used Mill Towns to gain Floodgates in order to set aside the Coppers I had revealed with Mill Towns and further Mill Towns for a final turn where I gained 4 of the Provinces and then bought the last one.
Definitely consider some way to incorporate that combo into the recommended sets of ten.

[NoMoreFun]

Guilds has probably made changing Conscripts yet again necessary, and you'll probably need to rename Tax Collector, but I hope you don't give up on the set.

[LastFootnote]

Guilds has probably made changing Conscripts yet again necessary, and you'll probably need to rename Tax Collector, but I hope you don't give up on the set.

I wasn't going to post anything for a while after the Guilds release, but since you brought it up, here's the latest news. The current version of Conscripts looks like this:

Conscripts
Types: Action
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

It's extra incentive to play multiple Conscripts in a single turn, especially in a 2-player game. I've only been able to test it in one mock game so far, but I'm hopeful it'll work out well.

The card you know as Tax Collector has been renamed Magistrate, and I'm thinking about trying it out at $4. I had another card that I more recently called Tax Collector before Guilds was released. I have renamed that card Assessor for now. You can see its early stages in another thread in this forum.

Boycott is dead, at least temporarily. I stole its artwork for Exchange and put Exchange's artwork on a new card I'm about to try. Fund also has different art.

I may make Surveyor a $2 one-shot again. We'll see.

Clerk has been renamed Dignitary and has different art. I wanted to use the name Clerk for another card. I may strip Dignitary of its Reaction ability and try it out at $3. If I do, I'll try to find another home for the reaction.

I'm still (slowly) working to bring Enterprise up to a 25-card set. There are a bunch of cards I've posted to this and other threads that are in the larger version (Convocation, Assessor, the card that stole Clerk's name, a version of Wheelwright, etc.). There are some cards I've been playtesting over the last few months that I haven't posted yet, and there are three more cards I came up with in the last couple of days that haven't been playtested yet. Two of them are kind of inspired by Guilds cards, but don't use coin tokens or overpay.

Gambler, Mill Town, Enforcer, Floodgate, Barracks, and Inventor are unchanged from the versions you see in the OP.

Once I have a nice, clean subset of 12 cards that could stand on their own as a small expansion, I'll update the OP. It's tough getting a good spread of cards while maintaining my desired cost ratio (1 $2, 2 $3, 4 $4, 5 $5) and a good mix of terminals and non-terminals, though.

Anyway, I'm sure that's more than you all wanted to know. Thanks for showing an interest!

[NoMoreFun]

I may have already said this in this thread, but have you considered making fund:

Fund:
Treasure - $5
Worth $2, +1 buy
When you play this, you may trash this
---
When you trash this, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.

I guess if the concept is that it's strictly a Silver with a one time bonus, then it can't work this way, but I just like versatility, especially when it doesn't ruin simplicity.

I explore the concept in my fan expansion with "Cargo", which is a $4 copper that, among many other things, can trash itself, and you gain a copper in hand when it's trashed.

[Fragasnap]

Conscripts
Types: Action
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

It's extra incentive to play multiple Conscripts in a single turn, especially in a 2-player game. I've only been able to test it in one mock game so far, but I'm hopeful it'll work out well.

The card you know as Tax Collector has been renamed Magistrate, and I'm thinking about trying it out at $4. I had another card that I more recently called Tax Collector before Guilds was released. I have renamed that card Assessor for now. You can see its early stages in another thread in this forum.

I'm doubtful that this version of Conscripts will work as a Curser, but I'm probably undervaluing the non-terminal discard of it.
I like the changes to Tax Collector: Particularly the new name. At a cost of $4 I think it will be very competitive with Militia, but may need to drop the "no Copper" clause.

Clerk has been renamed Dignitary and has different art. I wanted to use the name Clerk for another card. I may strip Dignitary of its Reaction ability and try it out at $3. If I do, I'll try to find another home for the reaction.

I don't like this change as much. I thought the effects were pretty flavorful with Clerk.

I've been playing more with Mill Town. I've found that in pretty much every game where I can increase my handsize, Mill Town is just crazy. The fact that I was able to pretty much gain the Duchy pile in a 2-player game in a single turn. I would recommend taking a page from Horn of Plenty and having Mill Town trash itself when gaining Victory cards.

I continue to look forward to your updates. Best of luck to you.

[LastFootnote]

Conscripts
Types: Action
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

It's extra incentive to play multiple Conscripts in a single turn, especially in a 2-player game. I've only been able to test it in one mock game so far, but I'm hopeful it'll work out well.

The card you know as Tax Collector has been renamed Magistrate, and I'm thinking about trying it out at $4. I had another card that I more recently called Tax Collector before Guilds was released. I have renamed that card Assessor for now. You can see its early stages in another thread in this forum.

I'm doubtful that this version of Conscripts will work as a Curser, but I'm probably undervaluing the non-terminal discard of it.
I like the changes to Tax Collector: Particularly the new name. At a cost of $4 I think it will be very competitive with Militia, but may need to drop the "no Copper" clause.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to playtest either of these yet. You could be right on both counts. I like the concept of this new Conscripts, so if it's too weak, I'll probably beef up the non-Attack portion of it. As for Magistrate (formerly Tax Collector), if it doesn't work at $4, I'll probably just bump it back up to $5. I feel that the "no Copper" clause serves to reduce AP as much as boost its power, so I'd rather keep it if possible.

Clerk has been renamed Dignitary and has different art. I wanted to use the name Clerk for another card. I may strip Dignitary of its Reaction ability and try it out at $3. If I do, I'll try to find another home for the reaction.

I don't like this change as much. I thought the effects were pretty flavorful with Clerk.

Well, the new card with this name is this:

Clerk
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.

Who works in Counting Houses? Clerks. So the name seemed more appropriate for a mini-Counting House card.

I've been playing more with Mill Town. I've found that in pretty much every game where I can increase my handsize, Mill Town is just crazy. The fact that I was able to pretty much gain the Duchy pile in a 2-player game in a single turn. I would recommend taking a page from Horn of Plenty and having Mill Town trash itself when gaining Victory cards.

I'm definitely open to that idea. I hate stealing unique clauses from other cards, but I can definitely see how it would be warranted here. Could you tell me a bit more about the game where you gained all the Duchies? Did your opponent contest you for Mill Towns? What was his/her strategy?

[Warfreak2]

"Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse."

I'm not sure about this; do you mean, each other player who did not discard any cards? Because, Cellar isn't "you may", it's "discard any number of cards", where 0 is any number. If my hand is already 3 cards, I can argue that I discarded 0 cards to make my handsize 3 cards, so I am exempt from the Curse. (Then there's an even nitpickier question of whether I can discard down to 3 cards, if my hand was already smaller than 3 cards?) Otherwise the only reason I can think of for not discarding down to 3 would be Moat/Lighthouse, but they would protect you from the Curse too.

Obviously it's clear what you mean.

[LastFootnote]

"Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. Each other player who didn't discard gains a Curse."

I'm not sure about this; do you mean, each other player who did not discard any cards? Because, Cellar isn't "you may", it's "discard any number of cards", where 0 is any number. If my hand is already 3 cards, I can argue that I discarded 0 cards to make my handsize 3 cards, so I am exempt from the Curse. (Then there's an even nitpickier question of whether I can discard down to 3 cards, if my hand was already smaller than 3 cards?) Otherwise the only reason I can think of for not discarding down to 3 would be Moat/Lighthouse, but they would protect you from the Curse too.

Obviously it's clear what you mean.

I was aware of the possible confusion when wording the card. I opted for this wording using Stonemason as precedent. Stonemason's "if you do" does not consider overpaying by $0 to be overpaying at all. However, I think I should adopt your wording to bring Conscripts more in line with Tactician. "Any cards" is not so many words to add, and it is clearer. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Warfreak2]

Tactician is a much better source for the phrasing, good find. Stonemason can't be overpaid for by $0 because the rules of Dominion specifically forbid overpaying by $0.

[Fragasnap]

Clerk
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.

That is a cute Clerk, but I imagine too good for $2. It's a cantrip when it misses and a Peddler when it doesn't. Conditional Peddlers Ironmonger and Tournament both suggest $4 might be a more appropriate cost.
I'll look into testing it in some games.

I've been playing more with Mill Town. I've found that in pretty much every game where I can increase my handsize, Mill Town is just crazy. The fact that I was able to pretty much gain the Duchy pile in a 2-player game in a single turn. I would recommend taking a page from Horn of Plenty and having Mill Town trash itself when gaining Victory cards.

I'm definitely open to that idea. I hate stealing unique clauses from other cards, but I can definitely see how it would be warranted here. Could you tell me a bit more about the game where you gained all the Duchies? Did your opponent contest you for Mill Towns? What was his/her strategy?

Really, Mill Town is playing a lot like Horn of Plenty overall, but a bit harder to get working since you need Mill Towns and Coppers in hand.
The game in particular had as important cards: Crossroads, Mill Town, Band of Misfits, Harem
The ability to use Bands of Misfitses as either Crossroadses (with Harems no less) or Mill Towns was obviously a big upset to the game. I was gaining some early Duchies and later Harems with Mill Towns. The early Duchies didn't hurt at all between Crossroadses' draws and Mill Towns' need of discard fodder. There were some fun mind games early on with Smugglerses and Tributes (since early Harems could be countered by the use of those), but once the Bands of Misfitses were flowing there wasn't much care in gaining cards. My opponent didn't gain Victory cards as early or as rapidly as he should have been (I believe there were 2 instances later on when he passed on picking up Duchies, once with Smugglers, once with Mill Town, when I would have recommended otherwise), but we did both pick Mill Town as a key card on the board.
There was a decent draw card-- can't remember precisely what it was now, but it was really just a catalyst for Mill Towns or Bands of Misfitses dressed as Mill Towns.

On another game I used Floodgate to pass Coppers into the next turn for a Mill Town megaturn. I mentioned that one earlier.
Another game I used Apothecary to pull Coppers for gaining Apprentices which I later trashed to get my cards into hand for the Mill Town megaturn.

I've played some others where Mill Town is just a neat little Village\Workshop thing. That's cool. Even when it can be used for these megaturns that gain tons of Duchies or Provinces it is fun to play with, but when that happens it feels a lot like Horn of Plenty, so the trashing is probably necessary-- especially since Mill Town itself is a light sifter, making a little early Victory bloat okay. Either that or make it so Mill Town can't gain Victory cards, but I must confess that would make me a little sad.

[LastFootnote]

Clerk
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.

That is a cute Clerk, but I imagine too good for $2. It's a cantrip when it misses and a Peddler when it doesn't. Conditional Peddlers Ironmonger and Tournament both suggest $4 might be a more appropriate cost.
I'll look into testing it in some games.

Well, let's compare them a little closer. Clerk's worst case is actually better than Tournament's worst case, since it always gives +1 Card, +1 Action. However, Tournament is a much more reliable Peddler early on. Clerk has a pretty high chance to whiff if you pick it up early. And of course, Clerk ain't gaining you no Prizes.

Ironmonger is an even better comparison. Thre are only two situations where Ironmonger "whiffs". One is when you turn over a Curse or Hovel, and even then you at least get to sift past it. The other is when you have nothing left in your deck or discard. Often you'd prefer Ironmonger hit a Victory card, or even an Action depending on your deck. And even when it hits Copper, you get the extra bonus of sifting past that Copper.

A stack of Clerks, on the other hand, have to stop working eventually. Either the discard pile will run out of Coppers or you'll force a reshuffle. It's kind of like Menagerie in that way. Unless you build your deck just so, they'll eventually stop activating. Even when Clerk hits, it's usually not as awesome as Menagerie.

Finally, I just have trouble picturing buying Clerk even at $3. I really think $2 is the sweet spot for the card, although I've been wrong before.

[Warfreak2]

I think the price difference between $2 and $3 is mainly about how spammable it is, and whether you can open with it and a $5-cost. Whether it's strictly better or worse than another card is also a consideration. But otherwise a mediocre effect could pretty similarly be put on a $2 or a $3.

[LastFootnote]

I may have already said this in this thread, but have you considered making fund:

Fund:
Treasure - $5
Worth $2, +1 buy
When you play this, you may trash this
---
When you trash this, gain a Silver, putting it in your hand.

I guess if the concept is that it's strictly a Silver with a one time bonus, then it can't work this way, but I just like versatility, especially when it doesn't ruin simplicity.

I explore the concept in my fan expansion with "Cargo", which is a $4 copper that, among many other things, can trash itself, and you gain a copper in hand when it's trashed.

I meant to respond to this a while ago. Sorry!

To answer your question, yes I've considered it. I try to keep mechanics specific to other expansions out of this expansion whenever possible. I'd really like it to stand alone, so to speak. To this end, Enterprise will never contain Duration cards, Potion-cost cards, VP Chip-gaining cards, Looters, cards that use Spoils, cards that get you Coin tokens, or cards with overpay.

Hybrid Victory cards, on-buy abilities, on-gain abilities, and on-trash abilities are not off the table, but I'll only use them if the card's core concept requires them or really works best with them. Floodgate has an on-gain ability, for instance, because that's the whole point of the card. Although it would be a cool twist, Fund doesn't need an on-trash ability to do what it does.

With Cargo, the on-trash ability is great because Cargo can trash any card in play including itself. The on-trash clause is a lot cooler and more elegant than saying, "If the trashed card is this…".

I think the price difference between $2 and $3 is mainly about how spammable it is, and whether you can open with it and a $5-cost. Whether it's strictly better or worse than another card is also a consideration. But otherwise a mediocre effect could pretty similarly be put on a $2 or a $3.

Agreed. Picking Clerk up as part of a 5/2 split is nice, but not awesome. It's usually better than nothing. I definitely want it to be spammable, especially since it's somewhat self-limiting. I currently see no reason it needs to cost $3.

[dondon151]

Clerk also has amazing synergy with discard-for-benefit. Still not sure if it should cost $3 though.

[LastFootnote]

Clerk also has amazing synergy with discard-for-benefit. Still not sure if it should cost $3 though.

Indeed. I have a few more cards in the works for this set that benefit from having a large hand-size, one of which is a discard-for-benefit card. Clerk is definitely meant to combo with such cards.

[Fragasnap]

Ironmonger is an even better comparison. Thre are only two situations where Ironmonger "whiffs". One is when you turn over a Curse or Hovel, and even then you at least get to sift past it. The other is when you have nothing left in your deck or discard. Often you'd prefer Ironmonger hit a Victory card, or even an Action depending on your deck. And even when it hits Copper, you get the extra bonus of sifting past that Copper.

(Emphasis added)

Ironmonger's Village option is easily the weakest among them since you can't rely upon it to act as a Village for you. While Tournament is safely a $4 Peddler early on, you can't load up on them because your deck will be hit hard when another player has a Province in hand. The uncertainty of Tournament and Ironmonger are what balance them and make them interesting at $4. If the board lacks good Copper trashing, I can't imagine not picking up 2 or 3 Clerks at $2 a pop (which would be particularly easy with +Buys) just for the times it will be a Peddler.

And this critisism isn't even considering how well Clerk will work with different sifting cards (Warehouse, Embassy, etc.) and cards that want Coppers in hand (Coppersmith, Mill Town, etc.).

This isn't necessarily a problem-- equal opportunity would just make it a pretty good card-- but Clerk might be too much of a no-brainer at $2.

[LastFootnote]

Ironmonger is an even better comparison. Thre are only two situations where Ironmonger "whiffs". One is when you turn over a Curse or Hovel, and even then you at least get to sift past it. The other is when you have nothing left in your deck or discard. Often you'd prefer Ironmonger hit a Victory card, or even an Action depending on your deck. And even when it hits Copper, you get the extra bonus of sifting past that Copper.

(Emphasis added)

Ironmonger's Village option is easily the weakest among them since you can't rely upon it to act as a Village for you. While Tournament is safely a $4 Peddler early on, you can't load up on them because your deck will be hit hard when another player has a Province in hand. The uncertainty of Tournament and Ironmonger are what balance them and make them interesting at $4. If the board lacks good Copper trashing, I can't imagine not picking up 2 or 3 Clerks at $2 a pop (which would be particularly easy with +Buys) just for the times it will be a Peddler.

And this critisism isn't even considering how well Clerk will work with different sifting cards (Warehouse, Embassy, etc.) and cards that want Coppers in hand (Coppersmith, Mill Town, etc.).

This isn't necessarily a problem-- equal opportunity would just make it a pretty good card-- but Clerk might be too much of a no-brainer at $2.

Perhaps. Also take into account that using Clerks means that you're not trashing your Coppers, which in general makes your deck much less reliable.

Really I don't see it as being more of a no-brainer than Candlestick Maker or Vagrant. It rarely hurts to have a couple of Candlestick Makers, and Vagrants never hurt unless you draw them dead. They're both arguably better than Clerk in standard engine decks as well, providing +1 Buy and Province-sifting, respectively (whereas in such an engine Clerk often has no Copper to draw).

The combos you mention (specifically Mill Town) are definitely intentional.

[NoMoreFun]

How often does clerk "work"? It reminds me of wishing well, except it 'works" far more often but the payoff isn't as great (it's a Peddler instead of a Lab).

Have you considered a $4 cantrip that dug through the deck for a Copper? It's just a Peddler, but if you want to stack up you can't trash your coppers, and it will have unfortunate implications for late game. All the combos that you intend for Clerk (sifters, copper counters) work more reliably.

[Asper]

I totally forgot to comment on my playtest of Clerk that i did yesterday...

One of the things i noticed was how unreliable it was early in the game. With a more than 50% chance of it being basically useless, it didn't help me take off very much. Even if it works out, it's basically a Silver early. It becomes quite reliable when your deck has started growing, though - that's when Clerks usually will be Peddlers. The problem is that this is the time when you'd prefer getting a 5$ or 6$. So to have a decent Clerk, you need to spend a later buy on it, or buy it while it's very unreliable, passing the chance to get another card. Assuming a price of 3$ (i played with 2$-Clerk), i think Silver will be more helpful to build an early economy. As a 2$, there's often nothing better on the board, so i'd buy Clerk nonetheless, to be amazed how it is one of the 2$s that become better as the game goes on.

Disclaimer: I playtested one of my cards on the same set, so i can't guarantee negative interactions have spoiled this review. Overall i liked Clerk better than my own card.

Edit: To make it easier to consider whether my card changed the playtest too much:
Seer, Action, 3$
Discard a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card. Discard all other revealed cards and play that action card.

[scott_pilgrim]

If anyone is worried that a $2 somtimes-Peddler is too strong, remember that Peddler is sometimes a $2 Peddler.  I don't think Clerk is a problem at all; in the thin decks where you like to have lots of Peddlers, they miss pretty often.  They're also a lot worse at the beginning, when you're more likely to have $2/$3/$4 hands.  The $2 mostly just helps with picking them up on extra buys, and clearly that can't be a huge problem, since it's also easy to pick up lots of Peddlers on extra buys.

[LastFootnote]

Have you considered a $4 cantrip that dug through the deck for a Copper? It's just a Peddler, but if you want to stack up you can't trash your coppers, and it will have unfortunate implications for late game. All the combos that you intend for Clerk (sifters, copper counters) work more reliably.

Funny enough, the card you described was the original concept for this card, if memory serves. I think I decided not to go for it just because of its potential slowness to resolve. In retrospect, it's probably not worse than Hunting Party or Golem, but I thought it might be a bit slow, especially once there are no more Coppers in your deck. Also it's even closer to the mythical $4 Peddler, and I wanted to distance the card from that a bit. Or maybe it was just that I had enough non-terminal $4 cards and needed more $2 cards. Maybe there was another reason I decided not to do it. I can't remember. Long story short, yes I considered that idea. I may yet go back to it!

I totally forgot to comment on my playtest of Clerk that i did yesterday...

One of the things i noticed was how unreliable it was early in the game. With a more than 50% chance of it being basically useless, it didn't help me take off very much. Even if it works out, it's basically a Silver early. It becomes quite reliable when your deck has started growing, though - that's when Clerks usually will be Peddlers. The problem is that this is the time when you'd prefer getting a 5$ or 6$. So to have a decent Clerk, you need to spend a later buy on it, or buy it while it's very unreliable, passing the chance to get another card. Assuming a price of 3$ (i played with 2$-Clerk), i think Silver will be more helpful to build an early economy. As a 2$, there's often nothing better on the board, so i'd buy Clerk nonetheless, to be amazed how it is one of the 2$s that become better as the game goes on.

Thanks for playtesting it! Glad to hear it went well. I've had Clerk long enough that I've playtested it a bit myself, and my experiences match up with yours. One of the guys I playtested it with actually wanted to jazz the card up. He thought it was too simple. I think I'm happy with just having it as a simple support card, though. They can't all be the most interesting card ever!

Disclaimer: I playtested one of my cards on the same set, so i can't guarantee negative interactions have spoiled this review. Overall i liked Clerk better than my own card.

Edit: To make it easier to consider whether my card changed the playtest too much:
Seer, Action, 3$
Discard a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card. Discard all other revealed cards and play that action card.

Hmm, interesting. Seems potentially quite powerful. What's your thinking behind the 'discard a card' clause? Just a balance mechanism?

Reminds me of a somewhat similar idea I had recently.

Types: Action
Cost: ?
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 2 Action cards. Discard the other cards. Trash one of the revealed Actions and play the other one three times.

I'm not sure if it's 1) interesting, 2) different enough from Golem, or 3) fun. Just an untested idea I had.

[LastFootnote]

Since Polk5440 asked for it, here's the work-in-progress version of Enterprise as it currently exists. In image form.

[GendoIkari]

I seem to recall that one of the winners of the contest was a $2 Peddler that gained a Copper to your hand? I'm curious how that compares with Clerk, given how similar they are. Clerk should be a regular Peddler more then half the time that you play it (though not if you play several per turn). Whereas the other card always gets you money, but hurts your deck as you use it more.

[LastFootnote]

I seem to recall that one of the winners of the contest was a $2 Peddler that gained a Copper to your hand? I'm curious how that compares with Clerk, given how similar they are. Clerk should be a regular Peddler more then half the time that you play it (though not if you play several per turn). Whereas the other card always gets you money, but hurts your deck as you use it more.

I'm guessing that Clerk is more powerful than Almoner in general, the exception being when you want to flood your deck with Copper. Almoner strikes me as extremely narrow, whereas Clerk is nice in most decks that aren't trashing their Copper. So far Clerk seems like a solid $2. It's possible that I might someday bump it to $3, but it hasn't proved to be a problem at the lower price point yet.

In general, Clerk combos with Mill Town and Vendor, makes you more willing to take Copper from opponents' Wheelwrights, and makes a great target for Investment. So I like how it fits into the set.

[GendoIkari]

So this has likely been discussed already (I haven't read much of the discussion about this set), but I'm wondering / concerned about how Craftsman will change the other cards that use the Trade Token mechanic. Normally those other cards basically function as "2-shots". At least, any Kingdom that has just 1 of those cards it will function that way. But it becomes a different type of card once you are able to purchase just 1 copy and use it more than twice. I'm not saying that they're overpowered with Craftsman around, or underpowered without, but it just seems like the presence of Craftsman would change the actual behavior/concept of the card, in a way that's different than how you expect combos to change cards.

[LastFootnote]

So this has likely been discussed already (I haven't read much of the discussion about this set), but I'm wondering / concerned about how Craftsman will change the other cards that use the Trade Token mechanic. Normally those other cards basically function as "2-shots". At least, any Kingdom that has just 1 of those cards it will function that way. But it becomes a different type of card once you are able to purchase just 1 copy and use it more than twice. I'm not saying that they're overpowered with Craftsman around, or underpowered without, but it just seems like the presence of Craftsman would change the actual behavior/concept of the card, in a way that's different than how you expect combos to change cards.

Don't worry about missing previous conversation. I have not previously posted the Trade token cards. Although I have created some separate threads to talk about token-less versions of some of them, this is the first time anyone has seen Craftsman, so you are initiating the first conversation about it.

As for the combos, I need to do more playtesting, but so far they seem like cool combos rather than broken weird things. Craftsman definitely puts a different spin on those other cards, and vice versa (you might buy some Jubilees in order to get tokens for use with Craftsman). The key is to make sure that the uses for Trade tokens aren't so far out of step with each other as to create a really broken interaction.

Specifically concerning using Craftsman to gain tokens for use with the other cards: at that point it's basically "+1 Action; Take a Trade token" unless you want a Poor House or a Copper, etc. I'm not saying that's never worthwhile, but the fact that it takes up space in your hand and doesn't replace itself helps balance the fact that you're making another card more powerful. Is it different than how you'd expect combos to work? I hope so! I definitely aim to provide new and different Dominion experiences with this set, rather than just a fresh coat of paint.

Side note: Jubilee is the only "2-shot". The other cards that give you a single Trade token all just have abilities that you can use Trade tokens to trigger, but none of the others trash themselves.

EDIT: Fun fact: The previous version of General was another card that both gained and used Trade tokens when you played it:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Take a trade token. You may play an Action card from your hand. You may spend a Trade token to play it again. You may spend a Trade token to play it a third time.

So it was a cool Throne Room variant powered by Trade tokens. Even if it shows up with no other Action cards, you can save the token for use with a future play. Also, unlike Throne Room and King's Court, you can decide whether you want to play the chosen card again after it resolves. Say you only have one buy and you play General on a Smithy. If that first draw gives you enough money for the card you want, you can save the Trade token for later. It was a cool mechanic.

In the end the tracking problems it had didn't seem worth it. I like the current version of General better, which satisfies my criterium of "Throne that works really well with one-shots, but is still good with other cards". And Craftsman now fills the "get some more Trade tokens" role.

[LastFootnote]

As an aside, I wanted to share a Kingdom I was testing recently.


I played four mock games with it, testing the power of various cards against each other. My goal was usually: Beat the BM+Wheelwright deck using a more interesting engine! I was usually using a Clerk/Vendor type of deck, trashing Estates with either Redistrict or Exchange. Sometimes I would use Investment on Clerk or Vendor. I figured that that type of deck could best make use of the Coppers that the opponent's Wheelwright(s) were offering. But it took me three or four games to beat the BM deck and the key ended up being a strong Attack (as it so often when building an engine against a BM deck). I had thought that Wheelwright would be able to shrug off Axeman attacks, being that it could draw back up to 7 cards. But man, it could not.

Some cool things I noticed:

• When you get hit by an Axeman late-game, you are usually not too sad to replace that Gold with a Fund, especially if you can draw into it next turn. More money! Cha-ching!
• Craftsman is very nice when you want to quickly amass a bunch of $2 and $3 cards. Like when you're Investing in Clerks and want the whole stack.
• This is not news to me, but a big part of Enterprise in general and Vendor specifically is learning when to just destroy your deck Mining Village-style. Part of the reason my first few engines failed was that I was too eager to trash my Vendors.

[GendoIkari]

Side note: Jubilee is the only "2-shot". The other cards that give you a single Trade token all just have abilities that you can use Trade tokens to trigger, but none of the others trash themselves.

Indeed, I thought of this wrong when looking over the cards. Jubille is a "2-shot", the others are semi-one-shots; they do something like a regular card, but their best ability is one-time (normally). Pretty cool; similar to the Myojin cycle of cards from MTG. I guess sort of like a reversed Mining Village actually... it can only be extra powerful once, but you can use it normally as much as you want. And you can continue using it normally after you've used it for it's powerful effect. Probably leads to slightly less AP than Mining Village.

[KingZog3]

As an aside, I wanted to share a Kingdom I was testing recently.

So I don`t see much of an engine here. Not that I really now the cards, but the easiest thing I see to beat the BM-Wheelwright is Inesting Clerks, maybe twice to make the Conspirator++ and Vendor to draw and buy.  It would suck to have to trash a vendor though. I actually think that should kill the BM strategy most of the time. You don't even need to take a lot of the coppers. Investing in a cheap chantrip seems kinda strong. Vagrant with +$2 on it? Count me in!

[LastFootnote]

Side note: Jubilee is the only "2-shot". The other cards that give you a single Trade token all just have abilities that you can use Trade tokens to trigger, but none of the others trash themselves.

Indeed, I thought of this wrong when looking over the cards. Jubille is a "2-shot", the others are semi-one-shots; they do something like a regular card, but their best ability is one-time (normally). Pretty cool; similar to the Myojin cycle of cards from MTG. I guess sort of like a reversed Mining Village actually... it can only be extra powerful once, but you can use it normally as much as you want. And you can continue using it normally after you've used it for it's powerful effect. Probably leads to slightly less AP than Mining Village.

Yeah, Donald mentions in the Secret History of Intrigue how some people don't like one-shots because they don't stay in your deck. So one solution to that problem is to have abilities that you can use once but then keep the card afterward. Jubilee still doesn't stay in your deck, but you know. A two-shot seemed like a cool thing to have and I already had this convenient way to do it. It doubles as a very cheap way to pick up Trade tokens for use with other cards.

Fund is actually another take on this one-shot-that-you-keep idea. A Fund is just a Silver until you use its ability. Afterward it leaves a normal Silver in your deck.

As a small side-note, a couple of these images are a bit outdated. Terrace's token ability no longer draws you a card per card you discarded. It now just draws you 5 cards regardless. Better in some cases, worse in others. The main reason for the change is logistical. When you have a huge hand, you first have to count how many cards, then discard them and count again as you draw. And probably you're drawing a lot of the same cards anyway in that case. Ugh.

I think I'm going to take out Tinker and replace it with a similar card with a different token ability:

Lodge
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, reveal then discard any number of Victory cards. +$1 per card discarded.

So I don`t see much of an engine here. Not that I really now the cards, but the easiest thing I see to beat the BM-Wheelwright is Inesting Clerks, maybe twice to make the Conspirator++ and Vendor to draw and buy.  It would suck to have to trash a vendor though. I actually think that should kill the BM strategy most of the time. You don't even need to take a lot of the coppers. Investing in a cheap chantrip seems kinda strong. Vagrant with +$2 on it? Count me in!

Hmm, I'll try it again with Investing in Clerks twice. Pricey, but probably worth it. It'll be a good stress test for Investment to see if it needs tweaking. Of course in that case, I'll probably have the BM player also buy Clerks once he "realizes" what's going on. Any reasonable opponent is going to try to deny you a card that's effectively a Super Conspirator.

[KingZog3]

So I don`t see much of an engine here. Not that I really now the cards, but the easiest thing I see to beat the BM-Wheelwright is Inesting Clerks, maybe twice to make the Conspirator++ and Vendor to draw and buy.  It would suck to have to trash a vendor though. I actually think that should kill the BM strategy most of the time. You don't even need to take a lot of the coppers. Investing in a cheap chantrip seems kinda strong. Vagrant with +$2 on it? Count me in!

Hmm, I'll try it again with Investing in Clerks twice. Pricey, but probably worth it. It'll be a good stress test for Investment to see if it needs tweaking. Of course in that case, I'll probably have the BM player also buy Clerks once he "realizes" what's going on. Any reasonable opponent is going to try to deny you a card that's effectively a Super Conspirator.

Actually this engine seems powerful enough. You wouldn't mind discarding copper for Vendor because Clerk will just pick them up again from the discard. Actually this sounds fun. I'd like to know how it turns out.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I really like the concept of trade tokens and what you've done with them here.  If you somehow published this expansion I'd buy it (of course I might start using the cards anyway, published or not).

I think the Fund could use clearer wording.  It's hard to tell if you get still the $2 from the fund on the turn that you trash it in addition to the silver.
Hard to tell how well the Barrister/Domain cards would work. Have you tested the Barrister much yet? It would clearly scale in power with number of players, but probably not too much. Is there any reason that you left Domain at $0 cost?  Even though it isn't in the supply, it would seem appropriate for it to have a higher cost.
Dignitary looks especially interesting with a unique mechanic on top and a reaction that works especially well against axeman (like Secret Chamber's reaction works especially well against Swindler and Sabateur). I look forward to finding out how it works in a game.

[NoMoreFun]

Why is exchange when buy, but the other trade token cards when gain?

[scott_pilgrim]

Why is exchange when buy, but the other trade token cards when gain?

Probably because you can use Exchange to trash, gain an Exchange into your hand, trash something else, gain an Exchange to hand, etc.  I personally think it would be fine on gain (since you have to have fuel to trash to get each Exchange), but I can understand why you might prefer to have it be on buy.

My thoughts on the set as a whole (trying to keep this as concise as possible): I like it a lot and compared to official expansions, I think it would rank as my 2nd-4th favorite (somewhere in that range).  I don't think there are any "problem" cards in the set (too weak or too strong or too uninteresting cards), which is something I don't think can be said of any official expansion (except maybe Guilds, though it's all subjective anyway), so that is very good.  The one-shot theme is very clear and well-executed, and many of them are done in unique and interesting ways.

Gambler is one of my favorite fan cards ever.  I also like General a lot, I love throne room variants in general (no pun intended), and have always wanted a good $5 TR.  General not only fits very well into the set by comboing with one-shots, but it's also still a pretty reasonable $5 TR even on boards without one-shots.

I don't like Floodgate, though I'm not quite sure why.  It makes sense that the way to do a "one-shot" victory card is to give it an on-gain effect, but for some reason I don't really like it.  If you leave everything else as is though, I feel like it should cost $3 and not $4.  The thing is, if I buy it with $4 to set stuff aside, and that stuff would have given me at least $1, why didn't I just buy Duchy?  So I'm sure you've playtested it and found that to not be an issue, but I'm at least interested to hear your comments on it.  It's at least nice for stopping terminal collision.

Investment is really cool, and you probably don't need me to tell you this, but you should playtest it A LOT.  Of course it's fine if there are some boards where it's dead and others where it's nuts, but it potentially seems like the kind of card that would either be dead on way too many boards, or nuts on way too many boards.  If it turns out to be too weak I think just giving it +$x and +1 buy on play would help "make up" for having gone out of your way to get it.  If it turns out to be too strong it will be very hard to fix.

About Craftsman gaining trade tokens: Combos are a cool thing and obviously a huge part of Dominion, but the more explicit they are, the less you feel like you are discovering something.  Imagine a Looter that did some stuff and then said "Trash a Looter from your play area."  On boards without other Looters it's a one-shot, but it plays totally differently when there are other Looters on the board.  Also it combos really well with Cultist, I didn't even think of that when I came up with that example.  But I think you see what I'm saying.  There's just something that doesn't feel right about having only a few cards in all of Dominion that make use of a certain mechanic, and then having them combo well together because of that shared mechanic.  (And I'm aware the Looter example is much more extreme, I'm just trying to illustrate the point.)  Most cards combo well together because of their difference in mechanics, because they complement each other by doing different things, and this also creates a lot more diversity in potential combos (all disappearing actions potentially combo with draw-to-X cards, that's a lot more combinations than if, say, all draw-to-X cards comboed with draw-to-X cards).  So with all that being said, I have no idea if there's any reasonable fix, I like Craftsman as it is, as well as the other Trade token cards, and having them use different colored tokens is impractical.  I just wanted to share my thoughts on that issue.

Yeah, I did a great job of keeping that concise.  I forgot to mention I also don't like Tinker, but I do like Lodge so if you follow through with that then I don't need to comment on Tinker.  If you do manage to get the set published, I would certainly buy it (even with no changes from how it is now).  I think your cards are definitely at the quality of official cards, but I don't know what would go into arranging a deal with RGG.  Good luck if you eventually decide to go through with that!

[LastFootnote]

I really like the concept of trade tokens and what you've done with them here.  If you somehow published this expansion I'd buy it (of course I might start using the cards anyway, published or not).

Thanks again for testing Investment! If you want to test any of the others, please do. The more playtesting the set gets, the better it'll end up being. It already has way more outtakes than cards, so it's been in development for quite a while.

I think the Fund could use clearer wording.  It's hard to tell if you get still the $2 from the fund on the turn that you trash it in addition to the silver.

I agree that it would be nice if this were clearer. It does still give you the +$2. It's definitely something I would put in a FAQ, but I'm not sure how I would change the card wording itself. Suggestions are welcome, but I'd rather have a clean, concise wording than a messy one.

Hard to tell how well the Barrister/Domain cards would work. Have you tested the Barrister much yet? It would clearly scale in power with number of players, but probably not too much. Is there any reason that you left Domain at $0 cost?  Even though it isn't in the supply, it would seem appropriate for it to have a higher cost.

I've played Barrister in a handful of games now, but it's one of the cards I need to playtest the most. I could increase Domain's cost. Really what that would do is encourage you to trash it with Remodel, etc. Which I'm not sure is something I want. It's definitely not off the table, though. It might be cool to shake things up by starting everybody with a $4 card. I'm actually liking the idea more as I think about it.

Dignitary looks especially interesting with a unique mechanic on top and a reaction that works especially well against axeman (like Secret Chamber's reaction works especially well against Swindler and Sabateur). I look forward to finding out how it works in a game.

I'm glad that you like Dignitary's top. Back when I posted just that part to a thread a long time ago (as Valet), people liked it but thought it should cost $3 or even $2. Looking at it, it appears to almost be a weak Steward. But once you start playing it, you realize how much more powerful it is than either +$2 or +2 Cards. So it's sort of, "Come for the Reaction, stay for the Action."

Why is exchange when buy, but the other trade token cards when gain?

Probably because you can use Exchange to trash, gain an Exchange into your hand, trash something else, gain an Exchange to hand, etc.  I personally think it would be fine on gain (since you have to have fuel to trash to get each Exchange), but I can understand why you might prefer to have it be on buy.

The reason it's on-buy is Fortress. With Fortress, you can run out the entire Exchange pile in one go (and keep all those Exchanges, too!). It's not often I'll nerf a card because of a single interaction. I'm not nerfing Mill Town just because of Tactician, for instance. But I feel being able to automatically run out an entire pile like that with just a 2-card combo is too crazy.

My thoughts on the set as a whole (trying to keep this as concise as possible): I like it a lot and compared to official expansions, I think it would rank as my 2nd-4th favorite (somewhere in that range).  I don't think there are any "problem" cards in the set (too weak or too strong or too uninteresting cards), which is something I don't think can be said of any official expansion (except maybe Guilds, though it's all subjective anyway), so that is very good.  The one-shot theme is very clear and well-executed, and many of them are done in unique and interesting ways.

Thanks! I appreciate it. It's easy to look at my own cards and think, "Man, maybe these actually suck." This kind of encouragement keeps me going.

Gambler is one of my favorite fan cards ever.  I also like General a lot, I love throne room variants in general (no pun intended), and have always wanted a good $5 TR.  General not only fits very well into the set by comboing with one-shots, but it's also still a pretty reasonable $5 TR even on boards without one-shots.

Thanks! General is pretty new, so I hope it works out. Seems like an appropriate $5 cost, right? The main thing I worry about is its complicated interaction with one-shots that draw (Gambler and Vendor). Play General, play Vendor, draw two, trash Vendor, put Vendor on deck. Then play Vendor again, drawing that same Vendor and another card. Then you can play that same Vendor a third time, but this time the General has lost track of it, so you don't topdeck it when it leaves play. If it turns out to be too crazy, I can change General so that it only topdecks the card if you discard it from play, though obviously I want to keep the one-shot interaction if possible.

I don't like Floodgate, though I'm not quite sure why.  It makes sense that the way to do a "one-shot" victory card is to give it an on-gain effect, but for some reason I don't really like it.  If you leave everything else as is though, I feel like it should cost $3 and not $4.  The thing is, if I buy it with $4 to set stuff aside, and that stuff would have given me at least $1, why didn't I just buy Duchy?  So I'm sure you've playtested it and found that to not be an issue, but I'm at least interested to hear your comments on it.  It's at least nice for stopping terminal collision.

Generally, if other players don't buy a card, I change or scrap it. A few cards that are still in the OP died for that reason. Floodgate is probably the card my playtesters buy the least that I refuse to scrap. It's one of my favorite cards and I think it has a lot of value for advanced players, but that value is subtle. The cool thing about it is how many different tricks it can do, not all of which are obvious.

* You can save unspent coin for the next turn. Why would you do that instead of buying a Duchy? Maybe you'll afford a Province next turn. Especially nice if you have $7 to spend.
* You can salvage dead Action cards. Say you play a Smithy and draw a Village and a Smithy. Man, put those into your next hand.
* You can make Victory cards miss the reshuffle. Whenever you have fewer than 5 cards in your deck during your Buy phase (like when you've drawn your deck), you can leave Floodgate itself and up to 4 other cards out of your deck.

And that's not to mention any card-specific combos. Think about how it interacts with various gainers (Workshop, Mill Town) trash-for-benefit cards (Develop, Exchange), and discard-for-benefit cards (Cellar, Lodge).

Investment is really cool, and you probably don't need me to tell you this, but you should playtest it A LOT.  Of course it's fine if there are some boards where it's dead and others where it's nuts, but it potentially seems like the kind of card that would either be dead on way too many boards, or nuts on way too many boards.  If it turns out to be too weak I think just giving it +$x and +1 buy on play would help "make up" for having gone out of your way to get it.  If it turns out to be too strong it will be very hard to fix.

If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.

About Craftsman gaining trade tokens:

...

There's just something that doesn't feel right about having only a few cards in all of Dominion that make use of a certain mechanic, and then having them combo well together because of that shared mechanic. Most cards combo well together because of their difference in mechanics, because they complement each other by doing different things, and this also creates a lot more diversity in potential combos (all disappearing actions potentially combo with draw-to-X cards, that's a lot more combinations than if, say, all draw-to-X cards comboed with draw-to-X cards).  So with all that being said, I have no idea if there's any reasonable fix, I like Craftsman as it is, as well as the other Trade token cards, and having them use different colored tokens is impractical.  I just wanted to share my thoughts on that issue.

Thanks, but I'm not too worried right now. As long as the cards can stand on their own and aren't broken together, I like that there are cool interactions between them. And this sort of rare interaction does already exist in Dominion, for what it's worth. Butcher can play a lot differently when there are other Coin-token cards on the board. You're much more willing to use it for huge upgrades.

I think it's worth saying that I didn't create Craftsman specifically so that it would combo with these other cards. It was just a cool thing I could do with Trade tokens. Also note that even without Craftsman, you have these sorts of combos. You might buy Jubilees because they're a cheap way to get Trade tokens for Lodge.

I agree that it's cooler to have combos that you can discover rather than ones that hit you over the head. But I think Enterprise has plenty of subtle combos too, and that those aren't lessened by having some blatant ones. And what's obvious to one person may not be obvious to another.

If you do manage to get the set published, I would certainly buy it (even with no changes from how it is now).  I think your cards are definitely at the quality of official cards, but I don't know what would go into arranging a deal with RGG.  Good luck if you eventually decide to go through with that!

Thanks again! If I were to try to get it published, I'd be going through Donald first. For one thing he owns the rights to Dominion, but much more importantly I can't imagine trying to go over his head. He's always been there with answers to questions about rules and Dominion's design considerations. Without his secret histories and other essays on Dominion, there is no way this set would be as good as it is.

[LastFootnote]

I just updated the image post.

Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace

Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.

[KingZog3]

I just updated the image post.

Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace

Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.

Off theme cards are ok. You need some balance. A set of all one shots is hard because they may not be great for engines, only mega turns.

[GendoIkari]

Fund is actually another take on this one-shot-that-you-keep idea. A Fund is just a Silver until you use its ability. Afterward it leaves a normal Silver in your deck.

Would Fund be overpowered if it used Trade tokens instead?

Treasure - $5
+$2
When you play this, you may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +$2, +1 buy
____
When you gain this, gain a Trade Token.

The effect is almost identical to the version you have if no other cards with Trade Tokens are around; it's slightly stronger because if you buy 2 of them, after you've used the effect once, you can use it the second time no matter which one you draw.

I was just thinking that if that's not overpowered, then it would fit in with the set better because of more Trade Token cards.

[LastFootnote]

Fund is actually another take on this one-shot-that-you-keep idea. A Fund is just a Silver until you use its ability. Afterward it leaves a normal Silver in your deck.

Would Fund be overpowered if it used Trade tokens instead?

Treasure - $5
+$2
When you play this, you may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +$2, +1 buy
____
When you gain this, gain a Trade Token.

The effect is almost identical to the version you have if no other cards with Trade Tokens are around; it's slightly stronger because if you buy 2 of them, after you've used the effect once, you can use it the second time no matter which one you draw.

I was just thinking that if that's not overpowered, then it would fit in with the set better because of more Trade Token cards.

I could do this. I do want more Trade token cards. On the other hand, I think Fund is really cute as-is and I also want to have a good number of actual one-shots. This version also doesn't combo with Refurbish the way the current version does. Or with Rogue/Graverobber, for that matter.

If there's one off-theme card I could scrap, Refurbish is probably it. Maybe Convocation. If Refurbish leaves the set, I will take a more serious look at a Trade token version of Fund.

[mail-mi]

I just updated the image post.

Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace

Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.

Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.

[Nic]

I just updated the image post.

Removed: Tinker
Added: Lodge
Updated: Terrace

Now I just need three more cards and perhaps replacements for some of the off-theme cards.

Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.

Redistrict?

[manthos88]

I generally like most of your cards. But some of them look a little weird to me.

For example, Jubilee: Why would i want to buy this for $2 (over another $2, perhaps)? Would i want to buy this for $3 or $4?

Domain: It looks to me that when Domain is on the board, you probably want to force a Domain race, because i'm pretty sure that i wouldn't want to give my opponent a 8*8=64 VP lead. So, what's the deal here? Bump up with +Buys and go for the race? Also, this becomes a lot more interesting with Barrister on the board i suppose, which is an OK card i feel.

Committee: This one looks like really strong card. I'm pretty sure it should cost $5.

Wheelwright: Looks very strong, but has a drawback. Gaining a Copper IS something in this set. I'm just not sure whether the drawback is good enough versus the benefit it offers.

Dignitary: This is the most strange of your cards, as i see it. Now, when would i want to buy this? The reaction part looks nice and unique. But is the Action part good enough to compensate? And is it worth it at $4? Yeah, you can draw 2 cards and you can save a dead Action while getting +$1. That's nice. But what can i generally do with this card? I don't think i could ever go for something like Dignitary-BM.

Convocation: Strange filtering mechanism. I'm not sure whether i like it. I also need some clarifications about double-type Victory cards. If i reveal a Great Hall, an Action and a Victory card and opt to put the Great Hall in my hand, do i discard the other 2 cards? Does the order in which i make the choices matter?


I also feel like you should include one more card that can produce Trade Tokens (Craftsman style). Because, it would be better to give those cards with this one-shot theme a chance to use more Trade Tokens for this "cool effect". Also, Craftsman makes good use of the Tokens by itself. Maybe you would want to create another card that can produce Tokens and be more happy to give them to another card. Additionally, this way, there will be more chances that a card that produces Trade Tokens can be appeared in a given Kingdom.

Now, that is merely my opinion. You did the playtesting. You know better.

[LastFootnote]

Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.

Redistrict?

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how Redistrict could fit this idea. In general, though, this mechanic is something I'm open to having in the set.

For example, Jubilee: Why would i want to buy this for $2 (over another $2, perhaps)? Would i want to buy this for $3 or $4?

It's cheap economy and can be used as a temporary village in a pinch. In some games you need Silver to get off the ground, but would rather not have the Silver in your deck later. Jubilee is especially useful in those games. That being said, it's one of the cards that's had the least playtesting. It may be a dud.

Domain: It looks to me that when Domain is on the board, you probably want to force a Domain race, because i'm pretty sure that i wouldn't want to give my opponent a 8*8=64 VP lead. So, what's the deal here? Bump up with +Buys and go for the race? Also, this becomes a lot more interesting with Barrister on the board i suppose, which is an OK card i feel.

I'm sorry the images don't make this clear, but Domain isn't a Kingdom card. You know how Barrister's setup gives each player a Domain in place of a starting Copper? Those are the only Domains in the game. You have to get them from your opponents.

The reason they don't say "This is not in the Supply" is the same reason Shelters don't; there's never going to be a stack of them sitting on the table that someone might think they could buy.

Committee: This one looks like really strong card. I'm pretty sure it should cost $5.

I was originally $5. I'm trying it at $4 and I really hope it works at that cost. I feel like it's significantly more compelling at that price point and that it needs that extra push. I don't think it's quite as strong as it looks, but it's possible that it'll have to cost $5 after more playtesting.

Wheelwright: Looks very strong, but has a drawback. Gaining a Copper IS something in this set. I'm just not sure whether the drawback is good enough versus the benefit it offers.

Could be you're right. The consensus among the playtesters is also that it looks strong. So far it's been OK, I think. Although it gives you the discard filter, there's nothing stopping you from drawing dead cards. You can even draw the ones you just discarded, à la Cellar.

As far as gaining a Copper in hand, I think it's more powerful than many realize, especially early on. If I'm sometimes willing to pay $5 and gain two Coppers for a Gold (Cache), I'm probably willing to gain a Copper to get from $4 to $5.

Dignitary: This is the most strange of your cards, as i see it. Now, when would i want to buy this? The reaction part looks nice and unique. But is the Action part good enough to compensate? And is it worth it at $4? Yeah, you can draw 2 cards and you can save a dead Action while getting +$1. That's nice. But what can i generally do with this card? I don't think i could ever go for something like Dignitary-BM.

Perhaps not. It makes a decent opener, though. And against most Attacks it's a nice Reaction.

Convocation: Strange filtering mechanism. I'm not sure whether i like it. I also need some clarifications about double-type Victory cards. If i reveal a Great Hall, an Action and a Victory card and opt to put the Great Hall in my hand, do i discard the other 2 cards? Does the order in which i make the choices matter?

Man, I made the Convocation wording as clear as I could. You do the instructions one at a time, like any card. First choose an Action card. Presumably you choose the one that isn't Great Hall. Then you choose a Treasure card, but there isn't one. Then you choose a Victory card. Presumably you choose the Great Hall. Then you discard the other Victory card. You could of course do this differently if you prefer to draw the dead Victory card instead of the Action card for some reason.

I also feel like you should include one more card that can produce Trade Tokens (Craftsman style). Because, it would be better to give those cards with this one-shot theme a chance to use more Trade Tokens for this "cool effect". Also, Craftsman makes good use of the Tokens by itself. Maybe you would want to create another card that can produce Tokens and be more happy to give them to another card. Additionally, this way, there will be more chances that a card that produces Trade Tokens can be appeared in a given Kingdom.

I appreciate the thought, but this is pretty much the opposite of what I want to do. Any card that produces Trade tokens has to have a good use for them or it'll just be a dead card on boards without other Trade token cards. I usually play with cards from one or two sets at a time, but for people who play full random, such a card would be a dud in almost every game.

Thanks for the questions and comments!

[KingZog3]

I don't think Jubilee is a dud. It seems like an ok pickup near he end of the game. Pearl Diver exists, and it's essentially a dud, and Jubilee is far more interesting.

[manthos88]

Quote from: manthos88 on Today at 07:42:30 am

    I also feel like you should include one more card that can produce Trade Tokens (Craftsman style). Because, it would be better to give those cards with this one-shot theme a chance to use more Trade Tokens for this "cool effect". Also, Craftsman makes good use of the Tokens by itself. Maybe you would want to create another card that can produce Tokens and be more happy to give them to another card. Additionally, this way, there will be more chances that a card that produces Trade Tokens can be appeared in a given Kingdom.


I appreciate the thought, but this is pretty much the opposite of what I want to do. Any card that produces Trade tokens has to have a good use for them or it'll just be a dead card on boards without other Trade token cards. I usually play with cards from one or two sets at a time, but for people who play full random, such a card would be a dud in almost every game.

Thanks for the questions and comments!

I'm not saying that the card should do nothing with the trade tokens. Just that the Trade Tokens on this card have such an effect that it would feel "ok" if you used them for another card instead of this one.


And... just came up with this:


Trademaster:

Cost: $5

Take a Trade Token. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, choose one: Either spend any number of Trade Tokens and gain a card costing up to the trashed card's cost plus double the number of Trade Tokens spent; or, take a number of Trade Tokens equal to the trashed card's cost (rounded down).


I'm not sure whether you like it. But i just threw it down. Butcher-like remodel, or Bishop-like TfB. Gets very good use out of the Tokens, either by itself, or by handing them to other cards. (Too strong? Probably yes.  )

[LastFootnote]

I'm not saying that the card should do nothing with the trade tokens. Just that the Trade Tokens on this card have such an effect that it would feel "ok" if you used them for another card instead of this one.


And... just came up with this:


Trademaster:

Cost: $5

Take a Trade Token. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, choose one: Either spend any number of Trade Tokens and gain a card costing up to the trashed card's cost plus double the number of Trade Tokens spent; or, take a number of Trade Tokens equal to the trashed card's cost (rounded down).


I'm not sure whether you like it. But i just threw it down. Butcher-like remodel, or Bishop-like TfB. Gets very good use out of the Tokens, either by itself, or by handing them to other cards. (Too strong? Probably yes.  )

Again, thanks for the suggestion! But when I decided to create cards that both gained and used Trade tokens when played, my primary goal was to make sure they were sufficiently different from Butcher. Don't get me wrong, I love Butcher. It's one of my favorite Dominion cards. But I don't feel we need another card that does almost the exact same thing. Anyhow, I ended up with Craftsman and I feel that if nothing else, it is sufficiently different from Butcher to be interesting.

Also, Trademaster is almost certainly too many words to fit on a card (at normal font size). 

[NoMoreFun]

What did you use to do the card images?

[LastFootnote]

What did you use to do the card images?

Back when I first started making cards, lympi directed me to this template on BGG: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/57516/adobe-photoshop-cs3-custom-blank-card-template-eng

Since then I have created my own heavily modified version of it. I'll attach it sometime when I'm in front of the appropriate computer, hopefully today. Although I plan to soon modify it further with the Goko image resources.

[Fragasnap]

Still love your set, LastFootnote. The Trade tokens are cool. I haven't gotten a chance to play with each card, but I can give you my response to a few.

I've played some games with Clerk. Clerk is probably one of the best $2 cards in the game. It's not Fool's Gold good-- you're not going to lose because you didn't get enough Clerks-- but it's easily better than Hamlet. You used the example of how Vagrant never hurts a deck: That's true, but Vagrant misses a lot more than Clerk and has a much smaller benefit (and especially a less visible benefit).
It is a fun and powerful card at $2, but I encourage increasing Clerk's price up to $3. It would harder to buy but will still be competitive in that price bracket.

Jubilee I'm not such a fan of. +2 Actions is something I want to use repeatedly and Jubilee won't let me do that. There are also very limited instances when I want Silvers to disappear from my deck. It will be cool in the games you can buy Jubilees as one-shot Silvers to enable other Trade token cards, but I'm not sure their sustainable enough.

I've played with Redistrict. This one I really like. Redistrict I think is best for trashing $4 and $5 cards while building which is really cool since few other trash-for-benefits really work that way. Redistrct can be used to grab $5 and $6 cards with $4 and $5 cards respectively and that can be really strong. I especially like the ability to gain a Gold and a $7 or a $7 and a Province in applicable games. The only thing I would question is again, its price. In the cases where I did bust open my Redistricts, I often had only $2 so it often seemed best to immediately replace my Redistrict. If it cost $3, trashing it would be a harder decision. Though, collecting them by Redistricting Estates would be easier... the cost for trash-for-benefit cards are weird.

I've played with Barrister\Domain, but only 2-player games. This one I do not like. Barrister has an interesting sort of mini-game to it in that it becomes practically impossible to hit other players' Domains after the earliest portion of the game, but Domains are just better Coppers in your deck, so stealing them isn't all that great anyway. I do like that one cannot simply trash Domains in Barrister games since Barrister pulls Domains out of the trash regardless of whether it trashed them or not: That's a nice design touch. The big issue I have is that in multiplayer games, I think it is going to be way too swingy. I usually play 3-player games and the opportunity to pick up 9VP from stealing cards from other players (even using an admittedly weak card) is so swingy that I do not appreciate the sound of it. Just the same, it's a very cool idea and well designed card. I'm not going to really knock it, I don't like it much personally.

I've played with Gambler. Gambler is still cool. One of my players says it his favorite custom card. It's so concise and thematic. Regardless of how bad it feels when you have to trash your Gambler, a one-shot Laboratory at $3 is not too shabby.

I've played with Mill Town. I stand by Mill Town being ridiculous in any game one can increase his hand size consistently. I love the card to death, but recommend adding a trashing clause like Horn of Plenty's.

I don't like Refurbish. It is a good and simple way to get the concept to work, but it is so incredibly off theme that I cannot associate it with the rest of your set.

Committee is a decent bit of player interaction, but I'm not a huge fan. I have an extremely similar card that rather than copying or trashing one of 2 cards copies a found card costing from $3 to $6 which I think is more fun since a player can control it with deck manipulation cards. Dropping Duchies on top of the deck explicitly to copy them makes a player feel clever. Still, Committee's trashing is really good at $4, so I wouldn't mind if both my card and your Committee appeared on the same table.

I've played with Craftsman. I keep calling it Carpenter because of the art association. Scott_pilgrim commented that the combo with other Trade token consuming cards is too on the nose, but I disagree. Craftsman can be used to gain Trade tokens, but other cards can also gain Trade tokens to be consumed by Craftsman and the flexibility and choice provided by that is cool, especially since one can tactically respond to the cards drawn.

I've played with Dignitary. I will assure everyone: Its action effect is just about worth $4. The flexibility of it can make it a bear to resolve, but the strength is easily there. I kind of appreciate that its Reaction is weaker than before so I don't have to track the other players' decks as much to prevent them from using it. I don't like that it forces a player with a 6 card hand to trash 2 cards, but it is probably the clearest and simplest wording.

I've played with Floodgate. I kind of agree that it can seem like a waste with $5 since there often isn't much reason to pass cards into a following hand, but the reasons for doing so are there (with King's Courts especially) and it works quite nicely with trash -for-benefit cards at that price.

Terrace is alright. It provides a much needed Village variant with a worthwhile, unique benefit. Have you considered letting it gain 2 Trade tokens instead of only 1? It might make it interact more interestingly with other Trade token cards.

I've played with Vendor and I love it. It is so much better than Enforcer. No complaints with this one.

I've played with Axeman. It is cool. It encourages building around cheaper parts but is pretty slow in itself. I might say it is too wildly better than Saboteur (hitting both hand-size and deck composition), but it does give the player a choice and lets them gain anything costing less to the top of the deck and also can only hit a player once but for Governor/Council Room.

I've played with Barracks/Conscripts, but not with Conscripts in their current form. I hope another card can use Conscripts. I think Conscripts is a pretty poor curser (though I'm surely underestimating the strength of gaining 2 one-shot non-terminal Militia), so I hope your set has another Curser. Maybe one that relies on Trade tokens somehow? I love Barracks either way.

I don't like Convocation very much because it is off-theme and I feel too often practically better than Laboratory. It's a fine card and a good way to do non-terminal draw.

I've played with Exchange. Exchange is awesome. Remodel is cool. Non-terminal Remodel is also cool. Pulling cards into hand with Trade tokens is the icing on the cake. I like this thing as much as Butcher (though Butcher is probably a better card on average).

I've played with Fund. Fund is a really cool one-shot and players always feel clever then they can blow Fund up to pick up a Province and something else or even only two expensive cards. Players don't even feel bad about it since Fund turns into a Silver! I love the new art too.

General is pretty cool. While it is off-theme, it lets you save your own one-shots which there are enough in your set to make it a great interaction. I like Throne Room variants and this one seems like it would be worth the $5 price. I'm pretty excited to try it.

Lodge is somewhat disjointed, but certainly a good card. The set is lacking in much terminal draw without it.

I've played with Investment. Investment is really nice with a $2 cantrip but I think is not viable otherwise. It simply costs too much-- both price and momentum since you don't get to play the card you're setting aside (and playing the card makes it significantly more complex to resolve which I don't appreciate). I like the idea of it giving coins. +$3 would make it almost a no-brainer with a $2 cantrip, but would make it so much more attractive with $3 and $4 cards.

The only game I've played with Wheelwright was the sample game you were testing. I haven't gotten to see it used though since there were no +Actions on that board and no one wanted to play such a simple, boring strategy. It seems like a fine card. The use of the "may gain a Copper" is a pretty comparable marginal benefit to Wheelwright's discard. Despite it being entirely off-theme, I can deal with it.

Have you considered a card that lets you draw by expending Trade tokens? There isn't a Coin token card that does that so I think it would be sufficiently different.

I was actually a bit worried when you said you were expanding the set and working with tokens, but now I don't even know why. I cannot wait to see what else you do with this set!

[Nic]

Have you tried a card with a "You may trash this card" clause and an on-trash effect? That could work pretty well here.

Redistrict?

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how Redistrict could fit this idea. In general, though, this mechanic is something I'm open to having in the set.

Oh, sorry. I thought he was asking for an example. If you're talking about an optional one-shot that also has a 'when you trash this' clause, I don't think there's anything interesting. It would be really tricky to make the one-shot worthwhile without making the card too powerful when paired with strong trashers. You could make a case for writing Feast this way, to remove the unintuitive interaction with Throne Room while making it more appealing on Chapel boards, but that's a topic for the other thread.

I think the Fund could use clearer wording.  It's hard to tell if you get still the $2 from the fund on the turn that you trash it in addition to the silver.

I agree that it would be nice if this were clearer. It does still give you the +$2. It's definitely something I would put in a FAQ, but I'm not sure how I would change the card wording itself. Suggestions are welcome, but I'd rather have a clean, concise wording than a messy one.

It's unambiguous, it's clear to anyone who's played with Counterfeit, and a whole lot less confusing than TR / any one-shot. If it turns out to be an issue, maybe "While this card is in play, you may trash it" makes the order more clear?
 

Gambler is one of my favorite fan cards ever.  I also like General a lot, I love throne room variants in general (no pun intended), and have always wanted a good $5 TR.  General not only fits very well into the set by comboing with one-shots, but it's also still a pretty reasonable $5 TR even on boards without one-shots.

Thanks! General is pretty new, so I hope it works out. Seems like an appropriate $5 cost, right? The main thing I worry about is its complicated interaction with one-shots that draw (Gambler and Vendor). Play General, play Vendor, draw two, trash Vendor, put Vendor on deck. Then play Vendor again, drawing that same Vendor and another card. Then you can play that same Vendor a third time, but this time the General has lost track of it, so you don't topdeck it when it leaves play. If it turns out to be too crazy, I can change General so that it only topdecks the card if you discard it from play, though obviously I want to keep the one-shot interaction if possible.

Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.

I don't like Floodgate, though I'm not quite sure why.  It makes sense that the way to do a "one-shot" victory card is to give it an on-gain effect, but for some reason I don't really like it.  If you leave everything else as is though, I feel like it should cost $3 and not $4.  The thing is, if I buy it with $4 to set stuff aside, and that stuff would have given me at least $1, why didn't I just buy Duchy?  So I'm sure you've playtested it and found that to not be an issue, but I'm at least interested to hear your comments on it.  It's at least nice for stopping terminal collision.

Generally, if other players don't buy a card, I change or scrap it. A few cards that are still in the OP died for that reason. Floodgate is probably the card my playtesters buy the least that I refuse to scrap. It's one of my favorite cards and I think it has a lot of value for advanced players, but that value is subtle. The cool thing about it is how many different tricks it can do, not all of which are obvious.

* You can save unspent coin for the next turn. Why would you do that instead of buying a Duchy? Maybe you'll afford a Province next turn. Especially nice if you have $7 to spend.
* You can salvage dead Action cards. Say you play a Smithy and draw a Village and a Smithy. Man, put those into your next hand.
* You can make Victory cards miss the reshuffle. Whenever you have fewer than 5 cards in your deck during your Buy phase (like when you've drawn your deck), you can leave Floodgate itself and up to 4 other cards out of your deck.

And that's not to mention any card-specific combos. Think about how it interacts with various gainers (Workshop, Mill Town) trash-for-benefit cards (Develop, Exchange), and discard-for-benefit cards (Cellar, Lodge).

I liked Floodgate okay when I looked at the cards yesterday, and I thought it was an unobjectionable filler card. Now I'm really warming up to it. If you have $4 to spend, you can get a mini-Tactician exactly when you need it most, with cards that you choose, but at the cost of some extra green in your deck. Very interesting.

Investment is really cool, and you probably don't need me to tell you this, but you should playtest it A LOT.  Of course it's fine if there are some boards where it's dead and others where it's nuts, but it potentially seems like the kind of card that would either be dead on way too many boards, or nuts on way too many boards.  If it turns out to be too weak I think just giving it +$x and +1 buy on play would help "make up" for having gone out of your way to get it.  If it turns out to be too strong it will be very hard to fix.

If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.

I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. 

[LastFootnote]

Ah, Fragasnap, would that I had more +1s to give you. Thanks again for playtesting my cards.

I've played some games with Clerk. Clerk is probably one of the best $2 cards in the game. It's not Fool's Gold good-- you're not going to lose because you didn't get enough Clerks-- but it's easily better than Hamlet. You used the example of how Vagrant never hurts a deck: That's true, but Vagrant misses a lot more than Clerk and has a much smaller benefit (and especially a less visible benefit).
It is a fun and powerful card at $2, but I encourage increasing Clerk's price up to $3. It would harder to buy but will still be competitive in that price bracket.

Well, as Donald has said, if you can price a card lower without breaking it, do so. That's not to say that Clerk isn't too powerful for $2. Maybe it is. I'm having a heck of a time coming up with good $2 cards, though. I agree that it could cost $3. If I come up with some more good $2 cards and I need a $3 card OR if Clerk at $2 eventually proves to be too crazy, I will bump it to $3. It sounds like it hasn't yet led to degenerate games for either of us, though, so I could be happy with it just being a higher-end $2 card.

Jubilee I'm not such a fan of. +2 Actions is something I want to use repeatedly and Jubilee won't let me do that. There are also very limited instances when I want Silvers to disappear from my deck. It will be cool in the games you can buy Jubilees as one-shot Silvers to enable other Trade token cards, but I'm not sure their sustainable enough.

Sure, that's a good call. Jubilee hasn't had that much testing yet. I'm hoping it's worthwhile as a supplemental village/Silver in a deck that already has some other villages/Silvers. But that may not be interesting enough to justify the card. I'm only counting it as half a village as far as set composition goes. Mill Town (1) + Terrace (1) + Jubilee (0.5) + General (0.5) = 3.

I've played with Redistrict. This one I really like. Redistrict I think is best for trashing $4 and $5 cards while building which is really cool since few other trash-for-benefits really work that way. Redistrct can be used to grab $5 and $6 cards with $4 and $5 cards respectively and that can be really strong. I especially like the ability to gain a Gold and a $7 or a $7 and a Province in applicable games. The only thing I would question is again, its price. In the cases where I did bust open my Redistricts, I often had only $2 so it often seemed best to immediately replace my Redistrict. If it cost $3, trashing it would be a harder decision. Though, collecting them by Redistricting Estates would be easier... the cost for trash-for-benefit cards are weird.

It's not…ideal when you trash a Redistrict only to buy another one. But on the other hand, I don't think it's that rare for one-shots. It's not that uncommon to play and then immediately buy a Feast/Island/Pillage/etc.. And yeah, the cost of trah-for-benefit cards are weird, and the cost of one-shot trash-for-benefit cards are even weirder. As I've detailed earlier in the thread, I really don't want to cost Redistrict at $3 because then you can use it as a Remodel for Estates just by running out the Redistrict pile. Play Redistrict, trash Estate, gain Redistrict, trash the Redistrict you played, gain $4 card. It could cost $4, but honestly I think it might be stronger at that price. At $2, it's at least impractical to try a "Turbo Redistrict" strategy.

I've played with Barrister\Domain, but only 2-player games. This one I do not like. Barrister has an interesting sort of mini-game to it in that it becomes practically impossible to hit other players' Domains after the earliest portion of the game, but Domains are just better Coppers in your deck, so stealing them isn't all that great anyway. I do like that one cannot simply trash Domains in Barrister games since Barrister pulls Domains out of the trash regardless of whether it trashed them or not: That's a nice design touch. The big issue I have is that in multiplayer games, I think it is going to be way too swingy. I usually play 3-player games and the opportunity to pick up 9VP from stealing cards from other players (even using an admittedly weak card) is so swingy that I do not appreciate the sound of it. Just the same, it's a very cool idea and well designed card. I'm not going to really knock it, I don't like it much personally.

Well, I definitely think it warrants more testing, especially in 3 and 4-player games. I'm not sure it's going to be all that common in such games for one person to end up with all of the Domains. The more someone has, the easier it is to steal one. I really like the idea of a card that you can only get from other players and I think Domain is probably the most elegant way to do it. I'm starting to really like LibraryAdventurer's suggestion of raising Domain's cost, though. I think it may make Domains more desirable (for their TfB uses) and make them matter in more games. At first I was thinking $4, but that's probably too much swinginess in terms of whether you line up your opening TfB card with your Domain, especially Redistrict. $2 is dull; just another Estate-cost card in your starting deck. Probably I'll try it at $3.

I've played with Mill Town. I stand by Mill Town being ridiculous in any game one can increase his hand size consistently. I love the card to death, but recommend adding a trashing clause like Horn of Plenty's.

You could still be right about that. It will be nice if it doesn't need that clause, but it may very well be necessary. I haven't tested Mill Town all that much lately, so I have no new data on its ridiculousness.

Committee is a decent bit of player interaction, but I'm not a huge fan. I have an extremely similar card that rather than copying or trashing one of 2 cards copies a found card costing from $3 to $6 which I think is more fun since a player can control it with deck manipulation cards. Dropping Duchies on top of the deck explicitly to copy them makes a player feel clever. Still, Committee's trashing is really good at $4, so I wouldn't mind if both my card and your Committee appeared on the same table.

Committee's first version was actually closer to your card, but with the player interaction instead of the cost restriction. It was "Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. The player to your left names a card. Gain a copy of a revealed card that isn't the named card. Discard the revealed cards." For $5. I found that way too often, you'd be revealing a bunch of dreck and one good card. So it sucked unless your deck was already awesome. It went through a bunch of iterations. Long story short, it's currently as you see it. I think you can still get value out of deck manipulation with Committee. Hopefully you'll like it more if you try it out.

So far I like it a lot in the playtests it's had. It can be powerful, but you need to manage your deck carefully. One of my playtesters bought a few in a game with Haven. He got some early trashing in, but then kept revealing Haven and another card. I kept choosing Haven, so he kept gaining them. Man, you only want so many Havens.

Terrace is alright. It provides a much needed Village variant with a worthwhile, unique benefit. Have you considered letting it gain 2 Trade tokens instead of only 1? It might make it interact more interestingly with other Trade token cards.

I actually recently had a game with Terrace and Tinker (no longer pictured), where it was way too easy to rack up Trade tokens just by gaining Terraces (with Ironworks). Now I've already swapped out Tinker, so maybe that particular issue is already fixed. But my point is that when you want Terrace as a village, you probably want a bunch of them, in which case you're racking up quite a few Trade tokens automatically. And although I haven't yet playtested the new version of Terrace (with the flat +5 Cards), I think its token ability is on the weak side compared to some other Trade token cards. So I think even at one token per Terrace, you're getting that interaction pretty frequently. At two, I fear it would get crazy pretty quickly.

That's not to say that I couldn't have some other card that got you two tokens when you gained it. It would probably have to be a less spammable card, though. There's not much opportunity cost for stocking up on Terraces in most games.

I've played with Vendor and I love it. It is so much better than Enforcer. No complaints with this one.

Thanks, I strongly agree. Enforcer had been around forever, but I finally had a 4-player game where it was just obviously too obnoxious.

I've played with Investment. Investment is really nice with a $2 cantrip but I think is not viable otherwise. It simply costs too much-- both price and momentum since you don't get to play the card you're setting aside (and playing the card makes it significantly more complex to resolve which I don't appreciate). I like the idea of it giving coins. +$3 would make it almost a no-brainer with a $2 cantrip, but would make it so much more attractive with $3 and $4 cards.

I'm going to try it at a lower cost, I think. $4 is obviously a candidate, but I don't think you want to open with it or buy a bunch of them, so honestly I could try it at $3 or $2. If it's still needs a boost at a lower cost, I'll give it +$X or some other bonus.

Have you considered a card that lets you draw by expending Trade tokens? There isn't a Coin token card that does that so I think it would be sufficiently different.

I'm glad you asked this question. I've been deliberately avoiding doing Trade tokens for +Cards because of the large potential for disappointment. Mostly when you spend Trade tokens, I want you to know ahead of time what you're going to get. Jubliee --> it doesn't get trashed. Exchange --> gained card goes into your hand. Lodge --> +$X where you know what X is going to be. Terrace is the odd one out, but the idea is that you'll use it when you draw Terrace with no other Actions to use it with. It's likely that you'll like your new hand better. Anyhow, if a card let you draw cards by spending a Trade token and you drew a bunch of crap or dead Actions, you'd feel like you wasted your Trade token, and that's something I want to avoid. The closest I had was this:

Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you didn't, discard 2 cards. +4 Cards.

But I didn't way a bunch of terminal discard-then-draw in the set, and I like Wheelwright better.

I don't like Refurbish. It is a good and simple way to get the concept to work, but it is so incredibly off theme that I cannot associate it with the rest of your set.

I don't like Convocation very much because it is off-theme and I feel too often practically better than Laboratory. It's a fine card and a good way to do non-terminal draw.

Well, I understand that you aren't really a fan of off-theme cards. If I had to scrap two cards from the set to make room for other cards, these two would be them. But that being said, I think there's room for a few off-theme cards, especially in a 25-card set. Especially because I feel you can't just have a full-sized set chock-full of one-shots. I like having a non-terminal draw card in the set (that you don't have to trash to get that draw), and I have yet to come up with a good Trade token (or otherwise on-theme) version of such a card.

If I think of another good theme that complements the one-shots and can accommodate the types of cards I want to fill out the set, I'll do that. Honestly, the set already has sort of a sub-theme of Copper-related cards (Clerk, Mill Town, Wheelwright).

I do like how Refurbish combos with Fund, but that's really the only thing tying it to this set.

I was actually a bit worried when you said you were expanding the set and working with tokens, but now I don't even know why. I cannot wait to see what else you do with this set!

Thanks! I hope I don't disappoint you. Right now I'm struggling for more ideas, but I tend to find them eventually.

It would be really tricky to make the one-shot worthwhile without making the card too powerful when paired with strong trashers. You could make a case for writing Feast this way, to remove the unintuitive interaction with Throne Room while making it more appealing on Chapel boards, but that's a topic for the other thread.

Yeah, this is a good call.

It's unambiguous, it's clear to anyone who's played with Counterfeit, and a whole lot less confusing than TR / any one-shot. If it turns out to be an issue, maybe "While this card is in play, you may trash it" makes the order more clear?

"While this is in play" doesn't really work as a trigger, because it doesn't specify whether you can do it in the middle of resolving another card, etc. But I think you're right that it's unambiguous and doesn't need a change. The FAQ can clarify for anybody who's confused.

Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.

Hmm, that's a good call with Embargo. Especially since I use Embargo tokens as Trade tokens!   It may be that I'll have to take out the one-shot synergy after more playtesting. Hopefully not, but maybe.

If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.

I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. 

I also like the "play it first" option except for the fact that it makes it not work with other one-shots because the Investment will lose track of the card before it can be set aside. Maybe that's not a big deal. Investment itself is a one-shot and with that change it would kind of make other cards into one-shots. And as you say, it saves a lot of AP, particularly when you have another terminal in hand you'd like to play.

Oh, also, I love your thoughts in the Conscripts Reaction thread. I haven't replied there yet, but I really appreciate the ideas. Hopefully I will yet fit such a Reaction into this set.

[NoMoreFun]

If you're looking for a 4th attack what was wrong with Tax Collector (other than the name)? It's not too similar to Axeman. Axeman feels like a fixed Saboteur, while Tax Collector feels like a fixed Bureaucrat. It's a great card.

[NoMoreFun]

Quick impressions of cards

Clerk: It really seems like it's just a Peddler that sometimes fluffs instead of anything interesting strategically. It does mean you can't trash all your coppers, but that isn't particularly interesting. I like the idea but I'm not sure being a Cantrip is best suited to it. Maybe this could be a $4 "bazaar", which would give it some interesting play with engines.

Jubilee: This card seems pretty interesting strategically, kind of like a more dangerous Mining Village. One you'd have to think hard about buying, which is good for $2.

Redistrict: Love it. I wish this card was real.

Barrister: It's pretty much Rabble Jr. In the other topic you called it a Trasher/Mucker but it will probably largely just be a Mucker. Still the Domain thing means you might get a bonus duchy (or even "province) in return for losing junk. This will be crazy in multiplayer in a good way. I love the fact that the card stops people from trashing their own domains. At any rate the replacement for starting copper thing is done way better here than my "trinket" idea, and it's also the perfect way of answering the "what if" question of a self powering Alt-VP. Good card.

Gambler: Lots of fun and original idea. Always liked this.

Mill Town: The "discard a card" always seemed like a very transparent way of making it weaker than vanilla village at 3. I do like any card that makes interesting use of Coppers. Both this and Clerk contradict Barrister/Domain, but that's probably fine. Importantly you can't ever gain provinces unless you go out of your way to buy a copper. I like that.

Refurbish: I think this card could be more interesting. Copper->Silver is actually not great trashing because of the -$1 (Mine and Taxman both have ways of negating the money loss), nor is Estate->Silver. A niche card, but will it be interesting often enough? This set's "counting house".

Committee: Maybe a bit slow, but I like the interactivity.

Craftsman: A niche card that maybe won't be interesting enough without other Trade token cards, but I can see other combos too. Worth playtesting on a board with good $5 cards or action heavy boards, or boards where it's the only non terminal. I think this is the right idea for the card that gains trade tokens on play.

Dignitary: Excellent top effect. The reaction answers a "what if" but it seems kind of shoehorned on. I don't know where else it would fit. I love reactions at any rate.

Floodgate: Love it. A high skill card. Could do well with the "worth 1VP for every empty pile" effect if you want an Alt-VP somewhere, but it's not necessary.

Terrace: I first thought it was bland, but then realised it's the perfect innocuous bonus for a village. If you buy lots of these you can line up your oneshot cellars to get the perfect megaturn.

Vendor: Sorry but I don't think this card is different enough from Gambler and Stables to be interesting. Not every card has to be super original and I'd enjoy playing with this, but considering the originality of the rest of the cards it does stand out a bit.

Axeman: YES! YES! YES! What an interesting attack. This card is what Saboteur should have been. I'm assuming the bottom clause is there so you can't open with it, which is fair.

Barracks/Conscripts: I keep thinking the gain 2 conscripts action is much better than the attack drawing, but I thought that regardless of what conscripts were. What I like here is that now having 2 conscripts has a thematic edge.

Convocation: May I suggest the name "Neapolitan" ?

Exchange: I don't like how it's just a non terminal remodel except for the Trade token. The trade token effect has always been great and answers a big "what if?". I like Terrace so I shouldn't have a problem with this card's non trade token effect. Maybe Craftsman ruins the idea of trade tokens as oneshots, which is why...

Fund: The art for this should be the same as the art for a trade token, since the mechanic of this card is now embodied by many others. I've always liked the card although if there's room for a "you may trash" meets "when trash" clause, it's this card (eg have it be a silver that you can trash to gain another silver in hand)

General: I initially liked this card but thinking a bit more it's not really covering any ground that Scheme didn't, except benefiting oneshots (which is somewhat done by Procession). I guess it's a pseudo KC (play twice this turn, once next turn) and multiple generals can be interesting strategically. There are several cards that will work well with General in the set. although the pure oneshot (Investment) doesn't.

Lodge: Doesn't seem to cover any ground that Vault doesn't. Perhaps a cellar effect would be more interesting, or use the draw and discard from wheelwright with "you may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again". I'd love to see a "play this again" effect.

Investment: You need to be pretty sure about what you're doing with this card. I think it's a bit of a Counting House.

Wheelwright: Just seems like 2 effects tacked on together. Each other player gains a copper in hand is a great effect that I wish was on some official card (with this or ruins), but I wish the first effect were as interesting.

Overall I love the set and would love to playtest it in some form. Your work is the best case that can possibly be made for continuing to make new dominion sets.

[LastFootnote]

If you're looking for a 4th attack what was wrong with Tax Collector (other than the name)? It's not too similar to Axeman. Axeman feels like a fixed Saboteur, while Tax Collector feels like a fixed Bureaucrat. It's a great card.

For reference, here's the card that you're referring to, which I had since renamed Magistrate:

Magistrate
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4 or $5
+$2. Each other player reveals a card from his hand other than a Copper (or reveals a hand of all Copper). He discards it or puts it on top of his deck, your choice.

Weeeeell, there are reasons I went back to Axeman (which is closer to what Magistrate looked like back in the day). There's a fair bit of overlap between the cards in that once one hits you, the other can't that turn. Conscripts already invalidates Axeman's attack which I feel is bad enough. I don't want another Attack like that in the set.

I couldn't decide whether to cost Magistrate should cost $4 or $5. It seems weak for $5. Normally you're doing about as much damage to your opponent as a Militia or Bureaucrat. But it makes for less fun games than Militia because early on when you have a hand of 4 Coppers and an Action, you have to discard the Action.

Axeman has this problem of removing fun cards from your hand even worse, but it has several advantages.

• Now that you can't open with it (barring Nomad Camp or Baker/Necropolis), each other player has time to build up their deck with 4 good purchases before they start getting hit.
• The players being attacked have interesting decisions to make about which card (if any) to gain onto their decks.
• All decisions are made by the victim, making the card faster to resolve.

Sorry you're not a fan of Clerk or Vendor. I think it's important to have some simple cards, though. Clerk actually combos with several of the cards in the set, so I find it somewhat strategically interesting. Vendor is at least on-theme and is a nice, fairly spammable utility card, which every set should have some of. It at least has +1 Buy, which differentiates it from Gambler and Stables. It used to have a spy-like attack instead of +1 Buy, but that was really annoying and slow to resolve. I agree with Fragasnap, this version is much better.

Mill Town: The "discard a card" always seemed like a very transparent way of making it weaker than vanilla village at 3. I do like any card that makes interesting use of Coppers. Both this and Clerk contradict Barrister/Domain, but that's probably fine. Importantly you can't ever gain provinces unless you go out of your way to buy a copper. I like that.

Actually the "discard a card" has nothing to do with making it weaker than vanilla Village. It's a nerf to its gaining ability. Without it, you could get really lucky on turn 3 with a hand of 4 Coppers and a Mill Town, draw another Copper, gain a $5 card and buy another $5 card. Years ago, the card just had +2 Actions and the gain, without the draw or the discard. The filtering helps mitigate the swinginess while giving it a needed power boost.

Refurbish: I think this card could be more interesting. Copper->Silver is actually not great trashing because of the -$1 (Mine and Taxman both have ways of negating the money loss), nor is Estate->Silver. A niche card, but will it be interesting often enough? This set's "counting house".

Sure, it's weak trashing at first. But it effectively gives +$X where $X is the number of Silvers in your hand. Hopefully that makes up for it. It hasn't gotten enough testing yet.

Barracks/Conscripts: I keep thinking the gain 2 conscripts action is much better than the attack drawing, but I thought that regardless of what conscripts were. What I like here is that now having 2 conscripts has a thematic edge.

Yeah, I think in general the gain is better than the digging. But at least you sometimes have incentive to dig in order to play multiple Conscripts in a turn. The card's moved a long way from its initial design of "dig for an Attack" for better or for worse. The Conscripts tend to be the focus. It's well-liked as-is, though. I'm happy with it. The digging is sometimes used by my playtesters, so I don't feel it's a waste of text.

General: I initially liked this card but thinking a bit more it's not really covering any ground that Scheme didn't, except benefiting oneshots (which is somewhat done by Procession). I guess it's a pseudo KC (play twice this turn, once next turn) and multiple generals can be interesting strategically. There are several cards that will work well with General in the set. although the pure oneshot (Investment) doesn't.

New ground? Maybe not. I think it's a great combination of Throne Room and Scheme, though, and I'm quite proud of it. It's not strictly better than Scheme because you don't get to choose which card gets topdecked at the end of your turn. They can't all cover new ground, but if they provide a unique play experience, that's awesome. Mystic and Highway don't cover any new ground either, but I think you'll agree they're quite different than Wishing Well and Bridge.

Lodge: Doesn't seem to cover any ground that Vault doesn't. Perhaps a cellar effect would be more interesting, or use the draw and discard from wheelwright with "you may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again". I'd love to see a "play this again" effect.

I love the "Play this again" for a Trade token ability. I will strive to use it. However, I am going to test Lodge as-is before changing it.

Wheelwright: Just seems like 2 effects tacked on together. Each other player gains a copper in hand is a great effect that I wish was on some official card (with this or ruins), but I wish the first effect were as interesting.

Which 2 parts seemed tacked together? The discard and draw to 7 have obvious synergy with each other, I would think. So those aren't just tacked together. The Copper gain for others makes you specifically less likely to play a ton of Wheelwrights. It also makes the other players want Wheelwright less, in a similar fashion to Vault. If you have a Vault in hand, you're unlikely to want to use other players' Vaults to lower your hand size. Similarly, if you have a Wheelwright in hand, you're unlikely to want to gain Copper into your hand. Unless you wanted that Copper in your deck anyway, it doesn't do you much good. So it should encourage divergent strategies, which I like.

[LastFootnote]

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

[GendoIkari]

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

It seems to me that a "play this again for a token" would be really neat on a non-terminal, because then it can be a village as the special action. With a terminal, the special action doesn't do anything different/unique. Though I do like that with Pioneer, the special action isn't just draw 2, it's specifically draw the 2 cards that you just put back.

[LastFootnote]

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

It seems to me that a "play this again for a token" would be really neat on a non-terminal, because then it can be a village as the special action. With a terminal, the special action doesn't do anything different/unique. Though I do like that with Pioneer, the special action isn't just draw 2, it's specifically draw the 2 cards that you just put back.

Although I agree it would be cool to have a card that effectively gives additional Actions through Trade tokens, I'm strongly leaning toward a terminal for "play it again". For one thing, 4 out of the 5 existing Trade token cards are non-terminal. More importantly, Pioneer has the special advantage of needing absolutely no tracking, which is a great asset for a card that can be played an arbitrary number of times. The set already has quite a bit of difficult Action, Coin, and Buy tracking, due to a number of one-shots that give those resources (and General, which might not let you "set aside" those cards on the way to the trash for tracking purposes). With Pioneer, no matter how many times you played it, you have the same number of Actions, Buys, and Coins. Whatever's in your hand is in your hand and whatever's on your deck is on your deck.

[eHalcyon]

I'm not sure if I ever actually went through this set in detail, but I'll try now.  Will refer to cards by name since there aren't text versions to quote... sorry.



Clerk -- simple, looks solid.

Jubilee -- 2-shot mini-Festival.  No idea if the cost is appropriate, but I know LF has tested plenty.  One interesting niche it fills is to strengthen 5/2 starts.  On some boards, there isn't anything worth buying at $2.  Now, you can buy a disappearing Silver.  That in itself could be interesting on some boards.  You often need Silver to start buying engine components, but the Silver is junk once you have the engine going.  Jubilee is a good substitute (and doubles as a temporary engine component while it's around).  All that is pretty deep for such a simple card.  Deceptive!

Redistrict -- The primary action is a weak Upgrade.  However, it can also function as a 1-shot Remodel.  Flexible enough that it could have interesting applications, but it's still appropriately weak for the low cost.

Barrister/Domain -- Wordy, and it might need a little more.  It says that each other player "puts the rest back on top" but it doesn't specify what order.  Most cards say "in any order he chooses", but Barrister may not have enough space for that.  It might need to be relegated to the FAQ.  An alternative is to just have everything else discarded, but then it loses the mini-Rabble effect.  Not sure how I feel about this in general.  Not a huge fan of Thief, of which this is partially a variant.

Gambler -- Basically an early game trasher that eventually disappears.  Sometimes you get unlucky and lose it early (or have to trash an early purchase, like a Silver).  A bit swingy, but that's part of the theme.  Even then, you draw the good card so you get a bit of a bonus anyway!

Mill Town -- Pretty strange.  Weaker than Village for +actions, but on some boards you'll just make due.  Its more interesting function is as an early-game gainer, which may allow you to build an engine fast enough to make up for the weaker village support.  On some boards, it may actually pull even more weight by gaining more expensive things.  That's neat.

Refurbish -- I don't know how this would play out.  It turns a card into a single Silver, which is sometimes better than Trader (trashing Coppers, Curses, Ruins) but often worse (trashing anything else).  But it also makes Silvers as valuable as Gold while in play.  An interesting synergy there.

Committee -- Kind of an odd jumble of interactions.  It makes the name particularly apt.  This provides some early game trashing, but could quickly transition into a sort of weak Workshop that gives you little choice.  I think it would be best in fast-trashing engines, where each play will gain you another relevant engine component.

Craftsman -- Not sure I like the use of Trade tokens here.  Seems like something that would be better handled with Coin tokens?  It would have some differences, of course.  Hm.

Dignitary -- Pretty simple, but can make for some tough decisions.  That's cool.  The reaction is also something that feels like it should have been an official card.  Really neat.

Floodgate -- Feels kind of like an on-gain Tactician.  That's alright, though it doesn't grab me for some reason.

Terrace -- Village with a kind of one-shot mulligan.  Seems fine.

Vendor -- Kind of a mix of Lab and Stables.  I imagine that it would generally be used for filtering until the game-ending turn when you let all the Vendors get trashed in order to draw your deck.  The +Buy lends itself to that strategy.  It is reminiscent of Mining Village this way.  I like it.

Axeman -- Not sure how to feel about this.  The attack seems very powerful, but the top-decked gain mitigates it somewhat.  In some ways, it is weaker than Saboteur in that it gives opponents some control over what gets trashed, not to mention that the gain is top-decked and can cost just $1 less than the trashed card.  The buy restriction is interesting.  It mostly stops players from opening with Axeman and making it more difficult to get in the early game.

Barracks/Conscripts -- Conscripts is quite powerful, though one-shot.  It's non-terminal Militia that Curses if the opponent has already discarded.  Given that strength, Barracks is also pretty good.  Barracks' second option also makes for an interesting choice.  Get a second Witch, or get a Barracks to play your one Witch more often?  Looks good.

Convocation -- interesting in that it promotes building a deck balanced between Treasures and Actions.  Not sure how it compares with Lab.  At first glance, Lab seems like it would be better most of the time.  Even if you manage to draw three, one of those is a Victory card anyway.  But that extra revealed card means that Convocation provides filtering, potentially drawing a better card than Lab would have gotten you, as well as clearing out extra VP cards.  That's different enough.

Exchange -- non-terminal Remodel with a one-shot "gain to hand".  That's alright.  I wonder about having multiple Remodel variants in the set, but Exchange and Redistrict serve very different purposes.  But why doesn't this have a Re- name?

Fund -- a Silver+ that fits the set theme by giving a one-shot +Buy.  The way it does it is elegantly done.  My main concern is that this does seem a bit weak to me.  I think that a Silver with +Buy would be fine at $5, if a bit boring.  Fund is pretty much strictly inferior to that.  Even so, the elegance argues for leaving it as is.

General -- Throne Room with a bonus, where the bonus is Scheme.  Seems like a cool idea.  I wonder about tracking, but that could probably be handled simply from card placement.  when I play TR I put the throned card on top of it.  Doing the same thing with General gives a natural way to track which cards will get top-decked (well, excepting the trashed cards that get pulled back that is).  Interestingly, General-General can function as mini KC-Scheme.  It doesn't keep as many cards and isn't sustainable unless you can draw more Generals in the next hand, but it helps.  That's cool.  I didn't think I'd ever see a TR+ that I'd like.

Lodge -- The Smithy+ of the set, which grants a one-time Victory->coin.  Simple enough.

Investment -- I've discussed this before.  I really like it.

Wheelwright -- Not sure how I feel about this one.  Eh, it looks fine.





Not sure if any of that feedback is useful, but I hope it is.  Definitely the most polished fan set I've seen around.

On the trade token cards -- any particular reason why some of them are on-gain and others are on-buy?  I suppose Exchange is on-buy to prevent it from draining its own pile with Fortress.  Were the rest on-gain?  Eh, probably.


PPE: reading others' comments now.  I don't think Fund needs clearer wording -- trashed treasures have already produced coins for you, and this is consistent with established rules (e.g. Spoils, Mint).

Interesting note about Floodgate tricks.  Still not fully sold, but I see why you refuse to scrap it.

NoMoreFun makes a good point about how Lodge is pretty close to Vault.

[Fragasnap]

I actually recently had a game with Terrace and Tinker (no longer pictured), where it was way too easy to rack up Trade tokens just by gaining Terraces (with Ironworks). ...
That's not to say that I couldn't have some other card that got you two tokens when you gained it. It would probably have to be a less spammable card, though. There's not much opportunity cost for stocking up on Terraces in most games.

Fair point. From experience, a mini-Forge (especially with draw) is ludicrously powerful.
Making a spammable card afford multiple tokens could especially encourage the use of that card's perhaps more situational Trade token ability in the presence of other Trade token cards. Were that card Terrace, buying one would give so many Trade tokens, it would seem trivial to spend one for its effect. You're probably right overall. This was only a gut reaction.

Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.

Hmm, that's a good call with Embargo. Especially since I use Embargo tokens as Trade tokens!   It may be that I'll have to take out the one-shot synergy after more playtesting. Hopefully not, but maybe.

King's Court/Embargo already does this, so I cannot imagine that General/Embargo will present any bigger an issue even though General is much more attainable. If it were to present such a problem, you can probably Embargo the Generals before it would be much of an problem.

If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.

I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. 

I also like the "play it first" option except for the fact that it makes it not work with other one-shots because the Investment will lose track of the card before it can be set aside. Maybe that's not a big deal. Investment itself is a one-shot and with that change it would kind of make other cards into one-shots. And as you say, it saves a lot of AP, particularly when you have another terminal in hand you'd like to play.

To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to invest in true one-shots anyway. The problem is that Investment is basically nonterminal if built to play cards first which changes the card significantly. The change would further incentivize investing in nonterminal cards because one could invest and get the pay off on the same turn. I would look into making it as viable as possible to invest in good terminal Actions... but I'm not sure how to do that.

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

This should say "look at" instead of "reveal" and "put the rest back in any order." I like it. I especially like that a single Pioneer can be used as many times as you have Trade tokens. That could be a great payoff in games with cards with weaker Trade token abilities like Jubilee and Terrace. I'd like it a bit more if the discard was optional, but it is probably better to keep it simple since most of the time discarding will be the better option.
There are, of course, numerous ways around the "unknown draw" issue. How about making a sort of Embassy whose discard (or penalty otherwise) is made less severe by paying a Trade token?

[mail-mi]

Fund -- a Silver+ that fits the set theme by giving a one-shot +Buy.  The way it does it is elegantly done.  My main concern is that this does seem a bit weak to me.  I think that a Silver with +Buy would be fine at $5, if a bit boring.  Fund is pretty much strictly inferior to that.  Even so, the elegance argues for leaving it as is.

doesn't the silver you gain go to hand so you can play it in the same turn?

[eHalcyon]

Fund -- a Silver+ that fits the set theme by giving a one-shot +Buy.  The way it does it is elegantly done.  My main concern is that this does seem a bit weak to me.  I think that a Silver with +Buy would be fine at $5, if a bit boring.  Fund is pretty much strictly inferior to that.  Even so, the elegance argues for leaving it as is.

doesn't the silver you gain go to hand so you can play it in the same turn?

Oops, missed that.  Yes, that makes it much better.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the comments, eHalcyon. Glad you seem to like the set overall.

Exchange -- non-terminal Remodel with a one-shot "gain to hand".  That's alright.  I wonder about having multiple Remodel variants in the set, but Exchange and Redistrict serve very different purposes.

As a counterpoint, Guilds is a 13 card set with 3 Remodel variants: Stonemason, Taxman, and Butcher. As long as they're sufficiently different, I think having several Remodels can be OK.

Yeah, that combo is bonkers. Getting three uses out of every Embargo you play could also be aggravating, and it might run out the tokens too quickly, but I can't think of any other cards you really have to worry about.

Hmm, that's a good call with Embargo. Especially since I use Embargo tokens as Trade tokens!   It may be that I'll have to take out the one-shot synergy after more playtesting. Hopefully not, but maybe.

King's Court/Embargo already does this, so I cannot imagine that General/Embargo will present any bigger an issue even though General is much more attainable. If it were to present such a problem, you can probably Embargo the Generals before it would be much of an problem.

Well, King's Court gets you 30 Embargo plays, maximum. General gets you theoretically infinite Embargo plays. That's not necessarily a deal breaker, but that combined with the other tracking issues are making me want to at least try having General do something else when the card is trashed, like gaining a Gold or another copy of the card or something.

If I need to buff it, my top two ideas at this point are reducing its cost to $4 and/or making you play the Action card before setting it aside.

I like that second one much more. It saves you a lot of AP, and makes it viable on a lot more boards. Of course, if Investment turns out to be terribroken as is, that might not be a good thing. 

I also like the "play it first" option except for the fact that it makes it not work with other one-shots because the Investment will lose track of the card before it can be set aside. Maybe that's not a big deal. Investment itself is a one-shot and with that change it would kind of make other cards into one-shots. And as you say, it saves a lot of AP, particularly when you have another terminal in hand you'd like to play.

To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to invest in true one-shots anyway. The problem is that Investment is basically nonterminal if built to play cards first which changes the card significantly. The change would further incentivize investing in nonterminal cards because one could invest and get the pay off on the same turn. I would look into making it as viable as possible to invest in good terminal Actions... but I'm not sure how to do that.

It would be cool to somehow incentivize Investing in terminal Actions, but I think the fact that non-terminals make better Investment targets is just the nature of the beast. So I think I'm going to try buffing it with a "play that Action" first and see how it goes.

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

This should say "look at" instead of "reveal" and "put the rest back in any order." I like it. I especially like that a single Pioneer can be used as many times as you have Trade tokens. That could be a great payoff in games with cards with weaker Trade token abilities like Jubilee and Terrace. I'd like it a bit more if the discard was optional, but it is probably better to keep it simple since most of the time discarding will be the better option.
There are, of course, numerous ways around the "unknown draw" issue. How about making a sort of Embassy whose discard (or penalty otherwise) is made less severe by paying a Trade token?

*slaps forehead* Thanks for the "look at" instead of "reveal". Usually I'm such a stickler about that. "Put the rest back in any order" is already missing from Barrister and Dignitary for space reasons and I'm considering just leaving it off all the applicable cards. When I mock up Pioneer, I'll see if I can fit it in easily. I figure that it can be a general rule in the rulebook, since no published card that makes you put cards on your deck enforces a particular order.

[GendoIkari]

First attempt at a "play this again" Trade token mechanic:

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back. You may spend a trade token. If you do, play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I said before that I didn't want to have a Trade-tokens for draw mechanic, but with this card you'll often know what you'd be drawing, so I'm fine with it. Feedback?

It seems to me that a "play this again for a token" would be really neat on a non-terminal, because then it can be a village as the special action. With a terminal, the special action doesn't do anything different/unique. Though I do like that with Pioneer, the special action isn't just draw 2, it's specifically draw the 2 cards that you just put back.

Although I agree it would be cool to have a card that effectively gives additional Actions through Trade tokens, I'm strongly leaning toward a terminal for "play it again". For one thing, 4 out of the 5 existing Trade token cards are non-terminal. More importantly, Pioneer has the special advantage of needing absolutely no tracking, which is a great asset for a card that can be played an arbitrary number of times. The set already has quite a bit of difficult Action, Coin, and Buy tracking, due to a number of one-shots that give those resources (and General, which might not let you "set aside" those cards on the way to the trash for tracking purposes). With Pioneer, no matter how many times you played it, you have the same number of Actions, Buys, and Coins. Whatever's in your hand is in your hand and whatever's on your deck is on your deck.

Ah, I hadn't even considered playing it more than twice! Yeah, that really changes things. Of course you can only play it twice if you just bought one copy, but if you got Trade Tokens other ways... yeah, that would be cool.

[mustang255]

How does the investment mat interact with the end game? Do they count towards your deck at the end of the game? This would matter for action-victory cards, Vineyards, Gardens, and possibly Fairgrounds and Silk Road as well.

Also, Investment+Rats = HILARITY. I am trying to think of a scenario where that would actually be a viable deck; possibly something involving lots and lots of fortresses.

[scott_pilgrim]

How does the investment mat interact with the end game? Do they count towards your deck at the end of the game? This would matter for action-victory cards, Vineyards, Gardens, and possibly Fairgrounds and Silk Road as well.

Same as Island, Native Village, Haven, etc.  They go back to your deck at the end of the game.

[LastFootnote]

How does the investment mat interact with the end game? Do they count towards your deck at the end of the game? This would matter for action-victory cards, Vineyards, Gardens, and possibly Fairgrounds and Silk Road as well.

Same as Island, Native Village, Haven, etc.  They go back to your deck at the end of the game.

scott_pilgrim is right. Apparently the fact that set-aside cards always get returned to your deck at the end of the game is somewhere in the rules, although I can't find where.

[NoMoreFun]

What ratios of card types are you trying to reach? Have you got a checklist you're referring back to?

EDIT: Also want to gush about your two trasher attacks. I'm in the process of making my own set and it seems so hard to come up with a decent trashing attack, and you've come up with two.

[LastFootnote]

What ratios of card types are you trying to reach? Have you got a checklist you're referring back to?

I'm aiming for about half terminals and half non-terminals. Investment needs a good number of non-terminals to be worth going for. 3 villages, but I'm counting self-trashing villages and throne rooms as less. No more than 3 deck thinners. Probably no more than 3 remodels. I'm sort of counting Refurbish as a remodel right now. Committee, Gambler, and Dignitary are deck thinning, but I kind of wish I had a stronger trasher. Probably it's not a big deal, especially since there are a fair few Copper-using cards in the set.

EDIT: Also want to gush about your two trasher attacks. I'm in the process of making my own set and it seems so hard to come up with a decent trashing attack, and you've come up with two.

Thanks. Axeman came about because I realized that there were cards that combined each two kinds of attacks (discarder, mucker, junker, trasher), except discarder-trasher. (This was before Sir Michael, mind you.) It seemed to me that the simplest way to do such a card was to have it trash a good card from your hand. Of course, that's an incredibly harsh attack, so I gave the option of gaining a cheaper card in its place. I was then too worried that players would simply use opponents' copies of the card to VP rush at the end of the game. Trash Gold, gain Duchy, etc. So the gained card goes onto your deck. This also nerfs the attack a little more in the earlier parts of the game, and that's good too. I'm skipping a few development steps, but that's the gist of it. I called that card Tax Collector. It cost $6.

It left the set because I was still afraid the attack was too harsh. I had run a solitaire game where I got hit by the Attack every turn (since that could easily happen in a multi-player game. I just couldn't get anywhere. My deck was treading water. I replaced it with a discarder-mucker instead. You can currently still see that version in the OP.

One time when we were playing with Taxman, my wife suggested that I should make a card named "Axeman". I decided to bring the old Attack back and add the "can't buy this if you have no Actions in play" clause from some of Donald's outtakes. I haven't done another stress test on it, so it's possible I'll axe it for the same reason. But I'm hoping that 4 turns of build-up before you get hit by it will be enough to make it workable.

I don't really think of Barrister as a true trasher, since it only trashes Domains. It was originally just a trashing Attack that could steal all Treasure cards (including Domains), but I couldn't make it different enough from existing Thief variants to be interesting. So it is as you see it. I don't really want two harsh trashing attacks in the set, so it works out. I still need to try Domain at $3. I realized recently that at that price it can provide an additional buffer against Axeman, which is cute in game that have both Axeman and Barrister.

So my advice to you is to constrain your design space in some way when designing trashing Attacks (or any cards, really). It can help creativity. That being said, a set doesn't need to have a trashing Attack at all. None of the small sets do, and neither does Prosperity.

[mail-mi]

One time when we were playing with Taxman, my wife suggested that I should make a card named "Axeman". I decided to bring the old Attack back and add the "can't buy this if you have no Actions in play" clause from some of Donald's outtakes. I haven't done another stress test on it, so it's possible I'll axe it for the same reason. But I'm hoping that 4 turns of build-up before you get hit by it will be enough to make it workable.

I see what you did there...

[Nic]

LF, do you have printable sheets of these cards, or are there directions somewhere for putting together a template? I'll be spending the weekend up in the mountains, with a crowd that likes Dominion but wouldn't go for playing with proxied cards. I sleeved my entire collection a few months ago, so I can just slip some paper into the sleeves (for blanks, excess Ruins, Rebuild &c.). What I need is a .pdf of properly sized cards that I can just take to Kinko's, order ten copies, and cut them out myself.

[LastFootnote]

LF, do you have printable sheets of these cards, or are there directions somewhere for putting together a template? I'll be spending the weekend up in the mountains, with a crowd that likes Dominion but wouldn't go for playing with proxied cards. I sleeved my entire collection a few months ago, so I can just slip some paper into the sleeves (for blanks, excess Ruins, Rebuild &c.). What I need is a .pdf of properly sized cards that I can just take to Kinko's, order ten copies, and cut them out myself.

I'm on it. I'll post the here tonight.

[Nic]

Sweet. Feel free to toss in some cards that you want tested. (If there's space left over, I wouldn't say no to Crystal Ball or Archivist, either.  )

[LastFootnote]

Sweet. Feel free to toss in some cards that you want tested. (If there's space left over, I wouldn't say no to Crystal Ball or Archivist, either.  )

As it turns out, there is exactly enough space for the 24 Kingdom cards I have right now and the ancillary cards (Conscripts and Domain).

[LastFootnote]

It appears that I can only have 4 attachments per post. Here are the Kingdom card sheets.

[LastFootnote]

Here are the Conscripts and Domain sheets. You'll need 10 copies each of kingdom1.pdf, kingdom2.pdf, and kingdom3.pdf. You'll only need 2 copies of conscripts.pdf and 1 copy of domain.pdf.

When printing all these sheets, I had to set "Page Scaling" to "None" in order to get them to come out the right size. Your printer or the print shop's printer may or may not have such an option, but I thought I'd mention it. If the cards come out a little small, it's probably no big deal. They'll just require less cutting to fit in the sleeves. Still, if possible, I'd ask the person at Kinko's to print out a test sheet so you know they're being printed at approximately the right size.

I use upside-down Seaside mats for the Investment mats and Embaro tokens for Trade tokens.

Thanks for wanting to test these out! I hope it goes well. If you have time, let me know how your group liked the various cards.

EDIT: I updated the image post with the latest changes.

• Domain now costs $3. I'm hoping this will create more interesting play in games with trash-for-benefit cards.
• Guide and Recruiter have been added.
• Lodge has been reworded but remains functionally the same.

[dondon151]

On Barrister, "Treasures" is spelt incorrectly.

[NoMoreFun]

Can you make the image post the OP?

[LastFootnote]

On Barrister, "Treasures" is spelt incorrectly.

Thanks. Fixed.

Can you make the image post the OP?

I will do that if I have time today.

[NoMoreFun]

I like Lodge now. It's similar to terrace; simple card with a niche with a one time ability to get you out of a pickle. Exchange and Guide on the other hand are more opportunistic.

Most of the trade token cards seem right for their price points without their trade token ability (with the obvious exception of Terrace), although in some cases it's more in a "strictly better" sense than a "competitive with other cards of the same cost" sense.

I didn't think Guide would be a $3 though. How likely is one of the 3 cards revealed to be dead? It compares favourably to Oracle, and that's before the trade tokens. Excellent card design, but seems a bit strong at $3. Playtesting will have the answer.

Recruiter (my card is now "Pioneer") seems good. I like the combo with General (and Throne Room, and Procession).

Well done on completing a big box set. Now it's time to refine, but this is way, way better than the fan expansions on bgg.

[LastFootnote]

The OP has finally been updated. It contains a little blurb on each card, plus a zero-to-five star rating showing how much playtesting each card has gotten.

Most of the trade token cards seem right for their price points without their trade token ability (with the obvious exception of Terrace), although in some cases it's more in a "strictly better" sense than a "competitive with other cards of the same cost" sense.

Well, that's fine with me. Exchange and Lodge I think would be weak $5 cards without their tokens, but obviously strictly better than their $4 counterparts. Lodge without tokens is obviously way worse than Margrave, so I wouldn't mind if it got a boost. There's not a lot of room on the card, though. I hope the token ability is powerful enough to make up for it. Man, I've tried so many cards for the "+3 Cards" slot. I really hope Lodge works out.

I didn't think Guide would be a $3 though. How likely is one of the 3 cards revealed to be dead? It compares favourably to Oracle, and that's before the trade tokens. Excellent card design, but seems a bit strong at $3. Playtesting will have the answer.

Maybe you're right. I haven't playtested it yet. I'm not too worried about it relative to Oracle, though. Oracle sifts before drawing, which is significant, and of course it also attacks.

Well done on completing a big box set. Now it's time to refine, but this is way, way better than the fan expansions on bgg.

Thanks. It's not complete, though, even in the "enough cards" sense. I need one more card to get up to 25 Kingdom cards and fill the 300 card box. This set has already had so much refining, but as you say, it will ideally have a lot more.

[NoMoreFun]

You don't need a +3 cards, just 3 decent terminal drawers if that. Seaside only has wharf (if you count ghost ship, then you'd need a lot more to keep up with Base).

You do seem to have a lot of terminal silvers, but nothing wrong with that. You could make Barrister hit everyone, then +3 cards (self sabotage woohoo).

Like I said though, lodge is good, it's just sharing space with Vault.

[LastFootnote]

Mill Town specifically wants +3 (or more) Cards in the set. It loves Envoy.

Barrister could be +2 Cards instead of +$2. I've considered that. It'd be even closer to Rabble, though, and maybe make a last-minute Domain rush too good. Probably not, though.

It's a bit lame that all three Attack cards give +$2. But on the other hand, it makes the Barracks decision easier. Do I need $2 more this turn? Dig for an Attack!

[mail-mi]

if you want a smithy+, here's an option.

Card, $5
+3 cards (maybe something else).
You may spend a trade token. If you do, +1 action and discard a card.
--
When you gain this take a trade token.

[LastFootnote]

if you want a smithy+, here's an option.

Card, $5
+3 cards (maybe something else).
You may spend a trade token. If you do, +1 action and discard a card.
--
When you gain this take a trade token.

I appreciate the thought, but that seems less compelling than Lodge to me. Trade tokens for +Actions isn't off the table, but the set probably doesn't need more nonterminal draw.

If I were to use this, I don't think "and discard a card" is necessary. It's a one-use ability and probably doesn't need further penalizing.

[NoMoreFun]

Would it be worth tying Wheelwright's penalty to the discard, so it can combo with exchange and other draw to X enablers? It adds "intent" to the copper when you want it to hurt.

I thought this when I was pondering how strong exchange without the trade token is. It's decent and you don't need to buff it. Being able to turn a gold into a province and still play another action is great. Governor's Remodel is very useful and that has a penalty (although it's also on a card that gains gold).

Will the final card be a 3rd conscripts card? Dark ages has 3 ruins cards and 3 spoils cards. So glad to see a 2nd.

[LastFootnote]

Would it be worth tying Wheelwright's penalty to the discard, so it can combo with exchange and other draw to X enablers? It adds "intent" to the copper when you want it to hurt.

I'm confused. First of all, it already combos with draw-to-X enablers. Even though you can discard bad cards with Wheelwright, it still benefits from disappearing Coins and Actions. Second, what do you mean by "when you want [the Copper] to hurt"? Other players have the option of gaining a Copper to hand. It's not mandatory. If it were mandatory, it would have to be an Attack, but it would fall into the unfortunate realm of Attack cards that can help as often as hurt. Imagine if Bishop or Vault's optional benefits were mandatory.

I thought this when I was pondering how strong exchange without the trade token is. It's decent and you don't need to buff it. Being able to turn a gold into a province and still play another action is great. Governor's Remodel is very useful and that has a penalty (although it's also on a card that gains gold).

I'm not sure whether I've ever compared Exchange to Governor before. It's true that Exchange is way better at remodeling. It may also be true that Exchange without the Trade token ability is fine at $5. I don't care, though, because the whole concept of the card is remodel-to-hand. A card that's just a non-terminal Remodel isn't worth doing. So even if it's balanced without that ability, unless it's broken with the ability, I'm not changing it. If I had to weaken it, I'd bump it to $6, which has the added benefits of letting you Exchange Exchanges into Provinces and giving me a $6 card for the set. Hmm, this is sounding pret-ty good. Maybe I'll try it out.

Will the final card be a 3rd conscripts card? Dark ages has 3 ruins cards and 3 spoils cards. So glad to see a 2nd.

I'm glad that you're glad. But the chances of a third Conscripts card are slim. Unlike Spoils, each Conscripts-gaining card effectively adds another Attack to the set in terms of the ratio of cards that slow the game down. And it's the same Attack! Lame. I'm hoping that Recruiter works and that it's different enough from Barracks to be worth doing. I would have preferred if some iteration of Profiteer had worked out.

Profiteer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck. Each other player gains a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

I playtested it in a few games. Nobody ever bought it but me. Even when I won, they were all like, "Thanks for the free Attack cards, sucker!"

[KingZog3]

Why does there have to be 3 conscripts cards? There's only 1 Mercenary card, and only 1 Madman card. I thought this was in the same "Card to get another card" boat.

[LastFootnote]

Why does there have to be 3 conscripts cards? There's only 1 Mercenary card, and only 1 Madman card. I thought this was in the same "Card to get another card" boat.

The more cards that are in the box, the more ancillary cards you can get away with having, I think. Conscripts basically takes up a slot that could have held a Kingdom card. But since there's still room for 25 Kingdom cards in the set, I think it's OK to have it. It's nice to have multiple Kingdom cards that can use each ancillary card for two reasons. First, the ancillary card seems more justified. It's not taking up a whole slot just for the sake of one card. Second, it allows you to do more simple cards. Marauder is an incredibly simple card but still feels fresh because it gets to use two kinds of ancillary cards for its complexity.

I think Attack cards in general are very good candidates for ancillary card usage because it's so hard to make fresh Attacks just by cobbling together existing mechanics. So much of that space has already been explored. Although I hadn't considered it earlier, it makes sense that Conscripts and Domain are both tied into Attacks. Look at Dark Ages. Urchin/Mercenary, Marauder, Cultist, and Pillage all use ancillary cards.

Anyhow, if Conscripts weren't an Attack, I would probably try to fit in a third card that uses them. It is an Attack, though, and the set only wants so much attacking.

As an aside, Barracks and Conscripts predate the publication of Dark Ages, so I didn't create Conscripts with Madman or Spoils in mind. Although I did take "return this to the pile" from those cards once Dark Ages came out. Conscripts used to just trash themselves.

[NoMoreFun]

Exchange is perfectly priced and I look forward to playing with it when I get the chance.

[silverspawn]

ok, so, first of all: this looks really good. almost all cards are interesting and it feels like there's a lot of thought put into making this expansion.

second, i'd encourage you to put some more stuff into the opening post, like the downloads for the current versions of all cards, and the "picture post", or maybe a link to it. it'd make it easier to find stuff without having to look for it in the thread.

third: i would love to play with these, but but how would go about getting them to be physical cards? I mean, obviously you can print them, but having cards made out of paper isn't exactly ideal. you could glue them onto blanks, but i don't have nearly enough blanks. you can buy them here:
http://boardgamegeekstore.com/products/dominion-blank-cards
but that's ridiculously overpriced. i also don't use sleeves, because i play mostly online. my brother once made a cube of mtg cards by printing and glueing them onto a bunch of basic lands, but that doesn't really work here; there aren't any cards left to spare in dominion. i guess you could buy a copy of dark ages and use all of the cards ans pseudo-blanks, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant way. should i just start using sleeves?

[Thanar]

Just by an extra Dominion expansion that you already have and use those cards as "blanks" with sleeves. For example, I bought an extra Hinterlands a while back to qualify an order for free shipping. A little searching with boardgameprices.com and the # of cards per expansion should be enough to figure out which one gives you the least cost per card and give you enough cards for Dominion: Enterprise.

[LastFootnote]

ok, so, first of all: this looks really good. almost all cards are interesting and it feels like there's a lot of thought put into making this expansion.

Thanks! It's been in the works for a long time.

second, i'd encourage you to put some more stuff into the opening post, like the downloads for the current versions of all cards, and the "picture post", or maybe a link to it. it'd make it easier to find stuff without having to look for it in the thread.

Well, all the pictures are already in the top post, so I'm confused by what you mean there. As for the downloads, I'm not planning to update those sheets every time I change the cards. It took me quite a while to make those PDFs. I only put them together because Nic wanted them. If I put them in the OP, they'd become outdated pretty quickly. If I finalize the set and get a 100% assurance that it will never be published, I'll make the downloads more accessible.

third: i would love to play with these, but but how would go about getting them to be physical cards? I mean, obviously you can print them, but having cards made out of paper isn't exactly ideal. you could glue them onto blanks, but i don't have nearly enough blanks. you can buy them here:
http://boardgamegeekstore.com/products/dominion-blank-cards
but that's ridiculously overpriced. i also don't use sleeves, because i play mostly online. my brother once made a cube of mtg cards by printing and glueing them onto a bunch of basic lands, but that doesn't really work here; there aren't any cards left to spare in dominion. i guess you could buy a copy of dark ages and use all of the cards ans pseudo-blanks, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant way. should i just start using sleeves?

Unfortunately, the only way I know to proxy up cards is with sleeves. If you want to play with the cards, you'll probably have to sleeve your entire Dominion set. I think that's worth doing in general, though.

Thanar is correct about buying sets to use for sleeved custom cards. Blanks are a waste of money. The most cost-effective way to do this is to buy a couple of Dominion: Base Cards boxes. They're $12 apiece on Amazon for 250 cards each. Then you can use your old Coppers, Provinces, etc. as fan cards. And you get nice, new base cards with art in the bargain! It's win-win. This solution doesn't give you blue-backed randomizers, though. If you need those, Hinterlands is your most cost-effective option.

If you don't already own Seaside, buy that. You can use Embargo tokens for Trade tokens and upside-down mats for Investment.

[Polk5440]

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.

[silverspawn]

As for the downloads, I'm not planning to update those sheets every time I change the cards. It took me quite a while to make those PDFs. I only put them together because Nic wanted them. If I put them in the OP, they'd become outdated pretty quickly. If I finalize the set and get a 100% assurance that it will never be published, I'll make the downloads more accessible.

i see. makes sense.

Unfortunately, the only way I know to proxy up cards is with sleeves. If you want to play with the cards, you'll probably have to sleeve your entire Dominion set. I think that's worth doing in general, though.

Thanar is correct about buying sets to use for sleeved custom cards. Blanks are a waste of money. The most cost-effective way to do this is to buy a couple of Dominion: Base Cards boxes. They're $12 apiece on Amazon for 250 cards each. Then you can use your old Coppers, Provinces, etc. as fan cards. And you get nice, new base cards with art in the bargain! It's win-win. This solution doesn't give you blue-backed randomizers, though. If you need those, Hinterlands is your most cost-effective option.

If you don't already own Seaside, buy that. You can use Embargo tokens for Trade tokens and upside-down mats for Investment.

thanks, i own all extensions so 'll probably go with ordering two of the base boxes.

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game.

I've done that with promos previously, but it's not the same... is misses the certain feeling

[eHalcyon]

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.

You can also do this with non-blank cards.  "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!"  You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.

[Polk5440]

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.

You can also do this with non-blank cards.  "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!"  You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.

I tried this once. Never again -- I evidently can't pay attention.

[GeoLib]

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.

You can also do this with non-blank cards.  "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!"  You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.

That's the best scout strategy I've seen!

[LastFootnote]

If you don't have sleeves, you can play with the cards one at a time using the blanks. Just have a printout of what the blanks are for that game. If you want to play with two or more fan cards at a time, sleeves are the best way to go.

You can also do this with non-blank cards.  "Scout is standing in for Craftsman in this game!"  You just need to pay attention so you don't forget it.

I tried this once. Never again -- I evidently can't pay attention.

Dude, if Scouts could gain you more Scouts, that'd be ridiculously broken.

[LastFootnote]

I played this board with two other players last night. Overall it went quite well. It was a fun game where every single Kingdom card was gained at least once.

It was the very first game with Guide. Two of the players (including me) bought Guides and at different points in the game each of us used 2 tokens in order to play a single Guide 3 times. That was fun. The player who didn't buy Guide had a small criticism that it was hard to track what was going on when we played Guide and that the card was complex in a non-intuitive way, but admitted that he would probably have felt differently if he had been playing them himself. Overall I'm happy with the card's debut.

Jubilee was quite a popular buy, which is a feat considering Fool's Gold is on the board (although Fool's Gold is less dominant in 3-player games). It was especially nice to Develop a $3-cost Domain into a Jubilee and a Committee. I'm no longer as concerned that the card is a dud. It was well-liked, although I'm sure that Jubilee and Guide giving each other a boost is significant.

I didn't get much feedback on Barrister, although I enjoyed playing with it since I ended up with all 3 Domains in my final deck. Late game I developed an Estate into a Barrister on my deck. When I played it, I happened to trash one opponent's Domain and then pick up all 3 from the trash (the other 2 being there from early-game Develop plays). One of my opponents attempted to steal some back, but to no avail.

Committee still appears to work fine at $4. One player went strongly for Committees and Convocations, eventually getting quite a slim deck and gaining a bunch of good cards. He revealed Province and Gold once, gaining a Gold. It was a popular card.

One of the playtesters didn't like Convocation because it seemed so much better than Lab at $5. This also applies to Hunting Party, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate criticism. He got quite lucky and almost always pulled 3 cards with each Convocation play, but he still has a point. He suggested replacing +1 Action with +1 Buy. I'm considering this. I would of course raise the number of revealed cards (probably to 5) if I were to try it. On one hand, it would fit the terminal-card-draw slot I've been trying to fill. On the other hand, it seems like a particularly bad combo with Mill Town, which is the main reason I really want a Smithy variant in the set. Also, I'm not sure I really want terminal draw that specifically pulls an Action into your hand. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, I don't know. I'll probably playtest it more as-is, but I'm open to changing or scrapping it. It's very off-theme.

It was a very close game. I barely won with a final score of 33-32-31. Glad I scraped together all three Domains!

EDIT: Oh, also I played a 3-player game with Recruiter on Wednesday. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact setup.

One of the players in that game loves nasty Attack cards and just loaded up on these. I admit, I was seriously considering just not playing my Barrister or Bureaucrat in order to not enable his ridiculous Recruiter deck. All the Curses got handed out and he won in a landslide. So the fear that Recruiter's Reaction effect is so strong that it might keep you from buying other Attack cards is definitely founded. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I'm going to change or scrap it yet. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, unlike the theoretical Revenge reaction that hurts the attacker, people not buying other Attack cards doesn't stop you from wanting to buy Recruiter. Second, the fact that the person who went strongly for cursing won the game is not unique to Recruiter. If I and the other player had bought more Recruiters to fight back, we would have stood a better chance. Third, I don't think Recruiter would really keep you from buying the more powerful Attack cards, like Witch. This board only had Barrister and Bureaucrat for other Attack cards.

I'm a bit concerned that all 10 Recruiters got bought. Now this is the same guy who will run out the Thief pile whenever possible, so maybe I'm reading too much into it. Still, it could potentially be problematic if it always happens. I think chances are good that it's going to need a nerf of some sort, but I'll test it a bit more as-is.

[manthos88]

Hey... nice new cards you got there! I haven't been here for some time now. I like Guide. I remember you once talked about a card with a mechanism that will play itself again. Seems you made it happen. Nice!

I also like Recruiter! It's good you added another card that can gain Conscripts. But, i fear, as you do as well, it might be too strong. On first glimpse, it looks it is. I mean, if i have 3-4 of these in my hand, i can militia you and also give you 2-3 Curses if you get that Witch to lay a Curse on me...

[Polk5440]

LastFootnote, I like a lot of the cards in the set, but I am still not sold on some of uses of the trade tokens. Maybe it's my aversion to having more tokens and mats flying around, but to justify having them around, the tokens must be the easiest way to implement the idea of the card.

For example, consider:

Simple Jubilee
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. +$2.
You may play this card again immediately. If you do, trash it. 

Much simpler. Easy to understand. No tokens. I think Jubilee has the Merchant Guild problem. There are a few cases where amassing coin tokens via Mercant Guild can be interesting and playing them all at once, but the much simpler Bridge mechanic works just as well most of the time. Sometimes getting coin tokens elsewhere doesn't save the card, either. Same with Jubilee. It's not sufficiently enhanced by trade tokens even if there are other ways to get the tokens.

The trade tokens are at their best when spending them like a limited stimulate resource that temporarily beefs up a card (and it's the easiest way to implement that temporary bonus).

-----


Also, I think there may be too many remodel variants (Redistrict, Craftsman, Exchange). The trade token remodel variants are less interesting now because of Butcher. I would consider replacing Craftsman or Exchange. I really like Redistrict.

[LastFootnote]

LastFootnote, I like a lot of the cards in the set, but I am still not sold on some of uses of the trade tokens. Maybe it's my aversion to having more tokens and mats flying around, but to justify having them around, the tokens must be the easiest way to implement the idea of the card.

For example, consider:

Simple Jubilee
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. +$2.
You may play this card again immediately. If you do, trash it. 

Much simpler. Easy to understand. No tokens. I think Jubilee has the Merchant Guild problem. There are a few cases where amassing coin tokens via Mercant Guild can be interesting and playing them all at once, but the much simpler Bridge mechanic works just as well most of the time. Sometimes getting coin tokens elsewhere doesn't save the card, either. Same with Jubilee. It's not sufficiently enhanced by trade tokens even if there are other ways to get the tokens.

The trade tokens are at their best when spending them like a limited stimulate resource that temporarily beefs up a card (and it's the easiest way to implement that temporary bonus).

Well, I appreciate the idea. I agree that if I can implement a card idea without tokens, that's preferable. Fund is such a card. As GendoIkari pointed out, I could use Trade tokens to implement Fund, rather than trashing it and replacing it with Silver. But I think it's simpler and more compelling as-is.

Jubilee, though, is not such a card. "Simple Jubilee" is not even close to Jubilee in functionality, and moreover it has to cost at least $5, being a better Silver in most cases. The initial concept behind Jubilee was "two-shot Silver". I decided to give it +2 Actions (instead of +1 Action or making it a Treasure) as a way to spice up the card and make you want it in more situations. Simple Jubilee is "Silver you can trash to play it again". I already have that card. It's Fund.

So while I appreciate the fact that many consider tokens clunky, I do think they're the simplest way to implement all the Enterprise cards that currently use them. Some people actually like tokens, for what that's worth.

Side Note: I'm strongly considering changing Jubilee so that it returns itself to the Supply rather than trashing itself. That way you can use them as the only village in your deck, but you have to keep buying them back.

Also, I think there may be too many remodel variants (Redistrict, Craftsman, Exchange). The trade token remodel variants are less interesting now because of Butcher. I would consider replacing Craftsman or Exchange. I really like Redistrict.

Well, one counterpoint that I've already made is that Guilds only has 13 cards and 3 of them are remodels (Butcher, Stonemason, Taxman). Also, Craftsman isn't a Remodel variant at all. It's a Workshop variant. I sort of consider Refurbish to be a Remodel variant, but not completely.

Other than being a remodel variant that uses tokens in some way, I'd say that Exchange and Butcher are pretty much completely different. Craftsman and Butcher are more similar, being cards that you can spend more tokens on to get more expensive cards. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, my goal is to make them as different as possible, and I think I've succeeded. Butcher is terminal; Craftsman is not. Butcher costs $5; Craftsman costs $4. Butcher trashes a card; Craftsman does not. In the end, the core concept behind Butcher is "flexible Remodel". The concept behind Craftsman is "Workshop you can build up by combining them". That's why it has +1 Action, so you can play two and get $5 cards without using all your terminal Actions up on Craftsmen themselves.

[clloxin]

I find it funny that people dislike trade tokens. I find them the most genius way to use semi one-shots. Also, great job on the expansion. It is the most interesting and clean expansion, and also actually feels like it could be real.

[silverspawn]

please don't replace trade tokens...

[Nik]

If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Do you like them?

[Awaclus]

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-----
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Most of these are completely useless in kingdoms without other trade token cards.

[Archetype]

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-----
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Most of these are completely useless in kingdoms without other trade token cards.

To add on to what Awaclus said, Trade Tokens aren't another type of currency. They act as a way to turn 1-shot cards into 2-shots or more.  The ability to take a Trade Token intended for one card and use it on another is just a cool bonus - not the primary effect. The way that you seem to be interpreting them is that they are specifically earned to boost the power of other cards.

Also, awesome set LFN! I don't think I've commented here(?), but I've been following along since the beginning and am very pleased with how its developed. Slick designs with some cool effects. Keep up the good work!

[LastFootnote]

please don't replace trade tokens...

I don't plan to. Polk5440 was just suggesting that there might be a simpler way to implement Jubilee specifically, and that Trade tokens should be reserved for "get one when you gain a card, spend it when you play the card for a bonus" effects. As I outlined, I disagree that Jubilee can be made simpler. Whether or not Jubilee is worth doing in general is another topic, but it's been quite popular in most of our playtests.

If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Do you like them?

While I appreciate the thought, Awaclus and Archetype have nailed down the problem with most of your cards. Any Trade token card may be the only one in a given game, so each one must both give you Trade tokens and give you a use for them. But that doesn't necessarily mean that your post is devoid of good ideas; some of these effects could be made into cool cards. I'll try to talk about mechanics, rather than specific cards.

Attack that makes players lose Trade tokens: Cardinal and Seamstress do this. The problem here is that other players can easily avoid the attack by not buying Trade token cards. This in turn means that these Attack cards themselves won't get bought. So it would likely result in a lot of dead cards on the table, which is never ideal.

Play effect that gets better as you accumulate Trade tokens: Court does this. I think it's a mechanic with some potential. The key is that you have to spend at least one Trade token every time you get the effect that counts tokens (which Court does). Otherwise you're eventually going to get ridiculously powerful effects. (I suppose Pirate Ship does this, but still.) Also, such a card almost has to be able to get Trade tokens when played. If you only get them when you gain the cards, eventually they dwindle down to uselessness, at which point you might as well trash those cards. Craftsman kind of already does this, but there you have to actually spend more tokens to get the larger effect. I think there may be a good card somewhere in this space of 'better when you have more tokens'.

Victory card that counts Trade tokens: Museum does this. This concept I'm not so hot on. If it's the only Trade token card in the game and you get tokens when you gain it, it basically counts itself. Donald tried that and it eventually turned into Duke. It might be possible that instead of gaining tokens when you gain the Victory card, it's also an Action or Reaction that gains tokens, but I don't love that either. For one thing, VP tokens (from Prosperity) do this more elegantly. For another, I generally want players to spend their Trade tokens to get cool effects. When one card says, "Hoard all your tokens," it works against all the other Trade token cards on the board.

Reaction that makes Trade tokens: Camp does this. This could work if stapled to an Action card that uses the tokens. If Recruiter doesn't work out, I may try something like this.

Trash a card costing at least $X for a big benefit: Road does this. I don't think the threshold (saying "a card costing at least $5") is a great idea. Cards that trash a card for a scaling benefit depending on the cost of the card (Trader [from Hinterlands], Bishop, Apprentice, Salvager, etc.) are nice because you can use them on Estates early on and then you can choose to use them on expensive cards later for big effects. Something about having to trash a really expensive card to get any sort of benefit turns me off. It seems like it wouldn't be a popular buy.

Expensive one-shot that gives one of several powerful options: Bakery does this. Generally, if I'm going to have a choose-one ability, I want the choices to be related in some way, e.g. Gambler. I feel cards that are just a bunch of different options as their core ability is Intrigue's schtick, although it's fine to do them elsewhere (Count from Dark Ages). This isn't necessarily out of the question, but I don't find it super compelling.

Those are the big ones. Trader is "spend a few tokens to gain a $5 card", which Craftsman already covers. Circus is "trash a card and spend a Trade token for an effect", which is redundant once you factor in that the card needs to also gain tokens. On any board without other Trade token cards, it's basically just a normal one-shot. Coat of Arms's role is "spend a token for extra Coins and a Buy", which I feel Fund sufficiently fills. Once you factor in that a card needs to both spend and use tokens, Theater doesn't really have a concept at all.

That's it! I may very well try a card like Court or Camp, so I appreciate you taking the time to suggest these ideas.

[Polk5440]

You are correct. I have been misreading Jubilee. I couldn't understand why it was priced at only $2.

You are correct that it needs the trade token, unless you want to make it a one-shot duration. But that's not any simpler.

[LastFootnote]

I'm considering changing the wording of General to reduce confusion with Gambler and Vendor and to make it work with Conscripts (and Jubilee if I change that to return to the Supply).

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would trash that card or otherwise remove it from play during your Action phase, don't. When you discard that card from play, put it on top of your deck.

So you still save your one-shots from getting trashed, but you can only play them twice per turn. It uses a new and perhaps imprecise phrasing, though. I'm wondering if there are interactions that I'm not considering.

True One-Shots
• Island sets aside two other cards onto your Island mat but does not itself get set aside. It gets topdecked during Clean-up.
• Feast, Embargo, Pillage, Conscripts, and Investment all do their thing twice and then get topdecked during Clean-up.
• Madman and Treasure Map don't do their thing at all because they don't get returned to their pile or trashed, but they still get topdecked during Clean-up.

Optional One-Shots
• Jubilee, Gambler, and Vendor can each do their bonus ability twice because those abilities are not contingent on trashing them.
• Mining Village and Redistrict can't do their bonus abilities at all because those abilities are contingent on trashing them.

These outcomes are all acceptable to me. I'm sure there are some card interactions I'm missing, though.

EDIT: Other advantages to this wording.

• It's cute thematically that General prevents Conscripts from "fleeing".
• It makes tracking WAY easier than even Throne Room, since the cards that General plays always stay in play until Clean-up.

[NoMoreFun]

I really don't like the "don't" wording, but I think there was a topic where Donald X approved that above "you can't". Good Guy General protects the Mining Village from the player, bails out the Gambler and keeps the Jubilee going.

In fact with this the card's perfect as halfway between a Throne Room and a King's Court - you get it twice now, and once next turn, no exceptions.

This version won't protect cards from my fan card Cargo, while the old version did. That's of course neither here nor there. I don't think there are any real cards to worry about in the Buy phase.

[LastFootnote]

Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.

New versions of General and Jubilee, plus a mocked up version of Windfall:

[NoMoreFun]

Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.

Then it dies the next turn. Halfway between TR and KC. Although maybe not; you can elect not to play it, or next hand may have an action you want to trash. You also avoid the overshoot (for when you lack +buys). In fact General is better than KC in quite a few situations, but it's not going to make megaturns as often - I think it's probably fine at $5.

[LastFootnote]

Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.

Then it dies the next turn. Halfway between TR and KC. Although maybe not; you can elect not to play it, or next hand may have an action you want to trash. You also avoid the overshoot (for when you lack +buys). In fact General is better than KC in quite a few situations, but it's not going to make megaturns as often - I think it's probably fine at $5.

But you could easily have a General in your next hand, too. There's no reason you can't keep the Death Cart train going indefinitely with a few Generals. You can even General a General, which plays a Death Cart. Then you topdeck a General and a Death Cart.

I'm not saying it needs a fix. Just pointing out that you could easily play a one-shot more than three times using Generals (though not in a single turn).

[KingZog3]

Whoa, I just realized that using General on Death Cart gives you $10 and saves your Death Cart. Oh, well. I'm not going to kill General just because of one potential mega combo.

Then it dies the next turn. Halfway between TR and KC. Although maybe not; you can elect not to play it, or next hand may have an action you want to trash. You also avoid the overshoot (for when you lack +buys). In fact General is better than KC in quite a few situations, but it's not going to make megaturns as often - I think it's probably fine at $5.

But you could easily have a General in your next hand, too. There's no reason you can't keep the Death Cart train going indefinitely with a few Generals. You can even General a General, which plays a Death Cart. Then you topdeck a General and a Death Cart.

I'm not saying it needs a fix. Just pointing out that you could easily play a one-shot more than three times using Generals (though not in a single turn).

You still get 2 Ruins that junk your deck with DC. Also Trader/Feodum exists. This doesn't sound as crazy because it needs an engine to do this repeatedly. Otherwise you're depending on luck to line up a $5 and $4 card with extra junk around in your deck.

[Beyond Awesome]

Not to mention you also need a form of +Buy to really make it worthwhile. Like others have said, DC junks your deck, so I would not really consider this overpowered.

[NoMoreFun]

Not to mention you also need a form of +Buy to really make it worthwhile. Like others have said, DC junks your deck, so I would not really consider this overpowered.

Of course Death Cart can get rid of that Junk, and with General there are more opportunities to get it to hit the ruins. Without +buy you'll be overshooting (unless it's a colony game), but hitting above $8 far too often isn't something I'd consider a problem.

Death Cart+General seems like a very good combo indeed.

Pillage+General is also fantastic; get enough Generals and a single Pillage and you can brutalise the hand of your opponents (possibly preventing them from ever buying a province) every single turn while you fill your deck with Spoils.

Nothing wrong with a combo like that existing; you should only really be worried if the oneshots in Enterprise (especially Conscripts) are made way too powerful by a "General Train", especially Conscripts (remembering that you also need the Conscripts gainers). If people regularly want to avoid games with General+Oneshots because it's too game warping, then the feature is a waste.

General without the trash prevention is still an excellent card that should be in the set. I can't think of any non oneshots that would really be problematic with General. As far as cards that you'd want to play across multiple turns go, I can't think of any that are much, much, better when you play them twice, in which case Scheme is a better enabler.

[pst]

When you reveal or just look at cards at the top of your deck, sometimes there's an option to return them to the top of the deck. For published cards that happens with Scout, Navigator, Apothecary, Rabble, Oracle, Cartographer, Mandarin (gain effect), Survivors, Wandering Minstrel and Doctor.

For all of those it is pointed out that the deck's owner may choose the order to put them in. That is practical, so you don't have to keep track of what order the revealed/looked-at cards were, and I think your cards Barrister, Guide and Dignitary should do the same. For example Dignitary being "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand and put the other cards on top of your deck in any order. +$1 for each card you put on your deck."

[LastFootnote]

Death Cart+General seems like a very good combo indeed.

Pillage+General is also fantastic; get enough Generals and a single Pillage and you can brutalise the hand of your opponents (possibly preventing them from ever buying a province) every single turn while you fill your deck with Spoils.

Nothing wrong with a combo like that existing; you should only really be worried if the oneshots in Enterprise (especially Conscripts) are made way too powerful by a "General Train", especially Conscripts (remembering that you also need the Conscripts gainers). If people regularly want to avoid games with General+Oneshots because it's too game warping, then the feature is a waste.

General without the trash prevention is still an excellent card that should be in the set. I can't think of any non oneshots that would really be problematic with General. As far as cards that you'd want to play across multiple turns go, I can't think of any that are much, much, better when you play them twice, in which case Scheme is a better enabler.

This is all true and it really comes down to how strong/painful General+Conscripts is. Eventually the Curses run out and then it gets less awful. General+Pillage is at least nerfed by the fact that Spoils are clogging your deck, making you less likely to line up your Generals each turn.

General without the trash prevention is indeed still a good card. It's arguably a better card because it's so much simpler. But I feel that this set would be a poor fit for that card, having so many one-shots. Even the Trade token cards aren't awesome for topdecking after you play them because they're only really great once per purchase (except Craftsman, that one is a good General target). So you're still happy to topdeck them, but maybe not as happy as you would be with another card. If I make a second expansion, it'll probably be with Activation cards, and assuming Balcony works out, that set will already have a Throne variant. Even if Balcony is a dud, the interaction between General and Activation cards is somewhat complex.

So long story short, I'm really hoping that the current version of General works out because I don't know where I'd put the simpler version. I would also not be ultra-sad if General had to cost $6, although at that price it looks less awesome for non one-shots. Probably it would get bought anyway.

When you reveal or just look at cards at the top of your deck, sometimes there's an option to return them to the top of the deck. For published cards that happens with Scout, Navigator, Apothecary, Rabble, Oracle, Cartographer, Mandarin (gain effect), Survivors, Wandering Minstrel and Doctor.

For all of those it is pointed out that the deck's owner may choose the order to put them in. That is practical, so you don't have to keep track of what order the revealed/looked-at cards were, and I think your cards Barrister, Guide and Dignitary should do the same. For example Dignitary being "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand and put the other cards on top of your deck in any order. +$1 for each card you put on your deck."

This was (unfortunately) a conscious decision on my part to save space on the cards. Barrister is full up on words. There is no way I'm fitting "in an order he chooses" on that card without tiny text. I could maybe squeeze in "and put the rest back in any order" on Dignitary, but it would look very cramped. Guide could definitely fit "in any order" but it would hurt readability, and Guide is already a bit hard to parse.

The idea is that the virtual rulebook for Enterprise has the rule, "When a player puts multiple cards onto his deck, he always chooses the order unless a card specifies differently." This is not ideal, but at least it matches all existing cards and it's the natural assumption anyway. Again, I completely agree that the cards themselves should spell this out. But for now I've decided to take the "any order you choose" rule as given for the sake of card readability. It was a tough decision, but so far I don't regret it.

EDIT: I want to make it clear that I would rather have that text where applicable. To that end, I just came up with a new version of Barrister that doesn't need the rule at all, and as a bonus is slightly less wordy in general.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, puts a revealed Victory card back on top, and discards the rest. Gain all the Domains in the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

It is a nerf in that it can topdeck at most one card, discards Curses, and topdecks Action-Victory and Treasure-Victory hybrids. But it's also a small buff to its ability to search for Domains, since you'll always be seeing at least one new card per opponent per play. Honestly I think I'm fine with it discarding Curses, especially if the set's really going to end up with two cards that gain Conscripts. Opinions about this version of Barrister?

[NoMoreFun]

I preferred the old version, which could actually be a nasty attack with a few plays (as a weaker Rabble). This feels like a much weaker Fortune Teller that might give you a nice VP bonus (in return for cleaning their deck a little).

Never really been sure about Spy attacks in general. I know Rabble can hurt hard when chained, but on the other hand, Fortune Teller is like playing infinitely many Spies, and that card isn't considered very good.

I always thought that a spy attack that hit you as well, followed by a disproportionately powerful draw was a good idea, but that's probably just my kind of thing in general (see Pandemonium's multitude of things that affect everyone equally).

[NoMoreFun]

Activation cards could fit in this set - with the theme of "knowing when to pull the trigger" (eg use the one time trade token ability, activating the card). It would mean making some tough decisions with cards though (eg General or Balcony?, Hidden Passage or Terrace?).

[pst]

When you reveal or just look at cards at the top of your deck, sometimes there's an option to return them to the top of the deck. For published cards that happens with Scout, Navigator, Apothecary, Rabble, Oracle, Cartographer, Mandarin (gain effect), Survivors, Wandering Minstrel and Doctor.

For all of those it is pointed out that the deck's owner may choose the order to put them in. That is practical, so you don't have to keep track of what order the revealed/looked-at cards were, and I think your cards Barrister, Guide and Dignitary should do the same. For example Dignitary being "Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand and put the other cards on top of your deck in any order. +$1 for each card you put on your deck."

This was (unfortunately) a conscious decision on my part to save space on the cards.

[...]

The idea is that the virtual rulebook for Enterprise has the rule, "When a player puts multiple cards onto his deck, he always chooses the order unless a card specifies differently." This is not ideal, but at least it matches all existing cards and it's the natural assumption anyway.

Aha! Then maybe this has come up before, so I'm sorry if I repeat something, since I haven't read the whole thread. For what it's worth, I don't agree that that is the natural assumption, at least not when you put cards "back" (as on Guide).

Here's another thing about Dignitary:

"Trash down to 4 cards" sounds to me like trashing one card at a time until the limit is met, which isn't good because of when-trashed effects, like for Cultist ("When you trash this, +3 Cards.")

On a computer implementation which didn't make something special to avoid this you could make the game go on forever by just repeatedly trashing a Fortress.

I don't think that is the intention, but it's analogous to "discard down" on Militia, which according to the FAQ means that the "attacked players discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand". I'd like something that makes it clear that you trash all of those cards together, (and then take care of all their trash properties, in any order), like you do for Chapel for instance.  Here is my suggestion, using formulations found on existing cards:

Set aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand.

[LastFootnote]

Here's another thing about Dignitary:

"Trash down to 4 cards" sounds to me like trashing one card at a time until the limit is met, which isn't good because of when-trashed effects, like for Cultist ("When you trash this, +3 Cards.")

On a computer implementation which didn't make something special to avoid this you could make the game go on forever by just repeatedly trashing a Fortress.

I don't think that is the intention, but it's analogous to "discard down" on Militia, which according to the FAQ means that the "attacked players discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand". I'd like something that makes it clear that you trash all of those cards together, (and then take care of all their trash properties, in any order), like you do for Chapel for instance.  Here is my suggestion, using formulations found on existing cards:

Set aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand.

Actually, the reason I decided to go with the current wording is because of Militia. Just like trashing multiple cards, discarding multiple cards happens all at once, never one at a time. So on-trash effects aren't really an issue from that perspective.

However, you could reveal a Dignitary, trash a Fortress, reveal Dignitary again, trash the Fortress again, etc. This results in no change in your hand, so it's more or less equivalent to revealing Moat or Secret Chamber forever, so any online implementation has to have code to take that into account. You have to be able to trash Fortress with Dignitary at least once, though, for the purposes of activating Market Square, etc.

Your wording is very clear, but it doesn't fix the "reveal Dignitary several times" issue, and card space is a consideration.

[pst]

"Trash down to 4 cards" sounds to me like trashing one card at a time until the limit is met, which isn't good because of when-trashed effects, like for Cultist ("When you trash this, +3 Cards.")

On a computer implementation which didn't make something special to avoid this you could make the game go on forever by just repeatedly trashing a Fortress.

I don't think that is the intention, but it's analogous to "discard down" on Militia, which according to the FAQ means that the "attacked players discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand".
[...]

Actually, the reason I decided to go with the current wording is because of Militia. Just like trashing multiple cards, discarding multiple cards happens all at once, never one at a time. So on-trash effects aren't really an issue from that perspective.

It is clear what happens when you discard multiple cards at the same time, for example because of Cellar, Warehouse or Torturer. Then you are instructed to discard several cards. It's only the "down to" explained as "discard cards until they have only 3 cards in hand" which I thought indicated discarding one at a time. That's the explanation in the rulebook for Militia.

I might be wrong. It matters only for when you can hide some of your discarded cards, so it hasn't received as much attention as multiple trashing (where "trash down to" never is used).

However, you could reveal a Dignitary, trash a Fortress, reveal Dignitary again, trash the Fortress again, etc. This results in no change in your hand, so it's more or less equivalent to revealing Moat or Secret Chamber forever, so any online implementation has to have code to take that into account. You have to be able to trash Fortress with Dignitary at least once, though, for the purposes of activating Market Square, etc.

That's so much more important, and I hadn't thought of it at all!

Yes, I can see you don't have room for a Horse Trader clause on the Dignitary. With my formulation you could get something similar to HT with just a few extra words by having the cards return later:

Set aside four cards from your hand face down. Trash your hand. Return the set aside cards to your hand at the beginning of your next turn.

or something similar, and shorter, and without cards lying around with a mat or anything:

Put 4 cards from your hand on your deck. Trash your hand. Draw 4 cards at the beginning of your next turn.

This is of course a better counter to some attacks (and worse for some, like Conscripts).

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't see what the problem is, pst.  You can reveal Secret Chamber, Moat, etc. indefinitely for no benefit; there's nothing wrong with that.  Players aren't going to pointlessly reveal their Dignitary to trash a Fortress over and over.

Maybe you're worried that in a hand of all Fortresses you could get stuck, but that's not a problem because (1) then you don't have a Dignitary in hand to reveal, (2) why would you reveal a Dignitary anyway, and (3) I think you would choose which cards to trash, then trash them all at once, so Fortress would count as one of the trashed cards as you're counting down to 4.  I'm actually not sure about (3), though if it's true then there can't be any problems with Fortress at all.  In a hand of all Fortresses and Dignitary, if you reveal Dignitary, you have to trash it.*

I'm almost certain Militia's discarding is atomic, I remember people complaining about Goko's interface because you couldn't hide one of your cards when discarding to Militia.  Trashing should work the same way, since by default, discarding and trashing are both atomic.  (Edit: It looks like you made a topic about it in the Rules subforum and maybe I'm wrong.)

Dignitary's reaction is fine as it is, there's no need to change it at all.  I think if you did it your way people would just say "why am I setting aside all these cards and then putting them back into my hand", or they would read the card and it wouldn't be immediately evident what the actual effect is.  "Trash down to 4" is concise and the function of the reaction is obvious when you first read it.

*Maybe online there could be a problem of misclicking Dignitary in that case, then stalling indefinitely so as to avoid trashing it?  I don't think there's any plans to do an online implementation anyway so I wouldn't worry about that.  Plus there are already other weird edge cases where both players should stall indefinitely, so it wouldn't be the first (but possibly more common than others).

[Aidan Millow]

Most of this is really good so my comments are going to focus on areas with improvement.

On Convocation: It almost necessarily puts an action card into your hand which means switiching the +action to a +buy is a bad idea. It might be better at 6 with a buff (possibly revealing four cards).

On Axeman: This looks fundamentally unfun to me. You have saboteur (which I for one already don't enjoy playing with or against) combined with a discard attack that will usually hit something you want and being a terminal silver seems very likely to break games. I do like the buy restriction though.

On Committee: Based on treasure map I'm pretty sure that, as this is worded, you don't actually need to hit two differently named cards for the effect to trigger. Is this acceptable here?

On the set as a whole: I feel like you have too many gainers: There are three "traditional" gainers (two of which are non-terminal) committee and five (six with windfall) cards that gain specific cards (although these ones are reasonably different mechanically), there are also two cards that let your opponent gain a card and one that forces them to. Half of your set currently uses gain as an imperative which is kind of ridiculous. Also a large portion of these gainers are off theme.

[LastFootnote]

Great, great comments!

On Convocation: It almost necessarily puts an action card into your hand which means switiching the +action to a +buy is a bad idea. It might be better at 6 with a buff (possibly revealing four cards).

Back when I first created the card, I was considering costing it at $6 and revealing 4 or 5 cards. I was afraid that it wouldn't be compelling enough at $6, but a guess a card that's often +3 Cards/+1 Action with some sifting probably is. Another advantage: you'll always have some "rest" to discard. I think I'll try it!

On Axeman: This looks fundamentally unfun to me. You have saboteur (which I for one already don't enjoy playing with or against) combined with a discard attack that will usually hit something you want and being a terminal silver seems very likely to break games. I do like the buy restriction though.

I actually took Tax Collector (as it used to be called) out of the set for this reason, among others. Then I introduced it as Axeman with the buy restriction. Your concern is also my main concern about the card. So far, it hasn't been a problem in practice. Like, nobody has grumbled more about Axeman beyond the usual, "I got hit by an Attack, grumble grumble." I will hazard some guessing as to why this is. First, the fact that you usually can't get it before turn 5 means you're less likely to be trashing the only good card in your hand. Second, the fact that you're putting a cheaper card on your deck means you're even more likely to have options if you get hit next turn, etc. It takes a while for Axeman to totally obliterate a card that starts at $5. Third, it can create some interesting choices for the victim. More than once I have been hit by an Axeman and have, say, converted a Gold in hand to a Margrave or what have you on my deck that I could draw with a Village and play next turn. Finally, most Trade token cards make a good defense, since you don't lose a token when you trash one, but you do gain a token when you gain one back.

Even given all this, it could still be a problem. It's something I'm always keeping an eye out for.

On Committee: Based on treasure map I'm pretty sure that, as this is worded, you don't actually need to hit two differently named cards for the effect to trigger. Is this acceptable here?

It's not ideal. Could you elaborate? I read it differently.

On the set as a whole: I feel like you have too many gainers: There are three "traditional" gainers (two of which are non-terminal) committee and five (six with windfall) cards that gain specific cards (although these ones are reasonably different mechanically), there are also two cards that let your opponent gain a card and one that forces them to. Half of your set currently uses gain as an imperative which is kind of ridiculous. Also a large portion of these gainers are off theme.

That's a good call. I don't think of remodel variants as gainers in general. Nor do I really think of the Conscripts gainers as "gainers" per se. They're delayed Attack cards in my mind. For what it's worth, half of Hinterlands also uses "gain" as an imperative: Border Village, Cache, Develop, Duchess, Embassy, Farmland, Fool's Gold, Haggler, Ill-Gotten Gains (twice), Jack of all Trades, Noble Brigand (twice), Trader (twice), Tunnel. That's 13 cards out of 26. Others use "gain", but not as an imperative.

I do try to make sure the set doesn't have too much of any one thing, but that can be tough with 25 cards. I'll keep this in mind, though.

[Aidan Millow]

On Committee: Based on treasure map I'm pretty sure that, as this is worded, you don't actually need to hit two differently named cards for the effect to trigger. Is this acceptable here?

It's not ideal. Could you elaborate? I read it differently.

Well, treasure map says "If you do trash two treasure maps" which implies that if it only said "if you do" then partially completing the action (ie trashing one treasure map or revealing your entire deck but only seeing one distinct card) would be sufficient to trigger it.

[silverspawn]

If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Do you like them?

is this a thing? can we suggest cards here?

[KingZog3]

If you need 25 cards, and some might be replaced, may I suggest some cards?:

Cardinal: $4
+1 card +1 action. Gain a trade token. Each other player discards a Trade token.
-------
Court: $3
+1 card +1 buy. Count your Trade tokens. +1 coin per Trade token. Spend a Trade token. If you do, +2 coins.
-------
Camp: $4
+2 coins. Gain a Trade token. When another player plays an Attack card, reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Trade token.
-------
Trader: $4
Spend two Trade tokens. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. You may overpay for this card. For each $1 you overpay, take a Trade token.
-------
Road: $5
+1 card +1 action. Trash a card from your hand costing $5 or more other then a Road. If you do, +3 coins.
-------
Bakery: $5
Trash this card. If you do, choose one: +2 coins on this turn and the next; take two Trade tokens; or +2 cards +1 action.
-------
Seamstress: $4
+1 card +1 action. Each other player gives you a Trade token; or reveals that they have no Trade tokens.
-------
Circus: $5
Trash this card and spend a Trade token. If you do, +3 coins +1 buy.
-------
Coat or Arms: $5.
$1. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each Treasure in your hand produces +1 this turn and +1 buy. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.
-------
Museum: $3
Worth 2VP for every unspent Trade tokens at the end of the game.
-------
Theater: $4.
+2 cards +1. When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

Do you like them?

All these cards use trade tokens, except they either gain them without using them, so use them without gaining them. Like the first card just pointless without any other trade token cards.

[silverspawn]

All these cards use trade tokens, except they either gain them without using them, so use them without gaining them. Like the first card just pointless without any other trade token cards.

i know... that wasn't the question. these ones are already talked about a page back.

[LastFootnote]

is this a thing? can we suggest cards here?

Sure, I guess. Just know that I may or may not use them. At this point, since we have 100% confirmation that we'll never see fan sets published, I have no incentive not to use ideas that others have come up with, as long as they're OK with me using them.

[silverspawn]

Sure, I guess. Just know that I may or may not use them

well, you're most likely not going to use them, if half of all ideas would turn into cards, we'd have a lot more than we have now. anyway, i was thinking of this idea, and then i thought it kind of fits the enterprise theme... in a way. i know you already have two villages, but either way it seems easier than creating a thread for it.

Action - Ancient Village - 4$
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If you have exactly 5 cards in your hand, +1 Card

it would probably be one of the strongest village-with-bonus, but comparing it to Wandering Minstrel, I don't think it's broken. it may be boring, but you could do some cool stuff with oasis or just terminal silvers. it's also so simple that i wasn't sure whether it has been done before.

[NoMoreFun]

Are you going to make investment a Treasure worth $0, or a reaction, or is it working fine as is?

[LastFootnote]

Sure, I guess. Just know that I may or may not use them

well, you're most likely not going to use them, if half of all ideas would turn into cards, we'd have a lot more than we have now. anyway, i was thinking of this idea, and then i thought it kind of fits the enterprise theme... in a way. i know you already have two villages, but either way it seems easier than creating a thread for it.

Action - Ancient Village - 4$
+1 Card
+2 Actions
If you have exactly 5 cards in your hand, +1 Card

it would probably be one of the strongest village-with-bonus, but comparing it to Wandering Minstrel, I don't think it's broken. it may be boring, but you could do some cool stuff with oasis or just terminal silvers. it's also so simple that i wasn't sure whether it has been done before.

Byah, something about this slightly rubs me the wrong way. Maybe that it's so vulnerable to discard attacks. Like, if you're playing a game with no discard attacks, it's probably extraordinarily powerful. You can pretty quickly build a deck with enough terminal, non-drawing Actions to get back down to 5 cards and just go to town. With discard attacks, it's basically a Village. Well, with terminal draw you might be able to get back up to 5 cards and activate it. Probably it should cost at least $5.

I'm not sure it fits into this set, but I definitely think it's worth playtesting.

Are you going to make investment a Treasure worth $0, or a reaction, or is it working fine as is?

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much playtesting in recently. I played one game last night (with Refurbish, Terrace, and General), and that's probably it in the last few weeks. I haven't tested Investment in a very long time. It has a few issues:

• It's not popular in my playtest games. I'm glad that it's been well received online and that's the reason I haven't scrapped or overhauled it yet, but I think it needs some sort of change to make it more desirable.
• You can invest in Conscripts, which is not ideal. Investing in Conscripts has a really low opportunity cost and a really high payoff.

I have three ideas that could fix the Conscripts issue. The question is which one is best.

First, playing the card before setting it aside.

Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
Trash this. You may play an Action card from your hand, then set it aside on your Investment mat.
When a player plays an Action card, he gets +$1 per copy of it on his Investment mat.

This doesn't work with Conscripts (or any one-shot) since Investment would lose track of it. I'm not sure it's a great idea to intentionally introduce this invocation of the lose-track rule, though. In a set themed around one-shots, it's going to come up a lot.

Second, set an Action card aside from the Supply instead of from your hand.

Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
Trash this. Set aside an Action card from the Supply onto your Investment mat.
When a player plays an Action card, he gets +$1 per copy of it on his Investment mat.

This is vastly more powerful because you don't have to line up the Investment with the card in your hand, nor do you lose a copy of it. The one gotcha is that you have to invest before the target pile empties, but that's fine and perhaps even a cool twist. I feel like maybe this version is too easy, though, if that makes sense.

So right now, I'm leaning toward a third, more radical change: combining it with the Tariff idea I had months ago.

Investment
Types: Action
Cost: ???
[Trash this?] Put the Investment marker on an Action card Supply pile.
Copies of the card that the Investment marker is on cost $2 more and generate an extra $1 when played.

This adds a larger element of interaction, since the Investment marker affects all players and there's only one such marker.

What were your thoughts with the Treasure or Reaction, though? I don't remember talking about that before.

EDIT: On a completely different topic, Terrace is quickly approaching complete satisfaction in terms of playtesting results. It's a pretty solid $4 village and I'm quite happy with it.

[NoMoreFun]

Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.

[LastFootnote]

Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.

I like that. The only problem is that you can't set aside a terminal Action without a village. But maybe it could be from hand or from play. Hmm…

[NoMoreFun]

Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.

I like that. The only problem is that you can't set aside a terminal Action without a village. But maybe it could be from hand or from play. Hmm…

A treasure that sets aside from play?

[LastFootnote]

Set aside from play avoids the conscripts issue, unless the Conscripts are supervised by a General.

I like that. The only problem is that you can't set aside a terminal Action without a village. But maybe it could be from hand or from play. Hmm…

A treasure that sets aside from play?

Aha, I see. Interesting. Hmm…

[LastFootnote]

After thinking about the idea, I like it a lot. The rules are cleaner and I think it could fix a lot of the issues the card has. The only problem is that it needs Scheme's awkward wording to avoid issues with Duration cards and the resulting text doesn't fit very well at all. Here's my first mock up attempt:



I had to collapse the above-line text by a few pixels to even fit it in, and even so it's really cramped. I could use a smaller font size, but I'd rather not. I just realized I could probably shrink the big Coin symbol a bit without issues. I think I'll try that.

Anyhow, thanks so much for the idea, NoMoreFun. I'm going to try my best to get it to work one way or the other.

[Thanar]

Lastfootnote,

Thanks for making Dominion:Enterprise available and continuing to improve it. I've printed out the PDF files and am in the process of printing/cutting/etc so that my gaming group can play it in its entirety.

To that end, would you be able to post the full-size images for (at least) General, Jubilee, Windfall and Investment so that I can print those out in the same quality as the PDF images? The images of those updated cards you posted here recently are only 348x537, which is noticeably lower quality when printed out compared to the ones in the PDFs.

[LastFootnote]

Lastfootnote,

Thanks for making Dominion:Enterprise available and continuing to improve it. I've printed out the PDF files and am in the process of printing/cutting/etc so that my gaming group can play it in its entirety.

To that end, would you be able to post the full-size images for (at least) General, Jubilee, Windfall and Investment so that I can print those out in the same quality as the PDF images? The images of those updated cards you posted here recently are only 348x537, which is noticeably lower quality when printed out compared to the ones in the PDFs.

Ask and you shall receive. I have updated all the images in the OP to link to the full-size versions, including the old version of Investment and the new versions of Jubilee and General. The new version of Investment and Windfall also have full-sized images.

Thanks for your interest in trying the latest version of Enterprise! Cool to see you again. Bear in mind that Loge, Windfall, and the new version of Investment have gotten ZERO testing so far. The new versions of General, Jubilee, and Convocation haven't either, but they're pretty close to the previous versions, so I'm not so worried there. I hope your games go well! Let me know how it went if you get the time. Even negative feedback is useful. But what am I telling you this for? You already posted great feedback for a previous version of the set. You know what's what!

[LastFootnote]

Had another test game last night where once again I was the only one who bought Investment (old version). Sigh. The set was...

Cellar, Redistrict, Village, Dignitary, Smithy, Exchange, Fund, Investment, Laboratory, Witch

I think I like how the Treasure version of Investment would work, but it's just so wordy and cramped and I'm not sure it will be any more compelling. So here's another attempt at making it better: make it a Woodcutter! Yeah, maybe not the best, but the set needs more +Buy. Here it is:

[clloxin]

This might be a little random, but why did you choose the card fund to not make use of  trade tokens, since that is the idea of this expansion. I know that it wouldn't change too much, but it would be slightly more thematic. Is there any reason you did this? Does it hurt to much for the trade token to be used on something else?
Sorry if the answer is obvious or someone already asked it, but I was just wondering this while playing some of your cards today.
Also, Thanks for the expansion! Best fan expansion I have ever seen. I feel the idea is unique enough to feel like a real expansion. The idea of trade tokens is just genius.

[scott_pilgrim]

The theme of the expansion is not trade tokens, the theme is one-shots.  Trade tokens are one way to go about doing the one-shots theme, but they are not the point of the set.  Cards only use trade tokens if the trade tokens are necessary for executing the concept.  Fund is crazy elegant as it is, and definitely doesn't need trade tokens to do it's job, so there's no reason to add the extra complexity.  Interactions between trade token cards are not intentional and generally not desirable (since most kingdoms will not include more than one trade token card), but they aren't objectionable either (as long as they don't create broken combos), so trade tokens don't get added to the cards just for the sake of interacting with other trade token cards.

[silverspawn]

hm, i really don't like the woodcutter version. It just feels tagged on, why would investment provide +buy? I don't like the treasure version either, it just doesn't make any sense for it to be a treasure; it's a card that does stuff with actoin cards, why would it be a treasure?

I really like the basic idea though. I'd suggest this version:

+1 Action.
You may trash this. If you do, you may reveal an Action card from your hand. Put a copy of it from the supply onto your investment mat.
---
When a Player plays an Action card, he gets +1$...

It's basically the "play the action first" idea, but it doesn't have any weird synergies with general or rule issues with one shots. It doesn't work if there aren't any cards left in the supply though. It should have about the same powerlevel, you're getting the effect from the action card instead of the +2$ +1 buy. So, if the action card is a woodcutter, it's identical. If you invest in more exensive cards, it's a little bit better. Well, actually you get the +1$ too, so it's probably stronger than woodcutter bonus.

[LastFootnote]

This might be a little random, but why did you choose the card fund to not make use of  trade tokens, since that is the idea of this expansion. I know that it wouldn't change too much, but it would be slightly more thematic. Is there any reason you did this? Does it hurt to much for the trade token to be used on something else?
Sorry if the answer is obvious or someone already asked it, but I was just wondering this while playing some of your cards today.

scott_pilgrim pretty much nailed it. One-shot effects are the theme of the set, and Trade tokens are just one good way to do them. It wouldn't hurt to make Fund a Trade token card and I am hoping to fit another use for Trade tokens. But I think it would make Fund less elegant/compelling and I like to reserve Trade tokens for things I couldn't do without them. Also, "Gain a Silver, putting it into your hand" just seems niftier than "+$2", especially since "+$2" is already done on Mining Village. Not that most people see Fund and think, "Oh, it's like Mining Village", but you know.

Also, Thanks for the expansion! Best fan expansion I have ever seen. I feel the idea is unique enough to feel like a real expansion. The idea of trade tokens is just genius.

Man, thank you for enjoying it! If you have any other feedback about any of the cards, please keep it coming.

hm, i really don't like the woodcutter version. It just feels tagged on, why would investment provide +buy?

[+1 Buy; +$2] is nice because it helps you potentially pick up another couple copies of the card you just invested in. So it's not just a completely arbitrary bonus.

hm, i really don't like the woodcutter version. It just feels tagged on, why would investment provide +buy? I don't like the treasure version either, it just doesn't make any sense for it to be a treasure; it's a card that does stuff with actoin cards, why would it be a treasure?

Herbalist is a card that provides Coin and a Buy and does stuff with Treasures. Why would it be an Action? The fact that you couldn't invest in Investments would actually be pretty sweet; it eliminates rules questions like "Do I get +$1 now because I just played an Investment on another Investment?"

I really like the basic idea though. I'd suggest this version:

+1 Action.
You may trash this. If you do, you may reveal an Action card from your hand. Put a copy of it from the supply onto your investment mat.
---
When a Player plays an Action card, he gets +1$...

It's basically the "play the action first" idea, but it doesn't have any weird synergies with general or rule issues with one shots. It doesn't work if there aren't any cards left in the supply though. It should have about the same powerlevel, you're getting the effect from the action card instead of the +2$ +1 buy. So, if the action card is a woodcutter, it's identical. If you invest in more exensive cards, it's a little bit better. Well, actually you get the +1$ too, so it's probably stronger than woodcutter bonus.

If I want to do a pseudo-play-it-first version of Investment, I agree that this is the way to go. But unfortunately it doesn't actually solve the problem I currently have with the card, which is that none of my playtesters ever buy it. I guess they see it and think, "Whoa, too complex for me." [+1 Buy; +$2] gives them another reason to buy it. The value of extra buys is obvious. Then maybe they get it in their hand with a Village and think, "Hmmm…maybe I should seize this opportunity." That's my hope, anyway.

The more experienced players here on f.DS have played it and liked it, but it's hard for me to be happy with a card that only I ever buy in my IRL games. Floodgate is already teetering on that precipice, but I don't know how I'd improve it (other than maybe giving you +1 Action the turn after you gain it). Investment I'm hoping I can fix so that it appeals to both casual and hardcore players.

[silverspawn]

Herbalist is a card that provides Coin and a Buy and does stuff with Treasures. Why would it be an Action?

well, i don't think you should ever ask yourself "why would it be an action," simply because the majority of all kingdom cards are action cards. you can make it a treasure, but if you do, it should feel like a treasure card when playing it. like, if you buy it to produce coins, that's a good start. contraband, cache, hoard, royal seel, venture, phil. stone, fools gold, harem and bank all clearly want to be treasures, you get them, use them in your buying phase and buy stuff with them. talisman, quarry and horn of plenty are a little bit different, but you're still using them to get stuff. counterfeit is a bit of a stretch, but at least it only trashes other treasures. none of these have any weird synergy with actions cards from your hand. when i look at treasure-investment, i don't see a treasure, i see a yellow action card with a +1$ tagged on.

that's, uhm, obv just my opinion. and it's not a big deal, i'm not going to cry if you end up making investment a treasure. it just seems like a very weak fix to me.

But unfortunately it doesn't actually solve the problem I currently have with the card, which is that none of my playtesters ever buy it. I guess they see it and think, "Whoa, too complex for me." [+1 Buy; +$2] gives them another reason to buy it. The value of extra buys is obvious. Then maybe they get it in their hand with a Village and think, "Hmmm…maybe I should seize this opportunity." That's my hope, anyway.

okay, i totally see your point now. it still doesn't appeal to me, but well, maybe there is no ideal solution.

[+1 Buy; +$2] is nice because it helps you potentially pick up another couple copies of the card you just invested in. So it's not just a completely arbitrary bonus.

eh.

[LastFootnote]

well, i don't think you should ever ask yourself "why would it be an action," simply because the majority of all kingdom cards are action cards. you can make it a treasure, but if you do, it should feel like a treasure card when playing it. like, if you buy it to produce coins, that's a good start. contraband, cache, hoard, royal seel, venture, phil. stone, fools gold, harem and bank all clearly want to be treasures, you get them, use them in your buying phase and buy stuff with them. talisman, quarry and horn of plenty are a little bit different, but you're still using them to get stuff. counterfeit is a bit of a stretch, but at least it only trashes other treasures. none of these have any weird synergy with actions cards from your hand. when i look at treasure-investment, i don't see a treasure, i see a yellow action card with a +1$ tagged on.

that's, uhm, obv just my opinion. and it's not a big deal, i'm not going to cry if you end up making investment a treasure. it just seems like a very weak fix to me.

You have a very good point that cards should be Actions by default. I agree. But making Investment a Treasure is helpful in sort of the same way that making Horn of Plenty a Treasure is helpful. Horn of Plenty being a Treasure lets you seamlessly play all your other Treasures before it, evening out its gaining power. Similarly, making Investment a Treasure lets play it after a terminal Action and then set that Action aside, no Village required. It also makes tracking easier because—barring Black Market—you're never going to have a turn where you play some copies of a card, then Invest in it, then play some more copies. I think making it a Treasure is super-elegant, play-wise. It just requires so much cramped text, though.

EDIT: Also, you very clearly do buy Investment to get Coins, just like most Treasure cards. It's just that the bulk of the Coins come in the turns after you play it instead of right when you play it. Hence the name "Investment". It's the missing Treasure card from Seaside! A Treasure that gives you Coins on future turns.

[NoMoreFun]

I think most of the kingdom treasures would have been fine as actions. HOP, Harem and Counterfeit are the exceptions. Fund is good as a treasure thematically.

In fact I like the idea that fund is a trade token card without actually being one, and that's only possible as a mirror of a basic card.

[NoMoreFun]

Why do all your variants of investment involve it being a oneshot? Would it be too strong for the card to stick around (now it's also a Woodcutter).

How about making it a trade token gainer (on play) that gives you the choice of +$2, investing an action card, or another cards trade token ability?

Edit: Alternatively you could make the invested cards get trashed at the end of the game so it works as a trasher, or as an "island" if you put the cards back.

[Fragasnap]

I have been playing some games with your expansion as well as some experimental custom terminal draw cards in 2-player games.

Jubilee is fantastic in Kingdoms with other cards that use Trade tokens. I think it's a particular sense that its renewable source gives since it doesn't trash itself but returns itself to the Supply. I'm not sure I'd often buy it otherwise, but when there are other Trade token cards around, it is great fun-- and I even still expended Trade tokens on Jubilee itself, so I know the card would be fine even without those Trade token cards.

Barrister continues to be ignored in the Kingdoms I play it in. I think its ability is too swingy and situational. I think the coolest part about Barrister is the interaction Trash-for-benefit cards have with Domain and Barrister's ability to pull Domains back out of the trash. To that end, I might recommend removing the Attack entirely from Barrister. Domain is at the cost bracket that Saboteurs and Knights will trash them now, and Domain is fun to Trash-for-benefit. I think Barrister could be reworked to have a more interesting ability in addition to pulling Domains out of the trash and it would be great fun (and possibly decrease the number of Attacks in the set).

I've found Recruiter to be frustratingly slow and it is basically impossible to use Conscripts as a curser without Throne Room (or some other variant of such) since it puts Conscripts into your next hand. Would it be too much to optionally put the Conscripts into your discard pile?

Convocation is good. I don't think it's really too much better than Laboratory, but it always feels much more satisfying than it even when it's drawing a Copper and Estate from 2 Coppers and an Estate (I guess because of how much sifting exists in Dominion nowadays.

Terrace is good fun. I wish Enterprise had another disappearing card or two in addition to Jubilee to make its Trade token effect stronger.

Guide is an amazing card: I love its repetition and its sifting is really awesome too. Dignitary is still just as great as before and its reaction is also quite good. Fund is also as fantastic as always.

Now I will talk about the custom cards that worked out. The names are placeholders. Feel free to use, ignore, or build upon anything here:

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each Trade token spent, trash up to 3 cards from your hand.When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

This may look kind of familiar. Draw is always fun and +3 Cards at $5 isn't too weak. Combined with strong trashing that can be cashed in when desired, Cathedral is actually quite a bit of fun right now.

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.When you gain this, gain a Trade token for every 2 Actions you have in play, rounded down.

This is somewhat playing around with alternative ways to gain Trade tokens, in addition to a Curser with Trade tokens. It ended up working out in a Kingdom with Jubilee (which is probably one of the best tests for it since Jubilee makes Trade tokens so readily available). In Kingdoms without other Trade tokens cards, a player has to build up a bit of an engine to be able to give out many curses with Sorceress (or with Trade token cards, to cash in for a million Trade tokens that the player needs for other reasons). I gained three tokens at once at one point which made me feel pretty clever.

EDIT: Ugh, spelling and semantics.

[NoMoreFun]

More trade token ideas:

• Each other player either pays a trade token or gets attacked (with something situationally strong) / When gain, everyone else gets a trade token
• Strong card with a trade token effect, and when you play everyone else gains a trade token (could be combined with above)
• Related to the above, a card that gives everyone a trade token on play, but only you can exchange it for something right now (and only you own the card that makes it useful)
• A card with a reaction to something that's bound to happen like Province Gains that gives you a trade token (better than reactions to attacks)
• Trade tokens gained upon meeting special conditions (eg Menagerie)
• When trash trade tokens (could work in a similar way to Investment; sacrifice one card to power up the others of its kind)
  
• Flip the order; you pay trade tokens on gain/buy/trash for effects (on a card that gains trade tokens on play)
• Paying the trade token during a reaction

[NoMoreFun]

Donald X was pretty insistent about all the when-trash cards being cards that can't trash (except Rats which can't trash other Rats) because he doesn't like self comboing cards (although he designed Minion), which is interesting since with trade tokens by necessity the cards must both get trade tokens and use them (unlike coin tokens which you can always use).

For what it's worth I don't think that's any problem at all, but I'm now thinking Craftsman should be the only card that gets multiple trade tokens easily, just to really emphasise that they are primarily the triggers for the one time effect of cards, and occasionally you might get to swap one for the other.

Ignore my previous post? Perhaps.

[LastFootnote]

Donald X was pretty insistent about all the when-trash cards being cards that can't trash (except Rats which can't trash other Rats) because he doesn't like self comboing cards (although he designed Minion), which is interesting since with trade tokens by necessity the cards must both get trade tokens and use them (unlike coin tokens which you can always use).

For what it's worth I don't think that's any problem at all, but I'm now thinking Craftsman should be the only card that gets multiple trade tokens easily, just to really emphasise that they are primarily the triggers for the one time effect of cards, and occasionally you might get to swap one for the other.

Ignore my previous post? Perhaps.

I think you're reading too much into it. What he actually said was this:

I wasn't specifically avoiding "has a when-trashed ability, also has a way to trash itself," but it's only natural that there isn't one of those. It makes the whole thing less interesting. There is a classic thing they sometimes do in Magic, where they put both pieces of a combo on the same card. It's just much less fun than when you piece the combo together yourself.

I'm going to ramble a little about self-synergizing cards, because there's a whole spectrum there.

Self-synergy is neither inherently desirable nor undesirable. It's good to have cards that you can load up on, because the alternative is usually loading up on Silver and Gold, which many players find dull. Laboratory is a perfect example, but I don't think most players think of it as having "self-synergy".

The cards that most players think of as having "self-synergy" are those that have two separate abilities that combo with each other. Either the abilities are different options in a "choose one" list or one is on-play and the other is not, but they can interact with each other. Of the published cards, Minion and Governor are the big ones that people talk about. Minion's mulligan ability wants non-terminal, Coin-generating Actions in your deck, a role which Minion can also fill. Governor can remodel a card, so it wants $6 cards that can be turned into Provinces. Governor can also gain Gold (and increase your handsize to get Golds and Governors together). Graverobber is a less-cited example of this mechanic. One of its abilities wants to gain $5 Action cards in the trash and the other wants to trash them (and Graverobber itself costs $5).

Donald is saying that it's more interesting when the two parts of the combo are on two different cards, but that only works when each of those parts interacts with enough other cards. Minion and Graverobber have a self-combo because they'd be too narrow without it. Minion got the +$2 option because the mulligan option was dead on too many boards; non-terminal, Coin-generating Actions aren't that common, partly because many of them are more elegant as Treasures. Graverobber's main concept is fishing stuff out of the trash; the remodel option is necessary because there aren't enough other cards that reliably put stuff in the trash that's good enough to fish out. I have no idea whether Governor's self-synergy is intentional. I'm guessing it's mostly happenstance.

On the flip side, some cards need a combo, but the other combo pieced was judged to be common enough that they didn't need to combo with themselves. Rats is the big example. It's almost always useless without another trasher, but where Graverobber needs a partner that specifically trashes very good cards in order to be worthwhile, Rats can be at least somewhat useful with almost any trasher at all. A lot of sets have cards like this. Farmland is probably closest to Rats on the spectrum. Even though tactically there are often reasons to buy it, it's really not offering much in terms of strategy and gameplay unless it has some other piece that combos with it (Border Village, Crossroads, etc.).

Some cards have self-synergy as their entire concept; you need multiple copies for them to do their thing. Treasure Map and Fool's Gold are examples of this. Sure, Fool's Gold also has its Reaction, but usually you aren't buying it just for that.

So, Enterprise.

First of all, I definitely don't perceive Jubilee, Guide, Terrace, or Exchange to have "self-synergy". Without the ability to get Trade tokens on-gain, they aren't just narrow, they simply don't work at all.

Craftsman self-combos in the same way that Silver self-combos. Actually, it's more like how Graverobber self-combos. One way to think about Craftsman is essentially that you're building a separate, parallel economy. A Craftsman is sort of a slightly-more-valuable Silver for $4. One Craftsman gets you a card costing up to $3, two get you a card costing up to $5, etc. The reason this is OK is that it doesn't combine with your other income (and your deck starts with 7 Coppers). How much you want to invest in that parallel economy should vary from board to board. As you get more of them, they do their thing faster. So if you're using them mostly to gain $5 cards, one Craftsman gets you a $5 card every other shuffle, whereas two will get you one every shuffle. Similarly, you can use the same Graverobber to trash a card and then gain it back, but it's slower than if you had two.

Craftsman costs $4 (and is balanced around that cost) to keep you from effectively rushing them. It takes two plays of a Craftsman to get another Craftsman, and at that point you could get a (probably more powerful) $5 card.

I don't plan to make another card like Craftsman (that both gains and uses tokens on-play), and I probably won't. But if I come up with another good one, I won't reject it offhand.

Redistrict is costed specifically to prevent trashing a Redistrict to gain another one. You can rush Mill Towns really effectively in the early game, but by doing so you are digging yourself into an economic hole that you probably won't climb out of before the game ends. Refurbish definitely has a self-combo, but like Graverobber it's necessary for power and fun purposes. Without its ability to turn other cards into Silver, your options are either use a Silver-flooder (usually not available) or spend most of your buys on Silver (boring). Conscripts totally self-synergizes, but that's all part of its Barracks synergy. It's also player interaction in games with more than 2 players, so there you go.

Floodgate is the set's Rats, where its primary purpose is to combo with other cards. Hehe, Committee has a self-nombo, or at least that's the way I see it. Buy two or more Committees; Committees reveal each other; I flood your deck with Committees! Better have a lot of villages, sucker!

[LastFootnote]

• Each other player either pays a trade token or gets attacked (with something situationally strong) / When gain, everyone else gets a trade token

An attack that everyone else can moat once. I suppose it's an alternate way to have done Axeman's penalty, since the idea is to let people build up before they get hit. But overall I don't love it. It encourages players not to spend their tokens on other abilities so that they have them when attacked.

• Strong card with a trade token effect, and when you play everyone else gains a trade token (could be combined with above)
• Related to the above, a card that gives everyone a trade token on play, but only you can exchange it for something right now (and only you own the card that makes it useful)

I think it's OK to have some cards that make your opponents also want that card (like Pirate Ship), but these may be too blunt.

• A card with a reaction to something that's bound to happen like Province Gains that gives you a trade token (better than reactions to attacks)

Maaaaybe. I'll keep this in mind, but I don't think there's enough space on a card for it to work. It obviously has to do something on-play, with the option to get some bonus when you spend a token. That in itself takes a lot of space (see Guide). Then you also need a wordy reaction. Probably a Horse Traders-type set aside, since if you discard it you have to wait to draw it again to use the token you just got. This could fit if it did nothing on-play without a token, but it's hard to think of a card that you'd let sit around dead until you could activate the reaction.

• Trade tokens gained upon meeting special conditions (eg Menagerie)

I'm not ruling this out, but it seems like it might be a needless abstraction. "Man, I met the special conditions. Just give me the bonus now! We don't need to bring tokens into this."

• When trash trade tokens (could work in a similar way to Investment; sacrifice one card to power up the others of its kind)

I think this is a cool idea. I like it a lot.

• Flip the order; you pay trade tokens on gain/buy/trash for effects (on a card that gains trade tokens on play)

Also very cool! I'll keep this one in mind, too.

• Paying the trade token during a reaction

This potentially has both the "needless abstraction" and the "I must save my tokens" issues. Presumably you get the tokens on-play. You're sitting there with a pile of tokens, making your opponents very leery of doing anything to trigger your reaction.

[tripwire]

This is my first post on this forum (I lurk a lot though), and I think the fact that your set made me want to make a post is a really good sign. So, good work on the set. It’s exciting, especially now that any new Donald X. expansion is less likely.

Disclaimer: Sorry, I haven’t playtested any of your cards, so these are just my thoughts from looking at them. I’m not really going to respond on the strategic value of the cards, but rather if they excite me or not. Although I certainly believe that a card may not look fun but be fun when it’s actually played, I think there is value in player reactions without playtesting. I mean, if a card doesn’t look fun or interesting, I’m not going to buy it in the first place. So this might be too personally subjective, but I hope it’s still useful. Alright, with that out of the way, here’s my thoughts:

I feel like too many cards in the expansion are conditional labs. There’s Gambler, Convocation, and Vendor. The first two seem sufficiently different and interesting that I think it’s fine, but Vendor just looks so boring next to those cards. It’s an ok card (and I’m sure plays differently than both Gambler and Convocation), but it seems so much less inspired when the other two cards exist in the same set. When I read it, I think “wait, isn’t there already a card like this in the expansion?” rather than, “that looks fun.”

Similarly, there’s too many cards that gain cards based on some other value: Redistrict, Mill Town, Craftsman, and Exchange. Each of these cards turns different resources into cards. I think I remember someone else complaining before about there being too many “remodels” in the set. I can only guess that this is part of the reason. Mill Town looks the most fun because it adds a new goal that doesn’t exist in Dominion (get as many copper in my hand as I can). Redistrict seems ok because of its versatility and low cost for this type of card. Exchange’s trade token ability seems fun, but I don’t find “non-terminal Remodel” to be all that interesting. Craftsman, I’m really not a fan of. First, I anticipate it being confusing. My friends always have to re-read Butcher every time they play it, and this is worse. The fact that trade tokens = two coin increments and that it starts at 1 all make it less intuitive than Butcher. Also, I don’t like the fact that this gets trade tokens on play. I think there’s value in all of the trade tokens being on gain/buy and only one at a time. And now that Jubilee returns itself back to the supply and can be an unbounded supply of trade tokens, Craftsman seems even less necessary.

Would a more standard Workshop variant with a trade token ability to put the gained card in hand be too similar to Workshop/Armory? Oddly, even though this is more similar to existing cards, I find it to be more compelling in this set than Craftsman or Exchange.

I’ll end on a more positive note with cards that look really fun to me:

Clerk – simple, but makes me think of situations that could make it really cool (e.g. Mill Town).

Jubilee – simple, looks fun on its own, but even more so with other trade token cards around.

Gambler – simple (there might be a theme here), an all-upside lookout variant.

Guide – I dream of playing this card 5 times with only one copy.

Floodgate – simple, but has many complex interactions/uses (this seems to be a perfect example of “lenticular design”). It also is a different way to make a “one-shot.”

Terrace – same as floodgate: seems really simple (village with mulligan), but could be incredible in certain situations (e.g. disappearing money).

Barracks – New way to do a pretty basic attack (something I imagine is very difficult these days), and can be used a couple different ways on different boards.

Convocation – encourages deck diversity in a slightly new way.

Fund – looks fun. And it also allows someone to play more on the “big money” end of things but still have opportunities for interesting decisions (when to pop the fund?) over the course of the game.


Sorry, I don’t have the chance to playtest (I’d love to if I could). Hopefully this was still helpful though.

[LastFootnote]

Disclaimer: Sorry, I haven’t playtested any of your cards, so these are just my thoughts from looking at them. I’m not really going to respond on the strategic value of the cards, but rather if they excite me or not. Although I certainly believe that a card may not look fun but be fun when it’s actually played, I think there is value in player reactions without playtesting. I mean, if a card doesn’t look fun or interesting, I’m not going to buy it in the first place. So this might be too personally subjective, but I hope it’s still useful.

I agree that first impressions are very important, so comments like these are still very useful.

I feel like too many cards in the expansion are conditional labs. There’s Gambler, Convocation, and Vendor. The first two seem sufficiently different and interesting that I think it’s fine, but Vendor just looks so boring next to those cards. It’s an ok card (and I’m sure plays differently than both Gambler and Convocation), but it seems so much less inspired when the other two cards exist in the same set. When I read it, I think “wait, isn’t there already a card like this in the expansion?” rather than, “that looks fun.”

Yes, I had this complaint before back when the set was 13 cards. It had Gambler and Enforcer (the old spy attack version of Vendor) and I was considering adding Convocation. I agree that it's not ideal, but at the same time I don't that I want to axe Vendor entirely, nor do I know how I'd change it. Vendor and Gambler are both Labs if you trash them, but they serve such different purposes that I'm hoping it's OK. Vendor is simple and maybe not super interesting, but it's filling a lot of roles in my set right now. It's a cantrip that you can load up on (to an extent, anyway), which the set could use more of. It's +Buy, which wouldn't go well on a lot of my other cards but works fine here. It combos nicely with Clerk. (This is probably a bad time to mention that Clerk is also a conditional Lab.)

If anything I'd rather get rid of Convocation. That gets a lot more complaints, mostly that it's too often better than Lab. But even if I did that, I'd maybe want another Lab variant because Mill Town wants a decent amount of draw in the set and I don't consider Gambler and Vendor to really be filling that role, since you have to trash them to increase your handsize. Maybe Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, and another $5 terminal draw are enough, though. Probably, although Conscripts and Axeman are decreasing hand sizes. Anyway, yeah. Convocation is less likely to stay than Vendor. Perhaps I could add something to Vendor to make it more interesting, but I like its simplicity.

Similarly, there’s too many cards that gain cards based on some other value: Redistrict, Mill Town, Craftsman, and Exchange. Each of these cards turns different resources into cards. I think I remember someone else complaining before about there being too many “remodels” in the set. I can only guess that this is part of the reason. Mill Town looks the most fun because it adds a new goal that doesn’t exist in Dominion (get as many copper in my hand as I can). Redistrict seems ok because of its versatility and low cost for this type of card. Exchange’s trade token ability seems fun, but I don’t find “non-terminal Remodel” to be all that interesting. Craftsman, I’m really not a fan of. First, I anticipate it being confusing. My friends always have to re-read Butcher every time they play it, and this is worse. The fact that trade tokens = two coin increments and that it starts at 1 all make it less intuitive than Butcher. Also, I don’t like the fact that this gets trade tokens on play. I think there’s value in all of the trade tokens being on gain/buy and only one at a time. And now that Jubilee returns itself back to the supply and can be an unbounded supply of trade tokens, Craftsman seems even less necessary.

Yeah, I understand. The question is, if I should have fewer cards of this type, what should I have more of instead? I want to have 25 Kingdom cards and I'm trying to have a good ratio of everything, but it's not easy. Sometimes I feel like whatever I add, it makes me have too much of something or other. I feel like at the very least, the four cards you mention are all quite different from each other, which is the main thing.

Having designed Craftsman makes me feel clever, but I agree that the math required isn't ideal. I can't think of any way to change it without making it way worse, though. I don't think Craftsman is necessary as an infinite source of Trade tokens. That didn't even factor into making it. I just wanted to make a Workshop variant where you could combine several of them to get a more expensive card, and tokens are probably the best way to do that. It might be better or worse from a balance/fun perspective if Craftsman had its own set of tokens to accomplish this, but from a logistics perspective it's way better to have the same tokens used for a bunch of different cards rather than separate ones.

Maybe Craftsman isn't worth doing. I'll playtest it more and try to gauge reactions to it.

Small note: Coppersmith also has the "get as many Copper into my hand as possible" goal. And Bank, to a lesser extent. I'm glad that Mill Town seems unique and interesting, though. That's what counts. Well, and it playing well. Which it seems to.

Would a more standard Workshop variant with a trade token ability to put the gained card in hand be too similar to Workshop/Armory? Oddly, even though this is more similar to existing cards, I find it to be more compelling in this set than Craftsman or Exchange.

In order for such a card to be interesting, it pretty much has to have +1 Action. Otherwise you're incentivized to gain Treasure so that you can play it that turn (without villages). So if it's able to gain cards costing up to $4, it pretty much has to cost $5, I think. So a non-terminal Workshop that costs $5 and can gain to hand once. I find that less compelling than Exchange, but that's just my opinion.

Guide – I dream of playing this card 5 times with only one copy.

I played a 3-player game the other day where I was going for a long-term, mega-turn strategy. It took a while to set up, such that most of the Provinces were gone. But after saving up a bunch of Trade tokens from Craftsman, Jubilee, and Guide, I finally had a turn where I played the same Guide 7 or 8 times and gained the last few Provinces and a bunch of Duchies with my Mill Towns. It was pretty awesome. (Yes, I won that game, but thankfully not with a soul-crushing victory.)

Thanks for your comments! Keep 'em coming if you think of anything else and/or you'd like to rebut/comment on anything I've said here.

[NoMoreFun]

Craftsman is an interesting gainer on its own and in full random that's all that matters. However (correct me if I'm wrong) in 2 set configurations there's a 63% chance that if Craftsman's in the game then so will another trade token card 1-(19/24*18/23*17/22*16/21) so it can be used as intended. Speaking of which, 6/25 cards is a good number of cards to have the new mechanic; in line with Seaside and Hinterlands.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I have admired your enterprise set for a while now and I'm glad that I finally find the time to give you my opinion on it now. I hope it can be of some value to you. I'll start with the card that I find interesting, amazing, and would love to playtest with friends:

Barrister and Domain: One of the first cards that come to my mind when I think of your set (Domain, specifically), because it shapes the game in a unique way. Games with four or more players would get really crazy and start out as a Barrister-war, similarly to Ambassador-war, and with increasing deck sizes, the attacks become less likely to hit. But you still want all those Domains, so you keep playing those Barristers. That one hit in the endgame could make a huge VP difference, which keeps it exciting. I just love the idea, and I really hope it plays out well.

Clerk: A creative peddler variant with great combo potential with various other cards. I like it for its simplicity.

Gambler: Simple cards can be so interesting! The card's name suits it very well. It's probably fun to play with, but can occasionally be frustrating. I'd take the risk

Axeman: Should I call it a "friendly Saboteur"? It's probably much more fun to play than Saboteur, and gives the attacker something, too. Although I know there will always be some people complaining how Axeman would ruin their deck building schemes (pun not intended). They shouldn't be whiny, though - it's a cool card.

General: An expensive throne room. At first, I thought this was unjustified because it would only be worth it with one-shots. But the last sentence makes all the difference - great! I'd gladly play a non-one-shot card twice now and another time next turn. It's a good card, that's why I throned it. The same clause really makes you go nuts with your one-shot, but if you play it next turn, there's probably no General around to save it. This is one example of how much thought you put in those cards.

I like most other cards as well, but I also agree with tripwire on most points.

I feel like too many cards in the expansion are conditional labs. There’s Gambler, Convocation, and Vendor. The first two seem sufficiently different and interesting that I think it’s fine, but Vendor just looks so boring next to those cards. It’s an ok card (and I’m sure plays differently than both Gambler and Convocation), but it seems so much less inspired when the other two cards exist in the same set. When I read it, I think “wait, isn’t there already a card like this in the expansion?” rather than, “that looks fun.”

If anything I'd rather get rid of Convocation. That gets a lot more complaints, mostly that it's too often better than Lab. But even if I did that, I'd maybe want another Lab variant because Mill Town wants a decent amount of draw in the set and I don't consider Gambler and Vendor to really be filling that role, since you have to trash them to increase your handsize. Maybe Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, and another $5 terminal draw are enough, though. Probably, although Conscripts and Axeman are decreasing hand sizes. Anyway, yeah. Convocation is less likely to stay than Vendor. Perhaps I could add something to Vendor to make it more interesting, but I like its simplicity.

I can see the reason for the complaints about Convocation, but the idea in itself it neat enough. A deck where it might be worse than a Lab would be an engine that does not draw your whole deck - you would often discard a potentially good action card. Otherwise it's just a very good card. Maybe you could nerf the card a little by giving a small boon to your opponents when you play it. Or perhaps make it a "bad Smithy" by strinking the +Action and reducing the cost to 3?

Recruiter and Conscripts: First off, Conscripts is a cool one-shot attack, an even meaner Torturer variant for the attacking part. However, I imagine this would make it very frustrating eventually, especially in a multiplayer game where "revenge" becomes the prevailing theme, to the point where everyone is stalling hard with curses. I think Recuiter might be a bit too fast in gaining Conscripts, for it being such a powerful card, even for a one-shot. But I should playtest this first. I might be mistaken.

I look forward to playtest some of your cards in the future. Would you like to hear some reports then? Are the black and white stars still up-to-date?

EDIT: Barrister's text is missing the term "in any order" after "and puts the rest on top". I know the card is wordy enough, but it just doesn't feel right without it.

[LastFootnote]

Time to respond to some posts I missed earlier.

Why do all your variants of investment involve it being a oneshot? Would it be too strong for the card to stick around (now it's also a Woodcutter).

How about making it a trade token gainer (on play) that gives you the choice of +$2, investing an action card, or another cards trade token ability?

Edit: Alternatively you could make the invested cards get trashed at the end of the game so it works as a trasher, or as an "island" if you put the cards back.

I actually considered making Investment a non-one-shot recently. (Man, this set it just hemorrhaging one-shots.) I'm not too concerned about its power level. I'm more concerned that newer players would completely shaft themselves by using it too much. Still, it's perhaps worth trying.

EDIT: Nevermind, that would make Conscripts stupid powerful. A non-one-shot version would probably have to not work on Conscripts.

Byah, the Trade token option sounds complex, but making it a Trade token card in the traditional sense might work. Wait, that would require two dividing lines. Dang.

Barrister continues to be ignored in the Kingdoms I play it in. I think its ability is too swingy and situational. I think the coolest part about Barrister is the interaction Trash-for-benefit cards have with Domain and Barrister's ability to pull Domains back out of the trash. To that end, I might recommend removing the Attack entirely from Barrister. Domain is at the cost bracket that Saboteurs and Knights will trash them now, and Domain is fun to Trash-for-benefit. I think Barrister could be reworked to have a more interesting ability in addition to pulling Domains out of the trash and it would be great fun (and possibly decrease the number of Attacks in the set).

Maaaaybe. I'd have to make Barrister itself a trash-for-benefit card. Blerg. I wonder if there's a way to keep the Attack, but make the card more appealing. I still like the Domain-stealing mechanic.

I've found Recruiter to be frustratingly slow and it is basically impossible to use Conscripts as a curser without Throne Room (or some other variant of such) since it puts Conscripts into your next hand. Would it be too much to optionally put the Conscripts into your discard pile?

I'm OK with this because Barracks can definitely be used to make Conscripts an effective Curse junker.

Optionally putting the gained Conscripts in the discard pile might be fine power-wise, but I think it's a bit much complexity-wise.

Convocation is good. I don't think it's really too much better than Laboratory, but it always feels much more satisfying than it even when it's drawing a Copper and Estate from 2 Coppers and an Estate (I guess because of how much sifting exists in Dominion nowadays.

Well, I hope you're right.

Terrace is good fun. I wish Enterprise had another disappearing card or two in addition to Jubilee to make its Trade token effect stronger.

For what it's worth, Mill Town, (the current version of) Craftsman, Barracks, Conscripts, and Exchange are all disappearing cards that give (at least) +1 Action.

Now I will talk about the custom cards that worked out. The names are placeholders. Feel free to use, ignore, or build upon anything here:

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each Trade token spent, trash up to 3 cards from your hand.When you gain this, gain a Trade token.

This may look kind of familiar. Draw is always fun and +3 Cards at $5 isn't too weak. Combined with strong trashing that can be cashed in when desired, Cathedral is actually quite a bit of fun right now.

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.When you gain this, gain a Trade token for every 2 Actions you have in play, rounded down.

This is somewhat playing around with alternative ways to gain Trade tokens, in addition to a Curser with Trade tokens. It ended up working out in a Kingdom with Jubilee (which is probably one of the best tests for it since Jubilee makes Trade tokens so readily available). In Kingdoms without other Trade tokens cards, a player has to build up a bit of an engine to be able to give out many curses with Sorceress (or with Trade token cards, to cash in for a million Trade tokens that the player needs for other reasons). I gained three tokens at once at one point which made me feel pretty clever.

I like these ideas.

Cathedral I think would be simpler and better if you could only spend one token when you played it. Probably it should only trash up to 2 cards instead of 3. Rinkworks' original criticism that an opening Cathedral buy could win you the game still applies to this version, though. Maybe not a deal breaker. Is it worse than Trading Post in this respect, for instance? Maybe not.

Like "one-shot Remodel", "one-shot trashing" is fraught with pitfalls, although it's a different set of pitfalls. The main pitfall is that trashing is so good that you buy the card just for that and then have whatever else randomly in your deck. This is why Hinterlands doesn't have an on-gain Chapel. Donald solved this problem with Doctor by having its main effect also be trashing. +Cards is nice and generically useful, but I worry that the combination of that and strong trashing is too powerful (especially early in the game, as mentioned).

Also, I worry that the set has enough trashing already. Gambler, Committee, and Dignitary are all potentially deck thinners. Redistrict usually is when trashing Curses and Coppers. Refurbish is great for trashing bad cards, but doesn't actually thin your deck. Still, that's a fair bit of trashing.

But this isn't to say that Cathedral is bad. These are just my worries and the reasons I haven't tried to fix Cathedral myself.

Sorceress is very cool. I thought "spend a token to give out Curses" was boring because you'd always be spending the token as soon as possible. But Sorceress is interesting because you have to do work to get the tokens beyond just buying the card. If Recruiter doesn't work out, I will probably try some variant of Sorceress. Thanks for the idea!

Similarly, there’s too many cards that gain cards based on some other value:

…

Craftsman, I’m really not a fan of. First, I anticipate it being confusing. My friends always have to re-read Butcher every time they play it, and this is worse. The fact that trade tokens = two coin increments and that it starts at 1 all make it less intuitive than Butcher.

I've just thought of a new, simpler version of Craftsman to address these two issues.

Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

It loses flexibility (and complexity) because you can't spend more tokens to get bigger cards. But it's much better at gaining $5 cards (and amassing tokens) because it's now a cantrip. Too strong?

I like that this moves it further from Mill Town. Before they were both gainers that you could build up to Provinces. Now that's Mill Town's schtick and Craftsman focuses more on the $5 price point.

I also like that it's less confusing when you gain a Jubilee or Guide. Before it was: play Craftsman, take a token, spend a token, gain a Jubilee, take a token back. Now it's, at worst: play Craftsman, spend a token, gain a Terrace (or what have you), take a token back. 50% less complexity (in terms of token movement)!

EDIT: I think that version of Craftsman might be a little much. New version where you only get the cantrip if you don't gain:

Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token.

[silverspawn]

I actually considered making Investment a non-one-shot recently. (Man, this set it just hemorrhaging one-shots.) I'm not too concerned about its power level. I'm more concerned that newer players would completely shaft themselves by using it too much. Still, it's perhaps worth trying.

I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea. I've played with investment, and the big problem we had is that you have to kill one of your action cards to make it work. 3 player means that, even if you "win" a 4/3/3 split, you just have 4 of them, and if you invest in one you just have 3, that just doesn't seem to be worth it. you can just buy two treasuries and probably get more +$ every turn

 it's possible that not every player wants that specific action card, but i dare saying that if all players know what they're doing, this will be an exception. and if killing one card hurts, killing more than one will hurt like crazy.  also, you'd have to make the card weaker in order to balance it for the situations where it would be useful, so it becomes even more situational, which I think is a bad thing. and lastly it wouldn't fit the set theme anymore.

[JW]

Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token.

Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action. Would it be too strong if it always gave +1 Action? As in:

+1 Action. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, and take a Trade token.

Edit: One possible problem with it giving +1 Action all the time is that it may be too good at gaining Duchies. A connected Tournament and Rebuild are the only nonterminals I can think of that gain Duchies.

[Awaclus]

Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action.

Just state the number of actions out loud every time you play an Action card, it's not that hard. You also have to do it with Squire, Trusty Steed, Pawn, Tribute, Ironmonger and a bunch of other official cards.

[KingZog3]

Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action.

Just state the number of actions out loud every time you play an Action card, it's not that hard. You also have to do it with Squire, Trusty Steed, Pawn, Tribute, Ironmonger and a bunch of other official cards.

Procession anything is pretty much harder to track. And madman disappears from play.

[LastFootnote]

I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea. I've played with investment, and the big problem we had is that you have to kill one of your action cards to make it work. 3 player means that, even if you "win" a 4/3/3 split, you just have 4 of them, and if you invest in one you just have 3, that just doesn't seem to be worth it. you can just buy two treasuries and probably get more +$ every turn

 it's possible that not every player wants that specific action card, but i dare saying that if all players know what they're doing, this will be an exception. and if killing one card hurts, killing more than one will hurt like crazy.  also, you'd have to make the card weaker in order to balance it for the situations where it would be useful, so it becomes even more situational, which I think is a bad thing. and lastly it wouldn't fit the set theme anymore.

Really, this is all a good argument for scrapping Investment altogether. With more than 2 players, you're way less likely to be able to use it effectively. I might try the global version that puts a marker on a pile, but for now I'm taking it out of the set and trying to brainstorm replacements.

Cards that grant different numbers of actions can be hard to track. With this version you have to remember whether you used it for the +1 action. Would it be too strong if it always gave +1 Action? As in:

+1 Action. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, and take a Trade token.

Edit: One possible problem with it giving +1 Action all the time is that it may be too good at gaining Duchies. A connected Tournament and Rebuild are the only nonterminals I can think of that gain Duchies.

I think it would be too strong if it always gave +1 Action and sometimes gave +1 Card. Maybe not.

In a perfect world, all cards would be designed without necessary tracking. For example, I made certain that Guide specifically has no tracking involved because you can play the same copy any number of times. In general, having no tracking really limits you, though. I do keep it in mind when designing cards, but of all the things to track, the number of Actions you have left is the most common anyway. As stated by others, lots of cards already give a variable number of Actions.

[NoMoreFun]

What was wrong with the old Craftsman, with the formula?

[LastFootnote]

What was wrong with the old Craftsman, with the formula?

Short Answer: There was a complaint (in this very thread) that it was too complex mathematically for a Dominion card. It is worse than Butcher, which is pretty complex. Also, a complaint that the set had too many cards that could gain cards costing up to some value that was dependent on some other value.

Long Answer: The long answer is the same as the short answer, but there's more. Normally I don't radically change a card just because of a couple of complaints (unless it's already a dud, in which case I'm going to revamp or scrap it anyway). As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the old Craftsman basically creates an alternate, parallel currency where 1 Trade token is worth slightly more than $2. That's certainly novel, but not so very compelling. The new version has several advantages.

• Simpler to understand (no formula).
• You never gain a token and spend it right away, making your tokens easier to track.
• Now Mill Town is the set's only variable-ceiling gainer (not counting remodel variants).
• It's even better for enabling other Trade token cards (because you get +1 Card).

It also has disadvantages:

• Less flexible.
• No longer allows for very cheap Jubilee and Guide gains (although it still supplements those cards nicely).

Overall, I think I like the new version better, but I haven't tested it yet. Not much testing in general recently, unfortunately.

Also, here's the version of Windfall I actually printed for testing:

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Buy. Choose one: Reveal then discard any number of Victory cards from your hand and +$2 per card discarded; or gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

Although I do want more Trade token cards rather than fewer, it just seemed to have too many moving parts the old way. The "choose one" seems simpler to me. It's very possible the card's a dud any way you slice it, but I'm going to try to playtest this version.

[NoMoreFun]

I liked the old Craftsman, and I don't buy any arguments about complexity (I don't think any person that's ever visited these forums has trouble counting odd numbers) but thematically it was probably a bit too close to "trade tokens being exchanged for money". The new version is even more distant from coin tokens, which is good.

Hopefully I'll get some testing happening over Easter (of both this and my own set). It's very rare that I'm anywhere near a physical copy of Dominion.

[LastFootnote]

Again, these have yet to be playtested, but here they are for those who are interested.

[silverspawn]

that's interesting... now it has similarities to feast.

let me compare some openings:

silver/silver: 15% to get to $5 twice, 91% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver/silver
silver/feast: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver
craftsman/jubilee: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: craftsman

so it's identical to silver/feast except that you get to keep the craftsman instead of the silver. that's definitely preferable on some boards, depending on what the $5's are.

e: another possible opening is craftsman/guide. that will also guarantee you a 5$, and leave both cards in your deck. problem is they might collide, worst case is you draw craftsman with guide and don't get anything.

too bad terrace doesn't cost 3$, that would be an amazing opener

[LastFootnote]

I have admired your enterprise set for a while now and I'm glad that I finally find the time to give you my opinion on it now. I hope it can be of some value to you. I'll start with the card that I find interesting, amazing, and would love to playtest with friends:

Sorry I missed responding to this earlier!

Barrister and Domain: One of the first cards that come to my mind when I think of your set (Domain, specifically), because it shapes the game in a unique way. Games with four or more players would get really crazy and start out as a Barrister-war, similarly to Ambassador-war, and with increasing deck sizes, the attacks become less likely to hit. But you still want all those Domains, so you keep playing those Barristers. That one hit in the endgame could make a huge VP difference, which keeps it exciting. I just love the idea, and I really hope it plays out well.

Thanks! I'm glad you like the idea. So far in testing it's been OK. Maybe not a standout, but not problematic. I think it's really a card where the amount of fun you have with it is proportional to how cool you think the idea is. It's definitely fun when you successfully steal somebody else's Domain(s), especially when you've been trying for a while.

I like most other cards as well, but I also agree with tripwire on most points.

I can see the reason for the complaints about Convocation, but the idea in itself it neat enough. A deck where it might be worse than a Lab would be an engine that does not draw your whole deck - you would often discard a potentially good action card. Otherwise it's just a very good card. Maybe you could nerf the card a little by giving a small boon to your opponents when you play it. Or perhaps make it a "bad Smithy" by strinking the +Action and reducing the cost to 3?

Of those two ideas, I like giving the bonus to your opponent more. However, the card is already pretty wordy. I'll probably test it more as-is and try to think of other fixes/replacements.

Recruiter and Conscripts: First off, Conscripts is a cool one-shot attack, an even meaner Torturer variant for the attacking part. However, I imagine this would make it very frustrating eventually, especially in a multiplayer game where "revenge" becomes the prevailing theme, to the point where everyone is stalling hard with curses. I think Recuiter might be a bit too fast in gaining Conscripts, for it being such a powerful card, even for a one-shot. But I should playtest this first. I might be mistaken.

Recruiter definitely needs much more playtesting. Although some (like you) think it might get too crazy with Curses too quickly, others (like Fragasnap) think it won't hand out Curses well enough. Hopefully it's somewhere in between. I already have Barracks for when you absolutely must play a bunch of Conscripts each turn, so I'd prefer that Recruiter be a scaled-back version of Conscripts gaining in most cases.

I played one 3-player game with both Throne Room and Recruiter. That got insane. Probably General is even worse, although at least that costs $5.

I that it's not ideal that the same card gives Curses and makes you discard, because it makes it harder to trash those Curses from your hand. Torturer also does this, of course, buy it never forces you to discard. For what it's worth, a lot of this set's deck thinning trashes cards that aren't in your hand (Gambler, Committee). But I often think that having two cards that gain Conscripts is too much. Long story short: Recruiter may or may not stick around.

I look forward to playtest some of your cards in the future. Would you like to hear some reports then? Are the black and white stars still up-to-date?

Yes, I try to keep the stars up to date. If you do end up playtesting cards, I always appreciate feedback! I am continually floored that people want to print and play with my cards (cutting and sleeving can be long and dull). The more feedback I get from playtesters, the better I can make this set.

EDIT: Barrister's text is missing the term "in any order" after "and puts the rest on top". I know the card is wordy enough, but it just doesn't feel right without it.

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping I can just add to the rulebook the rule that you can always choose which order to put multiple cards on your deck. Barrister and Dignitary just don't have a lot of extra room for that text, and it consistently works that way for all published cards.

[LastFootnote]

that's interesting... now it has similarities to feast.

let me compare some openings:

silver/silver: 15% to get to $5 twice, 91% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver/silver
silver/feast: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: silver
craftsman/jubilee: 29% to get to $5 twice, 95% to get to $5 once. cards left in your deck: craftsman

so it's identical to silver/feast except that you get to keep the craftsman instead of the silver. that's definitely preferable on some boards, depending on what the $5's are.

e: another possible opening is craftsman/guide. that will also guarantee you a 5$, and leave both cards in your deck. problem is they might collide, worst case is you draw craftsman with guide and don't get anything.

too bad terrace doesn't cost 3$, that would be an amazing opener

Man, Craftsman/Guide seems like potentially a pretty sweet opening. Probably not nuts, but definitely could be powerful as long as you can play Craftsman before Guide. It's a nice combo in general.

[tripwire]

I liked the old Craftsman, and I don't buy any arguments about complexity (I don't think any person that's ever visited these forums has trouble counting odd numbers)

My concern about the old Craftsman's complexity wasn't that people would have a hard time counting, it was more that the card didn't feel intuitive. The problem with that is that cards that aren't intuitive are more difficult to commit to memory quickly. The example I gave in my earlier post regarding Butcher demonstrates this issue. It's not that the people I play with can't figure out what Butcher does, it's that they have to re-read the card every time they play it. That makes the game much slower and less enjoyable for everyone, imo.

And, you're absolutely right that none of these things would be problems for the people who frequent these forums, but I doubt many people here regularly play with other forum members in real life. (maybe I'm wrong and you all hang out all the time...) Coupling that with the fact that these cards can only really be used irl, then it matters how the audience outside these forums would react to them.

Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may spend a Trade token. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action, and take a Trade token

Although this card lacks some of the flexibility of the original version, I like it much better. In addition to addressing my concerns, this new Craftsman just has much more of its own identity now. I also like how it works even better as a support card for other trade token strategies now. It definitely gets my vote, and I'll be interested to hear how playtests go with it. Kudos LastFootnote.

[LastFootnote]

Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.

So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".

Got to test the new version of Jubilee today (returns itself to the Supply instead of trashing itself). I think it's a good change. Also the new version of General seems good so far.

Also, I came up with another Trade token card. I didn't print it up in time to test it today, but I want to post it to get feedback about how interesting people think it is. If it's not too boring, I can tweak the balance later.

Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

[NoMoreFun]

Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

Not a bad concept (the bottom, that is), although the way to get trade tokens with this card makes you less likely to want to use them (more cards worth discarding). Seems a bit counterintuitive. Is the idea to encourage (and mitigate the harms of) early greening? Spending a trade token on sifting would be ideal, instead of spending a trade token to draw instead of sift. Terrace already has that, and I like that card (although a full mulligan wouldn't be confused for optional sifting). You could do "+$X, discard Y cards, pay a trade token to draw to Z" - would that be stepping on Wheelwright's toes?

[Fragasnap]

Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

...Seems a bit counterintuitive. Is the idea to encourage (and mitigate the harms of) early greening?...

I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.

The idea looks fine. It's not very exciting though, which is always kind of a bummer for a $5 card.

[silverspawn]

Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

Well I'm sure you read my question about terminals with +x cards and +x$ and Donald's answer. That's not a reason not to do it, but he specifically described "+2 cards, +2$" as "strong and uninteresting". This is kind of a BM enabler, though it's really weak compared to vault, if you don't have a trade token it's actually stricktly worse save for the +buy. i like the bottom part, but the problem is that trade tokens aren't super exciting here. I don't really see this card being all that great in engines either.

in terms of powerlevel, I think it should at least give you a token to begin with. But it doesn't seem to be fun to me either way (though I could be wrong). The best usage is probably to produce tokens for other cards which get more out of them (i.e. probably almost every other card that uses them). But if you play with all sets, it's unlikely that such a card is even present, and that kind of ruins the value of trade tokens (because very often you won't care if you have to discard)

I could see the bottom part working on a different card.

e: actually that's not true, vault can help your opponent. still though, it seems a lot worse. with vault you need two silvers or one gold out of 6 cards to get to $8, this one either needs $6 in 6 cards, or $6 in the best 4 cards out of 6

[LastFootnote]

The idea looks fine. It's not very exciting though, which is always kind of a bummer for a $5 card.

But it doesn't seem to be fun to me either way (though I could be wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was afraid of. Blerg. I'm having a heck of a time thinking of more good terminal $5 cards to fill two slots now that Investment is probably dead. I guess I could actually test Lodge, which I never did.

Perhaps the bottom here would work with a Cathedral-like card. I generally don't want to do one-shot Trade token trashing because it's just an autobuy and the pile would empty so fast, probably before people were done trashing. But if there is another way to get tokens instead of buying the card, that could be fine.

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.

Or something. This should eliminate the concern about Cathedral being too powerful as an opening because you can't use the trashing until at least turn 5. Unless you opened Cathedral/Jubilee, but that seems like a fine combo.

Not a bad concept (the bottom, that is), although the way to get trade tokens with this card makes you less likely to want to use them (more cards worth discarding). Seems a bit counterintuitive. Is the idea to encourage (and mitigate the harms of) early greening?

No, not exactly. It's more just a convenient way to gate the tokens. If it's "when you buy a card" or "when you buy an Action card", then you pretty much just get a token for each buy. "When you buy a Copper" and "when you buy a Curse" aren't much fun, and "when you buy a Treasure" leads to a boring deck. "When you buy a Victory card" is like "when you buy a Copper", but way better because you eventually want Victory cards in your deck. So it makes you play a bit differently than you otherwise might, it keeps you from going crazy with tokens, but it also doesn't make you buy cards that are strictly bad.

Spending a trade token on sifting would be ideal, instead of spending a trade token to draw instead of sift. Terrace already has that, and I like that card (although a full mulligan wouldn't be confused for optional sifting). You could do "+$X, discard Y cards, pay a trade token to draw to Z" - would that be stepping on Wheelwright's toes?

Wheelwright's toes and Guide's toes, I think. I don't really like Trade tokens for blind draw. Guide gets around that because you always know the two cards you'll be drawing if you spend the Trade token.

I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.

Could you go into more detail about why it didn't work? What was the card, exactly? It sounds interesting.

[markusin]

Broker (I'm not sold on this name.)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. +1 Buy. +$2. You may spend a Trade token. If you don't, discard 2 cards.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

I'm not sure how balanced this would be with the rest of your set, but have you considered something like:

Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each token you spend, +$2.
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

This variant seems like it would be really strong with mid-turn gainers like Workshop, but this is terminal so you'd have to work for that. The vanilla bonuses can probably be adjusted, but of course the real question is if it makes the card any more interesting. This version makes you spend the tokens before you draw and get full information, and adds the possibility of token saving similar to Merchant Guild.

[LastFootnote]

I'm not sure how balanced this would be with the rest of your set, but have you considered something like:

Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each token you spend, +$2.
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

This variant seems like it would be really strong with mid-turn gainers like Workshop, but this is terminal so you'd have to work for that. The vanilla bonuses can probably be adjusted, but of course the real question is if it makes the card any more interesting. This version makes you spend the tokens before you draw and get full information, and adds the possibility of token saving similar to Merchant Guild.

I feel like a one-shot +$2 is Fund's schtick. Mining Village did it first, of course, but Fund and Mining Village are in different sets and they're different enough for that to be sufficient. I don't really want to have another Enterprise card do it if I can get away with it, though.

In general, I want players to be informed as possible about what they'll get when they trigger a one-shot ability. That's why I'm against Trade tokens for blind draw. Similarly, I'm not a fan of spending tokens for Coins and then drawing, such that you'll have to guess whether you actually needed those Coins. If you guessed wrong, you either wasted your token or you don't have enough Coins. Fund is way better than Mining Village in this way, since you almost always know how many Coins you have this turn when deciding whether to activate its effect.

There are two reasons I try to design cards this way. First, it makes for fewer times when the players feel like they wasted an ability due to a bad guess. That's no fun. Second, it makes the decision about whether to spend the ability more meaningful. Terrace is probably as far as I'm willing to go in the direction of blind results. With Terrace, you're often thinking, "My next 5 cards have got to be better than this" and you're usually right.

[silverspawn]

I'm having a heck of a time thinking of more good terminal $5 cards to fill two slots now that Investment is probably dead.

ok, this is probably not helpful, but... I got 4 5$'s for my set, and one of them might be useuful, though it's a terminal draw and you already got lodge (and it doesn't fit your theme). still, there is a slim chance you can use the idea for something.

Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card revealed that's worth between 3$ and 6$

the wording is tricky but the best I came up with, and I think it's clear what it does. there might be some way you can turn this into a trade token effect, like +x cards, you may pay a trade token, if you do reveal your hand, if you revealed Y differently priced cards, good stuff happens; if you gain this take a trade token.

so, if you happen to like the idea and haven't thought of it before, feel free to use it.

[markusin]

I'm not sure how balanced this would be with the rest of your set, but have you considered something like:

Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may spend any number of Trade tokens. For each token you spend, +$2.
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, take a Trade token.

This variant seems like it would be really strong with mid-turn gainers like Workshop, but this is terminal so you'd have to work for that. The vanilla bonuses can probably be adjusted, but of course the real question is if it makes the card any more interesting. This version makes you spend the tokens before you draw and get full information, and adds the possibility of token saving similar to Merchant Guild.

I feel like a one-shot +$2 is Fund's schtick. Mining Village did it first, of course, but Fund and Mining Village are in different sets and they're different enough for that to be sufficient. I don't really want to have another Enterprise card do it if I can get away with it, though.

In general, I want players to be informed as possible about what they'll get when they trigger a one-shot ability. That's why I'm against Trade tokens for blind draw. Similarly, I'm not a fan of spending tokens for Coins and then drawing, such that you'll have to guess whether you actually needed those Coins. If you guessed wrong, you either wasted your token or you don't have enough Coins. Fund is way better than Mining Village in this way, since you almost always know how many Coins you have this turn when deciding whether to activate its effect.

There are two reasons I try to design cards this way. First, it makes for fewer times when the players feel like they wasted an ability due to a bad guess. That's no fun. Second, it makes the decision about whether to spend the ability more meaningful. If players have to guess whether it's worth it to spend a token. Terrace is probably as far as I'm willing to go in the direction of blind results. With Terrace, you're often thinking, "My next 5 cards have got to be better than this" and you're usually right.

Fair enough. I forgot about Fund as well. I was thinking that it would be more thematic to have to invest trade tokens with incomplete information. But then, Mining Village can lead to all sorts of action paralysis.

[LastFootnote]

I'm having a heck of a time thinking of more good terminal $5 cards to fill two slots now that Investment is probably dead.

ok, this is probably not helpful, but... I got 4 5$'s for my set, and one of them might be useuful, though it's a terminal draw and you already got lodge (and it doesn't fit your theme). still, there is a slim chance you can use the idea for something.

Reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently priced card revealed that's worth between 3$ and 6$

the wording is tricky but the best I came up with, and I think it's clear what it does. there might be some way you can turn this into a trade token effect, like +x cards, you may pay a trade token, if you do reveal your hand, if you revealed Y differently priced cards, good stuff happens; if you gain this take a trade token.

so, if you happen to like the idea and haven't thought of it before, feel free to use it.

Lodge is the only card currently in the OP that I haven't tested at all. I printed it, but didn't cut or sleeve it. Comments here said it was too similar to Vault. I don't know whether that's true, but in terms of discard for Coins, I think I like Windfall better anyhow. The upshot is that Lodge effectively isn't in this set.

Thanks for the idea about checking costs. I'll think about whether I can work that into a cool token ability.

[Fragasnap]

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.

Or something. This should eliminate the concern about Cathedral being too powerful as an opening because you can't use the trashing until at least turn 5. Unless you opened Cathedral/Jubilee, but that seems like a fine combo.

Remember that one of the big reasons Cathedral was a game decider was because it initially drew 4 cards. The difference between +3 Cards and +4 Cards is huge in any strategy. This way of acquiring Trade token looks weird since it is a gate rather than a synergy.
That +buy is kind of gross though. Look at it: It's just hanging there. You should do something about it before it gets infected.

In general, I want players to be informed as possible about what they'll get when they trigger a one-shot ability. That's why I'm against Trade tokens for blind draw. Similarly, I'm not a fan of spending tokens for Coins and then drawing, such that you'll have to guess whether you actually needed those Coins. If you guessed wrong, you either wasted your token or you don't have enough Coins.

Consider that Broker (and other such cards) have ways to gather Trade tokens, making their ordinarily one-shot abilities significantly less one-shotty and more plain expensive instead. I don't think it would be awful to have a card that can generate Trade tokens with a riskier effect, but definitely appreciate your dedication to making Trade tokens certain, for the most part.

I played with a different custom card using this bottom-line effect (it was a drawer that would let you pull a card from your discard by spending a Trade token). It strikes me that the point of attaching it to not discarding may be to make it harder to stack its token gaining effect which was the reason the card I tested didn't work.

Could you go into more detail about why it didn't work? What was the card, exactly? It sounds interesting.

Trapper
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Look through your discard pile. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, put a card from your discard pile into your hand.While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.

A Smithy+ as a simple effect to see how compelling the selective draw was. The selective draw obviously synergizes with the way one actually acquires Trade tokens since you're increasing the size and variance of your deck by putting Victory cards into it but Trapper reaches through the bloated deck to reuse good cards.
Unfortunately, because of its strong draw it was really easy to stack its in-play effect and gain Trade tokens faster than you could really use them with other engine pieces.

Decreasing its draw to +2 Cards would make it a much weaker card-- maybe justifiably so for it being a practically infinite source of Trade tokens-- but it wouldn't fix the stacking problem. It could possibly be made into a sifter of sorts (+2 Cards, +$3, Discard 2 Cards, Pay to draw from discard) which would help its Trade token effect always have something to draw and also make it harder to stack with itself. However, the strength of its draw is one of the big reasons players are encouraged to do more than simply draw the best Treasure from their discard pile. Either of those changes also won't help your set allow players to get more cards into their hands.

[LastFootnote]

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, trash 2 cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.

Or something. This should eliminate the concern about Cathedral being too powerful as an opening because you can't use the trashing until at least turn 5. Unless you opened Cathedral/Jubilee, but that seems like a fine combo.

Remember that one of the big reasons Cathedral was a game decider was because it initially drew 4 cards. The difference between +3 Cards and +4 Cards is huge in any strategy. This way of acquiring Trade token looks weird since it is a gate rather than a synergy.
That +buy is kind of gross though. Look at it: It's just hanging there. You should do something about it before it gets infected.

Disagree! +1 Buy is never superfluous on a card that does something when you buy a card. Just look at Goons, Merchant Guild, etc. If you have two Cathedrals in play, it's probably worth buying an Estate for two tokens.

Trapper
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. Look through your discard pile. You may spend a Trade token. If you do, put a card from your discard pile into your hand.While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token.

A Smithy+ as a simple effect to see how compelling the selective draw was. The selective draw obviously synergizes with the way one actually acquires Trade tokens since you're increasing the size and variance of your deck by putting Victory cards into it but Trapper reaches through the bloated deck to reuse good cards.
Unfortunately, because of its strong draw it was really easy to stack its in-play effect and gain Trade tokens faster than you could really use them with other engine pieces.

Decreasing its draw to +2 Cards would make it a much weaker card-- maybe justifiably so for it being a practically infinite source of Trade tokens-- but it wouldn't fix the stacking problem. It could possibly be made into a sifter of sorts (+2 Cards, +$3, Discard 2 Cards, Pay to draw from discard) which would help its Trade token effect always have something to draw and also make it harder to stack with itself. However, the strength of its draw is one of the big reasons players are encouraged to do more than simply draw the best Treasure from their discard pile. Either of those changes also won't help your set allow players to get more cards into their hands.

Huh. It's tough to say whether Cathedral would have this issue or not. On one hand, it's only +3 Cards to Trapper's (effectively) +4 Cards. That's still really good, though. Of course, eventually the trashing will become unnecessary, unlike pulling cards from the discard pile. Still, it might be better if it gave +$ instead of +Cards. I'll think about it.

As for getting more cards into hands, I'm starting to come around to the idea that I have enough of that. Gambler and Vendor aside, I have Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, Convocation, and Wheelwright (and Dignitary to a lesser extent). And when it comes to getting one big mega-turn for Mill Towns, Gambler and Vendor can help. Probably I'm OK on draw after all (though if I get rid of Convocation, this may change).

[silverspawn]

Why would you get rid of convocation?

[LastFootnote]

Why would you get rid of convocation?

Because a lot of people think it's too much better than Lab. That's not such a big deal that I'm going to cut it before finding a replacement, though. It may not get cut at all.

EDIT: Also, it's completely off-theme. It combos with Domain, but that's about it.

Oh, that reminds me. I was thinking of creating another card or two that used Domains. That way I can have a new type like Looter and can cut the setup text out of Barrister. Also, if you're playing multiple games with Enterprise cards, it's more likely that you won't have to switch up the starting decks between games. I was trying to come up with some sort of trash-for-benefit card in the Mine/Taxman vein. Or maybe they could act as a moat against Conscripts! That would be a nerf. Hmm…

[LastFootnote]

I can't remember whether I've talked about it in this thread before, but I'm also considering splitting Conscripts into 3 or 4 different cards. Probably 3 different cards (5 copies of each). One would give out Curses. One would be a discard attack. One would be a spy attack. Perhaps this would create more problems than it solves. I'd prefer to have Conscripts not be totally useless once the Curses run out, but maybe that's not such a big deal. After all, Barracks still retains its utility with other Attacks on the board.

[Fragasnap]

Cathedral

That +buy is kind of gross though. Look at it: It's just hanging there. You should do something about it before it gets infected.

Disagree! +1 Buy is never superfluous on a card that does something when you buy a card. Just look at Goons, Merchant Guild, etc. If you have two Cathedrals in play, it's probably worth buying an Estate for two tokens.

True! But Goons and Merchant Guild are practically all about gaining tokens (Victory point tokens and Coin tokens respectively) where Cathedral trashes, and draws, and gets Trade tokens. It's not a problem, but it is mentally crowded.

As for getting more cards into hands, I'm starting to come around to the idea that I have enough of that. Gambler and Vendor aside, I have Clerk, Guide, Floodgate, Convocation, and Wheelwright (and Dignitary to a lesser extent). And when it comes to getting one big mega-turn for Mill Towns, Gambler and Vendor can help. Probably I'm OK on draw after all (though if I get rid of Convocation, this may change).

There is a bit of draw, but Floodgate is a one-shot, Wheelwright only draws to 7, and each other draws only 2 cards (except Guide which is a one-shot for +4 Cards). I'd like to see at least one card that flat-out draws 3 cards.

I can't remember whether I've talked about it in this thread before, but I'm also considering splitting Conscripts into 3 or 4 different cards. Probably 3 different cards (5 copies of each). One would give out Curses. One would be a discard attack. One would be a spy attack. Perhaps this would create more problems than it solves. I'd prefer to have Conscripts not be totally useless once the Curses run out, but maybe that's not such a big deal. After all, Barracks still retains its utility with other Attacks on the board.

It's an interesting idea. I also like the idea of having limited Cursing Conscripts that trash themselves so that they can't empty the Curse pile on their own.

[LastFootnote]

So, here's a sample idea. Let me know what you all think:

Barracks
Types: Action – Campaign
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

The "Campaign" type simply means that each player starts with a Domain instead of one of his Coppers.

[silverspawn]

Because a lot of people think it's too much better than Lab. That's not such a big deal that I'm going to cut it before finding a replacement, though. It may not get cut at all.

that's strange, I've never played it, but it looks a lot weaker than lab to me

    Barracks
    Types: Action – Campaign
    Cost: $5
    +1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

    Conscripts
    Types: Action – Attack
    Cost: $0*
    +1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.

[LastFootnote]

Because a lot of people think it's too much better than Lab. That's not such a big deal that I'm going to cut it before finding a replacement, though. It may not get cut at all.

that's strange, I've never played it, but it looks a lot weaker than lab to me

Well, unless all three cards you reveal are of one type, you draw at least 2 cards. And you get more choice over what those cards are than you would with Lab. Sometimes you do reveal all three cards of the same type and/or you're force to discard a good card, so it's not strictly better. But it's probably usually better. Like Hunting Party.

    Barracks
    Types: Action – Campaign
    Cost: $5
    +1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

    Conscripts
    Types: Action – Attack
    Cost: $0*
    +1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.

I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.

It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.

[silverspawn]

Well, unless all three cards you reveal are of one type, you draw at least 2 cards. And you get more choice over what those cards are than you would with Lab. Sometimes you do reveal all three cards of the same type and/or you're force to discard a good card, so it's not strictly better. But it's probably usually better. Like Hunting Party.

I just thought that you will reveal 3 cards of the same type quite frequently. BM will often have 3 treasures, engines will often have 3 action cards. But that's not important, you know more about how it actually plays out, so I'm probably just flat out wrong.

I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.

It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.

well, sure, you will block one eventually, but I can still see games being decided by who has a domain in his hand the first two times. There are official cards which are like that too, but I just don't think we need another one. I mean, for swinder and mountebank I can overlook it, because the simplest version of the card just works like that. But conscripts - why should they care about a Domain? It just seems like adding a luck factor for the sake of adding a luck factor, and I don't like that. Moat is luck dependend, but it's also skill dependend, you need to know how many to buy. This "cares about domain" mechanic doesn't involve any skill.

If you just want to make a weaker variant of "each player gets a curse", then I'm sure there is a better way. how about "each other player may discard a silver or two coppers. if he doesn't, he gains a curse". That's similar to Torturer though.

note that I haven't actually played with the old conscripts, so my opinion may be based on wrong assumptions, maybe they kick in later than I think, or you play them more frequently than I think. And it's a personal thing, I tend to dislike luck factors that serve no purpose, but I'm sure a lot of others won't mind it.

[LastFootnote]

I just thought that you will reveal 3 cards of the same type quite frequently. BM will often have 3 treasures, engines will often have 3 action cards. But that's not important, you know more about how it actually plays out, so I'm probably just flat out wrong.

One thing you may be missing is that because Convocation is itself an Action, you can load up on them. So that reduces the chance that you draw three Treasures.

well, sure, you will block one eventually, but I can still see games being decided by who has a domain in his hand the first two times. There are official cards which are like that too, but I just don't think we need another one. I mean, for swinder and mountebank I can overlook it, because the simplest version of the card just works like that. But conscripts - why should they care about a Domain? It just seems like adding a luck factor for the sake of adding a luck factor, and I don't like that. Moat is luck dependend, but it's also skill dependend, you need to know how many to buy. This "cares about domain" mechanic doesn't involve any skill.

If you just want to make a weaker variant of "each player gets a curse", then I'm sure there is a better way. how about "each other player may discard a silver or two coppers. if he doesn't, he gains a curse". That's similar to Torturer though.

The idea is definitely to make a less-reliable version of "Each other player gains a Curse." Partly this is because Barracks gains 2 Conscripts at once. Without some mitigating factor, I think this makes it more likely that the Curses won't be split evenly.

I created the current version (discard down to 3, if you can't gain a Curse) because it did two cool things. First, it solved the above split issue. Second, it made you want to use Barracks's digging ability to get multiple Conscripts into your hand in a turn. But unfortunately, the version that both discards and junks is just way too brutal. I could have changed it to discarding down to 4 cards in hand, but that makes Dignitary an anti-counter for it. Not great.

The Domain version is meant to fix the brutal nature of the previous version while still somewhat mitigating how fast the Curses fly, etc. I'm definitely not adding it just for the sake of adding randomness. I don't really think it's going to make the card much more random at all, honestly. Before, if you got lucky and got two Conscripts in the same hand, you got to give each other player a Curse. In some ways, that was more random.

I'm not a fan of being able to block by discarding Coppers and Silvers. As you say, that's a lot like Torturer. In addition to the fact that I obviously want my cards to be fairly distinct from official cards, Torturer is a particularly bad card to emulate, causing many novice players no end of grief. Being able to block by discarding an Estate (or any Victory card) might work, but probably it's too much of a disincentive to wanting Conscripts at all. I'm open to other ideas, but I can't think of any right now.

I don't deny that Domain blocking is a particularly visible bit of luck, but that's definitely not the point of doing it. And again, the fact that you're effectively getting Cutpursed even when you do block means you're not getting off scot-free.

note that I haven't actually played with the old conscripts, so my opinion may be based on wrong assumptions, maybe they kick in later than I think, or you play them more frequently than I think. And it's a personal thing, I tend to dislike luck factors that serve no purpose, but I'm sure a lot of others won't mind it.

Kicking in late and then being played frequently is pretty much the very essence of Conscripts, at least as obtained via Barracks. It's sort of like Familiar (but quite a bit different in practice).

[silverspawn]

The Domain version is meant to fix the brutal nature of the previous version while still somewhat mitigating how fast the Curses fly, etc. I'm definitely not adding it just for the sake of adding randomness. I don't really think it's going to make the card much more random at all, honestly. Before, if you got lucky and got two Conscripts in the same hand, you got to give each other player a Curse. In some ways, that was more random.

well, in the end you'll have to playtest it. I'm not that convinced anymore that it's a bad idea, though I still kind of dislike the idea that you just get a protection card assigned

how about this version?

+1 Action
Choose one: +2$, and each other player discard down to 3 cards; or each other player with 3 cards in his hand gains a curse

or would that just make it less fun because you'll choose cursing anyway?

[LastFootnote]

how about this version?

+1 Action
Choose one: +2$, and each other player discard down to 3 cards; or each other player with 3 cards in his hand gains a curse

or would that just make it less fun because you'll choose cursing anyway?

It weakens the card, but doesn't lessen the harshness of the attack, which is the problem. Always having a discard and a cursing attack whenever Conscripts were available was the issue.

Another problem with having Conscripts be a discard attack is that it was a nombo with Axeman, which is extra bad when you consider Barracks's digging ability. If Conscripts doesn't always make opponents discard, it means you can meaningfully play your Axeman after your Conscripts.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Thank you, LastFootnote, for not overlooking my post in the end^^

Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.

So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".

I'm glad you see that Conscripts need to be nerfed. I playtested Recruiter and Conscripts with four players a while ago in a random kingdom with no trashing around, but Swindler and some other attack in addition, which made the game as tedious as it can get. I found that I really like the idea of a reaction that gains you an attack card directly into your hand. I'd appreciate if Recruiter was going to keep sticking around. The attack card gained being Conscripts in its form as it was at the time was the main problem here.

I was thinking of creating another card or two that used Domains. That way I can have a new type like Looter and can cut the setup text out of Barrister. Also, if you're playing multiple games with Enterprise cards, it's more likely that you won't have to switch up the starting decks between games. I was trying to come up with some sort of trash-for-benefit card in the Mine/Taxman vein. Or maybe they could act as a moat against Conscripts! That would be a nerf. Hmm…

Yeah, please integrate Domains into other card texts But them moating Conscripts doesn't seem right to me, I agree with silverspawn there. It would create a little too much interlocking between the cards within this set while adding nothing but unnecessary complexity to a random kingdom.

Also, if you want to integrate Domains as they are into other cards ("campaign" cards), they should obviously do one (or both) of two things: Either do something with Domains for benefit (ideally, trash them), or gain Domains from somewhere (ideally, the trash). Because Domain alone isn't really a good card, it's like a small Harem. There has to be some way to get more of them, but they aren't in the supply, so you have to get them from the trash. Why would they be in the trash? Either because a player was attacked and thereby forced to put them there (Barrister), or because a player decided to trash a Domain for a big bonus earlier (it would need to be big, for the lack of Domains overall). Conscripts doesn't have anything to do with that, so it should not care about Domains.

On another note, I playtested Lodge a few weeks ago in 2 or 3 games. Those were games with no other trade token cards in the kingdom. I found that spending the trade token would rarely benefit the current hand enough to make you really wanna do it. Because then it's gone, but you might encounter more hands with several VP cards in them in the late endgame. But getting a new trade token is so expensive with no other TT-gainer around! You profit the most from it in the endgame, and then you don't want to buy additional Lodges for TTs but Duchies.
None of those games had really strong engines available, I think. Otherwise, it might have been different. Nevertheless, I would recommend giving Lodge another way of gaining a TT, maybe this phrase I saw attached to several card suggestions here: "While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, take a Trade token." This would make Lodge an interesting BM enabler and also relieve the transition from engine to greening. It might be too strong, though.

[KingZog3]

Personally I like Domains just being on one card. It makes them more unique, and that card more unique. Considering Barrister (that is the card that uses Domains right?) is already probably not super strong, the fact that you start with a $3 card already changes a lot with TfB cards. This alone makes that card interesting.

I guess they would be like ruins if they only had 3 cards using them. But despite being interesting sometimes, they don't seem to be game changing, more game enhancing (like the Baker Coin. It wouldn't be so cool if half the Guilds cards had that set-up rule). My 2 cents is to keep Domain on just one card, then it becomes more like Baker and less like Ruins. Not that Ruins are bad, but they are a more impactful (not a word) concept that a small set-up change like Domains.

[pacovf]

Have you tried using some variation of "If this is the first action/attack card you have played this turn, ..., otherwise, ... " for conscript? This could be a way to limit how many curses it can deal (make it non-repeatable)

You could also try some variation of "Conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play"*, or some other limiting condition, to force you to build a deck around it for it to be successful.

Basically, go the conspirator way.

*This example is probably a bad idea, but it does make the curse-giving much harder to achieve.

[scott_pilgrim]

I'm not sure if this really solves anything, but an idea I just thought of for Conscripts: "+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 4 or more cards in his hand discards a card.  Each other player who didn't discard anything gains a Curse."  So basically a slower version of the original, it takes three plays of Conscripts to deal out Curses.  Maybe that's too much and I'm also not sure I like that the first play is only an Urchin attack, so it basically needs to line up with another Conscripts (or other discard attack) to be good, but maybe that's the nerf it needs.  Just a thought.

[navical]

My random thought idea for Conscripts:

"+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 5 or more cards in his hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose, then draws a card."

- the idea being, replace a good card with a random one.

It stacks, which I think is important for a non-terminal attack, yet even if you play lots there's still the chance that the top card gives your opponent something to do. The turn-killing potential might still be too high, though.

[also, there's a minor theme-related point that in general cursers have witch-names whereas discard attacks have soldier-names]

[silverspawn]

My random thought idea for Conscripts:

"+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 5 or more cards in his hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose, then draws a card."

- the idea being, replace a good card with a random one.

It stacks, which I think is important for a non-terminal attack, yet even if you play lots there's still the chance that the top card gives your opponent something to do. The turn-killing potential might still be too high, though.

[also, there's a minor theme-related point that in general cursers have witch-names whereas discard attacks have soldier-names]

you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn, even in a solid engine (just nuke the villages). it's also really swingy, because the power heavily depends on the density of your opponents deck

[Awaclus]

you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn,

Hell, playing it once will sometimes be enough to kill a turn. Not all the time, but probably at least once per game.

[KingZog3]

you're underestimating the power of discarding a specirfic card. playing it twice will often be enough to kill a turn,

Hell, playing it once will sometimes be enough to kill a turn. Not all the time, but probably at least once per game.

It's only slightly worse than Pillage, which is a harsh attack that doesn't benefit you on the turn it's played. Also I think it's too similar of an effect. I don't think Conscripts need to be crazy powerful. A nonterminal attack that gives $$ is already very good, so even if it's just a discard attack it's plenty good and interesting. The focus should be on how you gain them, not how strange an attack Conscripts is.

[LastFootnote]

There are a lot of strong opinions about Conscripts, which is cool.

I actually like the idea of starting the game with a card that protects from certain attacks. That's what I (and I think others) originally thought Shelters were going to do before the of Dark Ages previews. Less "rain shelter" and more "bomb shelter". Having that card be Domain is just a convenience. Anyway, it's possible that some of these other solutions could work.

Personally I like Domains just being on one card. It makes them more unique, and that card more unique. Considering Barrister (that is the card that uses Domains right?) is already probably not super strong, the fact that you start with a $3 card already changes a lot with TfB cards. This alone makes that card interesting.

I guess they would be like ruins if they only had 3 cards using them. But despite being interesting sometimes, they don't seem to be game changing, more game enhancing (like the Baker Coin. It wouldn't be so cool if half the Guilds cards had that set-up rule). My 2 cents is to keep Domain on just one card, then it becomes more like Baker and less like Ruins. Not that Ruins are bad, but they are a more impactful (not a word) concept that a small set-up change like Domains.

I appreciate all that. I don't have a really strong opinion about how many cards in the set use Domains. I agree that it's more special when it's just one card, but if, say, three cards use them (Barrister, Recruiter, Barracks), it actually simplifies setup for the kinds of games I play. What I mean is that if I'm playing with Enterprise (and maybe another set), it's convenient if there's almost always a card that uses Domains because I don't have to keep changing the starting decks between every game.

In fact, I am seriously considering just using the rule, "Whenever you play with any cards from Enterprise, replace one starting Copper in each player's deck with a Domain."

Have you tried using some variation of "If this is the first action/attack card you have played this turn, ..., otherwise, ... " for conscript? This could be a way to limit how many curses it can deal (make it non-repeatable)

You could also try some variation of "Conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play"*, or some other limiting condition, to force you to build a deck around it for it to be successful.

Basically, go the conspirator way.

*This example is probably a bad idea, but it does make the curse-giving much harder to achieve.

I have briefly considered something like this. Originally, I was thinking about Conscripts doing something if it was in play when you played another Attack card. But oops, Conscripts doesn't stay in play (barring General). Maybe I can put something like that on other Attack card later. Your Conspirator version works, although it's a bit harder to track because, again, Conscripts don't stay in play. But it could work!

But I definitely want Conscripts to do some sort of Attack the first time it gets played, because always having to line up two is just too much to ask. The set has enough trashing, and a spy attack would take too many words. It could either give a Copper or discard down to 4. I'll keep this in mind.

I'm not sure if this really solves anything, but an idea I just thought of for Conscripts: "+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 4 or more cards in his hand discards a card.  Each other player who didn't discard anything gains a Curse."  So basically a slower version of the original, it takes three plays of Conscripts to deal out Curses.  Maybe that's too much and I'm also not sure I like that the first play is only an Urchin attack, so it basically needs to line up with another Conscripts (or other discard attack) to be good, but maybe that's the nerf it needs.  Just a thought.

Thanks for the though, but again, the real problem is not how strong or weak Conscripts is, but the potential harshness of its Attack. Having to deal with Curses when you have a 3-card hand is fine for a few games here and there, but not for every game with Conscripts. Also, if I can do a version that doesn't discard at all, Conscripts will no longer clash with Axeman, which would be a big win in my book.

My random thought idea for Conscripts:

"+1 action, +$2; Each other player with 5 or more cards in his hand reveals his hand and discards a card that you choose, then draws a card."

- the idea being, replace a good card with a random one.

It stacks, which I think is important for a non-terminal attack, yet even if you play lots there's still the chance that the top card gives your opponent something to do. The turn-killing potential might still be too high, though.

[also, there's a minor theme-related point that in general cursers have witch-names whereas discard attacks have soldier-names]

Nice thought, but I agree with the other posters. The attack is just too harsh. As far as the theme goes, I agree that Conscripts makes you think "discard" more than "Curse-giving", but I'm not sure I really want to retheme Barrack/Conscripts and I think Curse-giving is probably the best fit for a delayed, one-shot Attack.

Co0kieL0rd, thanks for your feedback on Conscripts, Domains, and Lodge. I really need to take Lodge off the OP, since I have yet to test it and I think I can probably do better. I might try the "When you buy a Victory card, gain a Trade token" on a Lodge-type card if the new version of Cathedral doesn't pan out. I'm having trouble coming up with a good Domain-centric trash-for-benefit card that doesn't seem too redundant with Redistrict and Exchange, both of which I really like as they are.

Anyhow, I'm going to test the cares-about-Domains version of Conscripts, but I'll keep an open mind when it comes to other ways to fix it up.

I got three playtesting games in the other day which included another veteran player and a couple of fairly new players. The cards tested over the three games were: Clerk, Jubilee, Redistrict, Guide, Refurbish, Committee, Craftsman, Floodgate, Vendor, Convocation, Fund, General, and Wheelwright. The big hit among the new players was Wheelwright, which was kind of nice since it doesn't get much love here on f.DS. It's good to have some cards that appeal to new players and some that appeal to advanced players.

I believe the other veteran player bought Floodgate at least once, so that was cool. He also went pretty nuts with the new version of Craftsman (now in the OP) in both games we played with it. It's still a pretty versatile card, especially with another Trade token card available.

In stark contrast to my last few tests of Convocation, it didn't perform very well power-wise that night. There were a lot of 3-Treasure pulls. That makes me feel better about keeping it as-is. I think Refurbish might be too weak. I'm really warming up to Redistrict; I think it's probably here to stay. Once again, Jubilee seems fine even when it's the only Trade token card. Guide and Vendor were fine. Clerk didn't see much play. Committee and General are maybe too complex for new players. But I can't make Committee any simpler. General could be fine without the "saves cards from being trashed" part in another set, but if I do make another set, it'll probably be centered around Activation cards, and it already has Balcony as a $5 Throne variant.

[pacovf]

Have you tried using some variation of "If this is the first action/attack card you have played this turn, ..., otherwise, ... " for conscript? This could be a way to limit how many curses it can deal (make it non-repeatable)

You could also try some variation of "Conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play"*, or some other limiting condition, to force you to build a deck around it for it to be successful.

Basically, go the conspirator way.

*This example is probably a bad idea, but it does make the curse-giving much harder to achieve.

I have briefly considered something like this. Originally, I was thinking about Conscripts doing something if it was in play when you played another Attack card. But oops, Conscripts doesn't stay in play (barring General). Maybe I can put something like that on other Attack card later. Your Conspirator version works, although it's a bit harder to track because, again, Conscripts don't stay in play. But it could work!

But I definitely want Conscripts to do some sort of Attack the first time it gets played, because always having to line up two is just too much to ask. The set has enough trashing, and a spy attack would take too many words. It could either give a Copper or discard down to 4. I'll keep this in mind.

I believe that tracking shouldn't be an issue. "If this is the first action you have played this turn, ..., otherwise..." is obvious, even if conscript leaves play. There's no way you are forgetting that you have played something just before it. But I agree that the "If this is the first attack you have played this turn, ..., otherwise..." is a bit harder to track. If you are playing some sort of engine, you might forget you've cursed the other players already (maybe the curses ran out, so they don't have curses on top of their discard pile to remind them of your attack). That could be solved by simply changing the card to say: "during your cleanup phase, return conscripts to the conscripts pile"

The version "conscripts cannot be played if there isn't any action card in play" has no tracking problem; might argue that this is not the way to solve the problem though (cheap cantrips/villages, or barracks, make conscripts just as bad again).

I am not sure if this might help the card, and definitely try the domain version first. Just trying to explain my idea a bit better.

[silverspawn]

small question: is there a reason why convocation says "Action," "Treasure," but "Vicotry card"?

[silverspawn]

Can you tell me a few details about how exactly you go about getting your ideas on cards? I only picked up on that recently. I've made a few cards with these templates, but their size is 326*500, which isn't identical to the size of physical cards, and resizing means a loss in quality.

I've created a template in original size (200*307) and did two versions of the same card as an experiment, one by using the 200*307 template, and the other one with the original template and a resize afterwards

card via 200*307 template


card via resize:


they aren't quite identical, I've worded the one a little bit differently, but my point is mostly the font. it's different, but I'm not even sure I like the first one more. It seems closer to actual cards though, and I imagine it'll be easier to read if you have to use even smaller font for more complex cards.

So my question is: what is the best way to do this? None of the images in your OP are in original size. Do you just resize them before printing, or do you have the original versions in phsyical size and just use larger versions for the thread because it looks better? Also, which templates do you use?

And, how do you do the card values on the bottom left corner? I've been using the suggested font from the tutoral, but it doesn't look right.

It also doesn't seem like an elegant way to even use image editing software. everything except the textbox should be doable with a simple program.

[Awaclus]

I recommend making a Magic Set Editor template if you're planning to make lots of cards. It requires some effort, but isn't that difficult and once it's done, MSE is pretty much the perfect tool for creating cards.

[Moneymodel]

Can you tell me a few details about how exactly you go about getting your ideas on cards? I only picked up on that recently. I've made a few cards with these templates, but their size is 326*500, which isn't identical to the size of physical cards, and resizing means a loss in quality.

I've created a template in original size (200*307) and did two versions of the same card as an experiment, one by using the 200*307 template, and the other one with the original template and a resize afterwards

they aren't quite identical, I've worded the one a little bit differently, but my point is mostly the font. it's different, but I'm not even sure I like the first one more. It seems closer to actual cards though, and I imagine it'll be easier to read if you have to use even smaller font for more complex cards.

So my question is: what is the best way to do this? None of the images in your OP are in original size. Do you just resize them before printing, or do you have the original versions in phsyical size and just use larger versions for the thread because it looks better? Also, which templates do you use?

And, how do you do the card values on the bottom left corner? I've been using the suggested font from the tutoral, but it doesn't look right.

It also doesn't seem like an elegant way to even use image editing software. everything except the textbox should be doable with a simple program.

Now I'm really curious what Prayer cards do.

[silverspawn]

Now I'm really curious what Prayer cards do.

actually, the reason i picked holy ground for a sample here was specifically because i didn't want to promote any of my cards; it's impossible to judge it if you don't know the card it refers to

but since you ask, it's +3 cards, +1 action, discard a card, return this to the supply. a lab+ oneshot

[Fragasnap]

I got to play some games using Enterprise cards.

Axeman and Refurbish were in a University game was alongside Pillage. Though Axeman was a fine card, it still felt very similar to Pillage since it forces players to lose a useful card. Refurbish on the other hand was a lot more fun than I expected. Its slow trashing was still fine since I managed +$1 or even +$2 with Silvers eventually as the game moved forward (though trashing Coppers). I imagine in most cases, faster trashing will be better, but Refurbish ultimately worked quite well and felt very different from faster trashers.

Guide in a game using Goons and Familiar. Frustrating game, but Guide was fun. I used it quite effectively. Since there was no trashing, the sifting it gives was incredibly useful, in addition to using its ability for multiple plays on two occasions.

One of my playing partners (probably the best person I tend to play with the game) doesn't care much for the set in general. He finds a lot of the cards are fiddly, weak, or too similar to existing cards. I generally disagree, but can see where he is coming from since a bunch of the cards don't push a singular mechanical flavor.

[LastFootnote]

I got to play some games using Enterprise cards.

Axeman and Refurbish were in a University game was alongside Pillage. Though Axeman was a fine card, it still felt very similar to Pillage since it forces players to lose a useful card. Refurbish on the other hand was a lot more fun than I expected. Its slow trashing was still fine since I managed +$1 or even +$2 with Silvers eventually as the game moved forward (though trashing Coppers). I imagine in most cases, faster trashing will be better, but Refurbish ultimately worked quite well and felt very different from faster trashers.

Guide in a game using Goons and Familiar. Frustrating game, but Guide was fun. I used it quite effectively. Since there was no trashing, the sifting it gives was incredibly useful, in addition to using its ability for multiple plays on two occasions.

One of my playing partners (probably the best person I tend to play with the game) doesn't care much for the set in general. He finds a lot of the cards are fiddly, weak, or too similar to existing cards. I generally disagree, but can see where he is coming from since a bunch of the cards don't push a singular mechanical flavor.

Thanks for the feedback! Did he say which cards he found fiddly or weak? I guess I don't feel that any are too similar to existing cards, but it would be good to hear about that, too.

I'm taking a break from working on the set now, but chances are I'll get back to it again someday, probably with a huge overhaul that'll add, remove, and tweak a bunch of cards.

[silverspawn]

i love how you just ignored my question entirely 

it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.

[LastFootnote]

i love how you just ignored my question entirely 

it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.

I'm sorry, dude! I let the thread slide for so long and then I forgot to go back just now and answer all the stuff. No slight intended! I'm glad that you and Showdown are making those cards. I'll try to find some time soon to critique the set, if you're interested.

[silverspawn]

well, you're arguably the second most experienced guy out there when it comes to creating cards, so naturally i'm very much interested in your critique. and don't worry about it, it worked out fine after all.

[Showdown35]

i love how you just ignored my question entirely 

it's fine though, showdown clearly knows what he's doing, and he doesn't seem to mind it either, so you don't have to bother now.

I'm sorry, dude! I let the thread slide for so long and then I forgot to go back just now and answer all the stuff. No slight intended! I'm glad that you and Showdown are making those cards. I'll try to find some time soon to critique the set, if you're interested.

Just so it's clear, I'm only creating the visuals for the cards and helping (and sometimes hindering) with wording. I'm glad silverspawn is giving me credit for that, but I don't want to take any creative credit for the card ideas themselves; it is entirely silverspawn's fan expansion. Regarding card design and function, I'm only doing as much as anyone else who comments in the threads.

[Nic]

Coincidently, I got a four-player game going last night, and I finally had an excuse to break out the Enterprise cards. I printed them out 4-5 months ago, but the only difference between them and the updated versions is that Jubilee still trashes itself. They didn't run out in this game, so no big deal.

Jubilee, Redistrict, Market Square, Gambler, Guide, Floodgate, Fund, Rogue, Bandit Camp, Nobles

I ended up tied for second, 31-30-30-29. No one bought Redistrict, I bought the only Gambler, and the winning player bought the only Fund. Guide was far and away the most popular card, and we all grabbed Jubilees for the extra trade tokens. The winning player saved up four tokens, played a Guide as his first action of the turn, and spent all his tokens to draw eight (effectively twelve) more cards. He then played and trashed his Fund to get himself up to $17, 2 buys. I don't think the card's too powerful for $3, but it was a lot of fun.

Two of us bought Floodgates for the sole purpose of slipping a dead Guide into our next hand. It seemed worthwhile, but it might get more play at $3; the effect isn't that much more powerful than Tunnel.

[LastFootnote]

I ended up tied for second, 31-30-30-29. No one bought Redistrict, I bought the only Gambler, and the winning player bought the only Fund. Guide was far and away the most popular card, and we all grabbed Jubilees for the extra trade tokens. The winning player saved up four tokens, played a Guide as his first action of the turn, and spent all his tokens to draw eight (effectively twelve) more cards. He then played and trashed his Fund to get himself up to $17, 2 buys. I don't think the card's too powerful for $3, but it was a lot of fun.

Two of us bought Floodgates for the sole purpose of slipping a dead Guide into our next hand. It seemed worthwhile, but it might get more play at $3; the effect isn't that much more powerful than Tunnel.

Nice! Thanks for testing them. With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I could definitely try Floodgate at $3. That significantly boosts its power, since you can usually save another $1 for next turn that way, but maybe it needs that boost! It probably does. Hmm…

[Nic]

With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.

[silverspawn]

With no other ways to trash Estates, I'm surprised nobody bought Redistrict. EDIT: Oh, I guess there's Gambler, but that's hit and miss and only you bought one.

I only bought one Gambler, and I only played it once before I pulled up a good card. Rogue sent it into someone else's deck, but it just trashed one more Copper before the game ended. No one trashed any Estates, but thanks to Guide, we really didn't need to. The filtering isn't bad on its own, even outside of how powerful it makes the token. It does make me a little leery about Tokens/Guide/BM, thanks to the ability to draw exactly what you need for your megaturn. How much have you playtested a Guide/Guide opening? I have a hunch that it won't be half bad.

i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.

that doesn't mean that another way cant be fun. just not as good.

[Nic]

i'm almost entirely sure that the correct way to play this board is to go heavy on trashing, probably a double gambler opening, and get a market square thing going before switching into jubilee o. bandit camp / guide o. nobles. rogue and fund should probably both be ignored.

Rogue was definitely a mistake, and since nobody was serious about trashing, I can't quantify how much it would've helped. But I do think Guide is better for draw than Nobles, and Fund should be bought whenever you hit $5 and you have enough Bandit Camps.

Update: I think I'm going to change Conscripts again. It's just too brutal. When I first made it, my thought process was that the discard attack would hurt less once everybody had a bunch of Curses in their decks. This is sort of true, but always having a 3-card hand makes it really tough to trash those Curses and still do anything else with your turn. It's just too sloggy for it to be in every game with Barracks, let alone every game with Barracks OR Recruiter.

So I'm thinking of returning to a version that just straight-up hands out Curses. Perhaps I'll reverse the current card and make it do a milder attack once the Curses are gone. Maybe discard down to 4, maybe something else. I'm also considering returning from "+1 Action" to "you may play an Attack card from your hand".

Yeah, this needs to be toned down. I really want to playtest Barracks and Recruiter, but I know I won't be able to convince other people to play with Conscripts as it is. I think mechanically, the safest thing to do would be to reverse the cursing and the discard.

If you want to preserve the theme, my vote would be for discard down to 4, then to 3, then start cursing. "Every player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card" is pretty concise, and it has a very fun combo with Wheelwright. (On the flip side, it would anti-synergize with Dignitary, but that's not the end of the world.) At that point you could playtest versions with +1 Action" and "you may play another Attack", to see which one has the appropriate power level.

[Nic]

    Barracks
    Types: Action – Campaign
    Cost: $5
    +1 Action. Choose one: gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack card, put that Attack card into your hand, and discard the rest.

    Conscripts
    Types: Action – Attack
    Cost: $0*
    +1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player may discard a Domain. If he doesn't, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

this adds a big luck factor into the game, and unlike moat or bane cards, you can't even manipulate it by buying several of them. you just have one domain and if you happen to draw it, you have a big lead. i don't like that at all.

I could be wrong, but I think you're really overrating the luck factor. Enough Conscripts fly around that you're likely to block a few Curses over the course of the game. Unlike a Moat or Bane, you can only block one per Domain per turn AND you lose $1 from your hand whenever you block a Curse. So it's actually less swingy than Moat in those two ways.

It's true that you can't buy more of them, but you can still often make your one Domain come up more often by trimming your deck.

FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.

It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)

You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.

(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)

Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

[LastFootnote]

FWIW, I really don't like the idea of having Domains defend against Conscripts, or making Domain into a shelter-type card.

It's hard enough to get casual players to play with a lot of Dark Ages and Hinterlands cards, and those are from official expansions. I think this is professional quality, but it's an uphill battle to convince someone else with "No, these were made up by some guy from the internet". (The reason it took me four months to get a game going, rather than a week, is that I showed people the printout of all the Enterprise cards before deciding which ones to use. What they saw was the text for Axeman, Barrister, and Committee and the references to "Trade Tokens", "Conscripts" and "Domains", and everyone decided that a seventh hour of Cards Against Humanity would be more fun.)

You're introducing three new pieces of intra-Kingdom card machinery, which compares favorably with Dark Ages (Ruins/Looters, Spoils, Shelters, upgradeable cards). For comparison, if you were introducing that expansion to someone who was familiar with the base game, it would be really stupid to set up their first game with Urchin|Hermit|Marauder|Death Cart|Rats|Procession|Graverobber|Rogue|Knights|Band of Misfits. Similarly, it would be nice to be able to introduce Barracks or Recruiter without messing with setup -- especially when the card you're adding has so much irrelevant info on it. The text on Domain is silly without Barrister, and would only exist to confuse new player in the majority of games.

(I guess you could argue that Shelters show up in games with no trashing, but that only affects one of them, and the other two function normally. I don't know the exact percentage of full-random games that have trashing, but I'm gonna guess it's far higher than the ones with a way to pull specific cards out of players' decks.)

Of course, that's just one guy's opinion. If you like Barrister/Domain then keep it, and if you want give it an 'Action-Campaign' subtype, there's definitely room to design a second card which also makes use of Domain. There are a lot of fun things you could build around the phrase "Each player passes a Domain from his hand to you", and I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

Thanks for the feedback, Nic. I'm going to take your (and others') advice and keep Domains only when Barrister is out. I really like the concept of Barrister/Domain in general, so I'm not ready to cut it entirely.

I haven't been able to get in much Enterprise playtesting lately, but here's what I'm thinking for card changes. I am aiming for simplicity.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.

Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.

Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

I sympathize with Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Investment is definitely dead. I need to remove that from the OP. Lodge is dead for now, as I've said before.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

I need to start testing a bunch of ideas and then cull down to the good ones. I'll go through my list of ideas, but for sure I am testing Conquest:

Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. If you did, each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals one costing from $3 to $6, trashes that card, and discards the rest. Gain one of those trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.

I guess I could just cut cards until I'm back down to 12 or 13.

Anyway, if you have any opinions about these proposed changes, please let me know!

EDIT: I'm going to add a "you may" to General. You may put the card back on the deck when you discard it. It's too easy to forget to do.

[silverspawn]

you kind of sold me on your the idea of domain as a defense. I don't dislike it as much anymore.

What was wrong with wheelwright and lodge? I'd be very interested in stories of cards that failed. also, what about convocation? I recall you talking about cutting it before. it may sound pretentious, but at some point I thought about everything that I could do with "reveal X cards {condition} put some of them in your hand." I really think that if you hadn't already made it, I would've done something almost identical, it's just the simplest way to do it with card types.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.

[LastFootnote]

well, you partly sold me on your the idea of domain as a defense, I don't dislike it as much anymore.

What was wrong with wheelwright and lodge? I'd be very interested in stories of cards that failed. also, what about convocation? I recall you talking about cutting it before. it may sound pretentious, but at some point I thought about everything that I could do with "reveal X cards {condition} put some of them in your hand." I really think that if you hadn't already made it, I would've done something almost identical, it's just the simplest way to do it with card types.

I'm considering removing the 3-Copper lower limit on Mill Town. Just, "You may reveal your hand. If you do…" Again, simplicity. Also, I may rename it Factory.

I never got why the limit was there anyway. But why rename it? Mill Town sounds cool.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

that's one of the cards I played a bunch of games with. I thought it worked well as it is though. I think it's safe to say that neither version will break the game, so the question is just what's more fun, and you probably have to test it to answer that. Another possible change/buff would be to discard any number of cards -> draw up to 5 instead of discard all->draw 5, but that's a little bit more complex, so probably not what you're looking for.

Lodge got guff (in this thread) for being too close to Vault. Wheelwright is well-liked and I'm not sure I'll cut it. I'm not planning on removing it from the OP yet, let's put it that way. I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

If I do cut Wheelwright, I can make your proposed change to Terrace without feeling like I have too much cellar in the set. But in addition to being more complex, I wonder if that makes it harder to decide when to use it. Maybe not.

You're right about Mill Town's name; I'll keep it for now. The reason for the 3-Copper threshold is because I didn't want piles of spammable $2 cards to just vanish. But it's worth testing without that limit. We'll see if Clerk/Mill Town is too crazy that way.

[silverspawn]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

[LastFootnote]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

Well, Cornucopia has enough non-terminal draw with Hunting Party and Menagerie. Plus, although Convocation encourages moderation with Actions, Treasures, and Victory cards, it doesn't reward variety the way cards that care about card names do.

[silverspawn]

I was worried about Convocation for a while because there were some games where it seemed way too strong. Lately it's been fine, though. It's wordier than I'd like, but I'm currently planning on keeping it.

i would definitely keep it. it's simple, it's elegant, it's unique and it rewards variance, which is always a good thing.

it's actually one of the few cards where I wonder why Donald hasn't made it already. It would fit perfectly in Cornucopia.

Well, Cornucopia has enough non-terminal draw with Hunting Party and Menagerie. Plus, although Convocation encourages moderation with Actions, Treasures, and Victory cards, it doesn't reward variety the way cards that care about card names do.

It's true that it's a different kind of variance. but hunting party doesn't reward variance at all, it actually punishes variance, because you want your hunting parties to dig for other hunting parties. it makes me not buy cards like pearl driver that I would have bought otherwise, which is exactly the opposite of what menagerie does, and what Harvest would do too if it wasn't terribly weak. And you could always move cards to other expansions.

I guess my point is just that it seems like something you would think off to me, almost like wishing well, it had to be made sooner or later. that's quite different with, f.e. Refurbish, even though it's also really simple. there's even a philosophical aspect to this: do you "create" a new idea when designing a card, or do you just "discover" an idea that's worth doing. I think you once said "there are simple cards left to make"

Also, I wouldn't really be afraid to keep some cards that are off theme. In Cornucopia, less then half of the cards actually care about variance, even if you count hunting party.

[Fragasnap]

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

A single hit with this does make a 6VP swing against a player which is big, but not insurmountable since it is stealing a junk card. In a 3-player game, if one person steals a Domain, another basically has to contest the Barristers because one player getting all three gives them 18VP. I think it will be worthwhile now, but I don't know if it will be fun.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I like Recruiter better with this new Conscripts since it is less analagous to Militia. Making Conscripts a curser will probably make Recruiter impossible to ignore though, for better or worse.

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

Also, I sorely need more terminal $5 cards. I may be replacing Wheelwright, and then Axeman will be all I have left.

I'd rather see Axeman get the axe than Wheelwright since Axeman feels similar to Pillage already, especially if you're going to give Conquest a shot seeing as it fits in with the one-shot themes.

[Nic]

I think I'm going to test Axeman without the below-line portion. I was afraid that it would make the game suck when your opponent opened with it, but it's worth testing that way. I think the card will look less intimidating without those extra lines of text.

I sympathize with Committee scaring off more casual players with its complex wall of text. Except for possibly General, it's the most complex card in the set. But Committee is popular and I can't really make it any simpler.

Sorry, I guess I could've been more clear about the point I was trying to make. Trade Tokens are a simple concept: some cards give you them, some cards come with one. When a card gives you the opportunity to spend one, you can choose to do so for the bonus. Domain is also simple: the guy setting up the game already put it into your deck, and it's just a copper until you buy a Remodel or someone else plays a Barrister. Conscripts less so, but anyone who's played Dark Ages will understand it instantly. My point was that they seem a lot more complicated when the majority of your bandwidth is taken up by the wordiest cards. I didn't mean to suggest you should toss really good cards just because they're wordy.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain a Domain from the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each players starting Coppers with a Domain.

Domain
Types: Treasure – Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 2 VP for every Domain in your deck.

So Domains are worth twice as much VP, making you really care them even in 2-player games. Barrister's only function (other than giving +$2) is to steal Domains. It can only gain one Domain at a time from the trash.

OTOH, this I like a whole lot more. I actually had no intention of ever playing with the old Barrister, just because I have my starting decks separated from the Estates and Coppers, and I didn't feel like messing with that setup for a card that didn't really interest me. (Also, I've sleeved over Rebuild, Embargo, a couple of the harsher attacks, and all my blanks to get about half of Enterprise, and fourteen more cards is a lot to ask.) But with the mini-Rabble cut out, the concept works a lot better.

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I think I've tried this before, but I'm going to try it again. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply, Barracks will eventually lose utility, but whatever. That happens with all Curse-givers. I'm considering toning down Recruiter's Action portion, but I don't think I can really change the Reaction bit without killing the card entirely.

Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$2. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

Considering how long it takes players to get used to Spoils, it might be wise to keep this guy as simple as possible. I would be okay with this version of Conscripts, but I liked the idea of making them weak on their own but more powerful in multiples. Discard a card to a minimum of four seems about the right power level, and it would give you a decision to make when only one comes up in your hand. Do I want to play it now for +$ and an attack that might not hurt that much, or do I save it and hope I can play both Conscripts on a future turn? With straight curse-giving, I feel like you'll automatically play them as soon as they come into your hand, whether or not you need the $2 -- Spoils requires more strategic thinking than that. (Also, General + 1 Conscripts would give out 1 Curse this way rather than 3 in two turns. I don't know if you see that as a good or a bad thing.)
The change to Recruiter seems fine, but it might not be necessary if you nerf Conscripts more.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Like, Ruined Village, decide whether to mulligan, then rest of village? Not a fan. Besides making the decision too easy, you could really confuse people by putting unconditional effects after conditional ones.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

Farmland and Noble Brigand don't match up with the other Hinterlands cards. Anyway, it wasn't Exchange/Fortress you were trying to fix, it was Exchange -> Exchange to hand -> repeat. I was about to say you shouldn't kneecap the card while also prohibiting novel cost reduction OR would-trash effects  . . . then I noticed 'Exchange/any $3 card' was a thing, and there are already a few official silver flooders. It's a very good card as it is, and the token needs to be on-Buy.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry, I guess I could've been more clear about the point I was trying to make. Trade Tokens are a simple concept: some cards give you them, some cards come with one. When a card gives you the opportunity to spend one, you can choose to do so for the bonus. Domain is also simple: the guy setting up the game already put it into your deck, and it's just a copper until you buy a Remodel or someone else plays a Barrister. Conscripts less so, but anyone who's played Dark Ages will understand it instantly. My point was that they seem a lot more complicated when the majority of your bandwidth is taken up by the wordiest cards. I didn't mean to suggest you should toss really good cards just because they're wordy.

The Axeman change is worth testing regardless. That card is cramped as hell and I'm embarrassed that I even added the buy restriction without testing without it really thoroughly.

Considering how long it takes players to get used to Spoils, it might be wise to keep this guy as simple as possible. I would be okay with this version of Conscripts, but I liked the idea of making them weak on their own but more powerful in multiples. Discard a card to a minimum of four seems about the right power level, and it would give you a decision to make when only one comes up in your hand. Do I want to play it now for +$ and an attack that might not hurt that much, or do I save it and hope I can play both Conscripts on a future turn? With straight curse-giving, I feel like you'll automatically play them as soon as they come into your hand, whether or not you need the $2 -- Spoils requires more strategic thinking than that. (Also, General + 1 Conscripts would give out 1 Curse this way rather than 3 in two turns. I don't know if you see that as a good or a bad thing.)
The change to Recruiter seems fine, but it might not be necessary if you nerf Conscripts more.

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

I don't want or need Conscripts to have the "do I play this or wait" decision that Spoils has. We already have that experience with Spoils! I do want the Barracks decision to be meaningful, which is why Conscripts had that want-more-at-one-time mechanic in the first place. It incentivized you to pull Conscripts into your hand. But the Barracks decision is meaningful anyway with the "new" Conscripts both because Curses can run out and just because it might be worth pulling Conscripts faster to cycle your deck and hand out Curses faster. It's really just a question of if people actually use it. Time and testing will tell.

I'm thinking of buffing Terrace by putting the [+1 Card; +1 Action] after the mulligan bit. I'm a bit afraid that makes you want to always use it immediately. I'm not so sold on this change. Just considering it.

Like, Ruined Village, decide whether to mulligan, then rest of village? Not a fan. Besides making the decision too easy, you could really confuse people by putting unconditional effects after conditional ones.

Yes, I think I will leave Terrace as-is for now.

I may change Exchange to say "exactly $2 more" and then have you take a token when you gain it, rather than when you buy it. It's an alternate way to prevent Fortress shenanigans and makes it line up with the other Trade token cards.

Farmland and Noble Brigand don't match up with the other Hinterlands cards. Anyway, it wasn't Exchange/Fortress you were trying to fix, it was Exchange -> Exchange to hand -> repeat. I was about to say you shouldn't kneecap the card while also prohibiting novel cost reduction OR would-trash effects  . . . then I noticed 'Exchange/any $3 card' was a thing, and there are already a few official silver flooders. It's a very good card as it is, and the token needs to be on-Buy.

I tentatively disagree. Yes, you can conceivably chain Exchange gains to hand by trashing $3 cards. But unless those cards are somehow Fortress, your hand size gets smaller every time you do this. And the kicker is that Exchange isn't a card you want a million of, especially because if you chain-gain them like this, you're spending all your tokens, which are the most powerful part of the card. So I will probably try it this way and if it sucks, I can always go back to "up to" and token-on-buy. I will be sad to see the cost-reduction tricks go, but honestly I don't think I ever used it that way and by reducing the available options, I may also be reducing AP. Not that AP was a real problem with Exchange. Well, whatever. I'll try it the new way, but I'll be happy to go back to the old version if it doesn't work out.

[Nic]

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

I don't want or need Conscripts to have the "do I play this or wait" decision that Spoils has. We already have that experience with Spoils! I do want the Barracks decision to be meaningful, which is why Conscripts had that want-more-at-one-time mechanic in the first place. It incentivized you to pull Conscripts into your hand. But the Barracks decision is meaningful anyway with the "new" Conscripts both because Curses can run out and just because it might be worth pulling Conscripts faster to cycle your deck and hand out Curses faster. It's really just a question of if people actually use it. Time and testing will tell.

Both very good points. I was thinking about other effects with an explicit "If this is the first time you have played a Conscripts . . ." but nothing seemed worth the extra text. I'm on board.

Also, if you can make printable sheets that have the current Craftsman and updated Recruiter/Conscripts, I'd be a happy man and I'd playtest them and report as soon as possible. If I can't get something going at home, I'll take my cards to a game night somewhere downtown. Since I'd be paying by the page, you could fill up the rest of the page with prototypes you want feedback on.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Weak on their own and more powerful in multiples would definitely be nice. Really what's holding me back is Dignitary. If I change Conscripts to discard down to 4 cards, then Curse, it means that using Dignitary's reaction against it is shooting yourself in the foot. I could drop Dignitary, but I like it and it plays well.

You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."

I liked Barrister better with the mini-rabble part. The new Barrister does almost nothing if it doesn't hit a domain, then has a strong effect if it does. That seems too luck-dependant.
I would make it like the old Barrister except to have it gain one domain from the trash instead of all of them.

Conquest looks fun, and I like removing the limit on Mill Town.
I'm still kinda sad to see Investment go. Here's a version that removes the penalty for investing multiples copies of a card. Probably too wordy though...

-Investment
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.

Or maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.

[LastFootnote]

You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."

Neat idea. I'm really trying to avoid the Conscripts being too much like Torturer, but maybe this isn't that bad. Hmm…

I liked Barrister better with the mini-rabble part. The new Barrister does almost nothing if it doesn't hit a domain, then has a strong effect if it does. That seems too luck-dependant.
I would make it like the old Barrister except to have it gain one domain from the trash instead of all of them.

I understand and I was aware of the large increase in swinginess that this change created. I still want to test it because it eliminates a lot of words and maybe it's not as crazy as all that. Maybe there's a better way to do it.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Either gain a Treasure from the trash or gain a Silver.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

I submitted a Thief-variant version sort of like this to the Dark Ages contest and it was not well-received. On the other hand, that was back when the starting card was Claim rather than Domain (and Domain is way better). Blarg, I dunno. The set already has a $5 Attack card that gives +$2.

I'm still kinda sad to see Investment go. Here's a version that removes the penalty for investing multiples copies of a card. Probably too wordy though...

-Investment
Cost $5 - Action
+1$. You may choose an Action card from you hand. If you don't have a copy of that card set aside, set aside this and the chosen card (face up). Otherwise, set aside this with the previous set-aside copy. Return them to your deck at end of game. When you play an Action card, +$1 per Investment card set aside with a copy of that action.

Or maybe +1 Action instead of +$1 so you can play the action card you just invested easier if it's the second time.

I like your idea, but the problem was that losing even one copy of the card was too much of a penalty, especially in games with more players.

Investment had a cool concept. I'm dropping it for now, but I am confident that it'll make a comeback.

[Minotaur]

It's been a while since I've looked at this set.  I think I understand Dominion better than I used to, so maybe I can make more informed commentary.

Clerk - Probably ok overall, but potentially brokenly good with Coppersmith.  It also could do weird things to make Warehouse or Cellar engines possible, which wouldn't be too bad.

Jubilee - Seems ok at first glance.

Redistrict - Might be too strong early, but it misses your $4 card on the first shuffle, you could easily far way far behind a player who drew this with their $4 card, gaining a Gold and a top-tier Attack card on turn 3-4.  I'd watch out for this one. 

Barrister/Domain - Probably alright... I was skeptical, but I guess it's ok.  Could be super-swingy in a 4-player game, though. 1, 4, 9, or 16 VP left up to fate... yikes.  Have you tried: Domain, 1VP. $1 for each Domain in play, including this?

Gambler - Really does look nifty to me.  It might be worth $4, though.  It's hard to say, because handsize-neutral cantrip trashing is amazing, but one-shot Laboratories aren't as much.  Off the cuff, here's an idea: $4 cost.  +1 card, +1 action, reveal top card.  Trash it and gain a trade token if the trashed card cost $2 or more, OR draw the card and either trash this card or spend a trade token.

Guide - Another comment pointed out the madness of pairing this with Jubilee.  It's sort of a decent card on its own, but the valuation of trade tokens needs to be carefully monitored.

Mill Town - I'm sort of iffy about this one.  Might be ok though.  Too good with Clerk though?

Refurbish - Gut feeling is that this is way too strong for $3.  Sure, you don't start with 7 Silvers, but Silver doesn't need a terminal action just to be worth a Silver in the first place.  I would easily pay $4 for this card.  On a side note, now I'm trying to think of a variant called Gild.  It would probably only work on cards costing $3 or more, and it would probably need to have a +buy or something...  I'm not sure whether the +$1 per Gold should be a trade token or on-trash effect or whatever, and I'm not sure what Gild should cost.

Committee - Of course the ideal case is when you reveal Gold-Province or Province-Duchy late in the game; some combination of Copper/Curse/Estate is also great, and Curse-Province is only saved from being unreasonably good by the fact that trashing a Curse isn't that amazing.  I'm not sure if you should cap the cost of the card being voted on... Imagine KC-KC-Scavenger-Scavenger-Committee in a Colony game...  Ok, so it's not Bridge, but it's still sort of vile here.  I think capping the cost at $5 would keep this card honest, at least.  Even then, it has a chance of making Pearl Diver look good somehow.

Craftsman - Seems alright, but then you have to keep an eye on how much bang other cards give you per trade token.  Taken in isolation, this card seems fine, and other token generators don't seem like they'd bolster this one unnecessarily.

Dignitary - A weirdly non-restrictive $4 terminal action.  You don't see those every day.

Floodgate - Endless possibilities.  This is for Haven what Farmland is for Remodel.  (But Farmland combos with itself better... the only Floodgate self-synergy I know of would involve gaining another Floodgate through the magic of TFB.)

Recruiter - Probably too strong at $4.  Next turn you get a non-terminal Militia that hands out curses whenever it would whiff.  I guess having to use up two card draws to accomplish this is the trade-off.  I'm not sure if it's really necessary to topdeck the Conscripts or put them in your hand, though.  In the latter case, maybe you meant for the reaction to prevent the player from gaining Curses, in which case maybe keep it, but the topdecking seems to me to make this card too strong for $4.  Then again, it's a self-countering card that probably ends up playing out more like Margrave half the time... so much weirdness here.  I can easily see four-player games turning into a labyrinth of people Margraving their hands into Recruiter-Conscripts-Conscripts until the Conscripts pile is empty, and then suddenly everyone has nothing but Provinces and Curses.  Maybe I withhold final judgment for now.

Terrace - Probably wickedly good on a board with good trade token gain options.  Jubilee or Craftsman especially.  Taken in isolation, it's probably alright as a $4 card.

Vendor - Nice, simple, non-threatening cantrip filter that only works on treasures.  Could lead to engines with Clerk.  Maybe that's the point though.  Could also be a one-shot Laboratory.  I'm not even sure it needs the +buy, but it's thematic, and I wouldn't want this card to cost $3.  "Nice" $2 cards are too much fun.

Axeman - Looks good to me.  At least it's not Saboteur.

Barracks - Seems alright.

Convocation - This one's for the Cornucopia fans, huh?  X-D

Exchange - Might be ok.  Might want to carefully consider the synergy with Jubilee or Craftsman.  But then again, by the time you set all of that up, you don't really want your gained Provinces in your hand anyway, so it's probably fine.  I think.

Fund - It's hard to imagine how this one could go wrong.  $5 is probably the right number.

General - Seems kind of bold.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Lodge - This might be a decent late-game Smithy.  This is a real big money card.  You want to have golds to make use of the +buy, and you want to use the token later on when the Provinces and Duchies start to accumulate to avoid stalling too much before the finish line.

Investment - Ouch, this card looks brokenly good with cheap cantrips.  Clerk-Vendor with an Investment or three could clean out the Province pile in no time.

Wheelwright - Library variant is Library variant.

[LastFootnote]

@Minotaur,

Thanks for the reactions. Some of these cards are still in the OP, but have been removed from the set (Lodge and Investment).

Barrister/Domain - Probably alright... I was skeptical, but I guess it's ok.  Could be super-swingy in a 4-player game, though. 1, 4, 9, or 16 VP left up to fate... yikes.  Have you tried: Domain, 1VP. $1 for each Domain in play, including this?

I originally had another Treasure card instead of Domain where colliding them was beneficial. It just never happened. Stealing the card from others and then colliding them is too many hoops to jump through. So I tried a version where you could also search your discard pile for another copy. That was wordy and wonky and still sucked. That's why it's now a Victory card. You get the benefit just from having multiple in your deck, no collision necessary.

Gambler - Really does look nifty to me.  It might be worth $4, though.  It's hard to say, because handsize-neutral cantrip trashing is amazing, but one-shot Laboratories aren't as much.  Off the cuff, here's an idea: $4 cost.  +1 card, +1 action, reveal top card.  Trash it and gain a trade token if the trashed card cost $2 or more, OR draw the card and either trash this card or spend a trade token.

Thanks for the ideas, but Gambler has been consistently working great as-is for a long time now. People love how simple it is and I really don't want to complicate it.

Refurbish - Gut feeling is that this is way too strong for $3.  Sure, you don't start with 7 Silvers, but Silver doesn't need a terminal action just to be worth a Silver in the first place.  I would easily pay $4 for this card.  On a side note, now I'm trying to think of a variant called Gild.  It would probably only work on cards costing $3 or more, and it would probably need to have a +buy or something...  I'm not sure whether the +$1 per Gold should be a trade token or on-trash effect or whatever, and I'm not sure what Gild should cost.

So far Refurbish seems like a pretty weak $3 card. Maybe still doable, but not super-strong.

Committee - Of course the ideal case is when you reveal Gold-Province or Province-Duchy late in the game; some combination of Copper/Curse/Estate is also great, and Curse-Province is only saved from being unreasonably good by the fact that trashing a Curse isn't that amazing.  I'm not sure if you should cap the cost of the card being voted on... Imagine KC-KC-Scavenger-Scavenger-Committee in a Colony game...  Ok, so it's not Bridge, but it's still sort of vile here.  I think capping the cost at $5 would keep this card honest, at least.  Even then, it has a chance of making Pearl Diver look good somehow.

The card is complex enough without capping the cost, and the idea behind giving your opponent the choice is that you can never use it to gain Province (or Colony in a Colony game). It's on the stronger end of $4, but it's worked out fine so far. I think going through King's Court/Scavenger shenanigans to set up the top cards of your deck is probably not crazy. Seems like a cool combo.

Recruiter - Probably too strong at $4.  Next turn you get a non-terminal Militia that hands out curses whenever it would whiff.  I guess having to use up two card draws to accomplish this is the trade-off.  I'm not sure if it's really necessary to topdeck the Conscripts or put them in your hand, though.  In the latter case, maybe you meant for the reaction to prevent the player from gaining Curses, in which case maybe keep it, but the topdecking seems to me to make this card too strong for $4.  Then again, it's a self-countering card that probably ends up playing out more like Margrave half the time... so much weirdness here.  I can easily see four-player games turning into a labyrinth of people Margraving their hands into Recruiter-Conscripts-Conscripts until the Conscripts pile is empty, and then suddenly everyone has nothing but Provinces and Curses.  Maybe I withhold final judgment for now.

Conscripts is almost certainly getting a nerf. Or rather, a change. I'm probably removing the discarding from it entirely and just having it hand out Curses again. The discarding makes it too hard to trash the Curses you're given. Recruiter may also get a small nerf to its Action portion.

Investment - Ouch, this card looks brokenly good with cheap cantrips.  Clerk-Vendor with an Investment or three could clean out the Province pile in no time.

Oh man, Investment was weeeeeak. So weak. You've gotta keep in mind not only its potential payoff, but how much work it is to get that payoff. Pirate Ship can be worth a huge number of Coins, but the process of getting it there makes it weak. Investment has a big payoff, but having to collide it with a card and then losing a copy of that card is too big a penalty.

Wheelwright - Library variant is Library variant.

I may also cut or overhaul Wheelwright soon. Opponents gaining Copper to hand is the main thrust of the card. Combos with their Mill Towns, etc.

[Minotaur]

If you have +buy in the kingdom, Investment + $2 cantrips should own faces.  Or maybe I'm wrong because I haven't tried it.  Easy to collide them, and you still have a ton of them left to play.  Of course, if everyone else does the same thing, then suddenly you have just 3-4 Peddlers instead of eight peddlers or 5-6 double peddlers...  Maybe it runs into the "attack reflection" problem in the one case where you'd actually think about getting it anyway?  The only time this card would not suck is if different players could run out different cheap cantrip piles, and even then, the question of whether to stock up on yours or snipe someone else's would still be up in the air...

I'm kind of surprised that Refurbish hasn't done well.  Maybe it really needs a faster trasher to get going or something, like Gambler?

EDIT: I also still think that Domain is problematic.  Losing 3-1 is worse than losing a Province...

[silverspawn]

Committee

speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.

moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...

-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester

and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers

so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game

[LastFootnote]

speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.

moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...

-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester

and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers

so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game

Yes, this comparison had not escaped me. I think on average Committee is stronger than Moneylender, but in practice it doesn't edge out Moneylender as much as you might think. Moneylender is a much more reliable Copper trasher. If getting rid of all the Coppers in your deck is a priority, Moneylender does it better. Moreover, when presented with a decision between Copper/Good Card, sometimes Good Card is the correct choice. Just because a card is good doesn't mean you necessarily want a million of it. Caravan? Sure! Militia? Probably not. Haven? Maybe. And sometimes your opponent can't gain a copy of Good Card because it's sold out or was never in the Supply at all.

[Minotaur]

Committee

speaking of comittee, I thought (haven't tested it though) a problem with it was that it's pretty clearly superior to moneylender.

moneylender is +2$, get rid of a copper
committee is +2$ and reveal to cards. if you reveal...

-> copper + estate/shelter: it's at least as good as a moneylender, assuming that trashing estate/shelter > trashing copper
-> copper + good card: your opp is probably going to pick copper, in which case you can get rid of a copper
-> estate + good card: same with estate, so it's even better
-> bad card + silver: here it's +2$, gain a silver. It's more difficult to compare, but it's generally really good.
-> 2 good cards -> it's basically a jester

and it will speed up your cycling early, which can be very good. the cycling is even better because you're more likely to discard several bad cards than several good cards, especially early, because you start with 7 coppers

so, it's not really strictly superior to moneylender, but it comes kind of close. unless i'm missing something. it seems better early on and it definitely scales better in the mid/end game

Interesting thought.  This makes me think maybe it's worth $5, (and maybe it should give you $3 as well).  Comparing it to Jester is a nice thought, too, and it might need the extra $1 to compare well.  I'm not sure.

Yes, this comparison had not escaped me. I think on average Committee is stronger than Moneylender, but in practice it doesn't edge out Moneylender as much as you might think. Moneylender is a much more reliable Copper trasher. If getting rid of all the Coppers in your deck is a priority, Moneylender does it better. Moreover, when presented with a decision between Copper/Good Card, sometimes Good Card is the correct choice. Just because a card is good doesn't mean you necessarily want a million of it. Caravan? Sure! Militia? Probably not. Haven? Maybe. And sometimes your opponent can't gain a copy of Good Card because it's sold out or was never in the Supply at all.

Hmmm.  Interesting point in favor of Moneylender's distinct role.  Maybe the Jester comparison is more adequate?

On the other hand, I imagine that if your opponent skips over Copper too much, then you can just get another Committee for a ton of extra cycling.  This has the potential to generate a 3rd or 4th Committee...  The same is true if you end up cloning Silver over and over.

I don't really have a conclusion here.  I like the rare $4 card that's worth getting excited about, but this could also reasonably function at the $5 tier (maybe along with the change where it grants $3, since it can't hand out Curses and it gives a choice).  I don't know if you've tried it already.

[LastFootnote]

I don't really have a conclusion here.  I like the rare $4 card that's worth getting excited about, but this could also reasonably function at the $5 tier (maybe along with the change where it grants $5, since it can't hand out Curses and it gives a choice).  I don't know if you've tried it already.

Its original cost was $5. It was lackluster. It's way more compelling at $4.

[Minotaur]

By the way, my card called "Master's Degree" is vaguely similar to Investment, but not really the same at all.

http://mtaur.blogspot.com/2014/06/dimonion-modern-times-highlights.html

[silverspawn]

that's a peddler variant, not really similar.

[Minotaur]

that's a peddler variant, not really similar.

Investment plays a phantom Peddler every time you play a copy of an action of some sort or other.

[silverspawn]

yea but with that line of reasoning forager is similar to lab because you play a phantom lab every time you don't draw the curse you trashed 

[Nic]

You could have it curse first, then discard down to 4.
"Each other player with more than 5 cards in hand discards down to 4, otherwise they gain a curse into their hand."

Neat idea. I'm really trying to avoid the Conscripts being too much like Torturer, but maybe this isn't that bad. Hmm…

Really not feeling it. That might be worth exploring if you wanted to create a new attack card whose gimmick was cheap, nonterminal cursing. But here you've already written the two cards, and they're called Recruiter and Barracks. Anything you put on Conscripts is really a part of those two cards, and reading Barracks/Conscripts or Recruiter/Conscripts should not be any longer or more difficult to parse than any other one card. Plain unadorned cursing is the best thing to put on the card, and it'd be a bad idea to add anything that isn't necessary.

In comparison, making it more like Torturer doesn't sound so bad. "Discard a card or gain a Curse" is really clean, and it would make Conscripts chains hurt less and less as you get more junked. I'm converted to straight curse-giving, but that version could be worth testing if it's currently too strong.

[silverspawn]

say, if you have given up on investment completely, do you mind if i try to make it work for my set? 

it's still in the opening post, but you don't seem to update it all that frequently...

If you want to preserve the option to come back for it at some point, feel free to say no.

[LastFootnote]

say, if you have given up on investment completely, do you mind if i try to make it work for my set? 

it's still in the opening post, but you don't seem to update it all that frequently...

If you want to preserve the option to come back for it at some point, feel free to say no.

Go for it.

[LastFootnote]

So, for Barrister…

What do people think about keeping Domain at 1 VP/Domain, but still cutting out the mini-Rabble part of the attack? Here are my two ideas. Which is better?

This one I posted earlier in the thread:

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Either gain a Treasure from the trash or gain a Silver.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

This one is closer to the version in the OP:

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. +$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Domain, and discards the rest. Gain all the Domains in the trash.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

Obviously, Woodcutter+ isn't the most exciting thing ever, but the main thrust is the Domain-stealing. Thief variants tend to be unpopular, but the advantage of the $5 version is that feels like an Attack even when not stealing Domains. Which should I test?

[silverspawn]

I like the woodcutter+ better. noble brigand with a +1$ for 5$ is kinda meh. i'd also imagine that the 5$ will steal domains less often, because you get it later and there are lots of games where you really don't want a thief variant.

did you consider something that trashes domains from the hand rather than the deck?

[LastFootnote]

I like the woodcutter+ better. noble brigand with a +1$ for 5$ is kinda meh. i'd also imagine that the 5$ will steal domains less often, because you get it later and there are lots of games where you really don't want a thief variant.

Those are some good points. Especially that the later you get it, the less often you'll steal Domains.

did you consider something that trashes domains from the hand rather than the deck?

I have. There are two reasons I haven't tried it yet (well, three if you include the fact that I'm not playtesting right now). First, it would conflict with Axeman. Second, it would make players reveal their hands (for accountability) a LOT. Like, that would be the normal effect of the Attack. Reveal your hand. Maybe that's not a big deal, but it rubs me the wrong way.

I really need to update the OP. I'm trying to make a couple more terminal $5 cards first. I came up with a simplified $5 version of Windfall. What do you think?

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.

[Minotaur]

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.

I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.

How's Refurbish doing?  You said it was sort of weak...  It looks good to me, but I could be wrong.  How about this:

Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.  Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.

[LastFootnote]

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.

I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.

How's Refurbish doing?  You said it was sort of weak...  It looks good to me, but I could be wrong.  How about this:

Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.  Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.

That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! 

When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.

[Minotaur]

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.

I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.

How's Refurbish doing?  You said it was sort of weak...  It looks good to me, but I could be wrong.  How about this:

Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.  Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.

That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! 

When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.

Oh wow, I forgot about Trading Post.  It's usually weak too... X-D

Seriously, by the time you can buy Trading Post, how many Silvers do you really want in your deck?  You probably wanted a Turn 2 Steward or Chapel but they weren't on the board...  If you're not getting junk attacks, then you'll need +cards +actions just to find two cards you want to trash in the first place...  I guess one of them the very first time you get a $5 hand is ok though, kind of like Mine...

[LastFootnote]

How's Refurbish doing?  You said it was sort of weak...  It looks good to me, but I could be wrong.  How about this:

Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.  Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.

That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! 

When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.

Oh wow, I forgot about Trading Post.  It's usually weak too... X-D

Seriously, by the time you can buy Trading Post, how many Silvers do you really want in your deck?  You probably wanted a Turn 2 Steward or Chapel but they weren't on the board...  If you're not getting junk attacks, then you'll need +cards +actions just to find two cards you want to trash in the first place...  I guess one of them the very first time you get a $5 hand is ok though, kind of like Mine...

Trading Post and Refurbish are both way better when you can get a large hand. With non-terminal draw (or Wharf), I'll usually use Trading Post as my trashing and economy in one. I don't need to buy any more Treasure once I have a Trading Post, so all the rest of my buys can be spent on engine components.

Also, Trading Post is a specialized counter to Torturer, which is probably part of why it survived playtesting.

[silverspawn]

well trading post is good if you have 5$/2$. it's one of those great at the beginning but loses value extremely fast cards. for turn 3 it can be amazing, trash 2 dead cards, gain +2$ and a silver.

+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?

well tl;dr i like one-shot silver gaining more than constant silver gaining if the card requires you to play lots of actions.

[Awaclus]

The original version of Nomad Camp gave you a silver

And then it became a Woodcutter variant which topdecks itself.

[silverspawn]

The original version of Nomad Camp gave you a silver

And then it became a Woodcutter variant which topdecks itself.

*Bandit camp

[eHalcyon]

Windfall
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

I really want some more on-theme cards, though. I could try to work Trade tokens into this version of Windfall (since it has so little text), but probably I should test this version to see if it needs a nerf or a buff.

I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Any card whose purpose is to gain you a ton of Silvers is going to be sort of niche at best.

How's Refurbish doing?  You said it was sort of weak...  It looks good to me, but I could be wrong.  How about this:

Cost: $4
You may trash up to two cards from your hand.  Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand if you trashed two cards.
Silver produce an extra $1 this turn.

That's a strictly better version of Trading Post for $1 cheaper! 

When I said Refurbish was weak, I didn't mean it was too weak. I think it's probably fine. It's just on the weaker side of $3 because it needs some support to be good.

Oh wow, I forgot about Trading Post.  It's usually weak too... X-D

Seriously, by the time you can buy Trading Post, how many Silvers do you really want in your deck?  You probably wanted a Turn 2 Steward or Chapel but they weren't on the board...  If you're not getting junk attacks, then you'll need +cards +actions just to find two cards you want to trash in the first place...  I guess one of them the very first time you get a $5 hand is ok though, kind of like Mine...

Trading Post is mediocre.  It's a pretty strong opening but it quickly gets weaker as the game goes on.  If I open 4/3, there's still a decent chance I'll want it if I can get it before the second reshuffle.  It gets eclipsed by any other decent trashing though.



Haven't kept up with this thread in a while... maybe I should look into it again.  Give some attention to a fan expansion that deserves it and all...

[KingZog3]

Haven't kept up with this thread in a while... maybe I should look into it again.  Give some attention to a fan expansion that deserves it and all...

What, were you just on a thread where the cards weren't very good?

Did you remove investment? I really liked the idea, but I can see how it would be hard to balance. Was there a problem with maing investment non-terminal? Or is it removed because Prince now exists?

[LibraryAdventurer]

So, for Barrister…

I like the $5 Barrister better, but I don't like it costing $5. But if you make the nessesary change to make it cost $4, it's too similar to noble brigand. Hmm...

What if, instead of giving +coin, you have it gain the stolen treasure to hand? That might make it worth having a thief variant that costs $5 (especially if it also has +buy).

I any case, I don't like a version where the only attack function of the card is to steal Domains. Because it only targets a single card in each other player's deck and doesn't do anything significant if it doesn't happen to hit that card, and it never does anything to them if they no longer have a domain.

[LastFootnote]

I like the $5 Barrister better, but I don't like it costing $5. But if you make the nessesary change to make it cost $4, it's too similar to noble brigand. Hmm...

What if, instead of giving +coin, you have it gain the stolen treasure to hand? That might make it worth having a thief variant that costs $5 (especially if it also has +buy).

I any case, I don't like a version where the only attack function of the card is to steal Domains. Because it only targets a single card in each other player's deck and doesn't do anything significant if it doesn't happen to hit that card, and it never does anything to them if they no longer have a domain.

Ah, now that's an idea! The Treasure going to hand means no vanilla bonuses, so more room for text on the card.

Barrister
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than Copper, and discards the rest. Gain a Treasure from the trash or a Silver, putting it into your hand.
Setup: Replace one of each player's starting Coppers with a Domain.

I think that will probably fit on a card. Hopefully it's not too complex. I could maybe give it +1 Buy. Not sure it needs it yet. The fact that you can always at least gain a Silver (unless they run out) probably makes it good $5 material.

Did you remove investment? I really liked the idea, but I can see how it would be hard to balance. Was there a problem with maing investment non-terminal? Or is it removed because Prince now exists?

Heh, I actually worried if Investment was worth making once I got my hands on Prince late last year. There are similarities, but I think they're different enough. But, Investment is gone for now. I told Silverspawn he could take a crack at fixing it up. Maybe it can work in some form.

Haven't kept up with this thread in a while... maybe I should look into it again.  Give some attention to a fan expansion that deserves it and all...

I don't think the OP has changed since you last looked at it. I haven't had time for testing recently. I'm confident that someday I will be working on this set "full time" again, but not right now. And I don't want to fill the OP with untested cards, since at this point Enterprise has a reputation for having had a fair amount of testing. I guess I could just have them with zero stars, but I'd like to test each card in at least one game before posting it in the OP.

+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?

I have considered that. I'm hoping that this won't have the Bandit Camp problem. Gaining Silver works against villages, but not necessarily against cantrips or non-terminals in general. The self-limiting factor of Windfall making future Windfall plays less powerful is intentional, but whether the card is fun remains to be seen. It's certainly different.

The reason I don't want it as a one-shot is that you'll feel crappy when you get it in hand with no other Actions and don't play it. The original version had this Silver-gaining effect as the trade token effect with a vault variant as the main on-play. But it seemed complex and not that exciting. Maybe the entire idea is a dud, but I think it's at least worth trying once.

[Nic]

I don't think the OP has changed since you last looked at it. I haven't had time for testing recently. I'm confident that someday I will be working on this set "full time" again, but not right now. And I don't want to fill the OP with untested cards, since at this point Enterprise has a reputation for having had a fair amount of testing. I guess I could just have them with zero stars, but I'd like to test each card in at least one game before posting it in the OP.

Well, you don't have to throw them in the OP just yet, but putting together a mockup of a new card always gets people excited.

+$2. Gain a Silver per Action card you have in play (counting this).

The original version of Bandit Camp gave you a silver and Donald said people were complaining because that goes against the purpose of a village (well you probably know that). He also said that he himself thought it was fine, but well I think I would've disliked it. New Windfall is similar, it's not a village but it requires you to play lots of actions while simultaneously making it harder to play lots of actions. My idea to fix that would be to make it a one-shot, so yea I'd totally test it with tokens first. The simplest way to do this would be to make it a terminal draw (+3) for 5$; that's something you're going to buy anyway, and add the one-silver-per-action card thing as a trade token effect. but you probably considered something like that already?

I have considered that. I'm hoping that this won't have the Bandit Camp problem. Gaining Silver works against villages, but not necessarily against cantrips or non-terminals in general. The self-limiting factor of Windfall making future Windfall plays less powerful is intentional, but whether the card is fun remains to be seen. It's certainly different.

The reason I don't want it as a one-shot is that you'll feel crappy when you get it in hand with no other Actions and don't play it. The original version had this Silver-gaining effect as the trade token effect with a vault variant as the main on-play. But it seemed complex and not that exciting. Maybe the entire idea is a dud, but I think it's at least worth trying once.

Those are all good points. It just feels like it would run into some type of Diadem problem, where pricing it high enough that it doesn't become degenerate makes it worthless on full random boards.

One thing that sounds interesting; you could make the silver-gaining a Token ability, but use "While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, gain a Trade Token" instead of the usual free token as soon as you gain it. (Alternately, you could keep it as the action, and have the token ability gain a few silvers to hand.) I saw that clause in this thread a few pages back, and I think it's worth building a card around.

[LastFootnote]

Well, you don't have to throw them in the OP just yet, but putting together a mockup of a new card always gets people excited.

Fair enough. Here are some I managed to make today. More to follow.

Those are all good points. It just feels like it would run into some type of Diadem problem, where pricing it high enough that it doesn't become degenerate makes it worthless on full random boards.

One thing that sounds interesting; you could make the silver-gaining a Token ability, but use "While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, gain a Trade Token" instead of the usual free token as soon as you gain it. (Alternately, you could keep it as the action, and have the token ability gain a few silvers to hand.) I saw that clause in this thread a few pages back, and I think it's worth building a card around.

I want to maybe try the current version of Windfall once before I try to change it, but I think I'll also try that version of Cathedral I posted a while back that gained tokens when you bought a Victory card. Thanks for reminding me!

[KingZog3]

In the OP lodge says "+1$ for each card revealed" is there a reason it's cards discarded? Feels strange to count something I did earlier.

[Thanar]

Thanks for these updated cards! I'm about to make a second set of the entire expansion for a friend, so I plan to print these updated ones now. Would you be able to post the higher resolution images (as in the first post)? They look much nicer at full res when I print them.

Looks like I'm going to need more sleeves...

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for these updated cards! I'm about to make a second set of the entire expansion for a friend, so I plan to print these updated ones now. Would you be able to post the higher resolution images (as in the first post)? They look much nicer at full res when I print them.

Looks like I'm going to need more sleeves...

I have added Conscripts and Cathedral, and linked them all to higher-res images. Disclaimer: These versions have had zero testing!

Thanks as always for the interest and support!

[silverspawn]

Huh. Buy victory cards to trash? that's new. As you know, I love conditional trashing, so naturally I'm pretty excited about it, much more so than about Auction (I still don't think that one's worth making tbh). It has really cool art, too. I hope it works out.

[LastFootnote]

Huh. Buy victory cards to trash? that's new. As you know, I love conditional trashing, so naturally I'm pretty excited about it, much more so than about Auction (I still don't think that one's worth making tbh). It has really cool art, too. I hope it works out.

Well, you can't please everybody all of the time! I think Auction looks slick. Maybe not a power card, but different enough and useful in several situations.

[Minotaur]

I could see picking up a single mid-game Auction, or maybe more than one in a low-cost alt VP board.  You have to somehow draw a bunch of pure Victory cards, I guess.  At the very least, it's an automatic Gardens + Copper as long as there are no discard attacks...

It's a $3 card that you won't want to buy when you're most likely to be getting $3 hands...  And if you're using it for the +buy, you probably needed +buy to be able to get it in the first place...  It's sort of an odd card that might be worth it sometimes, but the price point is sort of self-defeating.  It's bound to be useful against junk attacks, though.

[NoMoreFun]

With Cathedral you could seriously rake in the Trade Tokens later in the game. You can set up a village/smithy type engine with Cathedral (which will give you the +buys), and then have a 2nd Megaturn using a single "Guide". I like this - I hope you don't interpret powerful interactions as a bad thing. Indeed a mixed Guide/Cathedral deck is probably better than either card on its own, and I think it's just great that 2 "terminal drawers" can complement each other instead of competing.

Just wondering why it's "When you buy" a victory card, and not "when you gain". Hoard is on-buy but I thought that was just a virtue of being a Treasure. It would be too strong with the old "Craftsman" (get 5 cathedrals in play, then go to town on the colonies), but not with the new one.

[silverspawn]

while thinking about a bunch of new ideas yesterday, I realized that I've never actually given a full critique to this set, only about a few specific cards, and I really feel like doing that (also I need to get my mind off football). there will be a lot of praising, but not exclusively.

I've only played with a bunch of them though. doing so has made me think about own ideas and then I rather played with those. but whatever, first impressions aren't completely irrelevant. But I'm very aware that I'm criticizing cards that you know much more about than I. That's the usual dilemma though. Anyway...

Clerk is obviously a great card. It's simple, it's unique, it's interesting, and it's probably balanced, although it's clearly more useful than pearl driver in almost every situation. it's one of the cards that make me think "oh why couldn't I come up with that first"

Jubilee is pretty good I think. it's probably most interesting if you play with several trade token cards. I know that you're one of the guys who likes to do stuff like play with 5base/5enterprise instead of just going full random all the time. but it seems okay even without others. not the most exciting thing ever, but it's nice.

Redistrict is... dunno. I think it's harder to judge than the ones before it. It doesn't look exciting to me, but it's possible that I'd like it more if I played with it.

Barrister is... hm. I don't really know, it might be really fun and satisfying to steal domains. it's another one that's hard to judge. power wise it seems okay in 2player, probably more on the weak side, but much better in 3+.

Gambler is the first card I really dislike. It just seems like adding swinginess just because it's fun and exciting and cool if you're lucky. If it works, it's really strong, about as good as Junk dealer early on and even better later in the game. But if you hit your other t1/2 buy the first time you play it, you probably lost the game right there. eh. I haven't played with it, but that has to be how it goes, right? but well that's just me, the card has 5 stars and you said lots of people like it. you don't have to like every card.

Guide is really cool. I've played a bunch of games with it. something about the card appeals to me even beyond the fact that it's fairly unique and perfectly balanced. maybe it's just that using it twice is so much fun.

Mill Town is amazing. it's probably my favorite fan made card. it's so simple, but it's such a cool concept. I would marry Mill Town if I could 

Refurbish is a card that makes me wonder why Donald X hasn't done it. "Trash a card from your hand, gain a silver" almost had to have been considered at some point, and making it a silversmith seems like the perfect bonus to add. Maybe he felt like that area is explored with bank and coppersmith. Anyway, it's a great card. basically a classic. well not really, but it should be.

I'm sceptical about Committee, but that might be cause I never played with it. It just seems really strong. It's also not that unique, it's a terminal silver with a fairly interesting plus. But it's certainly not bad.

Craftsman looks alright. My only concern about it is that it offers you an easy way to get to five without adding terminals or silvers that's (deliberately?) absent from official dominion (well there is feast but feast sucks). It looks like made for SCSN, but I always thought the silver dilemma adds a lot to the game. Uh, dunno. I've played with the old one I think, but not with this version.

Dignitary is good I think. There are already card which try to help with the "terminal draw draws dead actions" dilemma, and this seems like a reasonable take on it. The reaction is cute.

Floodgate is slick! Great card! It makes me jealous. It's another of those "simple cards that are left to make"

The Recruiter/Conscripts concept feels like it's hard to judge (haven't played it, I didn't like it at first glance). It's a card that gets you another card that attacks. Why that detour? well there are certainly some reasons. I don't hate it. It might be great.

Terrace is cool. It's an obvious idea after you have the trade token setup, and it can only make people happy. I instantly liked it, played with it, and it was good as expected.

Vendor sort of seems like a filler. You could probably do lot of variations that would work out, but I guess there's nothing wrong with having one of them around. It seems good, but it doesn't seem to fill an important role.

Axeman is nice. Unique attacks that aren't stupid are always nice. Another thing that could have been done. I certainly think there's space left to explore, Inquisition is inspired by this one, and it's a little bit similar.

Barracks is well what I said about Conscripts. The second option is cute though, and the first option is a good way to make sure the second option can continue to be cute. That probably makes Barracks cute too.

I already commented about Convocation. This card had to be made, and you made it.

Exchange is similar to Redisctrict in appeal. It's a remodel variant, it might be fine, but it's not immediately appealing... I think I played with this once, but I don't remember how it went. I think it was fine.

Fund wipes the floor with Royal Seal and Stash. I think it's about time we get a silver+ for 5$ that doesn't suck. You'll feel much better picking up a Fund if you miss 6$ than you will picking up a Stash. Good card.

General doesn't appeal to me, or maybe I just don't get it. If the throned card isn't a one-shot, it's a sheme+throne room, which is just adding two effects together. If it is, it's a sheme+throne room that's probably kind of broken. Why is that worth making?

Lodge is out if I recall correctly. I assume it was uninteresting. Doesn't seem terrible though.

Wheelwright is out too I think? I didn't like it, it's just making it too easy for you. Discarding cards before refilling your hand is something you should work for I think. Was this the reason you dropped it? some other reason?

... and I already commented about Auction and Cathedral.

hey I didn't even praise that much 

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the full-on critique, silverspawn! I'll respond to a few of the comments, and please forgive me if I'm repeating stuff you've read before.

Jubilee is pretty good I think. it's probably most interesting if you play with several trade token cards. I know that you're one of the guys who likes to do stuff like play with 5base/5enterprise instead of just going full random all the time. but it seems okay even without others. not the most exciting thing ever, but it's nice.

I originally worried that Jubilee wouldn't be bought in games without other Trade token cards, but it turns out it still gets bought a lot, at least in the games I've played with it. So, no worries there!

Barrister is... hm. I don't really know, it might be really fun and satisfying to steal domains. it's another one that's hard to judge. power wise it seems okay in 2player, probably more on the weak side, but much better in 3+.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the new $5 version of Barrister. I like that it's a Thief variant that's way less swingy because you always get a Silver. At worst, it's an unactivated Explorer, which you want in a lot of games. Domains mean that even in a game where not much Treasure is bought, there's still a reason to go for it.

Gambler is the first card I really dislike. It just seems like adding swinginess just because it's fun and exciting and cool if you're lucky. If it works, it's really strong, about as good as Junk dealer early on and even better later in the game. But if you hit your other t1/2 buy the first time you play it, you probably lost the game right there. eh. I haven't played with it, but that has to be how it goes, right? but well that's just me, the card has 5 stars and you said lots of people like it. you don't have to like every card.

The thing is that if you hit your other early buy, you're essentially guaranteed a very good hand. It's like buying an early Mining Village to immediately trash for the Coins. And replacing the Gambler is cheap. So it's really not gg if this does happen, at least not in my experience.

Floodgate is slick! Great card! It makes me jealous. It's another of those "simple cards that are left to make"

Thanks! I hope it works at $3. I mean, people sometimes buy it at $4, but not nearly as much as I'd like.

Vendor sort of seems like a filler. You could probably do lot of variations that would work out, but I guess there's nothing wrong with having one of them around. It seems good, but it doesn't seem to fill an important role.

Yeah, I may end up cutting Vendor. Probably I can do better. I like that it's simple, and it plays well. Some people like it. But yeah, not exciting.

Barracks is well what I said about Conscripts. The second option is cute though, and the first option is a good way to make sure the second option can continue to be cute. That probably makes Barracks cute too.

Well, Barracks's main concept is actually the digging for Attack cards. I am considering nerfing Conscripts to +$1.

General doesn't appeal to me, or maybe I just don't get it. If the throned card isn't a one-shot, it's a sheme+throne room, which is just adding two effects together. If it is, it's a sheme+throne room that's probably kind of broken. Why is that worth making?

I think scheme + throne room is a natural combo. If it weren't for the one-shot interaction, the card would be dead simple. But the set is full of one-shots. I like the fact that tracking is so easy with General because the card you play twice never gets discarded before General.

[Nic]

I want to maybe try the current version of Windfall once before I try to change it, but I think I'll also try that version of Cathedral I posted a while back that gained tokens when you bought a Victory card. Thanks for reminding me!

That's the card I was thinking of. Heh, I like how the image is from the same perspective as Chapel. At first I thought the trashing could be buffed, but three cards would be awkward and 'up to three' would be really powerful. Probably in a good place as is.

Huh. Buy victory cards to trash? that's new. As you know, I love conditional trashing, so naturally I'm pretty excited about it, much more so than about Auction (I still don't think that one's worth making tbh). It has really cool art, too. I hope it works out.

Well, you can't please everybody all of the time! I think Auction looks slick. Maybe not a power card, but different enough and useful in several situations.

I've already said I'm on 'team Auction'; it's simple and novel and clever, and not only does it make Floodgate more enticing, it combos with all the draw in this set. I think it's ready to go in the OP.

Just wondering why it's "When you buy" a victory card, and not "when you gain". Hoard is on-buy but I thought that was just a virtue of being a Treasure. It would be too strong with the old "Craftsman" (get 5 cathedrals in play, then go to town on the colonies), but not with the new one.

Probably for the reasons you just posted. It would be weird enough to have a combo that can replenish your tokens before the card is resolved. But you're talking about a combo that would turn "gain a Duchy" into "gain all the Duchies in the Supply". If there's a single alt-VP pile in the supply costing $5 or less, the first person to get a Cathedral and Craftsman in play would end the game instantly and win by a huge margin.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry I didn't respond to these questions earlier.

In the OP lodge says "+1$ for each card revealed" is there a reason it's cards discarded? Feels strange to count something I did earlier.

I have no idea. I think "per card discarded" is better!

Just wondering why it's "When you buy" a victory card, and not "when you gain". Hoard is on-buy but I thought that was just a virtue of being a Treasure. It would be too strong with the old "Craftsman" (get 5 cathedrals in play, then go to town on the colonies), but not with the new one.

Well, all similar things are on-buy (Hoard, Merchant Guild, Goons, Hovel, etc.). That's not a great reason, but I just like on-buy here. It feels more natural than on-gain, and it seems easier to remember.

[LastFootnote]

I'm going to change Dignitary to use a Horse Traders-like wording so as to avoid Fortress shenanigans. It's clunky and wordy and sad, but I think it needs to be done.

Dignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

[silverspawn]

that also changes the powerlevel though, you will have to discard/topdeck one less card against militia/ghost ship.

[LastFootnote]

that also changes the powerlevel though, you will have to discard/topdeck one less card against militia/ghost ship.

This is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Hopefully it won't make the card too strong. Discarding Dignitary to trash a single card just seems way too weak. I'd considered discarding it to trash a card and gain a Silver in hand, but the set has enough Silver gaining and that's a lot like Refurbish.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Hello, I finally got to catch up with this thread and I'm excited for the proposed changes you made. Let's get right to one of my favourite concepts: Barrister and Domain. I really liked the mini-Rabble effect of Barrister. It made it a really nice attack for the early game and the Domain-trashing and -gaining made it way more interesting than Fortune Teller. This new version is definitely better than your other suggestion (only caring about Domains and discarding all the rest). I'm not a fan of Silver-gaining, though. And I think, you should give the 2VP-per-Domain version a try to go with it, to make up for the fact that you are going to buy the $5-Barrister significantly later in the game than the old $3-one which is a good opener.

I totally agree you (or we) should playtest Axeman without the limit. Otherwise, I like the card. I tend to compare it to Saboteur, and Axeman is clearly cooler then that.

Glad you scrubbed Lodge. I played with it, and it felt uncompelling and rarely helpful. I like Cathedral much better!

I'm all for simplicity but the slimmed Conscripts, although powerful, are missing that mean Torturer-spirit they had before. Please try to experiment a little with variants of that. You (or someone) made an alternate suggestion along the lines of "discard to 4 or gain a curse in hand" which I liked.

Windfall never did it for me. I just think Silver gainers are tedious.

Last but not least, I'm pro Auction

[silverspawn]

I just think Silver gainers are tedious.

that's a phase. it'll pass.

[LastFootnote]

Hello, I finally got to catch up with this thread and I'm excited for the proposed changes you made. Let's get right to one of my favourite concepts: Barrister and Domain. I really liked the mini-Rabble effect of Barrister. It made it a really nice attack for the early game and the Domain-trashing and -gaining made it way more interesting than Fortune Teller. This new version is definitely better than your other suggestion (only caring about Domains and discarding all the rest). I'm not a fan of Silver-gaining, though. And I think, you should give the 2VP-per-Domain version a try to go with it, to make up for the fact that you are going to buy the $5-Barrister significantly later in the game than the old $3-one which is a good opener.

I may try the 2 VP version of Domain at some point, but thinking about it more, I'm back to the opinion that it makes you care about Domains too much. Like, going after them would be mandatory and then whoever got luckiest with Barristers would win. But I'm not ruling it out.

The problem I had with the old Barrister is that it was too wordy and did too many things. Players had to constantly reread it and be reminded to put back their Victory cards and Curses. I'm optimistic that the new version will be easier to remember. Even without Domains, I think it's a better take on Thief, being way less swingy and weak. Domains are still important, though. They make you consider Barrister even in a Treasure-light game.

I agree that it was nice to have a good opening Attack at $3. But on the other hand, a more powerful attack at $5 makes you want to use Barracks' dig-for-attacks function.

I'm all for simplicity but the slimmed Conscripts, although powerful, are missing that mean Torturer-spirit they had before. Please try to experiment a little with variants of that. You (or someone) made an alternate suggestion along the lines of "discard to 4 or gain a curse in hand" which I liked.

The beauty of that for me was making you want to play multiple Conscripts in the same turn (and therefore use Barracks' dig-for-attacks function). But I really don't need the card to be like Torturer. We already have Torturer for that and lots of people hate it. I am strongly considering nerfing Conscripts by making it generate +$1 rather that +$2. I'll test it with Barracks or Recruiter and without trashing or other Attacks. If it's not too weak in that scenario, awesome.

One problem would be that once Curses are gone, your Barracks is pretty much dead. You don't want to gain two one-shot Coppers. Maybe have a non-Attack clause to make them worthwhile. Like, "Each other player gains a Curse. If none of them did, +1 Card." Hmmm…

Windfall never did it for me. I just think Silver gainers are tedious.

I think I have enough Silver gaining with Refurbish, Fund, and new Barrister. Windfall is on the back burner for now. I may or may not ever test it.

Last but not least, I'm pro Auction

Huzzah! I hope it ends up testing well. I like it, too.

[Nic]

I'm going to change Dignitary to use a Horse Traders-like wording so as to avoid Fortress shenanigans. It's clunky and wordy and sad, but I think it needs to be done.

Dignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

What Fortress shenanigans exactly did you have in mind? If you used Dignitary to trash a Fortress, it would return to your hand, and the attack would resolve with your hand exactly the same as it was before. If this were Goko, I suppose you could have a problem with trolls trashing their Fortresses infinitely many times, but it's not, and the same issue exists with Secret Chamber (and every Reaction, in principle).

[LastFootnote]

I'm going to change Dignitary to use a Horse Traders-like wording so as to avoid Fortress shenanigans. It's clunky and wordy and sad, but I think it needs to be done.

Dignitary
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: 4
Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. +$1 for each card you put back.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand and return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

What Fortress shenanigans exactly did you have in mind? If you used Dignitary to trash a Fortress, it would return to your hand, and the attack would resolve with your hand exactly the same as it was before. If this were Goko, I suppose you could have a problem with trolls trashing their Fortresses infinitely many times, but it's not, and the same issue exists with Secret Chamber (and every Reaction, in principle).

The problem is if you had a hand of 5 Fortresses and a Dignitary. You reveal the Dignitary, you trash it, then you have to trash a Fortress. But you never get down to 4 cards because the Fortress keeps returning to your hand. It's a problem caused by Donald's fairly recent ruling that "discard down to X" means you discard one card at a time until you reach X cards in hand, rather than discarding them all at once.

Yeah, it's obscure and wouldn't be a problem in real-life games, but it irks me to have a card that could potentially create an infinite loop.

[LastFootnote]

Played a 3-player game today with Auction, Floodgate ($3), and Barrister (new $5 version).

Floodgate and Auction are indeed a sweet combo and I pulled that off at least once. It wasn't a great Auction board, though, having no terminal draw and a discard attack. Also, Barristers kept stealing my Auction. But I'm optimistic that it'll work out.

Floodgate at $3 seems great so far. The Floodgates sold out (I bought the last one on the last turn), so I think that's a good sign.

The new Barrister attack seems really solid as a Thief variant. Like, I think it's my favorite Thief-style card. The consolation Silver is clutch. It does make it harder to steal Domains, though. One of my opponents stole the other's Domain early on and that was all the Domain stealing that occurred (despite my efforts to steal them). I'll play more games with it, and if it turns out to be an issue I can remove the Domains from this card, since it works ok without them (and make another, more Domain-centric attack).

[GeoLib]

Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.

[Nic]

[KingZog3]

Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.

I came here to post exactly this. ninja'd before I even thought about it.

[LastFootnote]

Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.

I came here to post exactly this. ninja'd before I even thought about it.

Take it outside, gentlemen. I think that dead horse has been beaten enough.

[KingZog3]

Hey LF if you're still looking for extra cards to fill in missing slots I have a suggestion that fits in pretty well with the one-shot theme. How about a one-shot trasher that itself takes a one-shot resource to gain. You could call it something thematic, like bomb, or something.

I came here to post exactly this. ninja'd before I even thought about it.

Take it outside, gentlemen. I think that dead horse has been beaten enough.

Well to be fair, I thought of it once I was here. So it wasn't my actual intention to being with.

On a constructive note, I too like the look of the new barrister. I don't think the attack needs to be crazy focuses on Domain. It's already a big change having a $3 cards in your starting deck. It changes a significant number of cards, especially TfB. Develop, Salvager and Remodel get a big boost by having that option from the start.

[LastFootnote]

Just played a 2-player game where the Black Market deck was one of each Enterprise card and I bought the Barrister from it. I managed to steal my opponent's Domain with the first play. I stole a Gold with the second play and got a consolation Silver with the third. The final score was 33 to 31, my lead. I lost the Province split 5 to 3, but had 2 Duchies and 5 Estates, so the stolen Domain put me over the top. So far I like this new version of Barrister a lot.

[LastFootnote]

Some people have trouble parsing Redistrict. I'm considering simplifying it so that you effectively must use the one-shot effect, since that's usually what you're doing anyway.

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash this. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it and a card costing exactly $2 more than it, in either order.

Thoughts? It's worse for trashing Coppers and Curses, but you can use it as a one-shot Remodel from $6 to $8 even if there's no $7 card on the board. I'm not sure I love those changes, but again this version should be much easier to understand. People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.

Alternatively, if you have a better wording that doesn't change the effect, that would be great.

[Minotaur]

Some people have trouble parsing Redistrict. I'm considering simplifying it so that you effectively must use the one-shot effect, since that's usually what you're doing anyway.

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash this. Trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it and a card costing exactly $2 more than it, in either order.

Thoughts? It's worse for trashing Coppers and Curses, but you can use it as a one-shot Remodel from $6 to $8 even if there's no $7 card on the board. I'm not sure I love those changes, but again this version should be much easier to understand. People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.

Alternatively, if you have a better wording that doesn't change the effect, that would be great.

This card is significantly weaker, and I thought the original was clear enough.  On a 3-4 opening, I'd rather not have to trash Redistrict to gain a $4 card if on my next shuffle I could gain a $5 card and a Gold for a $4 card.  If you don't have strong $4 cards on the board, a first-shuffle Redistrict is a gamble on your two cards colliding.  I guess the new one could be stronger if there are gaps in the cost scheme, though.

In junk-free games, you tend to need trashing for a while, and then you don't, so having the one-shot be optional could be nice. This is probably a very bad card for getting rid of coppers in any case - you'd probably rather use it on three Estates if you're not using the one-shot.  There's not necessarily anything wrong with the potential to hit a gap in the cost scale, but if you really want a one-shot Gold-to-Province option, you have to use the modified version, or a reworked version of the original card which makes no direct reference to the "$1 more" card.

If you wanted this card to be a good "$10 and two buys" option, then I guess either the new version or a "best of both worlds" version would work.  (Gain a card costing $1 more, and trash to gain a card costing $2 more)

[silverspawn]

I'm having trouble understanding how the original wording isn't clear.

People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.

it means the first gained card. buh?

well, you can always do

trash a card from your hand. choose one: gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than the trashed card; or trash this and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it, and a card costing exactly 2$ more than it, in either order

oh and this should work too:

trash a card from your hand. gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it.

You may trash this. if you do, also gain a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

that's closer to the original wording, and probably a little bit shorter than the choose wording. you could also replace the last "it" with "the trashed card", to make it completely clear.

[GendoIkari]

I'm having trouble understanding how the original wording isn't clear.

People were having trouble getting what "the first gained card" meant.

it means the first gained card. buh?

well, you can always do

trash a card from your hand. choose one: gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than the trashed card; or trash this and gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it, and a card costing exactly 2$ more than it, in either order

oh and this should work too:

trash a card from your hand. gain a card costing exactly 1$ more than it.

You may trash this. if you do, also gain a card costing exactly 2$ more than it.

that's closer to the original wording, and probably a little bit shorter than the choose wording. you could also replace the last "it" with "the trashed card", to make it completely clear.

Though I think the wording is correct; it could be a bit confusing to people who think that "it" means "this"... after all, Redistrict was the last card talked about, not the original trashed card. And you can't just say "the trashed card" either, because Redistrict is now a trashed card as well.

But I do agree that it's better to refer to the cost as $2 more than the trashed card rather than $1 more than the gained card.

[Minotaur]

If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on.  It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.

[LastFootnote]

If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on.  It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.

I had considered this. It seems workable, but stilted. I suppose I could say, "Choose a card," since the card gets revealed automatically when you trash it.

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.

How does that look?

[silverspawn]

it looks fine to me, but the original wording also looked fine to me, so i'm probably not the right one to judge it

[LastFootnote]

If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on.  It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.

I had considered this. It seems workable, but stilted. I suppose I could say, "Choose a card," since the card gets revealed automatically when you trash it.

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.

How does that look?

Right, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.

[Minotaur]

If you reveal a card and then trash it, then it can be "the revealed card" from then on.  It's sort of silly, but it works and the language is already used a lot otherwise.

I had considered this. It seems workable, but stilted. I suppose I could say, "Choose a card," since the card gets revealed automatically when you trash it.

Yeah, that doesn't look as contrived.  It's tempting to just say "let X be a chosen card from your hand (having whatever properties required by your new card)" sometimes...

[silverspawn]

Right, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.

so, you redistrict a copper. now you can either gain nothing, or trash the redistrict and gain another redistrict. both doesn't get you anything except that there'll be ones less redistrict in the supply with option 2. but i doubt that using a terminal trasher without any benefit on a copper is ever attractive enough for people to do this just to drive down one pile. I don't think it's going to be a problem at all.

[LastFootnote]

Right, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.

so, you redistrict a copper. now you can either gain nothing, or trash the redistrict and gain another redistrict. both doesn't get you anything except that there'll be ones less redistrict in the supply with option 2. but i doubt that using a terminal trasher without any benefit on a copper is ever attractive enough for people to do this just to drive down one pile. I don't think it's going to be a problem at all.

I think your'e probably right. It's more like, if you're going to trash a Copper anyway, you have the option of hastening the game's end by trashing a Redistrict from the Supply. But I barely even trash Copper with Redistrict, so I'm probably worrying about nothing.

[GendoIkari]

Right, I just remembered why I didn't do this in the first place. I didn't want people to be able to run out the Redistrict pile by Redistricting Coppers into Redistricts. Maybe it's not so bad, though. Probably I should test it this way.

so, you redistrict a copper. now you can either gain nothing, or trash the redistrict and gain another redistrict. both doesn't get you anything except that there'll be ones less redistrict in the supply with option 2. but i doubt that using a terminal trasher without any benefit on a copper is ever attractive enough for people to do this just to drive down one pile. I don't think it's going to be a problem at all.

I think your'e probably right. It's more like, if you're going to trash a Copper anyway, you have the option of hastening the game's end by trashing a Redistrict from the Supply. But I barely even trash Copper with Redistrict, so I'm probably worrying about nothing.

If Poor House is in the Supply, you can do this anyway. Of course, that's going to come up way less often, both because it won't be in the Kingdom with Poor House that often, and also because if it is, you are less likely to trash copper.

I agree that it's a sort of weird thing to basically be given the choice "you may trash one of these cards from the supply". But not weird enough to avoid the otherwise-clearest wording, whatever that may be.

[LastFootnote]

If Poor House is in the Supply, you can do this anyway. Of course, that's going to come up way less often, both because it won't be in the Kingdom with Poor House that often, and also because if it is, you are less likely to trash copper.

Agreed on all points.

I agree that it's a sort of weird thing to basically be given the choice "you may trash one of these cards from the supply". But not weird enough to avoid the otherwise-clearest wording, whatever that may be.

It's a problem that plagues all one-shot remodel variants, or at least all the ones I've tried. I think that you're right, though. I'll test it and see if it's actually a problem, but I'd be surprised if it is.

[GendoIkari]

If Poor House is in the Supply, you can do this anyway. Of course, that's going to come up way less often, both because it won't be in the Kingdom with Poor House that often, and also because if it is, you are less likely to trash copper.

Agreed on all points.

I agree that it's a sort of weird thing to basically be given the choice "you may trash one of these cards from the supply". But not weird enough to avoid the otherwise-clearest wording, whatever that may be.

It's a problem that plagues all one-shot remodel variants, or at least all the ones I've tried. I think that you're right, though. I'll test it and see if it's actually a problem, but I'd be surprised if it is.

Just thought of something else... the choice you're making isn't simply "yes or no: decrease the supply by 1?" Because choosing "yes" also means that you are losing out on using the one-shot effect to get a better $2 card. It's only if you've already decided to 1) trash a Copper/Curse and 2) decided to not remodel itself to get another $2 card that you have that choice to make.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I didn't see a problem with Redistrict's original wording, either. I agree with Silverspawn on all points here. Good alternative wordings have been suggested, so there should be no need to change how the card works.

[LastFootnote]

I didn't see a problem with Redistrict's original wording, either. I agree with Silverspawn on all points here. Good alternative wordings have been suggested, so there should be no need to change how the card works.

Agree. I'm going to go for this…

Redistrict
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.

…which is extremely close to how it works now. The difference is that you can use it as a one-shot Remodel if you want to. Usually that'll only matter for Gold -> Province.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Very good! I have a question: how did you embed the images of your cards into your post so that text can be placed in between? Did you upload them somewhere else and then display them here?

[LastFootnote]

Very good! I have a question: how did you embed the images of your cards into your post so that text can be placed in between? Did you upload them somewhere else and then display them here?

Yes! They are on imgur.com.

[LastFootnote]

Hola, amigos. I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya, but things have been pretty crazy around here. Haven't had much time for playtesting Enterprise. But I got to thinking about Conscripts today. The old version (in the OP) is this:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. If he did not discard any cards, he gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

I liked this version because it pushed the "dig for an Attack" option of Barracks, making you want to match up your Conscripts. But the problem with it is that discarding down to 3 cards makes it too difficult to deal with the Curses you get. So I sadly mocked up this version, which I didn't yet get the chance to test:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. Return this to the Conscripts pile. Each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

But today I was thinking of how to push matching up Conscripts without making it too harsh. One obvious path is, "If you have another Conscripts in play, each other player gains a Curse", but whoops, it's a one-shot. "If you have another Attack in play" is better yet, but most Attacks are terminal, making this too much of a pain to pull off (and requiring a village). But today I realized I could make the returning to the Supply itself contingent on giving out a Curse, so Conscripts that don't give out Curses just stick around until you match them up. So:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2. If you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Supply and each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

Hmm, but that has the same problem with needing to play a possibly terminal Attack first. I mean it works fine with other Conscripts, but it's better to push the combos, you know? How about:

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2.
When you play another Attack card with this in play, you may return this to the Conscripts pile. If you do, each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

A bit like Urchin. But crap! This is (at best) confusing with Moat because the actual Attack part doesn't happen on-play. Let's turn it around!

Conscripts
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: 0*
+1 Action. +$2.
You may reveal an Attack card from your hand. If you do, return this to the Conscripts pile and each other player gains a Curse. (This is not in the Supply.)

This is where I've landed. You have to back the Conscripts up with another Attack if you want them to fight! I like this version, but I'd really like to hear your opinions about it.

I'm also considering changing Barracks to cost $4 and gain only one Conscripts. It gives two because otherwise you're way more likely to gain Conscripts every time you play it (and because at the time it changed to gaining 2 it was super weak at gaining 1). Giving two pushes the digging. But if Conscripts sticks around when it whiffs, this is less of a concern. You'd probably want at least 2 Barracks, but hey it only costs $4. The biggest reason I'm considering it is that it seems a bit lame to have a $5 card that digs for another $5 (or cheaper) Attack. I mean it has its uses, but it's not the best. Obviously it's the Conscripts gain option that makes it strong enough to cost $5, but yeah. It might be worth trying the cheaper version.

[pacovf]

I really like this new version of Conscripts!

I don't really understand why you are changing barracks, though.

A random idea I just had. Have you thought about making barracks look for an attack in the discard pile, instead of digging for one? You get a better pick of the attack you get (which makes it combo a bit better with other attack cards in the supply), but if you draw it early in your shuffle it whiffs. I would balance that by gaining conscripts on top of deck instead of the discard pile. These are actually two different ideas, now that I think about it. Don't really know why I am mentioning this, but I guess it can't hurt.

[LastFootnote]

I really like this new version of Conscripts!

I don't really understand why you are changing barracks, though.

A random idea I just had. Have you thought about making barracks look for an attack in the discard pile, instead of digging for one? You get a better pick of the attack you get (which makes it combo a bit better with other attack cards in the supply), but if you draw it early in your shuffle it whiffs. I would balance that by gaining conscripts on top of deck instead of the discard pile. These are actually two different ideas, now that I think about it. Don't really know why I am mentioning this, but I guess it can't hurt.

To be clear, I'm not for sure changing Barracks. I'm just brainstorming.

I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

Yowza, that's elegant! Of course, it mostly abandons the original premise of digging for an Attack. But if I'm honest with myself, Conscripts are really what Barracks are mostly about. This version of Barracks wouldn't have been possible with the older versions of Conscripts that always attacked, but it seems doable with this version. With the digging, you still had to connect Barracks itself with another Attack, and this version preserves that. If you don't connect, your Conscripts hangs out in your deck until it connects with a Barracks, another Conscripts, or any other Attack.

Of course, this heavily overlaps with Recruiter. But what if Recruiter took over the Attack-finding effect that we'd be abandoning with Barracks? We can use your suggested discard pile mechanic.

Recruiter
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+$1. Gain 2 Silvers.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, put your deck into your discard pile and look through your discard pile. You may reveal an Attack card from it and put it into your hand.

Wow that is wordy. The top is just a placeholder. It could just be "Gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile", although part of me wants to re-limit Conscripts to Barracks in order to limit the amount of Cursing in the set. But regardless the bottom might be worth testing. Although it's wordy, it should be fairly easy to remember. Opinions?

[Nic]

I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

So, +1 Action, +$2 & gain a Conscript / strong attack? I feel like that compares too favorably with Minion.

I think I was making the most noise earlier in the thread about the revised Conscripts being too boring, but that was before  I played IRL games with these cards. The Kingdom cards are necessarily wordy and refer to unfamiliar components, and that can be a big hurdle for new players. If you're adding an 11th or 12th pile to the table on top of that, then something like Treasure - $3 should be the ideal amount you have to read. As it is, Conscripts is succinct, useful, and adds strategic depth to Dominion. Maybe the thematic combo isn't what it needs. If there's a way to simplify Barracks on its own, that's worth exploring, but otherwise my opinion is firmly in favor of the status quo.

[LastFootnote]

So, +1 Action, +$2 & gain a Conscript / strong attack? I feel like that compares too favorably with Minion.

Well, bear in mind that unless you connect it with another Attack, your opponent isn't affected at all by the new Conscripts. In games without Baker, you can't open Barracks/Attack. What I'm trying to say is that the attack is still delayed. This would be a buff to Barracks, but Conscripts just got nerfed.

I think I was making the most noise earlier in the thread about the revised Conscripts being too boring, but that was before  I played IRL games with these cards. The Kingdom cards are necessarily wordy and refer to unfamiliar components, and that can be a big hurdle for new players. If you're adding an 11th or 12th pile to the table on top of that, then something like Treasure - $3 should be the ideal amount you have to read. As it is, Conscripts is succinct, useful, and adds strategic depth to Dominion. Maybe the thematic combo isn't what it needs. If there's a way to simplify Barracks on its own, that's worth exploring, but otherwise my opinion is firmly in favor of the status quo.

To be clear, I'm not proposing this change to Conscripts in order for it to be more thematic. That's a cute bonus, but not my intent. Really the intent behind the original Barracks is to interact with Attack cards. With these proposed changes, that interaction shifts to Conscripts, but the idea is still there. You care more about having Attacks.

I agree that simpler is better, but if we're just looking at Barracks and Conscripts, I think these changes make the cards simpler in total. Conscripts is a bit more complex, but not overwhelmingly so. And Barracks is way simpler. So with Barracks on the table, complexity is down and I don't think that the fact the complexity has shifted to Conscripts really matters.

The proposed Recruiter, on the other hand, is a wall of text. I am sympathetic to complaints that Recruiter + Conscripts is more words than it's worth. It's more complex than Urchin/Mercenary or Hermit/Madman. One way I could simplify Recruiter is to not have the reaction put your deck into your discard pile. I'm afraid that'll make it whiff too often, but it's worth a try.

The real upshot is: I really liked that the version of Conscripts in the OP didn't give out Curses every time you played it. The current version of Barracks and the simplest version of Conscripts (+1 Action; +$2; Return this; Each other player gains a Curse) starts slow, but then gives out Curses really rapidly. The version in the OP fixes that, but has the problem of being way too oppressive with the discard attack. This new version of Conscripts is my attempt at fixing the oppressiveness while still making you want to play multiple Conscripts in the same hand. But now instead of just comboing with each other, Conscripts can combo with any Attack card, which is fantastic. That's more or less the interaction that Barracks was trying to have in the first place.

[Zappie]

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

[Awaclus]

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

Conspirator is just a $4 terminal Silver in some kingdoms, but that's fine because those kingdoms are rare. Kingdoms where your version of Recruiter would be just a $4 terminal Silver are much more common. Sometimes you might want the Silver gainer just for the Silver gaining, so it's not as bad.

[silverspawn]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

[Awaclus]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

No, because you don't always have the Attack.

[LastFootnote]

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

Not exactly, because of what Awaclus said. Or more specifically, because you no longer always return Conscripts to its pile when you play it.



This new Barracks wouldn't have been worthwhile with any of the old versions of Conscripts that were true one-shots. But with this new, conditional one-shot Conscripts, it makes more sense. Chances are good that you won't always have another Attack in hand when you play the Barracks, so the Conscripts that you gain is basically a Silver that turn and it stays in your deck until you connect it with another Attack. So this version of Barracks is kind of like a non-terminal Explorer that can't gain Gold. But of course Conscripts are a bit better than Silvers. Probably it's fine power-wise? I look forward to testing it. It'll really come down to whether these versions of the cards are more or less fun than the old versions.

Recruiter may be a wall of text, but the actual action to be done is simple to remember; switch this card for an attack card. And because its an reaction, it's natural to think that it triggers when someone plays an attack card.
I am first time poster in this thread, but if you want to make recruiter simpler you could remove the gain 2 silver (i don't think it has any special synergy within the set right) and make it +2 coin.

Thanks for the thought, and a flat +$2 is definitely something I've considered. Probably I'll try "Gain 2 Conscripts from the Conscripts pile" first (without +$1) and see if that's fun. In a lot of ways, these changes would be like Recruiter and Barracks switching roles. But I like that because:

• It's nicer to have a cheaper card pulling Attacks into your hand.
• "Gain 2 Conscripts" seems better on a terminal Action.

[Fragasnap]

I like the new Conscripts. It is somewhat neat that they are vanishing Silvers when the Curse pile runs out. My only concern would be that they would make the Curse war even more chance based since you need Attacks to collide to give out Curses and Curses in your deck would make that harder.

but... isn't this like making conscripts a 5$ card and putting it into the kingdom instead of barracks?

No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.

I'm not such a fan of the new Recruiter. I don't like how strong its Action effect is, nor am I a huge fan of discarding my deck in response to an Attack. Often discarding my deck means my Attack will not only miss the shuffle, but I'll shuffle any Curses that I've gained into my deck immediately! Often I'll have to shuffle immediately as well for the Attack. In many cases, it won't even provide any sort of utility, because I'll be replacing "Gain 2 Silvers" with the one Attack that is in the Kingdom. I don't see that trade-off as being worthwhile since you wouldn't buy Recruiter unless the Silver flooding was actually going to be useful.

I'd like its Reaction more if it let you look for an Attack or Reaction from your discard pile without discarding your deck. I don't know what to do about its Action effect.

[LastFootnote]

No because Barracks keeps giving you Conscripts, even while they return themselves to their pile. I'd be more excited if Barracks top-decked the Conscripts and gave me some other benefit. It would make the Conscripts feel more separate from Barracks (even if they aren't) which would make them seem more like one-shots. As you know, I'm pretty obsessed with your mechanical theme.

Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure what top-decking the Conscripts really gets you, though. I do think I see what you mean about feeling more separate, though. I'll try the current version and see if it feels too weird. If you're almost always triggering the Conscripts on the turn you gain it, it's probably too strong anyway, so I can then try your idea of top-decking the Conscripts and giving another bonus.

I'm not such a fan of the new Recruiter. I don't like how strong its Action effect is, nor am I a huge fan of discarding my deck in response to an Attack. Often discarding my deck means my Attack will not only miss the shuffle, but I'll shuffle any Curses that I've gained into my deck immediately! Often I'll have to shuffle immediately as well for the Attack. In many cases, it won't even provide any sort of utility, because I'll be replacing "Gain 2 Silvers" with the one Attack that is in the Kingdom. I don't see that trade-off as being worthwhile since you wouldn't buy Recruiter unless the Silver flooding was actually going to be useful.

I'd like its Reaction more if it let you look for an Attack or Reaction from your discard pile without discarding your deck. I don't know what to do about its Action effect.

Well the reaction effect can't search for a Reaction (or an Action) without creating a potential endless loop. Discard the Recruiter, take it out of the discard pile, repeat. You have a really good point about having to shuffle immediately, though. I'm just trying to avoid the situation where you don't remember what you have in your discard pile, you discard the Recruiter, and then have nothing to replace it with. But perhaps it could get you an Attack or a Treasure (and not put your deck into your discard pile). Or it could dig for an Attack, but that's really time-consuming for something that happens on someone else's turn.

The [+$1; Gain 2 Silvers] is very much a placeholder. As mentioned, I will probably try [Gain 2 Conscripts] first. That's also way more thematic.

[Fragasnap]

Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure what top-decking the Conscripts really gets you, though. I do think I see what you mean about feeling more separate, though. I'll try the current version and see if it feels too weird. If you're almost always triggering the Conscripts on the turn you gain it, it's probably too strong anyway, so I can then try your idea of top-decking the Conscripts and giving another bonus.

Top-decking Conscripts would allow the Action effect of Barracks to be secondary to the Conscripts since the Conscripts card is so immediate (though not necessarily played in the same turn). It also maintains strength when played in Throne Room variants. You could flatly gain them if you wanted, top decking is simply more like gaining them to hand.

I don't suspect that it will be too weird. However, if the Conscripts pile is going to be on more than one card, you might want Barracks to feel a little bigger on its own than simply giving you Conscripts.

Well the reaction effect can't search for a Reaction (or an Action) without creating a potential endless loop. Discard the Recruiter, take it out of the discard pile, repeat. You have a really good point about having to shuffle immediately, though. I'm just trying to avoid the situation where you don't remember what you have in your discard pile, you discard the Recruiter, and then have nothing to replace it with.

Infinitely looping to retrieve your Recruiter does nothing though (just like you can infinitely replace the Silver you're going to gain with a Silver using Trader). If Recruiter could retrieve Reactions (i.e. itself) or Attacks from your discard pile, you can discard it to look through your discard pile and, if you don't have an Attack in your discard pile, you can pull the Recruiter back out. You don't have to remember the contents of your discard pile or miss out playing your Recruiter by messing up its Reaction since it can always retrieve itself. As a bonus, you can pull a different Reaction out to react to the Attack taking place.

[pacovf]

I think avoiding digging is a goal worth pursuing. Putting two gained Conscripts on top of your deck kind of defeats part of the point, since they automatically connect with each other that way. But the idea of looking through the discard pile is worth considering. But you know what would be even faster? Just gaining an Attack directly to your hand. Think how much simpler that would be:

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile, putting it into your hand.

PPE 8: there was another page!

For starters, when I said "gain conscripts on top of deck", I meant only one. Not my fault the card name is plural, amirite? I can understand wanting to make the duet simpler though.

Your new version of barracks seems fine, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I don't know if the gimmick of a non-terminal card that gains an attack to hand instead of being an attack itself is really worth it. Before it was a bit more hidden, a bit less one-to-one, so it didn't bother me that much. I don't know, might just be me.

Your current version of recruiter is way too wordy though, but I don't know how to fix it. And it has the problem that, in games with more than one attack card, the reaction may make people have to choose which card to pick, and decisions as reactions seem bad, slows the game too much.

[scott_pilgrim]

Your new version of barracks seems fine, don't get me wrong. But somehow, I don't know if the gimmick of a non-terminal card that gains an attack to hand instead of being an attack itself is really worth it. Before it was a bit more hidden, a bit less one-to-one, so it didn't bother me that much. I don't know, might just be me.

I think this is sort of how I feel about the new version too.  The first version was sort of its own card, and then it had an option to get you a Conscripts, and that synergized with its "main" part.  Now it feels like when you play it, you're playing Conscripts, it's just that you also wind up with an extra Conscripts in your deck afterward.

Also, I thought "dig for an attack" was a pretty cool concept for a card, and Barracks was a good way of doing it (the other option would be to make it an attack itself, not sure if that's better or worse but I'm guessing you thought about it a lot and liked it the way you did it).  The new version has pretty much lost that concept, the concept now is more like gain and play a Conscripts, and I guess Conscripts is not exciting enough to me that "gain and play Conscripts" is an exciting concept.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, maybe I'll just keep Barracks as-is then. I still prefer the new Conscripts, though. And they are weaker, so perhaps Barracks will need a buff.

Probably I'll try both versions of Barracks with the new Conscripts and see which goes over better with my testers.

[NoMoreFun]

The set now has a bit of a "Silver with a Bonus" theme - Refurbish, Fund and now Conscripts.

Limiting Conscripts to Barracks makes me think you could reconfigure Barracks so it doesn't have to have its own pile of special cards. A card that both gains silvers and trashes them for curses perhaps? I don't like wasted piles. Something doesn't seem quite right about the new situation and it might be that, and it might be the fact that you are making a tradeoff between a Silver and a one time attack. Instead of seeming like a delayed attack, the thing that comes to mind when you play a conscripts is "everyone's deck gets worse".

On another note, what's wrong with digging anyway? I haven't had enough IRL dominion playtime to evaluate how annoying it really is. I have a bit of it in my own set (a card that has you dig for a victory card, and a card that makes everyone dig for a card costing 3 or more); should I try and find alternatives?

[NoMoreFun]

Also how has your playtesting of Silver/new conscripts gainers been going? I've had no playtesting opportunities for my own fan cards. I'm wondering for prospector (which is now:

Prospector
Action - $3
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
---
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may put it anywhere in your deck.)

[LastFootnote]

New images in progress…

Kingdom Cards




Ancillary Cards

[LastFootnote]

As a prelude to (hopefully) getting back into working on Enterprise, I have recreated all the cards as they currently exist using my new template.

General Changes
• Brighter gold coin symbols.
• Fonts that I believe are more correct a.k.a. close to what most of the published cards use.
• Thicker, shorter dividing lines.
• Cards now refer to "paying" a token rather than "spending" it, as Butcher does.
• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

Card-Specific Changes
• Redistrict now uses the wording I talked about earlier in the thread, where you "choose" a card. This allows you to e.g. turn a Gold into a Province even if there's no $7 card on the board (as long as you trash your Redistrict).
• Auction has been added.
• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.
• Floodgate costs $3 instead of $4.
• Mill Town allows you to reveal your hand and gain a card regardless of how many Coppers you have in your hand.
• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.
• Axeman's buy restriction has been removed. If players opening with it is a problem, I'll change it back or fix it some other way.
• Barrister is now the new $5 version that can trash any non-Copper Treasures and gains you a Treasure right to hand. It's worked great in the few games I've played with it.
• Exchange has been renamed Barter. I wanted it to line up with the other Trade token cards and get you a token when you gained it (instead of when you bought it), so it now gains you a card costing exactly $2 more than the trashed card rather than up to $2 more. Again, this is because of Fortress. Goddamn Fortress always getting in the way of card design.
• Cathedral has been added. Haven't tested it yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I just hope there's not too much trashing in the set.
• Convocation has been renamed to Conclave and has a new superior wording! I think I've finally got a good one here. Terse, yet straightforward.
• General now gives you the option of topdecking the card you played twice, rather than forcing you to. This is mostly a logistics fix. Sometimes you forget to topdeck your card. Before that meant you were cheating. Now it just means you (probably) shot yourself in the foot. Sometimes you won't want to topdeck the Action, and that's fine too.
• Lodge and Investment are gone. R.I.P., Lodge and Investment.
• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

Tasks Going Forward
• Playtest more! Especially the newer cards.
• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.
• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

[Fragasnap]

• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.

• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.

Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.

• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
I'd like to see that $4 Recruiter that gains 2 Conscripts and pulls Attacks and Reactions from your discard pile in response to Attacks and a Barracks that can do something like either gain a Conscripts with some other vanilla benefit or non-terminally hunt for an Attack (maybe make it a splitter when digging for an Attack? Would that be interesting?).

• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.

The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
You are pretty heavy on non-terminal cards in general. There is not a particularly fast way to trash (save Gambler\Gambler which is always a... you know) within your set, though you have quite a few trashers.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
While Gambler is thematic with both itself and the set, as well as strong, Gambler is a very strong card that is not very much fun to use. The decision to trash the card you look at or draw it is really a non-decision, but trashing the Gambler almost always feels bad because you wished it would have stuck around to trash more.
Trashing is a strong effect that is mildly uncommon and monumentally useful, so with Gambler being a cheap non-terminal trasher, it is nearly impossible to pass on any non-rush board. While cards that are nearly necessary to buy aren't necessarily unhealthy for the game (see Chapel, Witch, Goons), Gambler does not create an unusual game-state the way those games do. All Gambler does is push the game more towards luck as some players will get lucky with the trashing.
Where Gambler is easy to use and always useful, Vendor is hard to use and situational.
Trashing Vendor rarely feels bad because it feels much more like a choice. Its sifting is unusual and only useful if you can get a weird sort of Action deck going that pushes past its Coppers to get to its meaty Actions (though it is utterly neutered by Cursers). And then when your deck starts greening, all your Vendors turn into one-shot Laboratories.
Maybe this will not be a common opinion among those who have played with the cards, but I find Vendor and Gambler to be stepping on each other's toes, and between the two, I like Vendor because it is a card with a higher skill cap and more interesting decisions.

• Playtest more! Especially the newer cards.

Hear, hear!

[LastFootnote]

• Cards that allow you to pay a Trade token for an effect now use an abbreviated "to" phrasing e.g. "You may pay a Trade token, to draw a card".

This abbreviation sounds weird. Does it really save all that much space? I find it unusual that you continue to call "Actions" and "Treasures" "Action cards" and "Treasure cards" while trying to save space.

Mm, yeah, the abbreviation is a little weird. It's the superfluous comma that makes it sound strange to me. Probably we will get used to it. Or I'll change it back.

I first typed up Conclave with "an Action, a Treasure, and a Victory card" and decided that some moron would invariably read it as meaning a card that was all three types. Having the word "card" after each type underscores the fact that it's talking about up to three different cards.

• Dignitary's reaction has been reworked to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) infinite Fortress loop. Now you can discard it when another player plays an Attack to trash a card from your hand and then draw a card. Yes, you might draw another (or the same) Dignitary. Eventually you won't, though. You could effectively cycle infinitely with a Golden deck that includes Fortress, but that's just a case of you wasting everybody's time, not of a literal infinite code loop where the game can't progress no matter what you do. Long story short, I hope this version works out.

Why was this change necessary? Its previous wording ("trash down to 4 cards in hand") was pretty easy to work with, even if it couldn't stack (excepting Fortress, which is a loop that only lets you trigger Market Square without actually trashing a card). I think I'll find myself reluctant to use this Dignitary's Reaction because I'll lose the use of its strong Action effect.

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

• Conscripts is the new version that only returns to the pile and gives out Curses if you match it up with another Attack in hand. I'm trying it with Barracks and Recruiter as they are. Probably they were too strong before and maybe this nerf is enough to get them to a manageable power level.

I liked the idea of changing Recruiter and Barracks with the massive overhaul of Conscripts that took place. At the same time, I liked the original idea of Barracks.
I'd like to see that $4 Recruiter that gains 2 Conscripts and pulls Attacks and Reactions from your discard pile in response to Attacks and a Barracks that can do something like either gain a Conscripts with some other vanilla benefit or non-terminally hunt for an Attack (maybe make it a splitter when digging for an Attack? Would that be interesting?).

Well, part of the appeal of my new suggested Barracks is that it's so simple, so I would be loathe to complicate it with more options. Under that scheme, the "put an Attack in your hand" concept would move to Recruiter's reaction, but as some have pointed out, that's a time-consuming thing to do as a reaction. Maybe I'll try the version that fishes out an Attack or a Reaction without the putting your deck into your discard pile. Anyway, enough people were against those changes that I'm not in as much of a hurry to try them out. I guess I'll see how the current versions work with the new Conscripts.

The very first version of Barracks had +2 Actions. I removed it when I realized that villages tend to be less useful in Curse-filled games.

• I need a 25th Kingdom card. Should cost $5 or maybe $6. Maybe an Attack. I could test Conquest, but I already have two trashing Attacks. Hmm…
• Probably I have too many $3 cards. Perhaps I could change one to cost either $2 or $4.

The cost distribution is overall a bit low because of the number of $3 cards. Getting a $6 card will help that. I'm not crazy about some of the off-theme $3 cards you have like Refurbish and Auction, so I wouldn't be too sad for them to be cut.
You are pretty heavy on non-terminal cards in general. There is not a particularly fast way to trash (save Gambler\Gambler which is always a... you know) within your set, though you have quite a few trashers.

I would be happy grudgingly willing to cut some of the off-theme $3 cards if I come up with enough good on-theme cards to replace them. I am trying to think up some more terminal $5 cards. I guess there's no really strong trasher, though there are enough weak trashers and remodels that maybe that's fine.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

Vendor occupies a kind of similar space as Gambler since they both have the same effect when trashed, but I actually prefer Vendor.
While Gambler is thematic with both itself and the set, as well as strong, Gambler is a very strong card that is not very much fun to use. The decision to trash the card you look at or draw it is really a non-decision, but trashing the Gambler almost always feels bad because you wished it would have stuck around to trash more.
Trashing is a strong effect that is mildly uncommon and monumentally useful, so with Gambler being a cheap non-terminal trasher, it is nearly impossible to pass on any non-rush board. While cards that are nearly necessary to buy aren't necessarily unhealthy for the game (see Chapel, Witch, Goons), Gambler does not create an unusual game-state the way those games do. All Gambler does is push the game more towards luck as some players will get lucky with the trashing.
Where Gambler is easy to use and always useful, Vendor is hard to use and situational.
Trashing Vendor rarely feels bad because it feels much more like a choice. Its sifting is unusual and only useful if you can get a weird sort of Action deck going that pushes past its Coppers to get to its meaty Actions (though it is utterly neutered by Cursers). And then when your deck starts greening, all your Vendors turn into one-shot Laboratories.
Maybe this will not be a common opinion among those who have played with the cards, but I find Vendor and Gambler to be stepping on each other's toes, and between the two, I like Vendor because it is a card with a higher skill cap and more interesting decisions.

Well, I think most folks agree that the two are similar and I don't need both. But I believe you're in the minority when it comes to preferring Vendor to Gambler. Gambler has been really popular in both real-life games and here on f.DS. For example, you mentioned in a previous post that it was the favorite fan card of one of your players. You are correct that its "decision" is very rarely an actual decision, but that's not really the point of the card. Lots of Dominion cards have no decisions on-play; when to buy it is the decision. Gambler is also sort of an obviously luck-based card for those players that like obviously luck-based card. In contrast, most people see Vendor as a bit dull. Too close to Stables, etc.

On the other hand, if Gambler really is a must-buy on almost every board, that's reason enough to cut or change it. Specifically, if a Gambler/Gambler opening is strong, I think that's a problem. I don't think that opening is strong, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks as always for the feedback!

[silverspawn]

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

what about "when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."
that's a little bit awkward, but clear in meaning, only slightly longer than the original, and identical in power.

[NoMoreFun]

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

[LastFootnote]

"Trash down to 4 cards in hand" was beautiful and perfect until Donald made this unfortunate ruling. Say that your opponent plays Council Room twice and afterwards your hand is 6 Fortresses and a Dignitary. Then an opponent plays an Attack and you reveal Dignitary. Donald's ruling on "discard/trash down to" means you discard/trash one card at a time until you get down to 4 in hand. Even if you trash the Dignitary, you ain't never getting down to 4 cards in hand. So the game is stuck in an endless loop that you are helpless to escape. Whee!

Maybe I shouldn't care about this ridiculous edge case. It's just a fan card. I tried typing up a version that worked like Horse Traders, returning to your hand at the start of your next turn. That's an option, but it's SOOOOOO wordy. I also thought about having this new version draw you 2 cards, but I worried that with a few Dignitaries it would be too easy to just trash all your junk after being hit by a single Attack. Maybe I'll go with the Horse Traders wording. I could be convinced.

what about "when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."
that's a little bit awkward, but clear in meaning, only slightly longer than the original, and identical in power.

You know, I think that just might do it. It doesn't even need "reveal and trash". "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand." Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago. Thanks!

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Dang, does it really nerf it that much? Maybe your'e right and it should just go back to the way it was. It would be nice to have them all be on-gain, but I don't want to make it suck.

[Fragasnap]

Well, I think most folks agree that the two are similar and I don't need both. But I believe you're in the minority when it comes to preferring Vendor to Gambler. Gambler has been really popular in both real-life games and here on f.DS. For example, you mentioned in a previous post that it was the favorite fan card of one of your players. You are correct that its "decision" is very rarely an actual decision, but that's not really the point of the card. Lots of Dominion cards have no decisions on-play; when to buy it is the decision. Gambler is also sort of an obviously luck-based card for those players that like obviously luck-based card. In contrast, most people see Vendor as a bit dull. Too close to Stables, etc.

My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.

On the other hand, if Gambler really is a must-buy on almost every board, that's reason enough to cut or change it. Specifically, if a Gambler/Gambler opening is strong, I think that's a problem. I don't think that opening is strong, but maybe I'm wrong.

Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Your preferred opening with Gambler is Gambler\Terminal-Action because Gambler drawing a terminal Action is obviously the only thing that will make Gambler's one-shot Laboratory effect worthwhile on turn 3, though it remains monumentally frustrating.

Must-buys aren't necessarily bad. The question then becomes whether or not the card plays in interesting ways in spite of being a must-buy. Goons is a card you practically have to buy on every board in which you can hit $6, but Goons creates a game-state that is fun. I don't think Gambler does that, even if it is such a fan favorite.

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).

"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."

Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago.

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

[LastFootnote]

My point was that if trashing is good, Gambler is a strong buy. How often is trashing good in Dominion? Probably nine times out of ten. The decision to buy Gambler will only ever be interesting when Chapel or Remake is already on the board. When you can't afford the loss of momentum that Chapel causes or no other trasher is available, Gambler is just a blatantly luck-based card that especially affects the early game (already the most luck-based part of Dominion) as opposed to Treasure Map and Tournament which are luck-based cards that affect the game later, at which time the game is much easier to manipulate. The "one-shot Laboratory when it would draw something good" is actually really strong: almost trivially so for a cost of $3. I don't think I ever played a game with Gambler that I didn't buy it.

Gambler\Gambler openings are decent when all you need is the trashing and you aren't in a rush to hit $5. The risk you run is your Gambler hitting your Gambler. I think the only thing worse than that is when a Scout pulls a Province away from a Tournament.
Your preferred opening with Gambler is Gambler\Terminal-Action because Gambler drawing a terminal Action is obviously the only thing that will make Gambler's one-shot Laboratory effect worthwhile on turn 3, though it remains monumentally frustrating.

Must-buys aren't necessarily bad. The question then becomes whether or not the card plays in interesting ways in spite of being a must-buy. Goons is a card you practically have to buy on every board in which you can hit $6, but Goons creates a game-state that is fun. I don't think Gambler does that, even if it is such a fan favorite.

Well, how does it compare to e.g. Lookout? Do you also buy that in 90% of games? I might, personally. Likewise with Chapel and Remake.

It sounds like some of these concerns could be remedied by increasing Gambler's cost to $4. That mostly eliminates Gambler/Gambler openings and it has to compete with stronger cards at that price point. I like it at $3 because you feel less bad when you lose it. Buying another one is pretty trivial. But I could see it costing $4.

Not a big fan of the changes to "Exchange" (including the name). "Exactly 2" makes the card so much worse. If the only way in the set to gain trade tokens was to gain a card that gave you one, you might have a point, but with Craftsman and Cathedral (which is a "when buy" effect) there's a bit of variety. Is it really worth sabotaging the card for fortress? I think not being able to use an exchange to gain an exchange in hand is a fairly obvious reason to make it "when buy", fortress or not.

Seconded. When you already have other ways to gain Trade tokens, it doesn't really save any complexity to avoid on-buy Trade tokens. You could make the difference more explicit by giving two Trade tokens for the on-buy of Barter (which would make its +Action more sensible since you don't have to gain a bunch of Barters to use its Trade token effect).

I was already considering having Barter/Exchange get you 2 tokens, so this change sounds good to me. That doesn't really fix the buy/gain "problem", since it's such a similar effect, but it's not like it's been a big issue as on-buy in my games.

"when [...] you may reveal this. if you do, reveal then trash all but four cards in your hand."

Man, not sure why I didn't come up with that a long time ago.

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, choose 3 or more cards in your hand and trash the rest."

I'm pretty sure that works.

And it looks like I liked it then, too! I guess I just came up with the (formally) better "trash down to" wording and didn't look back.

EDIT: Actually, the newly suggested wording of "Trash all but X cards" is cleaner and better than "Choose X or more cards and trash the rest". So yeah, different thing. It wouldn't have worked back when X = 3, but is reasonable when X = 4.

[Minotaur]

Not sure whether this is a new comment or not, but I think Recruiter should be linked with Conscripts somehow.  If Recruiter causes there to always be an attack card in the game, then its reaction is never completely void.  Granted, most boards will have an attack or two, but just in case...

[LastFootnote]

I just updated Dignitary and Barter in the recent image post. Dignitary is back to "reveal this from your hand" and uses the new "all but 4 cards from your hand" wording. Barter is back to gaining a card "up to" $2 more than the trashed card and now gives you 2 Trade tokens when you buy it. I'll see if that's too strong, especially in conjunction with other Trade token cards. But I'm cautiously optimistic.

Not sure whether this is a new comment or not, but I think Recruiter should be linked with Conscripts somehow.  If Recruiter causes there to always be an attack card in the game, then its reaction is never completely void.  Granted, most boards will have an attack or two, but just in case...

Yes, agreed. Even if Barracks and Recruiter do get an overhaul, Recruiter's top will probably gain Conscripts.

EDIT: Hmm, with the weaker version of Conscripts, maybe it's time to revisit Profiteer.



In a game with no other Attack cards, it'll take awhile for those Curses to start hitting you. Maybe too long. Still, it's tempting to try.

[pacovf]

What's up with profiteer? A better attack than Embassy for less?

Any particular reason why the other players don't get a choice?

[Archetype]

I love the idea of giving other players Conscripts.

[Minotaur]

Profiteer probably isn't worth it if it giving you Conscripts is the only way to give out Curses.  In that case, the player who doesn't get Profiteer gains the least Curses.  In games where you can start running out the Curse pile *before* you start handing out Conscripts, Profiteer is probably much stronger.

[NoMoreFun]

If there's no other attacks or conscript gainers, playing profiteer once then trashing it for benefit is probably a good play. It works well with Remodel etc. as you have 2 golds to turn into provinces later. I love the idea thematically - hopefully it works out.

Floodgate is too good for $3 if you work on the assumption that the official reaction cards would be that cost even without the reaction. If the cost distribution isn't right that is an easy fix.

Alternatively, have you tried Axeman at $6? It certainly looks like the kind of attack that should cost $6.

The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.

[NoMoreFun]

When are you going to call it done? The expansion is already much better than the Fan Expansions on BGG. It's had more care and consideration than even the official cards. Are you going to eventually try and get simulations or an isotropic/androminion style playtest thing happening?

[LastFootnote]

If there's no other attacks or conscript gainers, playing profiteer once then trashing it for benefit is probably a good play. It works well with Remodel etc. as you have 2 golds to turn into provinces later. I love the idea thematically - hopefully it works out.

I tried this exact Profiteer with an old version of Conscripts and I was the only one who ever bought it. This Conscripts is definitely weaker, so I'm willing to give it one more shot. Probably I won't have this and Recruiter, though.

Floodgate is too good for $3 if you work on the assumption that the official reaction cards would be that cost even without the reaction. If the cost distribution isn't right that is an easy fix.

Floodgate cost $4 forever and it was a dud. I kept it around because I loved it, but it was super rare for others to buy it. Then Nic suggested costing it at $3. I tried one game with that and it sold like hotcakes. The pile didn't run out, but it got used a lot. So I currently have no desire to move it back to $4.

Floodgate at $3 isn't strictly better than Tunnel, which is all that really matters. I made a post way back in the day about why Aqueduct (Floodgate's predecessor) could cost $4 and not $3 despite the fact that it looked comparable to Tunnel power-wise. Basically the argument was that when you bought it (endgame), Aqueduct was better than Tunnel, because at that point Tunnel was just 2 VP. But since then I have learned a lot about making cards. I'm not going to limit myself from making cards that are strictly better or worse during different parts of the game, so the fact that Floodgate is way better than Tunnel in the late game is fine. Tunnel is almost always better earlier.

Most of the Action-Reaction cards could be OK at their cost without the Reactions, although they would mostly be weak. Tunnel is a special case because you care about its Reaction exclusively early in the game, and you care about its VP exclusively late. You usually care about both parts of Moat throughout the game. I forget where I was going with this. Anyway, Floodgate seems way better at $3 so far.

Alternatively, have you tried Axeman at $6? It certainly looks like the kind of attack that should cost $6.

Yeah, it originally cost $6. Then I changed it to $5 and added the buy restriction. If it doesn't work at $5, I will probably return it to $6 because that's way less wordy than the under-line text. But other than possibly opening with it, it seems fine at $5. It's not a tremendously powerful attack.

The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.

Yes, I think I'll remove it.

[LastFootnote]

When are you going to call it done? The expansion is already much better than the Fan Expansions on BGG. It's had more care and consideration than even the official cards. Are you going to eventually try and get simulations or an isotropic/androminion style playtest thing happening?

When will I call it done? Well, the short answer is "never". The slightly longer answer is "when Donald is really for-reals done making expansions". He recently said in the interview thread that he's sure there will be more expansions eventually. As long as expansions are being released, there is an increasing likelihood that cards from it will overlap what I've got here. If he ever does his own Trade token-style thing, I may scrap the set entirely, since that's the most exotic thing it's got going for it.

The long answer starts with "once I have 25 Kingdom cards I'm happy with". Right now I've got 24 Kingdom cards. Maybe some won't survive further testing. Testing has been slim lately. I would like to finalize a "Version 1.0" of the set, with the understanding that it may need to change as official sets use the same names or cards.

[GendoIkari]

This may have been discussed already... but with Guide, do you intend for the players to not be able to choose the order that they put the 2 cards back in? It doesn't say "in any order", which means that you can't choose the order, I guess. But this is tricky, because when you are looking at the cards, you would have to remember what order they were in; and it's hard to have accountability that you don't switch the order when you put them back.

[silverspawn]

This may have been discussed already... but with Guide, do you intend for the players to not be able to choose the order that they put the 2 cards back in? It doesn't say "in any order", which means that you can't choose the order, I guess. But this is tricky, because when you are looking at the cards, you would have to remember what order they were in; and it's hard to have accountability that you don't switch the order when you put them back.

the new version of guide allows you to choose to order. which is definitely a necessary change.

[LastFootnote]

This may have been discussed already... but with Guide, do you intend for the players to not be able to choose the order that they put the 2 cards back in? It doesn't say "in any order", which means that you can't choose the order, I guess. But this is tricky, because when you are looking at the cards, you would have to remember what order they were in; and it's hard to have accountability that you don't switch the order when you put them back.

the new version of guide allows you to choose to order. which is definitely a necessary change.

And yet, Dignitary still doesn't specify that you can choose the order. There's just no room on the card, which is unfortunate.

EDIT: GendoIkari, the latest cards are all here, in case you're interested. I have plans to eventually update the OP.

[Nic]

• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.

Ehh, I like the old name and art for Guide a lot better. On play, the card is about looking ahead and working around obstacles, and when you're well prepared you're able to traverse more of your deck in a single turn than someone without a Guide could.

The fix to Dignitary is perfect, and I'm glad that Exchange/Barter is back to its original setup as well.

I've got plenty of unsolicited advice about the last 1-2 cards. I like Auction, Floodgate, and Gambler, and I feel they all fill important niches in the set, but Refurbish and Vendor seem to me to just fill up space. (That's not to say they're bad cards; if you like Refurbish, then keep it.)
On the other hand, when I look at what's missing from the set, the lack of dual-type cards is a pretty big hole. Obviously Convocationclave would like to see something more than the one Domain that might be in your deck in a small percentage of games -- but more importantly, I'm worried Cathedral could be a dud without Action-Victory cards to buy. Either you wait until you start greening to use the trashing ability, or you pick up an Estate with your second buy, gaining one junk card now for the chance to trash two on the next shuffle. That might be a good deal in a Curse-heavy slog, but it doesn't seem like it'll see use without a lot of support. I would raise the number of cards trashed from two to 'up to three' and then see if that's too strong, but at the very least I would add a second Victory card to the set to improve the odds of a combo.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something like 

Vendlord - Action-Victory - $5
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.

This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up.  I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.

The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.

Yes, I think I'll remove it.

Yeah, you're only saving a few letters, and it doesn't jive with the rest of Dominion text. It's not even consistent with Jubilee, since that effect can't be abbreviated.

[LastFootnote]

• Guide has been renamed to Convoy, which I thought better exemplified the idea of playing it several times to get you further.

Ehh, I like the old name and art for Guide a lot better. On play, the card is about looking ahead and working around obstacles, and when you're well prepared you're able to traverse more of your deck in a single turn than someone without a Guide could.

Well, I feel at this point that the main thrust of the card is replaying it. It might be nice to save the name Guide for something that had more of a focus on reordering your deck.

I've got plenty of unsolicited advice about the last 1-2 cards. I like Auction, Floodgate, and Gambler, and I feel they all fill important niches in the set, but Refurbish and Vendor seem to me to just fill up space. (That's not to say they're bad cards; if you like Refurbish, then keep it.)
On the other hand, when I look at what's missing from the set, the lack of dual-type cards is a pretty big hole. Obviously Convocationclave would like to see something more than the one Domain that might be in your deck in a small percentage of games -- but more importantly, I'm worried Cathedral could be a dud without Action-Victory cards to buy. Either you wait until you start greening to use the trashing ability, or you pick up an Estate with your second buy, gaining one junk card now for the chance to trash two on the next shuffle. That might be a good deal in a Curse-heavy slog, but it doesn't seem like it'll see use without a lot of support. I would raise the number of cards trashed from two to 'up to three' and then see if that's too strong, but at the very least I would add a second Victory card to the set to improve the odds of a combo.

• Vendor is kind of unexciting. I'd like to perhaps replace it with a cooler card. Either its replacement or the 25th card (or both) should have +1 Buy.

I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something like 

Vendlord - Action-Victory - $5
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.

This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up.  I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.

I definitely appreciate the unsolicited advice. In general I want to get as much feedback as possible.

I am not opposed to having an Action-Victory card, but I also don't consider it a hole that needs filling. If anything, Conclave might be too much of an automatic buy with such cards available. I mean it's fine if that combo comes up sometimes, but I don't specifically need it in the same set.

I really have no idea yet how Cathedral will play. I have it cut and sleeved, but haven't played any test games with it yet. I'm hoping it'll encourage buying Duchies, etc. to get your tokens, but don't know if that'll really happen. It is worth noting that if you buy an Estate (or a Province) with multiple Cathedrals in play, you get a token for each one. If it needs buffing, "up to 3" is certainly on the table.

To my eye, Vendlord seems to lack focus. Maybe if I played with it I'd feel differently. But you usually don't mind discarding Victory cards, so it's weird to be rewarded for doing it. It is itself a Victory card, so you can discard one to another, but probably that feels bad. Like, I tried a card that was [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$1 | When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may set it aside, putting it into your hand at the start of your next turn]. But it rarely felt good to do that trick because often enough you'd rather play it this turn instead.

Anyway, sorry to be so down on it. I'll think about it more. And I'll think about other possibilities for an Action-Victory card for the set. It might be interesting to have one that you could use as a one-shot, but was worth VP if you kept it around. But maybe that's not interesting. Hmm…

I like Refurbish fine, but it doesn't need to be in this set. It has the combo with Fund and works well with all the non-terminal draw, but that's about it. It's definitely first on the chopping block as far as $3 cards go.

The comma with the "to" wording looks bad.

Yes, I think I'll remove it.

Yeah, you're only saving a few letters, and it doesn't jive with the rest of Dominion text. It's not even consistent with Jubilee, since that effect can't be abbreviated.

I actually just meant that I'd remove the comma, but perhaps I should go back to the old "If you do" wording for consistency. I've softened quite a bit on using new phrasings, though. The important thing is that it's unambiguous, which "You may spend a token to do X" is.

[LastFootnote]

Profiteer probably isn't worth it if it giving you Conscripts is the only way to give out Curses.  In that case, the player who doesn't get Profiteer gains the least Curses.  In games where you can start running out the Curse pile *before* you start handing out Conscripts, Profiteer is probably much stronger.

I'm hoping it'll still be worth it in games with good ways to trash Curses. Or in games where Gold is particularly strong. Or in games where other Attacks are scarce so that opponents might have a hard time connecting the Conscripts you give them with each other. Gaining a Gold on your deck isn't the best thing ever, but you know. It's pretty good. Hopefully "Gold next turn" is worth "Curse somewhere down the line" in enough games.

[silverspawn]

The ability to give out curses on other cards isn't the main factor I think. Rather the ability to handle curses. Gaining a gold on top of your deck, giving other players junkers, a terminal action without cycling, that's all effects that clog your deck. the card will be good in games where you can handle curses, and really terrible on boards that are all about action density, but don't have strong trashing. it's also another card that allows you to play a very low economy/high trashing game, it easily works as a deux-ex-machina for your economy, as long as you can draw your deck reliably and get rid of junk as it comes.

it might also be okay in straight forward BM games without trashing, as a later pickup instead of silver.

[LastFootnote]

One thing about Refurbish and Vendor: they're currently two of the simplest cards in the set. It's nice to have some simple cards. Clerk and Fund are pretty simple. Auction is simple. The version of Barracks that just puts a Conscripts into your hand is very simple. As far as Conscripts-gaining goes, I could be happy with just that version of Barracks and Profiteer.

I guess the cards in Enterprise aren't super-complex, with a few notable exceptions (Committee, General, maybe Barrister). But even compared to Dark Ages, the cards are wordy. A fair amount of that is "When you gain this, take a Trade token". But still. Wordy.

[LastFootnote]

The set now has a bit of a "Silver with a Bonus" theme - Refurbish, Fund and now Conscripts.

Limiting Conscripts to Barracks makes me think you could reconfigure Barracks so it doesn't have to have its own pile of special cards. A card that both gains silvers and trashes them for curses perhaps? I don't like wasted piles. Something doesn't seem quite right about the new situation and it might be that, and it might be the fact that you are making a tradeoff between a Silver and a one time attack. Instead of seeming like a delayed attack, the thing that comes to mind when you play a conscripts is "everyone's deck gets worse".

On another note, what's wrong with digging anyway? I haven't had enough IRL dominion playtime to evaluate how annoying it really is. I have a bit of it in my own set (a card that has you dig for a victory card, and a card that makes everyone dig for a card costing 3 or more); should I try and find alternatives?

Sorry I didn't directly respond to these earlier.

Um, probably I'm keeping Conscripts rather than trying to use Silver. Probably either Recruiter or Profiteer will survive in some form.

The problem with digging is that it's time consuming, especially when you're digging for one or two specific cards in your deck, which is often enough the case for Barracks. I'm not saying that digging is never worth doing; Committee digs for cards, though it usually finds the cards it needs very quickly. But, along with the fact that it's vastly simpler, avoiding digging is a reason for me to try a Barracks that just gains a Conscripts right to your hand.

Also how has your playtesting of Silver/new conscripts gainers been going? I've had no playtesting opportunities for my own fan cards.

No testing of Conscripts yet, unfortunately. I will keep you posted!

[LastFootnote]

I am not opposed to having an Action-Victory card, but I also don't consider it a hole that needs filling. If anything, Conclave might be too much of an automatic buy with such cards available. I mean it's fine if that combo comes up sometimes, but I don't specifically need it in the same set.

On the other hand, I have exactly 2 blank cards in the set, assuming 15 copies of Conscripts. That means I could have another Victory card and be fine. It can't really use Trade tokens unless it both gains and spends them on-play (like Craftsman), because it would need two dividing lines. But perhaps I could try an Action-Victory that you can trash for an effect just to see if it's worth doing. It doesn't sound super-exciting because probably you buy it either for the VP or for the effect. If I cost it at $6 and it's worth 3 VP or less, then really the VP is just a consolation prize in case you never get around to trashing it.

EDIT: Hmm, maybe a one-shot that you have to combo with something in order for it to work well. If you never get the combo off then hey, at least it's worth some VP.

EDIT 2:

Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.

EDIT 3: You guys think Auction could cost $2? Probably it could cost $2.

[LastFootnote]

What's up with profiteer? A better attack than Embassy for less?

Oh, pacovf. You so funny! 

Any particular reason why the other players don't get a choice?

It's cleaner and faster to resolve. As you noted, Embassy doesn't give a choice when giving out Silver. Governor doesn't either. And really, if you're building the kind of deck that doesn't want Silvers, you can probably pretty easily return all your Conscripts to their stack (or all but one if there are no other Attack cards). And probably you give out Curses in the process!

[Fragasnap]

And yet, Dignitary still doesn't specify that you can choose the order. There's just no room on the card, which is unfortunate.

Look at the top 2 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2.

Would the above wording fit onto Dignitary? It does not take many more characters so long as both coin images appear on the same line. It is an annoying card to word considering how simple the effect is.

Um, probably I'm keeping Conscripts rather than trying to use Silver. Probably either Recruiter or Profiteer will survive in some form.

The problem with digging is that it's time consuming, especially when you're digging for one or two specific cards in your deck, which is often enough the case for Barracks. I'm not saying that digging is never worth doing; Committee digs for cards, though it usually finds the cards it needs very quickly. But, along with the fact that it's vastly simpler, avoiding digging is a reason for me to try a Barracks that just gains a Conscripts right to your hand.

I would be happy seeing another version of Barracks or Recruiter with the changes to Conscripts, but if all Recruiter does is gain Conscripts and all Barracks does is gain Conscripts to hand, they are going to feel similar. As a designer I would find that similarity frustrating.

I like that Barracks hunts for an Attack when you want it to-- especially since having an extra card pile like Conscripts is the only way to make such a card. The problem with the current Barracks is that it costs $5, so hunting for your Witch is useless since you could have just gotten another Witch instead. Eventually you cannot stand to get more Witches, but buying Barrackses does not solve the problem since your Witch will terminally draw them anyway.
A $4 Barracks that could gain a single Conscripts to hand or hunt for an Attack might also struggle to work since the Attack you hunt down probably will not be much better than the non-terminal Silver that a Conscripts is, especially at the cost of gaining another Conscripts. If you did not gain the Conscripts to hand and gave a different flat benefit, I am not sure how it would compare to the two Conscripts gained by your suggested Recruiter update.
What if Barracks gave you some flat benefit or the hunting effect and then gained a Conscripts?

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Choose one: <Vanilla Benefit>; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack, put it into your hand, and discard the rest. Either way, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

This would also make it less swingy with $3 Attacks since colliding with Barracks on turn 3 would not give out a Curse.

I am not opposed to having an Action-Victory card, but I also don't consider it a hole that needs filling. If anything, Conclave might be too much of an automatic buy with such cards available. I mean it's fine if that combo comes up sometimes, but I don't specifically need it in the same set.

On the other hand, I have exactly 2 blank cards in the set, assuming 15 copies of Conscripts. That means I could have another Victory card and be fine. It can't really use Trade tokens unless it both gains and spends them on-play (like Craftsman), because it would need two dividing lines. But perhaps I could try an Action-Victory that you can trash for an effect just to see if it's worth doing. It doesn't sound super-exciting because probably you buy it either for the VP or for the effect. If I cost it at $6 and it's worth 3 VP or less, then really the VP is just a consolation prize in case you never get around to trashing it.

Hmm, maybe a one-shot that you have to combo with something in order for it to work well. If you never get the combo off then hey, at least it's worth some VP.

Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.

I like the idea of a one-shot Victory card, but I would rather the Victory points be more interesting than your proposed Canton. What if it counted Provinces? Donald discounted it as a "win-more" effect, but if it was a powerful one-shot like Canton that made gaining the Provinces easier it could force players to make some interesting decisions.

[GendoIkari]

I seem to remember discussing the Redistrict wording a bunch already. The current version seems good to me, but I have 1 small suggestion... maybe "If you do, also gain...". While the current wording is completely correct according to the rules, some people (the types who get other stuff wrong because they don't read literally enough) may think that if you trash it, you gain a card costing 2 more instead of a card costing 1 more, not in addition to.

[LastFootnote]

Look at the top 2 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. Choose one: +2 Cards; or +1 Card, +$1; or +$2.

Would the above wording fit onto Dignitary? It does not take many more characters so long as both coin images appear on the same line. It is an annoying card to word considering how simple the effect is.

Unfortunately, that doesn't fit on three lines. And with four lines I could just add "and put the rest back in any order". It would look like this:



That's really cramped, but I guess it fits. It's really a shame it's so wordy since it's otherwise a great top for a Reaction. Sort of interesting but not necessarily a card that can stand on its own. Power-wise it's probably fine, but it's not something you'd be excited to buy. The reaction helps a lot.

I would be happy seeing another version of Barracks or Recruiter with the changes to Conscripts, but if all Recruiter does is gain Conscripts and all Barracks does is gain Conscripts to hand, they are going to feel similar. As a designer I would find that similarity frustrating.

Yes, obviously I don't want them to be too similar. I think [+1 Action; Gain a Conscripts into your hand] and [Gain 2 Conscripts] are sufficiently different, but [Gain a gold on your deck; Each other player gains a Conscripts] is way more different. So ideally, Profiteer will test well and I'll keep some version of either Barracks or Recruiter.

I like that Barracks hunts for an Attack when you want it to-- especially since having an extra card pile like Conscripts is the only way to make such a card. The problem with the current Barracks is that it costs $5, so hunting for your Witch is useless since you could have just gotten another Witch instead. Eventually you cannot stand to get more Witches, but buying Barrackses does not solve the problem since your Witch will terminally draw them anyway.
A $4 Barracks that could gain a single Conscripts to hand or hunt for an Attack might also struggle to work since the Attack you hunt down probably will not be much better than the non-terminal Silver that a Conscripts is, especially at the cost of gaining another Conscripts. If you did not gain the Conscripts to hand and gave a different flat benefit, I am not sure how it would compare to the two Conscripts gained by your suggested Recruiter update.
What if Barracks gave you some flat benefit or the hunting effect and then gained a Conscripts?

Barracks
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Choose one: <Vanilla Benefit>; or reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Attack, put it into your hand, and discard the rest. Either way, gain a Conscripts from the Conscripts pile.

This would also make it less swingy with $3 Attacks since colliding with Barracks on turn 3 would not give out a Curse.

Having the extra pile isn't the only way to do such a card. You could also go Young Witch style and say, "Setup: Add an extra Attack Kingdom card pile to the Supply". But obviously, this being originally a one-shot themed set, I chose the pile-of-one-shots route.

Buying a Barracks is almost certainly better than buying a second Witch, but not interestingly or excitingly so. You get to cycle more and there's less danger of collision, but it's just not enough bang for your buck at $5. So ideally a card that digs for an Attack costs at most $4. But as cool as digging for an Attack sounds, it's got some factors working against it. It's slow, especially because you're usually hunting for one or two cards in your deck, which might be quite large. In a game without other Attack cards, your suggested version is basically, "Gain a Conscripts to hand unless this is the first time you've played a Barracks this game." Except that you have to dig through your deck for the Conscripts. Maybe the vanilla bonus is good enough that you'll sometimes opt for that. Certainly you will if your Barracks and Conscripts happen to collide of if you get your Conscripts first. But you know. Mostly you're just hunting for your only Conscripts and then gaining another one. You're simply delaying the effect. And Conscripts now has a delay built right into it, so that seems less necessary than it once was.

Really what it comes down to is that, in practice, players use Barracks to gain Conscripts or hunt for Conscripts. In my experience, there has been much less hunting for other Attacks. If Conscripts wants to be paired with another Attack (like the version in the OP or the current version), Barracks can help with that by digging for one. But you still have to collide either your Barracks or an Attack with your Conscripts! So Barracks is just another potential combo piece to increase the chances of connecting. And if Barracks's main function is to match up Conscripts with another Attack in your hand, it's way faster to just gain a Conscripts right into your hand.

I also like "dig for an Attack" as a concept. And I hate to remove cards that people find exciting. But I have to find the right balance between looking exciting and playing well. Barracks plays OK as it is, but I think I want to try the new version and see how it goes over.

Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.

I like the idea of a one-shot Victory card, but I would rather the Victory points be more interesting than your proposed Canton. What if it counted Provinces? Donald discounted it as a "win-more" effect, but if it was a powerful one-shot like Canton that made gaining the Provinces easier it could force players to make some interesting decisions.

Hmm. In general, I try to subscribe to the philosophy of "one concept per card" where possible. Sometimes that's not exciting enough and combining with another concept is just what is needed. But I want to at least try the really simple version first.

Counting Provinces feels a lot like Duke to me. And as Donald said, you already want Provinces in most games, so it's not pushing in a new direction, which formula VP cards generally should. That doesn't mean I won't try any formula, though, if it turns out the cards needs to be more exciting.

I seem to remember discussing the Redistrict wording a bunch already. The current version seems good to me, but I have 1 small suggestion... maybe "If you do, also gain...". While the current wording is completely correct according to the rules, some people (the types who get other stuff wrong because they don't read literally enough) may think that if you trash it, you gain a card costing 2 more instead of a card costing 1 more, not in addition to.

If Redistrict were almost guaranteed to gain a card that costs exactly $1 more than the trashed card, I would go for this wording. But if you trash a Copper and there's no $1 card on the board, then the "also gain" is itself a bit confusing. It kind of implies that the second gain is contingent on the first gain, which it no longer is. I'll think about it more, but I'm leaning toward leaving it as is. Hopefully the space between the two parts will emphasize the fact that the second part is completely separate from the first part in terms of the gain.

[LastFootnote]

First mockup of Canton, just to see how it looks.

[NoMoreFun]

I love Action/Victory cards, but I'm not sure the set needs one. As far as initial impressions go, Conclave (why all the name changes? Exchange, Guide and Convocation were fine...) will show its worth compared to laboratory when you draw 3 cards or when a "good" card is the 3rd card you reveal. More of a problem is showing that it's sometimes worse, which will be when you reveal 3 actions or treasures and are forced to discard two of them, or when the first 2 cards you reveal are "good" cards. Best not be giving Conclave too much to make it good in the one set.

As for Cathedral, if the "gain one junk card to trash 2 later" thing doesn't tip people off, then being a source of trade tokens for something like Guide (I can't get enough of the Cathedral/Guide interaction) or Terrace will. The trade token thing doesn't need to come up in every game.

I don't like Canton at all; the strategy will always be "Do I want a Duchy, or this?", with the answer coming down to a risk calculation rather than anything interesting to do with the way you've built your deck up to that point. It also is sort of in the same territory as farmland. At the very least, the card absolutely can't cost $5.

One more note; Barter now, with the 2 trade tokens, is clearly much, much better than remodel for only $1 more. I guess that's the nature of the 4->5 gap. No need to change anything; remodel would up there with Horse traders in the "cards that benefit least from being non terminal" stakes, but it needs to be non terminal for the trade token effect (and the combo with Draw to X is nice). Official cards like Smithy->Margrave and Young Witch->Witch have much more demonstrable gaps.

[LastFootnote]

I love Action/Victory cards, but I'm not sure the set needs one. As far as initial impressions go, Conclave (why all the name changes? Exchange, Guide and Convocation were fine...) will show its worth compared to laboratory when you draw 3 cards or when a "good" card is the 3rd card you reveal. More of a problem is showing that it's sometimes worse, which will be when you reveal 3 actions or treasures and are forced to discard two of them, or when the first 2 cards you reveal are "good" cards. Best not be giving Conclave too much to make it good in the one set.

As for Cathedral, if the "gain one junk card to trash 2 later" thing doesn't tip people off, then being a source of trade tokens for something like Guide (I can't get enough of the Cathedral/Guide interaction) or Terrace will. The trade token thing doesn't need to come up in every game.

I'm not adding an Action-Victory card specifically for the combos. It's more like, there's space for another Victory card, but I don't really want another pure Victory card.  Or maybe it would be fine to have one, though I don't have ideas for one at the moment.

I don't like Canton at all; the strategy will always be "Do I want a Duchy, or this?", with the answer coming down to a risk calculation rather than anything interesting to do with the way you've built your deck up to that point. It also is sort of in the same territory as farmland. At the very least, the card absolutely can't cost $5.

Yes, I do not have high hopes for the card. I might try it out to see if it plays better than I expect. It has since occurred to me that it's perhaps too similar to Farmland.

One more note; Barter now, with the 2 trade tokens, is clearly much, much better than remodel for only $1 more. I guess that's the nature of the 4->5 gap. No need to change anything; remodel would up there with Horse traders in the "cards that benefit least from being non terminal" stakes, but it needs to be non terminal for the trade token effect (and the combo with Draw to X is nice). Official cards like Smithy->Margrave and Young Witch->Witch have much more demonstrable gaps.

There is the possibility that Barter actually is too strong with 2 Trade tokens, though I hope it's not.

[Awaclus]

That's really cramped, but I guess it fits.

In the Finnish translation, Young Witch has 8 lines of text, a dividing line and a vanilla bonus and it fits.

[NoMoreFun]

I'm not adding an Action-Victory card specifically for the combos. It's more like, there's space for another Victory card, but I don't really want another pure Victory card.  Or maybe it would be fine to have one, though I don't have ideas for one at the moment.

The leftover space is filled up by Conscripts right? Now that they're no longer oneshots, running out may become an issue in multiplayer. Not the end of the world but it would be a shame for them to run out, especially if they're being gained 2 at a time.

[Nic]

I playtested Landlord (from the Intrigue contest) and I remember it being a lot of fun, but clearly underpowered. It fills a similar niche to Vendor, and merging the two could make a nifty card. Something like 

Vendlord - Action-Victory - $5
+2 Cards
+2 Buys
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +2 Actions. (Or +1? I dunno)
Worth 1VP per empty Supply pile.

This version of Landlord is almost certainly well-priced, considering how weak the original was. It has one of the components needed to force a 3-pile, but not without a strong deck to back it up.  I don't know how you feel about using other people's cards in your expansion, but I really think that this card (or something close) would work really well in it. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't know that you also wanted to replace Vendor.

To my eye, Vendlord seems to lack focus. Maybe if I played with it I'd feel differently. But you usually don't mind discarding Victory cards, so it's weird to be rewarded for doing it. It is itself a Victory card, so you can discard one to another, but probably that feels bad. Like, I tried a card that was [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$1 | When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may set it aside, putting it into your hand at the start of your next turn]. But it rarely felt good to do that trick because often enough you'd rather play it this turn instead.

Anyway, sorry to be so down on it. I'll think about it more. And I'll think about other possibilities for an Action-Victory card for the set. It might be interesting to have one that you could use as a one-shot, but was worth VP if you kept it around. But maybe that's not interesting. Hmm…

I don't think it's meant to be an opportunity for a tactical decision so much as a gate: you either played a Moat or a Lab, depending on whether you have a green card in hand. The reason it was too weak originally was that you need to be actively rewarded for having junk in your deck, rather than just punished less. (I guess it would be more correct to say that Landlord's niche was more like Baron or Stables; it's more that its vanilla bonuses overlapped with Vendor.) From what HeavyD wrote in the Intrigue thread, the meat of the card is below the line and the top can be any machinery that makes you a credible threat for pulling off a quick three-pile. What I wrote was just an attempt to get the appropriate power level.

I actually just meant that I'd remove the comma, but perhaps I should go back to the old "If you do" wording for consistency. I've softened quite a bit on using new phrasings, though. The important thing is that it's unambiguous, which "You may spend a token to do X" is.

Ah, I see. Without the comma it'd be okay. If there are some cards that need the space, then use the succinct version for all of them but Jubilee. Now that you mention abbreviations, didn't you say that in this expansion the words 'in any order' would be implicit every time you topdeck something? I thought those words were removed from Guide for that reason.

EDIT 2:

Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.

Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.

EDIT 3: You guys think Auction could cost $2? Probably it could cost $2.

Now that you mention it, yeah. It'll probably be worth $0 on occasion if you buy it too early, and there won't be any benefit in buying more than two or three. I'll be printing out a bunch of cards in the next few days, so if you mock up a version with the new price, I'll use it. (Is there a step-by-step guide for formatting the .pdf to get the cards the right size?)

[silverspawn]

Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.

I didn't see this, but it's an excellent point, and I agree.

[dondon151]

How about making Canton at $4 as a Duchy-gainer with a similar collision requirement? Or something of the sort.

[LastFootnote]

I don't think it's meant to be an opportunity for a tactical decision so much as a gate: you either played a Moat or a Lab, depending on whether you have a green card in hand. The reason it was too weak originally was that you need to be actively rewarded for having junk in your deck, rather than just punished less. (I guess it would be more correct to say that Landlord's niche was more like Baron or Stables; it's more that its vanilla bonuses overlapped with Vendor.) From what HeavyD wrote in the Intrigue thread, the meat of the card is below the line and the top can be any machinery that makes you a credible threat for pulling off a quick three-pile. What I wrote was just an attempt to get the appropriate power level.

Ah, gotcha. Now that I've gone back and reviewed Landlord, I see what you did there. Uh, hmm… I'll think about this kind of self-synergizing Action/Victory card.

I'm not so psyched about this formula, honestly, because chances are you're not getting it above 3 VP in most games. I think that makes it less exciting than the other forumla VP cards. Domain has this issue too, but at least it has the added thrill of trying to steal them from your opponents for a big VP swing. I guess it could be 2 VP per empty pile, but then that's probably the whole card. It has to be expensive just for that formula and tacking on an Action would increase its power (and cost) further. The only VP formula card that has another ability is Feodum, and that ability requires you to trash the Feodum itself, so it's kind of self-limiting.

Ah, I see. Without the comma it'd be okay. If there are some cards that need the space, then use the succinct version for all of them but Jubilee. Now that you mention abbreviations, didn't you say that in this expansion the words 'in any order' would be implicit every time you topdeck something? I thought those words were removed from Guide for that reason.

Yeah, but then everybody kept complaining about it. And it turns out that it fits on Dignitary after all, which was the most cramped card that needed it. So I've backpedaled on that.

EDIT 2:

Canton
Types: Action - Victory
Cost: $5 or $6
Trash this and discard a Gold. If you did, gain a Province.
Worth 2 VP.

Too similar to Farmland, and looks really bad in comparison. Colliding Farmland with $6 is a lot cleaner and less onerous than a Gold and 1 Action, even without discarding the Gold.

You are correct. I probably won't bother testing Canton and I'll try to think of another card.

EDIT 3: You guys think Auction could cost $2? Probably it could cost $2.

Now that you mention it, yeah. It'll probably be worth $0 on occasion if you buy it too early, and there won't be any benefit in buying more than two or three. I'll be printing out a bunch of cards in the next few days, so if you mock up a version with the new price, I'll use it. (Is there a step-by-step guide for formatting the .pdf to get the cards the right size?)

The whole point of the pdf format was that I thought it would automatically print the right size. Then I found out from someone that the cards were being printed smaller on their computer/printer. Thanks for nothing, PDF!

I print my cards directly from GIMP, which is the image editing program I use to create the card images. I have step-by-step instructions for using that, if you're interested. IN FACT, if you have GIMP I can just give you .xcf documents to print and you won't even need the step-by-step instructions.

How about making Canton at $4 as a Duchy-gainer with a similar collision requirement? Or something of the sort.

Well, at that point it wouldn't want to be a one-shot, right? A $4 card that conditionally gains a Duchy isn't that strong. And the Duchies run out eventually. I like the idea in general and I'll think more about it. But right now I'm leaning back toward a one-shot that doesn't gain VP but instead has some other powerful but conditional effect. Probably a $5 worth 2 VP again. Again, the VP here is just a consolation prize in case you never manage to activate the card. But unfortunately I can't think of anything better right now.

Wait, what if you had to collide two Cantons together and trash them to gain a Province? Or trash just one and gain a Province? Or maybe a Province and some other bonus?

[Fragasnap]

For what it is worth, I find the the cramped version of Dignitary looks a lot better just because the wording is more accurate. Regardless, cramped wording is not much of an issue on a semantically simple card: One does not have to read Dignitary more than a couple of times to remember what it does.

The vanilla benefit of a $4 Barracks would have to be better than +$2 to make not hunting for Conscripts worthwhile which would be too strong for a $4 card. Fair enough.

Hmm. In general, I try to subscribe to the philosophy of "one concept per card" where possible. Sometimes that's not exciting enough and combining with another concept is just what is needed. But I want to at least try the really simple version first.

Counting Provinces feels a lot like Duke to me. And as Donald said, you already want Provinces in most games, so it's not pushing in a new direction, which formula VP cards generally should. That doesn't mean I won't try any formula, though, if it turns out the cards needs to be more exciting.

The concept of a one-shot Victory card is "which is more valuable: my victory points or my one-shot?"
Canton answers, "my one-shot, 100% of the time."
Canton is not currently pushing in a new direction, Canton is better in a deck with lots of Golds (which you want already) and gives you Provinces (which you want already). The interesting idea to further is to make using its one-shot, even where available, questionable. A $6 Canton worth VP per Province might be worth trying to keep even with the option to throw it out for a Province depending upon what other players are doing.

[LastFootnote]

The concept of a one-shot Victory card is "which is more valuable: my victory points or my one-shot?"
Canton answers, "my one-shot, 100% of the time."
Canton is not currently pushing in a new direction, Canton is better in a deck with lots of Golds (which you want already) and gives you Provinces (which you want already). The interesting idea to further is to make using its one-shot, even where available, questionable. A $6 Canton worth VP per Province might be worth trying to keep even with the option to throw it out for a Province depending upon what other players are doing.

Good points. So what you're suggesting is something like this:

Canton
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $6
You may trash this and discard a Gold from your hand. If you do, gain a Province.
Worth 1 VP per Province in your deck.

That still pushes Gold, which is less than ideal, so what about this:

Canton
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $6
You may trash a Canton from your hand. If you do, gain a Province.
Worth 1 VP per Province in your deck.

If the goal is to make you decide whether or not to do the one-shot, I don't think either of these works. The only time you're not doing it is when you have 7 or more Provinces, in which case you've probably already won the game. I don't think that's really the interesting concept, though. I'm not certain there's an interesting concept to be had in the space of "one-shot Victory card", but "Do I want to play this" is usually a bad concept in general. Not playing your Action cards generally isn't fun. I guess this could be fixed by having another on-play option. Like, "Choose one: +$2; or trash this and discard X to gain Province".

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion. I get the formula part, though again, probably by the time you get this up to 5 VP you've won the game.

[Fragasnap]

That still pushes Gold, which is less than ideal

I do not think pushing Gold is necessarily a bad thing. There are games were Gold is more available than others (like Soothsayer and Hoard games), so I think building around cards at that competing price point might be interesting. While cards costing less than Gold would be boring if they encouraged buying Gold, cards that cost as much as Gold are more interesting simply because they compete with it while encouraging it. Not that the trigger for Canton is perfect, but I would not discount interacting with Gold so quickly.

I don't think that's really the interesting concept, though. I'm not certain there's an interesting concept to be had in the space of "one-shot Victory card", but "Do I want to play this" is usually a bad concept in general. Not playing your Action cards generally isn't fun. I guess this could be fixed by having another on-play option. Like, "Choose one: +$2; or trash this and discard X to gain Province".

While "Do I want to play this?" is a concept that leaves bad feelings, a one-shot Victory card needs to be able to function as a Victory card, and sometimes that means it is only a Victory card. You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion. I get the formula part, though again, probably by the time you get this up to 5 VP you've won the game.

I had not thought of the formula precisely.
I agree that neither of the presented would work. The formula needs to be greater than 1:1 for the reason you point out: get 5 Provinces and you already have more than your share of them. A value of 2VP:1 Province is almost certainly too great, so I was left thinking of 3VP:2 Provinces. However, because Provinces are hard to acquire, we want every Province to be counted, so we have to split the formula into two parts to count both individual Provinces (1VP per Province) as well as every 2 Provinces (plus 1VP per 2 Provinces). Then we hit one further snag, if we round down, even numbered Provinces are value thresholds for Canton. That means that my fourth Province is worth more to me than my third or fifth Province which is a problem when four is the standard fair share, so we must round up rather than down.

Canton
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $6
You may <do something which involves trashing a Canton>. If you do, gain a Province.Worth 1VP per Province in your deck and 1VP more for every 2 Provinces in your deck, rounded up.

The semantic complexity of both the formula and rounding up I think is manageable if the card is at all an interesting idea since it is only evaluated once at the end of the game. I've been by myself all day though, so maybe I am simply hemorrhaging numbers as I tend to.

I believe that any concept of this card that functions is going to be part of the winning strategy on nearly every board upon which it appears. As I've said before though, this is not a bad thing if Canton-games are an interesting variation from those games which do not use Canton, just as Goons and Ill-Gotten Gains often create fun games despite being so dominant.

I am optimistic that an idea shaped like this could work and create an interesting game state, but I have a hard time envisioning how it would ultimately function, so I struggle to suggest specifics to the card without being able to test it.

[GendoIkari]

You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.

I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but to me it seems more like an action that has a "runner-up prize" of 2 VP when it fails to do the thing you wanted to do with it.

[Fragasnap]

You have to shift your perspective since this is more a Victory card that has an Action rather than an Action that is also worth Victory points.

I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but to me it seems more like an action that has a "runner-up prize" of 2 VP when it fails to do the thing you wanted to do with it.

My post is unclear because the highlighted "this" is unclear. I'm referring to the concept of a one-shot Victory card rather than the Canton presented. I give my apologies; that was poor writing on my part.

LastFootnote points out that being forced to not to play your Actions is boring and makes players feel bad. Those feelings do occur. existing Action-Victory cards are designed to be Action cards that give Victory points: notably, they are designed to be Actions first.
I suggest that a one-shot Victory card needs to be designed as a Victory card first in order to make it compelling. If the card is a Victory card first, players will not have those same bad feelings elicited by being unable to play the Action since they are making an active choice that the Victory points are worth more than the Action, thereby treating the card as a Victory card (and we don't play Victory cards) rather than an Action. Making its Victory points valuable will also mitigate the negative feelings from when its Action cannot be triggered.

[Nic]

The whole point of the pdf format was that I thought it would automatically print the right size. Then I found out from someone that the cards were being printed smaller on their computer/printer. Thanks for nothing, PDF!

I print my cards directly from GIMP, which is the image editing program I use to create the card images. I have step-by-step instructions for using that, if you're interested. IN FACT, if you have GIMP I can just give you .xcf documents to print and you won't even need the step-by-step instructions.

I do have GIMP, but no printer. I would be getting these done at Kinko's, and I doubt they'd be happy with that format.

Now that I stop to think about it, I could compile my own .pdfs in TeX without any trouble, if I knew the exact dimensions of the image. Either millimeters and pixels would be fine; if I had that, I wouldn't have to bug you for anything but the updated Auction. 

[LastFootnote]

Now that I stop to think about it, I could compile my own .pdfs in TeX without any trouble, if I knew the exact dimensions of the image. Either millimeters and pixels would be fine; if I had that, I wouldn't have to bug you for anything but the updated Auction.

Sounds good. Whatever works best for you. I will try to post a zip file with the latest high-resolution images as soon as possible. Each card image is 696px × 1074px. If you arrange them in a 4 × 2 grid (landscape-style), it's a total of 2784px × 2148px. But the actual printing size that you want to scale it to is 236mm × 182mm.

In other news, I thought of a different Trade token-getting mechanic last night. "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play." At first I was thinking of trying it on Cathedral, but I know from past experience that unless a token trasher provides a way to get more tokens later, players will just buy them out for the trashing alone. But it could work perfectly on Barter. Barter's token gaining is already on-buy, and it's a card that you'd sometimes be willing to buy without Trade tokens, but you'd also like to have several (I guess that last part goes for all Trade token cards). To top it off, Silvers make really excellent Barter targets, gaining you $5 cards into your hand. So…

Barter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.

Getting pretty wordy (one more line of text), but probably still manageable. What do you guys think?

[pacovf]

What kind of deck does barter help? I haven't tested it, but if it encourages engines, making the trade-gain require silvers may not be the best idea, since engines generally avoid them.

Maybe lodge would be a better fit?

I do like the idea, though!

[LastFootnote]

What kind of deck does barter help? I haven't tested it, but if it encourages engines, making the trade-gain require silvers may not be the best idea, since engines generally avoid them.

Maybe lodge would be a better fit?

I do like the idea, though!

Well, I could resurrect Lodge for this idea. Auction is currently filling my discard-for-coins needs in a more unique way.

It's good to have cards that alter the way you build your deck. It provides new experiences. For this reason, I find "do I want this in the standard engine deck I already build?" to be a poor metric of card quality. If this version of Barter works out, it will be because Barter itself will make you want a few more Silvers in your engine deck.

I do understand what you're saying, though. It's possible that getting those Trade tokens isn't enough of an incentive to pick up another Silver or two. But it's worth testing, is what I'm saying. Ideally you have a deck that can get at least 2 Silvers in your hand at once, then you buy a Barter and maybe cash those Silvers in for some sweet $5 engine pieces.

[pacovf]

Yeah, sorry I went by the card list in the OP, instead of the latest list two pages ago, and I didn't remember lodge was scrapped.

I see what you mean with trying to make a card that pushes new deck archetypes... but I am not sure Barter is achieving that. Of course, I can't know without testing, so my opinion isn't worth much.

IMHO, the "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play" seems conducive to a sort of mega-turn approach, in which you first get "tons" of trade tokens, and then spend them all in one go. Otherwise, it is not really different from a straight "When you buy this, take a Trade token". And Trade-powered Barter doesn't seem to have a big enough payoff in a deck filled with silver, compared to a basic Barter in a more usual sort of engine deck.

Maybe convoy fits it better then?

[silverspawn]

powerlevel aside, it looks like a neat idea. I don't think the silver <-> engine contradiction is a bad thing. but does the card really need a buff? it seems plenty strong already.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, sorry I went by the card list in the OP, instead of the latest list two pages ago, and I didn't remember lodge was scrapped.

I see what you mean with trying to make a card that pushes new deck archetypes... but I am not sure Barter is achieving that. Of course, I can't know without testing, so my opinion isn't worth much.

IMHO, the "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play" seems conducive to a sort of mega-turn approach, in which you first get "tons" of trade tokens, and then spend them all in one go. Otherwise, it is not really different from a straight "When you buy this, take a Trade token". And Trade-powered Barter doesn't seem to have a big enough payoff in a deck filled with silver, compared to a basic Barter in a more usual sort of engine deck.

Maybe convoy fits it better then?

If it doesn't work on Barter, I agree that Convoy is another promising place to try it. The biggest advantage of putting it on Barter is that its token gaining already has to be on-buy. And even if players don't notice that it's on-buy instead of on-gain, it won't matter as often. Technically, this new trigger could also be on-gain, and you'd only be able to do crazy things with a combination of Black Market, Fortress, and Exchange. And that would be acceptable. So that's an alternative advantage; it would allow Barter's token gaining to be on-gain.

I don't think you have to be building a megaturn to make this version of Barter worthwhile. Probably you don't want a ton of Barters, which is part of the reason I want to try this; it should make it easier to get more tokens with fewer Barters in your deck. I know from experience that one token is enough to make a Barter decent. Two tokens is probably enough to make it quite a good deal. I mean you only use it to gain Actions and Treasures so many times before the endgame rolls around and you're gaining Victory cards instead. And usually you don't care about putting those into your deck.

The whole point of using tokens on Barter is to keep it from going too nuts. If you've already built a deck that overdraws itself every turn, then the proportion of times you play Barter without getting the token boost goes way up. And that's good. At that point you can maybe draw the cards you're gaining with Barter in the same turn anyway; you don't need Barter to do it for you.

[LastFootnote]

powerlevel aside, it looks like a neat idea. I don't think the silver <-> engine contradiction is a bad thing. but does the card really need a buff? it seems plenty strong already.

The one-token version has been decently strong. Maybe the two-token version would be too strong; I hadn't been able to test it yet. The Silver-token version makes opening with Barter worse, but makes it potentially stronger if you can get more than one token. More than strength, this change is about adding an interesting token-gaining mechanic and helping you remember that Barter's token gaining isn't the same as the other Trade token cards (for Fortress reasons).

[Nic]

Sounds good. Whatever works best for you. I will try to post a zip file with the latest high-resolution images as soon as possible. Each card image is 696px × 1074px. If you arrange them in a 4 × 2 grid (landscape-style), it's a total of 2784px × 2148px. But the actual printing size that you want to scale it to is 236mm × 182mm.

Perfect. I was planning on printing out . Will the $2 Auction be in the .zip file?

In other news, I thought of a different Trade token-getting mechanic last night. "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play." At first I was thinking of trying it on Cathedral, but I know from past experience that unless a token trasher provides a way to get more tokens later, players will just buy them out for the trashing alone. But it could work perfectly on Barter. Barter's token gaining is already on-buy, and it's a card that you'd sometimes be willing to buy without Trade tokens, but you'd also like to have several (I guess that last part goes for all Trade token cards). To top it off, Silvers make really excellent Barter targets, gaining you $5 cards into your hand. So…

Barter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.

Getting pretty wordy (one more line of text), but probably still manageable. What do you guys think?

It's clever, and I certainly don't think it's a buff compared to a flat 2 tokens. But that extra line comes at a cost, and it's best to be wary about taking a card that's already fine and merging it with an unrelated idea. If the playtesters really don't get the difference between 'buy' and 'gain', then this could be a good fix. Otherwise, leave it as it is.

[Co0kieL0rd]

It's great to see that you keep working on your set and came up with tweaks and new ideas. Alas, I couldn't contribute as much as I wanted to because I have little time. Any every time I look into this thread and something comes to my mind, there have been tons of new posts I need to read to keep track of the discussion. Hopefully I can add something productive:

I like your aesthetic improvements. The new cards look nice and shiny!

Auction: At first glance a few months ago, I said I liked Auction. It's interesting enough to be worth trying. But I can hardly think of any case where it's worth buying, especially multiple copies of it. It doesn't fit in engines because you want to play all the actions and trash the other cards. It doesn't help Big Money more than Silver because with a high treasure density in your deck, especially with Golds, you don't want to discard them all to a "Secret Chamber that can't be drawn dead". Secret Chamber is a bad card. But Auction benefits very little from being a treasure because having multiples in one hand doesn’t help you at all. I would be sad if Auction was the only source of +Buy in a kingdom. It might be okay in a slog-ish game with decent drawing potential and viable Alt-VP. Auction can be a little better than Silver when you open with it, provided you draw it with Estates, but IMO it is outclassed by many $3-cost cards and possibly even by Silver. It might be acceptable at $2.

Convoy: I like Convoy or Guide either way. Stick to what you like best. I prefer the rephrasing “You may pay a Trade token to do X” but would also advice to scratch the comma. This isn’t Magic The Gathering where every punctuation mark matters. Here it just looks misplaced.

Gambler and Vendor: I can definitely see Fragasnap‘s point in that Gambler and Vendor perform similar actions when trashed but I comply with the popular opinion that Gambler is the more interesting card although it mostly provides non-decisions and can be frustrating. Opening double Gambler seems pretty strong; If you directly draw your other Gambler with the +1 Card, you end up with 5 cards in hand and trashed 2 from your deck. Even if you reveal your other Gambler and put it into your hand, you end up with 6 cards in hand and trashed 1 from your deck. It seems a touch too powerful for a $3-cost card, so you should at least test it at $4.
Vendor isn’t bad or anything… it’s not even that similar to Gambler due to the significant cost gap and the fact that Vendor wants treasures in your deck. But it’s similar to Stables, as you mentioned, and not very exciting overall. If you want to scratch one of these two, I suggest go with Vendor.

Refurbish: It’s off-theme and that might be reason enough to replace it. But it’s totally an interesting concept that could hopefully be implemented somewhere else, if not in this set.

Committee: I always loved Committee because it’s so innovative. Yet, similarly to Gambler, most times you play it, it’s a non-decision which card to choose and what to do with the chosen card. It’s those few other times where the decision is non-trivial that makes the card really interesting! Also it seems adequately priced.

Dignitary: This is another card I always liked. It seems pretty useful and innovative. Yes, technically it needs the line “Put the rest back in any order” but you can assume some common sense in players, at least when making a fan expansion. I’m working on a set myself and sometimes feel the need to add more text just to exclude unwanted wonkiness in some edge cases. But it’s a fine line between making things clear and presuming that all players are morons. For the sake of brevity of card texts (which I know you like), just stick with the version on page 28.

Barrister: By now, I made friends with the new version (I liked the old one, too). I just wish that Domains were associated with at least one other card additionally because I think they’re cool
I have a question (now I hope that I don’t seem like a moron): Do you put the treasure from the trash into your hand, too, or just in case you choose the Silver?

Barter: With the 2 Trade Tokens gained on-buy unconditionally, it seems really pretty strong to me. Even with no other sources of TT around, gaining and playing a powerful action card in the same turn can be a big boost. But I’m not sure if gaining 1 TT (or 1 TT per Silver you have in play) when you buy it are optimal. This should be tested carefully.

Conclave: I liked the old name more but, as I said, do whatever you like best. The change in wording is very elegant, in my opinion! Seems a good card to me.

General: You decided to change the wording a little so that forgetting to top-deck the card isn’t considered cheating. This a tough case to me because on one side, you want to avoid situations like that. On the other side, this makes General a little more powerful if we assume that good players deliberately choose the better option. The old version of General forced you to seed your next hand with the one-shot you played twice this turn, enticing you to play it again and ultimately losing it then (if you don’t have another General). The new version makes it easier to keep your one-shots. But maybe this is the boost General needed to become sufficiently better than Throne Room in order to justify the significant jump from $4 to $5. In general, General a good card and a clever addition to the set =)

Conscripts: There’s so much discussion going on about Conscripts and Barracks and Recruiter that I can hardly follow which are the current tendencies for each of these cards to become. The old Conscripts that just gave out Curses were definitely too strong with Recruiter, with Barracks I’m not sure. Now they seem adequate with Barracks but perhaps a little weak with Recruiter. Again I’m not sure here. They should be tested thoroughly. I feel that theorizing about it won’t help to assess how the cards ultimately play out.

I print my cards directly from GIMP, which is the image editing program I use to create the card images. I have step-by-step instructions for using that, if you're interested. IN FACT, if you have GIMP I can just give you .xcf documents to print and you won't even need the step-by-step instructions.

I would very much like the step-by-step instructions and the .xcf documents Could you upload them somewhere?

[LibraryAdventurer]

In other news, I thought of a different Trade token-getting mechanic last night. "When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play." At first I was thinking of trying it on Cathedral, but I know from past experience that unless a token trasher provides a way to get more tokens later, players will just buy them out for the trashing alone. But it could work perfectly on Barter. Barter's token gaining is already on-buy, and it's a card that you'd sometimes be willing to buy without Trade tokens, but you'd also like to have several (I guess that last part goes for all Trade token cards). To top it off, Silvers make really excellent Barter targets, gaining you $5 cards into your hand. So…

Barter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.

Getting pretty wordy (one more line of text), but probably still manageable. What do you guys think?

I like it. I thought the card seemed kinda uninteresting before, but this makes it interesting. It could get pretty powerful combined with a silver-gainer (like refurbish) though.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the feedback, Co0kieL0rd!

Auction: At first glance a few months ago, I said I liked Auction. It's interesting enough to be worth trying. But I can hardly think of any case where it's worth buying, especially multiple copies of it. It doesn't fit in engines because you want to play all the actions and trash the other cards. It doesn't help Big Money more than Silver because with a high treasure density in your deck, especially with Golds, you don't want to discard them all to a "Secret Chamber that can't be drawn dead". Secret Chamber is a bad card. But Auction benefits very little from being a treasure because having multiples in one hand doesn’t help you at all. I would be sad if Auction was the only source of +Buy in a kingdom. It might be okay in a slog-ish game with decent drawing potential and viable Alt-VP. Auction can be a little better than Silver when you open with it, provided you draw it with Estates, but IMO it is outclassed by many $3-cost cards and possibly even by Silver. It might be acceptable at $2.

I certainly plan to try it at $2 and have (just now) updated the image accordingly. I'm not sure I understand your analysis 100%. You don't have to discard your Golds to Auction. You just play your Golds (and Silvers, etc.) before you play Auction. That's why it can say "discard your hand": under normal circumstances you're not losing anything by playing it last.

The way I look at it is this. For a while Alchemy was going to have [+1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1] for $2. Eventually it came back as Candlestick Maker. Candlestick Maker is obviously a bit stronger than that, but [+1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1] is in the ballpark for $2. As long as you have at least one deal card to discard, Auction is that good. Slightly better because you can't draw it dead, but also worse because you can't stack them. But if you have more than one dead card to discard, it quickly becomes better.

It's definitely possible that Auction is a dud, but I don't think it's obviously awful at $2.

Opening double Gambler seems pretty strong; If you directly draw your other Gambler with the +1 Card, you end up with 5 cards in hand and trashed 2 from your deck. Even if you reveal your other Gambler and put it into your hand, you end up with 6 cards in hand and trashed 1 from your deck. It seems a touch too powerful for a $3-cost card, so you should at least test it at $4.

Well, Gambler's weakness is its unreliability. You can look at Tribute and say, "Look at how ridiculously good this is when you get exactly what you want!" And it is. But it costs $5 despite the fact that it could be [+2 Cards; +2 Actions] or [+2 Cards; +$2] because it's not reliable. It's very possible that Gambler might work at $4, but that's not a good reason to cost it at $4 if it's not too strong at $3. It might be too strong for $3, but I haven't seen evidence that that's actually the case.

Dignitary: This is another card I always liked. It seems pretty useful and innovative. Yes, technically it needs the line “Put the rest back in any order” but you can assume some common sense in players, at least when making a fan expansion. I’m working on a set myself and sometimes feel the need to add more text just to exclude unwanted wonkiness in some edge cases. But it’s a fine line between making things clear and presuming that all players are morons. For the sake of brevity of card texts (which I know you like), just stick with the version on page 28.

I appreciate that, but I've made my peace with the new version that spells it all out. It's what the people want! And at least the card isn't actually any more complex than it was.

Barrister: By now, I made friends with the new version (I liked the old one, too). I just wish that Domains were associated with at least one other card additionally because I think they’re cool
I have a question (now I hope that I don’t seem like a moron): Do you put the treasure from the trash into your hand, too, or just in case you choose the Silver?

You put the gained card into your hand whether it's a Treasure from the trash or a Silver from the Supply. It actually kind of nerfs gaining Domains (compared to the +$2 you get from gaining Silver), but whatcha gonna do. No space on the card to buff that. And probably you want that Domain anyway. It's probably either a 3-point swing for you or the player you stole it from.

Conclave: I liked the old name more but, as I said, do whatever you like best. The change in wording is very elegant, in my opinion! Seems a good card to me.

Thanks! "Convocation" is just any large meeting or gathering. "Conclave"—a secret meeting—is actually more the concept I was originally going for. Hence the art. And it's half as many syllables. So there's that.

General: You decided to change the wording a little so that forgetting to top-deck the card isn’t considered cheating. This a tough case to me because on one side, you want to avoid situations like that. On the other side, this makes General a little more powerful if we assume that good players deliberately choose the better option. The old version of General forced you to seed your next hand with the one-shot you played twice this turn, enticing you to play it again and ultimately losing it then (if you don’t have another General). The new version makes it easier to keep your one-shots. But maybe this is the boost General needed to become sufficiently better than Throne Room in order to justify the significant jump from $4 to $5. In general, General a good card and a clever addition to the set =)

I think in practice it's not much of a buff. I mean even if you decide not to topdeck your one-shot, that doesn't mean it'll necessarily collide with your General next shuffle. Probably topdecking the card is almost always the best move. And when it's not, I can probably live with that small buff.

I would very much like the step-by-step instructions and the .xcf documents Could you upload them somewhere?

Yes, I will endeavor to get them up (along with the high-res images for Nic) tomorrow evening, though I make no guarantees. Life has been hectic lately!

[Co0kieL0rd]

I certainly plan to try it at $2 and have (just now) updated the image accordingly. I'm not sure I understand your analysis 100%. You don't have to discard your Golds to Auction. You just play your Golds (and Silvers, etc.) before you play Auction. That's why it can say "discard your hand": under normal circumstances you're not losing anything by playing it last.

Oh man, I totally forgot that you can play your treasures in any order Okay, it's still a Secret Chamber with +buy that can't be drawn dead but it's not as awful as I said it was. Its lack of stackability is still not great but at least it's strictly better than SC's action part. But SC is also a (bad) reaction so I don't know if it should be $2 or $3 in comparison to it. I'm also not sure how significant the gap between $2 and $3 is - probably not as significant than from $4 to $5. On the other hand, a cost of $2 means you can open Auction/$5-cost which certainly makes a difference...

[LastFootnote]

OK, here is a .zip file that contains the high-res .png images of the cards. It has the simpler version of Barracks and doesn't have Recruiter, but does have Profiteer.

I will try to get some .xcf grids together soon (assuming they're small enough to post on here). Or you can create printable grids yourself using these images and the dimensions I gave earlier (new document 2784px by 2148px, then print size is 236mm by 182mm).

[mustang255]

Review of the set: http://souvagames.blogspot.ca/2014/10/dominion-enterprise.html

[LastFootnote]

Review of the set: http://souvagames.blogspot.ca/2014/10/dominion-enterprise.html

I can't seem to comment on the review there, so here is my response:


Thanks for the review! Sorry for pulling some of those images out from under you. Auction now costs $2, as you suggest. Convoy, Craftsman, Terrace, and Cathedral are functionally unchanged. They just had an unnecessary comma removed. Dignitary has clearer wording on the top. Exchange now gains a token per Silver you have in play when you buy it, rather than a flat 2 tokens.

Jubilee originally trashed itself. Players liked it this way better because you can actually use it as a reliable village that you have to buy back.

Redistrict: Man, the whole point of the wording is to be clear. The "chosen card" is the one you "choose" at the top of the card. I'm not sure how I could make that more clear. The fact that you can gain a card costing $2 more without gaining one costing $1 more is a side-effect of this wording.

Auction: All Treasure cards that do something on-play say, "When you play this…" Most that are worth varying amounts say, "Worth…"

The exciting part of Convoy is "Play this again". If you have 4 Trade tokens, you can play the same Convoy 5 times in a row.

Committee: "If you did" is necessary to avoid players gaining Provinces (or Colonies in a Colony game) when they have just one kind of card in their deck/discard. If you didn't reveal 2 differently named cards, you don't gain or trash anything.

Recruiter may die. I am trying Profiteer again and I really don't need 3 Conscripts gainers.

Sorry you don't like Axeman! In my experience it's way less harsh than Saboteur or Pillage. There's a lot of strategy in deciding what to trash and replace it with. Say your hand is Copper Copper Copper Gold Village. Trash the Gold and put a Margrave on your deck to draw with your Village!

I'm glad you like Conclave! It's been a divisive card, with some disliking that it's often a better Lab. Sometimes it just draws you a single card, though. I have seen that happen a fair amount.

Simplifying General is not off the table. The "don't remove this from play" is to synergize with the optional one-shots in the set like Conscripts, Gambler, and Vendor. Without that clause, it's a better, simpler card, but not a good fit for this set. Although the clause is awkward, it is nice for tracking purposes.

[LastFootnote]

Kingdom card .xcf documents!

FloodgateCombo.xcf
2 Auction
2 Redistrict
3 Floodgate
4 Craftsman
4 Terrace
5 Axeman
5 Cathedral
5 Conclave

MillTownCombo.xcf
2 Clerk
3 Gambler
3 Mill Town
4 Committee
4 Dignitary
5 Barrister
5 Barter
5 Wheelwright

GeneralCombo.xcf
2 Jubilee
3 Convoy
3 Refurbish
4 Profiteer
4 Vendor
5 Barracks (put Conscripts in hand version)
5 Fund
5 General

[LastFootnote]

Ancillary Card .xcf documents!

[mustang255]

Redistrict: Man, the whole point of the wording is to be clear. The "chosen card" is the one you "choose" at the top of the card. I'm not sure how I could make that more clear. The fact that you can gain a card costing $2 more without gaining one costing $1 more is a side-effect of this wording.

The best I can come up with is:

Trash a card from your hand.
Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.
You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more as well.

Any other wording I can think of; "the chosen card", "the trashed card", or even "it" could potentially erroneously refer to either Redistrict, or the first gained card. I may be overthinking it though, as I did obviously understand how the card was supposed to work.

Auction: All Treasure cards that do something on-play say, "When you play this…" Most that are worth varying amounts say, "Worth…"

Right you are. I am too used to the wording on Action cards.

Committee: "If you did" is necessary to avoid players gaining Provinces (or Colonies in a Colony game) when they have just one kind of card in their deck/discard. If you didn't reveal 2 differently named cards, you don't gain or trash anything.

Oh, OK, I see now. I like the attention to detail you put into your cards, taking edge cases like this into account.

[pacovf]

Oh, OK, I see now. I like the attention to detail you put into your cards, taking edge cases like this into account.

LastFootnote is quite the master of all card-creation considerations by now! 

[Nic]

For people who just need to print out some of the updated cards, here's the TeX document that I used. It gives a little more white space between cards than I would've liked, but it wasn't a big enough deal for me to spend half an hour to fix it. To add another page, use the \newpage command followed by a second \noindent and eight more pictures. Just compile it in the same folder as the hi-res .png files.

Code: [Select]

\documentclass[11pt]{article}

\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[margin=.6in]{geometry}
\begin{document}

\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{landscape}

\noindent
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{auction}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{barrister}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{barter}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{cathedral}\\
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{craftsman}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{floodgate}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{mill_town}
\includegraphics[width=59 mm,height=91 mm]{profiteer}

\end{landscape}

\end{document}


[LastFootnote]

Oh, OK, I see now. I like the attention to detail you put into your cards, taking edge cases like this into account.

LastFootnote is quite the master of all card-creation considerations by now! 

Thanks, I try to cover all the bases. I'm definitely not infallible, though. And sometimes I need to learn to try the simpler wording and see if it actually creates problems before jumping to the more complex one.

[Fragasnap]

Played a two-player game using Barter and Cathedral. To be more specific, it used:

Courtyard, Lookout, Alchemist, Militia, Plaza, Taxman, Barter, Cathedral, Venture, Border Village
With Colonies and Estates

With Platinum available, Taxman of course dominated the table in a big way.
I played a largely Treasure centric strategy between Taxman, Venture, and Platinum. I later bought a Barter, gaining 3 Trade tokens as I did so. The Barter let me trash for Victory cards as I planned, but I also had unfortunate collision between Taxman and Courtyard that I was able to manipulate thanks to Bartering a Border Village to hand.
My partner played an engine using Cathedral and Border Village, with Barter providing a great deal of flexibility as he gained Trade tokens by purchasing Victory cards with multiple Cathedrals in play. He never used the Trade token ability of Cathedral since his draw engine began to reach critical mass by the time we started greening.

I ended up winning, but it was a close and fun game. My partner enjoyed both Cathedral and Barter.

[LastFootnote]

Played a two-player game using Barter and Cathedral. To be more specific, it used:

Courtyard, Lookout, Alchemist, Militia, Plaza, Taxman, Barter, Cathedral, Venture, Border Village
With Colonies and Estates

With Platinum available, Taxman of course dominated the table in a big way.
I played a largely Treasure centric strategy between Taxman, Venture, and Platinum. I later bought a Barter, gaining 3 Trade tokens as I did so. The Barter let me trash for Victory cards as I planned, but I also had unfortunate collision between Taxman and Courtyard that I was able to manipulate thanks to Bartering a Border Village to hand.
My partner played an engine using Cathedral and Border Village, with Barter providing a great deal of flexibility as he gained Trade tokens by purchasing Victory cards with multiple Cathedrals in play. He never used the Trade token ability of Cathedral since his draw engine began to reach critical mass by the time we started greening.

I ended up winning, but it was a close and fun game. My partner enjoyed both Cathedral and Barter.

Thanks, Fragasnap! I'm glad it was a fun game.

If Cathedral's ability turns out to be never worth using, I'll have to change it up. I think it hinges on you buying Victory cards earlier than you otherwise would. But maybe that's unreasonable. Maybe nobody is ever buying Victory cards until their deck is already junk-free. Maybe I need to up the number of cards trashed. More likely I need to allow you to gain tokens without buying Victory cards, but I'm not sure how to do that. If you can gain a token with any buy, I think that probably gets crazy. It's possible the whole idea just won't work.

EDIT: Oh, also I updated the OP. I wanted to get more testing in before doing so, but I noticed that some of the card images had disappeared (I recently cleaned a bunch of stuff out of my imgur account).

[silverspawn]

I thought Wheelwright  was out. so why is it still in?

[LastFootnote]

I thought Wheelwright  was out. so why is it still in?

My rules are arbitrary and ever-changing!

[Fragasnap]

I have a Kingdom generator with Enterprise programmed into it. I recently was generating a bunch of Kingdoms with General in it because I wanted to see some of its interactions with Enterprise's one-shots, but I was surprised at how few Kingdoms appeared that made use of that ability of General's. While I don't worry that General is too weak (though, having not played it, that is simply in my approximation), it struck me as odd that General's fanciest ability was rarely useable even in Enterprise heavy games.

As it stands, there are 5 cards in Enterprise that interact with General's "don't trash it" ability: Conscripts, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, and Vendor-- and Redistrict's on-trash ability requires that it be trashed, so General's interaction is irrelevant.

I'm a bit disappointed reflecting upon how few cards are actually one-shots in Enterprise (not because they don't interact with General, but because that was the purported theme). Accounting for all the cards, 9 of the 24 cards are one-shots or pseudo-one-shots: Barter, Convoy, Floodgate, Fund, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, Terrace, and Vendor. If we add interacting with Coppers as a primary mechanic, that only adds Clerk, Mill Town, and Wheelwright to the mechanically relevant list.
I believe there is still a lot of room for high-level play to be introduced to Dominion through your mechanical theme of effects with limited uses and I would like to encourage you to cut cards that don't fit in with that idea.

[LastFootnote]

I have a Kingdom generator with Enterprise programmed into it. I recently was generating a bunch of Kingdoms with General in it because I wanted to see some of its interactions with Enterprise's one-shots, but I was surprised at how few Kingdoms appeared that made use of that ability of General's. While I don't worry that General is too weak (though, having not played it, that is simply in my approximation), it struck me as odd that General's fanciest ability was rarely useable even in Enterprise heavy games.

As it stands, there are 5 cards in Enterprise that interact with General's "don't trash it" ability: Conscripts, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, and Vendor-- and Redistrict's on-trash ability requires that it be trashed, so General's interaction is irrelevant.

I'm a bit disappointed reflecting upon how few cards are actually one-shots in Enterprise (not because they don't interact with General, but because that was the purported theme). Accounting for all the cards, 9 of the 24 cards are one-shots or pseudo-one-shots: Barter, Convoy, Floodgate, Fund, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, Terrace, and Vendor. If we add interacting with Coppers as a primary mechanic, that only adds Clerk, Mill Town, and Wheelwright to the mechanically relevant list.
I believe there is still a lot of room for high-level play to be introduced to Dominion through your mechanical theme of effects with limited uses and I would like to encourage you to cut cards that don't fit in with that idea.

I think that's a worthy goal. As I come up with more on-theme cards, I am bound to cut some of the off-theme ones. That being said, I think a set full of one-shots—even optional one-shots—is bound to be a little lopsided. Meaning, where are all the Kingdom cards at the end of the game? In the trash. Trade token cards are a way around that, which is why I embraced that mechanic. I would argue that even when a card gives Trade tokens other than on-buy or on-gain, it still falls under the limited-uses theme because the uses are so heavily gated. The way I see it, this is how the cards are currently broken up among themes:

Cards that trash themselves: Jubilee, Redistrict, Gambler, Vendor, Fund, Conscripts (and therefore Profiteer and Barracks)
Cards that use Trade tokens: Jubilee, Convoy, Craftsman, Terrace, Barter, Cathedral
Cards that care about Treasures: Clerk, Mill Town, Refurbish, Vendor, Barrister, Barter, Wheelwright
Misc one-shot stuff: Floodgate, General
Off-theme: Auction, Committee, Dignitary, Axeman, Conclave

(Originally Dignitary was supposed to tie into the theme by being able to trash itself with the Reaction. It can technically still do that, but with this top half you're probably not going to. Back when it gained Silvers, it was at least plausible.)

So by that yardstick, the set doesn't have so very much off-theme stuff. 5 cards. Now maybe the cares-about-Treasure theme is invisible. And it's a theme that Prosperity has, but hey, that's no big deal. Intrigue and Hinterlands both have a cares-about-Victory theme.

Anyway, Committee, Dignitary, and Axeman are providing player interaction. It would be cooler to get that interaction from on-theme cards, and I'm open to that. Maybe I could do a one-shot or Trade token Laboratory variant instead of Conclave.

Conclave
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may pay a Trade token to put all of them into your hand. Otherwise, put one into your hand and discard the rest.
When you gain this, take a Trade token per different type (Action, Attack, etc.) on cards you have in play.

Eh, I guess that might be OK.

I could try one-shot tops on Dignitary, though usually you want to keep the Reaction. I could instead try different one-shot reactions, though probably they wouldn't react to Attacks? If the ability is strong enough that you have to trash the card, maybe players avoid playing attacks in order to keep you from activating it.

I could test Conquest (one-shot attack that makes each opponent trash a good card; gain one of them to hand). The set is pretty flush with trashing attacks, though. I guess I could replace Axeman if it works out.

Some themes are just not as conducive to taking over a whole set as others. Look at Cornucopia. 4 off-theme cards in just 13 cards. Of course one solution is to have more themes. If the cares-about-Treasure theme isn't doing it for people or is too invisible, I could cut those cards and look for another theme; one that meshes well with one-shots and Trade tokens.

Maybe General just needs to lose the one-shot clause. I know that would make some people happy. It wouldn't have much tying it to this set at that point, but so it goes. Maybe there's a better Throne Room variant I could try. I originally had [Take a token; You may play an Action card from your hand; You may spend a token to play it again; You may spend a token to play it a third time]. Not a huge crowd-pleaser. Maybe I just wasn't trying it with the right crowd, though.

[LibraryAdventurer]

my 2c: Every expansion has a few off-theme cards, and that's fine. nothing wrong with that. I think Dignitary especially is great as is.

OT PS: I've also made a little kingdom chooser program which includes Enterprise (along with my other favorite fan made cards -several from the fan card contests, my expansion of course, a couple from NoMoreFun's expansion, a few from Silverspawn's expansion, and I'll be adding a few from Co0kieL0rd's expansion too).

[Co0kieL0rd]

my 2c: Every expansion has a few off-theme cards, and that's fine. nothing wrong with that. I think Dignitary especially is great as is.

I was going to say the same thing. Just stick with Dignitary as it is

OT PS: I've also made a little kingdom chooser program which includes Enterprise (along with my other favorite fan made cards -several from the fan card contests, my expansion of course, a couple from NoMoreFun's expansion, a few from Silverspawn's expansion, and I'll be adding a few from Co0kieL0rd's expansion too).

I feel honoured! But I'd advise you to ask me about the cards you want to include because my set is currently undergoing frequent change. It's definitely not as far developed as Enterprise.
That reminds me I need to update the kingdom generator I use to implement all the changes you made to your set. I want to test your cards but mine need a lot of testing, too. Boy, developing a set is a lot of work!

[LastFootnote]

Alternate Cathedral in case I need it:

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. Pay any number of Trade tokens and trash that many cards from your hand. Take a Trade token.

Or to keep more the spirit of the original:

Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. Pay any number of Trade tokens and trash that many cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy an Action card, take a Trade token.

OR:

Entrepreneur
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. +1 Buy. Pay any number of Trade tokens and trash that many cards from your hand.
While this is in play, when you buy a card you don't have a copy of in play, take a Trade token.

[silverspawn]

Are coin tokens supposed to share a similar value on all cards? Trash one card seems to be worth much less than other effects that other cards can "buy" with tokens.

[LastFootnote]

Are coin tokens supposed to share a similar value on all cards? Trash one card seems to be worth much less than other effects that other cards can "buy" with tokens.

Maybe. Trashing is powerful, though. More so when you have a large selection of cards to choose from, like after drawing 3 cards.

[silverspawn]

So, they are supposed to have a similar value? Or was maybe only directed to the second assumption?

I like the variety version, variety always makes the game more fun. That could cause you to buy unconventional cards. Rewarding you for buying Action cards doesn't really do anything, you want to buy action cards anyway. Well, maybe you green a little bit later. But probably not, because you don't care much about trashing anymore once you start to green.

[LastFootnote]

So, they are supposed to have a similar value?

Yes, they are meant to have roughly similar value. One token for one trashed card may be too weak. But I think it's worth testing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I played a game with a friend using the following kingdom cards:

Vagrant, Oasis, Forager, Develop, Gambler, Committee, Mining Village, Minion, Barrister, Altar

I chose the three enterprise cards because I like them, the rest was random.
I opened Gambler/Forager and my friend opened Gambler/Gambler. On my first gamble I had to trash my Domain (I figured it's the right decision to trash it 'cause I could get it back later) while my opponent got very lucky and trashed at least 6 cards with his Gamblers before they had to retire. He said Gambler was much fun to use.
He bought the only Committee but we focused on gaining with Altar. Once his Committee revealed Barrister and Minion which was the only tough decision for me (would I rather have him gain Barrister or Minion? ... definitely Barrister). Other than that, as expected, most of the time Committee offers non-decisions (there's only one reasonable choice). The player who chooses the card has the more interesting decision to make. Unfortunately, that Committee eventually dropped under the sofa and we didn't notice until the game was almost over 
Minion was dominating the game, as usual. Barrister doesn't synergize with Minion at all. Still, 8 copies of it were bought and Domains changed proprietor a few times which surprised me because our decks were both pretty big. My friend won, the points from Domains didn't matter for the final score and we wouldn't have bought Barrister at all if we had anticipated were this was going. We agree it's a great card, just not on Minion boards

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the test game, Co0kieL0rd! Yeah, I can't imagine Barrister is very useful in a Minion game. I'm glad it was fun for you guys, though. I have had 2-player games where the Domains won it for me, but they're not super-common. I think it's a more exciting card in 3 or 4-player games and I'm willing to live with that.

The decision you make with Committee (keeping or trashing a card) is almost always trivial (or non-existent in the case of a card that isn't in the Supply). The choice that the player to your left makes is meant to be the real decision and I have often found it to be a tough one. I think it's toughest when it's a choice between a bad card they'll trash and a good card they'll gain. Which is better for their deck? Especially when the good card is cheap, like Silver or Caravan, it's not clear whether it's better to gain a copy of it or trash an Estate. I think it's fine that the right decision is sometimes obvious. Embassy and Advisor often have obvious calls as well, and this is a similar choice.

Gambler/Committee is a pretty decent combo in my experience. Gambler clears away a lot of the trash so that Committee is gaining good cards more often.

[Co0kieL0rd]

We played another game using the following kingdom cards:

Oracle, Great Hall, Convoy, Ironmonger, Trader, Terrace, Procession, Cathedral, Mandarin, Harem

Cathedral was a monster here, both because of the draw and especially because of its trashing ability, it just blatantly outclassed Convoy. Cathedral was also greatly supported by Ironmonger and Harem; the three synergize very smoothly.
We both pursued similar strategies but I focused on thinning earlier while my friend gained Silvers with Trader first. We built big engines with Silvers and Harems as our payload, and eventually we both trashed our Traders and Convoys (Sorry, Convoy! My cogs can take care of themselves.). With the Harem-Cathedral combo I was able to green earlier and trash faster which put me in a significant lead that he could never surmount.
I also used Ironmonger more than Terrace because of the synergy mentioned above. Terrace was a mere village for us. I think we both used the mulligan option just once each but gaining a few Terraces early provided the first Trade Tokens Cathedral needed to get started. Later we just loaded up on tokens and no one used them anymore.

[Fragasnap]

I think that's a worthy goal. As I come up with more on-theme cards, I am bound to cut some of the off-theme ones. That being said, I think a set full of one-shots—even optional one-shots—is bound to be a little lopsided. Meaning, where are all the Kingdom cards at the end of the game? In the trash. Trade token cards are a way around that, which is why I embraced that mechanic. I would argue that even when a card gives Trade tokens other than on-buy or on-gain, it still falls under the limited-uses theme because the uses are so heavily gated.

I agree that too many one-shots would be overwhelming. I also agree that Trade tokens are a smart way to get around too many one-shots, which is why I included them in this list:

Accounting for all the cards, 9 of the 24 cards are one-shots or pseudo-one-shots: Barter, Convoy, Floodgate, Fund, Gambler, Jubilee, Redistrict, Terrace, and Vendor.

I did not include Craftsman or Cathedral since they make Trade tokens literally and nearly infinite (respectively) making them not nearly so gated as Convoy or Floodgate-- even Barter can provide many Trade tokens. Conscripts, on the other hand, is not a one-shot at all since the cards that gain them are not one-shots.

my 2c: Every expansion has a few off-theme cards, and that's fine. nothing wrong with that. I think Dignitary especially is great as is.

Mechanically off-theme cards are fine, especially if they are necessary to round out all the abilities needed in a set, but on-theme cards are vastly preferred-- and that preference becomes stronger as the mechanic becomes harder to see. Right now, I don't believe a player would immediately identify "conditional one-shots\limited use abilities" as the primary theme of Enterprise without being told.

Dignitary is a fine card: Reasonably strong, flexible, and provides choices on-play, but it, the "cares about Treasures" theme, as well as the other off-theme cards ultimately obfuscate the "limited use" theme from the player. Further, with the introduction of Trade tokens, I believe that a set of 25 to 27 thematic cards that fulfill the mechanical theme of Enterprise can be found that will fulfill all the needs of an expansion. I encourage every designer to not settle for off-theme cards if not absolutely necessary. Any set that is pursuing some mechanical idea should do so to the fullest extent that it can, and I think there is more room to explore in the "limited use abilities" that Enterprise possesses.

[LastFootnote]

So, yeah. I haven't had much Enterprise playtesting since May because all my Dominion time has been taken up with playtesting the next official expansion. A very big thank you to those of you who have been playtesting Enterprise cards during this period when I wasn't able to.

[pacovf]

So... any cards that you are going to remove from Enterprise? 

[LastFootnote]

So... any cards that you are going to remove from Enterprise? 

I will say one thing only. There was a card very close to Wheelwright, but it has since been dropped from the new set. I don't feel super-jazzed about having a card that's close to an outtake in Enterprise, but my version is different and has been working, so Wheelwright is back for the time being.

[XerxesPraelor]

How did you get to playtest?

[silverspawn]

So, yeah. I haven't had much Enterprise playtesting since May because all my Dominion time has been taken up with playtesting the next official expansion.

ohh. is it good?

[LastFootnote]

How did you get to playtest?

As explained in the other thread, I was sort of grandfathered in from when I playtested Prince. Donald was kind enough to include me in this playtest as well.

So, yeah. I haven't had much Enterprise playtesting since May because all my Dominion time has been taken up with playtesting the next official expansion.

ohh. is it good?

Yes, it is mega-awesome. It will likely be my favorite set and it includes my favorite card.

[enfynet]

Favorite card?

Is it (better than) Moat?

[Moneymodel]

Auction/Tactician OP!



It's not OP

[LastFootnote]

It has occurred to me that pulling a card out of the discard pile is a good candidate for a Trade token ability. It could replace Terrace as

+2 Actions. You may pay a Trade token to look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Or I could make it a $5 Peddler variant.

+1 Action. +$1. You may pay a Trade token to look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I kind of like the village better. First, it makes you that much more likely to want to pull an Action card. Second, $5 seems maybe steep for something that is effectively just a Peddler after you use the ability. I mean Terrace is just a village after you use it, but $4 for a village isn't awful. $5 for a peddler is maybe OK? Tough to say.

EDIT: OR, I suppose these cards could just have a flat "+1 Card" up front and then the ability pulls an extra card for you. Seems maybe too strong for the village, but could perhaps work for the peddler.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Is there a problem with original Terrace's mulligan option? I like it just fine.

"+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. You may pay a Trade token to look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand." for $5 seems reasonable to me. Although the suggested Village variant makes a bit more sense because it doesn't draw a card, and thus can't cause an unwanted reshuffle, when you pay the token. That case may be rare but it's really irritating when it happens.

[silverspawn]

I also really liked the original terrace

[LastFootnote]

For the first time in a long time today, I played some Enterprise games. Two and a half all-Enterprise games, in fact (had to cut the third game short to go furniture shopping). Here are my thoughts:

• I remembered how good Terrace is. Probably not worth cutting just for a different Trade token village.
• I tried the new Conscripts. I like it! They're pretty slow to get going, but they are way less harsh than the previous version (with discard, then curse). So that's a win.
• I tried the other version of Barracks (+1 Action; gain Conscripts to hand). My opponent hadn't seen the old version, so no feedback on the difference between the two yet. I like the new version; it's certainly much faster.
• I opened with Profiteer the first game. It seemed super-strong, but then I lost the game (by 1 point). I'll keep trying it as-is. If it is too strong, bumping it to $5 sounds better than gaining the Gold to your discard pile.
• Everybody keeps forgetting to discard a card when playing Mill Town! This is a longstanding issue. I'm not sure how I can make it easier to remember. I recently made the spacing better on the card, so maybe I just need to print out that version. Aaaaanyway, I think this might be the first time I've tried the version that doesn't require at least 3 Coppers in hand for the gain. It makes it really easy to gain e.g. Clerks. Maybe that's fine, it didn't seem game-breaking.
• Barter's new bottom seemed fine. I've only bought it with one Silver in play so far.
• I'm finally happy with Conclave's wording. My opponent was a relative novice and there was no confusion this time! Finally.
• I think I'm finally ready to try the simpler General (Play a card twice; put it on your deck when you discard it). It makes it a worse fit for the set, but it's just SO much simpler. Maybe it'll be fine. If not, I guess I can keep it for some theoretical future set.
• Fund and Barrister have an interesting interaction that is obvious in hindsight. Once somebody activates a Fund, it's just there in the trash for the next player who plays a Barrister to steal. It goes into their hand and they have an incentive to activate it immediately: it might get stolen! So the cycle continues. This interaction kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm not sure it's actually a problem.

[Co0kieL0rd]

That reminded me I played another Enterprise game some time ago but couldn't post the results at the time so I saved the text and then forgot about it. Anyway, here it is:

Vagrant, Floodgate, Great Hall, Market Square, Nomad Camp, Fortress, Barracks, Highway, General, Harem

Originally, we wanted to test Profiteer instead of Barracks. But when we chose the 7 non-Enterprise cards at random, we quickly noticed that there’s no trashing and no Cursing attacks on the board so we were both pretty sure we would never buy Profiteer. So we replaced it with Barracks.
I skimmed over the discussion about the new versions of Conscripts and Barracks and decided that, since you seem determined to keep Conscripts as they are shown in the OP, we would use the version Barracks that gains you 1 Conscripts directly to hand (so not the one in the OP).
Anyway, I think we both pursued the same strategy here. First priority was getting some Barracks and Conscripts as fast as possible. Then we piled out Highways, picked up Market Squares and Nomad Camps for the important +Buys, and some Generals.
I had very lucky draws in the beginning and feel like the game was already decided when I got two Barracks into my deck even before the second reshuffle. I won the Curse split 6-4 which enabled me to end the game on piles when we were equal on Provinces. The game ended so quickly that we didn’t even think about gaining alt-VP cards, including Floodgate. It wasn’t very useful here anyway because there were so few terminals in our decks.
At least we both each managed to use General on a Conscripts once with a second Conscripts in hand while there were still Curses in the Supply. I found that once the Curses are out, you should ask yourself if you still want a lot of Conscripts in your deck. On this board they didn’t trouble me but if there had been terminal draw involved, I might have returned some of possible.

In hindsight, I think maybe we underestimated Profiteer. Next time we'll just keep it. And obviously we used the old, more complex version of General.

Question: How many Conscripts should the Conscripts pile contain? 10 or 15?

[LastFootnote]

Co0kieL0rd, thanks for testing, as always! I think Profiteer looks weaker than it is, which is a shame but there it is. I believe it's actually strongest with no other Attack cards available because then it's a long time before you get hit with Curses.

Question: How many Conscripts should the Conscripts pile contain? 10 or 15?

I use 16 copies myself, but anything in that ballpark is fine. 10 copies might be too few, especially in Profiteer games with more players.

[TWoos]

Which post has the most current version of the cards posted?

Is it the first post of the thread?

[LastFootnote]

Which post has the most current version of the cards posted?

Is it the first post of the thread?

As of now, yes. I just updated Barracks to the version I'm currently using. I'm about to simplify General, but I haven't created the new image yet.

EDIT: OK, now I have.

[silverspawn]

good change!

[Fragasnap]

Tracking would be a tiny bit stranger (though less technical), but you would maintain the primary functionality of General if you worded it as

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action from your hand twice. When it leaves play, you may put it on top of your deck.

[Jack Rudd]

Is General on General a thing? It looks like a thing.

[LastFootnote]

Tracking would be a tiny bit stranger (though less technical), but you would maintain the primary functionality of General if you worded it as

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action from your hand twice. When it leaves play, you may put it on top of your deck.

That's what General originally was. It's too confusing with Gambler, Mining Village, etc. Play General, playing a Mining Village. Draw a card. Choose to trash the Mining Village, putting it on top of your deck. Then play the Mining Village again, whereupon the Mining Village draws itself. Then you can play it a third time, maybe trashing it a second time. It's just too much to track. Nice thought, though.

The version of General in the OP has the major advantage of requiring zero tracking. But players read it and are like, "What? No comprende."

[LastFootnote]

Is General on General a thing? It looks like a thing.

You can totally General a General. I've done it. I'd do it again.

[Thanar]

Thanks for the updates to your cards. It would be great if you could post an updated version of the enterprise_imgs.zip file with the hi-res versions.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the updates to your cards. It would be great if you could post an updated version of the enterprise_imgs.zip file with the hi-res versions.

Here you go.

[LastFootnote]

Played two 2-player Enterprise/Seaside games last night.

• My Tactician/Refurbish deck (with no other trashing) could not get off the ground. I never seemed to get Refurbish and Silvers in any of my Tactician hands. Refurbish continues to seem weak-ish, but I'm going to keep trying it. I am loathe to make it more complex.
• I like how Floodgate and Tactician don't stack (without the help of a gainer). Floodgate continues to work great at $3. Turns out it's a cool combo with Conscripts. Even if you already have multiple Conscripts in hand, you can choose not to play your last one and ship it forward to your next turn, possibly matching it up with more Attacks.
• Profiteer continues to look fine strength-wise, but the people I play with IRL tend not to buy it. There is a powerful "I don't want to give my opponent an Attack" sentiment. My opponent did at least gain one eventually via being hit by Axeman.
• My opponent and I both had a 5/2 split with Auction as the only $2 card, so that was bought. My opponent went on to buy 3 more Auctions throughout the game, which she later realized was an error. Still, the card seems a worthwhile purchase. Usually it's at least a nonterminal [+1 Buy; +$1], which is reasonable for $2, and often it was better. Still not sure whether it's worth a slot, but I hope it works out.
• I didn't get much use out of Barter because I bought it so late. If you don't open with Silver, maybe Barter isn't so worth getting. I'll keep testing it.
• New Barracks is still seeming good although my opponent slightly preferred the old version. I am considering bringing back the ability to dig for an Attack card, as in you either gain a Conscripts to hand or dig for an Attack. I'd like to be rid of the digging, but hey it was the original premise of the card.
• I was able to open Axeman in one game. It whiffed the first two times I played it. So no evidence so far of it being too strong as an opener, though I'm guessing it hurts a lot if it hits on turn 3 or 4.
• Jubilee and Gambler were fine, as ever. I continue to like the new Conclave.

[LastFootnote]

One 3-player game today.

• Axeman seems fine so far, although the kind of player who hates having their cards trashed hates it. It was suggested that Axeman use a $3 to $6 range like Knights, etc. I'm not totally against it, but there are reasons that it is the way it is. I wanted players to have the option of trashing a Province for e.g. a Gold or King's Court on their deck. Also it's nice that it can hit Platinum, etc. Mostly I wanted players to have as many options as possible about what to trash, but maybe that's not worth it.
• Barrister itself seems good. It stole a lot of Gold this game, although most of it was Gold that Axeman trashed. Domains could still be better. Two of us trashed our Domains to the first Axeman play, and I gained them both with Barrister plays. Then I spent the rest of the game trying to get the last one (with Generaled Barristers, etc.). It did change hands from one of my opponents to the other, but I didn't get it, which was too bad since it would have made me win (final score 35[1 domain]/30[2 domains]/12). Anyway, Domain could be more desirable, although I am loathe to make it more complex. One option is to start each deck with 2 Domains and have Domains worth [1 VP per other Domain in your deck]. Another option (which I like better) is to have one each and make them worth [1 VP plus 1VP per Domain in your deck].
• Clerk got bought out fast because there was quite a bit of Copper gaining going on. The winner once bought 4 Clerks in a single turn.
• The new General seems solid.
• Dignitary is maybe too complex, which sucks. To the casual player, both halves of it are confusing. I don't think the top half is worth doing on its own, but maybe I'm wrong. The bottom half was fine back when it could be [trash down to 4 cards in hand] but is now easy to misread.

[LastFootnote]

Another option:

Domain
Types: Treasure–Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 2 Domains in your deck (otherwise worth 0 VP).

Any opinions greatly appreciated.

[pacovf]

Another option:

Domain
Types: Treasure–Victory
Cost: $3
Worth $1.
Worth 3 VP if you have at least 2 Domains in your deck (otherwise worth 0 VP).

Any opinions greatly appreciated.

So, I haven't playtested anything at all, so my opinion is worth about two rupees, but here, have it anyway.

I like this better than the other options, because its "powerlevel" can't vary as wildly between two and four players. That was one thing that always concerned me about the idea. I mean, with two players, you are looking at 4 points tops, while with four players, that goes up to 16. That is crazy. This seems more reasonable, in that sense.
The aspect that makes me a bit wary though, is that stealing a domain can cause a 6pt swing, and it is mainly luck based...

[Awaclus]

The aspect that makes me a bit wary though, is that stealing a domain can cause a 6pt swing, and it is mainly luck based...

It already happened with the old Domain, though, so if that wasn't a problem, this won't be a problem.

EDIT: Wait, it was actually just a 4 point swing. But it still doesn't sound like a big difference.

[pacovf]

Yes and no. The old version could only make 4 points swings in two players. Up to 6 points in three players and 8 points in four players (actually, up to 2*N_players, it is not very difficult to prove), but then again this version can do up to 12 points swing in 3+ players...

EDIT: well, dunno, just stating my opinion. 4 points is a duchy plus a tiebreaker, 6 points is a province.

[Awaclus]

Yes and no. The old version could only make 4 points swings in two players. Up to 6 points in three players and 8 points in four players (actually, up to 2*N_players, it is not very difficult to prove), but then again this version can do up to 12 points swing in 3+ players...

EDIT: well, dunno, just stating my opinion. 4 points is a duchy plus a tiebreaker, 6 points is a province.

Province is usually a 12-point swing.

[pacovf]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

[LastFootnote]

What Awaclus means is that stealing a Province would be a 12-point swing. Stealing a Domain is kind of like stealing a Duchy.

It's a delicate balance between wanting it to matter and not wanting it to be too swingy. I wouldn't say that it's purely up to randomness whether you steal Domains, though. You might buy a bunch of Barristers or none at all. You might bloat your deck with cards to avoid your Domains being stolen. Obviously luck does play a part.

$1 and 3 VP is probably pretty close to Harem in terms of power. Thief can already steal Harems, so I'm not so worried about this version being crazy swingy.

[pacovf]

I am kinda assuming games in which both players go barrister. If only one goes barrister, sure, she gets the points, that's what she bought barrister for, barrister is expensive anyway, that's fine with me. But if both players buy/play the same amount of barristers, then whoever ends up with the domains is mainly up to luck.

I think here is a good place to write again the disclaimer that, not having playtested anything at all, I don't really know what I am talking about.

As for thief and harem, there's something you are failing to take into account: people won't buy harems in games with thief, so the potential swinginess never materializes. In games with barrister, you already start with a "harem" in your deck.

Plus, can you think of any card that can cause a 6 point swing in any game it appears in, with no need to build a deck around it?

[Awaclus]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

If there's one Province left in the supply, and I buy it, I have 6 VP and my opponent has 0 VP. If my opponent buys it, he has 6 VP and I have 0 VP. That's a 12-point swing.

[liopoil]

Yes. This is why once someone buys the penultimate province, duchies and estates often stop mattering. Players who were in full green sometimes switch back to buying treasure or better cards.

In general, a card from a pile that will run out* if worth two of that card** ***

*and is also equally good for each player
**except the "second copy" of the card is delayed until the pile runs out.
***other edge cases that may or may not be so edgy at all.

EDIT: oh, and your opponent needs to want more of the cards in that pile than they got.

[pacovf]

You will need to get into more detail about your claim, because the way you phrased it, it is false.

If there's one Province left in the supply, and I buy it, I have 6 VP and my opponent has 0 VP. If my opponent buys it, he has 6 VP and I have 0 VP. That's a 12-point swing.

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Yes. This is why once someone buys the penultimate province, duchies and estates often stop mattering.

Unless, you know, buying that province won't put you on the lead.

[Awaclus]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

[pacovf]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

... as I said before, this is just rhetoric. The 12 point swing you are talking about comes from buying 2 more provinces than your opponent, not 1. The last province isn't magically worth 12 points: you already had a 6 point lead from an extra province, now you buy the last province and you have a 12 point lead.

If it's me comparing a 6 point swing with the physical act of buying a province that is bothering you (instead of just the VP value of it, as I intended) , just imagine that in games with Barrister, you add a province to the province pile that can only be gained via Barrister. Now the number of provinces in the game is odd instead of even. That is a big change.

I think we are arguing semantics anyway.

[Awaclus]

... as I said before, this is just rhetoric. The 12 point swing you are talking about comes from buying 2 more provinces than your opponent, not 1.

And the buying 2 more Provinces than your opponent comes from buying your 5th Province, because at 4 Provinces your opponent can still buy 4 Provinces as well. The 5th Province is a single Province.

[pacovf]

What you are saying is that all provinces are worth 0 points up until the fourth, and after that all of them are worth 12 points (since going from 4-3 to 5-3 is a 12 point swing). Sure, that's equivalent to saying that each province is worth 6 points, only your approach breaks down if the number of provinces bought is different from 8.

Anyway, we are talking past each other, and I don't find this discussion particularly interesting in the first place, so I will leave it here, if you don't mind.

[Asper]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

If i play with six players, is it a 36-point swing?

[scott_pilgrim]

I was writing a long reply to this, but meh. This is just rhetoric. You are phrasing it in a way that leaves aside a host of factors that makes it look like what you are saying is true. But really, buying a province is a 6 point swing.

Well, if your opponent doesn't need that Province, then it's a 6-point swing. But almost always he does. One 6-point swing by the new Domain is not enough to nullify the 12-point swing from losing the Province split 5-3.

If i play with six players, is it a 36-point swing?

No.  On average, it would be a 6+(6/5) point swing, given that the game ends on Provinces and not piles, and you have no idea what the other players' scores are.  If the game ends on piles, it would be a 6 point swing.

Obviously in practice, you don't always know whether the game will end on Provinces or on piles, and you usually have at least some idea of other players' scores, which is why Awaclus's perspective doesn't always work.  But you're generalization to 6-players is backwards, you should be dividing, not multiplying.

[LastFootnote]

I believe you should be averaging. Or really, you should be averaging only the opponents who have a shot at victory.

[TheOthin]

It's still a 12-point swing between you and any player with the potential to beat you. It just has an additional opportunity to disappear from that swing by ending up in the hands of a player without a shot at first, like a Province that gets trashed or remains in the Supply.

Say you're leading two opponents by 4 points each, with one more Province available. If you don't get it, one of them will. If you get it, you win by 10 points. If you fail to get it, they don't split it between themselves for a 9-point swing where you still win by 1 point. One of them gets it and wins by 2 points, for a 12-point swing.

[pacovf]

This looks like a conversation that could be forked towards a new thread in the Dominion General Discussion or Dominion Articles boards, where it will probably have more visibility...

[LastFootnote]

So let's assume for the moment that Dignitary is too complex. Both of the effects are fairly simple, but they're both wordy (by necessity) and a bit difficult to parse. The reaction is quite popular and the the action has some fans (including me), so let's say I split it into two cards.

Right now I'd like to talk about the Action part of it. I don't think it's interesting enough to be by itself, so I'd like to add another reaction to it. Here's a reaction that I came up with recently that might be a good fit.

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.

Pretty simple, but I don't think it's too close to anything that's currently out there. It's closest to Beggar and Market Square, but different. It falls under the set's "cares about Treasures" theme since you have to discard a Treasure. Any opinions?

[Co0kieL0rd]

So let's assume for the moment that Dignitary is too complex. Both of the effects are fairly simple, but they're both wordy (by necessity) and a bit difficult to parse. The reaction is quite popular and the the action has some fans (including me), so let's say I split it into two cards.

First off, how does one find either of Dignitary's effects complex? I'm reading the current text and there's just no misunderstanding. It's phrased very well.
This reminds me of my (and friends') early games with Secret Chamber and Torturer. These cards are part of what is supposed to be a beginners' set but newbies tend to agonize about which cards to put back and which ones to discard. Dignitary is no more complex than that, and while people resolve one half of the card they don't need to think about the other half of it.
With that said, Dignitary's action and reaction might as well be seperated...

Right now I'd like to talk about the Action part of it. I don't think it's interesting enough to be by itself, so I'd like to add another reaction to it. Here's a reaction that I came up with recently that might be a good fit.

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.

Pretty simple, but I don't think it's too close to anything that's currently out there. It's closest to Beggar and Market Square, but different. It falls under the set's "cares about Treasures" theme since you have to discard a Treasure. Any opinions?

Please don't smack something on there just for the reaction's sake. Your suggestion is not too close to anything but it's also not particularly interesting. And there's already Profiteer as a Gold gainer in your set. I know he does it under completely different circumstances but there's enough cards in your set that "care about treasures" already, anyway. It's not a very intriguing theme, in my opinion.

Whether split up Dignitary or not, have you considered phrasing the action like this:

+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.

?

This is both easier to comprehend and makes the action more flexible (which I'm not sure is what you want). IMO, this would suffice to be an Action card on it's own. What do you think?

[LastFootnote]

First off, how does one find either of Dignitary's effects complex? I'm reading the current text and there's just no misunderstanding. It's phrased very well.
This reminds me of my (and friends') early games with Secret Chamber and Torturer. These cards are part of what is supposed to be a beginners' set but newbies tend to agonize about which cards to put back and which ones to discard. Dignitary is no more complex than that, and while people resolve one half of the card they don't need to think about the other half of it.

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

Also, the card is 8 lines of text. That's a lot! It's intimidating. It's good that it's split into two parts of 4 lines each, but it's still a lot. The idea behind splitting it is to pair each half with another half that's less wordy.

Please don't smack something on there just for the reaction's sake. Your suggestion is not too close to anything but it's also not particularly interesting. And there's already Profiteer as a Gold gainer in your set. I know he does it under completely different circumstances but there's enough cards in your set that "care about treasures" already, anyway. It's not a very intriguing theme, in my opinion.

Well, that's fair. I wouldn't put a Reaction on there just for the sake of having a Reaction, exactly. It's just that I don't think the card stand on its own without some sort of under-line text. It could be an on-gain or something, but a Reaction seems better.

Whether split up Dignitary or not, have you considered phrasing the action like this:

+2 Cards. You may put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck. +$1 for each card you put back.

?

This is both easier to comprehend and makes the action more flexible (which I'm not sure is what you want). IMO, this would suffice to be an Action card on it's own. What do you think?

I think that might be too strong for $4, but it looks pretty unappealing at $5. Both this version and my version are stronger than they look. That's why the Reaction is there: it gives you another reason to buy the card. I guess I could try [+2 Cards; +$2; Put 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck] for $4. Again, though, that looks like it could use a Reaction to spice it up. I could also try [+2 Cards; Put any number of cards from your hand on top of your deck; +$1 per card you put on your deck], though that seems like a $5 card and therefore starts to look very Vault-y. I dunno, maybe it could work at $4 after all. Seems very strong, though, unless your deck is full of junk.

Anyhow, thank you for your candor, co0kieL0rd. I'm not for-sure changing Dignitary. It's just the most complex card in the set currently and I'm trying to simplify where I can.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I would argue that "trash all but 4 cards from your hand", while elegant in the context of the rules, is wonky and hard to parse. There's no better wording available without also discarding Dignitary, which I think would be too weak. But the average player reads that and either gets it wrong or asks, "Why doesn't it just say to trash a card from your hand?" "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" was great, but then came Donald's unfortunate ruling that "down to" means do them one at a time, opening up the possibility of an inescapable infinite loop with a hand full of Fortresses. Goddamn Fortress.

My two cents says fortress isn't worth changing the wording of a good card (especially if it makes it too complex). Fortress is silly. Use "Trash down to 4 cards in your hand" and put something in the card FAQ about fortress.

Yeah I mean, you're making a fan card expansion after all. While Fortress as such isn't a silly card IMO, all the loop holes and what-the-hecks it creates is something Donald has to deal with when he's making official cards. You, however, shouldn't bother with that. When we play Enterprise with our friends and that case comes up, we'll just tell them there's no infinite loop possible

[TheOthin]

Isn't that a huge edge case because it requires a hand consisting of a Dignitary AND five Fortresses? So your opponent has to give you a draw with something like Council Room or Soothsayer, then play an Attack, then you reveal the Dignitary with no intention of using it.

[liopoil]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!

[TheOthin]

Would you? A plausible reading could have it as saying that if you have a five-card hand including Dignitary and Fortress and trash the Fortress, Dignitary could consider its effect fulfilled and stop checking your hand size. This would also mean that even if you had a Dignitary and five Fortresses, you could trash the Dignitary and a Fortress and end up down to four, so you'd need six Fortresses to actually get stuck.

Of course none of that would stop you from revealing Dignitary again, which I guess is probably what you meant in the first place?

[scott_pilgrim]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!

When you're losing, you can already reveal Secret Chamber and rearrange the top of your deck indefinitely.  There's no design rule that says a player can't delay the game forever if they want to, because no one wants to do that.

The case in which you're forced to do something repeatedly forever would be problematic.  Wait, can that situation even happen?  You can always just choose not to reveal Dignitary, right?  I guess it would be a problem in an online implementation, but IRL, you can just say "whoops, I didn't mean to reveal Dignitary", and if you're playing with reasonable opponents, you can just not do the reaction (and if you're playing with unreasonable opponents you can show them your hand of five fortresses and sit there until they resign).

[popsofctown]

Fortress-Dignitary reads the same as Secret Chamber to me too.  The way it's written there is no handsize check at all.  Militia and Ghost Ship have an implicit handsize checking loop to them because they say "down to" or "until", but the Dignitary I see in OP says "all but".  Which means, select your entire hand, then deselect four of those cards, then trash all selected cards at once, you're done. If they come back somehow you still trashed the set of cards you were supposed to, there is no concern for a special result or goal like "down to" would imply.

[LastFootnote]

Fortress-Dignitary reads the same as Secret Chamber to me too.  The way it's written there is no handsize check at all.  Militia and Ghost Ship have an implicit handsize checking loop to them because they say "down to" or "until", but the Dignitary I see in OP says "all but".  Which means, select your entire hand, then deselect four of those cards, then trash all selected cards at once, you're done. If they come back somehow you still trashed the set of cards you were supposed to, there is no concern for a special result or goal like "down to" would imply.

Right, but the conversation is about reverting to a "down to" wording, which is easier to parse.

[popsofctown]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

[LastFootnote]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

Could you please Elaborate?

[liopoil]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!

When you're losing, you can already reveal Secret Chamber and rearrange the top of your deck indefinitely.  There's no design rule that says a player can't delay the game forever if they want to, because no one wants to do that.

The case in which you're forced to do something repeatedly forever would be problematic.  Wait, can that situation even happen?  You can always just choose not to reveal Dignitary, right?  I guess it would be a problem in an online implementation, but IRL, you can just say "whoops, I didn't mean to reveal Dignitary", and if you're playing with reasonable opponents, you can just not do the reaction (and if you're playing with unreasonable opponents you can show them your hand of five fortresses and sit there until they resign).

I don't know about you, but I've been revealing the same moat since 2011. Good point.

[pacovf]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

I love dat s**t I would say this all boils down to if you're playing with reasonable opponents. I've never ever shown a newbie Dominion without having to explain the effect of Secret Chamber, or Minion, or Procession (...) at least once. I'd be fine clarifying that Dignitary does trash all chosen (or unchosen) cards at once and on-trash effects are triggered afterwards.

If there ever was an online-implementation of Enterprise, you could make such an infinite loop impossible very easily while the wording remain the same. Goko doesn't give you the option of infinitely revealing a reaction to the same card, does it?

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

The number of Fortresses in your hand doesn't make a difference since you trash all of them at once, and only once per revelation of Dignitary.

Now seriously, stop that Fortress edge-case gobbledygook! I still think Dignitary is as clear as possible/necessary and there'll always be some explanation to do but that should be only once per group of people you play with.

[liopoil]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.

[pacovf]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.

Because you are confusing the variable "time" with the variable "number of passes through the loop".

I'll give another example: imagine that trashing a fortress which then stays in your hand takes 1 second. Imagine that each time you repeat the process, it takes half the time it took last time. Then in two seconds, you will have trashed fortress an infinite amount of times. Not an arbitrarily large number of times, but an infinite amount of times.

Here, I am just assuming that trashing a fortress takes zero seconds, to speed it up a little.

I am aware that you have to squint a bit to accept this argument. 

[popsofctown]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

Could you please Elaborate?

Recursion leads to slower computer implementations.  It can also lead to more confusions, bad interactions, and open questions in general.  In Hearthstone I am infuriated by the interaction between the Fatigue rule and "draw until you have 3 cards in your hand.", the Fatigue rule is that if your deck is empty and you would try to draw a card, instead you take 1 damage.  My interpretation is that a player with 2 cards in hand and an empty deck should take infinite damage, enough of the Hearthstone design team, and a decent number of board game players if you polled them I would guess, would say you should take damage twice and give up.  "Draw a 3 cards, minus 1 for each card in your hand" reconciles all possible interpretations rather simply.

Recursion in general can cause problems.  It's not even obvious how the game should handle infinite damage if you made it a thing.

It's best to avoid recursion if possible

[LastFootnote]

Two games of Enterprise last night, testing some new cards like Bookkeeper from the other thread.

• Floodgate is a nice combo with Workshop-style cards. Play the Workshop and save the rest of your hand for next turn. Floodgate continues to be great at $3.
• Refurbish maybe needs a buff. It just takes so much work to make it good.
• I have played 3 games now with Profiteer and nobody has ever bought it and won. And I'm not even sure it's the Curses it's giving out, because there have been relatively few of those. The Conscripts could be Silvers and it might still be too weak. I'm trying to think of a nice simple buff other than +$1. I'll keep trying it as-is for now, but am looking toward the future. The other advantage of giving it a buff is that it would look more appealing to players leery of giving out Conscripts.
• I tried new card called Vendor: the Peddler that allows you to pay a token to look through your discard pile and fish out a card. My wife thought it was lame that she could only do it once, but she bought one and used it to pull her Profiteer out of the discard. I got one too; can't remember what I pulled with it. I plan to change it so that you can look through your discard pile before deciding whether to pay a token. I'm not sure whether that's more or less AP. Time will tell.
• Jubilee, Barracks, Conclave, and Craftsman all continue to play well. I hadn't played with Craftsman as much recently, but it still seems solid. We used them to pick up Barracks and Conclaves, then later Duchies.
• Dignitary wasn't bought.

EDIT: I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

I like that idea and recommend you give it a shot! Because when me and 1 or 2 friends played a game with Profiteer, no one bought it either. If there are strong Attack cards on the board you certainly don't want it. If there are non, however, I think the fear of getting Conscripts-attacked after playing some Profiteers is partly unfounded. How likely is your opponent to collide two of them if they're not implementing Conscripts/other Attacks into their strategy? For most deck types, obviously excluding engines that can easily draw your deck, they are rather a liability similar to (or even more so than) the Silver from Embassy.

[LastFootnote]

I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

I like that idea and recommend you give it a shot! Because when me and 1 or 2 friends played a game with Profiteer, no one bought it either. If there are strong Attack cards on the board you certainly don't want it. If there are non, however, I think the fear of getting Conscripts-attacked after playing some Profiteers is partly unfounded. How likely is your opponent to collide two of them if they're not implementing Conscripts/other Attacks into their strategy? For most deck types, obviously excluding engines that can easily draw your deck, they are rather a liability similar to (or even more so than) the Silver from Embassy.

I hear you. Yet at that point the Conscripts would be a wash, and [Gain a Gold on your deck] seems really strong. Compare it to Armory. Sure it's less flexible, but man. Seems really strong. I guess you could gain a Gold on your deck and a Silver, or just two Golds in your discard pile. Or each player gets a Conscripts and you also get a Gold, but not on top of your deck. Hmm.

[pst]

As for infinite loops I think that the FAQ for Star Wars: The Card Game is interesting:

If it is possible, with certain card combinations, to create an “infinite loop,” then when executing an infinite loop the resolving player must follow these two steps:

1. Clearly display the infinite loop to the opponent (and tournament judge, if the opponent requires it). Thus, the player must display, using all cards involved, one full cycle of the infinite loop.

2. State how many times he or she wishes to execute this loop. For example, the player could say “I will now execute this loop seventeen million times.” Then resolve the loop that many times instantly. If the execution of this loop causes the player to win the game, the game is over and the executing player wins.

Infinite loops should never be abused to cause the game to stal

If applied to Dominion you could for example say "now I will reveal this moat seventeen million times", and get it over with.

[LastFootnote]

First game with Cathedral today. It's the version that gains you a Trade token whenever you buy a card you don't have a copy of in play. Terrace was also in the game and there were comments that Cathedral getting tokens for Terrace seemed strong. Yet I used up almost all my tokens on Cathedral's trashing, so I'm not sure there's much to that. Anyway, it seemed maybe OK. If it's too strong, I could try the version that only activates on Victory cards.

[Asper]

There is a difference between revealing Moat infinite times and resolving Dignitary, at least under certain conditions. You can always choose not to reveal Moat, but if you reveal Dignitary with 5 Fortresses in hand (whyever you would do that), you are automatically trapped in a neverending state of trying to apply a mandatory instruction. You can never stop, even if you wanted to. There are quite some ways to artificially stretch out the game, and you can technically achieve it even by mundane things as not to do anything at all for 20 minutes. That's entirely different from Dignitary's unescapable loop where choice doesn't matter (once it's started).

Edit: I should probably clarify that i'm talking about the hypothetical "down to 4" wording, not the card as it is currently, to avoid confusion.

[XerxesPraelor]

So I played a game with Gambler and Terrace - Gambler didn't work out for me, but I got it too late, and Terrace was fun to choose when to use the power.

I also did an Enterprise/Progress game with Clerk, Jubilee, Floodgates, Refurbish, Vendor, Fund, and Superstitious Village, Innovator, Congress, Caravel.

I erroneously bought a village early in the game even though there was no terminal draw in the kingdom, but I eventually got a Clerk / Vendor engine going with Innovator as the payload. I ended up winning by a point despite my mistake by using Floodgates to save up an innovator and a Fund up for a double province at the end after many turns of PPR. In retrospect, a simple BM+ Fund+Innovator probably would have best, but I was tempted by all the new cards.

I like Clerk a lot better than I expecting to, and I think it could definitely cost $3 instead. You already have two other $2 cards, and Clerk is useful in almost all kingdoms with weak trashing, it seems. Jubilee wasn't useful here because we didn't need actions, so I can't comment on it. My opponent got Refurbish, but it nombod with Clerk and Vendor, so it although it seems pretty powerful at $3, I think that's a reasonable cost. Fund and Floodgates were really fun - floodgate is a keeper for sure. Vendor feels really similar to Spice Merchant, especially at the same cost. It was fun, but kind of confusing.

[GendoIkari]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

[LastFootnote]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

Yes, but it is also crazy wordy. I mean the current wording in the OP is fine, too. It's just wordier than "trash down to 4 cards in hand". Discarding the Dignitary would be way less wordy, but it would probably have to have some other benefit as well to avoid being super weak.

[LastFootnote]

In other news, I don't like Cathedral as it stands. You may or may not have noticed that it took forever for me to finally get around to even testing it. For a long time I thought I needed a card with "+3 Cards", which is why I have tried so many such cards in the set. I am coming around to the idea that I have enough card drawing in the set, though, what with Clerk, Convoy, Conclave, Wheelwright, and to a much lesser extent, Gambler and Floodgate.

But I would like to have more Trade token cards and tokens-for-trashing doesn't seem like a terrible idea, so I may just turn Cathedral into a card that gives +$ instead of +Cards. Or something.

[pacovf]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

I think the problem with that version is that it is wordier? Compare the current version:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand."

With the Horse Traders version:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand, and at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand."

Which, if you take into account that the top part of the card is already quite wordy, can be problematic.

EDIT: bah, ninja'd. You could always cycle the dignitary though:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."

[XerxesPraelor]

In other news, I don't like Cathedral as it stands. You may or may not have noticed that it took forever for me to finally get around to even testing it. For a long time I thought I needed a card with "+3 Cards", which is why I have tried so many such cards in the set. I am coming around to the idea that I have enough card drawing in the set, though, what with Clerk, Convoy, Conclave, Wheelwright, and to a much lesser extent, Gambler and Floodgate.

But I would like to have more Trade token cards and tokens-for-trashing doesn't seem like a terrible idea, so I may just turn Cathedral into a card that gives +$ instead of +Cards. Or something.

You have enough card draw, but most of it is lab-based - convoy might be enough, but I agree with your past self that you need some sort of big terminal draw to make fun village-smithy like engines. Just my two non-playtested cents.

[LastFootnote]

You could always cycle the dignitary though:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."

This is perhaps worth trying. The reason I hadn't tried it yet is because I assumed there was a reason it hadn't been done on published cards. That reason was redrawing it and using it again. So, another player plays an Attack. You discard Dignitary and trash a card from your hand, then draw a card. Say that makes you shuffle and you redraw your Dignitary. Then you can do it again, and so on. But really the chance that you're going to keep drawing more Dignitaries is slim. And even if you do, so what? Causing a reshuffle is a logistics issue, but attacks and Secret Chamber already do that. So, yeah, maybe it's worthwhile. I'd probably try:

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.

Maybe drawing 2 cards is a bit much, but I'd probably try that first. Again, you've got crazy Fortress stuff where you could potentially keep increasing your handsize by trashing Fortresses, but that's not likely to work. And if you do pull it off, woohoo!

[markusin]

You could always cycle the dignitary though:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."

This is perhaps worth trying. The reason I hadn't tried it yet is because I assumed there was a reason it hadn't been done on published cards. That reason was redrawing it and using it again. So, another player plays an Attack. You discard Dignitary and trash a card from your hand, then draw a card. Say that makes you shuffle and you redraw your Dignitary. Then you can do it again, and so on. But really the chance that you're going to keep drawing more Dignitaries is slim. And even if you do, so what? Causing a reshuffle is a logistics issue, but attacks and Secret Chamber already do that. So, yeah, maybe it's worthwhile. I'd probably try:

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.

Maybe drawing 2 cards is a bit much, but I'd probably try that first. Again, you've got crazy Fortress stuff where you could potentially keep increasing your handsize by trashing Fortresses, but that's not likely to work. And if you do pull it off, woohoo!

Either way, this wording avoids infinite loop issues, because you can just choose to stop using the reaction.

You can try the stronger "trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards" version if you feel the current version is too weak. The version that draws only one card is pretty much the same as the current version in terms of power.

[LastFootnote]

You can try the stronger "trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards" version if you feel the current version is too weak. The version that draws only one card is pretty much the same as the current version in terms of power.

It's pretty much the same IF the average card in your deck is about as good as Dignitary. If your deck is loaded with trash, it's worse. If your deck is great, it's better. I'm guessing it'll need the +2 Cards, but I'll need to test it to make sure.

EDIT: So if I simplify both halves of Dignitary, it probably ends up looking like this (also here's the current version to compare).

[LastFootnote]

Huh, maybe I could take the top half of the current Dignitary, bump it up to 3 cards, and cost it at $5. I think a terminal +$3 for $5 isn't too crazy.

[pacovf]

Somewhat related to the issue at hand: is there anything preventing a player from revealing a Tunnel multiple times when discarding it? As far as I can tell, there is nothing that differentiates "when another player plays an Attack card" from "when you discard this", in both cases you are sort of interrupting the game flow.

PPE: well, the problem with grafting a "discard this" reaction into an expensive card is that the reaction better be as strong as the main part of the card, which means that an opponents attack card might help you much more than it is hurting you, which means people don't buy attack cards? My two cents on the issue.

EDIT: ah sorry you would be taking the reaction part out, nevermind.

[LibraryAdventurer]

At first glance, I didn't like the new version of dignitary (the one on the left) mainly because I liked the old version, but on second look I thought, hey both halves have the same feel and almost the same effect as the old dignitary, and it looks nicer. It's a little stronger, but I like keeping it at $4.

The only little issue is that it doesn't block attacks that depend on players having 5 cards in hand (like Minion & Axeman). Wasn't that part of the original idea of the card?
To change it back I'd make this the reaction:

When another player plays an attack card, you may discard this. If you do, +1 card and trash a card.

The upper half is slightly stronger than it used to be, so I think it's fine to work with a 4 card hand after using the reaction.

If it were me, I would do this:

When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.

Because I don't remember reading anywhere official that said you could reveal a reaction multiple times.

[market squire]

Somewhat related to the issue at hand: is there anything preventing a player from revealing a Tunnel multiple times when discarding it? As far as I can tell, there is nothing that differentiates "when another player plays an Attack card" from "when you discard this", in both cases you are sort of interrupting the game flow.

Because I don't remember reading anywhere official that said you could reveal a reaction multiple times.

Just looked though the Rules questions forum backwards. Here you are:

Border Village causes something else to happen when you gain it (and Tunnel optionally does when it's discarded). You only gain it once so it only causes that thing to happen once.

The reason "when an opponent plays an attack card" is an exception to this is because we can't tell if you drew that Moat off of Secret Chamber or had it in your hand already, and if you had it in your hand you could use it, because you would just be picking the order to do two things you wanted to do at the same time. So we let you use it whether it was in your hand or not, and ditto a second Secret Chamber.

The reason that we let you reveal Moat / Secret Chamber twice is because we can't tell if you had multiples or what.

So you can't reveal Tunnel twice because you just discarded that copy.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Ok so the suggestion of

When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.

would be bad because there's no way of knowing whether the person had more than one dignitary in his hand or not.
That makes sense now.

[LastFootnote]

The only little issue is that it doesn't block attacks that depend on players having 5 cards in hand (like Minion & Axeman). Wasn't that part of the original idea of the card?

This is a good point. It wasn't part of the original idea exactly, but I did like that interaction. Still, I'll try it this way and then nerf it down to +1 Card if it seems too strong.

[LastFootnote]

Tested this version of Vendor once, and here's the bigger Dignitary for testing.

Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.

Harbor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. Put the rest back in any order. +$1 per card you put back.

[Asper]

I like Harbor, and i'm not too much a fan of Smithy+ usually. It also reminds me of Mandarin and Harvest. Harvest looks a bit weak in comparison, but it's not strictly worse.

I'd actually vote to split Dignitary up and make Harbor real.

[Awaclus]

Harvest looks a bit weak in comparison

It looks weak in comparison to everything.

[LibraryAdventurer]

As long as we're voting, I'd vote to keep Dignitary as you have it*. The problem with Harbor is that it's redundant with Dignitary and Dignitary is better.

(*Except for tweaking the reaction depending on whether +1 or +2 cards works better of course.)

[LastFootnote]

As long as we're voting, I'd vote to keep Dignitary as you have it*. The problem with Harbor is that it's redundant with Dignitary and Dignitary is better.

(*Except for tweaking the reaction depending on whether +1 or +2 cards works better of course.)

Well, I'm assuming we're talking about the version of Dignitary that's [+2 Cards; +$2; Put 2 cards on your deck]. It is similar to Harbor, but not so similar that I can't do both. Dignitary now always puts you down a card in hand, whereas you can use Harbor as a Smithy. But let's say that they are too similar. If Harbor works out, I'd rather just change Dignitary's top, since Dignitary's concept is "Reaction that trashes cards". In fact I'd change Dignitary's top to discard 2 cards (rather than putting them on your deck), but I'm pretty convinced that would be too strong for $4. Anyway, I'd rather just change Dignitary's top entirely than kill Harbor if Harbor ends up being a hit.

[Asper]

The problem with Harbor is that it's redundant with Dignitary and Dignitary is better.

That really depends on preferences. Harbor is a simple card that seems very much like it would work on its own (like the Seaside reference, btw) while we obviously struggle to get Dignitary in line. More effects =/= better cards.

Sorry for the edit, i try to stop doing that...

[LastFootnote]

I'm on a gaming retreat this weekend, so I've gotten in several games with Enterprise cards and will hopefully get more.

• We had another game yesterday where Auction got completely ignored, but in a Sea Hag game today, my wife opened Auction/Harbor and was regularly getting $2 or $3 from Auction. I also got one and used the +1 Buy a bunch of times to load up on good $2 cards.
• Convoy isn't getting much love so far this trip, even from me. I should buy it more and see how it goes.
• Bookkeeper seems fine, but unremarkable. I'll play more games with it before deciding if it's worth keeping.
• The new Dignitary is seeming good, although maybe a bit strong. Ben got 3 against my Sea Hag and was trashing Curses pretty effectively. I still won by one VP, but that probably had more to do with my other cards. On the other hand, he said that he ended up putting back junk most of the time and it eventually came back to haunt him. Anyway, seems promising.
• I finally won a game with Profiteer. By a lot, even. It was a Prosperity/Enterprise game with Colonies. I started getting hit pretty hard with Curses eventually, but I was too far ahead at that point. My victory probably had more to do with my Vendors, but at least Profiteer didn't sink me. No other attacks that game.
• Axeman might be too weak. I think I've said this before, but it remains a concern.
• Harbor is seeming OK after a few games. It's a popular buy.
• Magic Mirror is not looking promising. The decision of whether to play or gain a copy of a card is no fun.
• I am the only one buying the new Vendor, but man did it work for me. I pulled Platinum a few times in one game and Sea Hag in another. It's nice to have another Trade token card working out.

I'm thinking of trying a Cathedral-like card (where you get tokens while it's in play by buying certain stuff) that lets you spend two Trade tokens to gain a card. I'm thinking it would either gain a Gold in hand or gain an Action and play it.

[Minotaur]

Is Enterprise going to be canon?  The artwork looks very much in line with Dominion proper, and the more-finalized cards seem about as stable and varied as the real thing.

Harbor is a nice, safe, "feel-good" terminal.

[Minotaur]

• Magic Mirror is not looking promising. The decision of whether to play or gain a copy of a card is no fun.

Have you tried having it copy an Action card in play and trash the Mirror?  Might be more like a $4 card at that point.

i.e.,


Treasure
Cost: $4

$2
You may gain a copy of an Action card you have in play.  If you do, trash this card.

[Minotaur]

• I am the only one buying the new Vendor, but man did it work for me. I pulled Platinum a few times in one game and Sea Hag in another. It's nice to have another Trade token card working out.

$5 Peddler variant... It seems fine, but also seems to depend heavily on whether you have a good source of Trade tokens.  I'm not sure I'd get it over Scavenger, though.  The flexibility of getting the card you want right now exactly with the hand you want it could justify it, maybe.  But I can see it being unpopular.

[LastFootnote]

Is Enterprise going to be canon?  The artwork looks very much in line with Dominion proper, and the more-finalized cards seem about as stable and varied as the real thing.

Canon? As in published? Probably not. I guess anything's possible, but Donald is generally not receptive to fan cards.

• Magic Mirror is not looking promising. The decision of whether to play or gain a copy of a card is no fun.

Have you tried having it copy an Action card in play and trash the Mirror?  Might be more like a $4 card at that point.

i.e.,


Treasure
Cost: $4

$2
You may gain a copy of an Action card you have in play.  If you do, trash this card.

Well, it shouldn't be a Silver+ at $4, but in general I like that idea. It's almost coming back full circle to the original Surveyor (which was my first "gain a copy of a card you have" card.

Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. You may discard a non-Victory card. If you do, gain a copy of it and trash this.

$5 Peddler variant... It seems fine, but also seems to depend heavily on whether you have a good source of Trade tokens.  I'm not sure I'd get it over Scavenger, though.  The flexibility of getting the card you want right now exactly with the hand you want it could justify it, maybe.  But I can see it being unpopular.

I'm not sure there's much of a "get it over Scavenger" decision. I mean they're not really mutually exclusive in any way, since Vendor is non-terminal and you can just load up on them. So far it seems like a pretty good $5 value even at one token, but my small sample space did include a game with Platinum. Perhaps it could give two tokens when you gain it.

[LastFootnote]

I had one more 3-player game this morning. All-Enterprise.


Each Domain was worth 3 VP if you had at least two of them, otherwise 0 VP.

We all got $5/$2 splits. I bought Barrister, Liisa bought Axeman, and Michael bought Barracks. I lost my Barrister to the Axeman on turn 3 and foolishly gained a Craftsman to replace it instead of a Silver. Anyhow I never really recovered and lost the game very badly. Michael won, ending the game by giving out all the Curses. The Conscripts were easy to connect with his Barristers and Axemen. He also had 2 of the 3 Domains by the end. It really sucks when the good card you topdeck to an Axeman gets discarded by a Barrister, I'll say that.

[LastFootnote]

Here's a quick state-of-the-set post. I'll update the main post once I've tested some of the new cards more.



EDIT: Updated on 2015/2/13.

[LastFootnote]

I'm thinking of simplifying Convoy. I like that right now you can see the top two cards of your deck before deciding whether to spend a token, but the wordiness of the card is off-putting. Also it's a lot of fiddly-ness to draw, then look at the top three, put two back, draw again, maybe repeat, etc. My current best idea is:

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Discard a card. +3 Cards. You may spend a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Vendor continues to be unpopular. I'm thinking of buffing it like so:

Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

[Minotaur]

Vendor continues to be unpopular. I'm thinking of buffing it like so:

Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Still depends heavily on the availability of trade tokens.  Wording is slightly simplified, which is nice.  It's worded so that you look through your discard pile no matter what, which isn't horrible design, but doesn't strike me as Dominion standard.

[LastFootnote]

Vendor continues to be unpopular. I'm thinking of buffing it like so:

Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Still depends heavily on the availability of trade tokens.

Well, is it a good enough one-time bonus to buy a $5 Peddler? I thought maybe yes, but perhaps it's not. It could give 2 Trade tokens, I guess.

Wording is slightly simplified, which is nice.  It's worded so that you look through your discard pile no matter what, which isn't horrible design, but doesn't strike me as Dominion standard.

Counting House, Inn, Hermit, and Scavenger all look through your discard pile every time; I think the only comparison point here is Herald. Herald is packed full of text, so even if it were possible to say "look through your discard pile before deciding to overpay", there wouldn't be room for it. Anyhow, Vendor here originally only had you look of you paid the token, but in practice that just makes the ability so much worse (unless you're perfect at tracking your deck). If you don't remember whether there's something worthwhile in your discard pile, you probably won't use the token because your'e afraid of wasting it. Really it just makes sense to let you look before deciding. I was worried it would slow the game down but it hasn't yet. It's pretty easy to pick out the good stuff; you don't spend much time agonizing over whether to fish out e.g. a Curse.

[Minotaur]

I don't know if Vendor actually needs a buff.  The Platinum game is a special case and not worth balancing around, but it still might be good enough, and the crazy combos with Jubilee or even being able to buy two Vendors lets you stock tokens and use them to make finesse plays.  I favor Scavenger a lot - maybe too heavily.  Getting the chosen card in your hand immediately rather than in your next hand seems like it should be a really strong one-shot (or multi-shot if you have Jubilee on the board)

Anyway, if it's balanced, then I wouldn't buff it just to make it more popular.  The extra token would stand out as kind of odd anyway.

As far as the lookthrough goes, Scavenger always makes you put a card on your deck.  Inn always lets you choose any number of cards on buy.  Counting House lets you choose "any number".  Herald is the only example where you have to pay to do something with your discard pile, and you don't get to look and then choose whether to overpay (never mind that there isn't a way to "choose later" X-D ).  Anyway, the "look through and pick one" feels like a single unit, and I feel like Donald would be like, "what, can't remember where your KC is?  Are you asleep?"  But he hates fan sets regardless.

Off topic, but is the art that you use public domain somehow, or from DeviantArt or something else?

[LastFootnote]

I don't know if Vendor actually needs a buff.  The Platinum game is a special case and not worth balancing around, but it still might be good enough, and the crazy combos with Jubilee or even being able to buy two Vendors lets you stock tokens and use them to make finesse plays.  I favor Scavenger a lot - maybe too heavily.  Getting the chosen card in your hand immediately rather than in your next hand seems like it should be a really strong one-shot (or multi-shot if you have Jubilee on the board)

Anyway, if it's balanced, then I wouldn't buff it just to make it more popular.  The extra token would stand out as kind of odd anyway.

Well, cards that aren't popular get cut. There's no point in having a card that nobody buys, or that nobody except me buys. It has to look good enough to go for, and so far people aren't going for it. Having the +1 Card right up top might help, and maybe that doesn't buff it out of the $5 range.

As far as the lookthrough goes, Scavenger always makes you put a card on your deck.  Inn always lets you choose any number of cards on buy.  Counting House lets you choose "any number".  Herald is the only example where you have to pay to do something with your discard pile, and you don't get to look and then choose whether to overpay (never mind that there isn't a way to "choose later" X-D ).  Anyway, the "look through and pick one" feels like a single unit, and I feel like Donald would be like, "what, can't remember where your KC is?  Are you asleep?"  But he hates fan sets regardless.

One thing I've learned from playtesting Adventures is that practical considerations trump precedent every time. With Vendor, it's easier to let you look and it makes sense to let you look. You want to look in order to make an informed decision. So why not let you look? The only real reason would be because it's too slow, but trying to remember what's in your discard might be just as slow or slower.

Off topic, but is the art that you use public domain somehow, or from DeviantArt or something else?

It's just whatever I can Google up, same as Donald's prototypes.

[Minotaur]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

[TheOthin]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

[LastFootnote]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

[pacovf]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

I would rather say that you are only allowed to do something that isn't properly defined in the rules if failing to do so would be disruptive to the flow of the game as codified in the rules.

Otherwise you better learn to hold your breath.

[TheOthin]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

The rules tell you that the cards in the Supply pile stay available until some ingame event, such as buying out that pile, make them unavailable. They also do not offer any way for cards to be introduced into the Supply mid-game.

If, in the middle of the game, I were to take the Witch pile away from the board and stick a pile of Laboratories in its place, the game would not recognize this action. The rules would still say that Witches are in the Supply and available to be bought, while Laboratories are not. There isn't any default understanding that moving cards around is prohibited; the game just doesn't acknowledge it as affecting the game state. Either that or there is a rule explicitly prohibiting it; I haven't checked the rules, but that would make the whole scenario irrelevant anyway.

It's the same deal with notes. If the game does not acknowledge them at all in its rules, the notes do not influence the game state and the rules do not restrict the note-taking.

[Minotaur]

So it's safe to have a Dr. Pepper?

On a side note, sorry for the off topic subthread.  It naturally deviated from an on-topic discussion, I swear!

[LastFootnote]

Thinking of another Trade token card. Maybe I have too many remodels already, but this is more a deck-thinner.

Tinker
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$1. Trash 2 cards from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to gain a card costing up to their total cost.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I honestly have no idea if this is costed appropriately. I could also bump it up to +$2 and cost it at $5, but it's nice when deck thinners are cheap. Anyway, you start out trashing junk, and then eventually you can use its token ability to get a mini-Forge effect. Opinions?

[Minotaur]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

[LastFootnote]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

Well, I compare this to Steward and Remake. As an early-game trasher it's stronger than Steward because it gives +$1. It doesn't become an engine component later, but it will have its Forge ability once. Likewise, Remake gets you Silvers or other $3 cards for your Estates. Tinker makes it overwhelmingly likely that you can buy a $3 card after you play it, possibly more depending on what else is in your hand.

[Minotaur]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

Well, I compare this to Steward and Remake. As an early-game trasher it's stronger than Steward because it gives +$1. It doesn't become an engine component later, but it will have its Forge ability once. Likewise, Remake gets you Silvers or other $3 cards for your Estates. Tinker makes it overwhelmingly likely that you can buy a $3 card after you play it, possibly more depending on what else is in your hand.

Right, it's sort of "steward-and-a-half" in the $4 version (with no token).  The $5 version with no token is even worse than Trading Post.

[LastFootnote]

Right, it's sort of "steward-and-a-half" in the $4 version (with no token).  The $5 version with no token is even worse than Trading Post.

I wonder if I should make it cost $3 instead. Originally I thought Tinker/Tinker opening might be too strong, but in retrospect it's probably not great. Well, it might be, because after you trash down, you can use a token to Tinker your other Tinker and get something better. I'll see how it plays at $4.

[LibraryAdventurer]

From looking at it, I think it would be better at $3.
It may be better then Steward for trashing, but in the mid to late game this is usually going to be a dead card when you don't use the trade token because of the forced trashing. If you're able to open tinker/tinker, letting you forge one of them into something else, I think that balances it some to make up for being a dead card sometimes.

[Co0kieL0rd]

From looking at it, I think it would be better at $3.
It may be better then Steward for trashing, but in the mid to late game this is usually going to be a dead card when you don't use the trade token because of the forced trashing. If you're able to open tinker/tinker, letting you forge one of them into something else, I think that balances it some to make up for being a dead card sometimes.

I agree. Apart from that, I think this is a neat idea and the card looks cool. I would rather test it at $3 first and see whether it's too strong. I remember DXV wrote somewhere about card costs that for cards worth $2 - $4, it's more important than anything that you think about what opening with them would enable you to do in turns 3 and 4. With two Tinkers costing $3, you have the chance of Tinkering Estate and Tinker into a $5-card and then buy something for up to $3 if you're lucky. That seems comparable to opening Feast/Tinker but a little worse. Oh shoot, I forgot where I was going with my argument...

[XerxesPraelor]

Tinker two estates into an engine component, then a tinker and estate into a $5. From then on you can just trash coppers.

[Minotaur]

Tinker two estates into an engine component, then a tinker and estate into a $5. From then on you can just trash coppers.

Depends on when you draw them together.  It could be the second shuffle, or it could be some time later.  Tinker + Estate for a $5 card... I would think that it would be worth doing it immediately instead of saving it for trashing.

I definitely like making it cost $3 a lot more than I like the idea of buffing it and making it a $5 card.  It might still be ok at $4, and I would test it both ways.  I don't know if it should be balanced around how much fun it is to buy two of them on the first shuffle, but it's probably not broken.  I originally leaned toward $4 because it's stronger than Steward early and you might be able to farm tokens or get rid of it with a different TfB card.

It could be a dominant card at $3, just because you can buy them for the token and then whoops, too many of them?  Lolol, not anymore!

[Asper]

I like Tinker. The art is nice, too. It's really funny how many words there are in that "create" family to make cards of

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

[LastFootnote]

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

I think it's pretty atypical, yes. But Tinker is first and foremost a deck thinner. Also, it's not unusual for other TfB cards to have vanilla bonuses (Bishop, Apprentice).

But of course it's really a matter of practicality. I think Tinker would be too weak at any cost without the +$1 bonus. I could add a non-vanilla bonus instead (like Ambassador has), but the card already has a concept (tokens-for-remodel) and doesn't really want another one. Nor does it want more words. I was considering +1 Cards (or +2 Cards for $5), but I prefer that you know what your trashing options are before you play the card.

[Asper]

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

I think it's pretty atypical, yes. But Tinker is first and foremost a deck thinner. Also, it's not unusual for other TfB cards to have vanilla bonuses (Bishop, Apprentice).

But of course it's really a matter of practicality. I think Tinker would be too weak at any cost without the +$1 bonus. I could add a non-vanilla bonus instead (like Ambassador has), but the card already has a concept (tokens-for-remodel) and doesn't really want another one. Nor does it want more words. I was considering +1 Cards (or +2 Cards for $5), but I prefer that you know what your trashing options are before you play the card.

Nah, i think it's fine the way it is. As i said, no criticism. It's just something i never before really thought about.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Just played 1v1 with Enterprise cards. We mainly wanted to playtest Tinker and, since I assumed you're testing it at $4, we had it cost $3. This was the kingdom:

Tinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, Inn

A quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Besides, my friend used a General twice, I think, then trashed it. Dignitary wasn't gained. Only I used Craftsman to get a Junk Dealer, then trashed it as well. You know, Market Square^^

[LastFootnote]

Just played 1v1 with Enterprise cards. We mainly wanted to playtest Tinker and, since I assumed you're testing it at $4, we had it cost $3. This was the kingdom:

Tinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, Inn

A quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Besides, my friend used a General twice, I think, then trashed it. Dignitary wasn't gained. Only I used Craftsman to get a Junk Dealer, then trashed it as well. You know, Market Square^^

Nice, thanks for testing it! I have now printed out a version for $3 as well (because I like wasting ink) and I'm trying to decide which to test first. Probably I'll test the $3 version first just because, if it's fine at both costs, I'll want it cheaper anyway. But it's great to have this data point that says it could be too strong.

It's disappointing to hear that the forge option didn't really come into play much. I guess I'll see if my tests turn out any better in that department.

[pacovf]

I'm impressed by your capacity to keep finding new uses for Trade tokens!

Slightly off-topic: what is the current wording of General? I have been thinking that the following wording is a bit simpler, although it works in a different way:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.

I can't think of any one-shot that would break this, and it's shorter.

EDIT: Yeah, technically you can choose to put that card on top of your deck instead of putting that card on top of your deck. But you'll probably get slapped it you do that too many times.

[LastFootnote]

I'm impressed by your capacity to keep finding new uses for Trade tokens!

Slightly off-topic: what is the current wording of General? I have been thinking that the following wording is a bit simpler, although it works in a different way:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.

I can't think of any one-shot that would break this, and it's shorter.

EDIT: Yeah, technically you can choose to put that card on top of your deck instead of putting that card on top of your deck. But you'll probably get slapped it you do that too many times.

General was that for a while. The problem was that it was crazy confusing with Gambler, Mining Village, etc. You'd play General, using it to play Mining Village, and then trash the Mining Village for $2, which you could put on your deck. Then you'd play the Mining Village a second time, whereupon it would draw itself. Then of course you could play it a third time, possibly trashing it for another $2. The tracking was just a nightmare. Hence the updated version that prevented the card from leaving play. Now of course it has neither.

I could try going back to the previous General, which was this:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Take a Trade token. You may play an Action card from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to play it again. You may pay another Trade token to play it a third time.

That version also got cut for being too confusing, but I don't know if I gave it enough of a chance.

EDIT: Oh, right, you asked about the current wording of General. Right now it's just:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. When you discard it from play, you may put it on top of your deck.

[LastFootnote]

Here are images for those updated versions of Convoy and Vendor that I'm going to test.

[Co0kieL0rd]

It's disappointing to hear that the forge option didn't really come into play much. I guess I'll see if my tests turn out any better in that department.

It was a fast game with strong trashing so I wasn't surprised. Anyway, I think the Forge option is a good thing!
By the way, we used the current simplified version of General. There just weren't the best combo cards for it either but we both think it's fine.

But... what is this?

I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.

[LastFootnote]

I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.

Ah, dang! Well, it could be draw, then discard. I was trying to differentiate it more from Smithy and Courtyard.

The problem with the old version is that it was super fiddly and slow to resolve, which is the opposite of what I want for a card that you might be playing 5 times in a row.

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

[Minotaur]

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

EDIT: Part of what makes Courtyard so good is that topdecking does a lot to mitigate the downside of terminal draw.  It's often better than Smithy in some hands.

[LastFootnote]

Well, there is always this option:

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. You may spend a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That looks pretty weak to me, plus I probably need to let you return the looked-at cards in any order, necessitating more words.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

Yes, that is the other point. Spending a token on terminal draw does not seem like a good idea, even if it said "+3 cards, discard a card." Have you thought about "You may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +1 Action"? That might be a nice addition to other kinds of cards as well, now that I think about it.

[LastFootnote]

Would it be better if it said, "Discard a card, then draw 3 cards", rather than having the bold "+3 Cards" under "Discard a card"?

I don't know,... it would seem kinda wrong for a Dominion card, just because of the phrasing.

I was also thinking about Courtyard when I saw this.  And Courtyard is pretty awesome.  It definitely makes a difference in how it resolves in practice, but it definitely feels bad to do the weaker option.  It *could* be better than Courtyard if you'd rather sift than save.  It's a tough call whether you really want to risk a token on a terminal draw when other options are around...

Yes, that is the other point. Spending a token on terminal draw does not seem like a good idea, even if it said "+3 cards, discard a card." Have you thought about "You may spend a Trade Token. If you do, +1 Action"? That might be a nice addition to other kinds of cards as well, now that I think about it.

"You may spend a Trade token for +1 Action" is certainly doable, but doesn't really excite me. +2 Actions would be better, but still not great. At the same time, "You may spend a Trade token to play this again" is really Convoy's main concept, which I am loathe to remove. And for such a card, it's very useful to require no tracking (so no +Actions, +Buys, or +$). So the main things you can do with no tracking are: draw cards, discard cards, trash cards, and put cards on your deck.

The current version has the great advantage of letting you see what cards you'd draw if you played it again, but the disadvantage of being fiddly. What I want is a version that lets you see which cards you'll draw but isn't fiddly. There's also sometimes letting you see:

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That's a little less fiddly. The main reason I haven't done it is that it's like a weak Oracle when you're not using the token. But uh, maybe that's the best option.

[Minotaur]

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck; discard them or put them back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

That's a little less fiddly. The main reason I haven't done it is that it's like a weak Oracle when you're not using the token. But uh, maybe that's the best option.

This would be good at $2.  Maybe too good, idk.

[LastFootnote]

Also, there's just "Look at the top 3 cards, discard one, and put the rest into your hand". Or look at the top 4 and discard 2. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but at least you'll have options.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Also, there's just "Look at the top 3 cards, discard one, and put the rest into your hand". Or look at the top 4 and discard 2. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but at least you'll have options.

Isn't that very close to the original Guide? Why not go with that? It's simple and useful.

[scott_pilgrim]

Yeah, I thought the original was fine.  I remember you saying before you didn't like "spend a token to draw" because you didn't know what you were getting, and the original Guide was good because it didn't have that problem.  All of the other versions you're suggesting have that problem (though some to a lesser extent than others).  I think it would just feel bad to spend a trade token only to draw dead actions, or not get as much money as you wanted.  The old version of Guide had a really nice, clean fix to that problem.

Granted, I haven't actually played with it at all, so you should know better than I do.  I just don't see anything wrong with the original.  Is it really any worse than Oracle?  It should be easier to decide what to discard, and you don't have to choose for other players.  You can play it multiple times and that will slow it down, but I would think if you're doing that, you have a big turn going anyway so there's already sort of a natural break in the game.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, I thought the original was fine.  I remember you saying before you didn't like "spend a token to draw" because you didn't know what you were getting, and the original Guide was good because it didn't have that problem.  All of the other versions you're suggesting have that problem (though some to a lesser extent than others).  I think it would just feel bad to spend a trade token only to draw dead actions, or not get as much money as you wanted.  The old version of Guide had a really nice, clean fix to that problem.

Granted, I haven't actually played with it at all, so you should know better than I do.  I just don't see anything wrong with the original.  Is it really any worse than Oracle?  It should be easier to decide what to discard, and you don't have to choose for other players.  You can play it multiple times and that will slow it down, but I would think if you're doing that, you have a big turn going anyway so there's already sort of a natural break in the game.

I definitely found the original fiddly. I would like to try the "discard 1; draw 3" version just to see if it's better. The old version is not off the table. I just haven't seen it bought much recently and wondered if I could improve it.

I definitely would prefer a version where you see what you'll draw, but it's possible that I'm making a bigger deal about that than I should be. Maybe it's just like, if you don't have Actions to spare and your deck is mostly Action cards, don't use the token this turn.

[pacovf]

Dunno, maybe "look at the top 5 cards of your deck; put 2 of them in your hand, put the rest on top of your deck in any order" ?

Might be too strong for $4 though, and it's a bit wordy.

[LastFootnote]

Dunno, maybe "look at the top 5 cards of your deck; put 2 of them in your hand, put the rest on top of your deck in any order" ?

Might be too strong for $4 though, and it's a bit wordy.

If I did that, it would be the top 4 cards, so that you usually only have to divide the cards into two categories (in-hand and "would draw if you played it again"), not three categories (in-hand, "would-draw if you played it again", and "wouldn't draw even then"). It's not a bad option, although I'm not sure how much it helps the fiddly-ness issue. I guess I could bump it from $3 to $4, especially if Tinker works out at $3.

[pacovf]

The logic behind 5 cards instead of 4 was to give you more information about your next play: you know 60% of the cards you are going to look at, instead of only 50%. The larger the number of cards you look at, the less the extra two unknown cards you will look at will affect your decision.

Of course, you have to put limits somewhere, because "look at your whole deck and discard pile; put two cards from anywhere into your hand" is sort of slightly undercosted at $4.

[LastFootnote]

The logic behind 5 cards instead of 4 was to give you more information about your next play: you know 60% of the cards you are going to look at, instead of only 50%. The larger the number of cards you look at, the less the extra two unknown cards you will look at will affect your decision.

Of course, you have to put limits somewhere, because "look at your whole deck and discard pile; put two cards from anywhere into your hand" is sort of slightly undercosted at $4.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. I still think 4 cards is the way to go, but I understand your logic.

Forget the token ability for a moment. What do people think "Look at the top 4; draw 2 of them; put the rest back" should cost?

[pacovf]

$3 tops, from the comparison to courtyard (which is a very strong $2). You look at one extra card, but you can't put any card from your hand on top of your deck.

[LastFootnote]

There is of course also the question of how many cards that put stuff back on your deck one set should have. Harbor and the current version of Dignitary already do this. Granted I could give Dignitary a new top.

Anyway, I'll eventually try at least one version that doesn't have you put cards back on top. It'll be good to find out how bad it really is when you don't know what you're going to draw next. Maybe it's just fine.

[LastFootnote]

So let's say, hypothetically, that I'm trying to replace Committee because it's both wordy and off-theme. Let's say that I'm trying to replace its deck-thinning with Tinker and its gaining a copy of a card with Magic Mirror (or Investment as I will likely rename it). Let's say that I'd also like to replace its interactivity, also with an on-theme card. How does this effect strike you all?

Committee
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. You may spend a Trade token to choose one: +2 Actions; or take 2 Trade tokens; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand. Otherwise, the player to your left chooses for you.

The options are not set in stone (except the token gaining, obviously).

[pacovf]

...so you start without tokens? That doesn't seem like a very good idea.

[LastFootnote]

...so you start without tokens? That doesn't seem like a very good idea.

I see what you're saying. Your opponents may never choose for you to gain tokens and therefore part of the concept would be lost. Hmm.

On the other hand, tokens could be a popular choice because it's least likely to help the player now. I guess I could test it and see how it works out in practice.

The card is wordy enough that I am loathe to add under-line text. Still, you make a good point.

[pacovf]

What about getting a token whenever you don't choose, and toning down the bonuses (boni?) ?

[LastFootnote]

What about getting tokens whenever you don't choose, and toning down the bonuses?

I'm considering that, but I want to keep it different-ish from Craftsman and also as simple as possible.

[pacovf]

Well, if the only way to gain tokens is by letting your opponent pick for you, I think that makes it more "different" than the current version, where once you get your first token, you can avoid that event forever and sort of make labs out of committee. Just my two cents.

EDIT: man, I don't know how you manage to understand what I am writing. I'm rereading myself and thinking "dafuq I am saying here?"

[LastFootnote]

Well, if the only way to gain tokens is by letting your opponent pick for you, I think that makes it more "different" than the current version, where once you get your first token, you can avoid that event forever and sort of make labs out of committee. Just my two cents.

EDIT: man, I don't know how you manage to understand what I am writing. I'm rereading myself and thinking "dafuq I am saying here?"

I'm still trying to figure out the Lab comment, but I have faith that you know what you're talking about. I'll be able to parse it later when I'm less busy.

[pacovf]

Sorry, I have been sleeping less than I should (I have to work on that). I am deeply touched by your faith in me, though.

With your current version of committee (so many double letters, ugh), once you have two tokens, committee looks very similar to lab: play one committee, get +2 actions, play a second committee, get tokens, repeat.

You might say, "but pacovf, lots of cards have the same effect as lab when you put them together! Smithy and village, for example, and they only cost $3 and $4!" Very clever, indeed, but with, say, village and smithy, you have to collide two different cards, which is quite a bit more difficult than colliding two copies of the same card, and with committee you can always get extra tokens after you draw and see that you have nothing to spend your actions on, so next turn you get one extra free firing of committee. This might have been a non-sequitur, I am not entirely sure.

And a card that you can transform into (at least) a lab after a certain point in the game is cool, but maybe less interesting than one where you have to choose whether you trust what your eeevil opponent is going to choose for you.

Anyway, considering that the cost and the actual boni are still in the air, there's only so much we can say about the specifics of the card.

[LastFootnote]

Makes sense. What if instead it were +3 Cards and all the bonuses were cut in half?

[pacovf]

Where would the tokens be coming from, then? I am not opposed to the idea.

[TheOthin]

Would an on-gain token help fix anything?

[scott_pilgrim]

I think I really like the idea.  pacovf pointed out the problems with the original, but changing it to +3 cards and then cutting the options each in half probably works.

Where would the tokens be coming from, then? I am not opposed to the idea.

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Your opponent could still choose to let you take a token.  And I think they probably will usually (maybe always whenever no other trade token cards are in the kingdom), because unless they know you can't take advantage of the action or trashing, it's probably best to just let you do neither in exchange for getting to choose to do whichever one you want next time.  In other words, I think doing the worst of {+1 action, trash a card} twice is usually better than doing the best of {+1 action, trash a card} once, and whenever that's the case your opponent will choose to give you the trade token.  Obviously that's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.  Your opponent will supply you with trade tokens a lot of the time.

But it might get weird with other trade token cards.  I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's probably good.  It means that there might be really good reasons for your opponent to not choose the trade token option.

[LastFootnote]

If it turns out that everybody always always picks the token option when it's the only Trade token card in the Kingdom, that's not great in my mind. I mean maybe the card is a resounding success anyway somehow, but probably not.

If it doesn't work with Trade tokens, I could always try it with some other kind of limiter. You have to discard a Treasure to choose yourself. Or reveal a Duchy from your hand. Something.

[scott_pilgrim]

Well I don't think it will be like that every time there's no other trade token cards.  You could imagine a situation where there's strong trashing and you know your opponent is already really trashed down, you choose the trash option for them.  Though I guess that just makes it an expensive Smithy, if the trashing is really doing nothing for them.  Maybe committees are the only non-terminal and your opponent has gotten way too many of them, and you would rather they all be terminal all the time, so you would choose the trash option (even if it's good for them) because it's better than letting them make the committees non-terminal later.  That would be an interesting situation, but probably uncommon.

I don't know how it will actually play out, it's a pretty unique card.  But I think there probably will be a concern that the trade token option ends up being the most popular option by a large margin.  If you wanted to fix that, you would need to make it be significantly better for the player playing committee to choose than it is for the opponent to choose, and in order to do that, you want the difference between the utility of the two alternate options to be really big (or just have lots of options?).  You could accomplish that by making one option really bad, but obviously that's not ideal.  So I think what I'm saying is, you want the options to be really situational.

BTW, if you keep a trashing option, I think maybe it should not be optional after it's chosen (so just "trash a card" instead of "trash up to"/"you may trash").  That's easier to word (at least if it's only one card being trashed), and it makes it possible for your opponent to actually hurt you with that option, so they might choose it over the trade token option (if they expect it to hurt you, even if it ends up helping you).  Now I'm not sure anymore, because it would suck to be forced to trash a good card, but Lookout can do that too, and it has to be unlikely enough that you just don't play committee if you're really worried about it.

[LastFootnote]

Well I don't think it will be like that every time there's no other trade token cards.  You could imagine a situation where there's strong trashing and you know your opponent is already really trashed down, you choose the trash option for them.  Though I guess that just makes it an expensive Smithy, if the trashing is really doing nothing for them.  Maybe committees are the only non-terminal and your opponent has gotten way too many of them, and you would rather they all be terminal all the time, so you would choose the trash option (even if it's good for them) because it's better than letting them make the committees non-terminal later.  That would be an interesting situation, but probably uncommon.

I don't know how it will actually play out, it's a pretty unique card.  But I think there probably will be a concern that the trade token option ends up being the most popular option by a large margin.  If you wanted to fix that, you would need to make it be significantly better for the player playing committee to choose than it is for the opponent to choose, and in order to do that, you want the difference between the utility of the two alternate options to be really big (or just have lots of options?).  You could accomplish that by making one option really bad, but obviously that's not ideal.  So I think what I'm saying is, you want the options to be really situational.

BTW, if you keep a trashing option, I think maybe it should not be optional after it's chosen (so just "trash a card" instead of "trash up to"/"you may trash").  That's easier to word (at least if it's only one card being trashed), and it makes it possible for your opponent to actually hurt you with that option, so they might choose it over the trade token option (if they expect it to hurt you, even if it ends up helping you).  Now I'm not sure anymore, because it would suck to be forced to trash a good card, but Lookout can do that too, and it has to be unlikely enough that you just don't play committee if you're really worried about it.

Way ahead of you in terms of the mandatory trashing. As long as it's one card, I plan for it to be mandatory.

I think the obvious way to buff the token option is to revert it to 2 tokens. Does that actually work? Hmm. I think so. So, here's the result:



Another wrinkle here (which I should have thought about awhile ago, but oh well) is that the set probably has both enough $5 cards and enough strong terminal draw. What do you think about a $4 version with +2 Cards? Obviously it's still card drawing, but not to the same extent.

[pacovf]

I'm concerned this is going to become "+3 cards, trash a card from your hand." in a lot of boards. That's terrible for engines, that try to play their strong draw many times per turn. It might be viable for BM strategies, I dunno.

The version with +2 cards might be better in that respect, because the focus of the card is not strong draw anymore, so it fits somewhere else in your strategy.

Oh, and definitely keep the token gain at 2 tokens, otherwise people will be all confused by "why can I choose to spend one trade token to gain one trade token!?".


EDIT: slightly off-topic, have you considered getting a symbol for trade tokens, VP-style? So "take a trade token" could be replaced by "+1 <TTsymbol>" and make some cards easier on the eyes.

Not saying that it is necessarily a good idea, just asking if you have ever considered it.

[Co0kieL0rd]

At first I thought it was a pity that you wanted to replace Committee (which, after all, has a lot of double letters) because it was so interesting and unique. But then I remembered that while play-testing Committee I found that most of the times, it was really a non-decision for the other player which card to choose and your new idea is unique as well.

I was also thinking you set has a LOT of strong draw (Cathedral, Conclave, Harbor, Wheelwright) and other draw (Convoy, Vendor, even Terrace) so better don't put the focus for the new Committee on draw, as you suggested. Rather make it weaker (+2 Cards; options: +1 Action, trash a card, +2 Tokens) and cost $4. Your set could bear another $4-cost.

I really cannot estimate at all, which option the other player would be likely to choose regularly. Probably depends heavily on the board and what they think your strategy is and how you played so far.

slightly off-topic, have you considered getting a symbol for trade tokens, VP-style? So "take a trade token" could be replaced by "+1 <TTsymbol>" and make some cards easier on the eyes.

That is a very good idea! Enterprise gets more and more Trade Token related cards and you could probably save some space with a unique symbol, which should definitely interest you, as well as give those cards a nice, coherent look that makes them feel more like they all belong in the same set. I mean, they already look nice and stuff, but consider it anyway

[Asper]

I find it a bit strange that, under the assumption that your opponent doesn't want to give you the power of choice, Committee plays vastly different on its own than when you have other ways of aquiring Trade Tokens. If you have no way, your opponent might choose the forced trashing every time (i know i would try it at playtests) just so your deck would cannibalize itself. I'm pretty sure giving you a big, less flexible Masquerade is better than making you flexible for the rest of the game...

If you have other means of getting the Tokens, i'm pretty sure i would avoid falling back to the point where my opponent chooses, if i can. Here, this would alternate between Smithy and super-Lab, with a little trashing thrown in if i need it.

I'm not an awesome player, but i feel that the line between having and not having tokens is something that neither you nor your opponent would want you to cross (in different directions, of course), meaning that each game, half of the card is wasted.

Or am i misreading this? Maybe what you mean is:
 "You may spend a Trade token to choose between trashing and action. If you don't, gain two tokens and your oponent does the choice."
Now that i could imagine working.

Edit: Maybe than it should only take one token each time, though.

[TheOthin]

Forced trashing seems odd when the effects seem to be meant as benefits. Maybe it'd work better as optional trashing?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Forced trashing seems odd when the effects seem to be meant as benefits. Maybe it'd work better as optional trashing?

We've been over that. Basically, the trashing needs to be mandatory because otherwise there would be no risk in playing the card without having tokens. Because +2 (or even +3) cards and +2 actions is too strong; you opponent will never give you that. So he might either choose trashing or tokens. If the trashing was optional, why would they choose trashing for you if you still had a choice of whether you trash or not? So they would always choose tokens and that makes it not a decision anymore.

[LastFootnote]

I don't know if any of this is true in practice, though. Some people have said tokens is the obvious choice, but a compelling argument could be made that you could always choose trashing, even if it were optional. I think it's going to take a lot of testing to really figure out if there's an optimal way to do it, and that's just for the case with no other token cards.

Let's say the trashing were optional. The player to your left can then make your Committee(s) say "+2 Cards; you may trash a card from your hand". So it's a $4 Masquerade without the passing. Ugh.

The whole concept may be a flop, but probably it's worth giving it a shot in a couple of actual games. I just need to figure out 3 good options.

[LastFootnote]

Played 2 Seaside/Enterprise games today, although unfortunately I didn't have time to cut and sleeve Tinker or any other new cards. Cards used were Jubilee, Redistrict, Gambler, Mill Town, Craftsman, Fund, Harbor, Vendor, and Wheelwright.

Vendor is the "old" version without the +1 Card on top. Again, I was the only one to buy one AND I was never able to use its ability due to my slim Ambassador deck and some bad luck. Ugh.

I'm thinking about removing Wheelwright's penalty. Just have [Discard any number of cards; draw until you have 7 cards in hand]. I dunno, it doesn't seem that strong in practice and often my opponents don't take the Copper in hand anyway. I took the Copper once today, but then I got Ghost Shipped.

Fund really won the first game for me. People weren't buying them until I started loading up on them. Nice with Wharves.

Harbor got bought once and played once, so not a great test there. Lots of draw options, so it didn't get a chance to stand out.

Redistrict was popular despite a lack of good $4 cards in the game it was in. People just used it as a mini-Remodel for their Estates. Jubilee and Gambler were popular as usual. Mill Town was fine, and one player got a few $5 gains off of it. Craftsman is just seeming really solid; I've upgraded it to 5 stars in the OP.

[Minotaur]

I'm surprised that people wouldn't get Fund early.  Death Cart variants are great early, especially when there's no penalty.  I would get at least two and then only stop when the Golds are rolling in.

[LastFootnote]

I'm surprised that people wouldn't get Fund early.  Death Cart variants are great early, especially when there's no penalty.  I would get at least two and then only stop when the Golds are rolling in.

Well, Wharves were available, and they sold out first (4-player game).

[Minotaur]

I'm surprised that people wouldn't get Fund early.  Death Cart variants are great early, especially when there's no penalty.  I would get at least two and then only stop when the Golds are rolling in.

Well, Wharves were available, and they sold out first (4-player game).

Oh, right.  X-D

[LastFootnote]

EDIT: slightly off-topic, have you considered getting a symbol for trade tokens, VP-style? So "take a trade token" could be replaced by "+1 <TTsymbol>" and make some cards easier on the eyes.

Not saying that it is necessarily a good idea, just asking if you have ever considered it.

Man, I meant to respond to this awhile ago, but it slipped my mind. Sorry, pacovf.

I think that shorthand might be OK if you never had to spend Trade tokens. It seems weird to say "+1☤" and then say "you may spend ☤". I guess I could say, "When you gain this, take a ☤." Just literally replace "Trade token" with the symbol. But I think that's going to be more confusing for first-time players of the set. New players already read half the card and then ask, "What's a Trade token?" and I have to tell them to read the rest of the goddamn card (not in those words). Replacing "Trade token" with a symbol doesn't even make it clear that it's a token at all. I could use "☤ token", but how much space am I really saving then? Also, what would people call it? "Trade token" makes it easy to talk about them.


One idea I had recently for a card bottom: "When you discard this from play during your Clean-up phase, you may take a Trade token per unused Buy you have." Not sure what to put on top.

[pacovf]

No problem!

I think saying "+1☤" and "you may spend ☤" is fine. Afterall, that already happens with cards: we have "+1 card", but we have "discard a card" instead of "-1 card".

The symbol making it unclear that it's a token seems like a weird concern, given that VPs do exactly that.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your concern. Is it because you rather not have to make a "rulebook", so to speak? As in, you would rather have cards spell out any concept they introduce?

[LastFootnote]

I think saying "+1☤" and "you may spend ☤" is fine. Afterall, that already happens with cards: we have "+1 card", but we have "discard a card" instead of "-1 card".

The symbol making it unclear that it's a token seems like a weird concern, given that VPs do exactly that.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your concern. Is it because you rather not have to make a "rulebook", so to speak? As in, you would rather have cards spell out any concept they introduce?

Well not having a rulebook (or having a very small rulebook) is certainly desirable for an unpublished set like this.

One difference between Trade tokens and VP tokens is that you never spend VP tokens. In fact, VP tokens could just be tally marks on a score sheet. I think the symbol makes more sense there. And also that symbol is already known to players; it's the VP symbol. Players think, "Ah, I get one victory point". Coin tokens do not use a symbol. Although you could argue this is just because the obvious symbol is already being used, there is precedent there. Finally, I'm not an artist, and I'm not sure I could make a good-looking symbol that I'd be happy with.

[LastFootnote]

Three Enterprise/Hinterlands games today.

• Clerk was great as usual. It was a great Margrave/Noble Brigand counter in our last game.
• We played our first two games with Tinker (costing $3). It was massively popular. Ben (experienced player) opened double-Tinker, so I got to see how that worked. At first he seemed to be doing incredibly well. With his Tinkers never colliding, he thinned out his deck fast, buying Silvers. Then he bought Barters with those Silvers in play, earning more tokens, which he used to Tinker his deck into Provinces. He stalled out, though, and Eric won the game by a margin with his simple Stables/Crossroads deck (5/2 split). Our other game with Tinker, I didn't buy it because I wanted my Coppers for Clerks. Anyway, the card seems promising. I'm looking forward to playing with it more.
• Refurbish remains popular despite how weak it seems to me. I won a game with it, though. The Refurbish/Fund combo was enough to pull me through even without a way to non-terminally increase my handsize.
• Bookkeeper just seems like such a nothing card. It's fine, but it doesn't seem to have that special something.
• Profiteer remains OK. I won again with it today. Eric and I each opened with one and I think we only got cursed once or twice throughout the game; a small price to pay for those Golds.
• Barter needs more testing with this new-ish bottom half. I need to buy it more, but this game there was too much other good stuff at $5 and I didn't have enough Silvers to justify it.
• Fund remains solid. My lunch group doesn't tend to buy it much, but it's a staple, what can I say. I win games with it.
• General is still solid. Sometimes we forget to topdeck the cards. 
• Harbor. Man, Harbors won me that last game. I had a 5/2 split, and I'm glad I went Harbor/Clerk rather than Margrave/Clerk. The other players all Margraved each other anyway and Harbor was a great source of income. By the end of the game, all my Silvers and Golds had been stolen by Noble Brigands, but my Clerks, Harbors, and Generals pulled me through easily.
• Investment (Magic Mirror) is looking like a dud so far. Only I bought it in the two games that had it. I did get a Walled Village and Gold out of it, so that was nice. I'll try it a bit more as-is before I give up on it.
• Wheelwright was fun. I wonder if it even needs the penalty. Ben went Wheelwright/Tunnel and I was surprised he didn't win. Eric and I took the Copper pretty often to bump us up to $5 or $8 or what have you. I like the penalty; I think it's a fun bit of interaction. Maybe I could give Wheelwright +1 Buy. The set has a dearth of +Buy right now.
• Gambler and Mill Town went unbought these games. I blame Tinker for Gambler not being bought; it's a shiny new card. There were Villages that outclassed Mill Town in its game.

[LastFootnote]

There have been complaints that Axeman is too harsh, like a Pillage that isn't a one-shot. I'm becoming more receptive to that. I had a really bad experience with it recently (it basically ruined a game for one of my playtesters after another opened with it). The crux of the issue is that it makes you trash good cards from your hand, possibly destroying it. I have the current version to fall back on, but I'd like to try a version that gives you a few more options while keeping this version's good points (tactical decisions about what to gain, etc.). Here's the best I've come up with so far:

AxemanA
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player trashes a card from his hand other than a Curse (or reveals a hand of all Curses). He may gain a cheaper card, putting it on top of his deck. Otherwise, he gains a Curse.

It's about the same number of words as the old version, but it gives you the option of trashing bad cards in exchange for even worse cards. Maybe this version is too weak, but I'd like to give it a shot. The thing that worries me the most is that it lets opponents trash an Estate for a topdecked Copper, which is often a small bonus in the early game. When trashing Copper, it's even harsher than Swindler, since it puts them down $1 in hand. But unlike Swinder, it can only hit you once per turn, so maybe that's fine.

Anyway, if this version turns out too weak, I could try:

AxemanB
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player trashes a Treasure or Action card from his hand (or reveals a hand with no such cards). He may gain a cheaper card, putting it on top of his deck. Otherwise, he gains a Curse.

This version has the advantage that it can't trash Provinces, which one of my playtesters was complaining about with the current Axeman (not that it's happened yet in our games, mind you).

Anyhow, opinions are very much appreciated. Which version do you like best: the current version, AxemanA, or AxemanB?

EDIT: AAAAAAH, CRAP! I forgot to add the "5 or more cards in hand" clauses to these. With that, the cards may be way too wordy. Damn!

EDIT 2: Well, without the "$3" symbol, there is at least more room for text on the cards since the lines can be closer together. The question is how many words I'm willing to have.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I never played with Axeman but I can imagine the frustration, especially since my last game with an even harsher card I made that ruined my friend's deck completely.

I like Axeman B a little better, specifically because trashing an Estate for a Copper could be very beneficial for your opponent. Either way, gaining a Curse when no cheaper card is available is a clever penalty for trashing a Copper (or Curse). But, since you seem to tend towards turning Axeman into a cursing attack, I suggest changing the card's name. In Dominion, cursers tend to be "shady" people - Witches, Mountebanks, Swindlers ... There are probably more members of that group

[LastFootnote]

Possible new version of Bookkeeper, since the current version does not excite me.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, then puts them back in an order he chooses. Unless he revealed 2 Coppers, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.

[LastFootnote]

I never played with Axeman but I can imagine the frustration, especially since my last game with an even harsher card I made that ruined my friend's deck completely.

I like Axeman B a little better, specifically because trashing an Estate for a Copper could be very beneficial for your opponent. Either way, gaining a Curse when no cheaper card is available is a clever penalty for trashing a Copper (or Curse). But, since you seem to tend towards turning Axeman into a cursing attack, I suggest changing the card's name. In Dominion, cursers tend to be "shady" people - Witches, Mountebanks, Swindlers ... There are probably more members of that group

The idea is not to make it a curser, but yeah, that's how this version may pan out. *sigh* I like the concept of Axeman, but the more I think about it, the more I realize how harsh it is (the current version). Unless it misses, it's basically removing about $2 of value from your hand (a Silver). So it's like a lucky Taxman? Only instead of putting you down money in hand, it gives you +$2. The version that just downgraded Actions and Treasures seemed good until I realized you had to gain Copper for your cheap trashed cards, which makes future Axemen hurt even more. Man. I guess it could give the targets some bonus, à la Soothsayer, but if that bonus puts them back to 5 cards in hand, then they can get hit by multiple Axemen, which is less than ideal.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Possible new version of Bookkeeper, since the current version does not excite me.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, then puts them back in an order he chooses. Unless he revealed 2 Coppers, he gains a Copper, putting it on top of his deck.

So you are more excited by this? I can't say that I am. It looks as weak and as the other version. I have to think that allowing other players to look at and re-arrange their top two cards isn't worth the possibility of giving them a Copper. The only situation I can think of where I would open with such a card is if my opponent opened Mint. Even then I wouldn't. So I would buy this card late-game only. And how much does giving your opponent a Copper matter then, really? Is it worth putting a terminal Silver in your deck this late in the game? Like Noble Brigand, Bookkeeper would rarely be good, and even then it won't be amazing. But at least Noble Brigand discards the top two cards. If Bookkeeper did that, it would be too similar to NB. If you leave it like this, I think $3 might be more appropriate. Sorry this looks like a long rant. I figured I could be honest with you

[LastFootnote]

So you are more excited by this? I can't say that I am. It looks as weak and as the other version.

Hey, man, I'm just throwing out some ideas to see what sticks. Making Attack cards is haaaaaaard.

I have to think that allowing other players to look at and re-arrange their top two cards isn't worth the possibility of giving them a Copper. The only situation I can think of where I would open with such a card is if my opponent opened Mint. Even then I wouldn't. So I would buy this card late-game only. And how much does giving your opponent a Copper matter then, really? Is it worth putting a terminal Silver in your deck this late in the game? Like Noble Brigand, Bookkeeper would rarely be good, and even then it won't be amazing. But at least Noble Brigand discards the top two cards. If Bookkeeper did that, it would be too similar to NB. If you leave it like this, I think $3 might be more appropriate.

What you may have missed is that the gained Copper goes on top of their deck, which limits the utility of being able to rearrange their top 2 cards. I guess I could disallow changing the order. It would be fewer words, but that's not how any of the current Dominion cards works. The idea is that once they've topdecked a couple of Coppers, the attack stops hitting, you see. The main thrust of the attack, of course, is that gaining a Copper on their deck is worse than gaining one in their discard pile, since it gums up engines, etc.

Sorry this looks like a long rant. I figured I could be honest with you

It's cool, man. Keep it coming! I appreciate the feedback.

[Co0kieL0rd]

You're right, I missed that the Copper goes on top of their deck. Should be decent then. I'm still not intrigued by the card as a whole. Maybe it's the picture - the guy looks really pissed (because of all the Coppers, maybe).

Sorry, I'm also tired.

[LastFootnote]

OK, screw this Copper-mucking nonsense. Time for something basic. Here's the version I plan to print for testing on Friday. It's like Magistrate, but allows the targets to discard Copper and doesn't require a choice on the part of the attacking player.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals one of them. If it's an Action or Treasure, he discards it. Otherwise, he puts it on top of his deck.

Yes it will sometimes be Cutpurse, but hey it costs $3. And the victim may choose to e.g. topdeck an Estate if he doesn't want to be down $1 in hand. I'm hoping it'll give the targets interesting options, especially in the later game when they may not have a Copper to discard.

[TheOthin]

Interesting. My one worry is that the Cutpurse comparison may actually be slanted a bit far in Bookkeeper's favor: the opponent can choose to make it a Cutpurse, and they probably will because that's one of its weakest possible impacts. If they don't have Coppers, Cutpurse will do nothing, while Bookkeeper will typically get even nastier, forcing them to either discard a good card or hurt their next turn.

The advantage for Cutpurse is that it can keep hitting after they're already below 5 cards, and that it doesn't give them the chance to keep a Copper if it'd somehow be more valuable than some Action they don't want like a dead terminal or a Ruin. (Or to top-deck in an emergency.) That's enough that it wouldn't outclass Cutpurse at the same price, but making it cheaper could be a problem.

But I'm not sure it could actually cost $4, either, because of Militia. Bookkeeper could do more damage if it guarantees hurting them somehow when Militia would just make them discard two dead Victory/Curse cards, but I don't think that's enough to really justify it when there are so many more times Militia is the one that will hurt more.

[Asper]

Huh, Bookkeeper reminds me of my Assassin, in that it will usually be a Militia/Ghost Ship mashup that always hits you the most unpleasant. Your approach is much more elegant, though, because as you said, it doesn't cause sequential decisions. I'm not sure whether you underestimate how harsh the attack is - less cards than Militia, but can't be shrugged off. Not that i can really judge it.

Edit: Oops, didn't read TheOthin's post before.
Edit 2: One should also compare it to Bureaucrat, which it actually seems inspired by. $2 are pretty on par with the Silver gain i think, but like with Militia, Bookkeeper never fails.

[LastFootnote]

Edit 2: One should also compare it to Bureaucrat, which it actually seems inspired by. $2 are pretty on par with the Silver gain i think, but like with Militia, Bookkeeper never fails.

Yeah, good call. On the other hand, Bookkeeper often lets the target choose whether they'd rather be hit by Cutpurse or Bureaucrat. And unlike those two cards, Bookkeeper doesn't stack.

[TheOthin]

Changing up the vanilla bonus might make the direct Attack comparisons less worrisome. Maybe +2 Cards? That might be easy to set at $4.

[LastFootnote]

Changing up the vanilla bonus might make the direct Attack comparisons less worrisome. Maybe +2 Cards? That might be easy to set at $4.

That could work. I tend to like +$ rather than +Cards on attacks that don't stack, but maybe it's worth differentiating them. +2 Cards is weaker than +$2, though (without +Actions). I think that would cement its $3 cost.

[LastFootnote]

Time to finally print and test Conquest.

Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

An actual one-shot in my one-shot themed set. How novel!

[GendoIkari]

There aren't currently any non-terminal one-shots are there? (Not counting Spoils). It just feels like a contradiction; non-terminal means it's a card that's not too strong to play multiple of; one-shot means it's a card that's too powerful to play repeatedly. Of course, it's obviously non-terminal so that you can immediately play the gained card; which is cool.

I do like that even though it's a one-shot, it's also kind of like Urchin/Hermit... it just upgrades itself to another card. Except you don't know which card that will be.

The obvious comparison is Saboteur. And I dunno how it compares, but the rundown:

Pros:
Other player doesn't get a replacement card.
Non-terminal.
It gains a card.
You gain the trashed card hand (You can play it immediately, plus it doesn't reduce handsize; so basically a cantrip).

Cons:
One-shot.
Saboteur can trash cards costing more than $6.

I'm sure you've considered every single one of those points already, but it's nice to list them out. Anyway, I think I like the card; I just have no idea how strong it is.

[LastFootnote]

I'm sure you've considered every single one of those points already, but it's nice to list them out. Anyway, I think I like the card; I just have no idea how strong it is.

Sweet, me either! Thanks for writing out the list of pros and cons.

One way to think of Conquest is that you're buying a random good card right from your opponent's deck. And of course it also trashes other players' cards in multiplayer.

[pacovf]

Time to finally print and test Conquest.

The first seal is open...

It will be kind of sad to use Conquest and only get a silver. From a purely theoretical point of view, I think this card will need a lot of work before it's satisfying without being excessively mean. But it's interesting.

[TheOthin]

Hmm. If the Silver thing is too much of a concern, maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types, but it'd fit with the way it's set up to play a stolen Action right away.

In any case, I really like the sound of it.

[Thanar]

...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...

Another possible way of making it more useful/powerful is to allow it to target a type, with something like this:

Targeted Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Name a card type. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one of that type costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

[TheOthin]

...maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types...

Another possible way of making it more useful/powerful is to allow it to target a type, with something like this:

Targeted Conquest
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Trash this. Name a card type. Each other player reveals cards from his deck until revealing one of that type costing from $3 to $6. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards, putting it into your hand.

That sounds a bit too powerful, especially at endgame when you could name Victory. And it'd get especially scary with cost reducers. Lower prices by $1 and you can't hit Silver so you can name Treasure and guarantee hitting Gold. Lower them by $2 and name Victory and you can get good odds of snatching a Province.

[Thanar]

I agree it might be too powerful, but I think it would be interesting to playtest to see if it would work at cost $5, and if not, try cost $6.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm. If the Silver thing is too much of a concern, maybe it could target Action cards specifically rather than targeting based on cost? That could get really good at zeroing in on targets within certain deck types, but it'd fit with the way it's set up to play a stolen Action right away.

Hmm. The reason attacks don't usually target Action cards is that it encourages players to play a boring, Action-less deck. But I'm not sure that's such an issue here. It's hard to imagine a player not buying any Action cards in order to foil a one-shot attack. That's going to be a sure way to lose, I would think.

Anyhow, that would allow me to do something like this:

Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals cards from his deck until he reveals an Action card. He trashes that card and discards the rest. Gain one of the trashed cards; play it. IF it costs less than this, play it again.

Of course there's nothing sitting out to track the fact that the card was played twice, so perhaps I should remove the "play it twice" clause.

[pacovf]

Keep the +1 action. Nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher.
 One more thing, it would be nice to find a version that can't hit itself.
And have you considered adding an "if you did" after "trash this"?

[LastFootnote]

Keep the +1 action. Nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. One more thing, it would be nice to find a version that can't hit itself.

Normally the fact that trashing attacks can hit themselves is a feature. But in this case, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Chained Conquests could really suck. So yes, I should probably change that.

Have you considered adding an "if you did" after "trash this"?

I have, and decided to at least test this version first. Well, by "this version" I mean the first version that doesn't specifically target Actions. Losing three Actions to a King's Courted Conquest would really suck.

One solution would be to make sure it always targets cheap (≤$4) cards and then give it an additional bonus of some sort. Or maybe it doesn't even need another bonus. You'd be paying $5 for stealing a cheaper card from an oppponent and playing it immediately.

[Deadlock39]

From a strictly net deck worth standpoint, your opponent is losing at least $3 and you are losing $5 and gaining at least $3, so you are coming out on top.  To me, it doesn't seem like a total dud even if you just hit a Silver (even though it probably isn't that great).  Throne/King-ing could be exceptionally nasty, so that probably needs tested (as I'm sure you already know).

[Awaclus]

From a strictly net deck worth standpoint, your opponent is losing at least $3 and you are losing $5 and gaining at least $3, so you are coming out on top.  To me, it doesn't seem like a total dud even if you just hit a Silver (even though it probably isn't that great).  Throne/King-ing could be exceptionally nasty, so that probably needs tested (as I'm sure you already know).

Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.

[TheOthin]

Throne/King could be taken care of by adding an "if you do (trash this)" clause.

[Deadlock39]

Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.

I don't agree.  Thieving a Silver is quite good.  It's all those Coppers you Thieve in the mean time that make Thief a bad card. This is guaranteed to hit something good, and it gives it to you right away.  Compare to all the Silver with a bonus cards that are at $5.  If this only hits Silver, the bonus is, the first time you play it, it removes a silver from your opponents deck.  I'm not going to say that is great, but it's not much different than buying a Royal Seal on $5 when there aren't other good options.  Now add the additional bonus that you might hit something better.

[TheOthin]

I would generally prefer having a Lab and letting my opponent have a Silver to having a Silver.

[Deadlock39]

I'd generally prefer Lab over Explorer too?  They can't all be the best $5.

[pacovf]

Part of the problem is that you don't know what you are going to get. Cf: tribute.

[Awaclus]

Spending $5 and a card slot from your hand to Thief a Silver is a total dud.

I don't agree.  Thieving a Silver is quite good.  It's all those Coppers you Thieve in the mean time that make Thief a bad card. This is guaranteed to hit something good, and it gives it to you right away.  Compare to all the Silver with a bonus cards that are at $5.  If this only hits Silver, the bonus is, the first time you play it, it removes a silver from your opponents deck.  I'm not going to say that is great, but it's not much different than buying a Royal Seal on $5 when there aren't other good options.  Now add the additional bonus that you might hit something better.

Thieving a Silver is quite bad. Thief is a bad card for a multitude of reasons, not just the Copper trashing. This might not be a bad card because oftentimes you might hit something more useful than a Silver, but when you do hit a Silver, it is indeed not very good.

[TheOthin]

I'd generally prefer Lab over Explorer too?  They can't all be the best $5.

That is very true, and Conquest will often do better than that. But I still don't think it's a case of coming out on top compared to likely other options.

Of course, with Conquest's range of outcome strengths, it does make sense that its worse outcomes should be worse than what you'd expect to get from buying a different $5, while its best outcomes should be better.

[pacovf]

Another option would be to price it at 6 and make it dig for two cards (or look at the top x cards or whatever). You choose the card that gets trashed.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for all the great discussion and feedback, everyone!

I think I will first try the original version posted. Yes sometimes it will steal a Silver and be a one-shot, non-terminal Explorer for you. And that will suck. But often it will be better and, unlike most trashing cards, it will almost never miss altogether. Really my biggest worry is that it can steal Duchies, since some players apparently hate that. But at least that option is tempered by the fact that the Duchy (probably) isn't doing you as much good in-hand than an Action or Treasure card would.

Another option would be to price it at 6 and make it dig for two cards (or look at the top x cards or whatever). You choose the card that gets trashed.

Well that's one way to go if the card needs a buff. Bear in mind that, in a game with more than 2 players, you are already deciding which trashed card to gain. So putting another decision on top of that isn't ideal. But again, it's an option to consider.

[TheOthin]

If the Duchy stealing turns out to be too big of an issue, it could be possible to work around it by excluding Victory cards. But that'd take some testing beforehand to tell.

[pacovf]

I agree that choosing the card trashed in multiplayer would make for a lot decisions... But still, it's a oneshot, so it might be fine.

However, I'm not as concerned about power as I am concerned about "swinginess" when talking about 5$ oneshots....

[Deadlock39]

The Duchy thing doesn't seem too bad.  They could have just bought a Duchy in the first place (unless they are already out, which maybe makes this interesting, or maybe just swingy, hard to guess).  Loosing the Duchy is a bit like getting hit with a one-shot Saboteur. Could be a really strong (swingy?) card in a Duke mirror.

[TheOthin]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

[LastFootnote]

It's a delicate balance between swinginess and wordiness. The more cards that are immune to the attack, the more words it takes to exclude them. It also makes it easier to avoid the attack by avoiding buying the few cards it can hit. I'll start with the standard $3 to $6 and see if it needs tweaking.

[Awaclus]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.

[Thanar]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.

And, your opponent needs to have already bought a Duchy, and not have it in his hand when you play your Conquest...

[TheOthin]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.

Sure, buying Conquest over Duchy when you want Duchy isn't actually a good idea. But given that it doesn't matter how long you have the Duchy in your deck, if your Conquest ends up turning into a Duchy you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.

[Awaclus]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.

Sure, buying Conquest over Duchy when you want Duchy isn't actually a good idea. But given that it doesn't matter how long you have the Duchy in your deck, if your Conquest ends up turning into a Duchy you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.

Well, if you buy a turn 1 Mountebank, you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.

[TheOthin]

Buying a Duchy gets you 3 VP, but buying a Conquest and hitting a Duchy gets you 3 VP while lowering your opponent's score by 3 VP. And even on the shuffle where you play Conquest, you're really no worse off than if you'd bought the Duchy because unlike Feast, you get back the Action you used to play Conquest and even get the Duchy in hand right away anyway.

But you have to reshuffle, draw the card and play it before that can happen, and then you still need to hit the Duchy.

Sure, buying Conquest over Duchy when you want Duchy isn't actually a good idea. But given that it doesn't matter how long you have the Duchy in your deck, if your Conquest ends up turning into a Duchy you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.

Well, if you buy a turn 1 Mountebank, you will be better off than if you had bought a Duchy instead.

Unless your opponent hits it with a Turn 1 Conquest!

I am not responsible if someone tries this and ends up whiffing their Conquest when they should've just bought a Mountebank.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Now these are two new ideas I like I also just realised that any idea you have since your Dominion: Adventures play-testing means that there is no similar card in the new official set. BAM!

Let's talk about the new Bookkeeper first. This looks promising. I even wonder why such a card isn't there already. It will always be a little nasty and sometimes really screw over your opponent. Which makes me think it should cost $4 but that's just my intuition. I feel like it's often at least as good as Cutpurse in the early game but stays strong later. Even early, if your opponent decides to put back an Estate rather than discard a Copper, it surely screws up their next hand.

Conquest: I am a little surprised you're going for a harsh trashing attack. But I guess since it's a one-shot it's alright. Gaining and playing the gained card immediately afterwards is a good idea. I agree with Awaclus, though that hitting only Silvers with an expensive one-shot would really suck. And there are plenty of Silvers in an average Dominion deck.
I've got an extraordinary suggestion: try Conquest targeting cards from $4 to $7. It would look quite unusual but it changes a lot and would make me rather think "this is gonna be a successful Conquest!"
I also like the version that immediately plays the gained Action card, and twice if it costs less than Conquest, but Pacovf made a valid point in that nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. But you could make both plays optional! I guess that's too many words for your liking, though.

[LastFootnote]

I also just realised that any idea you have since your Dominion: Adventures play-testing means that there is no similar card in the new official set. BAM!

Fact. Now all I have to do is propose every possible card that's not in Adventures and you'll know exactly what's in it!

Let's talk about the new Bookkeeper first. This looks promising. I even wonder why such a card isn't there already. It will always be a little nasty and sometimes really screw over your opponent. Which makes me think it should cost $4 but that's just my intuition. I feel like it's often at least as good as Cutpurse in the early game but stays strong later. Even early, if your opponent decides to put back an Estate rather than discard a Copper, it surely screws up their next hand.

I think the fact that they often get to choose early whether to topdeck an Estate or discard a Copper makes it weaker. It's sort of like a reverse Coin token. If they don't want to be bumped down $1, their next hand suffers for it. But they can choose whichever is more advantageous. But I might make it cost $4 just because the set is hemorrhaging $4 cards and has way too may $3 cards. For $3 right now, it has (new) Bookkeeper, Convoy, Floodgate, Gambler, Mill Town, Refurbish, and Tinker. Assuming I remove the old Committee, it has Craftsman, Dignitary, Profiteer, and Terrace at $4. Bookkeeper and Tinker would probably be fine at $4, although I kind of like Tinker at $3. Refurbish has always been a prime candidate for cutting just because it's 100% off-theme. As much as it saddens me, Mill Town could also be cut. It's a fine card, but the set has a lot of villages (Jubilee, Mill Town, Terrace, General), and Mill Town is the one I need the least.

Conquest is a potential Axeman replacement. I may try a cheaper ($4?) Barrister that makes players trash Domains from their hand.

Conquest: I am a little surprised you're going for a harsh trashing attack. But I guess since it's a one-shot it's alright. Gaining and playing the gained card immediately afterwards is a good idea. I agree with Awaclus, though that hitting only Silvers with an expensive one-shot would really suck. And there are plenty of Silvers in an average Dominion deck.
I've got an extraordinary suggestion: try Conquest targeting cards from $4 to $7. It would look quite unusual but it changes a lot and would make me rather think "this is gonna be a successful Conquest!"
I also like the version that immediately plays the gained Action card, and twice if it costs less than Conquest, but Pacovf made a valid point in that nobody wants to be forced to play a trasher. But you could make both plays optional! I guess that's too many words for your liking, though.

I'll keep the $4 to $7 option in mind. I do worry that it's easier to trash Provinces with, though. One Highway is all you'd need.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think the fact that they often get to choose early whether to topdeck an Estate or discard a Copper makes it weaker. It's sort of like a reverse Coin token. If they don't want to be bumped down $1, their next hand suffers for it. But they can choose whichever is more advantageous. But I might make it cost $4 just because the set is hemorrhaging $4 cards and has way too may $3 cards. For $3 right now, it has (new) Bookkeeper, Convoy, Floodgate, Gambler, Mill Town, Refurbish, and Tinker. Assuming I remove the old Committee, it has Craftsman, Dignitary, Profiteer, and Terrace at $4. Bookkeeper and Tinker would probably be fine at $4, although I kind of like Tinker at $3. Refurbish has always been a prime candidate for cutting just because it's 100% off-theme. As much as it saddens me, Mill Town could also be cut. It's a fine card, but the set has a lot of villages (Jubilee, Mill Town, Terrace, General), and Mill Town is the one I need the least.

Conquest is a potential Axeman replacement. I may try a cheaper ($4?) Barrister that makes players trash Domains from their hand.

You could always stick a +Buy on Bookkeeper to justify the cost of $4. But then it's the Woodcutter dilemma again - everything resembling Woodcutter looks like it would suck. Of course, that notion is ill-founded, we've been over that, but man, people are superficial!

I kinda like Refurbish but it would also be the first $3 I'd cut. But don't cut Mill Town! I never played with it but it seems to have a good synergy with several of your other cards and I like that your set is so cohesive.

I'm also against changing Barrister, FWIW. Right now the card is a powerful Thief variant, and the Domains are just the cherry on the cake. Well, I can see how you'd want to put the focus more on Domains again but if it targets only those, I think it should be very efficient in finding those in your opponents' decks or hands.

I'll keep the $4 to $7 option in mind. I do worry that it's easier to trash Provinces with, though. One Highway is all you'd need.

Highway, why do you have to make everything associated with cost so complicated? You could also do $4 to $6. I just said $4 to $7 because you wrote elsewhere that upon developing cards you should always try the crazy version first^^

[GendoIkari]

OK, screw this Copper-mucking nonsense. Time for something basic. Here's the version I plan to print for testing on Friday. It's like Magistrate, but allows the targets to discard Copper and doesn't require a choice on the part of the attacking player.

Bookkeeper
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals one of them. If it's an Action or Treasure, he discards it. Otherwise, he puts it on top of his deck.

Yes it will sometimes be Cutpurse, but hey it costs $3. And the victim may choose to e.g. topdeck an Estate if he doesn't want to be down $1 in hand. I'm hoping it'll give the targets interesting options, especially in the later game when they may not have a Copper to discard.

This version sounds weak. I mean, sure it can be as good as Cutpurse on some turns, but then when your opponent draws 2 terminals and no villages, this card just saves them. Sure, Ghost Ship can save you from a bad hand too, but it's really painful the rest of the time.

*Edit* Just read CookieLord's comments on it, and he makes good points too. So I could be completely wrong.

[pacovf]

This version sounds weak. I mean, sure it can be as good as Cutpurse on some turns, but then when your opponent draws 2 terminals and no villages, this card just saves them. Sure, Ghost Ship can save you from a bad hand too, but it's really painful the rest of the time.

*Edit* Just read CookieLord's comments on it, and he makes good points too. So I could be completely wrong.

Bookkeeper doesn't top deck action cards though.

[TheOthin]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

[Awaclus]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

[GendoIkari]

This version sounds weak. I mean, sure it can be as good as Cutpurse on some turns, but then when your opponent draws 2 terminals and no villages, this card just saves them. Sure, Ghost Ship can save you from a bad hand too, but it's really painful the rest of the time.

*Edit* Just read CookieLord's comments on it, and he makes good points too. So I could be completely wrong.

Bookkeeper doesn't top deck action cards though.

Oops! Never mind then!

[GendoIkari]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

[TheOthin]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

Axeman!

Actually, Taxman too tbh.

[Asper]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"

[LastFootnote]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"

If your deck has 9 Golds in a row, the game should end before you have a next turn.

[Asper]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"

If your deck has 9 Golds in a row, the game should end before you have a next turn.

Knowing that people would aim to edge-case me, i purposefully added "under any circumstance" as a way to show that i was aware of possible exceptions.

[LastFootnote]

Knowing that people would aim to edge-case me, i purposefully added "under any circumstance" as a way to show that i was aware of possible exceptions.

Ha, I wasn't trying to edge case you. I just thought the situation was humorous.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to print Conquest and the new Bookkeeper before today's games. We played two 4-player Enterprise/Prosperity games (with Colonies). I gave a few cards that I plan to alter one last chance. I'll post the sets here for context.

Game 1:
$3: Convoy, Tinker (cost $3)
$4: Quarry, Talisman, Worker's Village
$5: Barter, Harbor, Vendor
$7: Bank, Expand

Game 2:
$2: Auction
$3: Floodgate, Watchtower
$4: Craftsman
$5: Counting House, Investment (Magic Mirror), Rabble, Wheelwright
$6: Grand Market
$7: Forge

• Auction really paid off and almost everybody bought one. Wheelwright/Auction gives you a really good chance to get a Grand Market.
• This version of Convoy had its last hurrah today. Only I bought them, and I did tie in that game against Ben's Harbors. I was making crazy amounts of money with 2 Banks because I didn't trash my Copper and was drawing most of my deck on a lot of turns. It's so, so fiddly. And it's super unpopular. The new version will cost $4 and be simpler.
• Floodgate didn't get used much, partly due to Auction. It got bought 2 or 3 times, though, so it played a part.
• Tinker seemed good. I didn't get one personally because, again, I wanted my Coppers and used Barter on my Estates.
• A lot of us opened with Craftsman in the second game and then it was basically a cantrip. There weren't enough +Actions to play it for the gain. Whoops. Still a solid card, but this was not the board for it.
• Barter is still seeming OK.
• Harbor is solid.
• Investment/Magic Mirror actually paid of for me today by gaining Grand Markets (but I still lost badly). Somebody else actually bought it, too. Still, I'm going to change or scrap it. It has not been a crowd-pleaser.
• Vendor was actually bought by another player, too. It so often has no discard pile to draw from, which is sad. This is still the version without the +1 Card up top. Still not popular, this version.
• Wheelwright was popular. I took the Copper almost every time someone played it in order to fuel my Investments, Auction, and Counting House. I lost, but it was fun to see that synergy.

I will probably try a version of Investment that costs $6, is worth $1, and just gains a copy of an Action you have in play, no questions asked.

I may try swapping Terrace and Vendor's token abilities. Or their vanilla bonuses, however you want to look at it.

Terrace
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. Look through your discard pile. You may pay a Trade token to put a card from it into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Vendor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. You may pay a Trade token to discard your hand and draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

[GendoIkari]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

Axeman!

Actually, Taxman too tbh.

Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds. And Axeman probably doesn't hurt you, because if you have 9 Golds in your deck, you'll probably be happy to replace one of them with a Duchy.

[LastFootnote]

Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.

Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.

[LastFootnote]

Which do you guys think is the better $4 Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?

[pacovf]

Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.

Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.

Buy doctor with 5 golds.
[Success Kid]
Trash 4 golds on top of deck so that you can trash the 3 estates and 5 coppers below.

Which do you guys think is the better $4 Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?

It would have to be the latter. Otherwise it's way too good when compared to smithy, what with the extra trade token and sifting and everything.

[LastFootnote]

Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.

Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.

Buy doctor with 5 golds.
[Success Kid]
Trash 4 golds on top of deck so that you can trash the coppers 3 estates and 5 coppers below.

Couldn't you just, like, discard those Golds?

[pacovf]

Taxman doesn't hurt you; since 4 Golds is just as good as 5 Golds.

Edge case: You are going for a massive overpay.

Buy doctor with 5 golds.
[Success Kid]
Trash 4 golds on top of deck so that you can trash the coppers 3 estates and 5 coppers below.

Couldn't you just, like, discard those Golds?

...You wanted to activate your market squares? Because you want to empty the supply pile?

...And you kept forgetting that you could reveal more than one to the same trashing?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Which do you guys think is the better $4 Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?

I'd also say the latter for balance reasons. The former has too much range at $4 if you compare with Embassy. You could do it with a small, simple penalty, though.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Which do you guys think is the better Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

[LastFootnote]

Which do you guys think is the better Convoy: [+4 Cards; Discard 2 cards] or [+3 Cards; Discard a card]?

Convoy
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest back in any order. You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Man, I wish that version had worked out, too. Trust me, it's not working out. A card that you're going to play as often as Convoy should be fast to resolve, and Convoy just isn't.

Also I need more $4 cards.

[LastFootnote]

Four Enterprise games tonight. Not much new to report. Barter got a lot of action and is seeming pretty good. I am more or less convinced that I need to try the new version of Vendor that gives you the +1 Card plus the card from your discard if you pay the token.

I showed Ben the new Bookkeeper and Conquest (haven't sleeved them yet). He thinks Conquest has to cost $6 because it's too brutal when you open with it. That's possible. Although, I'm not sure that it's too different from Saboteur in that regard. Certainly it's usually better for the player of Conquest, but it's not any worse for the target(s). And of course Knights can be worse, but they're far less likely to hit. Hmm...

You can build an engine with Harbor, and sometimes it's tough to track your Coins. I don't think that's killing the card, though. Lots of official cards have the same issue, e.g. Tribute.

I wonder if giving Wheelwright a different name will help players remember that they can gain a Copper when someone else plays it. "Philanthropist" is an option, I guess. I am still thinking of giving it +1 Buy.

I think I should update the OP again. It's starting to get pretty out of date. I'd like to try these new cards a bit first, though. But my printer is really acting up today, so it's hard to say when that will be.

[market squire]

What about making Conquest a Knights variant?

Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals 2 cards from his deck. He trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Action cards. If you do, trash this.

[LastFootnote]

What about making Conquest a Knights variant?

Conquest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals 2 cards from his deck. He trashes one of them costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. You may gain and play one of the trashed Action cards. If you do, trash this.

Well, that's a possibility. It seems swingier to me, for better or worse.

[LastFootnote]

Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.

????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.

Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.

[GendoIkari]

If your opponent has a dead terminal, Bookkeeper whiffs, but it's no worse than Cutpurse without Coppers, or Militia with two dead cards. A hand of two terminals, two Silvers, and a Victory card laughs at all three.

Which is why Bureaucrat is the best card in Dominion.

A hand of 5 Golds (with no Colonies in the game) laughs at Cutpurse, Militia, Bookkeeper, AND Bureaucrat. And laughs extra-hard at Ghost Ship. And just so that you can laugh at Minion as well; your next 4 cards are Gold also.

"Ha ha, Minion! Your attack didn't ruin this turn! It just ruined the turn after that, which is totally not a bad thing under any circumstances!"

Edge case: Every card in your deck is a Gold.

[pacovf]

Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.

????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.

Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.

Band of Misfits?

[LastFootnote]

Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.

????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.

Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.

Band of Misfits?

That similarity had not escaped me, but the cards are quite different in a lot of ways. The decision you make with this card is permanent, and the fact that it costs $6 means that you can choose from any of the $5 cards to gain. Also you can Throne it, which may or may not be too crazy.

[GendoIkari]

Thinking of a Feast variant. Probably overlaps too much with Conquest, but it's an option if Conquest doesn't work out.

????
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Trash this and gain a card costing less than it, putting it into your hand.

Maybe not so interesting from a strategic standpoint, but might make for some interesting tactical play.

I dunno, how often is it that you don't know which $5 you want to buy when you have the chance to buy it? If you were going to spend $6 on a $5, then this is just a strictly better option (then again, so is Border Village); and I doubt that the ability to delay your decision of which $5 to get will mean that you'll be buying this over Gold or Goons when you wouldn't have if you were just buying the $5.

[LastFootnote]

Two games today. Or rather, four games, but I was only in two of them. And one of those was Base Set only (not counting the replacement cards I've added to the Base Set). And the one with Enterprise cards got cut short. Damn.

Anyway, the new Convoy ([+3 Cards; discard a card; pay a token to play this again] for $4) and the new Vendor (+1 Card; +1 Action; +$1; pay a token to get an additional card from the discard) were immediately more popular (with the one other guy who played the game with me). I went for a Mill Town/Convoy deck and the new Convoy plays way smoother, which is fantastic, since I was playing Convoy five or six times during my later turns.

The other table played with Conquest. Lighthouse was out, so it wasn't such a hot item, but it got played at least once. It trashed two Tinkers, gaining one (and getting a token). Anyway, they said it seemed weak, but we'll try it some more.

[XerxesPraelor]

How are you able to get this many playtests in? I try to playtest, but since my family is not that interested in Dominion (especially non-canon versions), I have to call in a favor (not really) to get them to play.

I'd happily exchange playtests with you maybe at a 2-1 ratio if that's interesting to you, because somehow new cards by other people are more real than ones I make up.

[LastFootnote]

How are you able to get this many playtests in? I try to playtest, but since my family is not that interested in Dominion (especially non-canon versions), I have to call in a favor (not really) to get them to play.

I play Dominion every Friday at work during lunchtime. We order pizza and play Dominion. Usually we get two games in. Sometimes one. Rarely three. My cards are good enough and numerous enough at this point that I can just throw them into the mix without issues (or everybody's too nice to tell me how much they suck). Occasionally I also play outside of work, but that's less common. Most of my IRL playtesting of the Adventures expansion was also during lunch on Friday.

I'd happily exchange playtests with you maybe at a 2-1 ratio if that's interesting to you, because somehow new cards by other people are more real than ones I make up.

I don't think I understand your proposal.

[pacovf]

I don't think I understand your proposal.

XP has a fan expansion (progress). His close ones don't feel super thrilled to play with it, but would be ok with playing with someone else's fan expansion. Probably because they feel like XP couldn't be objective about the worth of his own fan cards, as opposed to someone else's, so playing with the latter seems like a safer bet.

His proposal is that you play with his cards from time to time, and he will play with yours. I am not sure who is the advantaged side in his 2-1 proposal, but from common experience with negotiation techniques, I expect you to be the favoured one.

[XerxesPraelor]

I don't think I understand your proposal.

XP has a fan expansion (progress). His close ones don't feel super thrilled to play with it, but would be ok with playing with someone else's fan expansion. Probably because they feel like XP couldn't be objective about the worth of his own fan cards, as opposed to someone else's, so playing with the latter seems like a safer bet.

His proposal is that you play with his cards from time to time, and he will play with yours. I am not sure who is the advantaged side in his 2-1 proposal, but from common experience with negotiation techniques, I expect you to be the favoured one.

Exactly.

Add me to the list of people who prefer the new convoy. I thought the last one looked kind of interesting, but never tried it because of all the words. Vendor to me is still somewhat unexciting, but it looks like a solid effect and I wouldn't call it boring. The one-shot ness of it makes it much less cool-feeling, but I can imagine it would feel great in a game with trade -token gainers.

[crlundy]

I know this thread has moved on from Dignitary, but I've only just caught up on what's happened in the long while since I've checked this thread. The reaction part of Dignitary may have gotten left behind when Harbor sailed in, but I think you said that was the idea behind the card and I thought it might still be on the back-burner of things to fix up. Has this wording been considered in avoiding the Fortress loop?

When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 4 cards in your hand and trash the rest.

Cf the original text. My suggestion is barely longer, but I know that can make all the difference.

When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand.

And if you think the top suggestion could be misconstrued as trashing the rest of all your cards (since all printed cards using "the rest" refer first to a set of revealed cards), then it'd have to be the longer still

When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, choose 4 cards in your hand and trash the rest of your hand.

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary lives, man. It looks like this now:



I was avoiding doing the reaction this way for a long time, since you could potentially do a lot of Dignitary reactions by drawing more Dignitaries. But I've tested it and in practice it's just not an issue.

Anyway, this new version has been working fine for awhile now. I could change the top, but so far nobody in my IRL games is complaining that it's too much like Harbor.

[crlundy]

Huzzah! I guess I was reading too quickly. Glad to see it lives on, I like trashing. I suppose it looses certain combos with Council Room and whatnot, but those won't come up too often anyway. Only thing is, shouldn't it say "+2 Cards" at the end instead of "draw 2 Cards"? "Draw" is only used when opponents draw cards (exceptions: draw-to-X, Outpost, Envoy).

[LastFootnote]

Huzzah! I guess I was reading too quickly. Glad to see it lives on, I like trashing. I suppose it looses certain combos with Council Room and whatnot, but those won't come up too often anyway. Only thing is, shouldn't it say "+2 Cards" at the end instead of "draw 2 Cards"? "Draw" is only used when opponents draw cards (exceptions: draw-to-X, Outpost, Envoy).

Yes, I think the reason it says "draw 2 cards" is so that "+2 Cards" isn't on its own line at the bottom. It looked weird to me. Maybe it's not such a big deal and I should change it. Either way it gets the point across. I guess I also feel like "then draw X Cards" makes it clearer that you draw after doing whatever else. Maybe that's just in my mind.

[LastFootnote]

I updated the OP.

• Removed Axeman, Committee, and Cathedral.
• Added Tinker, Harbor, and Conquest.
• Updated Convoy, Vendor, General, Dignitary, and Domain.
• The images are now high-resolution images that have been shrunk down using the img tag. This makes them look way nicer and means that you have easy access to printable versions.

[Minotaur]

Dignitary lives, man. It looks like this now:



I was avoiding doing the reaction this way for a long time, since you could potentially do a lot of Dignitary reactions by drawing more Dignitaries. But I've tested it and in practice it's just not an issue.

Anyway, this new version has been working fine for awhile now. I could change the top, but so far nobody in my IRL games is complaining that it's too much like Harbor.

If you wanted to have it not stack with itself, you could instead have Dignitary set itself aside, trash a card, and return itself to your hand on your turn.  It seems like you could trash a ton of cards rapidly in a non-junking attack game, and handsize-neutral trashing is pretty strong when it's totally optional and you have the actual action not depend on trashing at all - it doesn't have the drawback of making itself obsolete like Spice Merchant.

[LastFootnote]

Setting it aside is clunkier and takes at least another line of text. It works great on Horse Traders for multiple reasons, but it's not so great here.

I understand the concern about its power, but I'm really not so worried. If you have enough Dignitaries that you're actually pulling it off, your deck has too many Dignitaries. Especially now that it always reduces your hand size when played, it's just not practical to have so many of them. If it's ever a problem in even one of my playtest games, I'll re-evaluate it. So far this reaction has been working great.

[Minotaur]

Setting it aside is clunkier and takes at least another line of text. It works great on Horse Traders for multiple reasons, but it's not so great here.

I understand the concern about its power, but I'm really not so worried. If you have enough Dignitaries that you're actually pulling it off, your deck has too many Dignitaries. Especially now that it always reduces your hand size when played, it's just not practical to have so many of them. If it's ever a problem in even one of my playtest games, I'll re-evaluate it. So far this reaction has been working great.

Cool, I just wanted to throw the option out there in case you hadn't thought of it yet.  This card would be strongest with a Village and a strong non-junking attack card, I would think.  But then again, it's more useful *with* a junk attack, just less combo-able early.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Dignitary lives, man. It looks like this now:

Man, I thought I was following the discussion about Dignitary but I guess I wasn't closely enough. I didn't know you changed the bottom part but it looks neat! Together with the new top, Dignitary should be quite the versatile power-card but there's still a reasonable limit as to how many Dignitaries you want in your deck, which I like. I would like to play-test it when I find the time and right people.

I updated the OP.

• Removed Axeman, Committee, and Cathedral.
• Added Tinker, Harbor, and Conquest.
• Updated Convoy, Vendor, General, Dignitary, and Domain.
• The images are now high-resolution images that have been shrunk down using the img tag. This makes them look way nicer and means that you have easy access to printable versions.

It's true, everything looks even better now. You set is becoming more and more attractive with well-tested cards and interesting mechanisms. But may I ask what was the problem with Cathedral? I remember play-testing it and it seemed quite strong in combination with a village, especially when it also happens to be a TT gainer (Terrace).

[LastFootnote]

But may I ask what was the problem with Cathedral? I remember play-testing it and it seemed quite strong in combination with a village, especially when it also happens to be a TT gainer (Terrace).

I only tested Cathedral once or twice. It seemed strong and un-fun at the same time. And now I have Harbor and Wheelwright, which I think are filling my $5-terminal-draw quota. Admittedly neither of them is on-theme, but the number of Trade token cards has been on the upswing in general, I think. Let's see: Jubilee, Tinker, Convoy, Craftsman, Terrace, Barter, Vendor. Seven cards. It would be nice to have eight. Eight seems like a good number of cards for a normal-sized set theme to have. Eight Durations in Seaside. Eight on-trash abilities in Dark Ages (if you count Market Square and don't count Overgrown Estate or Sir Vander). Hinterlands has nine on-gain/buy cards.

So I would like to have another Trade token card. I would like to have another (ideally cheap) Attack card (I will probably test new Bookkeeper, but would prefer something more on-theme; also Conquest might not work out). I would like to have another terminal $5 card or two. Right now I've only got Barrister, Harbor, and Wheelwright. I may have to cut e.g. Refurbish to make room for all this stuff. There are 24 cards in the set now and there's only room for one more. Or I guess I could increase it to 400 cards and have room for ≈34 Kingdom cards. As if I had enough ideas to fill that out.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Why is it so important to you that the size of your set is in accordance with original set sizes? Who cares? It's your own expansion, and you can do whatever you want. Why can't you set have 27 cards or 29?

That said, I think you should definitely include as many trade token cards as you have good ideas involving them. They're what makes your set most special. There's probably room for a cheap attack that you can make significantly stronger once by paying a trade token. I'm looking forward to your ideas.

[LastFootnote]

Why is it so important to you that the size of your set is in accordance with original set sizes? Who cares? It's your own expansion, and you can do whatever you want. Why can't you set have 27 cards or 29?

The idea is that you can just buy a copy of e.g. Seaside and use it to proxy up Enterprise. So although the total number of Kingdom cards is flexible, it would be good to keep the total number of cards at 300. Conscripts and Domains take up enough space that 25 Kingdom cards would fit.

[Asper]

That reminds me: I think i read about somebody who playtested his cards by printing them on normal paper, simply putting them in a sleeve with an official card. Was that you? I find it hard to imagine printing on blanks (or allready printed cards even) would give satisfactory results. If you actually print on the cards, may i ask what printer you use?

On an unrelated note, it seems somehow your comment on Tinker got missing in the OP. Also, while at it, i should probably mention that i think Convoy is now a much better card than it was before.

[LastFootnote]

That reminds me: I think i read about somebody who playtested his cards by printing them on normal paper, simply putting them in a sleeve with an official card. Was that you? I find it hard to imagine printing on blanks (or allready printed cards even) would give satisfactory results. If you actually print on the cards, may i ask what printer you use?

I print on paper and put it in a sleeve with an official card. I think that's the way everybody does it. Even if I could print right onto cards, it would be completely impractical since I add, remove, and change my cards frequently.

On an unrelated note, it seems somehow your comment on Tinker got missing in the OP.

Thanks, I'll fix that.

Also, while at it, i should probably mention that i think Convoy is now a much better card than it was before.

Excellent! I hope this version works out. At least that first game with it seemed good.

[Asper]

I hope you don't mind if i give some pointless babbling about your cards:



I like it. It's simple, clean, still has something to it. The only thing i'm a bit worried about is that it might make Oasis look a bit superfluous. Sure, Oasis draws a card, but Auction gives a buy, costs less, can't be drawn dead and can make ALL cards in your hand to money. It also seems to be pretty good for Big Money+Draw.




Another simple, clever idea. My favourite of your set.




I'll be honest: I'm not a fan of one-shots. Somehow i feel they go against the whole deckbuilding premise. Sure, not doing any would be wasted design space, but you make it the premise of an entire set. I'm not sure one-shots are a mechanic special enough to carry that. Most certainly it doesn't seem like the kind of set i'd recommend for a beginner to get used to Dominion, if that says anything.

Then again, most of us aren't beginners, and i'm definitely astounded how much variety you achieve while staying inside this one design space. One-shots ARE underrepresented in official Dominion, too, and even if you made a lot of them, there are so many cards that "one-shot-heavy" boards are unlikely anyhow. So i guess personal preference is all i can give as reasons why i'm a bit more sceptical here.

Looking at the individual cards, i see nothing wrong with Jubilee. It's probably balanced, and being the only "hard" trade token one-shot makes it a bit more interesting then it would be without. I guess i can spare you analysis of how good or bad it might be, you know that better than me. Interest-wise, it's good enough, but as there are a few more interesting trade token cards in the set, they steal Jubilee's spotlight. I feel it looks a bit like how Monument would look if Prosperity had not three, but eight +VP cards. So i guess that's another problem i have with having so many trade token cards - individual cards seem less exciting.




I'm not sure what the best use case for this is. It's interesting that what you get isn't dependant on Redistrict, but the card it trashed. Not sure i like the wording, but i guess "the trashed card" would seem to refer to Redistrict itself. I'm a bit indifferent, but it's obviously okay. I probably underestimate it.




Hmm... Now that i think about it, on-gain/on-buy IS a one-shot mechanic... Maybe i'm misjudging this entire thing... Either way, Floodgate seems cute. And it's cheap enough for its ability to be actually useful. I like it.




I didn't like this one at first, but it has some appeal. At least it's not like it's going to harm you at any point. It probably feels unsatisfying to trash it very early, and i don't think the one-time Lab makes up for it. On the other hand i think the idea is clever and interesting, which is why Gambler made it on my list of "other people's cards that i want to print to use myself".




A Village that rewards you for junk? Hm... I guess gaining some cheap engine components is easy enough, especially early, so you don't have to go for Mill Town megaturns to get something of it. Fine, i think.




I like the on-play, and i realize it interacts with the bottom. Still, i feel it's not as interesting as a whole, maybe because the bottom part is, well, Silversmith. Sorry if i'm being harsh. I'm a bit tired, i hope it doesn't shine through in me spilling unreflected nonsense...




One of the trade token cards i meant when i said there are more interesting ones than Jubilee. Actually i like it quite a bit. It's my second favourite of the set, right now.




Not as special as Tinker, but still nice. Very simple to grasp, too. I like it more than Terrace or Jubilee, but i don't really know why. Maybe because it's new?




Finally, a way to get trade tokens. If you had none of these, something would feel lacking. In that respect, i like it. The effect as such isn't really special, but not every card needs to be. The token gaining is enough to make it stand out, i think.




Dignitary finally gives us a trashing reaction, so that's cool. I'm one of those people who don't like discarding reaction cards, because i always feel it makes me lose something... Beggar is agonizing to me. Dignitarys reaction is something like a counterpart to its on-play, though, so i guess you just have to decide whether the cards in your hand are too good (keep some for later) or too bad (get something else). Don't know what to do when inbetween, but maybe that's the challenge.




I don't really know why, but i kind of dislike Conscripts Profiteer. Conscripts is basically a Silver most of the time, sure, and it can curse other players (once), but it can also be drawn dead. That alone might make some people feel they have been Swindlered. Still, i think my main concern is that Conscripts is pretty complex, especially for a card you can't decide against. I play with quite a few people who are not experienced Dominion players and if i give them a Curse or a Silver, they immediately get that i do something bad or nice. If they think they don't understand a card in the supply, hey, they can just ignore it and buy Smithy instead. Either way, if you don't want to play a Conscripts deck, i can still make you. I think that's really what i mean with "Swindlered" - not that the card is bad, but that the card isn't something i wanted. Sure, there's Masquerade and Ambassador that can give you different cards, but typically you'll get Estates or Coppers, anyhow.




It's allright. Like Convoy and Jubilee, it suffers from the fact they act a bit similar. The effect still seems good enough to be worth the spot, though. as i said, i like Convoy a tad more.




Much better than Profiteer. I can see how this avoids my complaints about Conscripts from before... Hmm. It's also clever how you made a semi-one-shot Curser work




I don't really like it. It has just too much going on, a bit like a minigame inside a game. Also, isn't Barrister strictly better than Explorer? Again, sorry if i'm harsh. Edit: No, of course it's not. Sorry, i didn't think. Still, i'm not really convinced of the mini game. :/




Hm, i guess the +1 action makes the most sense when you gain the card in hand... On it's own it probably isn't worth the jump to $5, but i guess buying this with a few Silvers makes it a really worthwile buy. It's good.




It seems like not only Domain, but every dual-type card makes this better. Hmm... A Lab that gets an advantage from dual-type cards? That's new. I like it




The "to $6" is the only thing keeping this from being strictly better than Saboteur, which seems a bit thin. Sure, Saboteur is weak and has the greatest effect when hitting Provinces (or, heaven forbid, Colonies), but still it will usually just hit Silvers and such. The +1 action makes this really spammable, too. I think it's too good.
I remembered this is a one-shot set and re-read the text. Of course it trashes itself. I think it's fine.




I had a very similar idea once (Stocks), which also gave a Silver in hand. The biggest difference was that it gave a Silver to the other players, too. That said, your card seems better balanced. I like it.




It's very simple and looks good. Not sure about the name, though. I feel it implies an attack type, as if you could only return attack cards with it. Good that that's not the case.




I think i allready mentioned i like this. Well, if not, i like this. It's nice and easy.




Good for you that Donald never made the vanilla $4 Peddler... He couldn't after this. It's not bad, but i'm not sure whether doing a Peddler+ at $4 isn't something you should avoid.

I don't know why, but i thought this costed $4... I'm really tired it seems... Either way, Peddler looks a bit weak for $5, but then again the one-shot bonus is really, really nice. I think it's fine.




The drawback is something i've waited to see on a card, and i think it's nice here. A nice mix of Library, discard for benefit, and Council Room (in a way). I think i like it

[Co0kieL0rd]

Just a minor thing I noticed: On Gambler it says "that card" two times when it could just say "it." You could shorten the text there which, so I've heard, is something you like to do

[GendoIkari]

I like it. It's simple, clean, still has something to it. The only thing i'm a bit worried about is that it might make Oasis look a bit superfluous. Sure, Oasis draws a card, but Auction gives a buy, costs less, can't be drawn dead and can make ALL cards in your hand to money. It also seems to be pretty good for Big Money+Draw.

I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.

[Minotaur]

I like it. It's simple, clean, still has something to it. The only thing i'm a bit worried about is that it might make Oasis look a bit superfluous. Sure, Oasis draws a card, but Auction gives a buy, costs less, can't be drawn dead and can make ALL cards in your hand to money. It also seems to be pretty good for Big Money+Draw.

I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.

All of these are "turn cards into coins" variants.  This card and Secret Chamber both penalize your handsize by one on top of that.  I'd say that this card is stronger than Secret Chamber, if not for the reaction.  Oasis obviously parties the best with Library variants.

Playing X copies of Oasis can have the same effect as playing Auction, except you will have one more card to work with and one less buy.  But you have to have exactly X copies.
Playing Auction once or playing Secret Chamber once can have the same effect as Auction, except for the + buy and Auction won't have terminal collisions.

The only other one I can think of right now is Vault, but that +2 cards is a big deal.  Village-Smithy-Secret Chamber.

[Asper]

I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.

Try not to think of Oasis as a Peddler, but of a cantrip that turns one of your cards into a Copper. Auction does the same thing, but with all cards left in your hand. As Minotaur said, one Auction equals X Oasises, where X is the number of junk cards in your hand, with the penalty of exactly one card. Draw-to-X is an edge case i didn't think of, where the cards behave different.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going to be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.

Try not to think of Oasis as a Peddler, but of a cantrip that turns one of your cards into a Copper. Auction does the same thing, but with all cards left in your hand. As Minotaur said, one Auction equals X Oasises, where X is the number of junk cards in your hand, with the penalty of exactly one card. Draw-to-X is an edge case i didn't think of, where the cards behave different.

It looks like you're saying that Auction is a cantrip when obviously it's not. Oasis draws a card while Auction doesn't, and that can make a big difference. I think of Oasis as a sifter rather than a Peddler. Playing multiple Oases helps you cycle your deck and potentially find cards you want right now rather than next turn. Multiple Auctions in your hand do you no good. I'm not even saying that this is a reason for Auction to cost $3 because, from my point of view, these two cards are hardly comparable.
On the other hand, Auction is clearly stronger than Secret Chamber's on-play ability and the only thing that might make Secret Chamber not look utterly terrible next to Auction is its reaction part. And it's not even a good reaction. So Auction might as well cost $3. But, then again, Secret Chamber is like the worst card in Dominion at the cost of $2. We've had that topic already and I still think Auction would look way less compelling at $3 and it's fine at $2.

[Asper]

I'm confused... how does this compare to Oasis in any way? Oasis is a cheap Peddler with a penalty. You could play a bunch of them, and then a draw-to-x. Or just play 1 or 2 as if it were a Peddler; discarding a worthless card in the process. Auction is automatically always going be the last card you can play in a turn. (Edge case: Golem hits Black Market + Card Draw). It's more like a Secret Chamber, in that it turns your worthless cards into Coppers.

Try not to think of Oasis as a Peddler, but of a cantrip that turns one of your cards into a Copper. Auction does the same thing, but with all cards left in your hand. As Minotaur said, one Auction equals X Oasises, where X is the number of junk cards in your hand, with the penalty of exactly one card. Draw-to-X is an edge case i didn't think of, where the cards behave different.

It looks like you're saying that Auction is a cantrip when obviously it's not. Oasis draws a card while Auction doesn't, and that can make a big difference. I think of Oasis as a sifter rather than a Peddler. Playing multiple Oases helps you cycle your deck and potentially find cards you want right now rather than next turn. Multiple Auctions in your hand do you no good. I'm not even saying that this is a reason for Auction to cost $3 because, from my point of view, these two cards are hardly comparable.
On the other hand, Auction is clearly stronger than Secret Chamber's on-play ability and the only thing that might make Secret Chamber not look utterly terrible next to Auction is its reaction part. And it's not even a good reaction. So Auction might as well cost $3. But, then again, Secret Chamber is like the worst card in Dominion at the cost of $2. We've had that topic already and I still think Auction would look way less compelling at $3 and it's fine at $2.

Playing a lot of Oasises just means replacing a lot of Oasises. Not having them in your hand in the first place works just as well for that. The only real effect Oasis gives is discarding junk in your hand for coins, and Auction does that better. Also comparing multiple Oasises to multiple Auctions isn't reasonable - the biggest advantage of Auction over Oasis is that you need far less. That said, a single Auction with an arbitrary number of junk cards is still only one card behind the same junk with an equal number of Oasises.
Edited because i was talking nonsense..

[GendoIkari]

I still don't see it. After you play Oasis, you continue your turn like normal, except now you have an extra coin, a new card, and 1 less total card in hand. Just like having played a Peddler, except the 1 less total card in hand part. The main point is that it's not something you play at the end of your turn. You can follow it with a terminal, or just continue your engine; drawing and playing all sorts of more cards. Auction is forced to always be the last card you play. It won't cycle your deck; and it won't give you any money at all if you have no unused cards in your hand. If your entire hand is 1 Oasis, then Oasis is basically a Copper. If your entire hand it 1 Auction, then Auction is a Ruined Market.

[TheOthin]

If your hand is one Auction and X Estates, you play Auction and discard those Estates, getting $X. If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X. Essentially, Auction's impact is turning the junk in your hand into Oases.

There are differences, for sure. The Oasis strategy requires only X cards in your hand, while doing it with Auction requires X+1 cards, one being Auction, in exchange for only needing one Auction rather than X Oases. And of course you lose the opportunity you'd get with the Oases to discard other Oases and keep the cards you'd draw, but those are the cards you'd draw anyway if not for having that Oasis.

Yeah this doesn't really hold up.

[Awaclus]

If your hand is one Auction and X Estates, you play Auction and discard those Estates, getting $X. If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X. Essentially, Auction's impact is turning the junk in your hand into Oases.

Well, that it certainly isn't. It's essentially turning the junk in your hand into Coppers.

[Asper]

I still don't see it. After you play Oasis, you continue your turn like normal, except now you have an extra coin, a new card, and 1 less total card in hand. Just like having played a Peddler, except the 1 less total card in hand part. The main point is that it's not something you play at the end of your turn. You can follow it with a terminal, or just continue your engine; drawing and playing all sorts of more cards. Auction is forced to always be the last card you play. It won't cycle your deck; and it won't give you any money at all if you have no unused cards in your hand. If your entire hand is 1 Oasis, then Oasis is basically a Copper. If your entire hand it 1 Auction, then Auction is a Ruined Market.

The fact that you play Auction at the end is a bonus. Auction is better than a mere nonterminal, as order doesn't matter. You can play a Smithy first, draw a single Auction, and make all junk to cash. With Oasis, you'd first have to play one Oasis per junk card and THEN a Smithy. Every Oasis after the first doesn't cycle, either - it just replaces itself with another card you'd have in your hand anyhow if you had gone for a single Auction instead. That's doing a lot for nothing. Comparing one-card hands is neither fair nor realistic. If your hand is a lot of junk with a single Auction, Auction will easily be better than Gold, while Oasis is Peddler. Thinking of the Smithy scenario, that's also far more realistic as a one-card hand.

[LastFootnote]

For what it's worth, Auction briefly cost $3 when I first tested it. It dropped to $2 pretty quickly.

Asper, I can see the parallel that you're drawing between Auction and Oasis. You can look at both of them as cards that turn other cards into Coppers. That said, I don't think Auction makes Oasis look obsolete, not by a long shot. I generally think of Oasis as a card that brings your hand closer to $5. All other things being equal (no discard attacks, etc.), if you played 5 Oases, you'd have $5 and an empty hand. Auction guarantees you $4. And a buy. And it only takes one copy! But $4 is so, so much worse than $5. This is just one way to say that Oasis's +1 Card is huge.

There are a lot of things that factor into card cost besides power level and Auction has multiple things pushing it toward $2. Like Chapel and Courtyard, Auction is not a card you usually want a bunch of. If you're drawing your whole deck every turn, you want one. If you're not, then maybe you want two or three if your deck is full of junk and terminal draw. It seems fine to let you pick up your Auction(s) on an otherwise dud hand or with an extra buy. Usually when I want an Oasis, I want lots of them. Not all of them, necessarily, but quite a few.

The other factor that pushes Auction toward $2 is how much work you have to do to get value from it. Poor House costs $1 and can provide up to +$4! But you have to put a lot of work into making that deck. I think that, on average, Auction is a Treasure worth $1 that gives +1 Buy, which is a pretty weak $2 card. It needs to be paired with a way to increase your hand size for you to get real value out of it.

Anyway, it all comes down to perception and testing. Auction wasn't an attractive option at $3, but players buy it at $2. It's possible that it's not worth a slot at all, but it's doing OK for now. Refurbish is on the chopping block ahead of Auction.

[Asper]

Hmm... I guess you're right. The fact that a multitude of Auctions isn't really great favours a cost of $2. The $4/$5 gap is pretty big, too. I'd suggest to try and pair it up with some big card draw to test how it does there. Smithy/Auction seems like a great opening to me. Maybe you can have a game where both this an Oasis are available, seeing which the others prefer?

[LastFootnote]

Hmm... I guess you're right. The fact that a multitude of Auctions isn't really great favours a cost of $2. The $4/$5 gap is pretty big, too. I'd suggest to try and pair it up with some big card draw to test how it does there. Smithy/Auction seems like a great opening to me.

I think Smithy/Auction is a fine opening if you need the extra buy. Especially if you want a bunch of $2 cards (Native Villages, etc.) so that you can buy two with Auction even if they don't collide. I'm guessing that Auction's average Coin value after a Smithy draw is +$2. So, Silver. And of course, you can always open Smithy/Silver.

Thanks a lot for the critique of the whole set, by the way! I'm working on a reply, but I thought I'd get in on the Auction conversation first.

[Minotaur]

Oasis can be a bit finesse-y.  You at most want as many of them as you have junk or pure VP per hand.  Auction is much more engine-oriented, where Oasis can afford to be a bit agnostic.  And Peddler comparisons are a bit questionable all around, since it just gives you free money without costing any cards or actions at all (unless you draw it dead).  If an Oasis were "just" a Peddler who needs a little fuel, it wouldn't cost $3.  That "just" is an understatement.  It's not a free money- it turns other cards into Coppers, which is a complete deal-breaker when it comes to spamming the suckers.

[GendoIkari]

If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X.

Then you've played Oasis terribly wrong. If you do this, you may as well have just bought Copper instead of Oasis for all X of them.

[Asper]

Hmm... I guess you're right. The fact that a multitude of Auctions isn't really great favours a cost of $2. The $4/$5 gap is pretty big, too. I'd suggest to try and pair it up with some big card draw to test how it does there. Smithy/Auction seems like a great opening to me.

I think Smithy/Auction is a fine opening if you need the extra buy. Especially if you want a bunch of $2 cards (Native Villages, etc.) so that you can buy two with Auction even if they don't collide. I'm guessing that Auction's average Coin value after a Smithy draw is +$2. So, Silver. And of course, you can always open Smithy/Silver.

Thanks a lot for the critique of the whole set, by the way! I'm working on a reply, but I thought I'd get in on the Auction conversation first.

I kind of owed it to you, though i feel you gain less from my feedback than i from yours.

[Minotaur]

If your hand is X Oases, you play those Oases, draw X cards, and discard those same X cards, getting $X.

Then you've played Oasis terribly wrong. If you do this, you may as well have just bought Copper instead of Oasis for all X of them.

Probably just typed too fast.  I'm pretty sure almost no one plays Oasis like that consistently.

[pubby]

I like most of the cards in your expansion, and a few of them are especially good. Still, there are a few that I don't like, and so here are my thoughts. I haven't read through the rest of this thread, so my apologies if this has already been covered.

Jubilee:
I can imagine myself playing an engine that has to buy 2 of these every other turn because it's the only village on the board. I guess some people like that sort of thing, but not me. Even if this wasn't the case, the card just seems dull.

Redistrict:
Seems rather boring and it adds nothing new, especially considering your expansion has several other (and more interesting) trash-for-benefit cards.

Silversmith:
I feel like this should be a "you may trash". Mandatory trashing is silly when there's below-line text. Also, it sounds very weak.

Profiteer:
This sounds like a trap card. Something beginners buy and then they lose the game because of it.

Barrister:
It seems like the type of card you're forced into buying and causes the game to last longer than it should. I'm not a fan of Pirate Ship and Rogue and so I'm not a fan of Barrister. Now, the Domain card is kinda neat and I wouldn't mind seeing it used elsewhere.

Conquest:
The effect is rather mean. I would buy this because if I wanted to be an asshole, not because I wanted to win the game. Also, it doesn't need to be non-terminal.

Harbor:
I like this a lot card, but have you tested it as a big money enabler? It seems like it would be top-tier there.

Vendor:
So I get to look through my discard pile regardless of whether I paid the token or not? Not super excited about this card, but I suppose nothing's wrong with it.

[LastFootnote]

Another simple, clever idea. My favourite of your set.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it! I think of Clerk as the least interesting card in the set. It's just a miniature, cantrip Counting House. It's simple, which is great. It's popular and combos with other cards in the set, so I'm glad I have it.

I'll be honest: I'm not a fan of one-shots. Somehow i feel they go against the whole deckbuilding premise. Sure, not doing any would be wasted design space, but you make it the premise of an entire set. I'm not sure one-shots are a mechanic special enough to carry that. Most certainly it doesn't seem like the kind of set i'd recommend for a beginner to get used to Dominion, if that says anything.

Then again, most of us aren't beginners, and i'm definitely astounded how much variety you achieve while staying inside this one design space. One-shots ARE underrepresented in official Dominion, too, and even if you made a lot of them, there are so many cards that "one-shot-heavy" boards are unlikely anyhow. So i guess personal preference is all i can give as reasons why i'm a bit more sceptical here.

Looking at the individual cards, i see nothing wrong with Jubilee. It's probably balanced, and being the only "hard" trade token one-shot makes it a bit more interesting then it would be without. I guess i can spare you analysis of how good or bad it might be, you know that better than me. Interest-wise, it's good enough, but as there are a few more interesting trade token cards in the set, they steal Jubilee's spotlight. I feel it looks a bit like how Monument would look if Prosperity had not three, but eight +VP cards. So i guess that's another problem i have with having so many trade token cards - individual cards seem less exciting.

Jubilee evolved from one of Donald's outtake cards. It was a two-shot Gold (trash it and gain a Spoils, for $5). I'm not surprised that it died; there's tough competition at $5. But a two-shot Silver for $2 seemed more interesting to me. Something you wouldn't mind picking up with a spare $2. But it seemed like it needed more jazzing up, so I made it a village instead of a Treasure. It hasn't changed from my first printed version except that it goes back to the Supply rather than being trashed.

Anyway, Jubilee is the village you have to keep buying back. But it's really cheap. It's been working out great so far.

I'm not sure what the best use case for this is. It's interesting that what you get isn't dependant on Redistrict, but the card it trashed. Not sure i like the wording, but i guess "the trashed card" would seem to refer to Redistrict itself. I'm a bit indifferent, but it's obviously okay. I probably underestimate it.

In practice, we mostly use it to trash Estates for a $3 card and a $4 card. The second most frequent use case is trashing Curses and Coppers (for nothing). When I created it, I envisioned trashing e.g. a $4 card for a $5 card and a $6 card. Probably I should do that more often. It's working out well, regardless.

Hmm... Now that i think about it, on-gain/on-buy IS a one-shot mechanic... Maybe i'm misjudging this entire thing... Either way, Floodgate seems cute. And it's cheap enough for its ability to be actually useful. I like it.

I don't know why it took me so long to lower Floodgate's cost from $4 to $3. It's a hot ticket at the lower price point.

I didn't like this one at first, but it has some appeal. At least it's not like it's going to harm you at any point. It probably feels unsatisfying to trash it very early, and i don't think the one-time Lab makes up for it. On the other hand i think the idea is clever and interesting, which is why Gambler made it on my list of "other people's cards that i want to print to use myself".

Yes, $3 for a one-shot Lab is not a great value. At least it's a one-shot Lab where the second card you draw is a good one (or you would have trashed it). I sometimes think of Gambler as a "fixed" Lookout. The worst that can happen is that you trash your Gambler. Anyway, the card is swingy, but not problematically so. It has lots of fans.

A Village that rewards you for junk? Hm... I guess gaining some cheap engine components is easy enough, especially early, so you don't have to go for Mill Town megaturns to get something of it. Fine, i think.

It's nice to have cards that give you goals to shoot for. Get this in your hand with 8 Coppers, that's the dream.

I like the on-play, and i realize it interacts with the bottom. Still, i feel it's not as interesting as a whole, maybe because the bottom part is, well, Silversmith. Sorry if i'm being harsh. I'm a bit tired, i hope it doesn't shine through in me spilling unreflected nonsense...

Harsh is good. Honest feedback is how this set becomes better.

Refurbish is popular in my IRL groups, but probably that's just because it's a trasher. Anyway, it's probably the next card I'll cut as I try out new stuff. It's fine, but not special. And I have too many $3 cards right now.

One of the trade token cards i meant when i said there are more interesting ones than Jubilee. Actually i like it quite a bit. It's my second favourite of the set, right now.

Thanks, I'm glad it's been well-received. So far it's working out. I need to buy it more personally to see how it plays.

Not as special as Tinker, but still nice. Very simple to grasp, too. I like it more than Terrace or Jubilee, but i don't really know why. Maybe because it's new?

Well, this version is new.

The fun of Convoy is using a pile of Trade tokens to play the same Convoy a bunch of times. Really great for Mill Town mega-turns. I need to test it more in general, though.

Finally, a way to get trade tokens. If you had none of these, something would feel lacking. In that respect, i like it. The effect as such isn't really special, but not every card needs to be. The token gaining is enough to make it stand out, i think.

Craftsman gets some lot of flak for being an infinite supply of Trade tokens, so it's nice/interesting that you feel it's necessary. Interaction with other Trade token cards aside, it's a solid card by itself. And of course the combos are nice.

Dignitary finally gives us a trashing reaction, so that's cool. I'm one of those people who don't like discarding reaction cards, because i always feel it makes me lose something... Beggar is agonizing to me. Dignitarys reaction is something like a counterpart to its on-play, though, so i guess you just have to decide whether the cards in your hand are too good (keep some for later) or too bad (get something else). Don't know what to do when inbetween, but maybe that's the challenge.

Well, the +2 Cards restores your hand size to 5 (or whatever it was), so hopefully it doesn't feel too bad to discard your Dignitary. At least this version of the reaction is super easy to parse.

I don't really know why, but i kind of dislike Conscripts Profiteer. Conscripts is basically a Silver most of the time, sure, and it can curse other players (once), but it can also be drawn dead. That alone might make some people feel they have been Swindlered. Still, i think my main concern is that Conscripts is pretty complex, especially for a card you can't decide against. I play with quite a few people who are not experienced Dominion players and if i give them a Curse or a Silver, they immediately get that i do something bad or nice. If they think they don't understand a card in the supply, hey, they can just ignore it and buy Smithy instead. Either way, if you don't want to play a Conscripts deck, i can still make you. I think that's really what i mean with "Swindlered" - not that the card is bad, but that the card isn't something i wanted. Sure, there's Masquerade and Ambassador that can give you different cards, but typically you'll get Estates or Coppers, anyhow.

I understand your concern, but eh, it's working well so far. Conscripts is not so hard to parse that I feel bad about handing them out. It's nice to have two uses for Conscripts, and "give each other players Conscripts" is going to feel more different from Barracks that any form of "gain some Conscripts" ever will. As always, you have to adapt to what your opponents are doing. If they're giving you Conscripts, maybe reevaluate that BM-Smithy strategy. Of course, you'll often be able to play the Conscripts before you play the Smithy anyway.

It's allright. Like Convoy and Jubilee, it suffers from the fact they act a bit similar. The effect still seems good enough to be worth the spot, though. as i said, i like Convoy a tad more.

Terrace is sort of a staple at this point. Although I do have a lot of villages. Well, Jubilee and General are only half-villages, so maybe it's a good amount.

Much better than Profiteer. I can see how this avoids my complaints about Conscripts from before... Hmm. It's also clever how you made a semi-one-shot Curser work

Thanks. So far this new version of Barracks is working great. The old "dig for an Attack card" version was cool, but slow.

I don't really like it. It has just too much going on, a bit like a minigame inside a game. Also, isn't Barrister strictly better than Explorer? Again, sorry if i'm harsh. Edit: No, of course it's not. Sorry, i didn't think. Still, i'm not really convinced of the mini game. :/

Yeah, I hear you. It's the wordiest card left in the set. And I mean, one of the cards has to be wordiest, so that isn't killing the card by itself. But I'm not 100% happy with it.

Part of the reason I want to cut it is that I've replace my Thieves with a card that's almost identical to Barrister, but without the Domains.

Bandit
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure other than a Copper, and discards the rest. Gain one of those trashed cards or a Silver, putting it into your hand.

It's less wall-of-text-y without the dividing line. I'd like to replace Barrister, possibly with a cheaper Domain-stealing Attack, possibly with some other Attack. But I just cut Axeman and the set is very Attack-light right now. Any new Domain-stealing attack will probably steal Domains from other players' hands now that Axeman is gone.

Hm, i guess the +1 action makes the most sense when you gain the card in hand... On it's own it probably isn't worth the jump to $5, but i guess buying this with a few Silvers makes it a really worthwile buy. It's good.

Cool.

It seems like not only Domain, but every dual-type card makes this better. Hmm... A Lab that gets an advantage from dual-type cards? That's new. I like it

I'm glad. It's probably the least on-theme card of the set. But unless I come up with a slew of great $5 terminals, it'll stick around.

The "to $6" is the only thing keeping this from being strictly better than Saboteur, which seems a bit thin. Sure, Saboteur is weak and has the greatest effect when hitting Provinces (or, heaven forbid, Colonies), but still it will usually just hit Silvers and such. The +1 action makes this really spammable, too. I think it's too good.
I remembered this is a one-shot set and re-read the text. Of course it trashes itself. I think it's fine.

It's very new. We'll see how it works out.

I had a very similar idea once (Stocks), which also gave a Silver in hand. The biggest difference was that it gave a Silver to the other players, too. That said, your card seems better balanced. I like it.

I wish Fund were more popular in my IRL games. Treasures just seem to be less popular than Actions in general.

It's very simple and looks good. Not sure about the name, though. I feel it implies an attack type, as if you could only return attack cards with it. Good that that's not the case.

I think the idea was that it would combo with Conscripts. It sort of still does, since you can put a Conscripts on top of your deck, giving it another shot at lining up with another Attack.

I think i allready mentioned i like this. Well, if not, i like this. It's nice and easy.

Nevermind, this is at least as off-theme as Convocation. It's been solid so far, though, and hell if I'm cutting another $5 terminal right now.

Good for you that Donald never made the vanilla $4 Peddler... He couldn't after this. It's not bad, but i'm not sure whether doing a Peddler+ at $4 isn't something you should avoid.

I don't know why, but i thought this costed $4... I'm really tired it seems... Either way, Peddler looks a bit weak for $5, but then again the one-shot bonus is really, really nice. I think it's fine.

This version (stronger than the last) is new. Hopefully it'll work out. It's a tough sell. I think there are lots of Peddler-With-A-Bonus cards at $5, but most people are like, "I only get to do it once? No thank you."

The drawback is something i've waited to see on a card, and i think it's nice here. A nice mix of Library, discard for benefit, and Council Room (in a way). I think i like it

Hopefully Donald won't resurrect his version anytime soon (assuming there even is another expansion after Adventures). I was pretty bummed when I thought I'd have to cut Wheelwright.

Thanks again for the critique!

[LastFootnote]

I like most of the cards in your expansion, and a few of them are especially good. Still, there are a few that I don't like, and so here are my thoughts. I haven't read through the rest of this thread, so my apologies if this has already been covered.

Thanks for the critique! I'm glad that you like some of the cards. Which ones do you particularly like? That's good to know as well.

Jubilee:
I can imagine myself playing an engine that has to buy 2 of these every other turn because it's the only village on the board. I guess some people like that sort of thing, but not me. Even if this wasn't the case, the card just seems dull.

Ah, too bad. So far it's been good in practice. Can't please everybody all the time, I guess.

Redistrict:
Seems rather boring and it adds nothing new, especially considering your expansion has several other (and more interesting) trash-for-benefit cards.

Redistrict has some fans. I think it's fairly novel. Basically a one-shot remodel that trashes a card and gains two better cards. No published card does that.

Silversmith:
I feel like this should be a "you may trash". Mandatory trashing is silly when there's below-line text. Also, it sounds very weak.

Non-mandatory trashing is an option I could try. Would you gain a Silver if you didn't trash a card? Refurbish is probably getting cut soon anyway, though.

Profiteer:
This sounds like a trap card. Something beginners buy and then they lose the game because of it.

The first few games it seemed that way. I've bought it and won quite a bit lately, though (against players who didn't buy it). It all depends on if there are other attacks, if there's an especially good use for Gold, if there's trashing/sifting, etc., etc.

Barrister:
It seems like the type of card you're forced into buying and causes the game to last longer than it should. I'm not a fan of Pirate Ship and Rogue and so I'm not a fan of Barrister. Now, the Domain card is kinda neat and I wouldn't mind seeing it used elsewhere.

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not sure how I'd use Domain as it is without an Attack that could steal it, though. I could have a remodel for Domains, but maybe nobody trashes theirs. Hmm, maybe if it was a really strong remodel.

Conquest:
The effect is rather mean. I would buy this because if I wanted to be an asshole, not because I wanted to win the game. Also, it doesn't need to be non-terminal.

It needs to be non-terminal so that you have an Action to play the Action card you just put into your hand. Anyway, Conquest is new and highly experimental. There's a good chance it won't work out.

Harbor:
I like this a lot card, but have you tested it as a big money enabler? It seems like it would be top-tier there.

I can't remember if I did any Big Money stress testing on Harbor, so probably I didn't. It's clearly stronger than Courtyard, although it's also much more expensive. I'll have to try it out later.

Vendor:
So I get to look through my discard pile regardless of whether I paid the token or not? Not super excited about this card, but I suppose nothing's wrong with it.

It might not work out. I've only tried this version in one game so far, and the old (weaker) version was not popular.

Well, about half the cards you named are either brand new (and might be duds) or cards I've been thinking of cutting or overhauling anyway, so I must be doing something right. Thanks again for the feedback!

[pubby]

Which ones do you particularly like? That's good to know as well.

Auction, Floodgate, Convoy, Terrace, Harbor, Conclave, and Wheelwright are the cards I really like.

Ah, too bad. So far it's been good in practice. Can't please everybody all the time, I guess.

If there are fans then it is probably worth keeping, but have you considered something like this?

Jubilee
+2 Actions
You may trash this card, or pay a trade token. If you do, +$2.
------
When you gain this, take a coin token.

That way you could use it as a Necropolis without having to re-buy it all the time, but otherwise is the same.

Redistrict has some fans. I think it's fairly novel. Basically a one-shot remodel that trashes a card and gains two better cards. No published card does that.

Oh, I didn't realize it could gain two cards; I thought it was always just one. That's slightly more interesting, but not fantastic.

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not sure how I'd use Domain as it is without an Attack that could steal it, though. I could have a remodel for Domains, but maybe nobody trashes theirs. Hmm, maybe if it was a really strong remodel.

A transmute-style remodel that cared about the type of card it trashed could be an option? I dunno, just throwing out random ideas.

It needs to be non-terminal so that you have an Action to play the Action card you just put into your hand. Anyway, Conquest is new and highly experimental. There's a good chance it won't work out.

Oh that's right, the +1 Action is necessary. For some reason I forgot that skipped my mind when posting.

[pacovf]

Is it important for you that all possible ways to spend Trade Tokens be roughly equal in powerlevel? You can gain them in a multitude of ways, but in the end it doesn't matter where your TTs come from, you can spend them with any card you choose. So if you balance TT cards in a vacuum and you end up with cards that can spend TTs with different efficiencies, then people will feed all the TTs that come with the less efficient card to the more efficient one, and never use the extra option of the former. I don't know if that bothers you, or if it's a purely aesthetic problem I am raising.

Don't know if this has been done already, but let's compare the things you can do with trade tokens:

- ~Gain a Tokenless Jubilee (Jubilee)
- Gain a card costing up to the cost of two trashed cards (Tinker)
- ~-1 card, -1 action, -1 Trade Token, Gain a card costing up to $5 (Craftsman)

- +3 cards, discard a card (Convoy)
- Discard your hand, draw 5 cards (Terrace)

- Put a card from your discard into your hand (~Barter, Vendor)

Off the top of my head, I am tempted to say that Craftsman is a bit weak in this respect; so is Jubilee, but in its case it might be hard to dissociate from the card itself...? Convoy is a bit strong compared to the rest, but the main effect of the card is somewhat weak for its cost, so that's what you are paying for the chance to spend Trade Tokens more efficiently.

Thoughts?

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think Pacovf raises a very interesting point. I've always only compared the value of a TT token card as a combination of its fix effect and its one-shot effect. But it is appropriate to compare all the effects you can pay a TT for with each other. Trade tokens are a universal currency in your set so you could say they should all be equal in strength. OTOH, one should not forget that it matters a great deal when you get the chance to use a TT for a specific effect. Usually, the more expensive the card using tokens, the more rarely you are able to buy and play it, but there are obviously various other things factoring in. So you might also say, the less frequently you get to play a TT card, the more powerful its one-shot ability may be.

I will try to extend Pacovf's list of features by the "replay potential" of each card.

- Jubilee: Gain a Jubilee without a token. You can do it every other time you play it but you also have to re-buy Jubilee and then it's just a Silver with +2 Actions. But the point of the card is not to replay it anyway but rather gain tokens for other cards.
- Tinker: Gain a card costing up to the cost of the two cards you trashed. There's a good chance you get 2 or 3 Tinkers in a game and will eventually collide them with two cards you can forge into a Province. In that respect, the effect seems pretty strong.
- Craftsman: -1 Card, -1 Action, -1 Trade token, gain a card costing up to $5. It's true that the effect seems weak compared to most other effect. But then again, Craftsman provides infinite Trade tokens and you can get a $5 every other time you play it so it's reasonable the effect is weaker than others.
- Convoy: +3 Cards, discard a card. Like with Tinker, you will probably have a few Convoys in your deck and there will be a point where you play one of them 4 times in a row which will be pretty strong. But as Pacovf already pointed out, Convoy isn't great for $4 without using a token. Also, the benefit of its TT effect is more uncertain than that of most of the other effects.
- Terrace: Discard your hand, draw 5 cards. There are situations where this effect can be very useful. But this situation might as well never come once in a game. I've only played one game with Terrace so far and there it served as a Village and TT supplier for old Cathedral (the combo worked out great). I suppose Terrace's TT effect will be used rarely enough that the fact it has so much potential value is compensated.
- Vendor: Put a card from your discard into your hand. The current version lets you look through your discard pile first which I think is fine for a one-shot effect. I personally think that it's not such a powerful effect that I'm willing to pay $5 to do it once. Will I ever get the chance to get the right card at the right time, and even if I do, will it matter that much? To me, this seems like the weakest of all the TT effects. It's still a good effect but I would slap it on a cheaper card.
- Barter: Put the card you just gained into your hand. This is even more narrow than Vendor's effect but at least you can make sure you get the right card out of it. It's also smart and good that you have an opportunity to get more than 1 TT per Barter you buy. It seems fine.

[pacovf]

I mean, when you say that the point of Jubilee is to gain TTs for other cards, you are proving the point I am making: Jubilee spends TTs so inefficiently, you would rather spend its TTs on anything else, so in the end the player has less choices because you will never use the extra option on Jubilee. The same could probably be said of Craftsman. Of course, sometimes the kingdom will have no extra source of buy or gain, and you will use those options anyway, but still.

IF (big 'if') I wanted to make those two cards more TT-efficient, I would try:
-Craftsman: make the +1 action +1 card independent of Trade spenditure. If that was too strong, downgrade the extra card into +1 coin. And no more tracking whether your Craftsmen are terminal or not!
-Jubilee: this one is tricky because of its low cost and one-shot nature. One idea would be to make the +2 coins conditional on spending the TT, and then make it +3 actions instead of +2 actions just so that it isn't completely terrible when you don't spend trade tokens. You wouldn't be able to use it as a one-shot silver anymore though...

Of course, I don't know if TT comparative efficiency is a big enough issue to change cards that already work fine. Maybe not.

I disagree that Vendor and Barter have weak TTs spend effects. I would classify getting a card from your discard into your hand as roughly equal to Hunting Party in power.

Convoy's TT effect is still the strongest, but maybe the fact that is terminal draw suffice to balance it compared to the others? Dunno.

[LastFootnote]

Sorry it took me so long to respond to these great posts. I was at a wedding this weekend and didn't bring my computer with me.

The idea all along has been that all the uses for Trade tokens are approximately equal. In retrospect, maybe I screwed up badly there. However, it hasn't really been a problem in practice. It hasn't been ruining games, I mean. Now it's possible that that's at least partially a function of my playtest group; they're not top-tier players. But I think there are other reasons, too.

I think you (pacovf and Co0kieL0rd) are correct that Jubilee and Craftsman are probably your worst value for your tokens. Perhaps coincidentally, they're also the least dependent on your hand/deck state in order to do their job. You could stockpile the tokens you get from these two cards, but maybe you won't even be able to use them before the game ends. Maybe you'll draw all your Vendors with no discard pile. Maybe you'll never get your Tinker in hand with two things you want to combine. I think sometimes you're better off using most of your tokens on Jubilees and keeping a couple around in case of emergency.

I wouldn't say that the "point" of Jubilee is to gain tokens for other cards. I think it's fine (even good) that you can do that as long as it doesn't ruin games. So far it hasn't. My most skilled playtester has commented once or twice that he thinks some cards (Tinker and maybe others) are too strong with a cheap source of tokens, but I don't think that's actually panned out in games thus far.

I am loathe to change Jubilee and Craftsman since they've been working out so well in general and haven't been causing issues with other token cards as far as I've seen. Jubilee especially I don't want to complicate and it's nice that it can be a one-shot Silver/Village. I am considering trying Craftsman with +$2 instead of +1 Card/+1 Action. So when you didn't pay a token, you'd get +$2 and take a token. I guess I don't see gaining a $5 card as being that weak. A $4 card that gains a $5 card when you pay a token seems decent, even if it's not spectacular. I actually really like how currently your decision about which way to use Craftsman partially depends on if you have Actions to burn, but I'm willing to give that up. The set is hurting a bit for terminal Action cards.

Other random thoughts:
• I think it's impossible for the token effects to always be perfectly balanced because, like cards, their strength is board-dependent. Vendor is better in Platinum games and Big Money decks. Convoy is way weaker without a village. Keeping your Jubilee is good value when it's your only village and +Buy is available, but not prevalent.
• Convoy's token effect is strong, but each consecutive play is weaker (you have less garbage to discard because you've been discarding it and may not have drawn more).
• If you have a Gold in your discard pile, your token for Vendor is a $3 value. So when you spend a token, Vendor can be +1 Card/+1 Action/+$4. And then it's a Peddler for the rest of the game. That seems plenty strong to me. I actually played a game recently where my Vendors really came through for me. In fact, I actually missed an opportunity to play a village, then a Soothsayer, then a Vendor to grab the Gold. I still won, but that would have been sweet.
• Co0kieL0rd, I have actually found that Terrace's token ability is used pretty frequently. I guess different players have different thresholds for what counts as a bad enough hand that you're willing to spend a token to get a new one. Usually if I have the two Actions from the Terrace and no Action cards to spend them on, I'll pay the token to try to draw some. And of course sometimes your hand is e.g. two cards and you're using the token for draw.

[pacovf]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that there's a problem with the cards. They all do sufficiently different things that where you spend your TTs will depend just as much on what they do as on rough powerlevel. I am mostly arguing for the sake of making some decisions on where to spend your TTs feel like a tough choice.

I think the reason why Craftsman and Jubilee feel weak is because their effect actually costs 2 trade tokens instead of one. You could effectively make Craftsman always gain a trade token, and make the card gaining conditional on spending 2 TTs, and it would be exactly the same card. In a slightly more contrived way, Jubilee "saves" your Jubilee from returning to the supply in exchange of paying a TT, so that's sort of like paying 2 trade tokens for a normal Jubilee, kinda, more or less, sort of.

I definitely understand not wanting to change Jubilee, because it is such a tight card already. But there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding Craftsman:

I am considering trying Craftsman with +$2 instead of +1 Card/+1 Action. So when you didn't pay a token, you'd get +$2 and take a token. I guess I don't see gaining a $5 card as being that weak. A $4 card that gains a $5 card when you pay a token seems decent, even if it's not spectacular.

I'm not saying Craftsman is weak. I am saying that the option to gain a 5$ card is really expensive compared to the other one. I would argue that paying 2 TTs is already more than enough cost to gain a 5$ card, given what one TT can usually do. So, IMHO, whatever else craftsman does, it should do it independently of whether you are spending or taking a TT.

I think you (pacovf and Co0kieL0rd) are correct that Jubilee and Craftsman are probably your worst value for your tokens. Perhaps coincidentally, they're also the least dependent on your hand/deck state in order to do their job.

This is actually a good point that I hadn't thought about.

[LastFootnote]

I am considering trying Craftsman with +$2 instead of +1 Card/+1 Action. So when you didn't pay a token, you'd get +$2 and take a token. I guess I don't see gaining a $5 card as being that weak. A $4 card that gains a $5 card when you pay a token seems decent, even if it's not spectacular.

I'm not saying Craftsman is weak. I am saying that the option to gain a 5$ card is really expensive compared to the other one. I would argue that paying 2 TTs is already more than enough cost to gain a 5$ card, given what one TT can usually do. So, IMHO, whatever else craftsman does, it should do it independently of whether you are spending or taking a TT.

Right. I guess I was talking about changing [+1 Card; +1 Action] to [+$2] just so that you wouldn't have to track which ones you played were terminal.

So when I said that I try to make all token uses about the same value, that value in my mind is about $2. Jubilee's use is probably a little less than that because a one-shot [+2 Actions; +$2] that you are essentially "gaining" is probably not worth $2. (Quick tangent: Jubilee itself does not cost $2. It costs $2 and a buy, which is a small distinction but a meaningful one. One of the reasons costs in the $2 to $4 range are so similar is that you're limited by the number of buys you have. Otherwise you could open $2/$2/$3 on a 4/3 split and fewer of the cards that currently cost $2 could keep that cost.) Vendor and Barter's uses are worth $2 when you're pulling Silver into your hand, the baseline "good" card. Obviously it will often be better than $2, but that's situational. Convoy is better than $2 when you have Actions remaining. Otherwise it's often worse than $2. Tinker, who knows. Seems good so far.

By this metric, I can see what you mean by Craftsman's token-gaining being better than its token spending. [+1 Card; +1 Action; +$2] is usually better than [−$2; gain a card costing up to $5], and certainly strong for a $4 card, assuming you have something better to spend your tokens on. You'll still gain the card sometimes, but dang.

I could just give Craftsman a flat +1 Action, but my set has a dearth of terminal Actions, especially terminal Trade token cards and terminal $5 cards. So here's the new version I'm considering (written in Donald's notation, which I will probably switch to for all my card text blurbs):

Craftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

So when you take the token, it's sort of like Merchant Ship. You get +$2 now and something that's worth about $2 for later. With villages/thrones you may be able to spend the token this turn instead of next, but you know. It's comparable. When you spend the token, it effectively gains you a card costing up to $5 (you get +$2 and spend a token worth $2), which I think is a pretty solid $5 value. I liked a lot of things about the old version, including that it was a $4 card that gained $5 cards, but I think this new version will potentially be better. Opinions?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Craftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

So when you take the token, it's sort of like Merchant Ship. You get +$2 now and something that's worth about $2 for later. With villages/thrones you may be able to spend the token this turn instead of next, but you know. It's comparable. When you spend the token, it effectively gains you a card costing up to $5 (you get +$2 and spend a token worth $2), which I think is a pretty solid $5 value. I liked a lot of things about the old version, including that it was a $4 card that gained $5 cards, but I think this new version will potentially be better. Opinions?

I think it makes sense to try Craftsman as a non-terminal. I don't really get how you calculate the cost-equivalent of "spend a token to gain a card costing up to $5", i.e. why is that ability worth $2? You pay $4 for a Feast and that only works once. I'm not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.

[LastFootnote]

I think it makes sense to try Craftsman as a non-terminal.

Just a flat [+1 Action] and keep it at $4? If I wasn't hurting so badly for terminal $5 cards, I might try that first. But also I think it just looks bad compared to a version that gives +$2. It's just way worse when you play it the first time. Maybe it's not so bad. You can always play it unless you draw it dead. Hmm...

I don't really get how you calculate the cost-equivalent of "spend a token to gain a card costing up to $5", i.e. why is that ability worth $2? You pay $4 for a Feast and that only works once. I'm not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.

Well, Feast is pretty weak. I bet Feast could be non-terminal or give +$1 and still be fine at $4. I think of [Gain a card costing up to $5] as a solid but boring $5 card. Altar costs $6 and trashes a (usually) bad card for you as well. Rogue, Jester, and the like give +$2 and can gain you $5 cards, but are unreliable. I just feel like [+$2; You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5] is likely to work out.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think it makes sense to try Craftsman as a non-terminal.

Just a flat [+1 Action] and keep it at $4? If I wasn't hurting so badly for terminal $5 cards, I might try that first. But also I think it just looks bad compared to a version that gives +$2. It's just way worse when you play it the first time. Maybe it's not so bad. You can always play it unless you draw it dead. Hmm...

Sorry, I miswrote. I meant to say "terminal". I think it's a good idea.

[pacovf]

Oh hey, just wanted to repeat that my "complaint" was on "aesthetic" grounds, and playtesting is what makes or breaks a card. You don't have to change anything if you don't think it's needed!

That being said:

Craftsman: Action, $5
+$2. You may spend a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

So when you take the token, it's sort of like Merchant Ship. You get +$2 now and something that's worth about $2 for later. With villages/thrones you may be able to spend the token this turn instead of next, but you know. It's comparable. When you spend the token, it effectively gains you a card costing up to $5 (you get +$2 and spend a token worth $2), which I think is a pretty solid $5 value. I liked a lot of things about the old version, including that it was a $4 card that gained $5 cards, but I think this new version will potentially be better. Opinions?

New notation, I don't know if I will be able to adapt... In a World that changes so quickly, I thought Enterprise could be my rock. Alas...

Anyhoo, this version looks good at $5, though I am a bit sad to see the 4$ version go. It looks less exciting now, somehow.

[LastFootnote]

Anyhoo, this version looks good at $5, though I am a bit sad to see the 4$ version go. It looks less exciting now, somehow.

Well, it was cool to have a $4 card that gained $5 cards. I could lower it to +$1 and try it at $4, though it's nice to give +$2 rather than +$1 when possible, I think. I liked how before you were unlikely to gain Craftsmen with other Craftsmen. I guess since the $5 version is terminal, you're still unlikely to do that.

[XerxesPraelor]

I like the $4 ness of the previous one, just on aesthetic grounds. It makes it feel akin to armory/workshop / feast in a nice way.

[pacovf]

Anyhoo, this version looks good at $5, though I am a bit sad to see the 4$ version go. It looks less exciting now, somehow.

Well, it was cool to have a $4 card that gained $5 cards. I could lower it to +$1 and try it at $4, though it's nice to give +$2 rather than +$1 when possible, I think.

You could always make it a copper variant. It would be somewhere between Talisman and Quarry. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming.

[LastFootnote]

You could always make it a copper variant. It would be somewhere between Talisman and Quarry. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming.

Like this?

Investment: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

I guess that's an option. Seems like it could work.

[LastFootnote]

[pacovf]

Woh, that craftsman looks quite sexy. Despite the comparison with Merchant Guild, I think you should consider upping it to +2 coins.

EDIT: the big difference with your previous version is that, if you want to gain a card the second time you play Craftsman, you have to buy 2 cards the first time you play it, otherwise you will have to wait until your third Craftsman. The other big difference is that, after that first craftsman, you may be able to gain a 5$ with each Craftsman, as long as you play around it.
The big difference with Merchant Guild is that you have to wait until the next time you play Craftsman to use the tokens, while MG can use them whenever, and that Craftsman can only use tokens to gain 5$ cards, while MG can use tokens to get Provinces and whatnot.

[LastFootnote]

Woh, that craftsman looks quite sexy. Despite the comparison with Merchant Guild, I think you should consider upping it to +2 coins.

EDIT: the big difference with your previous version is that, if you want to gain a card the second time you play Craftsman, you have to buy 2 cards the first time you play it, otherwise you will have to wait until your third Craftsman. The other big difference is that, after that first craftsman, you may be able to gain a 5$ with each Craftsman, as long as you play around it.
The big difference with Merchant Guild is that you have to wait until the next time you play Craftsman to use the tokens, while MG can use them whenever, and that Craftsman can only use tokens to gain 5$ cards, while MG can use tokens to get Provinces and whatnot.

I am considering upping it to +$2. I think it would make it look much more attractive, but I'm leery about its power level. I was initially thinking +$0; just +1 Buy and that's it. But +Buy should almost always be paired with +Cards or +$. The other thing I don't love about the Merchant Guild-style version is, let's say it's the only Trade token card out there. If you get three of them in play and buy 4 cards, that's 12 tokens. Enough that you probably won't run out for the rest of the game. I mocked it up because it would be cool to have a Goons/Merchant Guild style thing for Trade tokens, but I'm not confident it'll work out.

The $4 Treasure version also looks strong to me, but I don't think I can make it weaker. It would probably look awful at $5. I like the idea of a Treasure that gets you tokens when played. In fact, I should really name it Trade Goods or some such. It occurred to me while driving into work today (after mocking up the image this morning) that I could just combine this with the old Investment/Magic Mirror.

Trade Goods: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a copy of a card of you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

How does that look?

[pacovf]

Woh, that craftsman looks quite sexy. Despite the comparison with Merchant Guild, I think you should consider upping it to +2 coins.

EDIT: the big difference with your previous version is that, if you want to gain a card the second time you play Craftsman, you have to buy 2 cards the first time you play it, otherwise you will have to wait until your third Craftsman. The other big difference is that, after that first craftsman, you may be able to gain a 5$ with each Craftsman, as long as you play around it.
The big difference with Merchant Guild is that you have to wait until the next time you play Craftsman to use the tokens, while MG can use them whenever, and that Craftsman can only use tokens to gain 5$ cards, while MG can use tokens to get Provinces and whatnot.

I am considering upping it to +$2. I think it would make it look much more attractive, but I'm leery about its power level. I was initially thinking +$0; just +1 Buy and that's it. But +Buy should almost always be paired with +Cards or +$. The other thing I don't love about the Merchant Guild-style version is, let's say it's the only Trade token card out there. If you get three of them in play and buy 4 cards, that's 12 tokens. Enough that you probably won't run out for the rest of the game. I mocked it up because it would be cool to have a Goons/Merchant Guild style thing for Trade tokens, but I'm not confident it'll work out.

Mmmm, it is clear that any Trade Token that you regularly gain with each Craftsman after the second one will be useless in the absence of extra TT cards, because you can't spend them any faster than that. The only way to fix that would be to let Craftsman spend an indefinite amount of TTs, but I am not sure that's such a great idea with a "gain a $5 card" effect, because of Duchies.

The $4 Treasure version also looks strong to me, but I don't think I can make it weaker. It would probably look awful at $5. I like the idea of a Treasure that gets you tokens when played. In fact, I should really name it Trade Goods or some such. It occurred to me while driving into work today (after mocking up the image this morning) that I could just combine this with the old Investment/Magic Mirror.

Trade Goods: Treasure, $4
Worth $1. When you play this, you may pay a Trade token to gain a copy of a card of you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

How does that look?

Tricky! You have to buy it in advance, but you don't know how long it will take before it will do something for you, and before then it's just a copper. Hard to tell if its effect will be enticing enough for people to buy it. I wonder how it will play in the presence of other TT cards.

[Co0kieL0rd]

These are both nice ideas. Investment is very simple and would probably a good buy on many boards. 2-4 of them in your deck would definitely get you somewhere. Also the card looks very good, aesthetically. The new Craftsman comes up with another interesting TT mechanism that looks viable to me. Although it looks a little weird at first that, unlike all other TT cards, you have to spend 2 tokens to get an effect. Are you sure it's even necessary from a balance standpoint?

I also like Trade Goods, although Pacovf has a point in that it will often take a long time before you can do good stuff with it. Could still be worth it, though, if the board is right. Maybe you could do a playtest with 2 players where one player can only have Trade Goods while to the other player all cards from the Trade Goods pile are Investments. Have you ever tried something like that? Or is it a stupid idea?

[LastFootnote]

Maybe you could do a playtest with 2 players where one player can only have Trade Goods while to the other player all cards from the Trade Goods pile are Investments. Have you ever tried something like that? Or is it a stupid idea?

It's not a stupid idea, but I only know one playtester who wouldn't mind putting up with that. Most of the players I test with are pretty casual. And when I play with that one guy, I'm almost always playing with others as well.

Tricky! You have to buy it in advance, but you don't know how long it will take before it will do something for you, and before then it's just a copper. Hard to tell if its effect will be enticing enough for people to buy it. I wonder how it will play in the presence of other TT cards.

Yeah. I'm hoping Trade Goods isn't an awful opening, honestly. By the time Turn 5 comes around, you should have at least one card in your deck that you want more copies of.

I think Trade Goods is the version I'm going to test first. I prefer when it's an interesting decision when to use your Trade tokens. Old Craftsman was at least a decision based on whether you had extra Actions. Investment and New Craftsman don't really have that so much. Trade Goods will, I think. Do you spend a token now to get a Village, or do you save it to get something better later?



I wish I could have found some more colorful artwork, but this could be worse.

[pacovf]

[LastFootnote]

Man, I thought I'd mistyped "mine" as "mint" or something before I realized the seagull connection.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.

[LastFootnote]

Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.

It's definitely a painting, but it is a bit monochromatic. I think the art on Investment is actually a photo, possibly with a filter applied to it.

[Minotaur]

Maybe you could do a playtest with 2 players where one player can only have Trade Goods while to the other player all cards from the Trade Goods pile are Investments. Have you ever tried something like that? Or is it a stupid idea?

It's not a stupid idea, but I only know one playtester who wouldn't mind putting up with that. Most of the players I test with are pretty casual. And when I play with that one guy, I'm almost always playing with others as well.

Tricky! You have to buy it in advance, but you don't know how long it will take before it will do something for you, and before then it's just a copper. Hard to tell if its effect will be enticing enough for people to buy it. I wonder how it will play in the presence of other TT cards.

Yeah. I'm hoping Trade Goods isn't an awful opening, honestly. By the time Turn 5 comes around, you should have at least one card in your deck that you want more copies of.

I think Trade Goods is the version I'm going to test first. I prefer when it's an interesting decision when to use your Trade tokens. Old Craftsman was at least a decision based on whether you had extra Actions. Investment and New Craftsman don't really have that so much. Trade Goods will, I think. Do you spend a token now to get a Village, or do you save it to get something better later?



I wish I could have found some more colorful artwork, but this could be worse.

More of a Magic Mirror variant?  The token gain/use makes it both cheaper and more flexible.  The set seems to be getting more token gainers lately.  That might not be a bad thing, but it's definitely at the point where you can't balance around the assumption that they're going to be really rare things that you get at most once per buy.

[LastFootnote]

More of a Magic Mirror variant?  The token gain/use makes it both cheaper and more flexible.  The set seems to be getting more token gainers lately.  That might not be a bad thing, but it's definitely at the point where you can't balance around the assumption that they're going to be really rare things that you get at most once per buy.

Trade Goods is meant to replace both Magic Mirror and Craftsman.

[Asper]

Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.

It's definitely a painting, but it is a bit monochromatic. I think the art on Investment is actually a photo, possibly with a filter applied to it.

I personally like the art of Trade Goods. Its monochromatism is something different, and either way not as noticeable on a Treasure. Quarry also didn't fall into a pool of rainbow. The art kind of makes me wish it had some parrallels to IGG, though, with all that Treasures-showing-birds-sitting-on-valuables going on...

[Awaclus]

Since you already mentioned it, I think the artwork on Trade Goods looks too realistic, almost like a photo, not the Dominion style.

It's definitely a painting, but it is a bit monochromatic. I think the art on Investment is actually a photo, possibly with a filter applied to it.

I personally like the art of Trade Goods. Its monochromatism is something different, and either way not as noticeable on a Treasure. Quarry also didn't fall into a pool of rainbow. The art kind of makes me wish it had some parrallels to IGG, though, with all that Treasures-showing-birds-sitting-on-valuables going on...

It sort of does. It gains you good cards, while IGG gives your opponent bad cards.

[Asper]

First i thought it was too weak. "Wow, you need to have a good card in play, and even then you have to spend a Token!" Then i realized that if you bought it early enough, you'd have played it a few times before you'd want to gain a card, anyhow. Using its TT for other cards is really just a minor bonus to me.

The only thing comparable i can think of is Talisman. Talisman is limited to non-VP cards, but as you usually can't play those anyhow, it makes only a minor difference. Both cards are Treasures, which you'll play late in your turn, so timing isn't that different, either. The deal-breaker is the fact that Talisman is limited to cards costing $4 or less, which is pretty huge. On the other hand, Trade Goods can only gain cards you allready have, meaning it will take longer to have an effect. That together with the TT restriction seems fine at $4. Of course you also have to spend a buy on Talisman, so i'd say Trade Goods is better all-in-all. Which isn't much, considering that Talisman isn't exactly a power card. I think it's fine.

[Minotaur]

First i thought it was too weak. "Wow, you need to have a good card in play, and even then you have to spend a Token!" Then i realized that if you bought it early enough, you'd have played it a few times before you'd want to gain a card, anyhow. Using its TT for other cards is really just a minor bonus to me.

The only thing comparable i can think of is Talisman. Talisman is limited to non-VP cards, but as you usually can't play those anyhow, it makes only a minor difference. Both cards are Treasures, which you'll play late in your turn, so timing isn't that different, either. The deal-breaker is the fact that Talisman is limited to cards costing $4 or less, which is pretty huge. On the other hand, Trade Goods can only gain cards you allready have, meaning it will take longer to have an effect. That together with the TT restriction seems fine at $4. Of course you also have to spend a buy on Talisman, so i'd say Trade Goods is better all-in-all. Which isn't much, considering that Talisman isn't exactly a power card. I think it's fine.

Yeah, Talisman sort of dooms itself to being a niche card in a way that this one doesn't.  With Talisman, I just hope that I can ignore it...

[XerxesPraelor]

So how do you find Terrace stacks up to Guide? It seems to me that the Mulligan option on Terrace is more of a bonus, and it's basically just a normal village. It does autocombo with starting engines, because one part is guaranteed, but it's worse when the point of guide is to set up some other combo besides a +Actions/+Cards engine.

[LastFootnote]

So how do you find Terrace stacks up to Guide? It seems to me that the Mulligan option on Terrace is more of a bonus, and it's basically just a normal village. It does autocombo with starting engines, because one part is guaranteed, but it's worse when the point of guide is to set up some other combo besides a +Actions/+Cards engine.

Yes, Terrace is one of the few Enterprise cards that is made less special by Adventures (another being Barter, now that Transmogrify is also remodel-to-hand). I haven't scrapped it yet, let's put it that way. In practice, players often use Terrace as draw-to-X, which isn't so much what Guide does (except against discard attacks). The fact that you can use it mid-turn is significant, is what I'm saying. They play pretty differently.

Astute readers may notice that I changed some names in the set a few months ago. Guide became Convoy and Exchange became Barter (to avoid confusion with the new "exchange" keyword. Don't read too much into it, though. There is no card called "Convocation" in Adventures. I just felt "Conclave" was more what I wanted to portray.

[qazzquimby]

Is there any way trade tokes could work as coin tokens from guilds? Set interaction is good, and it would keep people from needing another kind of token.

Also, if there are updated versions of the cards, as I think I see, could the first page be updated?

[LastFootnote]

Is there any way trade tokes could work as coin tokens from guilds? Set interaction is good, and it would keep people from needing another kind of token.

Also, if there are updated versions of the cards, as I think I see, could the first page be updated?

I haven't yet tested Trade Goods, which is why it's not in the first post. The first post is pretty up to date at this point. I hope to test Trade Goods sometime soon, but Enterprise development has been on hiatus for a little while.

Trade tokens definitely can't also work as Coin tokens with the cards as they exist. It would make them way stronger to have that flexibility. But I use the Embargo tokens from Seaside as Trade tokens. That way you don't need a new kind of token. It works out since Embargo tokens only go on piles and Trade tokens never do.

[NoMoreFun]

Why was Convoy changed? It's so much less interesting now,  the "play it again" makes less sense and it compares too easily to Smithy. The old card was genius.

[LastFootnote]

Why was Convoy changed? It's so much less interesting now,  the "play it again" makes less sense and it compares too easily to Smithy. The old card was genius.

It was way too slow and fiddly, which is a big problem with a card that you may be playing five times in a row. From the little I've played of the new one, it's a vast improvement. I agree it would be nicer if it didn't compare so easily to Smithy. R.I.P., old Convoy.

[NoMoreFun]

Old convoy,  even without the Trade token effect,  is probably the best designed sub $5 terminal drawer I've seen anywhere. It's not quite clear whether it's better than Smithy or not, which is hard to do.

Now you have 2 cards with a somewhat arbitrary looking  "discard a card", could that perhaps be a place to fill with something more investing?

[LastFootnote]

"Discard a card" is definitely not arbitrary on Mill Town; it's an important check on its power and also helps smooth out its swinginess. It's more arbitrary on Convoy. Convoy wants to cost $3-$4 and also be really quick to resolve. If you have any suggestions, I'm open to them.

If you liked OldConvoy without the Trade token ability, well that's great. I don't think I have room for it in Enterprise, but I'll keep it in mind. For me, Convoy's core premise is "play this again", and rest of the card needs to best serve that concept. OldConvoy was crazy fiddly.

[NoMoreFun]

Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. "Thrown in" perhaps? Like you had an idea for a card but it was too powerful for its price point, so you added "discard a card"? Again, it's just how it looks - much more "fan card"y than usual.

A bit short on ideas but if you had a third card with "discard a card" then maybe a penalty card like "Cell" from my set Pandemonium? That's definitely overcomplicating things.

It just doesn't seem like there are many official cards that have a complicated effect with an unrelated discard as a penalty (referring mainly to mill town here). "Discard a card" in isolation is only on Oasis (not including the options on Hamlet). There are plenty of cards with multiple discards but they all seem a lot more deliberate.

IDK, just thinking out loud here.

[NoMoreFun]

You could do "look at 4, draw 2, put 2 back", but that's a well trodden theme and not too interesting fast or fun.

[LastFootnote]

Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. "Thrown in" perhaps? Like you had an idea for a card but it was too powerful for its price point, so you added "discard a card"? Again, it's just how it looks - much more "fan card"y than usual.

A bit short on ideas but if you had a third card with "discard a card" then maybe a penalty card like "Cell" from my set Pandemonium? That's definitely overcomplicating things.

It just doesn't seem like there are many official cards that have a complicated effect with an unrelated discard as a penalty (referring mainly to mill town here). "Discard a card" in isolation is only on Oasis (not including the options on Hamlet). There are plenty of cards with multiple discards but they all seem a lot more deliberate.

IDK, just thinking out loud here.

Well, Mill Town is that way due to testing. Originally it was just +2 Actions up top. Very quickly it became apparent that it was too weak. But just +1 Card (without discarding a card) is super-swingy. If you're lucky, you get two $5 cards on turn 3 or 4. It sucks that it looks tacked on to you, but it's a very deliberate balancing mechanism.

[LastFootnote]

You could do "look at 4, draw 2, put 2 back", but that's a well trodden theme and not too interesting fast or fun.

I considered that, but I think it's very powerful and slow. Really I want to avoid putting stuff back because it's either slow (tougher decision than what to discard) or meaningless (you're going to play Convoy again and draw them) or, with novice players, both.

[NoMoreFun]

Maybe make convoy cost 3 then. IIRC we discussed the trade token cards and they all more or less make sense without the Trade token effects at their costs.

[LastFootnote]

Maybe make convoy cost 3 then. IIRC we discussed the trade token cards and they all more or less make sense without the Trade token effects at their costs.

It's been a while since I changed it, but I think the biggest reason Convoy costs $4 right now is that Enterprise has too many $3 cards and needs more $4 cards. If Trade Goods ends up testing well, then I replace Craftsman with that, so that's just replacing one $4 card with another.

I'm thinking of changing (and renaming) Domain. People complain that the VP is too swingy and luck-based. The concept is a card that you want several of, but can only get from other players. The original version was a Treasure that gained you a Gold if you lined them up, but that was too many hoops to jump though. Steal one, then collide them before they got stolen back? Not happening in most games. Then there was a similar version that let you search your discard pile and get the bonus if you revealed one. That was super wordy and not that compelling. The VP was a good way to make you want Domains in your deck, but not have to collide them.

But now I'm thinking, maybe it's good enough to just make you want to gain Domains, not necessarily make you want to have multiple. It should work out mostly the same.

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I will probably also change Barrister. Right now I've replaced the Thieves in my main set with Bandits, which is basically Barrister without the Domains. With this new version of "Domain", I may try to create a cheaper version of Barrister, probably one that trashes Domains from others' hands.

Barrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.

[Co0kieL0rd]

But now I'm thinking, maybe it's good enough to just make you want to gain Domains, not necessarily make you want to have multiple. It should work out mostly the same.

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I will probably also change Barrister. Right now I've replaced the Thieves in my main set with Bandits, which is basically Barrister without the Domains. With this new version of "Domain", I may try to create a cheaper version of Barrister, probably one that trashes Domains from others' hands.

Barrister: Action-Attack, $4
+$2. Each other player trashes a Domain from his hand (or reveals a hand without Domains). Gain a Domain from the trash.

I think changing Barrister and Domains is a smart move. You split up the 2 (or 3) concepts the original Barrister had over two cards which works better with your objective of simplicity. However, "gain a Gold", while certainly being a good on-gain effect, seems a little boring to me. Plus you already have Profiteer as a Gold gainer. There's probably lots of compelling alternatives for Domain.
Anyway, an on-gain effect is the right way to go. While it doesn't make Barrister less swingy, Domain becomes more balanced and still desirable. It also opens a new strategic route related to Domains; trash them mid-turn and gain them back with Barrister to harness its on-gain effect multiple times!

[LastFootnote]

However, "gain a Gold", while certainly being a good on-gain effect, seems a little boring to me. Plus you already have Profiteer as a Gold gainer. There's probably lots of compelling alternatives for Domain.

I am certainly open to suggestions! The idea behind "gain a Gold" is that it's both very terse while also being compelling for lots of players. I don't mind having two cards that gain Gold in the set, but I also wouldn't mind having something better there.

[Asper]

Domain: Treasure, $3
Worth $1. When you gain this, gain a Gold.

I know this is totally irrelevant since Domain is not in the supply, but it's practically "strictly better" than Cache. I assume you noticed this and don't mind, which is totally reasonable, but i just thought i'd mention it. Maybe you'd want to change the price to 0$ to avoid discussion about why it should be worth $3 instead of 5$ or more. This would also make Domain behave like Copper to most cards besides Barrister, but i'm not sure whether you'd like or dislike that.

[pacovf]

Considering that other players have to trash a pseudo-copper for you to gain Domain, the comparison to Cache is all too apt.

I am not sure this is the way to go for Domain. Maybe another sort of on-gain bonus would win me over, though.

[LastFootnote]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

[Awaclus]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

[LastFootnote]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

I'm well aware, man, but I am spitballing here. "Gain a card costing up to $4" seems awful.

[pacovf]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Part of the problem is that the other players are getting rid of a junk card and you are gaining one (since Domain is basically a Copper). I think it worked before because it was a potentially high yield VP card, so you actually wanted to keep it, despite it holding you down.

I would consider some sort of "when you gain or play this" to help with that (obviously the bonus would have to be made irrelevant in T1 or T2). EDIT: or just on play, but have neo-Barrister gain it to hand.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

It is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.

*EDIT: The attack is comparable to cutpurse, except it's much more likely to miss and do nothing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I think it has to be about as strong as "Gain a Gold". "Gain a card costing up to $5"?

Gaining a card costing up to $5 is a lot stronger than gaining a Gold, though (Altar is a pretty strong $6 while Soothsayer is a pretty weak $5, and their effects other than gaining are pretty much comparable).

It is stronger, but it's also more interesting and more fun. And I don't know that it's too strong. Barrister is a $4 cost terminal silver with an otherwise weak attack*. This would make Barrister more worth going for. So I think "gain a card costing up to $5" on-gain would work fine.

*EDIT: The attack is comparable to cutpurse, except it's much more likely to miss and do nothing.

Mmh, now I think I dislike the fact that the suggested new version of Barrister only trashes a Domain from players' hands and otherwise whiffs. Maybe it could trash (specifically) a Silver from a hand without a Domain? That might be very frustrating, though, if your opponent trashes your only Silver on T3 so... bad idea

[werothegreat]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

[Awaclus]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

It's most certainly not a Poor House at all. Poor House and Auction are similar in the scenario where you don't really even want a Poor House, not in the scenario where Poor House is actually strong.

[LastFootnote]

I just realized that Dignitary's Action is Secret Chamber's Action and Reaction rolled into one.

It's Secret Chamber's reaction plus $2. That had occurred to me.

EDIT: Also, Auction is ridiculous.  It's a premier Tunnel enabler, it's a Poor House with +Buy that can never lose , and lets Storyteller weasel around the 3-Treasure restriction.  Are you sure is a balanced cost for it?

I'm not at all sure. It still seems weak, actually. I'm thinking of adding a Reaction, but if it's a reaction to attacks, then maybe it's too close to Secret Chamber.

[Co0kieL0rd]

While I personally love blue cards, I'm not sure Auction needs a buff, especially if it makes the card more complicated (I thought you were averse to that). However, I think werothegreat way overestimates its power.

Asper and I occasionally test some Enterprise cards, so we might try this version of Auction eventually. It seems more interesting like this and the reaction doesn't make it necessarily stronger because when you use it, you significantly weaken your current hand as well as other Auctions that might be in it.

By the way, we recently tested Harbor and Floodgate (in different games). Harbor is very strong and helped me, like, three times to secure a Province. It's not too strong, a good $5-cost card. In your overview post, you should emphasise more the power that lies in Harbor's versatility. Floodgate is fun to play with and offers some neat interactions (e.g. with Dungeon and Asper's Sultan).

[LastFootnote]

While I personally love blue cards, I'm not sure Auction needs a buff, especially if it makes the card more complicated (I thought you were averse to that). However, I think werothegreat way overestimates its power.

Simple is good, but Reactions are fun. I think it's nice when you can pair a simple Reaction with a simple Action/Treasure.

Auction doesn't need a buff on the boards where it's good, but I feel like those boards are too few and far between. The Reaction is trying to make it pertinent in more games.

Asper and I occasionally test some Enterprise cards, so we might try this version of Auction eventually. It seems more interesting like this and the reaction doesn't make it necessarily stronger because when you use it, you significantly weaken your current hand as well as other Auctions that might be in it.

Yes, it should be a decent reaction to discard attacks, which normally make you more likely to ignore Auction.

By the way, we recently tested Harbor and Floodgate (in different games). Harbor is very strong and helped me, like, three times to secure a Province. It's not too strong, a good $5-cost card. In your overview post, you should emphasise more the power that lies in Harbor's versatility. Floodgate is fun to play with and offers some neat interactions (e.g. with Dungeon and Asper's Sultan).

Thanks again! I'm very glad that the cards played well. Hopefully I'll be able to get in some more testing of my own soon. I'm looking forward to trying out Trade Goods and Raider (which I may rename Racketeer).

[Asper]

I think the reaction is a neat and interesting thing. There's just one problem, and it really irks me: It removes any doubt that Auction is a superior version of Secret Chamber.

I mean, really, action AND reaction part are much more useful, in that the action is nonterminal and gives a buy, while the reaction is actually meaningful, especially against attacks that would harm the card itself.

Edit: By the way, i'd like to state that i really, really enjoyed playing with Floodgate. It's a clever, simple and strategically interesting card.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I agree with Asper that as an action/reaction like this, Auction feels completely superior to Secret Chamber. It nullifies discard attacks now, which is cool, but I'd raise the cost to $3 again.

[scott_pilgrim]

Doesn't Secret Chamber mostly just get used with Scrying Pool and Tactician though?  Turning cards into coin is mostly only good when you can re-draw those cards later; since you have to wait until after your action phase to play Auction, that's a pretty big drawback compared to Secret Chamber.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I have played a couple games with Auction and it seems just fine as-is (without the reaction). I agree with CookieLord that the reaction would make it want to cost $3.  It's okay for it to not be that good some games because I think there will be more games when it'll be useful.
BTW, We've played a couple games with Trade Goods too and liked it.

[LastFootnote]

I have played a couple games with Auction and it seems just fine as-is (without the reaction). I agree with CookieLord that the reaction would make it want to cost $3.  It's okay for it to not be that good some games because I think there will be more games when it'll be useful.
BTW, We've played a couple games with Trade Goods too and liked it.

Wow, thanks! Glad to get some feedback on Trade Goods and even gladder that you liked it.

This new version of Auction is very theoretical at this point. It may very well be that I stick with the current version instead. And if I do go with this new version, it could easily cost $3.

[XerxesPraelor]

I recently played quite a few games containing Enterprise cards (also some of Asper's, cookielord's, and mine) and finally got around to posting my feelings with them.

Auction - often useful in engines as a one-of, I think it's perfectly fine as a 2-cost, though all 10 copies are never needed. Its +Buy is necessary to make it more generally useful, and I often used it as a simple +1 Action, +1 Buy.

Tinker - strong trashing is nice, making the trade token bonus feel like a one-time cool bonus rather than the point of the card. It seems mainly useful for combining 2 estates, which is too bad, but I'm sure in a trashed-deck it would work even better.

Terrace - you want to get lots of villages, which plays well with the trade token mechanic, but it's hard to know when to use: its optimal situation hardly ever comes up.

General - Scheme + Throne Room, which is kind of boring, but both component cards are always fun, so it's not that bad.

Harbor - This one is really fun. It took me some time to figure out that you want to always draw copper, but it's really flexible in a trashed-down deck.

Hoping these short comments are still useful.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Asper and I recently played with some more Enterprise cards and I'm going to give a short review on them;

Tinker is a useful and fun card and I managed to find situations where its Trade token mechanic was very beneficial. I'd say it's balanced.

Barracks is quite strong as an attack and has the potential to be as unpopular as Familiar due to it being non-terminal. Its delayed first attack feels similar to the delayed gaining of your first Familiar. I'm not opposed to it but in many games you won't be able to afford to skip it and to many players this might feel un-fun.

Barter, as a non-terminal Remodel, seems almost ridiculously strong. In a good engine, it gives you huge endgame control. It often feels better than Upgrade. That alone might justify a cost of $6, even without the TT mechanic, which is very nice for building. But maybe "+1 Action" should be the TT mechanic instead? Alternatively, you could significantly nerf its endgame power by having the gained card cost exactly $2 more than the trashed card. This way, you cannot barter a Barter into Gold and then into a Province.

[Asper]

Another multi-fan-expansion game Co0kieL0rd and i had recently featured Redistrict and Conquest. I think the other cards were Sunken City, Decree, Explorer, Hireling, Grand Market and Co0kieL0rd's Provisioner and Builder - the last of which, ironically, provided the cost reduction which enabled one of my Conquests to steal his Province (sorry again for that evil laugh).

Either way, i'd like to state that Conquest, which should improve in multiplayer games, was allready decent in this one (or at leat for me, CL's always seemed to hit my Silvers). Part of this might have been because Sunken City and Redistrict were decent $2s, while there was only one card between $3 and $4, and because there were really nice targets above that to hit. Either way, much fun was had (though it was a more satisfying experience for me, i guess) and Conquest was relatively fun for the kind of attack it is, though maybe a bit swingy.

About Redistrict, it killed the only Explorer ever gained before it got played, and it seemed very helpful that you could trash it when you didn't need it anymore - especially after Sunken City played them automatically. All in all, it seemed nice and small, perfectly priced at $2.

[LastFootnote]

Another multi-fan-expansion game Co0kieL0rd and i had recently featured Redistrict and Conquest. I think the other cards were Sunken City, Decree, Explorer, Hireling, Grand Market and Co0kieL0rd's Provisioner and Builder - the last of which, ironically, provided the cost reduction which enabled one of my Conquests to steal his Province (sorry again for that evil laugh).

Either way, i'd like to state that Conquest, which should improve in multiplayer games, was allready decent in this one (or at leat for me, CL's always seemed to hit my Silvers). Part of this might have been because Sunken City and Redistrict were decent $2s, while there was only one card between $3 and $4, and because there were really nice targets above that to hit. Either way, much fun was had (though it was a more satisfying experience for me, i guess) and Conquest was relatively fun for the kind of attack it is, though maybe a bit swingy.

About Redistrict, it killed the only Explorer ever gained before it got played, and it seemed very helpful that you could trash it when you didn't need it anymore - especially after Sunken City played them automatically. All in all, it seemed nice and small, perfectly priced at $2.

Nice, thanks!

Redistrict has always seemed like good times so far. Glad to see it used on non-Estate cards.

I was honestly planning on replacing Conquest with Raider. It's cool to know that it worked OK, though. Maybe I'll test it a bit more before giving up on it.

[Asper]

Another multi-fan-expansion game Co0kieL0rd and i had recently featured Redistrict and Conquest. I think the other cards were Sunken City, Decree, Explorer, Hireling, Grand Market and Co0kieL0rd's Provisioner and Builder - the last of which, ironically, provided the cost reduction which enabled one of my Conquests to steal his Province (sorry again for that evil laugh).

Either way, i'd like to state that Conquest, which should improve in multiplayer games, was allready decent in this one (or at leat for me, CL's always seemed to hit my Silvers). Part of this might have been because Sunken City and Redistrict were decent $2s, while there was only one card between $3 and $4, and because there were really nice targets above that to hit. Either way, much fun was had (though it was a more satisfying experience for me, i guess) and Conquest was relatively fun for the kind of attack it is, though maybe a bit swingy.

About Redistrict, it killed the only Explorer ever gained before it got played, and it seemed very helpful that you could trash it when you didn't need it anymore - especially after Sunken City played them automatically. All in all, it seemed nice and small, perfectly priced at $2.

Nice, thanks!

Redistrict has always seemed like good times so far. Glad to see it used on non-Estate cards.

I was honestly planning on replacing Conquest with Raider. It's cool to know that it worked OK, though. Maybe I'll test it a bit more before giving up on it.

I'm not sure how Co0kieL0rd feels about it. With Sunken City and Conquest, the game had a good portion of luck, and i feel he was very much at the receiving end. Like, cleaning out my Silvers with Conquest and revealing them with his Sunken Cities, while i stole a Province and Hireling from him. It CAN be a very frustrating card. Maybe i'm seeing this to much through the eyes of the dude who got lucky.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I would like to add that I think Conquest is basically a good card whose main purpose is to steal actions (or treasures) and play them successively. Stealing victory cards is not only frustrating but also extremely swingy. In that specific game Asper talked about it made a 12 point difference! If you were to keep Conquest at all, it should not be allowed to gain victory cards! Trash maybe, but not gain. OTOH, I think Raider is a much better idea, now that I've seen it.

Redistrict is awesome!

[horatio83]

About the bad: Clerk is mispriced, Refurbish is too strong, all the Trade token cards only work well when you play incestously with a lot of them (instead of like most people play, by randomizing cards over all sets), Conclave is only not worse than Lab if there are hybrid cards, Conquest is weak.

About the good: Gambler is a great card, General is a nice TR variant, Harbor is great and Trade Goods is the only decent card with the Trade token idea (as it does not realy on interaction with other Trade token cards).

Huge quality variety; the bad ones really suck but the good ones really shine. I am gonna print Gambler, Harbor and Trade Goods.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About the bad: Clerk is mispriced, Refurbish is too strong, all the Trade token cards only work well when you play incestously with a lot of them (instead of like most people play, by randomizing cards over all sets), Conclave is only not worse than Lab if there are hybrid cards, Conquest is weak.

About the good: Gambler is a great card, General is a nice TR variant, Harbor is great and Trade Goods is the only decent card with the Trade token idea (as it does not realy on interaction with other Trade token cards).

Huge quality variety; the bad ones really suck but the good ones really shine. I am gonna print Gambler, Harbor and Trade Goods.

Looks like somebody is a little pissed off.

Just saying "this card is bad" is no helpful feedback and does not make your point comprehensible. LFN had this coming, though.

Clerk and Redistrict are fine for $2. They aren't that good. I haven't found that a single Trade token card doesn't work well enough if it's the only TT card in the kingdom. From my experience, Conclave is slightly better than Lab about half of the time you play it (I count sifting 3 and drawing 2 as slightly better). It's only worse in decks without Treasures. What experience are your statements based on?

[LastFootnote]

Cards that I have not yet tested, but hope to test someday soon. Not all necessarily for Enterprise

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like Borough. It's very similar to another fan card I've played with a couple times (don't remember where it's from or who it's by), but Borough is more interesting.

I still prefer Domain as a VP card...  The think I don't like about this version of Doman/Lucky Coin is that has no special value for the player who started with the card in their deck.

[pacovf]

Interesting rework of Domain. I like that Pickpocket gains directly from the trash, for the interaction with Trash-for-Benefit. Borough is nice and simple. I think Wanderer has to be playtested to know if it actually works (and/or people actually buy it). Monopoly (ack!) works more cleanly as an event than as an action card, now that you mention it.

[LastFootnote]

Monopoly (ack!) works more cleanly as an event than as an action card, now that you mention it.

So—funny story—the art I decided to use didn't fit very well on a normal card. I realized it would fit better on a landscape card.

[Asper]

Borrough looks nice.

I see you decided to let Wanderer go to the player on your left. Personally, i'm glad you did, though it doesn't change my general concerns with the card.

Pickpocket is a Moat that can gain a single Gold over the course of the game in 2P games. It also gains a Copper, clears out an opponent's deck by a tiny bit and harms his hand for a single turn. I'm really not sure this is worth it, but it might be fine.

About Monopoly, my immediate reaction was the same as pacovf's ("I hate Monopoly!!"). Your card with the same name seems interesting, but i thought i remembered Donald saying something about the terrors of an on-gain discard attack and how unenjoyable they made some Hinterlands games. I also feel it's a bit more political than Taxman is, because Taxman has a much more limited array of options (limited by your hand, limited by what amount of coins you want to reach this turn, limited by the number of Treasures in the game). Obviously you wouldn't gain a card you don't want for this, but if you pick up several parts, i think the order matters. Probably it's fine, though.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like Pickpocket's basic concept (I also like Barrister) but it will have the same issue as one of the early versions of Barrister in that it will often whiff in 2-player games. Now that might not be a problem because if it hits its both good for you (although you basically gain a Copper in addition to your Gold) and a Cutpurse-ish attack (which means it gets even worse in mid- and late-game. Because Pickpocket is so unreliable and Lucky Coin is a burden, I assume it is often best to trash your Lucky Coin and get stronger draw cards and more reliable attacks or cards that are better for your economy. That's why I like Domains better - you will often want to keep those. Maybe there's room on your set for both Domains and Lucky Coin.

[LastFootnote]

I like Borough. It's very similar to another fan card I've played with a couple times (don't remember where it's from or who it's by), but Borough is more interesting.

I'm a bit worried it's too strong for $4, but if it is I could cost it at $5 and possibly give it another small bonus.

I like that Pickpocket gains directly from the trash, for the interaction with Trash-for-Benefit.

Well Barrister also gained directly from the trash for this same interaction. Really the point is that players shouldn't be able to foil Barrister/Pickpocket by trashing their Domains/Lucky Coins. The Trash-for-Benefit interaction is a nice side bonus and also the reason Domain/Lucky Coin cost $3 instead of $0.

Pickpocket is a Moat that can gain a single Gold over the course of the game in 2P games. It also gains a Copper, clears out an opponent's deck by a tiny bit and harms his hand for a single turn. I'm really not sure this is worth it, but it might be fine.

Pickpocket's bonus is +2 Cards rather than +$2 mostly to distinguish it from Cutpurse. You're right that it's pretty unattractive in the cases where it only works once (although in lots of Kingdoms you can trash your own Lucky Coins and then gain them back with Pickpocket). I could just use +$2 (which is at least better than +2 Cards) or I could try for a different bonus. It wants to be short, whatever it is; either vanilla or one line of text. +3 Actions seems interesting, but then you're just getting it for the Actions and the attack is incidental. It could be something like "Gain 2 Silvers" since if you're buying Pickpocket, you ostensibly want Treasures in your deck.

I still prefer Domain as a VP card...  The think I don't like about this version of Doman/Lucky Coin is that has no special value for the player who started with the card in their deck.

I like Pickpocket's basic concept (I also like Barrister) but it will have the same issue as one of the early versions of Barrister in that it will often whiff in 2-player games. Now that might not be a problem because if it hits its both good for you (although you basically gain a Copper in addition to your Gold) and a Cutpurse-ish attack (which means it gets even worse in mid- and late-game. Because Pickpocket is so unreliable and Lucky Coin is a burden, I assume it is often best to trash your Lucky Coin and get stronger draw cards and more reliable attacks or cards that are better for your economy. That's why I like Domains better - you will often want to keep those. Maybe there's room on your set for both Domains and Lucky Coin.

I see what you're saying, but on most boards there's no good way to protect your Domains anyway. You can bloat your deck, and sometimes you can Herbalist it or what have you. But mostly it's luck. And it's no fun to steal Domains early on, carry them (basically Coppers) in your deck all game, and then lose them right before the game ends. I feel like Lucky Coin will mostly function the same (you want to steal them, just like you want to steal Domains), but will be less swingy and also be less annoying to players who hate having their VP stolen.

I doubt I'll have both Domains and Lucky Coins, though it's possible that I will go back to Domains.

I see you decided to let Wanderer go to the player on your left. Personally, i'm glad you did, though it doesn't change my general concerns with the card.

Yeah, I realized that in a 2-player game Wanderers that you play can get back to you pretty fast. I decided I didn't want it to play that differently with more players. It's still usually going to get back to you more slowly with more players, but not as slowly as it would if you passed it to the right.

I hope the concept works out; I think it's a neat idea. If it's not enticing enough, there are things I could change.
• It could cost less.
• It could have a stronger on-buy ability.
• It could have a stronger on-play ability (e.g. +5 Cards). This may seem like a wash, but being able to play the card first is a real bonus, and the stronger the on-play ability is, the stronger the ability to play it first is.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I really, really like Borough and I want to test it soon. I could imagine it's too strong for $4 but we'll see.

I also like Monopoly, and there's not much more to say about it. I just think it's a cute idea.

I don't know about Wanderer... I feel like you should put your deck into your discard pile on-gain rather than on-buy because that actually makes a Wanderer you played come back to you faster. On top of that I would give it another bonus that is only on-buy but you wouldn't do that because that's too complicated.

[Ghacob]

A few ideas I've had on borough:

add: If this isn't the first time you've played Borough this turn
or
make it one per Borough beyond the first
or
make it one per Borough beyond the first, put your chosen card on top of your deck, +1 Card
or
If this isn't the first time you've played borrow, put your chosen card on top of deck, +1 card regardless

Which is really just 3 ideas mashed together to make 4 combinations

[horatio83]

About the new cards, I like Monopoly as it it simple and interactive (in terms of keeping an eye on what the other players do). It is not an Event that will be often used in the presence of decent 5$ cards ... but once in a while you might want to go for a pseudo-overpay handsize attack.

About the bad: Clerk is mispriced, Refurbish is too strong, all the Trade token cards only work well when you play incestously with a lot of them (instead of like most people play, by randomizing cards over all sets), Conclave is only not worse than Lab if there are hybrid cards, Conquest is weak.

About the good: Gambler is a great card, General is a nice TR variant, Harbor is great and Trade Goods is the only decent card with the Trade token idea (as it does not realy on interaction with other Trade token cards).

Huge quality variety; the bad ones really suck but the good ones really shine. I am gonna print Gambler, Harbor and Trade Goods.

Looks like somebody is a little pissed off.

Just saying "this card is bad" is no helpful feedback and does not make your point comprehensible. LFN had this coming, though.

Clerk and Redistrict are fine for $2. They aren't that good. I haven't found that a single Trade token card doesn't work well enough if it's the only TT card in the kingdom. From my experience, Conclave is slightly better than Lab about half of the time you play it (I count sifting 3 and drawing 2 as slightly better). It's only worse in decks without Treasures. What experience are your statements based on?

Pissed off? I have printed three cards from this expansion. ^^

There is nothing per se wrong with the Trade token mechanism. It is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of cards with this set and a bad idea if you randomized over the base game, 9 expansions and some fan card(s) (expansions).
About specific cards, Vendor is Peddler with a one-shot ability to get one extra card and Terrace is a Village with another one-shot ability. Contrary to your claim neither one-shot is worth the price increase of 1.
As I said in my post, this is no issue as long as you play with a lot of cards from this expansion.

About Clerk, it is a slightly weaker Peddler. First, you cannot throne it, second, it is ineffectual with trashing, third, it does nothing during your first move after shuffling. It has some mild advantages over Peddler: like Apothecary it mitigates copper spamming, i.e. it synchs with Goons and it is a decent defense against cards like Noble Brigand or Mountebank. Like for Oasis a price of 3 would be appropriate (of course 2 vs. 3 is not a big issue).

[Asper]

About Clerk, it is a slightly weaker Peddler. First, you cannot throne it, second, it is ineffectual with trashing, third, it does nothing during your first move after shuffling. It has some mild advantages over Peddler: like Apothecary it mitigates copper spamming, i.e. it synchs with Goons and it is a decent defense against cards like Noble Brigand or Mountebank. Like for Oasis a price of 3 would be appropriate (of course 2 vs. 3 is not a big issue).

If you have Coppers in your discard pile, you can absolutely Throne Clerk. It's quite often you have none there, though. Everyone who played Counting House can tell you. I think the fact that it often doesn nothing (and i mean really often) makes it okay for $2. They also don't stack that well, meaning that once your last Copper is pulled from the discard pile, others fail. And as trashing is usually a key to winning, the disadvantage over Peddler is pretty relevant.

About Oasis, obviously it can be worse than Clerk in some situations. But the situations where Clerk is worse are more relevant. Those include games with junking, Alt-VP boards or basically any greening phase. And well, if we allready talk about specific card interactions like Mountebank or Noble Brigand, we should not forget about Scrying Pool games where you discard the cards you draw again later, or Tunnels.

I do admit the power levels of Clerk and Oasis are not too far apart, but as Oasis is a relatively weak card, Clerk isn't strictly better than any existing $2 and also a tad weaker than Oasis, i see no reason to not cost it at $2. Especially as they get worse in multiples.

[LastFootnote]

There is nothing per se wrong with the Trade token mechanism. It is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of cards with this set and a bad idea if you randomized over the base game, 9 expansions and some fan card(s) (expansions).
About specific cards, Vendor is Peddler with a one-shot ability to get one extra card and Terrace is a Village with another one-shot ability. Contrary to your claim neither one-shot is worth the price increase of 1.
As I said in my post, this is no issue as long as you play with a lot of cards from this expansion.

Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.

Terrace works fine; often you just want a village and are willing to pay $4 for it. Obviously it has to cost more than Village since it's strictly better. I have no interest in giving it a more powerful ability, since it's working great as-is.

Vendor might not work out; it's too soon to tell. Certainly others have lamented that you can only use the Trade token ability "once". Power-wise, I think it's a good $5; the one-shot ability can be incredibly strong. But if players don't buy it enough, that in itself is a problem.

My goal is to balance each Trade token card for games with no other Trade token cards. They can get stronger when together, but not crazy, game-breaking strong. So far each of the Trade token cards has been just fine when it's the only such card in the Kingdom.

[horatio83]

Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.

Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.

As have I said, I have nothing against the trade token mechanism. It all depends on how you use these card, i.e. it is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of the card from this set but otherwise it doesn't work well except for Trade Goods which is cumulative and a brilliant card.

[LastFootnote]

Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.

Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.

It's fine to state your untested opinions about whether or not you think the cards seem strong enough for their cost. Some players have tested Terrace though, and I don't recall any complaints about it being too weak. Certainly I don't want to give out two Trade tokens with it.

As have I said, I have nothing against the trade token mechanism. It all depends on how you use these card, i.e. it is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of the card from this set but otherwise it doesn't work well except for Trade Goods which is cumulative and a brilliant card.

What you mean is that you don't think it would work well. It seems to be working fine; not sure what else to tell you.

[horatio83]

Of course I have to point out that you really have no idea whether those one-shot abilities are worth the extra $1 since you've never played with the cards. If your point is that they don't look like they're worth $1 more, that's a reasonable claim and something I keep in mind.

Never claimed to make an empirical claims. Most people here make claims without having actually played a respective fan card. One does not need to have played Vendor to understand that 5 is a bit too costly for a Peddler which can once draw a card from the discard pile or that 4 for a village which can once discard your hand and draw up to 5 is also a bit steep.

It's fine to state your untested opinions about whether or not you think the cards seem strong enough for their cost. Some players have tested Terrace though, and I don't recall any complaints about it being too weak. Certainly I don't want to give out two Trade tokens with it.

As have I said, I have nothing against the trade token mechanism. It all depends on how you use these card, i.e. it is a fantastic idea if you play with a lot of the card from this set but otherwise it doesn't work well except for Trade Goods which is cumulative and a brilliant card.

What you mean is that you don't think it would work well. It seems to be working fine; not sure what else to tell you.

For the zillinoth time, like 99% of all the posts in here mine is theoretical. And of course I never express anything but my own thoughts. And I certainly will not rape the English language via playing these postmodern relativization games, i.e. actually speaking out caveats and natural conditions that underlie one's statement which are obvious to anybody.

[XerxesPraelor]

, sIf you tested it, you could say it doesn't work well. If you didn't, you use the subjunctive. The choice of mood here makes a concrete distinction that is best made that way, and asking people to use correct grammar isn't a postmodern relativization game.

You can say it looks weak, or you can bet that it is weak, but if you say you can ascertain its strength without testing and are subsequently proven wrong, you should lower your confidence in future claims of the same nature.

For what it's worth, I think Terrace is somewhat weak, but that's as a result of testing (admittedly only a few times). I agree they both look weak, but LF is already cognizant of the issue and thinks they're interesting enough to keep, and I agree.

[Asper]

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game with Pickpocket recently, and we felt it was pretty weak and, sadly, irrelevant. He bought one, trashed my Lucky Coin, and that was it. I lost for a turn but got rid of a Copper. He gained a Gold, but also gained a Copper and was left with a Moat that made me needlessly reveal my hand. None of us had the impression he had gained a reasonable advantage, and actually i even felt he was worse off than me.

If you want to build on Pickpocket's idea, maybe players should exchange more of their starting Coppers for Lucky Coins. Of course, the more you exchange, the more you have to ask why Lucky Coin is there at all, and why Pickpocket doesn't simply trash Coppers to gain Gold. Also i think this is not what you are going for.

[LastFootnote]

I think it won't be so very long now until I get back into working on Enterprise. I've already got big plans to cut some cards, add some others, and tweak a couple of existing ones. In the meantime, here's a card idea based very loosely on GendoIkari's dream; specifically the idea of a card in play collecting tokens.



At first I thought I could simplify it by just setting aside the top card of your deck instead, but then if you draw your whole deck, you'd just get the cards you're buying. So I went back to using Trade tokens to track it instead. You don't get to keep the tokens; they come from the "supply" and go back there at the start of your next turn. In addition to rewarding you for buying cards (like Merchant Guild and Goons), it's a nifty counter to junking attacks.

I have no idea whether it's balanced yet, but I plan to test it once I have the time to test things again (which will hopefully be soon).

[LastFootnote]

Co0kieL0rd and i played a game with Pickpocket recently, and we felt it was pretty weak and, sadly, irrelevant. He bought one, trashed my Lucky Coin, and that was it. I lost for a turn but got rid of a Copper. He gained a Gold, but also gained a Copper and was left with a Moat that made me needlessly reveal my hand. None of us had the impression he had gained a reasonable advantage, and actually i even felt he was worse off than me.

If you want to build on Pickpocket's idea, maybe players should exchange more of their starting Coppers for Lucky Coins. Of course, the more you exchange, the more you have to ask why Lucky Coin is there at all, and why Pickpocket doesn't simply trash Coppers to gain Gold. Also i think this is not what you are going for.

I know it's very late, but thank you for testing it! I think I'm going to cut Barrister/Pickpocket and Domain/Lucky Coin for now. It's a cute idea, but it doesn't seem to be working all that well in practice.

[GendoIkari]

I think it won't be so very long now until I get back into working on Enterprise. I've already got big plans to cut some cards, add some others, and tweak a couple of existing ones. In the meantime, here's a card idea based very loosely on GendoIkari's dream; specifically the idea of a card in play collecting tokens.



At first I thought I could simplify it by just setting aside the top card of your deck instead, but then if you draw your whole deck, you'd just get the cards you're buying. So I went back to using Trade tokens to track it instead. You don't get to keep the tokens; they come from the "supply" and go back there at the start of your next turn. In addition to rewarding you for buying cards (like Merchant Guild and Goons), it's a nifty counter to junking attacks.

I have no idea whether it's balanced yet, but I plan to test it once I have the time to test things again (which will hopefully be soon).

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, its effect isn't too different from: will often just be:

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

[LastFootnote]

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Yes, the thought had occurred to me as well. I am definitely open to having it be "+1 Buy; +$1" instead of "+$2", but I may just test it this way first. There are a lot of ways to gain cards. You can…

• Get +Buy from another source.
• Use workshops to gain cards (requires a village, obviously).
• Buy a card that comes with other cards (Cache, Death Cart, Border Village).
• Get cards handed to you by other players (Witch, Messenger).

And another question is, how often will you buy it even when it just gives +1 Card? Maybe often enough.

Part of it is, it would be nice if it were more different from Merchant Guild. But if it doesn't test well like it is, I am absolutely willing to slap +1 Buy on there.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

[GendoIkari]

I would like to see this with +buy on it. Otherwise, it's effect isn't too different from

+.
At the start of your next turn, +1 card.

Yes, the thought had occurred to me as well. I am definitely open to having it be "+1 Buy; +$1" instead of "+$2", but I may just test it this way first. There are a lot of ways to gain cards. You can…

• Get +Buy from another source.
• Use workshops to gain cards (requires a village, obviously).
• Buy a card that comes with other cards (Cache, Death Cart, Border Village).
• Get cards handed to you by other players (Witch, Messenger).

And another question is, how often will you buy it even when it just gives +1 Card? Maybe often enough.

Part of it is, it would be nice if it were more different from Merchant Guild. But if it doesn't test well like it is, I am absolutely willing to slap +1 Buy on there.

Also, it's weird that it uses Trade tokens. I mean, I assume it does because the set already has those tokens included... but if you can't use them with any of the cards that use Trade tokens, because you never get the tokens in your possession, it seems weird to have it mention trade tokens.

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

I don't know if it would feel like Merchant Guild even if the top were exactly the same. Drawing cards at the start of your next turn is very different from getting coin tokens. But I do see your point.

Is it definitely too strong at if it were +, +1 buy? That doesn't seem clear to me; it would usually still be weaker than Wharf I'd think. I guess a good question is what percentage of games would have ways of gaining multiple cards? Given that you need to be able to play the +buy or workshop-variant while also playing this, meaning if it's terminal, you need a village.

I also like the way this would work with junking attacks.

[GendoIkari]

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

This might be a terrible idea, but what if the gained cards went on this card, to provide the tracking of how many? And then put in your discard at the start of your next turn? That would weaken it, of course, as it would increase the chance of cards missing the shuffle. But perhaps it would weaken it enough that +, +1 buy is then balanced? And it would only matter towards the end of a shuffle anyway.

[LastFootnote]

Well it's a convenient way to track it. I don't think I can just say "token", or I would. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were other cards in the set that used Trade tokens in this way. That is definitely on the table.

This might be a terrible idea, but what if the gained cards went on this card, to provide the tracking of how many? And then put in your discard at the start of your next turn? That would weaken it, of course, as it would increase the chance of cards missing the shuffle. But perhaps it would weaken it enough that +, +1 buy is then balanced? And it would only matter towards the end of a shuffle anyway.

That doesn't work if you played more than one Merchant Quarter, though; especially if you gained cards between playing them.

[LastFootnote]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

[Haddock]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though.  Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".

[LastFootnote]

One unfortunate interaction with Merchant Quarter is Procession. If you play Merchant Quarter with Procession, Merchant Quarter is trashed and therefore you can't put the tokens on it. So at the start of your next turn, you can't remove any tokens and don't draw any cards. That's how I'd rule it, anyway. It's an extension of the lose-track rule, applying it to tokens. You can't add tokens to a card if it's not where you'd expect it to be.

That should be fairly easy to fix with a reword though.  Either use a mat or just say "set aside a Trade Token".

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

[Haddock]

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned. 

That way also there's no confusion as to whether you get to keep the tokens  (not that there was much confusion anyway).

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, I like "Set aside a Trade token". But then how do I say to get rid of them? It's not "removing" them anymore. "Return"?

Return the set aside Trade tokens to the Supply and +1 Card per token returned. 

That way also there's no confusion as to whether you get to keep the tokens  (not that there was much confusion anyway).

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

[Haddock]

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

Oh yeah obviously.  Um dunno.

Is the main source of tokens a "Pile"?  Or a "Pool"? Or something... 

[LastFootnote]

Well…there are a few issues. For one thing, I don't think tokens are in the Supply. The Supply is the cards you can buy, and that's it. According to Donald, Events are not in the Supply, even though you can buy them. So I have to assume that the Supply does not include the piles of tokens. And it should also be clearer where the tokens come from. Hmm…

Oh yeah obviously.  Um dunno.

Is the main source of tokens a "Pile"?  Or a "Pool"? Or something...

Well I guess we'd just have to come up with a word since there isn't an official one. I like "pile" except that's a defined term that means pile of cards.

[Asper]

You might want to use "lose". The new penalty tokens from Adventures use that term when removed.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I like the basic idea of Merchant Quarter, especially because of the fact that it gives you tokens whenever you gain a card instead of when you buy one. It's not only practially unlike Merchant Guild and Goons, it also feels quite different and rewards a different strategy. Since it works with several other cards that either give +buy or gain cards, I don't feel like it needs a +buy attached to it, design-wise. It's probably weak without any source of gaining and no junking attacks as well, but a board that has neither is a rare occurence. For most cards there are some situations where they don't fit in at all but for Merchant Quarter I don't think that should be the case very often. Still, on an average board, it's probably one of the weaker -cards but that's totally fine as long as the idea is creative and practical.

[gkrieg13]

I think with the +buy, it just becomes too stackable.  It does change strategy in an interesting way with junking attacks and with other gainers.  I feel like it would be very powerful on the right board.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. For my first tests (which will likely be early November) I've decided to go with the wording you see on that mockup, except with "return" instead of "remove" to make it more clear that the tokens go back to the pile. I'm just not so worried about the Procession interaction as long as there's a consistent ruling.

I'm glad the idea of the card has been well-received. Now that I'm allowing myself to add some Duration cards to Enterprise, hopefully I'll have some more fresh, simple Duration ideas soon.

[LastFootnote]

For those who are curious about the future of Enterprise, here's the link to its imgur gallery: http://imgur.com/a/MsJH8

Anything that's in the OP but not in this gallery, I plan to drop. Anything that's in this gallery but not in the OP, I plan to test (but haven't yet at the time of this writing). I plan to try a $2 version of Wanderer (which is why the image is in the $2 area despite it costing $3) and Raider at $4 (same thing). I will test the Reaction version of Auction, but am totally willing to revert back to the Reaction-less version.

Also, now that Adventures is out, here are the galleries for my prototypes.

Cards: http://imgur.com/a/cWM90
Events: http://imgur.com/a/PmUjy

Mostly they just have different art, but you can see that Events had a mauve border during playtesting (and are that color on isotropic). I'd post a gallery of Adventures outtakes, but I removed them from imgur (this was back when they had a 300 image limit per account). Perhaps I will re-upload them someday.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think it would be cool to build a big engine with lots of extra buys and a few Merchant Quarters, then finish every turn by buying a million Copper, and then be able to draw them all with your Merchant Quarters.

[GendoIkari]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. For my first tests (which will likely be early November) I've decided to go with the wording you see on that mockup, except with "return" instead of "remove" to make it more clear that the tokens go back to the pile. I'm just not so worried about the Procession interaction as long as there's a consistent ruling.

I'm glad the idea of the card has been well-received. Now that I'm allowing myself to add some Duration cards to Enterprise, hopefully I'll have some more fresh, simple Duration ideas soon.

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

[LastFootnote]

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

I don't know, "add" seems fine. But, thank you for making me look at Trade Route! I notice that it doesn't specify which kind of token is being used. Now that I know there is precedent for that, I'll remove the word "Trade" from Merchant Quarter.

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

Here I agree with you. Unless and until this sort of thing receives an official ruling, let's say that it works even if Merchant Quarter leaves play.

EDIT: Hmm, I'm coming around on "add" already, GendoIkari. "Put a token here" seems good. What do you think?

[GendoIkari]

Why do you have "add" a trade token to this? Seems like "put" or maybe "place" would be better. Trade Route uses "put". The Adventures card use "move", but in those cases there's only 1 of the token being mentioned. "Add a token to this" sounds a little weird to me (though not so weird that I noticed it a few days ago).

I don't know, "add" seems fine. But, thank you for making me look at Trade Route! I notice that it doesn't specify which kind of token is being used. Now that I know there is precedent for that, I'll remove the word "Trade" from Merchant Quarter.

As for the Procession ruling, I agree that it shouldn't be a problem with a consistent ruling, but I would lean towards the ruling that it still works. There's nothing in the "lose track" rule that says you can't put tokens on cards that have been moved, so I see no need to alter the normal lose track rule.

Here I agree with you. Unless and until this sort of thing receives an official ruling, let's say that it works even if Merchant Quarter leaves play.

EDIT: Hmm, I'm coming around on "add" already, GendoIkari. "Put a token here" seems good. What do you think?

I also missed that Trade Route doesn't specify a token type, how interesting! That sounds like a perfect thing to copy in this case, then. Everyone seemed to just assume that they could use the coin tokens that came with Prosperity for this; so people would assume they can use a Trade Token that comes with Enterprise.

[LastFootnote]

Everyone seemed to just assume that they could use the coin tokens that came with Prosperity for this; so people would assume they can use a Trade Token that comes with Enterprise.

Not quite! The Prosperity rulebook specifies that the Coin tokens are for use with Trade Route. But the Enterprise "rulebook" can just explain that you can use Trade tokens for Merchant Quarter (and any other similar cards).

[faust]

Merchant Quarter/Masterpiece is a hilarious megaturn setup.

[DragonsDream]

with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?

[Asper]

with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?

Yes.

The point where a card is played is before it is resolved. If a Reaction triggers on playing a card, consider it as if the game freezes for a moment, all Reactions are resolved and only then the attack itself happens. It wouldn't be very useful if Moat protected you only after Witch has allready been resolved. Also compare to the existing reaction Secret Chamber.

[GendoIkari]

with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?

What Apser said is also important in regards to several other "real" cards. For Minion and Pirate ship, you have to choose to reveal a Moat or Secret Chamber before your opponent chooses what they are going to do with those cards.

But... did you mean Dignitary, or some other card? Auction isn't a reaction.

[Asper]

with Auction, when the attack card played is a discard attack like Militia, can you use the Auction reaction first before discarding down to 3 because of the attack?

What Apser said is also important in regards to several other "real" cards. For Minion and Pirate ship, you have to choose to reveal a Moat or Secret Chamber before your opponent chooses what they are going to do with those cards.

But... did you mean Dignitary, or some other card? Auction isn't a reaction.

I think some versions of Auction were Reactions, though the most recent is not.

Also, i really think Merchant Quarter should not reference the physical card. Haven and Gear don't do that, either. Just "set aside a token" sounds natural to me, and "return" as well as "remove", though not defined yet, seem fine. If you are still looking for alternatives, you could also "spend" them, like Butcher does, if you don't like "lose". It implies some level of being optional, but Storyteller allready "spends" without a choice.
Edit: Nevermind, it's weird on Storyteller, too.

[LastFootnote]

I'm finally working on Enterprise again, gearing up to start playtesting. I have some new card ideas, but I'm going to try to test them a few times before posting them here. I have a few thoughts about the existing cards that I would love feedback on. Here are some card images for reference.



• I am going to test the Reaction version of Auction shown above. The main impetus here is to give you another reason to buy it. The top half is especially bad against discard attacks, and the bottom half is a decent counter there.
• I am considering re-costing Redistrict at $0 for two reasons. First, it means that you will never be able to gain another Redistrict by playing Redistrict just to lower the pile. Second, it would be cool to have a $0 card and Redistrict seems like a pretty OK candidate for that.
• It would be nice to have a different—but still terse—bonus on Bookkeeper in order to jazz it up. Something like "Gain a Conscripts", only not actually that. Bookkeeper is helping to fill the Attack quota in the set, but it's not particularly exciting. Perhaps it would be better to replace the attack portion as well/instead. I have been thinking about co-opting dominator 123's Inverse Swamp Hag idea.
• People complained about the current version of Convoy looking worse than Smithy at $4, so as you can see I've bumped it down to $3 and will test it there.
• I plan to test Raider at $4, based on Asper and Co0kieL0rd's playtest. I also plan to rename it "Racketeer".
• I was thinking at one point that perhaps I would turn Conscripts into a Treasure–Attack called "Sword". It would be [Worth $2. When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, trash this and each other player gains a Curse.] Then Barracks would be Bladesmith (and Profiteer would probably stay Profiteer). I am now leaning away from this, but I wanted to know if anybody had an opinion.
• At least one person in this long thread suggested having a card that gains a Conscripts when you trash it. That's a good idea. I initially didn't want to do it because I didn't want the set to effectively have three Curse-junkers, but as long as the card doesn't trash itself, it should be sufficiently hard to do. If I changed Conscripts to Sword, I would call this card "Martyr", but I don't know what to name a card that gains you a Conscripts when trashed. Ideas?
• Barter is no longer so special now that Transmogrify exists, while at the same time it would be nice if all Trade token cards gained a single token when you gained them (not counting ones that give tokens on-play). Maybe I will try to replace it.
• I have another draw-to-X card idea, so I may replace Wheelwright.

• I am dropping Mill Town from the set (at least for now). The set has too many $3 cards and more than enough villages (Jubilee, Terrace, General). Jubilee and Terrace are on-theme, but Mill Town is not.
• I am dropping Conquest. Man, who thought that card was a good idea, amirite?
• I am dropping Clerk. Don't think twice, it's all right.
• I am dropping Refurbish; again I have too many $3 cards. I guess I could try a $5 version.
• Craftsman is being replaced with Trade Goods; I've talked about that elsewhere.
• I am dropping Barrister/Domain (and probably not pursuing Pickpocket/Lucky Coin). Seemed like a cool idea, but I think it's time to let it die.
• I am dropping Conclave. I've been in denial for a while, but it's just too strong too often. I guess I could try it at $6. Hard to say if it's attractive at that price.

EDIT: I totally just updated these images, and in the process costed Redistrict at $0 and renaming Raider to "Racketeer".

[pacovf]

• I am dropping Conclave.

Nooooo don't do it!

[LastFootnote]

• I am dropping Conclave.

Nooooo don't do it!

Well maybe it would be fine at $6. How do you feel about that possibility?

[pacovf]

... a little bit less empty inside?

EDIT: I mean, I think it's a really cool card, and also really simple, so I am sad to see it go. I think it could use an extra shot at 6$.

[Asper]

Conclave could get some friendly interaction. Everybody loves friendly interaction. On gain, for example.

[werothegreat]

Why isn't Raider an Attack?

[LastFootnote]

Why isn't Raider an Attack?

Because I made a mistake! Thanks for catching it. I'll add that when I change the name/type.

[LastFootnote]

Conclave could get some friendly interaction. Everybody loves friendly interaction. On gain, for example.

Well despite it being simple in practice, Conclave is already pretty full of words. Any potential fix doesn't really want to increase complexity. The two obvious avenues I see are raising its price to $6, or removing the +1 Action and (dramatically) reducing its price.

[LibraryAdventurer]

In the couple games I've played with Conclave, it seemed strong but not too strong. There were times it would reveal three actions or three treasures and only draw one card. Is it really too strong as it is? Maybe it would help
if it put remaining cards back on your deck instead of discarding them?

PS: I like how Donald fixed your old Investment card with the Training event.

[LastFootnote]

In the couple games I've played with Conclave, it seemed strong but not too strong. There were times it would reveal three actions or three treasures and only draw one card. Is it really too strong as it is? Maybe it would help
if it put remaining cards back on your deck instead of discarding them?

Hmm, maybe. That might make the card stronger in very trimmed decks, but weaker overall. Neat idea.

PS: I like how Donald fixed your old Investment card with the Training event.

Yeah, I immediately gave up work on Investment once I started playtesting Adventures, since Donald had independently come up with the same idea and created a much better implementation of it.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm excited to see you took up work on Enterprise again and I'll happily give my opinion on your plans

• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.
• Having a card for $0 would be cool but Redistrict seems a touch too strong for $0 (I might overestimate it though). But having it cost $1 would conversely make it even stronger. I dont't know, it seems weird now but I guess we can try it (I say "we" because you can consider me a fix playtester for your set, as long as I find co-testers).
• I'm in favour of making Conscripts a Treasure-Attack because I like the typing and making a card that gives +actions and +$ a Treasure is more elegant (as you can drop the action). Also, it would nerf Profiteer a little which I feels justified.
• I mentioned somewhere that Barter was sometimes ridiculously strong so it's appropriate you drop it if you don't want to change it.
• Why drop Clerk? It's such a simple and elegant little card? What harm does it do? And with Redistrict possibly becoming $0-card, you'd want to keep other $2-cards in your set.
• I'd be a little sad if you'd drop the concept of Domains completely but that's your decision, man. Pickpocket and Lucky Coin, however neat the idea was in theory, definitely isn't practical at all.
• Why drop Conclave? It's a great and unique concept. I might totally work at $6. It doesn't fit Enterprise thematically, though, so maybe it doesn't belong here any more. But...
• I think it's time you made a thread to showcase your cards that you don't want in your set but are otherwise fine (Mill Town, Barrister, Refurbish etc. come to mind). You don't need to work on those any more but at least keep them available to the community for review, just as a nice gesture.

[tripwire]

• I am dropping Mill Town from the set (at least for now). The set has too many $3 cards and more than enough villages (Jubilee, Terrace, General). Jubilee and Terrace are on-theme, but Mill Town is not.
• I am dropping Conquest. Man, who thought that card was a good idea, amirite?
• I am dropping Clerk. Don't think twice, it's all right.
• I am dropping Refurbish; again I have too many $3 cards. I guess I could try a $5 version.
• Craftsman is being replaced with Trade Goods; I've talked about that elsewhere.
• I am dropping Barrister/Domain (and probably not pursuing Pickpocket/Lucky Coin). Seemed like a cool idea, but I think it's time to let it die.
• I am dropping Conclave. I've been in denial for a while, but it's just too strong too often. I guess I could try it at $6. Hard to say if it's attractive at that price.

I just want to say I applaud your willingness to drop ideas even when they are decent ones that you've worked on. It challenges you and demonstrates faith in yourself that you will find something even better. I know I personally have a hard time letting ideas die when I've already put a fair amount of work into them. I often feel like that means I was wasting my time, even though I know intellectually that's not the case. So I just wanted to applaud you for not falling into that trap. It's one of the many reasons that I think you are one of the best fan card creators, and we can benefit from your example even in non-dominion related contexts.

Also: YAY! Moar discussions about Enterprise!

[Asper]

• I am dropping Mill Town from the set (at least for now). The set has too many $3 cards and more than enough villages (Jubilee, Terrace, General). Jubilee and Terrace are on-theme, but Mill Town is not.
• I am dropping Conquest. Man, who thought that card was a good idea, amirite?
• I am dropping Clerk. Don't think twice, it's all right.
• I am dropping Refurbish; again I have too many $3 cards. I guess I could try a $5 version.
• Craftsman is being replaced with Trade Goods; I've talked about that elsewhere.
• I am dropping Barrister/Domain (and probably not pursuing Pickpocket/Lucky Coin). Seemed like a cool idea, but I think it's time to let it die.
• I am dropping Conclave. I've been in denial for a while, but it's just too strong too often. I guess I could try it at $6. Hard to say if it's attractive at that price.

I just want to say I applaud your willingness to drop ideas even when they are decent ones that you've worked on. It challenges you and demonstrates faith in yourself that you will find something even better. I know I personally have a hard time letting ideas die when I've already put a fair amount of work into them. I often feel like that means I was wasting my time, even though I know intellectually that's not the case. So I just wanted to applaud you for not falling into that trap. It's one of the many reasons that I think you are one of the best fan card creators, and we can benefit from your example even in non-dominion related contexts.

Also: YAY! Moar discussions about Enterprise!

Personally, i partly recognize this as the reason why i don't want to organize my cards as a set. I'm not talking about removing cards that are just not good enough, but about cards that are good and still get removed because they don't fit the theme, or because there are too many at that price point allready. It's just an additional condition that i don't want to care about, personally. Clerk for example has always been a card i liked a lot.

Glad to see several of the other changes, though.

[LastFootnote]

Guys, I just want to say thank you so much for your continued interest in, and help with, Enterprise. I'm really humbled and thankful.

Let's get down to brass tacks!

• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.

Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.

• Having a card for $0 would be cool but Redistrict seems a touch too strong for $0 (I might overestimate it though). But having it cost $1 would conversely make it even stronger. I dont't know, it seems weird now but I guess we can try it (I say "we" because you can consider me a fix playtester for your set, as long as I find co-testers).

Thanks again!

When you say that it seems too strong for $0, I take that to mean it seems too strong when you can pick it up for free with an extra Buy. I'm hoping that's not the case. It seems unlikely that you want to load up on them, especially because at the $0 price point, Redistricting a Redistrict is awful. If it were a cantrip I wouldn't even consider costing it at $0, but I'm hoping that a terminal often-one-shot Remodel will be OK there.

• I'm in favour of making Conscripts a Treasure-Attack because I like the typing and making a card that gives +actions and +$ a Treasure is more elegant (as you can drop the action). Also, it would nerf Profiteer a little which I feels justified.

Well, the Treasure version as written is in some ways weaker than Conscripts because returning it to the pile is mandatory when you have another Attack in play (although obviously I could change that). So I'm not sure it would really weaken Profiteer. I guess it would against terminal-draw-BM decks. One reason I'm leaning away from the Treasure–Attack now is that I don't want it to be too similar to Spoils, but maybe that's a silly thing to worry about.

• I mentioned somewhere that Barter was sometimes ridiculously strong so it's appropriate you drop it if you don't want to change it.

On a related note, the set really wants more terminal $5 cards. So replacing Barter with a terminal card would be helping with that as well.

• Why drop Clerk? It's such a simple and elegant little card? What harm does it do? And with Redistrict possibly becoming $0-card, you'd want to keep other $2-cards in your set.

If I drop Clerk and change Redistrict to $0, I will still have three $2 cards in the set: Auction, Jubilee, and Wanderer. Now Wanderer may be a total dud or want to cost more, but even then, a $0 card fills mostly the same role as a $2 card. You can buy them both with a $2 hand.

• I'd be a little sad if you'd drop the concept of Domains completely but that's your decision, man. Pickpocket and Lucky Coin, however neat the idea was in theory, definitely isn't practical at all.

The biggest issue I had with Barrister/Domain is that you're so much less likely to hit Domains as the game moves on and decks get bigger. I'm not sure how to solve that. Also some people hated how much of a VP swing there could be when stealing a Domain. I am thinking about doing some other Copper-replacement stuff, but probably it will be different, and maybe not in Enterprise.

• Why drop Conclave? It's a great and unique concept. I might totally work at $6. It doesn't fit Enterprise thematically, though, so maybe it doesn't belong here any more. But...

I think I'm going to try LibraryAdventurer's suggestion of putting the other cards back on top. If that doesn't work, I may try it at $6.

• I think it's time you made a thread to showcase your cards that you don't want in your set but are otherwise fine (Mill Town, Barrister, Refurbish etc. come to mind). You don't need to work on those any more but at least keep them available to the community for review, just as a nice gesture.

Good idea. I will try to do that today.

I just want to say I applaud your willingness to drop ideas even when they are decent ones that you've worked on. It challenges you and demonstrates faith in yourself that you will find something even better. I know I personally have a hard time letting ideas die when I've already put a fair amount of work into them. I often feel like that means I was wasting my time, even though I know intellectually that's not the case. So I just wanted to applaud you for not falling into that trap. It's one of the many reasons that I think you are one of the best fan card creators, and we can benefit from your example even in non-dominion related contexts.

Thanks a lot! I do attribute a lot of my success, such as it is, to being willing to drop ideas that aren't working out. I'm glad you feel the same way.

[scott_pilgrim]

• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.

Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.

Isn't Secret Chamber mostly only used when you're planning to re-draw the stuff you discard?  That's a clear advantage that it has over Auction, so the presence of Auction on the board probably wouldn't make you less likely to pick up a Secret Chamber anyway.

[Co0kieL0rd]

• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.

Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.

Isn't Secret Chamber mostly only used when you're planning to re-draw the stuff you discard?  That's a clear advantage that it has over Auction, so the presence of Auction on the board probably wouldn't make you less likely to pick up a Secret Chamber anyway.

Well, on most boards there's hardly even a chance for you to be less likely to pick up Secret Chamber as you usually don't pick it up at all to begin with.

[scott_pilgrim]

• Auction is definitely more interesting with the reaction and not too complex in my opinion. The only caveat is that it compares very, very favourably to Secret Chamber. We should test it at $2 but if it seems pretty strong it could easily be raised to $3.

Secret Chamber is super-weak, so I'm not too worried about that comparison as long as Auction isn't strictly better than Secret Chamber. But I agree with your conclusion! I will test it first at $2, but $3 is not off the table.

Isn't Secret Chamber mostly only used when you're planning to re-draw the stuff you discard?  That's a clear advantage that it has over Auction, so the presence of Auction on the board probably wouldn't make you less likely to pick up a Secret Chamber anyway.

Well, on most boards there's hardly even a chance for you to be less likely to pick up Secret Chamber as you usually don't pick it up at all to begin with.

Yeah, but that is kind of my point.  You only pick up Secret Chamber whenever it would be better than Auction, regardless of whether Auction is there.

[NoMoreFun]

Conclave is unfortunate. Such a good idea, but it must be non terminal, and it has to cost $5 because $6 cards tend to have a bit more wow factor to them. Penalties don't seem appropriate.

What might work

Conclave - $5
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck
Put one Action card and one Treasure card in your hand, discard the remaining Actions and Treasures, and put the other cards back.

It just looks a bit clunky.

I like how Redistricting costs nothing 

I miss Refurbish, but I had an idea related to it.
Hsibrufer - $5
Gain a Silver, putting it in your hand
---
While this is in play, when you play a Silver, you may trash a card from your hand.

[convolucid]

Here are a lot of random little thoughts (man, it's hard to jump in to a thread of this size after the fact):

• The corresponding name for Martyr could be whatever the Conscripts were before being trashed. So something like Annexed Village (based on what that card does)
• What's the condition for the Treasure-Conscripts? "If you have another Sword in play, return this [...]"?
• Also for naming, Bookkeeper does not sound like an attack. I have a similar card called Inspector, maybe that name fits here.
• I agree that Barter is a prime target for replacement. It has a whole lot of words, but it doesn't seem any more compelling than its closest relatives.
• Has Committee gotten tested yet? I really like it!
• I agree with the general consensus about Conclave, don't give up on it yet! The simple version with putting the unmatched cards back sounds like the best nerf, especially because it will occasionally feel better for the player despite being worse- say you reveal Gold and Silver. If it needs more nerfs, would it destroy the soul of the card if it couldn't pick up Victory cards?

[LastFootnote]

Good news, everyone! I finally got myself a copy of the font that's used for the titles and types on the published cards and have updated my template. I re-uploaded the images above and made a few changes while I was at it. Redistrict now costs $0 as threatened and Raider has been renamed Racketeer.

• The corresponding name for Martyr could be whatever the Conscripts were before being trashed. So something like Annexed Village (based on what that card does)

Nice idea!

• What's the condition for the Treasure-Conscripts? "If you have another Sword in play, return this [...]"?

"If you have another Attack in play, return this…"

• Also for naming, Bookkeeper does not sound like an attack. I have a similar card called Inspector, maybe that name fits here.

Hmm, could be. In actuality I'm probably replacing the card outright. I like "Inspector", but "Bookkeeper" sounds fine to me, too. A bookkeeper is someone who keeps books of financial accounts, not a librarian. It's basically like a "Bureaucrat" or "Taxman".

• I agree that Barter is a prime target for replacement. It has a whole lot of words, but it doesn't seem any more compelling than its closest relatives.

Well the compelling thing about it used to be: it puts a gained card in your hand right when you need it. Now Transmogrify also does that (albeit only at the start of your turn). Barter is probably different enough from Transmogrify, but its incredible wordiness puts it over the edge for me. I'd rather have a newer-seeming remodel with fewer words. And I do with Tinker. And the set has Redistrict, too. I guess probably I don't need to replace Barter with another remodel.

• Has Committee gotten tested yet? I really like it!

Depends on which version you're talking about! The Committee I plan to test is this one, though I'm not so very excited about it.



But which Committee are you referring to? This one, or the similar one that uses Trade tokens, or the old one that digs for two different cards?

• I agree with the general consensus about Conclave, don't give up on it yet! The simple version with putting the unmatched cards back sounds like the best nerf, especially because it will occasionally feel better for the player despite being worse- say you reveal Gold and Silver. If it needs more nerfs, would it destroy the soul of the card if it couldn't pick up Victory cards?

OK, I will try a put-them-back version. Worth a shot to save a card this popular!

[Co0kieL0rd]

Oh I didn't notice you had a new version of Committee. The one in the post above, I like the idea. Although there's potential it doesn't work out in practise. But I would definitely test it.

Did you not get my latest message?

[LastFootnote]

Things are getting rolling. I tested a new card, Charlatan, last week. Since then I've printed and sleeved the new Redistrict (costs $0) and another new card.

Here is how a Treasure version of Conscripts might look:

Armament: Treasure–Attack, $4*
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.

It's a bit easier to activate than Conscripts, since you can e.g. play a Margrave, draw this with it, and still play it (for the attack, even). On the other hand, because this is a Treasure rather than an Action, the Barracks equivalent doesn't need +1 Action anymore.

Bladesmith: Action, $5
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile, putting it into your hand.

I think I prefer this, especially since so many of the $5 Action cards in Enterprise are non-terminal already. What do you all think, both about Conscripts vs. Armament, and the corresponding change to Barracks/Bladesmith?

[XerxesPraelor]

I like the change a lot. I can't explain why, but it looks aesthetically so much better. (and getting rid of the +action makes it simpler, which is good)

[tristan]

The obvious comparison is Explorer. Explorer is better than a mere Silver hand-gainer as you can sometimes hand-gain a Gold whereas Bladesmith is better as you can sometimes liquidate the Silver in order to curse.
The bonuses sounds roughly similiar to me and as Explorer is not a particularly strong 5$ card (on the other hand it is often underrated, perhaps because its strength is fairly deck-dependent) Bladesmith is probably balanced.

I like the idea of a Treasure attack.

[Co0kieL0rd]

This looks a lot more elegant, as I was hoping for. Could you please repost a link to the complete list of your current cards? I can't find it anywhere and I don't want to search through half the thread to find all the recent changes.

[Gubump]

Things are getting rolling. I tested a new card, Charlatan, last week. Since then I've printed and sleeved the new Redistrict (costs $0) and another new card.

Here is how a Treasure version of Conscripts might look:

Armament: Treasure–Attack, $4*
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.

It's a bit easier to activate than Conscripts, since you can e.g. play a Margrave, draw this with it, and still play it (for the attack, even). On the other hand, because this is a Treasure rather than an Action, the Barracks equivalent doesn't need +1 Action anymore.

Bladesmith: Action, $5
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile, putting it into your hand.

I think I prefer this, especially since so many of the $5 Action cards in Enterprise are non-terminal already. What do you all think, both about Conscripts vs. Armament, and the corresponding change to Barracks/Bladesmith?

Armament looks far better as a Treasure. It's also stronger, since you play it later and it's much easier to actually activate it.

[Gubump]

This looks a lot more elegant, as I was hoping for. Could you please repost a link to the complete list of your current cards? I can't find it anywhere and I don't want to search through half the thread to find all the recent changes.

I would appreciate you doing this as well, LFN.

[Asper]

On the other hand, Bladesmith is now terminal. You can't just chain them, and neither can you trivially play an attack after it. Overall i don't think Bladesmith is stronger than Barracks. Possibly weaker.

Thematically, i like Bladesmith more than Barracks, allthough i think just 'Sword' would have been nicer for a Treasure.

[GendoIkari]

Is there a good reason that Armament costs ? As a general rule, non-supply cards cost except when there was a design reason to do otherwise.

[LastFootnote]

On the other hand, Bladesmith is now terminal. You can't just chain them, and neither can you trivially play an attack after it. Overall i don't think Bladesmith is stronger than Barracks. Possibly weaker.

Thematically, i like Bladesmith more than Barracks, allthough i think just 'Sword' would have been nicer for a Treasure.

I like that you can't chain Bladesmiths. Before Barracks rush could sort of be a thing, but now it should be harder to pull off. I agree that Bladesmith is weaker than Barracks, but hopefully it's still a solid $5 card (especially since Armament is a bit stronger than Conscripts on average).

I could do "Sword", but then I'd want maybe named Profiteer "Arms Merchant" or something. Also, an Armament activating another Armament seems more thematic to me than a Sword activating another Sword. With Armaments, you've got enough firepower to just arm your populace or whatever. And this card has to activate copies of itself in order to work without other Attacks on the table.

Is there a good reason that Armament costs ? As a general rule, non-supply cards cost except when there was a design reason to do otherwise.

Yes! The reason is that Donald changed his stance on it a bit during Adventures testing. Dominion works better when cards cost (at least close to) what they're worth. (Obviously Travellers don't cost exactly what they're worth, but they're closer than $0.) $4 seemed like a nice cost for Armament, so I'm going to try it out a bit. $0 isn't off the table, but there would need to be an actual problem with a higher cost.

[faust]

How many Armaments are there? I think choosing the right number might be important to make Bladesmith worth it in games without other Attacks. Should be at least 10, but I suggest 15 like Spoils.

[LastFootnote]

How many Armaments are there? I think choosing the right number might be important to make Bladesmith worth it in games without other Attacks. Should be at least 10, but I suggest 15 like Spoils.

I will be testing with 16. It will probably be in that range.

[GendoIkari]

Is there a good reason that Armament costs ? As a general rule, non-supply cards cost except when there was a design reason to do otherwise.

Yes! The reason is that Donald changed his stance on it a bit during Adventures testing. Dominion works better when cards cost (at least close to) what they're worth. (Obviously Travellers don't cost exactly what they're worth, but they're closer than $0.) $4 seemed like a nice cost for Armament, so I'm going to try it out a bit. $0 isn't off the table, but there would need to be an actual problem with a higher cost.

Ah, so you think Spoils, Madman, Prizes, etc; would have a different cost if printed today?

[Asper]

I see a good reason to make Travellers cost something else than $0*: It makes it easier to get them in order even if you don't know the cards by heart. I'm not sure i'd like non-ordered non-supply cards to cost something else, personally. Even if the reason is just that it comes off as inconsistent.

[LastFootnote]

Ah, so you think Spoils, Madman, Prizes, etc; would have a different cost if printed today?

Possibly. It's hard to say. I mean it's significant that e.g. Mercenary can be Princed, despite being way stronger than your average $4 card.

I see a good reason to make Travellers cost something else than $0*: It makes it easier to get them in order even if you don't know the cards by heart. I'm not sure i'd like non-ordered non-supply cards to cost something else, personally. Even if the reason is just that it comes off as inconsistent.

I also enjoy consistency, but there are a lot of reasons to cost non-Supply cards more appropriately. Many cards (like Prince, noted above) care about the cost of cards. It's good to be able to use remodel and other trash-for-benefit cards on them. And of course Attacks treat the cards differently; $0* cards are strangely immune to Knights, yet Swindlers can give you Curses for them.

[LastFootnote]

Could you please repost a link to the complete list of your current cards? I can't find it anywhere and I don't want to search through half the thread to find all the recent changes.

I would appreciate you doing this as well, LFN.

I'm currently in the process of updating all my cards with more correct fonts and styles. Once that's done (hopefully tonight), I will repost the link to the Enterprise imgur album.

[Asper]

Many cards (like Prince, noted above) care about the cost of cards. It's good to be able to use remodel and other trash-for-benefit cards on them. And of course Attacks treat the cards differently; $0* cards are strangely immune to Knights, yet Swindlers can give you Curses for them.

Well, if Mercenary was a Traveller, i suppose it would cost $4*, to show it comes after a $3, and could still get Princed. Same for Madman (which doesn't work either way). And, well, Haven and Feast can't really be Princed, so the card has some weird interactions anyhow. I wouldn't say the guy is a very good way to determine how accurate a card's price is.

Summon, Seaway, Inheritance etc don't work on Mercenary regardless of price. So the events are out, too. Same goes for Haggler, Border Village, Band of Misfits etc. Generally, all things that interact with the supply are out.

Sage skips over Mercenary, but not over Warrior. Okay, that's a point.

Also, here's what Donald X wrote about Trash-for-benefit and Prizes:

They always cost $0. They need a cost because some cards care about card costs. There are various arguments for why they should have what cost, but I think a crucial one in favor of 0$ is, that it makes it extra clear that you cannot actually buy them. I also like that you don't think, "oh man the correct play is to Remodel my prize."

I don't know whether he changed his mind on this, but unless he did, this speaks for itself. You could probably argue whether what applies for prizes applies for other non-supply-cards, though.

What's left? Maybe something like Sage or Prince i forgot. Correct me if there's something missing. Other than that, trashing attacks and cards that gain from the trash. Of the second, Graverobber is also TFB and Rogue also a trashing attack. So, what's left are trashing attacks.

I'll admit some of these are a bit odd. Warrior is a special case, as depending on how high you price Madman, Spoils, Mercenary or Prizes, the outcome might be the same. Giant/Rogue/Knights can trash Champion, and i'm not sure that's so good. But yes, they also don't trash Mercenary, which i think would be in the target range normally. And Swindler and Saboteur are definitely a bit strange, i'll admit that. On the other hand, we are down at specific card interactions, here. Trashing attacks and Sage? At this level we can just say "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

Not like Scheme/Prince or Feast/Prince or Fool's Gold/Sage or Swindler/Peddler killed the game, either.

[Nic]

Okay, I think I'm caught up with the last few pages. I was skeptical about Conscripts as a treasure at first, but after seeing Armaments I'm convinced. Would prefer $0* in the price corner, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

The buff to Auction was definitely needed. It was not great at $2, even in games with a lot of draw. I really don't think there's any reason to worry about its price.

Sad to hear about Clerk and Mill Town. I just played a game today with Clerk, (as well as Jubilee, Terrace, Barter, and Wheelwright) and it was always funny when the other guy drew them at the top of his shuffle.

When you update the OP, please throw in a topdecking Conclave. I want to try that out.

[LastFootnote]

So, here's the link to the Enterprise imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/MsJH8

I don't plan to update the OP until I've actually tested more of the new stuff, but here's a little gallery and I'll talk about about the state of each card.



Man, almost none of these have been tested in their exact current form. How embarrassing. Well that will be rectified soon enough.

Redistrict: I'm going to try this out at $0. Functionally, a $0 cost is similar to a $2 cost in many ways when it's on a card that you don't want a million copies of. The idea here of course is to prevent you from ever Redistricting something into another Redistrict and therefore running out the pile.

Auction: The reaction half is new. Who knows how that will play out, but I'm hoping the card will be a bit less narrow.

Jubilee: A small change: you now wait to return it to the Supply until Clean-up. This means that 1) it's easier to track that you got +2 Actions and +$2; and 2) you can't buy back the same Jubilees you returned on your turn, meaning slightly more pile-based player interaction. #2 there is incidental, but I don't mind it.

Wanderer: Completely untested. May be a total dud! If nobody buys it at first, there are lots of avenues for improvement while keeping the base concept intact.

Charlatan: We tried it in one game without +1 Action and it was a dud. Now it has +1 Action.

Convoy: I lowered the cost to $3 because of complaints about how it looks next to Smithy. Probably it's fine at $3; we'll see.

Floodgate: A card I haven't changed recently, huzzah!

Gambler: And another one; two in a row. Gambler is a love-it-or-hate it kind of card, and also maybe too strong? For now it's still in.

Tinker: Sometimes I still wonder if this should cost $4. Anyway we tested it at $3 a bunch months ago and it was good times.

Committee: Untested. I don't have high hopes for this one, but it's here in the file in case it turns out to be awesome.

Dignitary: I'm trying out a new version of the Reaction here. You can only use it once per turn (regardless of how many Dignitaries you have in hand), and trash one card with it. I'm open to going back to "discard this and trash a card, then draw 2".

Profiteer: The only change is that Conscripts has been replaced with Armament. I guess we'll see.

Racketeer: Asper and Co0kieL0rd tested this at $5 and thought it should be cheaper, so I'm going to try it at $4.

Terrace: Same as it ever was.

Trade Goods: Untested. Hopefully a fixed Craftsman. Craftsman was fun, but didn't play real nicely with other token cards, since the token-getting ability was so much stronger than the token-using ability. Trade Goods tries to be a little more balanced there.

Bladesmith: Barracks, but without +1 Action and with Armament instead of Conscripts. I have high hopes.

Conclave: You put the other cards back rather than discarding them. I'm not optimistic, but everyone wants to save Conclave, so let's give it a shot.

Fund: I wish Fund were more popular in my testing group. It seems good power-wise, and other folks who playtest my cards have bought it and like it. Anyway it hasn't changed.

General: Same as before. No longer on-theme, but a very simple and classic-feeling card.

Harbor: Harbor's sort of all-purpose, you know? Maybe too strong for $5, hard to say. Anyway it's been popular in my testing group. It's still the same.

Vendor: I like Vendor, but maybe I'm the only one. People look at it and think, "I only get to do the ability once?" Sometimes Terrace gets that too. Anyway, sometimes you don't have a discard pile, so you can't use Vendor's ability every time anyway. And when you do use it, the boost can be huge. But that doesn't alter the fact that it looks bad to a lot of players. Anyway, I'll test it a bit more.

Wheelwright: Still the same. Maybe I don't need this and Study, but Study may be awful or crazy, so Wheelwright remains here for now.

Wishing Ring: Untested. I came up with this, realized it sounded familiar, looked back through other fan sets, and realized it's very close to NoMoreFun's Cargo. Which I guess he was going to replace anyway? Then I looked to see what I'd said about Cargo and it turns out I liked it, phew. Yay, consistency! Anyway…Wishing Ring has wording to handle Durations. It's different/weaker than Cargo in that it gains a card costing up to $1 more (instead of exactly; it can't trash Coppers for nothing), but stronger in that the trashing is optional. Anyway I'm going to try it out. It looks weak, but being able to play a card and then trash it is pretty powerful. And it's much more versatile than Procession (can trash and gain non-Actions).

Study: Untested. A "during your next turn" Duration. I'm waffling between this version that makes you draw before resolving (but after putting into play) each Action card, and a version that draws after you resolve each Action card. Both are potentially nuts with Vault-style cards, especially Artificer. I'm hoping that this version is the less-crazy version.

[XerxesPraelor]

Enterprise seems to be developing a treasure theme, and all the treasures look solid. I think that's good.

A possibility for Racketeer, if it turns out to be too good at $4, would be to change the +$2 to "Gain a silver" to fit into that theme and make it, like Bureaucrat, harder to stack.

EDIT: A possible version of Charlatan that is less board-variant could have this text on the bottom:

"Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's buy phase, they must buy a card."

[Co0kieL0rd]

Hey, you snuck in some new cards! Just a few quick thoughts here:

Your minor tweak to Jubilee is very clever for the reasons you named!

I'm a fan of Committee's design but I can't tell if it might work out. I really hope it will because the more I think of it, the more I like it.

So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it? For Dignitary this makes sense but is it necessary for Wishing Ring? It looks weak next to Upgrade, at least while you use it for Copper trashing, and it cannot trash Estates! Compared to Procession it doesn't look much better, either, because the action card you want to trash gets played one less time and there's this buzzkill restriction on top of that. The cost difference is significant and for $5 I'd rather see a Silver+. All that aside, the idea is cool and fits in the set thematically.

...other than Study? It seems pretty strong, kind of like a friendly minion that allows you to build to draw-up-to-X engine using cheap non-terminals. But that's fine, for $6 you expect an impactful card. As you mentioned, there might be some ridiculous power combos out there but those already exist plenty among official cards.

Racketteer has a bear? 

[scott_pilgrim]

So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it?

I was just writing a whole post where I confused myself about the "once this turn" on Wishing Ring, but then I figured it out by the time I got to the end so I deleted it.  The "once this turn" is there to clarify that each Wishing Ring can only upgrade one card that gets discarded.  Without that phrase, each one can upgrade any cards you want.  And as it is written, it is technically correct and consistent with Dominion grammar.  But I think it will be very confusing for players who are not already very familiar with Dominion rules.  I can't think of a better wording off the top of my head.  Right now I would say it's better to just have it do its thing when you play it (I assume LastFootnote didn't do this because of the lose track issues that might arise with things like Herbalist or Alchemist, but those are just a few interactions which I think is not as bad as having a seemingly ambiguous wording every time the card is out).

[XerxesPraelor]

So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it?

I was just writing a whole post where I confused myself about the "once this turn" on Wishing Ring, but then I figured it out by the time I got to the end so I deleted it.  The "once this turn" is there to clarify that each Wishing Ring can only upgrade one card that gets discarded.  Without that phrase, each one can upgrade any cards you want.  And as it is written, it is technically correct and consistent with Dominion grammar.  But I think it will be very confusing for players who are not already very familiar with Dominion rules.  I can't think of a better wording off the top of my head.  Right now I would say it's better to just have it do its thing when you play it (I assume LastFootnote didn't do this because of the lose track issues that might arise with things like Herbalist or Alchemist, but those are just a few interactions which I think is not as bad as having a seemingly ambiguous wording every time the card is out).

I wonder if it would make infinite turns with Storyteller/Graverobber/King's Court possible?

[LastFootnote]

So the "once per turn" on Dignitary and Wishing Ring does not only count for the card it's written on but for all copies of it? For Dignitary this makes sense but is it necessary for Wishing Ring? It looks weak next to Upgrade, at least while you use it for Copper trashing, and it cannot trash Estates! Compared to Procession it doesn't look much better, either, because the action card you want to trash gets played one less time and there's this buzzkill restriction on top of that. The cost difference is significant and for $5 I'd rather see a Silver+. All that aside, the idea is cool and fits in the set thematically.

Oh, I can see where this would be confusing. But uh, the two effects are in different places and have different scopes.

Dignitary's "Once per turn" is a global effect that happens to be written on Dignitary itself because that's when it matters. Like Embargo's under-line effect. So you can only use the Dignitary reaction once per turn, period. Though each player's turn is a separate turn, so you could use it once per player that attacks you.

Wishing Ring's "Once this turn" is just an effect that gets set up when you play it, but you get to choose when to activate it this turn. So if you play multiple Wishing Rings (or one Wishing Ring multiple times via e.g. Counterfeit), you may use the remodeling effect once per time you played it. It's like Scheme. I believe Scheme could be written "Once this turn, when you discard an Action card from play, you may put it on top of your deck" and have the same effect but with way fewer words.

EDIT: Yes, what scott_pilgrim said. I did not anticipate there being so much confusion about this wording, though I guess I can understand it. I suppose Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, but that would be lots of awful tiny text. It can't just do its thing when you play it without creating awful tracking issues with Durations. I guess I could say "non-Duration card", but it would be nice not to have to.

Racketteer has a bear? 

Man, you show me a good piece of art that better communicates "racketeer" and I will be happy to use it. This is the best I could find!

[LastFootnote]

I guess Wishing Ring could say: "When you play this, choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it."

It's still more words, but probably it's clearer. It's mostly functionally the same, though if you play e.g. Bank after it, you can't upgrade the Bank.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I guess Wishing Ring could say: "When you play this, choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it."

It's still more words, but probably it's clearer. It's mostly functionally the same, though if you play e.g. Bank after it, you can't upgrade the Bank.

I was indeed misguided by Wishing Ring's current wording so I welcome this suggestion. With those few cards where play oder matters you'd just have to be more careful.

[Asper]

Couldn't Wishing Ring just do its effect when it itself is discarded from play? Like:

"When you discard this from play, you may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card."

[Gubump]

Couldn't Wishing Ring just do its effect when it itself is discarded from play? Like:

"When you discard this from play, you may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card."

1) Counterfeit can't double that.

2) This recreates the whole duration-tracking problem.

[Asper]

Couldn't Wishing Ring just do its effect when it itself is discarded from play? Like:

"When you discard this from play, you may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card."

1) Counterfeit can't double that.

2) This recreates the whole duration-tracking problem.

1) Counterfeit is only a single card. It's not like you can double Hoard or Talisman with it.

2) Bonfire comes from a set with Durations and does the same. Allthough i admit Bonfire doesn't give an incentive to trash, e.g. Hireling for a King's Court. Thinking of it, i agree that it's worth trying to avoid this.

[Awaclus]

1) Counterfeit can't double that.

It can if that text is not under a dividing line.

[Accatitippi]

Man, you show me a good piece of art that better communicates "racketeer" and I will be happy to use it. This is the best I could find!

Maybe calling it something like extortionist or arsonist will make it more easy to find good art for? I also think it would fit better into Dominion's general theme. Racketeer sound very modern to my non-native ears.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Have you recently thought about renaming your set? Because there are quite a lot of cards that seem to not fit very well thematically, either by name or by image; like Conclave, Floodgate, General, Racketeer, Wanderer, Redistrict, Wishing Ring, Armorsmith. Rather, you seem to have some military sub-theme going on.

[Gubump]

1) Counterfeit can't double that.

It can if that text is not under a dividing line.

It would be under a dividing line, though, because "this" can only be discarded from play once, just like how it could only be in play once.

[Awaclus]

It would be under a dividing line, though, because "this" can only be discarded from play once, just like how it could only be in play once.

It doesn't have to be under a dividing line. "This" can only be discarded from play once, but multiple effects can be triggered by a single event (in this case, those effects would be "You may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card." and "You may trash it or a card you have in play. Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card.").

[Deadlock39]

Counterfeit will trash Wishing Ring, and thus prevent it from being discarded from play, so the number of effects it tried to create don't matter.

[Awaclus]

Counterfeit will trash Wishing Ring, and thus prevent it from being discarded from play, so the number of effects it tried to create don't matter.

Well, it did successfully create those effects, too. The effects just won't ever do anything unless there's a way to discard it from play regardless of Counterfeit.

[A Ladder]

I don't think I understand Redistrict. Could someone explain?

Is this the correct way to handle it?

Let's say my hand is Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate,  Redistrict

I play Redistrict and trash my Estate to gain a Silver. Then, I can trash Redistrict to gain a four cost?

BTW: Fantastic Fan Expansion LastFootnote

[Gubump]

I don't think I understand Redistrict. Could someone explain?

Is this the correct way to handle it?

Let's say my hand is Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate,  Redistrict

I play Redistrict and trash my Estate to gain a Silver. Then, I can trash Redistrict to gain a four cost?

BTW: Fantastic Fan Expansion LastFootnote

Correct.

[Asper]

Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.

That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)

[Awaclus]

Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.

That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081

[Gubump]

Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.

That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081

While we're on the subject of that logical fallacy (somebody agreeing with you is not proof or even evidence), here's a quote two posts later, which says the opposite: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528109#msg528109

The only way I'll agree with you is if Donald X Vaccarino himself confirms what you've been saying.

[Awaclus]

Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.

That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081

While we're on the subject of that logical fallacy (somebody agreeing with you is not proof or even evidence), here's a quote two posts later, which says the opposite: http://http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528109#msg528109

I could link my response to that post one post later, which has well-grounded arguments that show why your linked post is wrong, but I think everyone can just read the entire thread without us linking it here post by post.

[Gubump]

Firstly, i think the claim that the line alone makes the difference is a "Cum ergo propter" fallacy. The line is always accompanied by a specific wording, usually beginning with "when". Saying that one of both, the line or the wording, on its own "causes" the effect to be set-up different than by play, neglects the fact that Dominion is a game, and information might be intentionally presented in a redundant way to ease understanding.

That said, second: Wishing Ring could use Scheme's wording, to set up its effect for the start of cleanup: "At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing $1 more."
(Note how this above-line wording decidedly avoids the word "when", using "at" and "if" instead)

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528081#msg528081

While we're on the subject of that logical fallacy (somebody agreeing with you is not proof or even evidence), here's a quote two posts later, which says the opposite: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13966.msg528109#msg528109

I could link my response to that post one post later, which has well-grounded arguments that show why your linked post is wrong, but I think everyone can just read the entire thread without us linking it here post by post.

EDIT: Okay, after reading some of Donald's posts in that thread, I agree with you.

[LastFootnote]

Today, a game with Wishing Ring, Redistrict, Floodgate, and Harbor.

I printed the "once this turn" version of Wishing Ring, and although everybody guessed how it worked correctly, nobody was 100% sure. People still find Redistrict's wording confusing, too, and I am once again considering changing it to always trash itself. "Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it and a card costing exactly $2 more than it. Trash this." Hopefully that's at least clear.

Wishing Ring was almost exclusively used as a Feast for Gold, which is not ideal, but I'm willing to give it another shot before changing it. It was also used to turn a dead Throne Room (played without other Action cards) into a $5 card.

Redistrict was popular. Sometimes it was bought with $1 hands, so the cost change was significant. In addition to trashing Estates, it was used to trash e.g. Bureaucrat for a $5 and a $6 card.

I bought three Floodgates, one early (that I Redistricted next turn), and two late. It was nice for moving two otherwise dead Throne Rooms to my next hand.

Only I bought Harbor this game. It's strong, but I was pretty far behind.

[XerxesPraelor]

I just realized that with the change, there's a great symmetry between Conclave and Harbor. Both deal with the top three cards of your deck, put some of them into your hand, and put the rest back in any order. They still feel different, but it's another cool connection.

[Asper]

Yes, it appears Donald X and the rulebook go d'accord with Awaclus.

Either way, i think the wording with a line is better. Also, you could try the card at $3, producing $0. As you can't trash Estates with it, i don't think it's too strong.

[NoMoreFun]

IIRC after playtesting "Cargo", which is Wishing Ring as it is now with "trash in play" wording, it just didn't seem right. That game had Hoard and I remember lamenting having too many cards costing $6 in my hand to make use of the effect other than to gain more "annoying" Golds and Hoards. Probably not the ideal playtesting game, and I wasn't playing particularly seriously, but I didn't enjoy the card anywhere near as much as I thought I would.

Most recently IIRC I changed it to "Degree", a card costing $4 that could only gain Action cards and produced $0, but I never playtested that version. The idea was to make it more distinct from Counterfeit, and have there be a real decision point between using it to trash Coppers and trashing itself.

There's probably a good card with some combination of effects.

[LastFootnote]

IIRC after playtesting "Cargo", which is Wishing Ring as it is now with "trash in play" wording, it just didn't seem right. That game had Hoard and I remember lamenting having too many cards costing $6 in my hand to make use of the effect other than to gain more "annoying" Golds and Hoards. Probably not the ideal playtesting game, and I wasn't playing particularly seriously, but I didn't enjoy the card anywhere near as much as I thought I would.

Most recently IIRC I changed it to "Degree", a card costing $4 that could only gain Action cards and produced $0, but I never playtested that version. The idea was to make it more distinct from Counterfeit, and have there be a real decision point between using it to trash Coppers and trashing itself.

There's probably a good card with some combination of effects.

For me, the fun of the card should be trashing good cards for better cards. So I very intentionally made Wishing Ring not able to meaningfully trash Copper (without Poor House, Redistrict, cost reduction, etc.). Now I'm wondering if I should remove the self-trashing as well, even though it's on-theme in the set. "When you discard this from play, you may trash another card you have in play and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it." Probably at that point I try it giving +$2.

EDIT: Also, if this card survives, I will probably name it "Trade Goods" and rename Trade Goods to something else.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Asper and I played a game with four of the shiny new Enterprise cards and it was quite fun and very tense in the end.

Redistrict, Coin of the Realm, Wanderer, Hermit, Committee, Magpie, Nomad Camp, Council Room, Wine Merchant, Study

Asper opened with a Committee and I, reckless trasher and engine-enthusiast that I am, made him gain green junk before I realised that Magpie might be a pretty good enabler for a Duchy-based strategy. Consequently, with two Duchies in his deck, Asper committed to Committee (see what I did here?) and went for a Duchy-Magpie-rush, trying to pile drive the CotR pile for a surprise ending. Meanwhile I struggled to make the engine work, drew my deck frequently but was lacking payload ($8 per turn max).
When Asper was starting to choke on green, I had to surmount his huge lead with 8 Duchies and 2 Provinces (30 points). I was threatening a surprise Province by Redistricting a Study but never found the right time for it. We both played suboptimally and I managed to take the tie with 5 Provinces (or else I would have lost).
I only bought the Study for the sake of curiosity and it wasn’t any more useful to me than Gold. Still I realise the card has potential with the right synergistic cards on the board. They just weren’t there this time. We both bought a Wanderer and kept passing them back and forth until in the late game we were reluctant to pass it. Although I think it was even less useful to me than to him in the end. I bought Redistrict for $2 in the opening and only once spent a spare buy on it so a cost of $0 seems to work out very well for it. OTOH, I think I could have used it better.

Committee was the most interesting card here because the first two times you play it you give your opponent some control over what kind of deck you are going to get. If he gives you Duchies, you might have to adapt your strategy to that. But since the other options of Committee (Masquerade or Laboratory) are so good you can hardly ever ignore the card when it’s on the board. And when you evaluate it you always have to ask yourself two questions: “What would I do if I get a Duchy?” and “Would I give my opponent a Duchy?” And that makes this card very interesting and actually one of the most cleverly designed fan cards I’ve ever seen.

[Asper]

Some more things: I also needed Coin of the Realm so my Committees could chain into other cards while still gaining Duchies. The Magpies picked up the Coins and Coppers, the Duchies made me gain Magpies, the Coins enabled the Committee. A 3-card interaction, so to speak.

That said, i think Committee is worthwile only if gaining Duchies benefits you on the overall board. The reward of lining your only Duchy up with Committees is too little, and if gaining Duchies is bad for you the other bonuses won't make up for it. This was a fun board to play Committee, though, but even there i only made a draw. Mostly i was lacking the +buy to pick up the remaining CotRs in the end, and totally missed i could have had them quickly with Nomad Camp. Co0kie had a Committee of his own. I always had him trash because i didn't want to share the Duchies with him and it lowered his buying power overall (he was drawing his deck either way)

When picking cards, i figured Council Room would interact interestingly with Study, as an opponent's Study wouldn't benefit him after my Council Room. As only CL bought them, we ccouldn't check on this.

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for testing the cards, guys! Certainly I can believe that Committee is too weak on the average board. Two options I can think of there are:

• Requiring you to reveal a Duchy from your hand, rather than discard it.
• Up it to +3 Cards and raise the price to $5.

Or both. Of course I can also change what the options are. I do like having the vanilla bonus of +Cards, since you might draw a Duchy and it helps a lot of the potential options (+1 Action, trash a card, etc.).

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm not saying it's to weak, although I think having you reveal, rather than discard, a Duchy would also be fine. I'm against raising the cost to $5. It's good enough as a potential Lab and with revealing a Duchy it should work well enough in engines.

[NoMoreFun]

I didn't notice the "up to" on Wishing Ring. Making it a Silver is probably fine in that case as its going to be used quite sparingly (probably to help with greening most of all) rather than every time it's played.

I think the "procession" effect is more interesting. An idea that could be the "procession" to Scheme's "throne room" (and General's "King's Court")

Royal Assent
Treasure - $2
Worth $1
You may trash an Action you have in play. Gain an Action card costing exactly $1 more than it, putting it on top of your deck.

(Exactly $1 more so it can't be used to run down piles, and $2 because it's far more niche and non spammable)

Up to your design philosophy how often you want any given card to be useful. I've grown to love cards that are only occasionally very good like Coppersmith but they can be a hard sell. Wishing Ring (Silver, "up to", and no self trashing) has something that looks like it could be useful in most games (turning $4 actions into Duchies as you're finishing up), but also has more interesting uses, and at the very least you've got a Silver so you never have huge buyers remorse.

Using the Scheme wording to make it an action (something simple like a Peddler or even a Village) might also work well

[LastFootnote]

Two games last night with Co0kieL0rd, using his cards, my cards, and published cards.

The first game had Wanderer, Charlatan, Profiteer (w/Armament), and Study.

There were no extra buys and Charlatan's attack never mattered, but we nevertheless bought out the Charlatans because they had combos with Study and Armament. So uh, not a complete loss there. All ten Wanderers were also gained. I opened Orphanage/Horn of Plenty and we both had Benefits, so Wanderer was a nice pickup when we needed a $2 card. I believe we each got a Profiteer, although I regretted mine, since I was primarily going for a Study deck. Finally, Study itself combos nicely with Orphanage and CHarlatan. Often we were able to get 3 cards out of Study, though once we played a Wanderer, that was it for Study's usefulness that turn. Still it seems strong overall. If it's too strong, probably I will reduce it to +$2, but I'll need to play several more games to get a handle on it.

The second game had Dignitary, Bladesmith, Fund, and Wheelwright.

It was a close game despite me losing the Curse split 8 to 2. I had a couple of Dignitaries that helped me trash a few Curses, and were otherwise good for helping me line up my terminal Actions with my villages. I am torn on whether I prefer this new reaction (Once per turn, when another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal a Dignitary from your hand, to trash a card from your hand) or the old one (When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this, to trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards). I'm leaning slightly toward the old version. Bladesmith was good. I like that it's terminal, but I wonder if it's too weak now. It certainly seems weak once the Curses are gone, and potentially even before that. I bought one Fund, but never had a good reason to activate it. Co0kieL0rd got at least 2 Wheelwrights, and I gained Coppers to hand pretty frequently near the end of the game. Fund and Wheelwright still seem good, though Fund may someday die (*sniff*) because it's not bought terribly often.

[minovsky]

Kingdom card .xcf documents!

FloodgateCombo.xcf
2 Auction
2 Redistrict
3 Floodgate
4 Craftsman
4 Terrace
5 Axeman
5 Cathedral
5 Conclave

MillTownCombo.xcf
2 Clerk
3 Gambler
3 Mill Town
4 Committee
4 Dignitary
5 Barrister
5 Barter
5 Wheelwright

GeneralCombo.xcf
2 Jubilee
3 Convoy
3 Refurbish
4 Profiteer
4 Vendor
5 Barracks (put Conscripts in hand version)
5 Fund
5 General

i am interested in printing this set. is this *.xcf still the most updated? (or is there an updated pdf?) i am sure this gets ask a million times so pls excuse me.
and pls pardon my ignorance, is there a way to see the history of a post so I can follow what are the edits made to the set?
thanks and can't wait to try this!

[LastFootnote]

No, those are quite old. I'll post again today with more recent versions.

[LastFootnote]

Now is a bit of a transitional period for Enterprise; many of these cards have less testing than I would like. But in order to have a good mix of cards, I put in some of those newer ones as well.

You need GIMP to open and print these, I believe. It's freeware, which you can find here: http://www.gimp.org/

The important thing to remember is that, when you print these, set the height of the image to 236mm (and the width should automatically become 182.09mm or thereabouts). You should be able to do so in your printer dialog, and that seems to be the most reliable place to set it.

EDIT: Print just one test page first to make sure the cards are the size of actual Dominion cards! If not, you can adjust the printing parameters accordingly.

1Basic.xcf has 8 cards that don't use Trade tokens (Fund, Redistrict, Dignitary, Wanderer, General, Gambler, Charlatan, and Harbor). You'll need to print 10 copies of it so that you'll have 10 of each card.

2Tokens.xcf has7 cards that use Trade tokens (Jubilee, Convoy, Tinker, Terrace, Trade Goods, Racketeer, and Vendor), plus one extra card (Wheelwright). You'll need to print 10 copies of it so that you'll have 10 of each card.

[LastFootnote]

3aMisc.xcf has the two cards that use Armaments (Profiteer and Bladesmith), so you'll need to print out 3b as well if you want to use them. It also has two other cards (Study and Auction). You'll need to print only 5 copies of it so that you'll have 10 of each card.

3bArmamentFloodgate.xcf has Armaments (for use with Bladesmith and Profiteer) and Floodgate (a Kingdom card). You'll need to print only 3 copies of it so that you'll have 12 of each card.

4Outtakes.xcf has four cards that are no longer in Enterprise due to not fitting in, etc., but have been popular cards that you may enjoy (Mill Town, Refurbish, Clerk, and Conclave). If you want to use these, you'll need to print only 5 copies of it so that you'll have 10 of each card.

Please let me know if you need any help or if there's a particular card you had your eye on that isn't in these files. Thanks!

[minovsky]

You need GIMP to open and print these, I believe. It's freeware, which you can find here: http://www.gimp.org/

The important thing to remember is that, when you print these, set the height of the image to 236mm (and the width should automatically become 182.09mm or thereabouts). You should be able to do so in your printer dialog, and that seems to be the most reliable place to set it.

thanks! this is my first time using gimp, pls bear with me.. when you say set the height, do you mean go to "Image" then "Print Size"?

[LastFootnote]

You need GIMP to open and print these, I believe. It's freeware, which you can find here: http://www.gimp.org/

The important thing to remember is that, when you print these, set the height of the image to 236mm (and the width should automatically become 182.09mm or thereabouts). You should be able to do so in your printer dialog, and that seems to be the most reliable place to set it.

thanks! this is my first time using gimp, pls bear with me.. when you say set the height, do you mean go to "Image" then "Print Size"?

That used to work for me, but for later versions of GIMP, my printer ignored those settings. I had to set them in the printer's dialog itself. So when I went to Print, there's a place for image size settings and I set it there. You can try "Image" then "Print Size" and see if it prints the right size, but if it doesn't, you'll need to adjust the settings when you actually print. And those print settings are different for each printer.

[Auto-Destruct Sequence]

Would you be willing to update the first page of the thread to show the current version of the cards AND any cards that were once in the set but removed due to non-play balance issues?

[LastFootnote]

Would you be willing to update the first page of the thread to show the current version of the cards AND any cards that were once in the set but removed due to non-play balance issues?

Done.

I played part of a 4-player game with Racketeer today and it was very clear that it was just making the game awful. So we quit and put in another card instead. I will try a version that reveals the top 2 cards of each other player's deck, so it'll be like a cheap Dame Sylvia, but with the Trade token protection. I will also decide on a version of Wishing Ring to try, which I will name "Trade Goods" (having renamed Trade Goods to "Stockpile"). Until then there is no version of either card in the OP. Likewise, I'd like to try Committee at least once before adding it to the OP.

[LastFootnote]

Two Intrigue/Enterprise games today.

• Redistrict wasn't a big player. I worry that the $0 price tag makes it unattractive. "This costs $0, it must be weak." But probably I try this version a while longer. It's been fine in other games.

• The new Auction (with Reaction) was popular. Early on I used it to discard 3 Estates after playing Harbor, which was nice. It was a Minion game and the Reaction got used a lot. The top three of the final four scores were 32, 31, and 30. The winning player had zero Minions. I (at 31 VP) had three, and I think the 3rd place player had 6 of them.

• Jubilee was bought a bit, despite there being a lack of +Buy in the kingdom. Seaway was available, but only one player (the winning player) bought it. I hadn't printed out the new version, so we were using the version that went back to its pile immediately, but that wasn't a factor this game.

• Floodgate was mostly bought toward the end of its game, though I got one once earlier to put a dead Nobles into my next hand, along with a Copper.

• One new player liked Gambler. Man it remains a popular card. Guess I'm keeping it around for a while.

• Tinker seemed good and was popular, though I didn't get any myself, choosing to trash with Dignitaries (it was the Minion game, so no shortage of Attacks played).

• Dignitary still seems fine in its current state. I briefly tried a [once-per-turn trash a hand card] version of the reaction, but I like this [discard this, trash a hand card, draw 2] version fine and I think it's less confusing.

• My first IRL game with Stockpile. Seemed strong, but of course it's a Copper when you're not paying a token. I think it's stronger than e.g. Talisman, but that's totally fine. It's definitely not strictly better. It got weaker once the Nobles ran out.

• Harbor seems solid, and that's the best thing I can say about it. I don't think most people find it exciting, but it pays the bills, so to speak. If I eventually have enough good cards, probably I replace it someday.

• Vendor got bought. One of my regular playtesters still thinks it's no good without other ways to amass tokens, but man I like it fine so far.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Whenever I played a game with Asper or Fragasnap recently we also included some Enterprise cards so I got a lot of insight into many cards from your set. I'll try to recollect my memories here:

If you want cursing, Bladesmith gets the job done but I think it compares poorly to other cursers due to its delayed cursing. Amassing Armaments is probably usually not what you want in a game. It worked out fine in our latest games because those were using other attack cards. Bladesmith really benefits from those, otherwise it seems a little weak to me.

I already mentioned this but Committee is a very interesting card with some strategical depth. You should give it a try!

Convoy was used in one game for great benefit by Asper. But he might be able to tell your more about it.

We have been using Dignitary with the "once per turn" clause because that's the version you gave me. The reaction was used once, I think. The action is good as-is.

Floodgate is awesome and gets used frequently.

Profiteer seems quite good. We had some games where your early decision-making revolved around Profiteer, one where Gold was unattractive and one where giving other players Armaments was beneficial. This was due to other, very particular fan cards though.

I don't know why the price should play any role in deciding whether you buy Redistrict or not. When you want a trash/remodel-type of card you get it. Maybe your game didn't have the right board for it. In our game we bought several of them.

Tinker is great and the Trade token effect often useful.

Trade Goods (Stockpile) seems pretty good, way better than I expected.

Wishing Ring (Trade Goods) is even better! Although we had two games with it that had other cards than Gold costing $6 you wanted. In that case it's very good but should also do fine in other games.

[LastFootnote]

I made a new Racketeer to try. Here's the image, but I'm going to test it before putting it in the OP.

[LastFootnote]

Two Enterprise/Empires games yesterday (nice to finally be able to say that). And also some Intrigue/Enterprise games on Tuesday.

Wanderer: As I feared, I am the only one who is buying this in my real-life games. Although in an online game with Co0kieL0rd (and I think Asper too), we all bought it. Anyway, I won the IRL games in which I bought Wanderer, so it doesn't seem too weak. But if there are enough games where nobody wants it, I'll have to cut it.

Bladesmith: I'm sure Barracks was this way too, but man, Bladesmith hands out Curses fast. There's a pretty big delay before it does, which may or may not be enough to save it. I'm optimistic.

Conclave: I finally tested the version that puts the undrawn cards back on your deck (which you can see in the OP), and I'm actually pretty optimistic! It stood toe-to-toe with other card-drawing, but wasn't dominating. Often I had to put back a Copper or Province, and occasionally I put back a Gold. I'm glad I tested it, and will soon be moving it from the Outtakes section of the OP to the Kingdom Cards section!

Lots of other old cards still seem good. Jubilee, Gambler, Tinker, and Wheelwright are still loved (by some). Terrace, Fund, and Vendor at least got bought.

I think I need to rename Wheelwright to something that links thematically to the Copper-gaining penalty. Right now it's too easy to forget that part is there.

[LastFootnote]

Two changes:

• Conclave is now back in the set, at least for now. The new version that puts back the cards you didn't draw seems promising after a few games. I also reworded it a bit so that I could use a larger font.

• I've decided to move Fund's +1 Buy to the top, such that you always get +1 Buy when you play it, whether or not you trash it. It just gets bought too seldom in my games, and this change is meant to make it look more attractive. I wanted to keep the +1 Buy in the one-shot portion so that you'd have another reason to activate that ability, but I'm hoping the +$2 will be enough of a reason. I guess we'll see.

[LastFootnote]

I made a new Racketeer to try. Here's the image, but I'm going to test it before putting it in the OP.

So I belatedly realized that—using this wording—Racketeer gives the victim a Trade token in the event that they reveal no trashable cards. This was not the intent. Here then is a new version that fixes that. It works differently, since a card is trashed and then re-gained, rather than just being discarded. That makes it interact with on-gain triggers and on-trash triggers, which I think is all to the good.

[Nic]

Played a few games with some of the new cards in the last few days. Now that I'm living at home, I can rope my mom and brother into a three-player game without too much difficulty. Even better, a UPS store opened up down the street, and my mom has paper cutters and corner clippers, so I can get new cards ready with very little work.

I printed out Auction, Charlatan, Study, Tinker, Trade Goods Stockpile, Wanderer, and all the Armaments cards, and tomorrow I think I'll put in an order for Dignitary and Harbor, and replace my copies of Redistrict and Conclave with the up-to-date versions.

I wrote up some vague thoughts on what I saw in those games, but my main takeaway was that it's about time to drop '(Beta)' from the title. You have 25+ good-to-great cards to choose from; what's left is deciding which of them will make up the set. I admit I'd rather see what your next boardgame project will be, for purely selfish reasons. Honestly, I'd be willing to PnPlay-test any goofy idea that came into your head, based solely on the strength of these cards.

• The Armament cards were great. A serious attack, but because of the gating, it doesn't feel oppressive. My brother generally vetoes any cursing attacks, but he didn't mind this one so much.
• Profiteer was a big hit. In one game, we managed to run down the curses with Charlatan as the only other attack card, and everybody opened Profiteer in the next one. With everyone getting Golds on their deck, the game was over before very many curses came out.
• Does General topdeck Duration cards? We weren't sure. (Also, we were playing with the version that topdecked on trash, and I was having entirely too much fun with General/Gambler.)
• Wanderer was out in three or four games, and it was bought pretty often. Of course, I was trying to showcase these cards, so I didn't want to put out other terminal draw.
• We weren't able to parse Study. Does 'first do this' mean 'when you play a card, draw up to 5 before resolving the first line of the card'? Or does it mean 'when you would play an action, draw to 5 and then take the card out of your hand'? I skimmed over the earlier posts and it sounds like the second interpretation is correct,  If your deck is full of cantrips, it would be substantially worse than a gold.
• Everybody loved how Tinker combos with other trade token cards, especially the cheap ones. Trash two Estates, pay a token, gain a Terrace, regain the token.

[LastFootnote]

Nice! Thanks for the testing and feedback, Nic!

General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!

Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?

"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."

Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?

I wonder if Profiteer makes games too fast. Well, I'll test it more. I'm glad it was so popular!

I don't quite have 25+ cards in the set yet, unless you're including the outtakes. But I can't just include the outtakes; I need more $5 cards! Having Conclave back in the set proper does help with that goal.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Profiteer was a big hit. In one game, we managed to run down the curses with Charlatan as the only other attack card, and everybody opened Profiteer in the next one. With everyone getting Golds on their deck, the game was over before very many curses came out.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems like when you played with Charlatan you were assuming players have to spend their spare buys on curses when they could just get coppers as their worst choice.

[LastFootnote]

Profiteer was a big hit. In one game, we managed to run down the curses with Charlatan as the only other attack card, and everybody opened Profiteer in the next one. With everyone getting Golds on their deck, the game was over before very many curses came out.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems like when you played with Charlatan you were assuming players have to spend their spare buys on curses when they could just get coppers as their worst choice.

I believe he was referring to the Curses given out by the Armaments. He mentions Charlatans because they expedite Armamaments by virtue of being Attack cards.

[Nic]

General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!

Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.

Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?

"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."

Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?

It'd probably help, but the real bone of contention was whether you drew before or after the card left your hand. Its a meaningless difference, but ". . . when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow its instructions" sounds better to me. I'll ask my brother what wording he prefers.

[Co0kieL0rd]

General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!

Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.

Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?

"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."

Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?

It'd probably help, but the real bone of contention was whether you drew before or after the card left your hand. Its a meaningless difference, but ". . . when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow its instructions" sounds better to me. I'll ask my brother what wording he prefers.

That difference is as significant as the extra card you draw from playing a Laboratory versus playing a Page. If Study drew one fewer card per Action card you played (because it would still be in your hand while you draw), it would generally be much weaker.

[LastFootnote]

General absolutely topdecks Duration cards. Conveniently, it stays in play as long as the Duration card does, in order to track that you played it twice. I'm glad you like the old version, but I'm probably not going back to it. It was just too crazy to track with Gambler, etc.!

Oh, I agree. I probably won't spend money to reprint it, but it was clearly overpowered. From playing with it, I got the feeling that its existence would actively prevent someone from designing strong one-shots.

Your first interpretation of Study was actually correct. You play an Action card from your hand, then draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow the Action card's instructions. It's worded like the Adventures bonus tokens. I was strongly considering adding an explanatory parenthetical to Study, and your comment pushed me over the edge toward doing it. How does this sound?

"During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand (before following its instructions)."

Would that have been enough to make it clear, or should I word it differently?

It'd probably help, but the real bone of contention was whether you drew before or after the card left your hand. Its a meaningless difference, but ". . . when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand, then follow its instructions" sounds better to me. I'll ask my brother what wording he prefers.

That difference is as significant as the extra card you draw from playing a Laboratory versus playing a Page. If Study drew one fewer card per Action card you played (because it would still be in your hand while you draw), it would generally be much weaker.

It would be one card weaker overall (per turn), but I think that's it. That's still really significant, though.

[AdrianHealey]

Played a game with Refurbish today. Not great, but decent. Bit slow, though (in the deck we used).

In practice, the card is: turn a curse/estate/copper into a silver. It's slow, but if you have actions to spare, ok. If it's the only trasher with heavy cursing, it get's overwhelmed, though.

[LastFootnote]

Played a game with Refurbish today. Not great, but decent. Bit slow, though (in the deck we used).

In practice, the card is: turn a curse/estate/copper into a silver. It's slow, but if you have actions to spare, ok. If it's the only trasher with heavy cursing, it get's overwhelmed, though.

Well, there's a reason it's an outtake. It's not super-strong or super-fun. The $-making portion of it can be quite strong if you're increasing your hand size. Without that, you'd usually rather have another trasher.

[AdrianHealey]

Didn't know it was an outtake.

Any cards you want to have playtested soon? I am investing a lot in playtesting cards.

[LastFootnote]

Three 2-player Enterprise games last night. The first two were Enterprise/Guilds, and the third was Enterprise/Cornucopia.

Redistrict was fine; the $0 cost mattered. There was at least one time where I should have bought one but didn't. Really I should have bought a ton of them. It was a super-sloggy Young Witch game that ended on Duchies, Curses, and Redistricts. My deck failed badly.

Auction was good. My opponent used the Reaction a few times, even discarding Silver once to activate it.

Jubilee was the Bane in that Young Witch game. It's an interesting Bane card, but I focused way too much on them and not enough on trashing.

Wanderer was also in the Young Witch game. I bought quite a few, but as usual I was the only one. My deck was too junked for them to line up with Jubilees or Hamlets often.

This new version of Convoy still seems promising.

A timely Floodgate buy won me one of these games. I set aside an Auction, among other things, when there were only two Provinces left. My next turn I was able to buy Province/Duchy for the win, I believe.

Sometimes I worry Tinker is too swingy. When you are able to trash two Estates for a $4 card on turn 3 or 4, it's pretty great. Maybe no stronger than Trading Post, though.

Stockpile didn't get that much play (in the Young Witch game), but I did use it to gain a Gold at least once. Still seems promising to me.

Bladesmith: so far, so good. Taxman helped to expedite my Armaments.

Conclave: I think I'm the only one that has bought this so far (only two games with it, I believe), but it's looking good. It's awful against Curses, though.

General is also awful against Curses.

The new Racketeer is certainly less oppressive than the old one. It's nice just to kill off opponents' Trade tokens when they need them to power e.g. Convoys. I will make sure to try it soon without other Trade token cards.

We played two games with a version of Trade Goods:

Trade Goods: Treasure, $5
Worth $2
You may choose another card you have in play. If you discard it this turn, trash it and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

I forgot to add "When you play this". Man, this card needs to be so wordy. I'm not sure it's worth all the words it seems to require.

We didn't buy it in the first game, but we each got a couple in the second game. It actually seems pretty good. I used it quite a bit to turn Silvers into Heralds and eventually to turn a Herald into a Duchy. I worry that it'll just be a dud, though. It doesn't look exciting and is just so wordy.

[LastFootnote]

Didn't know it was an outtake.

Any cards you want to have playtested soon? I am investing a lot in playtesting cards.

Well, if you want to test the experimental new stuff, the best cards for that are Wanderer, Charlatan, Stockpile, Conclave, and Study in the OP. Also Racketeer and Trade Goods. I don't have an uploaded version of Trade Goods yet, but here's Racketeer:



Thanks!

[AdrianHealey]

Didn't know it was an outtake.

Any cards you want to have playtested soon? I am investing a lot in playtesting cards.

Well, if you want to test the experimental new stuff, the best cards for that are Wanderer, Charlatan, Stockpile, Conclave, and Study in the OP. Also Racketeer and Trade Goods. I don't have an uploaded version of Trade Goods yet, but here's Racketeer:



Thanks!

I'll see what I can do, but Saboteur isn't really popular, so I doubt I can persuade them to use Racketeer. :p

In other news: played another game with Refurbish today. It's a very slow card, and it's mandatory silver gain is... slightly annoying, but I tried to make it work and with 2 refurbish on the field (had to trash a perfectly good silver though, and another random copper), I was able to generated 20 coins with 5 silvers, which wasn't bad at all. (Bought 2 provinces that turn.)

The other player went for a treasure trove to get money, and that ultimately beat me (those golds were killing me.)

My suggestion to try would be one of these three:
gaining optional, trashing mandatory
gaining mandatory, trashing optional
or even the strongest one: gaining and trashing optional.

I am open to the point that the third one is too strong, and I am frankly pretty indifferent to the first two. I personally like the card, although it's very slow to shine, but it can shine (and will almost indefinitely if the game goes on long enough.)

I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

(I haven't printed any other fan cards I like, that's why you are getting more feedback on refurbish. :p)

Several of the ones you mentioned specifically (so not racketeer) are in the list to be tested at some point. The major constraint, really, for me is finding people to play with.

[LastFootnote]

My suggestion to try would be one of these three:
gaining optional, trashing mandatory
gaining mandatory, trashing optional
or even the strongest one: gaining and trashing optional.

I am open to the point that the third one is too strong, and I am frankly pretty indifferent to the first two. I personally like the card, although it's very slow to shine, but it can shine (and will almost indefinitely if the game goes on long enough.)

I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

Too late! It has been dismissed. I mean it could come back someday, but right now I have enough ≤$4 cards and I like Tinker better in this sort of terminal-trasher/remodel role. Possibly I could strengthen Refurbish somehow and price it at ≥$5. Possibly it could make it into some other expansion someday.

If it were a total dud or obviously too weak or too strong, it wouldn't be in the OP at all. There are dozens of Enterprise outtakes; the ones in the OP are cards that just don't currently fit into the set, but are otherwise fine. Though of those, Refurbish is the closest to being a dud.

[LastFootnote]

I think part of the issue is: Coppersmith itself is a dud. It basically needs a way to increase your hand size to be worthwhile. And it really wants +Buy, too. Refurbish you might buy without a way to increase your hand size, but it sure isn't exciting compared to other trashers. Aha, it could itself give +1 Buy. That along with making the gaining and/or trashing optional might be enough to bump it up to $5. Hmm…

Refurbish: Action, $5
+1 Buy. You may gain a Silver. You may trash a card from your hand.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

It seems a little less cohesive that way—a little tougher to remember—but maybe it's fine and I'm worrying too much.

EDIT:

Refurbish: Action, $4
+1 Buy. You may trash a card from your hand, to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

Slightly stronger than the version in the OP, but probably not enough to warrant a $5 cost. $4 seems reasonable. Hmm... Early on it's a trasher/remodel of sorts, then later you can stop using that aspect and it's just a source of +Buy and +$.

[AdrianHealey]

As is, I would prize it at 4.

If the trashing and the gaining were completely independent, I'd put it at 5.

I like this version of refurbish. I am having a tournament with my friends somewhere late February, where we hope to include in every deck a fan card or 2-3. This refurbish looks one that would be worth it.

[Nic]

Played some more Bladesmith games, and hoo boy, I can see what you mean. After complaints about Gambler as the only trasher, we replaced it with Chapel . . . and then I opened 2/5. I cleaned my deck in three shuffles, and then drained the entire Curse pile (two or three at a time) before anyone had a chnce to respond. It helped that we had Throne Room and Harbor on the board, so I could decide what cards would be in my hand each turn. I don't think it's too much to worry about; it's less oppressive than Mountebank, and I was up against people who play far less Dominion than I do. As for Harbor itself, I really liked it, but it has the potential to slow games down considerably. There are dozens of decisions you have to make each time you play the card, and you have to figure out how much money you want to make when you have more actions left to take.

[LastFootnote]

Played some more Bladesmith games, and hoo boy, I can see what you mean. After complaints about Gambler as the only trasher, we replaced it with Chapel . . . and then I opened 2/5. I cleaned my deck in three shuffles, and then drained the entire Curse pile (two or three at a time) before anyone had a chnce to respond. It helped that we had Throne Room and Harbor on the board, so I could decide what cards would be in my hand each turn. I don't think it's too much to worry about; it's less oppressive than Mountebank, and I was up against people who play far less Dominion than I do. As for Harbor itself, I really liked it, but it has the potential to slow games down considerably. There are dozens of decisions you have to make each time you play the card, and you have to figure out how much money you want to make when you have more actions left to take.

Yeah, Harbor is likely to go someday, though I probably won't drop it until I have some more good $5 cards. It's generically strong, plus it has all those crazy decisions you mention. Plus the set has a lot of card-drawing right now, and all the other such cards are more interesting.

Thanks as always for testing!

[AdrianHealey]

I have printed:

Auction
Charlatan
Committee
Floodgate
Wheelwright
the new refurbish

to try them out. (Sorry, no cards with the tokens just yet. I have to ease my friends into it.)

Some of these might be take outs, I haven't checked, but I assume that some feedback couldn't hurt, even if they were take outs?

[Beyond Awesome]

Hi Last Footnote,

Let me first start by saying that I have never played with fan cards before. I have been very hesitant. So, I printed some of your cards and went full random. I used four of your cards, and really enjoyed a couple of them. Overall, this set seems well-designed and Donald X. really needs to play with your cards sometime.

Anyway, the kingdom was a Horn of Plenty board with Outpost.

The four Enterprise cards were Harbor, General, Terrace and Fund.

Fund did not get bought, but HoP is hard to contend with. So, I would not count that as a strike against it.

The place on top of Harbor never got used. Unfortunately, for this card, I would say the effect is weak most of the time. Or, maybe it was just this board. However, I felt for $5 cost terminal draw, this card is on the weaker end.

General is decent. The top-decking rarely factored in, but it's always nice to have a Throne variant, and it feels fresh.

Now Terrace, holy crap, this card is STRONG! It might be a little to OP. Drawing 5-cards for $4 is very, very good even if it is one-shot. I understand Ranger does the same, but that card is terminal, and doesn't draw 5 cards the first time it is played. I think you should consider having it draw maybe four cards, potentially even three, although, it's probably not as fun then. Although, I really enjoyed playing with Terrace, but I think that had more to do with how strong the card is. Although, considering that I only played one game with the card, perhaps, I am wrong about it's power level. It is fun though.

Overall, I feel like Terrace and General feel like real Dominion cards. I need to play more games though with these cards and your other cards, but I am quite impressed.

Now, please pester Donald and tell him to print this expansion. 

[LastFootnote]

Hi Last Footnote,

Let me first start by saying that I have never played with fan cards before. I have been very hesitant. So, I printed some of your cards and went full random. I used four of your cards, and really enjoyed a couple of them. Overall, this set seems well-designed and Donald X. really needs to play with your cards sometime.

...

Now, please pester Donald and tell him to print this expansion. 

Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad your experience with the cards was good overall.

As for Enterprise becoming an official expansion, don't hold your breath! It's easy, from a Dominion player's perspective, to think, "If there are a bunch of good cards, why not publish them?" But from Donald's perspective, it's a similar amount of work to making an expansion himself, but without a lot of the fun of making up the cards! And he (very rightly I think) chooses projects based on whether he wants to do them, not based on financial incentives.

Another thing is, I think Enterprise in its current form would look pretty lame when compared to Adventures and Empires. At minimum I think I'd want some Events and maybe another fresh mechanic (I should start testing Edicts). On the other hand, there is definitely some number of people (on BGG at least) who want a simpler Dominion expansion, without as many tokens, etc. Though Enterprise does have tokens. Anyway.

It would be neat if Donald were to someday take over development of Enterprise and mold it into an Adventures-level set. But I wouldn't count on it!

Let's talk about these cards.

Fund did not get bought, but HoP is hard to contend with. So, I would not count that as a strike against it.

Fund doesn't get bought all that often, I've found. In fact the version in the OP is untested; the old version only gave you the +1 Buy when you trashed it. I'm not sure which version you used. I think Fund's power level is reasonable, but a dud is a dud, and I may someday abandon it if this new version is equally dud-like.

The place on top of Harbor never got used. Unfortunately, for this card, I would say the effect is weak most of the time. Or, maybe it was just this board. However, I felt for $5 cost terminal draw, this card is on the weaker end.

Harbor seems pretty strong in a deck that doesn't draw itself. But it's also very AP-heavy in those situations. And at the same time it lacks that special something. Probably I find something better. Really the set has plenty of card-drawing without it, including Wanderer, Convoy, Conclave, and Wheelwright (although maybe not all of them survive). But I need some more $5 cards, so for now it's still there.

General is decent. The top-decking rarely factored in, but it's always nice to have a Throne variant, and it feels fresh.

Thanks! I'm a bit surprised the top-decking wasn't more useful to you. Did you often Throne something you didn't want in your next hand?

Now Terrace, holy crap, this card is STRONG! It might be a little to OP. Drawing 5-cards for $4 is very, very good even if it is one-shot. I understand Ranger does the same, but that card is terminal, and doesn't draw 5 cards the first time it is played. I think you should consider having it draw maybe four cards, potentially even three, although, it's probably not as fun then. Although, I really enjoyed playing with Terrace, but I think that had more to do with how strong the card is. Although, considering that I only played one game with the card, perhaps, I am wrong about it's power level. It is fun though.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure whether you read the card correctly. When you activate Terrace's token ability, you discard your hand, then draw 5 cards. Which can still be pretty strong, don't get me wrong!

I have been considering swapping Vendor and Terrace's token abilities. That way you get a Village that can one time pull a card from your discard pile, and a Peddler that can one time mulligan your hand. Though I think the last time I suggested that idea it wasn't popular. And Terrace is fine as-is, so maybe I shouldn't mess with it.

Overall, I feel like Terrace and General feel like real Dominion cards. I need to play more games though with these cards and your other cards, but I am quite impressed.

Thanks again! I really appreciate the feedback!

[Beyond Awesome]

Oh man, you're right. I misread Terrace and thought it said draw 5 cards. I'm surprised my playgroup did not catch it either. Oh well. Then, I will have to try it again, this time the way it was intended. Sorry about that. Discarding your hand makes a huge difference in power level.

I do want to say that I think the simpler cards are refreshing in some ways. I think it could use some Events, but even though I doubt Donald would want to work on something that was not his own, I think this would make a nice, new introductory set if it were ever to see the light of the day. I've had just one experience so far, but I enjoyed the cards a lot...despite one card being misplayed.

[Beyond Awesome]

So, I played another game today. This time we used Terrace, playing it correctly, General, Wanderer, and Racketeer.

This time, the top-decking of General got used more often. There was no +buy or gains on the boards. Racketeer seems rather strong for a $4 cost. Even though, 50% of the time, it won't hit, the fact is, this is a Knight attack and one that never whiffs. Either the opponent pays a trade token or loses their card. Perhaps, in games where trade tokens are super heavy, this card is rather weak, but on a full-random board with no other way to gain trade tokens, I feel this card will be very strong.

As far as Wanderer goes, I think it is costed appropriately. I honestly have no idea how to gauge its power level. It seems strong and weak at the same time since you have to give it up for free. I like that its on-buy puts your discard into your deck

EDIT: Just realized we played with the previous version of Racketeer. Sorry. I printed the cards off earlier and did not realize you had a newer version.

[Moneymodel]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

[Nflickner]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

[Roadrunner7671]

I was on the wiki, and I learned LastFootnote designed Summon!

Cool!

[LastFootnote]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.

[Nflickner]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.

Thanks   It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far   It seems like a really fun card!

[LastFootnote]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.

Thanks   It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far   It seems like a really fun card!

Well a lot of people like it, but it's a bit random for some tastes.

Whenever I change a card slightly, I reduce the number of stars it has without resetting it to zero. Fund for instance used to have 5 stars of testing, but I recently moved the +1 Buy outside the one-shot effect, and haven't yet tested the new version. So really Gambler is the card that's changed the least recently.

[Nflickner]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.

Thanks   It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far   It seems like a really fun card!

Well a lot of people like it, but it's a bit random for some tastes.

Whenever I change a card slightly, I reduce the number of stars it has without resetting it to zero. Fund for instance used to have 5 stars of testing, but I recently moved the +1 Buy outside the one-shot effect, and haven't yet tested the new version. So really Gambler is the card that's changed the least recently.

For what it's worth, your newer version of Fund looks like it will be more fun and bought more often.  Sometimes you just get a sense about a card even without playtesting that you can feel quite confident about. 

[ThetaSigma12]

Uh oh, what happened to all the cards?

Yeah, most of the cards say "The image you requested is no longer available. Imgur"

Sorry, guys. I made a mistake awhile ago and deleted all the images. I've been meaning to put them back up but haven't remembered when I was in front of the right computer. I haven't been actively working on cards recently, so it's been easy to forget. I'll try to remember to re-upload them tonight.

Thanks   It looks like Gambler has the most playtesting so far   It seems like a really fun card!

Well a lot of people like it, but it's a bit random for some tastes.

Whenever I change a card slightly, I reduce the number of stars it has without resetting it to zero. Fund for instance used to have 5 stars of testing, but I recently moved the +1 Buy outside the one-shot effect, and haven't yet tested the new version. So really Gambler is the card that's changed the least recently.

For what it's worth, your newer version of Fund looks like it will be more fun and bought more often.  Sometimes you just get a sense about a card even without playtesting that you can feel quite confident about.

I played with the newer version and it seemed fine. You don't always use it but it's nice having it there.

[junkers]

I'm really looking forward to printing these up and giving them a spin.

• Wheelwright and Auction are both interesting cards individually, but seem like they could be devastating when paired.
• Conclave looks like something I want to build a very particular deck around. I don't know what that deck is yet, but I want to try it.
• Charlatan just looks plain fun.

At first glance, Floodgate appears exceptionally powerful - is that the case? I guess it depends on the hand, on what you're setting aside and what it aligns with next turn, but it seems like Gear on steriods...

[LastFootnote]

I'm really looking forward to printing these up and giving them a spin.

• Wheelwright and Auction are both interesting cards individually, but seem like they could be devastating when paired.
• Conclave looks like something I want to build a very particular deck around. I don't know what that deck is yet, but I want to try it.
• Charlatan just looks plain fun.

I'm glad you like them! I hope they end up being fun in your games.

At first glance, Floodgate appears exceptionally powerful - is that the case? I guess it depends on the hand, on what you're setting aside and what it aligns with next turn, but it seems like Gear on steriods...

Just to be clear, Floodgate isn't an Action card. The Gear-like effect only happens when you gain the Floodgate, so it's effectively a one-shot effect that puts a (usually) dead Victory card to your deck.

[LastFootnote]

Starting to think about doing some work on Enterprise again. A couple things on my mind.

• Right now the set only has two +Buy cards, and they're both Treasures. It would be nice to have another +Buy, preferably on a terminal Action.
• I may combine Terrace and Vendor, meaning that I would put Terrace's token ability on a $5 Peddler. Vendor isn't as exciting as I had hoped and it's also full of words. This would free up a slot to bring back Mill Town or to have some other new village.
• I will remove Harbor just as soon as I find at least one card to take its slot. It's strong and not particularly compelling.
• It's so easy to forget about Wheelwright's bonus for other players. My current plan is to give it a name that links thematically to that ability. Patron, Philanthropist, Almoner, etc.
• Study feels wonky to me. I may replace it with some other, vaguely similar Duration.

[LastFootnote]

• It's so easy to forget about Wheelwright's bonus for other players. My current plan is to give it a name that links thematically to that ability. Patron, Philanthropist, Almoner, etc.

I just made this change because why not.

[pacovf]

Have you considered "committing" this expansion and starting a new one?

[LastFootnote]

Have you considered "committing" this expansion and starting a new one?

Well, certainly not until it's actually a full set. Right now the OP only has 21 Kingdom cards (and nothing else to fill that space).

I have been considering ideas for an Underground-style expansion. Underground was an idea I had a long time ago where certain cards you gained would come with a Cave-In, which was a dead card that you couldn't usually get rid of (when trashed, it went onto your deck). And then those cards would be pretty strong and also usually interact with Cave-Ins in some way. Revisiting the idea, I think it would be best for a Cave-In to be a Treasure worth $1 that replaced two Coppers in each player's starting deck. That way the cards could interact with them without having the issue of accumulating too many Cave-Ins in your deck or putting a limit on how many you could gain.

Anyway it's all very theoretical at this point.

[navical]

Starting to think about doing some work on Enterprise again. A couple things on my mind.

• Right now the set only has two +Buy cards, and they're both Treasures. It would be nice to have another +Buy, preferably on a terminal Action.

I thought the latest was that Refurbish was back in the set, and with +Buy?

• Study feels wonky to me. I may replace it with some other, vaguely similar Duration.

Personally I think Study is great. What feels wonky to me about it is that the discard-for-benefit in Enterprise is a Treasure, so doesn't combo with Study. In addition, there's no discard attack in Enterprise, the non-drawing non-terminals (Jubilee, Charlatan), which are the other thing Study combos well with, both have things that make them harder to play lots of (being a 2-shot and being a Duration respectively). For a pretty situational card, to have no combos in its own set is not great.

[ThetaSigma12]

For me, the wording on Redistrict was a little unclear. I played is as a one-shot expand instead of a one-shot remodel. Perhaps:

Choose a card from your hand and trash it. You may gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card. If you did, trash this. Otherwise, gain a card costing $1 more then the trashed card.

[LastFootnote]

Starting to think about doing some work on Enterprise again. A couple things on my mind.

• Right now the set only has two +Buy cards, and they're both Treasures. It would be nice to have another +Buy, preferably on a terminal Action.

I thought the latest was that Refurbish was back in the set, and with +Buy?

I need to test it before putting it in the OP, but yeah, that's a good call. Refurbish could make a comeback.

• Study feels wonky to me. I may replace it with some other, vaguely similar Duration.

Personally I think Study is great. What feels wonky to me about it is that the discard-for-benefit in Enterprise is a Treasure, so doesn't combo with Study. In addition, there's no discard attack in Enterprise, the non-drawing non-terminals (Jubilee, Charlatan), which are the other thing Study combos well with, both have things that make them harder to play lots of (being a 2-shot and being a Duration respectively). For a pretty situational card, to have no combos in its own set is not great.

I would definitely like to have another Attack card in Enterprise, which could end up being a discard attack (Racketeer is just so wordy and hard to get right). I actually worry about discard-for-benefit cards being too strong with Study, but perhaps I should try it out first. Artificer is the card I most worry about there.

Mostly though some people have issues with Study's "when you play, first draw" wording, and I think having the drawing come after the card opens it up to more abuses with discard-for-benefit.

Also the set already has draw-to-X with Almoner (formerly Wheelwright). I'm not sure it needs another one.

I have some other ideas for Duration cards, so maybe I'll try them out and see how they compare.

[LastFootnote]

For me, the wording on Redistrict was a little unclear. I played is as a one-shot expand instead of a one-shot remodel. Perhaps:

Choose a card from your hand and trash it. You may gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card. If you did, trash this. Otherwise, gain a card costing $1 more then the trashed card.

That's a different card, though. If you trash Redistrict, you're meant to get both a card that costs $1 more and a card that costs $2 more.

EDIT: Although it would also be different when throned, Redistrict could say, "Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may also gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it; if you do, trash this."

The tricky thing with Redistrict is pronouns. Both "it" and "the trashed card" could refer to either Redistrict itself or the other card you trashed, depending on how it's worded. I tried to get around that with "choose a card" and "the chosen card", but apparently people cannot parse that.

[navical]

Mostly though some people have issues with Study's "when you play, first draw" wording, and I think having the drawing come after the card opens it up to more abuses with discard-for-benefit.

It's the same timing as the +1 Card token, so maybe that'll be better once people are more used to Adventures?

[Nflickner]

Excited that you are updating this.  I totally dig the trade token dynamic.  Would you be willing to post an image of the picture file you use to create a deck in Tabletop Simulator?  if you have one for Enterprise, that is. 
Thanks

[LastFootnote]

Couple of Adventures/Empires games today. I tried the new Vendor:

Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

But in its game it was competing with Artificer as a $5 Peddler and with Guide as a dud-hand-replacer. Also it was a super-fast game. In the end only one was bought and its ability wasn't used. Lots of Wanderers gained with Artificer, though.

Second game I tried a new $4 village. Seems pretty OK power-wise, but I'm not sure it's fun enough. Needs more games.

Enterprise definitely needs more Attacks and +Buy. I printed up the new Refurbish, but didn't have time to cut and sleeve it yet.

[Nflickner]

the outtakes on the original post are not showing up--I think the imgur image is gone. 

[LastFootnote]

the outtakes on the original post are not showing up--I think the imgur image is gone.

Fixed.

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.







*sigh*

[Deadlock39]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Not a bad idea. The other obvious option is to change it so the Reaction doesn't draw.

A few people have suggested the idea of a Trade token Reaction. Either it would gain tokens on-play and spend them on the Reaction, or the other way around. Personally I prefer gaining tokens on the Reaction and spending them on-play. But then the card will be really lame in the absence of Attacks or other Trade token cards, so maybe it should react to something else. Let's see.

"When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to trash a card from your hand and take a Trade token."

And then what does the top do? Is there another Trade token card that could use this bottom instead of "When you gain this, take a Trade token"? *scans the cards* Nope, not really. In fact I'm starting to wonder if both trashing a card and getting a token is too strong with other Trade token cards on the board. But probably not? I mean you're down two cards in hand (barring on-trash abilities, of course).

Maybe it's good enough to have:

Trade Village: Action, $?
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may pay a Trade token to play this again.
When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to trash a card from your hand and take a Trade token.

Obviously similar to Convoy, but perhaps different enough. Or maybe I should just have one or the other, but this one will be better. Convoy was specifically designed such that you wouldn't have to track how many times you played it, but I now realize you can just use the tokens themselves to track that.

What would this card even cost? Probably in the $2-$4 range.

[Asper]

You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.

[LastFootnote]

You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.

The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.

[Accatitippi]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

[Asper]

You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.

The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.

I was aware there would be combos with this, but didn't consider that a bad thing to be honest. If 3 are too much, 2 would probably still be worthwile - after all, you often buy $4 Villages either way.

[JW]

You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.

The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.

If spending a trade token made you unaffected by attacks until the beginning of your next turn, that would increase its ability to defend and therefore would reduce the number of trade tokens it would need to come with.

[LastFootnote]

You could make a $4 Village that can spend Trade Tokens to defend against attacks and comes with 3-4 of those.

The problem there is that it wouldn't jive with other Trade token cards. Getting 3 tokens and a village for $4 would be nuts with e.g. Convoy on the board.

If spending a trade token made you unaffected by attacks until the beginning of your next turn, that would increase its ability to defend and therefore would reduce the number of trade tokens it would need to come with.

And furthermore it's better design. Having to spend resources to block a single attack really sucks, scaling badly with the number of players and also being incredibly frustrating against attacks that don't stack, like Militia. (I know from experience, testing that Treasure-Duration in Adventures that you could discard from play to block a single Attack.)

But I am not so jazzed about making a Moat/Lighthouse variant anyway. It would be nice to have a trashing Reaction, since it feels more new.

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

[LastFootnote]

Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I am thinking I will rename this to "Palanquin". Or one of its synonyms: "Litter", "Sedan Chair", etc.

[Accatitippi]

Vendor: Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand then draw 5 cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I am thinking I will rename this to "Palanquin". Or one of its synonyms: "Litter", "Sedan Chair", etc.

Litter makes me think of cats.
I think the first meaning to come into mind of people hearing "litter" won't often be "Palanquin"; so maybe one of the others is better. 

[ThetaSigma12]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

You could just set Dignitary aside until the start of your next turn.

"When another player plays an attack, you may set this aside. If you did, draw a card and trash a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, discard this"

Or something along those lines.

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard and Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

[pacovf]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

[LastFootnote]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

That's clever, but I agree with you that it's not a good solution. "Set aside" is wordy, but it's what I'd go with if I couldn't think of anything better.

[Asper]

Dignitary + Fortress + Tomb = ∞ VP, in a small enough deck.

It doesn't work without some additional tweaking, but maybe you can use the "react by playing" that was used by Caravan Guard to get around that.

Like it is kind of close if the reaction said "You can reveal this to, trash a card from your hand, and then play this. (It's way worse because of the putting cards back thing, but maybe the play effect can be adjusted to make the reaction work like it does now.)

Would "put this in play to trash a card from your hand and then draw to 5" work?
It's very gimmicky, so I'm not sure it is the right solution.

I would like to avoid "Put this into play" if possible, since it just makes you ask, "So do I play it or what?"

Recently i thought that, if we had some standardized way to put things into play without playing them (similar to calling cards), it would make a lot of things easier. It could have been applied to some official cards like Caravan Guard or Crown, too. Sadly, we don't have that, and so we don't have that option and need to rely on different methods or awkward "set this aside" wordings to get a similar effect.

Well, what stops you from defining a new keyword? Be The Change You Want To See In The World!

Fine: Define that "call" means "call from your Tavern mat", unless otherwise specified, similar to how "gain" means "gain from the supply" unless otherwise specified. Then use "You may call this from your hand, to...".

It's a bit complex to use on a single card, though.

That's clever, but I agree with you that it's not a good solution. "Set aside" is wordy, but it's what I'd go with if I couldn't think of anything better.

I think it is good enough, just too complex for a single card. It's like doing a single Duration. If someone made a fan expansion with several cards like this, i'd tend to say it's alright. Enterprise is not that expansion, of course, and so that point is probably moot.

[LastFootnote]

Two 3-player Adventures/Enterprise games today. Each included a Landmark, but they didn't end up mattering for determining who won (which is rare, but can happen).


5 Raid
5 Seaway

0 Redistrict
2 Coin of the Realm
2 Jubilee
2 Page
3 Amulet
5 Almoner
5 Bridge Troll
5 Distant Lands
5 Fund
5 Palanquin

This game was interesting in several respects. I was the only one who didn't really go into Travellers; I bought one Page, and it was killed off before it could get to Hero. Alex (to my left) was going for a massive Traveller deck, so he was hitting me with a lot of Warrior attacks, killing one of my two Amulets and several Silvers. But the joke was on him when I put my +1 Buy token on Jubilees and started to gain 6 to 8 cards each turn. The Silver pile ran out, mostly into Alex's deck. Anyway I did end up winning with my Jubilee/Almoner/Bridge Troll deck.

Redistrict wasn't attractive with no Supply cards at $4. I got one at one point, and just ended up trashing it and my last Amulet for a $5 card.

Only I bought Jubilees, and thanks to Seaway I had the run of the pile. My Bridge Trolls made it very easy to replace my lost Jubilees and rack up tokens.

I had 2 Almoners, and they were great, both for the disappearing $ combo with Jubilee, and for sifting through my Silvers. Stephanie (to my right) did occasionally pick up a Copper. Alex eventually bought Almoners as well, though I never gained Coppers from his.

I got a few Funds, since the +1 Buy was nice (before I bought Seaway) and they were Warrior-proof Silvers that let me buy Raid a few times (after I activated them for Silvers in hand, I mean).

Palanquin seems good, possibly better than Terrace was. Stephanie and I both bought them and got use from their token effect.




2 Scouting Party
3 Expedition

3 Charlatan
3 Convoy
4 Duplicate
4 Merchant Village
4 Miser
5 General
5 Lost City
5 Trade Goods
5 Treasure Trove
6 Hireling

No extra buys, but the Charlatan attack still mattered thanks to Miser. Everybody had Misers and early on were often left with $2 after setting aside a Copper. I bought Charlatans early, using them to buy activated Merchant Villages. That worked, but without any +Buy on the board, I was unable to catch up to Stephanie's Treasure Trove.

I got a few Convoys to go with my Merchant Villages, and although they never lined up, the Convoys themselves helped me reach $8 in clutch moments.

General and Trade Goods (and Duplicate) went unbought this game. It was quite a fast game, with Charlatan as the only attack and Lost Cities speeding everybody up.

[LastFootnote]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

[Doom_Shark]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

I would also reword it similarly to scheme, so the bottom half would read:

At the start of cleanup this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, trash it and gain a card costing exactly more than it.

This wording allows the change to let it trash itself and IMO is easier to understand.

[Accatitippi]

Maybe Trade Goods should be able to trash itself (to gain e.g. Gold). It's not really the original concept, but it might need that boost. And although it seemed strong at first, buying a $5 Silver that turns into a Gold after the first play probably really isn't problematic.

It sounds good to have an end-stage use for Trade Goods, given that they cannot mill Provinces.
The "first play upgrade" is cute, and doesn't look problematic when compared to many other 5c Golds (or Treasure Trove).
So, I'd be all for it.

[werothegreat]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

[LastFootnote]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

Because that would sometimes help them. Which is maybe not reason enough, but there it is. I may try that version someday. As it is we sometimes buy it just for the Throne and Library combos.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Why doesn't Charlatan give your opponents an extra Buy?

Because that would sometimes help them. Which is maybe not reason enough, but there it is. I may try that version someday. As it is we sometimes buy it just for the Throne and Library combos.

It would also make it a stronger attack when the opponent doesn't have much coin. FWIW, I don't think it needs to give any +buys to be good.

I played a game with Charlatan today. It worked well and it's attack forced several coppers to be bought. But as trivialknot pointed out, it has a rules contradiction with debt. We didn't have the contradiction come up this game, but you might want to make a rule about what happens when someone has debt that they don't pay off while someone else has a Charlatan in play.

[Deadlock39]

My inclination would be to add clarification to Charlatan that players must use all their buys if able. There was already a case where this could contradict rules (that would never actually happen, but whatever) if you play 2 Contrabands and Copper and Curse are named. If you spend all your coins on your first buy, there are no legal buys left.

I think this makes the interaction with Debt interesting because you have the option of buying a card that costs Debt to counter the forced buys. Like in your game, maybe I buy a City Quarter even if it isn't exactly what I want to avoid taking multiple Coppers.

Just my 2c.

[LastFootnote]

Man, good point about debt. The ruling is that you can't buy anything and are therefore "immune" to the attack while you have any debt.

[werothegreat]

Man, good point about debt. The ruling is that you can't buy anything and are therefore "immune" to the attack while you have any debt.

How about just adding an "if they can" to the end?

[Donald X.]

You can give up the sexy phrasing while preserving the functionality in most games, by just giving them the Coppers.

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

If you're willing to have it be discarded at a weird time in games with extra turns, you can simplify it to:

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. At the end of each other player's next turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Wow, Donald X posted in a fan card thread and made a suggestion about a fan card. Truly such a thing is as rare as a good card.

[Donald X.]

Wow, Donald X posted in a fan card thread and made a suggestion about a fan card. Truly such a thing is as rare as a good card.

In fact a card from this thread made it into Empires (it was called Clerk here).

Settlers / Bustling Village: This pile started with the flavor of the card names; nice names for a split pile, with the additional nice idea of having a village that wasn't available right away. It was trouble finding a good card to go in the top slot here; some cards left us just never getting to the village. In the end I used a card Matt made for a homemade set. It was perfect.

I tried a few different bonuses on Bustling Village. There was +$1 per Settlers in play; get your top card if it's an Action per Settlers; there was +VP based on the cards in your hand. Then I tried getting a Settlers from your discard pile and I liked that one. Then Settlers became Matt's card and I like how that ends up, where you play Bustling Village to get Settlers and then Settlers to get Copper.

[Asper]

I think this is mostly because LF and Donald know each other from playtesting, and LF was even lead playtester on Empires. I doubt Donald will comment on (or read, for that matter) other people's fan card threads. Not that i'd mind.

[GendoIkari]

I think this is mostly because LF and Donald know each other from playtesting, and LF was even lead playtester on Empires. I doubt Donald will comment on (or read, for that matter) other people's fan card threads. Not that i'd mind.

He said he read my "you make the card" stuff. But yeah, as a general rule he doesn't read them, for good reason.

[LastFootnote]

You can give up the sexy phrasing while preserving the functionality in most games, by just giving them the Coppers.

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

If you're willing to have it be discarded at a weird time in games with extra turns, you can simplify it to:

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. At the end of each other player's next turn, they gain a Copper per unused Buy they had left.

Charlatan is probably the card of mine that cribs closest to another fan card idea I saw. And that card was basically what you suggest here, except with giving out Curses instead of Coppers. And well, I think I still prefer "mandatory buys" to "penalty for unused buys", mostly due to the fact that "penalty" stacks and "mandatory" doesn't. It seems kludgy to me that if you've been hit by 3 Charlatan attacks, you can either buy a Copper or you can not do that and gain 3 Coppers instead. So "mandatory" has sexy functionality in addition to sexy phrasing, except when it interacts with debt (and extreme edge cases with Contraband or empty Copper/Curse piles). I also mildly prefer debt cards being a defense against Charlatan rather than being especially vulnerable to it.

For me the big question for Charlatan is: does the attack matter enough. As I believe Donald has said, it's best when you buy Attack cards for the attack effect, rather than buying them for something else and then the Attack just incidentally happening. Charlatan's attack is mild enough to make incidental attacks less worrisome, but that in turn places more pressure on the rest of the card to be decent but not automatic. So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.

[math]

Oh man, guys, let's move this portion of the conversation over to the Variants Forum, what do you say?

If debt takes precedence, that could create interesting strategic plays.  For example, if you have $6 and 6 debt, it's probably often best to pay off exactly 5 debt so you don't have to buy a Copper.

[GendoIkari]

So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.

Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.

So if this card didn't have the attack, or it appeared in a Kingdom where +1 buy is either unavailable or not something my opponent is doing for, it would be very rare that I would buy this over silver. What if it cost and gave + now, + next turn? Though that makes it sound really good compared to Merchant Ship.

Oh, and seconded to Wero's suggestion; a simple "if they can" should clear up any rules questions about having Debt, or Contraband stuff.

[LastFootnote]

"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.

[GendoIkari]

"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.

Hmm... People have often talked about how a fan card can't really say "you can't play more than 1 card per turn" because then what happens if you play a Throne Room; suddenly you have 2 different cards; each requiring you to do contradictory things. You seem to be suggesting that things such as this fall under the general "do as much as you can" rule? So basically, Dominion does have a built in "when one effect says 'must' and another effect says 'can't'; that 'can't' always wins"?

[Asper]

"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.

Well, usually when you can't do something it's because it's physically impossible (like taking or moving something that isn't there), not because two rules just contradict each other. Moat does this to any attack, but that's all i can think of right now, and it's clear there Moat is supposed to take precedence. With Charlatan/Debt, we have something that you normally may, and now you must and mustn't at the same time.

I know some games that use the "prevent always wins" mechanic Gendo is describing, but there's nothing in the rulebook that says that for Dominion. There it just says "cards take precedence over rules", which doesn't cover cards vs cards. In a way, you can make an argument that Charlatan should ovverride the standard debt rule, as those are in the rulebook and Charlatan is a card.

[LastFootnote]

"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.

Hmm... People have often talked about how a fan card can't really say "you can't play more than 1 card per turn" because then what happens if you play a Throne Room; suddenly you have 2 different cards; each requiring you to do contradictory things. You seem to be suggesting that things such as this fall under the general "do as much as you can" rule? So basically, Dominion does have a built in "when one effect says 'must' and another effect says 'can't'; that 'can't' always wins"?

Not just Dominion, but almost all games.

[GendoIkari]

"If you can" is always implicit in everything in Dominion. "Gain a card costing up to $4 if you can." "Each other player gains a Curse if they can." Seems weird to add it here.

Hmm... People have often talked about how a fan card can't really say "you can't play more than 1 card per turn" because then what happens if you play a Throne Room; suddenly you have 2 different cards; each requiring you to do contradictory things. You seem to be suggesting that things such as this fall under the general "do as much as you can" rule? So basically, Dominion does have a built in "when one effect says 'must' and another effect says 'can't'; that 'can't' always wins"?

Not just Dominion, but almost all games.

But for example, MTG has an explicit rule in the rulebook. Dominion does not. (Unless the "do as much as you can" rule applies). But Asper has a very good point... "do as much as you can" generally refers to things that you literally can't do; as opposed to things you can't do because a card effect or rule says you can't.

[Asper]

Thinking of it, i'll rephrase my second point to clarify: In Dominion, cards override rules. Debt says you can't buy. Charlatan says you must. Debt is in the rules, Charlatan is a card. Charlatan wins. It's like how the rules say you can't buy cards during your action phase, and Black Market also simply says "Yes you can.", and wins out. This isn't necessarily me saying "I think you need to rule it that way", just stating it's not necessarily the only plausible conclusion debt should take precedence.

The point doesn't really help much for Contraband/Charlatan, though - the two-card-contradiction persists there.

[AdrianHealey]

I'd say: 'you must if you can', you can not, so you mustn't.

[LastFootnote]

Thinking of it, i'll rephrase my second point to clarify: In Dominion, cards override rules. Debt says you can't buy. Charlatan says you must. Debt is in the rules, Charlatan is a card. Charlatan wins. It's like how the rules say you can't buy cards during your action phase, and Black Market also simply says "Yes you can.", and wins out. This isn't necessarily me saying "I think you need to rule it that way", just stating it's not necessarily the only plausible conclusion debt should take precedence.

The point doesn't really help much for Contraband/Charlatan, though - the two-card-contradiction persists there.

I don't see how adding "if you can" helps even the debt case. If you can't, then obviously you won't. Otherwise you must. Either Charlatan overrides debt or it doesn't. "If you can" shouldn't make a difference there.

[Destry]

In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.

I don't think it applies in this case of Contraband/Charlatan described. Contraband makes the available cards unavailable, so Charlatan fails to force you to buy a Copper or Curse, same as if the piles were empty.

[Donald X.]

Charlatan is probably the card of mine that cribs closest to another fan card idea I saw. And that card was basically what you suggest here, except with giving out Curses instead of Coppers. And well, I think I still prefer "mandatory buys" to "penalty for unused buys", mostly due to the fact that "penalty" stacks and "mandatory" doesn't. It seems kludgy to me that if you've been hit by 3 Charlatan attacks, you can either buy a Copper or you can not do that and gain 3 Coppers instead. So "mandatory" has sexy functionality in addition to sexy phrasing, except when it interacts with debt (and extreme edge cases with Contraband or empty Copper/Curse piles). I also mildly prefer debt cards being a defense against Charlatan rather than being especially vulnerable to it.

For me the big question for Charlatan is: does the attack matter enough. As I believe Donald has said, it's best when you buy Attack cards for the attack effect, rather than buying them for something else and then the Attack just incidentally happening. Charlatan's attack is mild enough to make incidental attacks less worrisome, but that in turn places more pressure on the rest of the card to be decent but not automatic. So Charlatan's non-attack bonus is trying to walk the line by being especially useful in certain situations, upping the proportion of games where it's attractive. It's nice with Draw-to-X and cards that want a high Action density (like Throne variants, Herald, etc.). I think there's a good chance that it's still not good enough too much of the time. It's heartening that it made a difference in LibraryAdventurer's game.

Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.

I see what you're saying about not stacking certain kinds of penalties, and the "buy Copper vs. gain 3" case; otoh my closest thing to this is Swamp Hag, which stacks and I like that fine (and which also works when there's no +Buy in a game). OTOH sexy wordings are worth something.

Charlatan's attack as it stands (or reworded) does not seem too promising. Maybe there's no +Buy; maybe I'm drawing my deck and can always use that extra +Buy I got; maybe there are Markets but I can just do something else; maybe other attacks are giving us awful hands and man who needs to make that even worse. It seems super-rare, and then when it actually hits, they get a Copper. Of course you know how negative I am.

There are directions to consider, but it's not like I want to try to design an attack here that then people would know about or that I would feel obligated not to use. Attacks are hard. Anyway I just came in to tackle the wording issue vs. debt.

[Donald X.]

Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.

Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.

[GendoIkari]

Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.

Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.

I assume you mean in games without attacks?

[Donald X.]

In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.

Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.

As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.

In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.

It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]

Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."

It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.

[Donald X.]

Looking at that part of it now, for the first time... it looks extremely weak. Silver is pretty close to an action that says "+1 action, +". This is just that except half of your money is delayed until next turn; plus the other drawbacks of durations compared to non-durations. Draw-to-x is rare; like existing on 3 total cards rare. Sure Scrying Pool, Herald, and Throne variants prefer an action-silver to a treasure-silver. But terminal draw, which is way more common than those, prefers the treasure-silver.

Let me just say, I buy Lighthouse over Silver plenty.

I assume you mean in games without attacks?

I wasn't saying that (though of course I have bought it over Silver in games without attacks), but the proposed card isn't "+1 Action, +$1 this turn and next." It gets to do another thing too. That other thing does not have to be worth the $3, if you follow me; you've got these resources to go with it.

[GendoIkari]

In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.

Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.

As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.

In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.

It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]

Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."

It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.

Am I understanding correct, that what you are saying here is that the intuitive thing is that it is NOT a contradiction to have "your opponent can't play action cards next turn"; even if he has a Princed card; telling him that he must play an action card?

[Asper]

In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.

Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.

As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.

In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.

It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]

Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."

It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.

Am I understanding correct, that what you are saying here is that the intuitive thing is that it is NOT a contradiction to have "your opponent can't play action cards next turn"; even if he has a Princed card; telling him that he must play an action card?

I think he's saying that it's a contradition, but as a card that forbids something would be useless if it was overruled by cards that allow it, and players know they wouldn't exist if they were useless, they will conclude that the solution that makes the card useless can't be right. So, forbidding takes precedence. In a similar fashion, people get confused by the "immediate" on Chancellor, because why is it on no other cards? If all card effects were resolved immediately, the word would be useless on Chancellor, so that makes no sense. As far as i know, Donald has expressed he wouldn't put the word on the card anymore. Not because it's wrong, but because of players trying to figure out the ruling that makes everything meaningful.

[LastFootnote]

Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.

Wait, what? When did I "show" you this card?

I see what you're saying about not stacking certain kinds of penalties, and the "buy Copper vs. gain 3" case; otoh my closest thing to this is Swamp Hag, which stacks and I like that fine (and which also works when there's no +Buy in a game). OTOH sexy wordings are worth something.

Yeah, I think attacks stacking is great in general. But it seems silly and counter-intuitive that this stacks but doesn't really stack because you're nearly always buying Coppers (or just buying more, cheaper cards) to prevent the attack.

Charlatan's attack as it stands (or reworded) does not seem too promising. Maybe there's no +Buy; maybe I'm drawing my deck and can always use that extra +Buy I got; maybe there are Markets but I can just do something else; maybe other attacks are giving us awful hands and man who needs to make that even worse. It seems super-rare, and then when it actually hits, they get a Copper. Of course you know how negative I am.

Well as you can read above, I am also pretty negative about it. It seemed unique and interesting enough to be worth trying despite that. Sometimes you've just got to try these things, especially if you don't currently have anything more promising to try instead.

[GendoIkari]

In other games, where there's a contradiction between cards played, it's resolved in the order the cards are played.

Magic does this, but I think it's best avoided, and most games can (and do) avoid it.

As LF notes, in most games, "can't" beats "do." This is an issue of friendly wordings vs. precise ones. The precise wordings are much more confusing.

In Magic, day one, they had Stone Rain, "Destroy target land," and Consecrate Land, "enchanted land can't be destroyed." In an early Magic book, which included essays by Richard Garfield, Richard said, "isn't that a contradiction," then went on to say, it hurt his head to get into the frame of mind where you could see it that way.

It's a real contradiction though. The classic solution is to use a "replacement" (Magic lingo for "would" triggers). Here it would be "When enchanted land would be destroyed, instead, it isn't." Now there's no contradiction. [The actual solution in Magic today is "Enchanted land is indestructible," which is a defined term.]

Replacements tend to be ultra-confusing; Possession and Trader are two of the most confusing cards in Dominion. It's better not to use replacements. In most games that then means that if you want a "can't" rule, you have "can't" beat "do."

It tends to be very intuitive that "can't" beats "do," because otherwise the "can't" rule wouldn't do anything. Consecrate Land has to stop Stone Rain; otherwise it makes no sense.

Am I understanding correct, that what you are saying here is that the intuitive thing is that it is NOT a contradiction to have "your opponent can't play action cards next turn"; even if he has a Princed card; telling him that he must play an action card?

I think he's saying that it's a contradition, but as a card that forbids something would be useless if it was overruled by cards that allow it, and players know they wouldn't exist if they were useless, they will conclude that the solution that makes the card useless can't be right. So, forbidding takes precedence. In a similar fashion, people get confused by the "immediate" on Chancellor, because why is it on no other cards? If all card effects were resolved immediately, the word would be useless on Chancellor, so that makes no sense. As far as i know, Donald has expressed he wouldn't put the word on the card anymore. Not because it's wrong, but because of players trying to figure out the ruling that makes everything meaningful.

Yeah. And also the way Island and Native Village tell you to return the cards to your deck at the end of the game; causing everyone to ask if the same is true for other set-aside cards.

[Donald X.]

Oh man, you showed me someone else's fan card.

Wait, what? When did I "show" you this card?

I was being hilarious. Maybe I need to work on new material.

[Asper]

Thinking of it, i'll rephrase my second point to clarify: In Dominion, cards override rules. Debt says you can't buy. Charlatan says you must. Debt is in the rules, Charlatan is a card. Charlatan wins. It's like how the rules say you can't buy cards during your action phase, and Black Market also simply says "Yes you can.", and wins out. This isn't necessarily me saying "I think you need to rule it that way", just stating it's not necessarily the only plausible conclusion debt should take precedence.

The point doesn't really help much for Contraband/Charlatan, though - the two-card-contradiction persists there.

I don't see how adding "if you can" helps even the debt case. If you can't, then obviously you won't. Otherwise you must. Either Charlatan overrides debt or it doesn't. "If you can" shouldn't make a difference there.

About this, the idea was that the attribute "buy" starts out with a value of "can", and then becomes "must if can" (or "can't"), and finally, "must if can and can't". Without the restriction, the last step would be "must and can't", which causes the contradiction. Of course you are right, this isn't the only possible reading either. I mean, perhaps you can just put the issue into a hypothetical rulebook. Black Market also doesn't tell me i can play Treasure cards, yet i can, so maybe answering such stuff in an FAQ would be fine after all.

[Minotaur]

Auction: Treasure–Reaction, $2  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.

Borderline attack reflection, which I somewhat agree with Donald about as being a Bad Thing.  Cursers are probably sort of viable, while Urchin (or any other weak attack) is just about dead in the water.  The Treasure is decent for decks that green early or draw a lot of dead actions, I guess.  The +Buy is nice, but if you need more than one of them, then they are a very bad collision hazard.

[tristan]

I am not a fan uf Auction bit I don't consider its Reaction to be brokenly strong. You do after all have to discard two cards to get that Gold and a difference of 1 or more Coins could seriously weaken your current turn.

[AdrianHealey]

Auction: Treasure–Reaction, $2  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.

Borderline attack reflection, which I somewhat agree with Donald about as being a Bad Thing.  Cursers are probably sort of viable, while Urchin (or any other weak attack) is just about dead in the water.  The Treasure is decent for decks that green early or draw a lot of dead actions, I guess.  The +Buy is nice, but if you need more than one of them, then they are a very bad collision hazard.

I have played a game with Auction; it didn't feel like a strong reaction at all. Do you think horsetraders is a too strong a reacion to urchin? Ok, Militia/Mercenary also because irrelevant when you have auction and another treasure in your hand, but is that really that big of a deal? Curses still hit pretty hard. And gaining a gold in your discard pile is nice, but also not super-duper strong.

[Deadlock39]

There are games where it could be pretty strong I suppose, but it doesn't seem overpowered.  Compare with Tunnel.

[NoMoreFun]

What if Charlatan also prevented players from buying treasures?

[NoMoreFun]

Are you going to test cards with Simulators? It would really be worth testing cards that might work well with Big Money like Dignitary, Harbor, Convoy etc. I also suspect that BM-Conclave might be one of the non terminals that works with BM (like Ironmonger and Magpie); even before you're using it to draw 3 cards you can pick the Treasure that helps you reach the price point you need.

In fact quite a few cards that are good at helping you nail particular price points without excess (the aforementioned cards, as well as Fund) which is what makes coin tokens, BM-Gear and BM-Courtyard so strong.

[navical]

I've done some simulation testing on Enterprise (part of a bigger project that's currently on hiatus due to thesis), Dignitary-BM is very good, significantly better than Smithy-BM iirc. I don't remember about any of the other cards.

[NoMoreFun]

Something that just came to me based on 2 of your outtakes

Refurbish
Action - $4
Gain a Silver
Look through your discard pile. Choose one card from it and either trash it, or put it on your deck.
---
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1

And another that just came to mind (not a big fan of making single card-shaped thing topics)

Partnership
Event - $5
Gain a Silver if you have none in play
Move your Silver token to an Action supply pile costing $4 or less (during your Action phase, you may play Silver as if it's a copy of that card instead)

[LastFootnote]

Fountain
2 Delve
3 Banquet

2 Auction
3 Floodgate
3 Tinker
3 Tunnel
4 Refurbish (+1 Buy; you may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver / while this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1)
5 Almoner
5 Haggler
5 Highway
5 Ill-Gotten Gains
5 Inn


7 Inheritance
Wall
Wolf Den

0 Redistrict
3 Amulet
3 Guide
4 Messenger
4 Stockpile
5 Bladesmith
5 Distant Lands
5 General
5 Vendor (+1 Card; +1 Action; +$1; may pay Trade token to discard hand and draw 5 / when gain, take Trade token)
5 Wine Merchant


Couple of games on Friday. They went well! I'm not sure whether Almoner's new name helped remind people that they could gain a Copper to hand, since I reminded them anyway every time I played one. One of the other players got some too, but it was late and I'm not sure they ever played one.

The new Refurbish seems good. It's nice to have another +1 Buy card in the set. It looks strong to my players, but seems totally reasonable to me so far.

All the other older stuff seems good, too. I got a few copies of good cards off of Stockpile, which was especially important with Wolf Den in the game.

[AdrianHealey]

I once had a native village/refurbish megaturn, buying 3 provinces, 4 duchies and an estate beating my opponent with one vp point. That
Was glorious.

[NoMoreFun]

Is Refurbish good without an enabler? Delve would have been huge for it. The card strikes me as weak but if it's good in situations where it's supposed to be strong then it's a successful card.

I'd like to see if BM-Refurbish works.

[LastFootnote]

I once had a native village/refurbish megaturn, buying 3 provinces, 4 duchies and an estate beating my opponent with one vp point. That
Was glorious.

Nice.

Is Refurbish good without an enabler? Delve would have been huge for it. The card strikes me as weak but if it's good in situations where it's supposed to be strong then it's a successful card.

I'd like to see if BM-Refurbish works.

The old version of Refurbish certainly wasn't strong without an enabler. The old version being:

Refurbish: Action, $3
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

So it didn't have +1 Buy and the trashing and gaining were mandatory. I doubt this version does much better in a Big Money-Refurbish deck.

Normally the enablers you want are things that increase your hand size, but gaining a ton of Silver (with e.g. Delve) can also work.

[ThetaSigma12]

Would something like This work as art for Study?

[AdrianHealey]

Refurbish, as is, is a good card. Even just to change estates into silvers. Not great; but good enough.

[ThetaSigma12]

Would something like This work as art for Study?

For the people who prefer this type of art.

[MattLee]

Games get really odd when we have 4 or more of them passing them back and forth. The one shot chancellor effect is is a cool idea but its not enough for me. I might try making a passing card too eventually, its a simple new idea with lots of space to work in.

[LittleFish]

Refurbish: Action, $4  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

It's coppersmith for silvers, but stronger. if it only had the "coppersmith effect" it would still be worth because the silvers would hurt your deck less then more coppers

[GendoIkari]

Refurbish: Action, $4  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

It's coppersmith for silvers, but stronger. if it only had the "coppersmith effect" it would still be worth because the silvers would hurt your deck less then more coppers

What you are missing is that you start with 7 Coppers and 0 Silvers. That means that if you buy a Coppersmith right away for , you already have 7 cards that it works on. It is pretty likely that the first time you play that Coppersmith, it will give you + or even +. Refurbish's Silver-boosting effect will take a while to be worth it. The first several times you play one, you probably aren't even going to get to play a Silver that turn.

[LittleFish]

the floodgate image is gone

[LastFootnote]

Note: I'm archiving the old OP as it's been for the last several years, for posterity.


Over four years in the making (so far), here is the current form of my Enterprise expansion. It is designed to be a 300-card set, containing 25 Kingdom cards and at least one ancillary card. Right now it's in a bit of a state of flux, since I haven't gotten as much testing it as I would like to. This is what it looks like now, though, for some values of "now".

Its main theme is "effects with limited uses". This means there are a few one-shots and a few optional one-shots (à la Mining Village). The set also introduces Trade tokens, which you usually get when you gain a card and can use to boost that card when you play it. There are a few other cards that approach the concept of a one-shot in a creative way. Finally, there's a Treasures subtheme and a few off-theme cards.

The number of stars after each card name indicates how much testing the card has gotten. More black stars = more testing. Generally if a card has a bunch of stars, I'm happy with it or I would have scrapped it by now. Cards with more white stars need much more testing before I can make a judgment.

Kingdom Cards

Redistrict: Action, $0  ★★★☆☆
Choose a card in your hand. Trash it and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. You may trash this. If you do, gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the chosen card.

Auction: Treasure–Reaction, $2  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
When you play this, discard your hand. Worth $1 per card discarded.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this and another Treasure, to gain a Gold.

Jubilee: Action, $2  ★★★★☆
+2 Actions
+$2
You may pay a Trade token. If you don't, set this aside, and return it to the Supply at the start of Clean-up.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Wanderer: Action, $2  ★★☆☆☆
+4 Cards
The player to your left gains this.
When you buy this, put your deck into your discard pile.

Charlatan: Action–Attack–Duration, $3  ★★☆☆☆
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$1. Until your next turn, each other player must use all of their Buys during their Buy phase.

Convoy: Action, $3  ★★☆☆☆
+3 Cards
Discard a card. You may pay a Trade token, to play this again.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Floodgate: Victory, $3  ★★★★☆
Worth 2 VP.
When you gain this, aside up to 4 cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.

Gambler: Action, $3  ★★★★★
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck and choose one: Trash that card; or put that card into your hand and trash this.

Tinker: Action, $3  ★★★☆☆
+$1
Trash 2 cards from your hand. You may pay a Trade token, to gain a card costing up to their total cost.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Dignitary: Action–Reaction, $4  ★★★☆☆
+2 Cards
+$2
Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this, to trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.

Profiteer: Action, $4  ★★☆☆☆
Gain a Gold onto your deck. Each other player gains an Armament from the Armament pile.

Stockpile: Treasure, $4  ★★★☆☆
Worth $1
When you play this, you may pay a Trade token, to gain a copy of a card you have in play. Otherwise, take a Trade token.

Terrace: Action, $4  ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may pay a Trade token, to discard your hand and draw 5 Cards.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Almoner: Action, $5  ★★★★☆
Discard any number of cards, then draw until you have 7 cards in hand. Each other player may gain a Copper to their hand.

Bladesmith: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
Gain an Armament from the Armament pile to your hand.

Conclave: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. From those cards, put an Action card, a Treasure, and a Victory card into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.

Fund: Treasure, $5  ★★★☆☆
Worth $2
+1 Buy
When you play this, you may trash it, to gain a Silver to your hand.

General: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. When you discard that card from play, you may put it onto your deck.

Harbor: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Put any number of them into your hand. Put the rest back in any order. +$1 per card you put back.

Vendor: Action, $5  ★★☆☆☆
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Look through your discard pile. You may pay a token, to put a card from it into your hand.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

Study: Action–Duration, $6  ★☆☆☆☆
+$3
During your next turn, when you play an Action card, first draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Ancillary (Non-Kingdom) Cards

Armament: Treasure–Attack, $4*  ★★★☆☆
Worth $2
When you play this, if you have another Attack card in play, return this to the Armament pile and each other player gains a Curse.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Outtakes
These cards don't fit into Enterprise anymore, but most of them were balanced and all had their fans. A version of Conclave was cut for balanced reasons, and the tweaked version is here since I haven't tested it myself yet.

Mill Town: Action, $3  ★★★★☆
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card. You may reveal your hand, to gain a card costing up to $1 per Copper in your hand.

Refurbish: Action, $4  ★★★☆☆
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand to gain a Silver.
While this is in play, Silver produces an extra $1.

Barter: Action, $5  ★★★☆☆
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may pay a Trade token to put the gained card into your hand.
When you buy this, take a Trade token per Silver you have in play.

Phew, that's all the cards. Again, I'd like to thank rinkworks for his encouragement during this set's first few baby steps. My, how far we've come. I'd like to thank lympi for helping me learn how to mock up card images. I'd especially like to thank those of you who have playtested my cards and given me feedback. This set would not be as good as it is today without you! I will continue to strive to improve it.