Print

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

[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.