Print

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

[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.