Print

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

[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