Too true, this. I've settled into using these Resources for a while now, but there's no getting around these cold hard facts. It's bothering me! By the nature of their intended randomness it's been hard to actually focus on their individual power level in testing while testing out the cards that use them.
With Fur, well, there's proof I don't have Hamlet! I imagined it as always +2 Actions may discard for +Card, but checking it now Fur does look silly.
With Fruit, I was going with the need to have a non-Resource Action in hand before the draw cheapening it from Lab enough, just as
Old Map can cost
whereas Fugitive is $4.5. I can easily believe it being too good at
.
How do these
variants look:
Fruit - Action Resource, cost.
[same]
Fur - Action Resource, cost
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Ore - Action Resource, cost.
[same]
Wood - Action Resource, cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or trash this, +1 Buy and + .
Fruit now can't play
Actions. Fur can be plain Village (maybe a bit boring). Ore can equal Silver (do you actually go for it? The Ducat - Candlestick Maker debate). Wood gets a when-gain and when-trash to bring it up to
; you aren't so sad if you have to get an excess of them.
The boringness should be made up by the cards that add them to the game, which you are designing.
If I don't hear any other negative feedback by Monday 4:00am forum time, I will update the Resources to these. I should probably bring the close date to then as well, to make up for this time.