Was this with the Lost City version of Search? I can see that being broken, but I don't see how the current terminal-silver version can be "too generous."
Yes it was that version. I kept it trashing when I switched it to +$2.
We can even say, with the published version, you don't always want them back once they cash in.
Nowadays, would you do Chameleon as a Trait? As a Way, it needs "follow this card's instructions," and I'm sure that rules thread is enough evidence about how the wording is a can of worms.
If it's the current thread, that one's attacking Harbor Village and Moat, not so much "follow this card's instructions." Which is you know not a phrase I'm delighted to be using, but I think it's doing the trick?
Chameleon as a Trait seems a lot less interesting; it would often show up on something it had no effect on.
As I've mentioned, if I were making the main set today, well in addition to Reactions being like Sheepdog not Moat, I would also put "Attack" in the middle of text, so that you e.g. Moated Minion after they picked to attack with it. I mean I would try that at least and see if it worked out; I don't need to commit-without-testing in this fantasy. Anyway. That's the fix for Moat. Harbor Village, there were several things I could have done, including making some other card. I wasn't thrilled with "play an action, then see if your amount of $ went up," which would have been clear enough for rules-pokers (I think?).
Ways added a lot of fun gameplay; today I am not possibly deciding "why did I do those."
Since there were concerns about First Mate tracking, were there also concerns about Siren and the stop moving rule? I'm sure casual players will never even think about Siren tricks, but "what cards let you dodge Siren and why" has come up a lot on the internet.
There were concerns about, making it work, and making it clear how it worked.
At some point, when I've got a cool card on my hands and you can say, "but these interactions require you to know the stop moving rule," I throw my hands in the air and say, "15th expansion!" It's the 15th expansion. The cards have to keep doing new things. This is what happens.
Maybe there is a phrasing that better does the concept, with less rules knowledge invoked. When you look for it, make sure to avoid "would," and try to keep the text fitting on the card in that font size.
I'm sure you've seen me hate on Dark Ages all the time in discord/spec chat/this thread, so uh what are your thoughts on it today?
From 2007 through the break after Guilds, Dark Ages was my favorite expansion. It has lots of card interactions, that's the draw.
The sets ramped up in polish as of Adventures, and there are a bunch of those sets at this point. Then I made 2E's for the main set and four earlier expansions. So at this point Dark Ages stands out for not having gotten that treatment. It has a few problematically powerful/monolithic cards, and a bunch of duds.
We might disagree on specifics though.
Would you say that some cards are more designed for irl-bring-a-few-expansions-to-game-night instead of online-ladder-full-random? For example, I can see Elder being more interesting in heavy-Allies games, but I haven't really been excited by it when playing online.
Well zero cards are designed for online. These days I do worry a little about online, because of e.g. Changeling. Which I mean, made it out with no regard for online whatsoever; online would deal with it somehow. But you know, I might think, will this card make you click pointlessly a bunch, can I fix that without really sacrificing anything.
You've said on discord that you "blew it" on Lackeys's cost (specifically: "No amount of having blown it on Lackeys makes it good to blow it on Sea Chart, that's how I see it"). Can you elaborate on that?
In context I was just fighting a classic poor line of reasoning. Sea Chart was being complained about, and compared to Lackeys. But, as a wise man once said, "No amount of having blown it on Lackeys makes it good to blow it on Sea Chart, that's how I see it." Comparing something to an overpowered card doesn't tell you how balanced it is. I mean unless it's even more powerful. It's great to be weaker than Lackeys; that's the goal in fact.
I don't think I have any deep insights into Lackeys. Villagers were stronger than they looked. Coffers were too but we caught that. I mean maybe I blew it there somewhere but we did know that Coffers were stronger than they looked. But you know. I haven't done the post-release work on Lackeys to know what it would look like with more time spent on the set. I don't know that charging more is the fix. For casual players it seems fine; experts empty them and I mean it sure looks like I could have done better.
