Print

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

[Asper]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

[polot38]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.

[Asper]

Whoa, that seems weak. Strong with Silk Road, of course, but really weak with no other alt-VP cards. I don't think the combos are common enough to be worth it, and even when they're there, dang you're just slaughtering your deck by buying this.

I thought a bit about Meadow and whether i could save it, because i kind of like the effect, and i realized i might have given up a bit too early.

What i forgot to point out is: In a game without any alt-VP, the game ends when either the Meadow or the Province pile is empty (because it empties Duchies and Estates at the same time). So on a 2-player board, you'd just have to get to $6 eight times before your opponent manages to get to $8 seven times. It's a bit similar to IGG in how it can end the game, but unlike IGG i'm pretty sure Meadow will choke too easily if there's nothing to support it. That support doesn't have to be Alt-VP, though - strong sifters and cards like Vault that create $6 relatively reliably also work. Actually, as it (currently) works on-gain, you don't even need to do that - Remodeling Meadows into Meadows also works. It might be a problem that your opponent can buy a Duchy or two to weaken your Meadow's central VP source, but then again this would make him green himself. Either way, i think there's room for Meadow rush strategies.

The fact that some don't like the "tripple gaining" is a different thing. I personally don't mind it and think it's okay to have on your board once and a while, but if it turns out too annoying (or automatic, even) i would change it to buy.

Here's an idea to buff it/make it more interesting: make meadow a treasure/victory with this as the treasure part:
worth $0
while this card is in play, meadows cost $3 more

so if you bought 1, you could then buy meadow into province-duchy. You should also make the on-gain effect optional.

I don't know about cards that increase costs. I always remember some rules issues that were cited with cost reducers and cards costing $0, and i feel it would mean introducing new rules. It's probably not impossible, but unless there comes an official card that does cost increasing, i'd rather not do it.
Of course you could do it as an overpay "Gain two other VP cards that cost less than the total you paid", but i'm really not an overpay friend. The machanic feels overly complex to me, even though Meadow would be one of the more simple use cases.

About buffs, these are the options i had in mind:



None of them really makes the card more interesting, though. Probably the crazy second option is more interesting, but i still feel it's a bit lacking. Maybe i just should let it go, after all :-/

[Co0kieL0rd]

I would really like to reply more positively but there's just absolutely no way I would appreciate this concept. I'm sorry

To me, it just reads "gain a bunch of green" or "gain a Province split in 3 pieces." It's uninteresting and it's too many gains that just come flying in without any twist or condition to it. And trashing a Province from the Supply is terrible per se; if it happens additionally to all that gaining, Meadow just turns into a Kingdom-flattener that destroys the regular course of the game and ends it at a frantic pace with a foreseeable outcome, especially in multiplayer games.
On top of that, it destroys your deck. If you go for Meadows while your opponent goes for Provinces, you will likely choke horribly on green cards while your opponent might not be able to score enough points any more. Towards the end, it will be painfully slow for both of you and your opponent will pray for you to end the game finally.

Wow, I wrote into a frenzy. I guess I'd very strongly advise you against this idea.

[Co0kieL0rd]

On a positive note, I have recently conducted a non-human-interactive playtest involving your Sultan and Politician. Nobles and Great Hall were also on the board so Sultan should have been really good. But it was just okay which, frankly, surprised me but also relieved me. I was relieved because I thought Sultan would be too good. I like the card and I hope it works out. The real question for me is how does it compare with Explorer? Just the fact it's non-terminal makes me feel like it should cost at least $4, even though my only playtest showed Sultan isn't amazingly good. I mean, Explorer always gives you a Silver but without Villages, Explorer isn't any better at gaining Golds than Sultan. It's even worse because Sultan draws an additional card and you can still play another action after Sultan. That doesn't feel right.
Sultan has a cute concept but being a cantrip might make it too good, even if it's just in comparison with Explorer which isn't a good card but still costs $5. And Sultan is for $3? Yeah it might whiff but it's at least a cantrip then. I hope you can see my point.

Every time I played Politician I subconsciously chose the same option for all 3 other players. Eventually I realised I could have chosen different options for each one. But in 95% of cases, you won't because most player interaction cards are symmetrical in Dominion so there's no point in bothering thinking about who should get what. You always focus on your own deck anyway. So I think you could make Politician simpler by making one decision for each other player. It's still a fun card. That +$3 is really enticing at a cost of only $3 so I expect people to go for it and see how good of a job Politician does for them.

[Asper]

It's okay. There hasn't been any positive feedback to Meadow, so i guess a clear "It's no good" statement helps me make a cut and let it go. So i'll let it go.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

About Politician, you raise a very interesting point. Making it one choice might or might not make the card less political. Actually, i can imagine a case where Alice says "Why do you let us gain Silvers? Bob's playing Big Money and you're just helping him! My Torturer chains are the only way to stop his Treasure madness!" (added drama). Long story short, i guess it doesn't harm the intend of the card as much as it improves it.

Edit: I just realized a choice for all makes Politician rather similar to Governor on paper. Though the biggest difference is that for Governor you pick the choice you want, while for Politician you choose what your opponents get the least of... Still, 2 of 3 bonuses are the same. That's rather unsatisfying. Considering i still think that one choice for all might be better, i wonder whether doing Politician is worth it at all 
A shame, i was pretty fond of this one...
Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

[XerxesPraelor]

FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.

[Co0kieL0rd]

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.

[Asper]

FWIW, I like meadow, and I prefer the option of making it give 2 VP.

That's good to hear
Hm... I guess i'll try it and see whether Co0kieL0rd is right.

About Sultan, i like to compare it to Oasis: It's worse for Estates, Shelters, Curses and unwanted actions, but better if you have no junk (not even Copper) or with Duchy, Province and alt-VP. Unlike Oasis it only pseudo-sifts, and as it fills your deck with cards it reduces the chance to collide itself with VPs which makes up for the fact it gives a staying advantage. Explorer is terribly weak, even compared to Squire. Unlike Sultan, it at least doesn't need a Duchy normally to gain Silvers.

I'm really grateful and flattered you tested my cards. Really,thank you  The fact that Sultan doesn't work awesomely with Great Hall is a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but then again discarding GH negates its main bonus over Estate, being a cantrip. Even though i designed with Harem in mind, i guess "useless" Vp are a better target. Well, Harem gaining at least INCREASES your chance of a collision, so that's that. Anyhow, i guess it being okay is something i can live with. Not every $3 can be Scheme. You can always pick up an early Duchy, though i guess you'd need good sifting to get more out of it than that costs.

Edit2: Seems i missed out Nobles also was on the Sultan board... Now that worries me a bit.

I mean, whenever I drew Sultan and Nobles or GH together, I would think "would I rather play or discard the Nobles/GH?" For Nobles the choice was almost always play until I drew my deck. I also played most of the Great Halls because I got them later in the game and didn't want any more Silvers. Sultan wasn't a good reason to buy a lot of GHs (which are mediocre at best, even on this board).

Still, although Explorer is very weak, it costs $5 and it's (a little) worse at gaining Golds than Sultan. Since gaining Gold is the only reason one should buy any of the two cards (usually), the huge cost gap between them kinda bothers me. You should check on that, play games with both cards in them, and nerf Sultan if necessary. IMO it doesn't need to be a cantrip. The comparison with Oasis is only superficially applicable because Oasis is often a good opening card but Sultan isn't. Sultan serves a completely different purpose than Oasis so I would rather not compare them.

I think neither Sultan nor Explorer should be considered Gold gainers. Sultan can gain Coppers if you're desperate,  but Silver gaining needs some investment, and Sultan itself doesn't help you to get there. Explorer can give you a Silver, no questions asked. Whenever you have no VP card, Sultan does nothing. Explorer is worse at gaining Golds, but it's better at getting you to a point where you can actually buy Provinces - in that respect, you can open Explorer.

All that doesn't change that Sultan does look good compared to Explorer. You are the one who playtested it (thanks again), but your playtests didn't show it to be OP even on an alt-Vp board. If it turns out to be too good after all, i'm not against changing the cost to $4, of course.

[Asper]

So, for now i removed Politician from my list of cards (it's hardly a set), because its bonuses are too similar to Governor. Also, given recent... Events... it's seems a good thing Road is a non-supply pile. Hooray! No neverending Roads! So Town/Road is what it's at and it's going to stay.

Enjoy your Adventures Time.

[Asper]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^

[Asper]

Little update:

Now that an official Ranger card exists, i had to change my card's name. Also, as it turned out no Adventures card uses the mechanic of a Reserve that you can call back only on buying a VP card (though Wine Merchant goes in a similar overall direction), i'll use this to make "Hunter" more interesting:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Discard one and put the rest in your hand. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

The top part of Hunter is good but the bottom condition is essentially anti-synergistic and makes the whole card significantly worse. Of course, the top part needs a substantial nerf to justify the cost of $4 but such a narrow condition makes Hunter nearly useless in any strategy that doesn't focus on alt-VP. I could be totally wrong but that's my first impression, sorry.

Well, the original card, Ranger, did the same with two cards and costed $2 (without being a Reserve). It was on par with Vagrant but a bit boring. This now is better than Laboratory (most of the time) and costs less. I liked the VP clause (i originally posted it as a prediction for Adventures), and thought it fitted well on a sifter, and Ranger was a sifter but boring, and that's the story. I don't know whether you noticed, but you can of course discard any number of Hunters to the same VP buy. So, one Duchy per shuffle, and you get super-Labs that help with green for $4. Honestly, i thought that was pretty synergetic.

Edit: Given how new the card is, it might still be off on the power level.

No mockup for now, as i don't have one for Reserves.

Also, Meadow will stay for now (with 2 VP), i killed Politician because of the similarity to Governor, and i renamed (and brought back) Dungeon as "Maze". I think it being a VP card that pushes itself makes it interesting enough, even though it gives no on-play bonus. I suppose not everybody liked Distant Lands, either.

Who does not like Distant Lands? Maze seems fine but could be more interesting, design-wise. The art is gorgeous.

I just noticed in the first post you write your name is Troy McAsper. Is that your real name? It sounds too cool not to be a pseudonym^^

I don't know. But i'm sure somebody doesn't like it. I like it, but i'm a bit biased in favour of alt-VP, i think. Hmm... Now that Distant Lands exists, we do have an official VP card that gets better by playing it... Maybe this makes Maze less unique

Sadly, that's not really my name. It was just a shout-out to Troy McLure from "The Simpsons", who would always introduce himself with a list of movies/advertisements/whatever that you might remember him from.

[XerxesPraelor]

Yeah; I think the new Hunter is much cooler than the old Ranger. Definitely a keeper.

[Asper]

Thanks

I changed the wording a tiny bit. Don't know why i didn't do it like that from the start:

Hunter, Action - Reserve, $4
+1 Action
Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put two in your hand. Discard the other one. Put this on your Tavern Mat.
----
When you buy a Victory card, you may discard this from your Tavern Mat.

Only difference is that the first version failed (partially) for the last 1 or 2 cards in your deck, and the new one doesn't.

[Asper]

Woohoo! Since i now have post/respect equilibrium, i can finally stop posting memes and cheap jokes. HURRA!

Here are slightly reworked versions of Necromancer and Zombie from Werothegreat's "Flavorful X or Z card" thread. As you can see, i decided for the +2 cards version for now to keep Necromancer from comparing too favourably to Rogue (though it might be too weak now) and gave Zombie an easier to do bane*:



*The last version had Necromancer draw 3 cards and gain only action cards, while Zombie allowed opponents to topdeck two cards with the attack taking place either way.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.
Also i just noticed that this might be considered a bit similar to Town/Road, being a supply/non-supply pair of Village/Draw. Hm...

[LastFootnote]

I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.

[Co0kieL0rd]

*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.

[Asper]

I have to say that I'm really excited by the concept of having a bunch of cards start in the trash; it's very flavorful. I also like how Necromancer and Zombie interact as sort of two halves of Rogue. I don't think Zombie needs to be a Village, and in fact I'm leery of it being non-terminal at all.

To make it more different from Rogue, maybe Necromancer could always gain a Zombie from the trash. And then the Zombies kill each other off. But of course, unlike other trashing attacks, you can always get them back. Hmm...I wonder if it's too oppressive.

Anyway, the concept is very cool and I'm optimistic that some implementation will work out. Great idea!

I wonder if Zombie needs "(This is not in the Supply)"? Shelters don't have it because they're never in a pile on the table, and I think that applies to Zombies, too.

Thanks

Wow, i didn't even think about Shelters as a precedent. Will fix this.

I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

*cough* Magic the Gathering *cough*

I like the combo of Necromancer and Zombie a lot! Two cool interactive cards that make sense together but aren't that easy to play well, which is a good thing. And they aren't too complicated, either. They instantly jumped to a high position in my mental ranking of your cards only judging by first impression on their effect and design.

Now that Adventures brings so much additional fantasy stuff into Dominion (yeah, Witch and friends, I know) these seem more fitting than before. I still loathe Vampire, just because I think the design is poor. Obviously you can come up with much more interesting ideas, so I would be glad to see that card reworked. Would a Vampire not rather leech from your opponents instead of giving them points? But what do I know about Vampires.

You're probably right about Hunter! I guess I just couldn't grasp its power level, and would have played the card very badly. But I'm also bad with Storeroom although I know it's a good card, so who am I to judge? Just a humble, semi-talented player. I've even been more passionate about fan cards than original card, recently (until Adventures came out).

But enough about me. Just wanted to say, I like Necromancer and Zombie, to end this post on a positive note.

Never played Magic. Had it explained to me, though, and i'd probably like it.

Thanks to you too

I guess you are right. Vampire is a bit anti-thematic, thinking of it. And yes, i know cards like that are generally considered poor design. Sometimes i do cards just to see whether i can implement the idea without the power being off or rules breaking, similarly to why i did Jeweler (which implements Action/Treasure). Vampire is the same about that Curse/Action concept, and actually started out as an Action-Curse. It's an old card, and i'm mostly trying to fix it because it's very popular in my gaming group. I know it doesn't live up to some of the other cards.

Edit: Also i myself am a mediocre player at best.

[LastFootnote]

I think you have a good point about Zombie being a Village. I mainly wanted the cards to not stand in each other's way, and Draw/Village was just an obvious positive interaction to make sure you'd want both of them. I know nonterminal attacks are a bad thing normally, and it might be too much of a no-brainer. Another problem i noticed just now is that Zombie/Necromancer would be my second supply/non-supply Village/Draw pair after Town/Road. And that's far from original...

I'll think about some other options.

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

[Asper]

I'm having a hard time finding better bonuses for the cards from the spot. It's less hard for Zombie, which could just give +$2. That way, it becomes a bad idea to load up on Zombies too much, and i think Necromancer would have to give +2 Actions itself so you want Zombies at all. Maybe +$1, too? Problem is, this is even more similar to Town. In a way, i think it's more elegant the other way around, and i'd rather try to find a way of making the attack stack less (or add a bane that doesn't run out). Either way, i sadly don't really have time to think about it right now, but i'll definitely try to improve it.

About the "this is not in the supply": I'm not sure whether it might make some people think of Zombie as a regular kingdom card that's just missing a randomizer if i keep it out. Hmm... I guess having it be both a setup and kingdom card would cause some confusing cases. So probably i could leave it on.

[pacovf]

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.

[Asper]

I was thinking that Zombie could be terminal and Necromancer could be non-terminal. Then I was thinking that Necromancer could put the gained Zombie into your hand. Then I realized that's a lot like Barracks. But you know, still an option. It could just be +1 Action, +$2, gain a [Zombie/Attack/card costing from $3 to $6] from the trash.

I like the Barracks version. It's different enough because, unlike Conscripts, Zombies don't disappear after they attack so you want to balance how many you get (especially if they are terminal), and because Necromancer can eventually gain and play the trashed cards on the same turn. Plus, the attack itself is different, Barracks curses while Necromancer trashes, etc.

Now the question would be to find a good terminal version of Zombies.

I am not terribly convinced by the discard option in Zombie, though.

The discard option was added so Zombie isn't just Dame Molly for less money and without a trash clause. I know it's never in the supply, but i didn't like the idea of Necromancer always being able to gain a card that was worth $5. Now that i'm thinking about a different Vanilla bonuses either way, it should be possible to balance the card without the discard option.

I'm not really a fan of gaining and playing the card. I could imagine gaining a card and allowing you to play a Zombie a lá Cultist. But that probably makes the synergy too obvious and discourages gaining the cards your Zombies trashed, which i wouldn't like as much, either.

How about:

Necromancer
+2 Actions
You may gain a card costing from $3 to $6 from the trash.

Zombie
+2$
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest. If a player trashed a card, he may gain a card costing at least $2 less.


Makes Necromancer rather similar to University, but probably not in a problematic way. At least Zombie doesn't draw, so it's not as Town-ish (i hope). Still not sure this is the solution. I don't know what Necromancer is supposed to cost in this version. I doubt it's worth $5 on its own...

[pacovf]

I think giving +2 Actions to Necromancer is good already, but here are some other ideas anyway. I'm just brainstorming, so this may be very far away from what your idea is, but what about:

Necromancer:
Play this as if it were an Action card from the Trash that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
Setup: Put the Zombie card in the Trash.

Can be tweaked, of course. It's kinda cheating in that it's hiding complexity behind a second card, but oh well. If this would be too strong, you could make it return the chosen card to its Supply Pile too.


Other ideas:

If you don't like (conditional) gain to hand, make Necromancer gain cards to the top of your deck (maybe only if it's an Attack card, to make it more different from Graverobber?).

Make Zombie:

Zombie
Trash a card from your hand.
Each other player reveals the top two cards of his deck, trashes one costing from $3 to $6 and discards the rest.

[GendoIkari]

Not that I care about flavor personally, but for flavor, I think zombie definitely should be non-terminal, because zombies are the type of things that you should be able to play a bunch of at once.