Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Laborers
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. +1 Buy. Gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. You may discard a Treasure. If you don't, trash this.

[Tables]

Seems a bit too close to silver for $4. Okay, it's an action which makes it different, but in drawless decks this can be played totally as a silver+.

Power wise it's hard to say. Most likely it's strong (but not overly so) - copper with a buy gaining a silver when played, if you can match it up with your coppers is quite good early but doesn't accelerate you towards $5 and $6 cards, and later on it'll likely end up self-trashing for +$2.

Considering both of these issues I'd expect it might be a little too strong in money based games? Not sure.

[LastFootnote]

Man, I didn't even think about the fact that it's (almost) strictly better than Silver because you can trash it the first time you play it. Thanks for pointing that out. I may have to go back to +2 Cards, rather than gaining a Silver in hand. I hope that's not too similar to Stables.

I'll try to brainstorm some other options.

[ta56636]

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it just feels a bit dull: like it's rounding off a gap in a set rather than being something more individual.

[LastFootnote]

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it just feels a bit dull: like it's rounding off a gap in a set rather than being something more individual.

I don't mind you saying so and you're more or less correct. It could do with some jazzing up.

The original card was an Attack. I came up with it about 2 years ago and it's been mostly unchanged in that time.

Enforcer
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may discard a Treasure. If you don't, trash this. Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck and discards one that you choose.

But as Donald has said since then, ideally Spies should either not have +1 Action or not involve a decision, or both. A recent 4-player game with this card convinced me that it needs to change. It's actually worse than Spy because with a chain of Spies your opponents usually know what to do once you tell them to put a card back once. No such luck with Enforcer.

But I'd like to salvage the "discard a Treasure or trash this" portion of the card, which is kind of like Stables, but not quite. The reason I wanted to try a Silver-to-hand on it is that it would combo with another card in the set.

Anyway, I suppose I could take off the +1 Action, keep the Silver gain, and perhaps keep the Attack. That seems like a really complex card, though. Hmm… Any suggestions?

[soulnet]

How about "discard the most expensive non-Victory", and maybe let each player choose their own as tie-breaker, instead of the Attacker choosing? Seems like a fine approximation to the Attacker choosing, and makes it possible for each player to process their own attack while you go ahead with your turn. Also, Enforcer seems quite strong as it is, because it chains too well, so this little nerf may be ok.

[LastFootnote]

How about "discard the most expensive non-Victory", and maybe let each player choose their own as tie-breaker, instead of the Attacker choosing? Seems like a fine approximation to the Attacker choosing, and makes it possible for each player to process their own attack while you go ahead with your turn. Also, Enforcer seems quite strong as it is, because it chains too well, so this little nerf may be ok.

That's a good thought, but at that point I might as well just make it a Rabble attack that only reveals 1 or 2 cards. I think I'm better off axing the attack portion entirely and thinking of some other snazzy thing to add.

[ta56636]

I've thought in the past that the idea of a 'one shot' is a design space you could explore.  Perhaps most noticeably by forcing them to trash the card with no caveat.

The only current cards in that space I can think of: Pillage and Spoils (with cameos from Mining Village & Death Cart)

I also think that (given the number of official cards) new cards ideally should involve both strategy (overall game choices) and tactics (decisions dependent on draw of cards in hand).  The majority of existing cards tend to be much more about high level strategy, rather than low level tactics (Remodel, Band of Misfits, Salvager, Procession, Farmland etc. are possible examples that inhabit both areas)

[LastFootnote]

I've thought in the past that the idea of a 'one shot' is a design space you could explore.  Perhaps most noticeably by forcing them to trash the card with no caveat.

The only current cards in that space I can think of: Pillage and Spoils (with cameos from Mining Village & Death Cart)

I also think that (given the number of official cards) new cards ideally should involve both strategy (overall game choices) and tactics (decisions dependent on draw of cards in hand).  The majority of existing cards tend to be much more about high level strategy, rather than low level tactics (Remodel, Band of Misfits, Salvager, Procession, Farmland etc. are possible examples that inhabit both areas)

There are actually a fair number of published one-shot cards (Feast, Embargo, Treasure Map, Island, Pillage, Spoils, Madman) and a few more optional-one-shots (Mining Village and Death Cart you mentioned). Originally the Intrigue expansion was going to have a small one-shot theme, but it turns out that some of the playtesters didn't really like one-shots.

Anyway, the fan set that this card is from has a one-shot theme. Most of the cards, however, are optional one-shots or approach the concept of a one-shot in a unique way. There are likely to only be one or two true one-shots in the final set. So long story short, I'm aiming to keep this particular card an optional one-shot.

[jamespotter]

I really like the card as is, but the "almost strictly better than Silver" is a problem. What if you make the +1 action contingent on discarding a treasure? Then you can't just buy and trash for a better Silver. So the new card would look like:

Laborers
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. Gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. You may discard a Treasure. If you do, +1 Action. If you don't, trash this.

Also, one minor quibble with the name: almost all of the people names in Dominion are singular or collective nouns. This one being plural is kind of odd.

[KingZog3]

I really like the card as is, but the "almost strictly better than Silver" is a problem. What if you make the +1 action contingent on discarding a treasure? Then you can't just buy and trash for a better Silver. So the new card would look like:

Laborers
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. Gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. You may discard a Treasure. If you do, +1 Action. If you don't, trash this.

Also, one minor quibble with the name: almost all of the people names in Dominion are singular or collective nouns. This one being plural is kind of odd.

Followers?

[Warfreak2]

Goons?

[Awaclus]

Gardens, Horse Traders, Catacombs, Hunting Grounds, Rats, Stables, Ironworks, Nobles?

EDIT: Gardens, Catacombs, Hunting Grounds, Rats, Stables and Ironworks are people enough.

[jamespotter]

I stand corrected.