Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Since I mocked these up for my own IRL set, I thought I might as well post them here. Just a few Dominion Time Machine changes.



Chancellor is added as a 27th card in the Base Set.
Statue replaces Harem in Intrigue.

[werothegreat]

Scrying Pool doesn't need fixing. I rather like annoying people by playing several in a row.

[LastFootnote]

Scrying Pool doesn't need fixing. I rather like annoying people by playing several in a row.

That's cool, man. I'm not trying to force people to adopt these. They're just here in case you want them.

[Polk5440]

I'm with you on removing the Spy from Scry (or at the very least, the spy on other's decks). Spying could be dropped from Duchess, too.

[AHoppy]

DXV even said he would change SP to not have the spying if he had to go back and change something (Not looking it up, I'm lazy).  And if you remove that bit from Duchess, it's literally just a terminal silver...  I kinda like it on Duchess, especially because while it seems pretty good for you, it also helps out your opponent.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I think SP should still have the self-spy, though. It's the attack that's mostly unnecessary and annoying.

[zporiri]

<insert joke here about guide being way too over-powered since scout is already one of the best cards>

[LastFootnote]

I think SP should still have the self-spy, though. It's the attack that's mostly unnecessary and annoying.

Yes, I did it this way because that was how the card originally was. If it turns out to be super-weak without the self-Spy, I may add it. Otherwise I'll stick with the simpler version.

[Drab Emordnilap]

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?

[LastFootnote]

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?

And Mine. People forget about Mine. I'll do those when I get the chance. Odds are I won't change their names, though, since the effect will be almost identical.

EDIT: (Oh, and they will say, "You may." Having to reveal a hand without is wordier and clunkier, and the cards won't mind the tiny buff.

[GendoIkari]

How about Throne Room and Moneylender that either say may, or have the "(or reveal a hand with no)"?

And Mine. People forget about Mine. I'll do those when I get the chance. Odds are I won't change their names, though, since the effect will be almost identical.

EDIT: (Oh, and they will say, "You may." Having to reveal a hand without is wordier and clunkier, and the cards won't mind the tiny buff.

Don't forgot Graverobber. And I'm pretty sure there's at least 1 or 2 others...

[LastFootnote]

Don't forgot Graverobber.

I didn't forget Graverobber so much as purposefully omit it and hope nobody noticed. Adding a "you may" to Graverobber's second option would make the wording really awkward. I guess it could just say, "You may choose one:" For all practical purposes, if they pick the second choice and then opt not to trash an Action card, they are effectively picking neither choice.

And I'm pretty sure there's at least 1 or 2 others...

Actually, I don't think so. Moneylender, Throne Room, Mine, and Graverobber are the only cards I usually think of as having accountability issues.

[sudgy]

Treasure Map!

[LastFootnote]

Treasure Map!

Good call, but rewording Treasure Map is not high on my priority list. Like, the number of situations in which you buy Treasure Maps and then play one with another one in hand that you opt not to trash, while perhaps nonzero, is pretty damn small.

[GendoIkari]

Don't forgot Graverobber.

I didn't forget Graverobber so much as purposefully omit it and hope nobody noticed. Adding a "you may" to Graverobber's second option would make the wording really awkward. I guess it could just say, "You may choose one:" For all practical purposes, if they pick the second choice and then opt not to trash an Action card, they are effectively picking neither choice.

But there's no room for "all practical purposes" in the ultra-pedantic world of F.DS! I don't really see anything wrong with "you may" on the second choice. You choose choice #2, at which point you choose if you want to do the "you may" or not.

[GendoIkari]

Treasure Map!

Good call, but rewording Treasure Map is not high on my priority list. Like, the number of situations in which you buy Treasure Maps and then play one with another one in hand that you opt not to trash, while perhaps nonzero, is pretty damn small.

When you are forced to play one with double-Throne Room / Smithy, and you have 3 in your hand, not 2. You only want to trash 2 of them, not all 3. Of course you're fixing Throne Room, but then, what happens when that comes up? You have to choose; Trash all 3 for the Golds, or keep all 3 for more Golds later?

Or, perhaps it's late game and you've never been able to connect them. You have a bunch of Fairgrounds, and already at least 1 Gold. You want to trash a Treasure Map to remove a basically dead card from your deck, but you need to keep the other one around for Fairgrounds.

Ok, I'll stop now.

[Grujah]

As LFN said, nonzero, but minimal.

[ta56636]

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

[ta56636]

PS As someone who quite often plays 4 player games, I'd be looking quite closely at cutpurse, saboteur and torturer (played a few horrible games with each of those...)

Adventurer would be a nice card to buff too...

[Matt_Arnold]

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

That was mine; thanks. Personally even if it were just a Victory card that gives you 0 VP, like Overgrown Estate, or if the card just said "Victory cards or Scouts", I would still like this change.

[Awaclus]

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

That was mine; thanks.

Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 1 VP (or possibly even 2)

[Matt_Arnold]

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

That was mine; thanks. Personally even if it were just a Victory card that gives you 0 VP, like Overgrown Estate, or if the card just said "Victory cards or Scouts", I would still like this change.

Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 1 VP (or possibly even 2)

Fixed that for you:
Mine
$5 Action - Victory
Victory cards or Scouts. Trash a Treasure card from your hand, or reveal a hand with no Treasure. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $3 more; put it into your hand.
_________
Worth 0 VP (or possibly even 1 or 2)

[LastFootnote]

Nice, but I probably prefer the change to Scout where you add +1 VP (or possibly even +2) and make it an action-victory (I saw this somewhere here): then it has a nice self synergising feature.

I strongly prefer my version and I'll tell you why. First of all, I do not consider self-synergy to be a desirable trait for a card to have. It may not be inherently undesirable, but I can't think of the last time I thought, "Oh, good, a Minion/Governor board! My favorite!" Second, giving Scout 1 VP steps on Great Hall's toes, and giving it 2 VP eclipses Great Hall almost completely.

I think giving it +$1 brings it up to an appropriate power level without changing what the card does. Imagine if Bishop were published without +$1. We'd have been all like, "Oh, this card is cool!" And then after playing it for a while and losing, we'd say, "Oh, this isn't so hot after all. I can't trash Copper without hurting my buying power this turn. Lame."

Are there other, more interesting fixes for Scout? Sure, probably. But we forget that Scout is already a pretty unique card. Nothing else really does what Scout does. It just doesn't seem fancy to us because it's been around forever and it's weak. I don't think it needs more bells and whistles. It's already fairly compelling; new players open with it all the time. It just needs to not be so terrible.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)

[markusin]

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)

Safe-trashing Lookout is for wimps!

In all seriousness, this seems like a reasonable fix, although personally I imagine that I'd be willing to trash good cards late game to avoid the "terminal Tournament" problem. That's just me.

Edit: With this card, I still think the correct move will be to not play it in the mid-late-game to late-game. It doesn't affect much, really.

[Warfreak2]

People don't have a problem with just not playing Chapel in the midgame, why is Lookout different? OK, occasionally you get a freak early play where it sees two Familiars and a Silver, but is that much worse than getting your Sea Hag Sea Hagged?

[soulnet]

People don't have a problem with just not playing Chapel in the midgame, why is Lookout different? OK, occasionally you get a freak early play where it sees two Familiars and a Silver, but is that much worse than getting your Sea Hag Sea Hagged?

Yes. Discard a Familiar and trash a Silver is much worse than discard a Sea Hag.

[Warfreak2]

And much, much less likely. I meant, is the risk of it happening much worse? Risk is a product of the negative consequences and the likelihood of those consequences.

[eHalcyon]

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)

Safe-trashing Lookout is for wimps!

In all seriousness, this seems like a reasonable fix, although personally I imagine that I'd be willing to trash good cards late game to avoid the "terminal Tournament" problem. That's just me.

Edit: With this card, I still think the correct move will be to not play it in the mid-late-game to late-game. It doesn't affect much, really.

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.

[soulnet]

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.

Moreover, weighing likelyhood and effect on the game, the worst about Lookout is how often it can miss Estates and miss Reshuffles in the early game, making the trashing extremely slow. The only good part about Lookout instead of Chapel is that, since you need to play Lookout many more times to trash down, bad trashing luck with Lookout is usually less extreme than bad trashing luck with Chapel.

[Davio]

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout, so when you play it, you're responsible for the risk you take.

If you happen to see "Familiar, Familiar, Silver", that's not so disastrous. When you have at least 2 Familiars and your opponent has a couple, Curses will run out pretty quickly anyway, so I might trash a Familiar here if it isn't going to deal out an extra Curse.

Also, with this selection, you might have opened Lookout/Potion which isn't the best for getting early Familiars so you've already gotten a bit lucky to be able to get 2 so quickly with your less than ideal opening.

This is all just to say: Lookout doesn't need a fix for its forced trashing, if anything it'd be fun to be able put one of the "looked-at" (not revealed mind you) cards in your hand, but that bumps it to $4 at least, maybe a mediocre $5.

[soulnet]

This is all just to say: Lookout doesn't need a fix for its forced trashing, if anything it'd be fun to be able put one of the "looked-at" (not revealed mind you) cards in your hand, but that bumps it to $4 at least, maybe a mediocre $5.

I would say its a good $5, better than Junk Dealer for trashing your opening cards, which is not bad.

[GendoIkari]

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout,

Throne Room and Golem are forcing me to play it. 

[Kirian]

There is no one forcing you to play Lookout,

Throne Room and Golem are forcing me to play it. 

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.

[soulnet]

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.

Beggar is not a forced trasher.

[markusin]

Lookout
Action
Cost $3
Look at top 3 deck cards, discard one, topdeck one, and either discard, topdeck, or trash the third. If you trash a card, +1 action.

(This is my casual wording. I guess you probablly wouldn't use the verb "topdeck" in an official wording, but this makes it shorter.)

Safe-trashing Lookout is for wimps!

In all seriousness, this seems like a reasonable fix, although personally I imagine that I'd be willing to trash good cards late game to avoid the "terminal Tournament" problem. That's just me.

Edit: With this card, I still think the correct move will be to not play it in the mid-late-game to late-game. It doesn't affect much, really.

Why wouldn't you play it?  The only reasons I can think of are limited actions and shuffle/cycling control, which isn't that much different from early game.  I think official Lookout is fine as is and making it safer also makes it much less interesting.

Limited actions can be a pretty big deal sometimes. If I'm buying Lookout, I'm usually counting on it being non-terminal. If I do have spare actions, well then okay I'll play the Lookout, but it's really a gimped Navigator if you don't trash anything.

[Warfreak2]

Also, with this selection, you might have opened Lookout/Potion which isn't the best for getting early Familiars so you've already gotten a bit lucky to be able to get 2 so quickly with your less than ideal opening.

Or Lookout/Squire. :-D

[LibraryAdventurer]

Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

[LastFootnote]

Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

While not strictly better than Gold, that will usually be a Treasure worth at least $3 for $5.

If I were to try to fix Harvest, I'd do this:

Harvest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one of them back and discard the rest. +$1 per differently named card revealed.

[qmech]

Buying Golem with forced trashers in your deck is begging for trouble.

Beggar is not a forced trasher.

I'd avoid buying Golem and Beggar together either.

[Warfreak2]

Nah, Golem/Beggar is a big combo, Golems become terminal +$6 and still skip over the Coppers. The trouble is buying enough Golems, so you need an Alchemy reprint of Beggar that gains three Potions to your hand.

[Awaclus]

Nah, Golem/Beggar is a big combo, Golems become terminal +$6 and still skip over the Coppers. The trouble is buying enough Golems, so you need an Alchemy reprint of Beggar that gains three Potions to your hand.

How flavorful!

[LibraryAdventurer]

Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Why didn't they make Harvest as a treasure card in the first place?

While not strictly better than Gold, that will usually be a Treasure worth at least $3 for $5.

If I were to try to fix Harvest, I'd do this:

Harvest
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one of them back and discard the rest. +$1 per differently named card revealed.

Yeah, I guess my suggestion doesn't work.  Yours would work better, but I still think it should be a treasure card.  I guess I could just make it like this:

Harvest
$5 - Treasure

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put them back in the order they were in.  If all revealed cards are differently named then this is worth $4, otherwise this is worth $2.

[Asper]

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

[LastFootnote]

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Suggestion for another card:

Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain a transmute; Victory card, gain a Gold. | If you trashed a treasure and have a second transmute in your hand, you may reveal it.  If you do, you may gain any action card costing up to $5 or $2p instead of another transmute.

Alternatively, I might use this without the potion cost as cost $3 or $4.

Edit: Wow, I didn't realize how wordy that was at first.  Maybe this instead:

Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain an action card costing up to 4 or 1p; Victory card, gain a Gold.

[NoMoreFun]

Transmute:
Action - $P
(Same as before)
---
When you buy this, +2 Buys

[Nic]

Suggestion for another card:

Transmute
$1p - Action
Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an…  Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5; Treasure card, gain a transmute; Victory card, gain a Gold. | If you trashed a treasure and have a second transmute in your hand, you may reveal it.  If you do, you may gain any action card costing up to $5 or $2p instead of another transmute.

Alternatively, I might use this without the potion cost as cost $3 or $4.

Also, revealing a card in response to an event to shouldn't be part of the action. You should phrase it like Trader.

Transmute
$1p - Action - Reaction

Trash a card from your hand.  If it is an… 
Action card, gain a victory card costing up to $5;
Treasure card, gain a Transmute;
Victory card, gain a Gold. When you would gain a Transmute, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain any action card costing up to $2p.

[LastFootnote]

Transmute is like Philosopher's Stone: perfectly good in a game with a few other Potion cards. Since I nearly always play with 2 sets at a time, I have no desire to change it. I think NoMoreFun's idea is cool, though. If you're going to have a card give +Buys when you buy it, a cheap Potion-cost card is a perfect fit. I don't think Transmute needs that change, but I would not complain if it happened.

[Holger]

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)

[LastFootnote]

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)

I don't feel like I have much AP when using Cartographer. As for Scout, I'd rather have a card that's more unique than one that's a weaker Cartographer. If Scout's main issue is straight-up power level, why not use the more simple, straightforward fix? I don't think the card needs a bunch of other clauses; they'll just make it less compelling to most players. I think the amount of complexity it currently has is ideal.

[Jimmmmm]

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

[LastFootnote]

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!

[popsofctown]

I like the cards in the OP.  Now I wants one.

[LastFootnote]

I like the cards in the OP.  Now I wants one.

Feel free to print and play. If you sleeve your cards, it's pretty easy. You just need an image editing program like Photoshop or GIMP.

[popsofctown]

I don't use sleeves.  I can't scrape together enough playtime with others to justify sleeves. 

[Holger]

I would probably have scout give +1 Card instead of the money. Before the revealing, though (we don't want to be too generous).

That makes it too similar to Cartographer and probably puts it on roughly the same power level as well. On a non-terminal card, every +1 Card is a huge buff. +$1 is much less drastic while still being significant.

But Scout would still not skip Coppers, Curses and other junk like Cartographer does. I think this buff would "only" make it a strong $4 card, at about Caravan's level. A probably smaller (and IMO more interesting) buff would be to draw a card only if Scout fails to reveal green cards, as was sometime suggested in an older thread.

Personally, I'd like to buff Scout by making it also skip Coppers and Curses; this seems most thematic to me. Since drawing Coppers would be too strong, I'd just add "You may discard all revealed cards costing $0." to the card text before the last sentence.
(This would make it similar to a weaker "automatic" Cartographer, removing the AP of that card.)

I don't feel like I have much AP when using Cartographer. As for Scout, I'd rather have a card that's more unique than one that's a weaker Cartographer. If Scout's main issue is straight-up power level, why not use the more simple, straightforward fix? I don't think the card needs a bunch of other clauses; they'll just make it less compelling to most players. I think the amount of complexity it currently has is ideal.

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.
Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

But I'd happily try your version if it succeeds in balancing Scout. Thanks for sharing!

[Jimmmmm]

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!

What about, "You may choose one of the trashed cards. If it is a Copper, put it in your hand. Otherwise, put it on top of your deck."?

[AJD]

As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants

Herbalist, Merchant Guild, Bishop, Squire. Pawn, Ironworks. Bridge. Fishing Village, Lighthouse.

Abandoned Mine!

[LastFootnote]

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.

Sure, but it's much closer to Cartographer than either Scout or my updated version (Guide).

Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

Here is a list of Kingdom cards that can give exactly +$1 (but no more) that are not Peddler variants: Bridge, Ironworks, Pawn, Herbalist, Bishop, Noble Brigand, Squire, Merchant Guild.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AJD. Although I didn't list Lighthouse and Fishing Village because they technically give more than $1 total.

So it's uncommon, but not as rare as you might think. I used Bishop as an example earlier in this thread because its +$1 also seems unrelated to the rest of the card. I understand what you mean by the inelegance of just slapping a +$1 on there, but if Scout had originally had that +$1, I doubt most people would have been like, "What does +$1 have to do with the rest of the card?"

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

I think drawing Curses is a fine idea. I'm not sure it would save the card, but I don't think it's a bad thing to try. Revealing 5 cards I'm less fond of. Each card you reveal potentially adds much more AP when you put those cards back on your deck. There are 24 ways to return 4 cards to your deck. There are 120 ways to return 5 cards. Navigator gets away with it because you usually don't care about the order you're returning those cards. You're either discarding them or drawing them all in your next hand.

But I'd happily try your version if it succeeds in balancing Scout. Thanks for sharing!

No problem! I haven't been able to playtest Guide myself yet, so I don't guarantee it's a perfect fix. But the other two cards (Clairvoyant and Build) were playtested by Donald and co and shown to be fine, so I'm not too worried about balance issues there.

[LastFootnote]

What about a Thief that lets you put one of the gained cards on your deck, or even in your hand?

I think gaining it into hand would only make Thief more swingy than it is. Right now it ranges from helping its targets (trashing Copper for free) to hurting or really hurting them. It's already quite swingy in that the benefit to you is greater precisely when it hurts your opponent(s) most. If one of the Treasures went right into your hand, that'd be even more swingy. Even if you only hit Silver, that's like an Explorer that also hurts your target. I do like how it tempts you to gain Copper, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like gaining one on top of your deck a lot better, even if it doesn't tempt you to gain Copper. It also helps to differentiate it from Noble Brigand on boards that don't have special Treasures. Cool idea!

What about, "You may choose one of the trashed cards. If it is a Copper, put it in your hand. Otherwise, put it on top of your deck."?

I am guessing that is too many words. Thief is already a very wordy card, although some of those words can be cut out if we use more modern Dominion phrasing.

[Holger]

I agree that my fix might be less compelling to casual players; but it's not just a weaker Cartographer since it still draws the revealed VP cards.

Sure, but it's much closer to Cartographer than either Scout or my updated version (Guide).

Your fix is more simple, but to me it seems less elegant to add an "unrelated" +$1; also it makes Scout a little too similar to Oasis (and other Peddlers) in my opinion. As far as I know, all Action cards that give exactly +$1 are Peddler variants (except for Noble Brigand, whose +$1 I also find rather inelegant.)

Here is a list of Kingdom cards that can give exactly +$1 (but no more) that are not Peddler variants: Bridge, Ironworks, Pawn, Herbalist, Bishop, Noble Brigand, Squire, Merchant Guild.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AJD. Although I didn't list Lighthouse and Fishing Village because they technically give more than $1 total.

Oops, you're totally right. I should not have made that claim from memory...

So it's uncommon, but not as rare as you might think. I used Bishop as an example earlier in this thread because its +$1 also seems unrelated to the rest of the card. I understand what you mean by the inelegance of just slapping a +$1 on there, but if Scout had originally had that +$1, I doubt most people would have been like, "What does +$1 have to do with the rest of the card?"

The most straightforward fix IMO would be to just increase the number of revealed cards to 5 (or even more) and/or also draw Curses. Or would this make Scout too strong in Intrigue-heavy games?

I think drawing Curses is a fine idea. I'm not sure it would save the card, but I don't think it's a bad thing to try. Revealing 5 cards I'm less fond of. Each card you reveal potentially adds much more AP when you put those cards back on your deck. There are 24 ways to return 4 cards to your deck. There are 120 ways to return 5 cards. Navigator gets away with it because you usually don't care about the order you're returning those cards. You're either discarding them or drawing them all in your next hand.
[...]

Usually you won't  return all the revealed cards; if I buy Scout, I'd want it to reveal at least (say) 2 VP cards on average, leaving only 3 cards to return. And the order only matters if you have more card draw this turn.

[AJD]

Ooh! Speaking of Noble Brigand, how about:

Scout
+1 Action
When you gain or play this….

[popsofctown]

Didn't the Clairvoyant variant Donald tried still have the self-spy effect on it? Not that that's an issue, you're making it even weaker, and with the unbounded maximum draw power effect still present on the card it will still be very useful in many many kingdoms.  Just pedantic I guess.

[LastFootnote]

Didn't the Clairvoyant variant Donald tried still have the self-spy effect on it? Not that that's an issue, you're making it even weaker, and with the unbounded maximum draw power effect still present on the card it will still be very useful in many many kingdoms.  Just pedantic I guess.

No, it didn't have that. I asked him once. I'll try to find the link.

EDIT: Found it.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.msg149066#msg149066

[LastFootnote]

Just for fun, an attempted revision of Pirate Ship inspired by this and this. I have no idea whether it works or not.

[Warfreak2]

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.

LF's version seems very similar to the way it's usually played now, except that it gives something when you're attacking and doesn't have the flexibility of doing the attack when you already have as much coin in your hand as you want.  Also, you have to wait a shuffle between playing the galley to get the retired pirate and getting the benefit of the retired pirate which is a significant drawback.  It's a neat idea, but I like the original better.

[KingZog3]

Pirate Ship is already a weak card, I don't see the point in making it weaker.

edit: Oh, I see you made it a terminal Copper. Carry on.

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.

LF's version seems very similar to the way it's usually played now, except that it gives something when you're attacking and doesn't have the flexibility of doing the attack when you already have as much coin in your hand as you want.  Also, you have to wait a shuffle between playing the galley to get the retired pirate and getting the benefit of the retired pirate which is a significant drawback.  It's a neat idea, but I like the original better.

Yeah agreed, regular Pirate Ship is fine. It's not strong, but I never felt it needed to be. It still comes in handy sometimes.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

[SirPeebles]

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.

[soulnet]

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.

You can give +1 Action and gain to hand, or even gain and play immediately, to combine both.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, this change wasn't meant to be a power tweak. It's more of a, "What might Pirate Ship have looked like if Donald had decided to go the Retired Pirate route?"

Rather than choosing attack or retire, I would make Pirate Ship always attack and then follow up with the option to trash and retire.  Otherwise, the turn when you retire will be awfully weak.

That thought had occurred to me as well. The reason I did it this way is because it's the way it was described in the Secret History of Dark Ages.

You can give +1 Action and gain to hand, or even gain and play immediately, to combine both.

Gain and play immediately takes fewer words. I'll go for that. Thanks for the idea!

[SirPeebles]

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?

[soulnet]

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?

Since Possession is "would gain", it triggers before the play immediately, moving the card. Thus, Galley losses track of Retired Pirate and cannot play it. That seems a reasonable behavior.

[Awaclus]

Does "gain and play immediately" break anything?  What if you are possessed, for instance?  Do you play it from an opponent's discard?

Since Possession is "would gain", it triggers before the play immediately, moving the card. Thus, Galley losses track of Retired Pirate and cannot play it. That seems a reasonable behavior.

Actually, Galley never has track of Retired Pirate in the first place because it never gains one. It tries to gain one, but fails, because Possession tells you that something else happens instead.

It's like gaining and playing the blue dog. If you don't gain a blue dog, you can't play the blue dog.

[Warfreak2]

To me pirate ship seems plently strong, especially with villages. Near the end of the game, you can easily be getting $4 to $6 or possibly even more from a $4 cost card.

However, you have to play it as a do-nothing terminal for the first half of the game, which harms your own economy, and it even removes Coppers from your opponent's deck. Trashing your opponent's Coppers without even hurting his current hand, that's a big drawback. If your Pirate Ship is worth $6, then you probably trashed at least 5 of your opponent's Coppers. Normally, he would have to buy a trasher (cost: one turn) and waste another few turns to get rid of those Coppers. (Of course, if there is a trasher, he can buy it and get rid of the rest of his Coppers, and then your Pirate Ships may never have anything to hit.)

[NoMoreFun]

Sea Hag
Action/Attack $4
Each player puts his deck in his discard pile.
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it on top of his deck.

It removes the "attack only" nature of the card, and no more swingy, arbitrary looking discard. It looks a little cleaner too.

[NoMoreFun]

This is a new idea, but I didn't think it was worth making a new thread.

Chancellor
Action - $3
You may put your deck in your discard pile. Look through your discard pile and put a Treasure from it into your hand.

It's a terminal gold, but you need to buy a Gold first. Do you buy a mediocre card first, or wait until after (when price doesn't matter as much).

Personally I don't think chancellor needs to exist, but other cards can do interesting things with the effect.

[soulnet]

Sea Hag
Action/Attack $4
Each player puts his deck in his discard pile.
Each other player gains a Curse, putting it on top of his deck.

It removes the "attack only" nature of the card, and no more swingy, arbitrary looking discard. It looks a little cleaner too.

In 3+ player games, this would mean everyone reshuffling almost every turn. The Sea Hag slog is annoying enough.  And it would still be swingy, because non-optional deck->discard is good for some and bad for some others. Maybe you could make it optional for each player to do that. Or better, each player may choose to discard their top card (without looking).

[LastFootnote]

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.

[silverspawn]

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal. there are some pretty strong combos you can do with them, sc/scrying pool, sc/menagerie, sc/library, sc/watchtower. all of those are already out there, but with sc being non-terminal, they become much easier to pull off.

mabye just reveal more cards in the reaction part?

[LastFootnote]

What do people think of giving Secret Chamber +1 Action? It seems like the best buff to me.

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal. there are some pretty strong combos you can do with them, sc/scrying pool, sc/menagerie, sc/library, sc/watchtower. all of those are already out there, but with sc being non-terminal, they become much easier to pull off.

I suppose those combos would be much bettter. Is that a problem, though? Would those combos be broken? Right now they're incredibly difficult to pull off, requiring a bunch of villages. And when you don't have villages, it's hard to justify Secret Chamber as your terminal Action.

Outside these combos, non-terminal Secret Chamber doesn't really stack. It mostly just makes you able to buy Secret Chamber for its reaction and then still play a different terminal Action without Secret Chamber being dead.

mabye just reveal more cards in the reaction part?

It's not the reaction that needs a buff, though. Revealing even one more card adds a lot of AP and probably doesn't help fight attacks much more.

[silverspawn]

i dunno, how do you judge whether a combo is broken? the strongest 2-card combo in the game is probably apprentice/market square. neither of the sc chamber combos come close to that, so if "broken" is "better than any other combo", it isn't broken. it's still pretty good though, especially sc/mengarie, which now requires no villages at all. i guess it depends what exactly your goal is; if it's to make the card less awful without changing the way it's used (i.e. make it good in the situations where it previously was kinda sorta okay) you won't meet the goal, because you can now do menagerie/sc without any support. if your goal is to make the game more fun, it depends on how fun the combos are... which would require playtesting.

I also see sc being really good in engines with draw but without ways to get rid of the starting estates. previously, it was a terminal gold, which is eh, now it's just a gold, which is nice

[LastFootnote]

You make several good points, especially with your Menagerie example. Maybe it is too powerful after all.

[LastFootnote]

im not sure, i think there is reason why all (okay there are just three...) discard-for-$ are terminal.

I was perusing the Dominion Outtakes just now and I found this, which was apparently fine but just didn't make the cut:

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

So probably there's no special reason that the surviving Vault-style cards are all terminal. Keep is a decent reference point for a non-terminal Secret Chamber, though. +1 Card is a big bonus for any discard-for-benefit and each +1 Card also makes a huge power difference for any non-terminal Action. Non-terminal Secret Chamber may be OK at $2. I'd have to do some testing both with and without the mega-combos you mentioned.

[qmech]

Oasis is non-terminal discard-for-$, and not amazingly powerful.  Being limited to a single discard weakens the combo potential significantly though.

[AJD]

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"

[pacovf]

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"

Edge case: you have four cards in hand.

[Holger]

Keep
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. Discard any number of cards. +$1 per card discarded.

It's just as well that this card didn't get published; it would have been very confusing.

"I'll keep 2 cards."
"Wait, do you mean you're discarding 2 cards with Keep, or not discarding 2 cards?"

Just rename it "Discard" and it's perfectly fine. 

[Holger]

For all who hate Possession's "pseudo-attack", just replace the card by:

Self-Possession
Action-Duration, $6P
Take an extra turn after this one. This can’t cause you to take more than two consecutive turns.

Or, to still allow multiple plays per turn:

Strong Self-Possession
Action-Duration, $6P
If this is not an extra turn: Take an extra turn after this one.

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

[soulnet]

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.

[silverspawn]

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.

i agree, but either way it stops being insanely stupid, and that's what matters

[KingZog3]

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you. The opponent greening early would actually help.

i agree, but either way it stops being insanely stupid, and that's what matters

I think if anything Self Possession is more stupid. It allows the person to get it first be in a huge advantage. More than normal possession, or KC or any other power card. This is just super outpost.

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

[soulnet]

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

Agree with most of your post, but I disagree strongly with the last bit "there is almost always something you can do to stop it". Sometimes, you need to race for it. Similar to Tournament, I must say.

[Holger]

I'm not quite sure if these are stronger or weaker than the published version; at least the second version sounds equally "insane"...

They seem stronger. You can counter Possession by greening earlier and then make the expensive Possessions of your opponent (pun intended) worse. If you Possess yourself, you can just megaturn in several turns, and there is nothing that will stop you.

Usually, a megaturn (by definition) is a single turn; you don't want to get the cards you pile-drive into your deck. (Edge case: Merchant Ship.)
The non-countering is indeed an argument for my versions being stronger (though your opponent can still try to rush the game before you reliably draw the S-P). But on the other hand you can no longer abuse the opponents' coin tokens, TfB, Durations, Masq. etc., and you can no longer mess up their deck. Also my first version is no longer thronable; you can never get more than one extra turn per turn any more.

I think if anything Self Possession is more stupid. It allows the person to get it first be in a huge advantage. More than normal possession, or KC or any other power card. This is just super outpost.

So what? Outpost is a mediocre $5 card, and all the other "power cards" also cost far less than Self-Possession. And I'm not even sure if (non-"Strong") Self-Possession is stronger than KC - you can't spam it at all, and usually one great turn is better than two mediocre ones.

[silverspawn]

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

it's stupid because it punishes good decks. yes, it's one of the most skill dependend cards in the game, but i dont care! degrading your own deck so that your opponent cant use it just isn't fun, and from what i've heard i'm not the only one who doesn't like it. I make a comment about possessino being an awful card in almost every game i play with it, and most of the times my opponent agrees.

self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

[Holger]

PS:

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. [...]

I agree; but unfortunately Possession is real and my versions are only thought experiments. 
To clarify, I don't actually hate Possession, though I'd prefer a non-"attacking" version if it works. Self-Possession is meant to be an alternative, not a fix, for Possession.
As silverspawn wrote, Possession punishes good decks. It also increases the danger of infinite games, and has a potentially strong kingmaking effect in multiplayer: If player A goes for multiple Possessions per turn, player B has to either mess up their deck (giving C the win) or ignore the Possession (giving A the win).

self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

I take this as a compliment.   
The card may indeed be too similar to Outpost; but maybe the much higher price (and effect) and the fact that it also works reasonably in BM still justify it. I wonder if Donald ever tried it...

[dondon151]

You make several good points, especially with your Menagerie example. Maybe it is too powerful after all.

Crossroads has some ridiculously powerful combos for a card that costs $2, though, so maybe non-terminal SC isn't so powerful.

[eHalcyon]

And at least as a thought experiment, regular Possession is actually quite interesting, with all kinds of interactions with other cards. It can feel stupid when you get burned by one of these interactions, but there is almost always something you can do to stop it.

it's stupid because it punishes good decks. yes, it's one of the most skill dependend cards in the game, but i dont care! degrading your own deck so that your opponent cant use it just isn't fun, and from what i've heard i'm not the only one who doesn't like it. I make a comment about possessino being an awful card in almost every game i play with it, and most of the times my opponent agrees.

self-possession doesn't have this problem, good decks get rewarded again. I actually don't think it's that great of a concept, because outpost already does it, but it does solve the problem possession has. for me it's nothing > self possession >>>> possession

A good deck still beats Possession most of the time.  Possession mainly punishes almost-good decks, which do what good decks do but slower, thus giving Possession a chance to take advantage.

[LastFootnote]

What do people think of a variant of Spy that's slightly weaker, but in turn less time-consuming to resolve?

Spy
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top card of your deck. You may discard it. Name a card type (Victory, Action, etc.). Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and discards it if it doesn't have the named type.

Too complex? I wanted to keep the combo with Thief, etc.

[markusin]

What do people think of a variant of Spy that's slightly weaker, but in turn less time-consuming to resolve?

Spy
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top card of your deck. You may discard it. Name a card type (Victory, Action, etc.). Each other player reveals the top card of his deck and discards it if it doesn't have the named type.

Too complex? I wanted to keep the combo with Thief, etc.

That seems longer to resolve. You still have to reveal and know what the top card is in order to resolve the effect properly, but in addition there might also be AP associated with stuff like "It'd be great if he discards a Bazaar, but what if he discards his ruins?" And then there's the situation where one opposing player has a Copper left on his or her deck and another and another has an Estate on top. Do you name Treasure or Victory card? At least with the original spy, you can be all like "just leave your top cards there everyone" after playing a chain of them.

Edit: Okay, you can name "Pokemon card" and leave all junk on top. There's still the issue of not knowing stuff like whether a Nobles, a Harem, or an Estate is on top of a player's deck, and then agonizing over it, while considering that you don't want the other players to discard their Coppers.

[silverspawn]

yea, I don't reallly see how that version takes considerably less time either

[eHalcyon]

It takes a tiny bit longer in 2 player games but it's faster with more players.  With the original Spy, you have to make one decision for each other player based on the card they reveal.  With this version, you make one single decision and then everybody can resolve it simultaneously.

That said, I think it weakens it too much for a minor gain that is still unreliable (I think it makes the card faster in general, but there is more potential AP when you have to choose before seeing the flipped cards).

[LastFootnote]

That seems longer to resolve. You still have to reveal and know what the top card is in order to resolve the effect properly, but in addition there might also be AP associated with stuff like "It'd be great if he discards a Bazaar, but what if he discards his ruins?" And then there's the situation where one opposing player has a Copper left on his or her deck and another and another has an Estate on top. Do you name Treasure or Victory card? At least with the original spy, you can be all like "just leave your top cards there everyone" after playing a chain of them.

Edit: Okay, you can name "Pokemon card" and leave all junk on top. There's still the issue of not knowing stuff like whether a Nobles, a Harem, or an Estate is on top of a player's deck, and then agonizing over it, while considering that you don't want the other players to discard their Coppers.

yea, I don't reallly see how that version takes considerably less time either

It takes a tiny bit longer in 2 player games but it's faster with more players.  With the original Spy, you have to make one decision for each other player based on the card they reveal.  With this version, you make one single decision and then everybody can resolve it simultaneously.

That said, I think it weakens it too much for a minor gain that is still unreliable (I think it makes the card faster in general, but there is more potential AP when you have to choose before seeing the flipped cards).

Yeah, good points all around. This change isn't worth it.

[silverspawn]

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

[LastFootnote]

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

Spy definitely seems weak. The problem is that its effects are almost invisible. I think Spy would be passable $4 card if it didn't take forever to resolve. Not a powerful $4 card, but a passable one.

Really, Spy should just be taken out of the Base Set and replaced with some other $4 cantrip that doesn't attack.

[Awaclus]

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

Edge case: You hit a Curse. Both cards can discard it, which is often almost as good as Lab, but Spy also attacks.


Spy is either insignificant or played many times per turn. I like Spy because (I like cantrips in general and) it's usually easy to tell that it isn't worth the opportunity cost of gaining multiple Spies, but when it is worth it, it's difficult to tell that it is. IRL, this is a bit problematic, though, since either it's irrelevant or takes a long time to resolve. P-Stone is another card that's guilty of this, but it's not as subtle as Spy (and not a cantrip so I don't like it as much).

[silverspawn]

hey, the images don't work anymore. I just wanted to reference this thread, and now they're gone. tsts.

[Davio]

Adventurer should be pretty easy to "fix".

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.


This just adds the "Rebuild" clause, making it possible to skip Coppers. From 2 Silvers onward, this is then guaranteed to provide at least $4 of spending power (if they're not already in your hand). But it's still a terminal with its terminal issues.

[Holger]

Adventurer should be pretty easy to "fix".

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.


This just adds the "Rebuild" clause, making it possible to skip Coppers. From 2 Silvers onward, this is then guaranteed to provide at least $4 of spending power (if they're not already in your hand). But it's still a terminal with its terminal issues.

I think this is too strong. If you can skip (or trash) Silver and just gain 2-3 Golds, this reliably gives $6 without you having to trash any Copper. Even with 2 Silvers and 2 Golds in your deck, it gives $5 on average.

But what about:

"Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards. You may trash one of them. Put the remaining revealed Treasure card(s) into your hand and discard the other revealed cards."

This would give Adventurer a chance to improve itself over time, by trashing the hated Coppers, removing the need for a Copper-trasher support card.

[soulnet]

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Wouldn't this make Adventurer-BM too strong? It would make Adventurer a terminal +$4 or better pretty reliably. The increased cycling could be bad because after one or two plays you will be greening already, but still, +$4 in a deck full of Treasures pretty realiably gets you a Province.

[silverspawn]

well I've said this multiple times before, and I still think he can just dig for three treasure cards instead of two, and that's it. I doubt it would be too strong.

[Davio]

Adventurer - $6
Action

Name a Treasure card.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 Treasure cards that are not the named card. Put those Treasure cards into your hand and discard the other revealed cards.

Wouldn't this make Adventurer-BM too strong? It would make Adventurer a terminal +$4 or better pretty reliably. The increased cycling could be bad because after one or two plays you will be greening already, but still, +$4 in a deck full of Treasures pretty realiably gets you a Province.

Maybe Adventurer-BM would be way stronger compared to regular BM, but against engines, I don't think it's particularly strong.
I really think this is just fine, but I also think dig for 3 is fine.

My main goal is to make the card usable in a fun way. Discarding Coppers is more fun than drawing 2 of them and wishing you'd bought a Gold instead.

How I wish there was an open Isotropic server where we can playtest these easily implemented revisions.

[LastFootnote]

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

[Rubby]

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

If your deck (excluding what's in your hand) has no non-Copper treasures, or its only non-Copper treasure card is a Silver or something no better than a Silver, or if you have no Copper and multiple treasures that are better than your worst treasure, you would not want to name Copper.

[LastFootnote]

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

If your deck (excluding what's in your hand) has no non-Copper treasures, or its only non-Copper treasure card is a Silver or something no better than a Silver, or if you have no Copper and multiple treasures that are better than your worst treasure, you would not want to name Copper.

If the first two are true, you shouldn't have bought Adventurer. If you have no Copper and Adventurer is already pulling at least two Silvers, it does not need an additional buff.

[dondon151]

Idea: dig for a third Treasure card if both revealed Treasures were Copper.

[pacovf]

Idea: dig for a third Treasure card if both revealed Treasures were Copper.

...Dig for two differently named treasures? Similar, but less text.

...or Dig for three treasures and keep two.

[blueblimp]

the problem i have with spy isn't so much that it takes a lot of time to resolve, but rather that it's super weak. compare it to ironmonger, both have the self-spy effect, but ironmonger is also either a village, a peddler, or a lab, which is 3$, 4$, and 5$ worth respectively. spy on others is worth... dunno, but 2$ at most.

Spy definitely seems weak. The problem is that its effects are almost invisible. I think Spy would be passable $4 card if it didn't take forever to resolve. Not a powerful $4 card, but a passable one.

Really, Spy should just be taken out of the Base Set and replaced with some other $4 cantrip that doesn't attack.

The cycle-junk-to-top aspect of Spy already got some fixed versions: Rabble, Fortune Teller. The only cool thing that Spy does that they don't is to combo with deck-trashing cards. Here's an attempt at a fix: make Spy terminal and change the effect to "each player reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose". That makes Spy useless for cycling junk to the top, and in a game without deck attacks it will rarely be bought, but it has some pretty killer combos with Swindler/Knights/etc. Maybe give it +$2 also, so it's then:

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.

[Davio]

Rather than "Name a Treasure card", it's almost certainly cleaner to just say "other than Copper". It's pretty rare that you'd want to name other cards.

Well, possibly, but I wanted to keep it flexible.

With "Name a Treasure card" or better yet "name a card" you can name the Ace of Spades and still dig up 2 Coppers if you really wanted to (let's say you already have 2 Silvers in your hand you can't draw with it).

I also wanted to point out that even if you make Adventurer a lot stronger, it's still a terminal that has to compete with a lot of other powerful $5+ terminals.

[silverspawn]

...or Dig for three treasures and keep two.

[soulnet]

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.

This looks like an insane amount of AP.

[LastFootnote]

hey, the images don't work anymore. I just wanted to reference this thread, and now they're gone. tsts.

Sorry about this. Imgur told me I was reaching my limit (which I didn't know existed), and I kind of overcompensated by deleting lots of stuff. All the pretty images I made for the next official expansion were on my imgur so that we could all look at them and print them out for use if the spirit moved us. Anyway, I was keeping a bunch of outtake images too for some reason, and it was a lot of images, even without the hi-res versions.

I should re-upload the ones for this post, at least the low-res versions.

Oh hey, I can get rid of my old Enterprise images now that I've updated that OP with the latest changes. That's another 50-some images I can shed.

[silverspawn]

Here is what I would change

Scout: add +1$
Adventurer: dig for 1 additional treasure
Rebuild: return cards to the supply instead of trashing them.
Transmute: add a +Action
Scrying Pool: Cut both the self-spy and the regular spy effect
All P3$ cards: make them 1$ cheaper

[LastFootnote]

So, continuing the conversation here.

I saw that change to rebuild, and I didn't even get it until I read that it was the previous card that would have been in the set if it weren't for Rebuild. But that's not a fix, it's a different card.

Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.

How about making transmute non-terminal, and making adventurer dig for 3 cards? I mean, you can't think that Adventurer is fine and thief isn't.

I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!

I think Adventurer digging for 3 cards sounds strong, but it does have the big advantage of the card being no more complex than it is now. The idea is growing on me. Previously I was thinking about having it topdeck one revealed Action, but that takes more words and is more complex, which is not great in the Base Set.

[LastFootnote]

In addition to needing a boost, Thief's wording could really be more concise and clear.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. You may gain any or all of these trashed cards. They discard the other revealed cards.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. You may gain any number of the trashed cards.

EDIT: Updated with Polk's suggested addition of "You may".

[silverspawn]

I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!

well I get that. But if you're making the changes, then you're offering it to the community, right? So, it's not about how you play, because most people just play all random, because goko pretty much forces you to. And if you do play all random, then it is weak, because you never buy it. that's what weak means.

Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.

Well it wouldn't be a fun card. But if we start replacing cards with largely unrelated cards, then there are immediately a dozen other cards that could be replaced. Wasn't the point to just tweak them a little bit?

[soulnet]

All P3$ cards: make them 1$ cheaper

I don't like that one bit. The rest seem fine, though I feel a better fix for Transmute would be making the gains optional. I would also add +Buy to Counting House given that it is both narrow and likes +Buy.

[silverspawn]

I don't like that one bit.

why? I mean, I get why you could think it isn't necessary, but not how you can think it's bad. Why do you think it's bad?

[Polk5440]

In addition to needing a boost, Thief's wording could really be more concise and clearer.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck. If they revealed any Treasure cards, they trash one of them that you choose. You may gain any or all of these trashed cards. They discard the other revealed cards.

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. Gain any number of the trashed cards.

Perhaps "and discards the rest" should be "then discards the rest".

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

[LastFootnote]

I have made my feelings about Transmute known many times, even in this very thread. Transmute is fine—even good—as long as there are other Potion-cost cards on the board. And since I always play with 2 sets at once, there always are!

well I get that. But if you're making the changes, then you're offering it to the community, right? So, it's not about how you play, because most people just play all random, because goko pretty much forces you to. And if you do play all random, then it is weak, because you never buy it. that's what weak means.

Mostly I feel that Rebuild is unsalvageable. The entire concept is turning Victory cards into better Victory cards. That makes you want to spend most of your $5 buys on Duchies, which sucks. It could be a better card instead.

Well it wouldn't be a fun card. But if we start replacing cards with largely unrelated cards, then there are immediately a dozen other cards that could be replaced. Wasn't the point to just tweak them a little bit?

Well, I like to offer stuff to the community, but really this thread was more, "This is stuff I'm thinking of doing; it's here for you if you want it." I even say that right in the OP. Can me selfish, but I'm not interested in improving (and maybe overpowering) a card that's already fine in the games I play. Likewise, maybe there are a dozen cards you'd like to replace, but for me there are only a handful. My goal is to make my IRL games more fun with as few changes as possible. The scale of those changes—tweaking a card vs. replacing it entirely—isn't really a concern for me.

But by all means, continue to suggest other changes you'd like to use. I don't have a monopoly on card change suggestions. If you want, I can even mock up some images for you.

[LastFootnote]

Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure you choose, and discards the rest. Gain any number of the trashed cards.

Perhaps "and discards the rest" should be "then discards the rest".

Noble Brigand says, "and discards the rest." I think that's pretty standard wording, although I'm sure your wording would also be fine.

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Yes, I considered that, but was going for maximum concision. I think you're right that I should add it, though. It's only two words and it eliminates a common rules confusion.

[soulnet]

why? I mean, I get why you could think it isn't necessary, but not how you can think it's bad. Why do you think it's bad?

It would make Alchemist an autobuy almost all the time and Familiar almost all the time. They are already good enough. I think the possibility of not getting $3P on each shuffle is part of the risk assessment you need to make. Sea Hag, Ambassador and Swindler's swingyness is comparable, and I don't mind them either.

And it is completely false that you lose the game immediately if you fail to get $3P on the first shuffle, because Familiars tend to miss shuffles and luck may even out, and Alchemists may always find a Potion to be topdecked, or never, so you can also have a swing of luck. Minimizing luck is good when you can do it without altering other variables. Making Familiar super-powerful because you can buy it everytime the Potion comes up would reduce the variety of the game, and consequently, the fun.

Can me selfish

I don't think I want to call you selfish, though I don't mind if that's what you really want, but I sure won't be canning you no shellfish. Go to the supermarket if you want some.

[LastFootnote]

And it is completely false that you lose the game immediately if you fail to get $3P on the first shuffle, because Familiars tend to miss shuffles and luck may even out, and Alchemists may always find a Potion to be topdecked, or never, so you can also have a swing of luck. Minimizing luck is good when you can do it without altering other variables. Making Familiar super-powerful because you can buy it everytime the Potion comes up would reduce the variety of the game, and consequently, the fun.

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost. Buying nothing or e.g. Native Village instead of Familiar on turn 3 or 4 is gg. Buying an Apothecary or University instead means you haven't really fallen that far behind.

[silverspawn]

but really this thread was more, "This is stuff I'm thinking of doing; it's here for you if you want it."

oh, you do say it in the op. if that's what it was meant to be, than that's what it is, you're of course not obligated to do anything. I just thought this was more targeted towards the community.

If you want, I can even mock up some images for you.

well Showdown is already doing cards for me, and I think he's pretty amazing at it (and he said he doesn't need more than a few min for a card if he has the image) so I wouldn't ask you for that. but thanks for the offer :)

It would make Alchemist an autobuy almost all the time and Familiar almost all the time.

It wouldn't. I mean, there is no point arguing about these kinds of things, but come on. Scrying pool and Apothecary aren't stronger because they are cheaper, they're stronger because of what they do.

[AJD]

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Actual Thief does say "you may gain any or all", but most Dominion cards actually don't say "you may" when 0 is a choice: cf. Cellar, Forge, Chapel, etc.

[LastFootnote]

Also, isn't it pretty standard Dominion wording to say "You may" when 0/not doing something is a choice? "Gain any number of the trashed cards" reads too much like it is forcing you to gain at least one of the trashed cards.

Actual Thief does say "you may gain any or all", but most Dominion cards actually don't say "you may" when 0 is a choice: cf. Cellar, Forge, Chapel, etc.

Well, the difference is that with those cards, you wouldn't choose to play them at all if you didn't want to trash, discard, or gain at least one card. Yes, there's Golem, Conspirator, etc., but you know. Cards that you also have another reason to play (like Dame Anna and Thief) usually specify "you may".

[dondon151]

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost.

Yes, but not everyone abides by this recommendation, and when going full random online, I don't think this option exists at all.

[LastFootnote]

I think missing $3P on your first shuffle is a level of magnitude worse than one (or more) of your Familiars missing a shuffle. The reason is that usually your $2P hand is an utter dud. But again, this problem can be solved by playing with more than one Potion-cost card at once, rather than lowering Familiar's cost.

Yes, but not everyone abides by this recommendation, and when going full random online, I don't think this option exists at all.

I agree; it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard, especially when it comes to Alchemy.

[blueblimp]

Infiltrator - $4
Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) reveals the top 5 cards of his deck and puts them back in an order you choose.

This looks like an insane amount of AP.

Eh maybe, but it's terminal, so it won't happen much more than once per turn. I can't see it overall being much worse AP-wise than cards like Cartographer and Apothecary. Although, to be fair, those cards are pretty heavy on AP if you want to play fully optimally.

[soulnet]

The huge difference is rearranging oppnent's cards. Since you usually don't know their hand, you have to estinate and track, and that takes a lot of extra work.

[NoMoreFun]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.

Alternatively, leave Feast as is and have it cost $2. I can't think of any $5 cards that make opening Feast/Feast too powerful, it would be a big deal on boards with +buys and it would be handy in a slog.

[markusin]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.

Alternatively, leave Feast as is and have it cost $2. I can't think of any $5 cards that make opening Feast/Feast too powerful, it would be a big deal on boards with +buys and it would be handy in a slog.

This would let you open $5/Feast. That might still be okay.

[LastFootnote]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

[soulnet]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential. You could do a scheme-like wording and have the trash and gain happen on discard-from-play of the chosen card.

[Awaclus]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Not a huge change, but makes the card much more interesting.

But this would suck with Procession.

[NoMoreFun]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential.

How?

[theblankman]

Feast
Action - $4
Trash a card that you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

This is a cool idea, but it causes tracking issues with Durations. I guess you could leave the Feast itself in play to remind you of the Duration.

It also has infinite-loop potential. You could do a scheme-like wording and have the trash and gain happen on discard-from-play of the chosen card.

I'm not immediately seeing the infinite loop, but I am seeing a very interesting payload to an engine built around KC.  Also you usually can't use it on treasures, but it becomes yet another card that does neat things with Black Market. 

[LastFootnote]

I'm finally replacing the Harems in my copy of Intrigue. There are just so many reasons.

• The art is horrible.
• I don't want to have to explain what a harem is to my children once they're old enough to play.
• I'm pretty sure Harem should cost $5. It's a really weak $6 card. I mean compare it to Nobles.

[LastFootnote]

Other updates.

[Q]

Interesting changes.
I think that Harem is often underrated and pricing it at 5$ would basically make it a Duchy substitute, i.e. the tricky decision between Gold-Harem and later Harem-Duchy becomes less tricky and more trivial.
The non-trashing clause on Possession makes the card easier to understand but at the cost of making all trash-for-benefit cards quasi-defenses against Possession.
I like your Harvest buff, it is not too much and it now nicely interacts with cards like Vassal or Chariot Race.

[Chris is me]

Manor is good.

Scrying Pool can I think preserve the self-Spy aspect of it - removing the attack part is all you need to speed it up, and in decks where you can't thin it becomes just that much swingier and less reliable. But it's not like it's now unusable.

Possession's fox is interesting and probably works. I probably still prefer a variant of Donald's fix, but that gets rid of a lot of issues and makes TFB decks a viable counter.

[LastFootnote]

I think that Harem is often underrated and pricing it at 5$ would basically make it a Duchy substitute, i.e. the tricky decision between Gold-Harem and later Harem-Duchy becomes less tricky and more trivial.

Well admittedly I have yet to test Manor, but I'm not really worried about the issues you're bringing up. Whenever you have $6, you're making the same decision between Gold, Harem, and Duchy that you always have. There's really no change there. At $5, there are still times you'd buy Duchy over Harem. And in fact, I'm not sure this change would ever make me buy Harem when I would previously have bought Duchy. If anything, it might sometimes make me buy Harem over the other $5 cards that I would have bought over Duchy. Maybe I'm wrong, and that sometimes when I would have bought Duchy I now get Harem. That's sounds like an upside to me, though. Clearly I still buy Duchy when I don't think I'll draw it this game. Why would I sacrifice 1 VP for $2 that I'll never get to use?

Really you've got two situations here. First, games where you specifically want Victory cards, because of Patrol or Silk Road or what-have-you. I think it will be great to be able to pick up Harems a bit more easily in those games and see those combos more.

Second, you've got games without that, where you're just making calls between Gold, Harem, and Duchy. In these games, Gold is best early and Duchy is best late. Harem has a narrow band in the middle. This cost reduction lets you buy more Harems/Manors during that band, and I think that's all to the good. I'd rather be buying the Kingdom card than the basic ones.

I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that this Gold vs. Manor/Harem vs. Duchy thing is just a total non-issue. The actual issue is whether Manor is too strong at $5 compared to other Kingdom cards. And man, I just really doubt that it is.

The non-trashing clause on Possession makes the card easier to understand but at the cost of making all trash-for-benefit cards quasi-defenses against Possession.

Thanks. "Easier to understand" wasn't my primary goal, but I'm glad you find it that. I wouldn't call making trash-for-benefit cards counters for Possession a "cost". I think it's a mild positive.

I like your Harvest buff, it is not too much and it now nicely interacts with cards like Vassal or Chariot Race.

Thanks! I've played a fair few games with this version, and it's been great. Even without the combos it's a significant boost. It doesn't make it a top $5 card, but we actually buy it now outside of narrow combos (King's Court, Tunnel, etc.).

[LastFootnote]

Scrying Pool can I think preserve the self-Spy aspect of it - removing the attack part is all you need to speed it up, and in decks where you can't thin it becomes just that much swingier and less reliable. But it's not like it's now unusable.

Yeah, I've played a few games with this version, and it's an enormous nerf. I mean Scrying Pool needed an enormous nerf, but you know. It's significant. The jury's still out on if it's too weak. Adding the self-Spy is a lot of words, though, and it muddies the core concept of the card. I'd rather buff it by reducing its cost (probably to P) than by adding back those words.

Possession's fox is interesting and probably works. I probably still prefer a variant of Donald's fix, but that gets rid of a lot of issues and makes TFB decks a viable counter.

I enjoy Possession in my IRL games (which is where I use these revised cards), so for me, keeping the core concept was important. But I definitely wanted to stop multi-Possession turns, and making trash-for-benefit cards usable in Possession games is also nice from my perspective.

[GendoIkari]

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

[LastFootnote]

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.

[Q]

I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that this Gold vs. Manor/Harem vs. Duchy thing is just a total non-issue. The actual issue is whether Manor is too strong at $5 compared to other Kingdom cards. And man, I just really doubt that it is.

I think that if you were only playing with Base and Intrigue Harem would be totally fine but from a retrospective all-expansions perspective you are totally right: engines have become more frequent, making a Treasure-Victory card a bit worse, and 5s are often situationally better than Gold anyway.

[NoMoreFun]

I prefer the revised base/intrigue approach to fixing cards; new card that isn't quite the same but fills the niche in a different way.

I like your version of Harvest, but I think it would be more interesting as a $3 card that turns up 3 cards (keeping the "put back" clause).

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional

[NoMoreFun]

But $5 Harem is a good idea. $6 Harem provides an interesting choice between Harem and Gold, but $5 also makes you think about whether to go for Harem or Duchy, and it also has early game relevance.

[GendoIkari]

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.

I feel like it's rare for regular Scrying Pool to not always be a Laboratory, and quite often better... if the +1 card version draws a card more than regular Pool, it's only if that extra card is a non-action, which is generally a junk card in a Scrying Pool deck anyway.

[LastFootnote]

What if your version of Scrying Pool had a +1 card on it? It would be slightly stronger than self-spying, but not buy much, and far less words than self-spying.

If the top card of your deck is an action, then you would have drawn it with old Scrying Pool or +1 card Scrying Pool, so it makes no difference at all.

If the top card of your deck isn't an action, then with old Scrying Pool would would have discarded it; with +1 card Scrying Pool you draw it instead. Good if it's a treasure.

I think that would make it crazy. I mean at that point it's always a Laboratory, and quite often better.

I feel like it's rare for regular Scrying Pool to not always be a Laboratory, and quite often better... if the +1 card version draws a card more than regular Pool, it's only if that extra card is a non-action, which is generally a junk card in a Scrying Pool deck anyway.

Well first of all, I would prefer this version to be weaker than regular Scrying Pool (in addition to being faster). Regular Scrying Pool is overpowered. And I think you're putting the cart before the horse on your second point. A deck with Cantrip Scrying Pool doesn't have to care nearly as much about having more non-Actions in it in order to be great.

[LastFootnote]

I prefer the revised base/intrigue approach to fixing cards; new card that isn't quite the same but fills the niche in a different way.

Hmm, I think it depends on the card. I'd much rather have Bandit than a slightly-tweaked Thief. But now that I've played with Patrol a bunch, I think I'd rather have Scout with +$1 than Patrol. Scout was perfectly unique and it was better at interacting with e.g. Mill and Nobles than Patrol is. It just needed a boost.

I like your version of Harvest, but I think it would be more interesting as a $3 card that turns up 3 cards (keeping the "put back" clause).

I think that would be too weak to even cost $2. I mean both the coin-generating and sifting properties are significantly weaker with that change; so much weaker that I would very rarely want to waste a terminal action on it. It would be another Chancellor, I think.

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional

Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.

It's tempting to put the Coppersmith replacement on top, I guess.

Manor: Treasure-Victory, $5
When you play this, it's worth $1 per copy of the card you have the most copies of in play.
2 VP

[werothegreat]

Yeah, I think Harem/Manor is fine at .  It still gets bought enough.

I'm also amused that it took you 4 years to mock up Manor, though.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, I think Harem/Manor is fine at .  It still gets bought enough.

I'm also amused that it took you 4 years to mock up Manor, though.

What can I say? I'm a busy guy.

[LibraryAdventurer]

[Manor]
That would take all the fun out of teasing my mom that Harem is her favorite card...

[Holger]

These are interesting revisions. But LastFootnote, could you re-insert your older revisions (Scout etc.) to your first post? I haven't saved them, and I may still want to try them out in the future...

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional

Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.

I agree. In this spirit, I've also been thinking of tweaking some of the removed cards slightly to make them more playable:

Adventurer would probably work with just a reduced cost; I think I'd try it at $4 (or even $3); this might make it a reasonable BM card (in engines, it's still usually worse than Moat).

Feast could certainly afford a price decrease to $3 as well (making the TR/Feast opening possible again ), but it would probably still be weakish then. However, what about:

Feast: Action, $3
Trash this. Gain a card costing up to $6.

I think this would still not be overpowered. This change would allow you to always gain a Gold on your second shuffle, but you often prefer an early $5 Action over Gold anyway. It would be very strong with a $6 Action like Goons on the board, but I think that's okay.

[LastFootnote]

These are interesting revisions. But LastFootnote, could you re-insert your older revisions (Scout etc.) to your first post? I haven't saved them, and I may still want to try them out in the future...

I will try to remember to re-upload my updated Scout. Were there other ones that I removed? I forget. I figured with Patrol, updating Scout was a moot point. Though I think I do prefer Scout with +$1 to Patrol overall, I don't prefer it enough to make that change in my own set. Again, I will try to remember to mock it up with my latest template for posting here.

EDIT: Oh that's right, I had a Rebuild replacement. It was a Dark Ages outtake, but I never really tested it. And when we tried a version of that (for Adventures or Empires, can't recall which), it wasn't any fun. So, do you want that one? I cannot vouch for its quality like I can for Scout+.

$5 Harem would probably be better if either the VP or Treasure were more complex/conditional

Here is the perfect example of "slight tweak" being better than "complete overhaul". The concept is fine, and simplicity is good. I'm not eager to make it more complex for no gain.

I agree. In this spirit, I've also been thinking of tweaking some of the removed cards slightly to make them more playable:

Adventurer would probably work with just a reduced cost; I think I'd try it at $4 (or even $3); this might make it a reasonable BM card (in engines, it's still usually worse than Moat).

I think Adventurer should cost $2, no joke. It takes a lot of work to make it good, like Poor House. Arguably it takes even more work than Poor House, though the upper bound on its power is also higher. Anyway, yeah, $2. That's my unofficial official recommendation.

Feast could certainly afford a price decrease to $3 as well (making the TR/Feast opening possible again ), but it would probably still be weakish then. However, what about:

Feast: Action, $3
Gain a card costing up to $6.

I think this would still not be overpowered. This change would allow you to always gain a Gold on your second shuffle, but you often prefer an early $5 Action over Gold anyway. It would be very strong with a $6 Action like Goons on the board, but I think that's okay.

I would be tempted to also cost Feast at $2, having it still gain a card costing up to $5. Your version is likely also totally fine power-wise, but might be boring in practice since lots of casual players (most even?) will just take the Gold every time.

Alternatively, Feast could cost $3 or $4 and top-deck the gained card. That's kind of close to Artisan? I mean if we're talking Base Set, Artisan replaces Feast in a very real way. And the set already has that and Workshop filling the "workshop" slots.

[Q]

I think Adventurer should cost $2, no joke. It takes a lot of work to make it good, like Poor House. Arguably it takes even more work than Poor House, though the upper bound on its power is also higher. Anyway, yeah, $2. That's my unofficial official recommendation.

I totally agree. At first it sounds crazy that a formerly-existing 6 would be balanced at 2. But Adventurer has a simple problem: it is a terminal payload card that is only good if you have decent Treasures in your deck. If you play BM you could also just draw those Treasures with terminal draw. If you play an engine you either don't wanna clog your deck with Treasures or, e.g. if you get them on the way via something like Soothsayer, you don't wanna waste terminal space on a terminal payload card as the Gold in your deck already does the trick.
So the card becomes only useful in rare cases like Platinum games or alt-VP where digging for Treasures becomes important due to all the green in your deck.

Something like Poor House might require more work than Adventurer (trashing, extra Buys, decent village support) but it is not at its core such an inconsistent card.

[NoMoreFun]

How about, since it would no longer be in the base set:

Feast
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $5. If it cost $5, trash this.

[NoMoreFun]

And

Adventurer
Action - $5
Gain a Gold. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure; put it in your hand and discard the rest.

[LastFootnote]

I think Changeling pretty handily replaces Feast. Yes they have differences, but.

[Accatitippi]

I've only seen these now. Thanks for making them.
Have you figured out whether modded SP deserves a cost reduction?

[popsofctown]

 5$ Harem is still hot garbage.

I do buy it on very rare occasions where I know I will draw it about 1.2 times this game (not all of those occasions). It comes out to about 4 VP for 6$. But that doesn't make it a well designed card.  Feast was part of every single top Dominion player's buying algorithm for lategame game states where it could be converted to Duchy.  That didn't make Feast a good card either, which is why Feast is dead now.  Dominion is not a game about figuring out that Gardens is currently worth one more VP than Duchy on the second to last turn so that's what you buy.  That's not what brings anyone to Dominion.  It's not even a game about buying Mining Village over Blessed Village before you go through your last reshuffle of the game, because Mining Village will do more the one time it gets played.  The game is about permanently adding new cards to your deck.  Two games ago I puzzled over whether repeated uses of Peasant or Black Market would make better permanent investments in the strength of my deck on a certain kingdom, that's what Dominion is.

Harem is about as good of a card as a textless Island would be.  Incremental impacts on lategame tactics, without having measurable impacts on how players choose to develop their decks the way Vineyards or even Colony does.


The heuristic of "do people still buy this in 10-15% of games" is being misapplied in a way that harkens back to Silver Test one liners, which is fitting since it's a Silver.

I think Harem deserves the Coppersmith treatment much more than Coppersmith did.  You can price it at 5$ though.  That's definitely an improvement. It can at least increase the difficulty of the strategy selection phase since monolithic dead draw has been on hard times with the newer sets in play, and knowing your Smithy deck gets two VP chips every time it realizes its best purchase is 5$ Silver makes it just a bit more likely that monolithic dead draw will actually be the best choice somewhere, and someone will get the reward they deserve for selecting it unmirrored.  Aside from that though, I don't think it will do much.

[Accatitippi]

Harem is also essentially replaced by Conquest, which is almost-but-not-quite strictly better. (if you want a 6$ silver, you're probably happy to get two, so the only real case for Harem is needing a Victory-Treasure card for some reason)

[loneXolf]

I am a fan of the harvest change, not so much the other 3.

[Asper]

Harem is also essentially replaced by Conquest, which is almost-but-not-quite strictly better. (if you want a 6$ silver, you're probably happy to get two, so the only real case for Harem is needing a Victory-Treasure card for some reason)

(Insert Sudden Clarity Clemence meme here)

Wow, even more than Wedding. Neat observation.

[NoMoreFun]

I'm surprised by how well Tracker works, which got me thinking...

Royal Seal
Treasure - $5
Worth $2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may put that card onto your deck.

This allows Royal Seal to better set up combos. Or maybe even...

Royal Seal
Action - $5
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+$2
---
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may put that card onto your deck.

Or even

Royal Seal
Action - $2
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+$1
---
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may put that card onto your deck.

[NoMoreFun]

Since Druid had such exceptional variety, and some cards aren't very interesting

Tragic Hero:
Action/Fate - $5
Receive the set-aside Boon, then +3 Cards
If you have 8 or more cards in hand, trash this and gain a Treasure.
---
Setup: Set aside a Boon that doesn't give +$1, face up

Tormentor:
Action/Attack/Doom - $5
+$2
If you have an Imp in play, each other player receives the set-aside Hex. Otherwise, gain an Imp from its pile.
---
Setup: Set aside a Hex other than Delusion or Misery

Bard:
Action/Fate - $4
+1 Action
+$1
Receive one of the set aside Boons
---
Setup: Set aside 2 Boons face up

[Gazbag]

Since Druid had such exceptional variety, and some cards aren't very interesting

Tragic Hero:
Action/Fate - $5
Receive the set-aside Boon, then +3 Cards
If you have 8 or more cards in hand, trash this and gain a Treasure.
---
Setup: Set aside a Boon that doesn't give +$1, face up

Tormentor:
Action/Attack/Doom - $5
+$2
If you have an Imp in play, each other player receives the set-aside Hex. Otherwise, gain an Imp from its pile.
---
Setup: Set aside a Hex other than Delusion or Misery

Bard:
Action/Fate - $4
+1 Action
+$1
Receive one of the set aside Boons
---
Setup: Set aside 2 Boons face up

I can understand Bard and Tormentor, but how is Tragic Hero not very interesting? It's one of the most interesting cards in Nocturne!

[enfynet]

Because of the "vanilla" nature of +Cards?

[LastFootnote]

Many of the Hexes cannot work as Attack cards, so this version of Tormentor doesn’t work. Imagine having Deluded every turn. Enjoy that game!

[Gazbag]

Many of the Hexes cannot work as Attack cards, so this version of Tormentor doesn’t work. Imagine having Deluded every turn. Enjoy that game!

It does say instead of Deluded or Misery, but I do agree with you. Druid is cool and all, but we don't 3 different Druid variants or a Hex-Druid. It just becomes "If the Boon/Hex is good, this card is good and if they aren't then they aren't." Which to me is much less interesting than the printed cards.

Because of the "vanilla" nature of +Cards?

Werewolf plays much closer to a "Vanilla Smithy" than Tragic Hero.

[dz]

Tragic Hero:
Action/Fate - $5
Receive the set-aside Boon, then +3 Cards
If you have 8 or more cards in hand, trash this and gain a Treasure.
---
Setup: Set aside a Boon that doesn't give +$1, face up

Why would you need this edited Tragic Hero to exclude Field and Forest's Gift? If Druid allows it, why can't this allow it?

Also I don't see how setting aside a Boon adds to the card. I know that Druid has a ton of variety and that's what you're trying to go for, but wouldn't "receive a Boon" be simpler?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and Donald said that drawing cards + receiving Boons = super slow turns. Especially with this card always giving you a Boon and drawing cards every time you play it. Yes, it can fairly easily get trashed, but that doesn't save it from Thrones.

[loneXolf]

Many of the Hexes cannot work as Attack cards, so this version of Tormentor doesn’t work. Imagine having Deluded every turn. Enjoy that game!

It does say instead of Deluded or Misery, but I do agree with you. Druid is cool and all, but we don't 3 different Druid variants or a Hex-Druid. It just becomes "If the Boon/Hex is good, this card is good and if they aren't then they aren't." Which to me is much less interesting than the printed cards.

Because of the "vanilla" nature of +Cards?

Werewolf plays much closer to a "Vanilla Smithy" than Tragic Hero.

I think that he wants cards that change effects every game rather than RNG, I do see it's potential and I would probably like it better than the current hex and boons (not a huge fan myself). But turning multiple cards into druid does take it's current "star power". Also the boons and hexs are not really built for this. Also I never seen anyone hate on Werewolf, probably since it has the koolest card typing beside Crown.

Card reviews-

Tragic Hero- I don't think Tragic hero needs a buff, +3 cards and a buy isn't bad for 5.

Tormentor- Cute rework, I would also remove Envy for this effect. Repeating Locusts and War can be triggering.

Bard- This looks to make bard extremely strong.

Set aside- Do these reworks share the set-aside cards? Can Bard use druid's set aside cards for example? Also if Bard, Druid, and Tragic Hero are in play it cuts the boon deck in half.

[weesh]

one of my play group is pushing me to sharpie "The Mountain's Gift" to "you MAY gain a silver".

[markusin]

one of my play group is pushing me to sharpie "The Mountain's Gift" to "you MAY gain a silver".

Mountain's Gift teaches you to adapt, and you just might find it isn't such a bad thing after all.

That said, why it doesn't have a "may" in there is somewhat baffling. Messing with Devil's Workshop for example. Actually, Swamp's Gift doesn't have a "may" for the Wisp gain either. How come no one complains about that?

[William Howard Taft]

Actually, Swamp's Gift doesn't have a "may" for the Wisp gain either. How come no one complains about that?

Silver is bad for engines but cantrips that sometimes become Laboratories are pretty much always good.

[Gazbag]

Actually, Swamp's Gift doesn't have a "may" for the Wisp gain either. How come no one complains about that?

Silver is bad for engines but cantrips that sometimes become Laboratories are pretty much always good.

Buying Silver is often bad, but free Silver? Woohoo! Like seriously if you're building an engine that's shaky enough that adding 1 Silver is bad then you should just not buy any Fate cards or build a better deck. Like Sea/Windy gift triggering bad shuffles is so much worse and bad so much more often than Mountain Silver. The way people talk you'd think Embassy is the strongest attack in the game or something.

[Asper]

Before Miserable was revealed, I wouldn't have been surprised by a Doom card that sets aside two Hexes at setup, letting players choose which one hits them Torturer style.

I guess I could work that into an Event or a card with Miserable banned or something.

[NoMoreFun]

Tragic Hero:
Action/Fate - $5
Receive the set-aside Boon, then +3 Cards
If you have 8 or more cards in hand, trash this and gain a Treasure.
---
Setup: Set aside a Boon that doesn't give +$1, face up

Why would you need this edited Tragic Hero to exclude Field and Forest's Gift? If Druid allows it, why can't this allow it?

Also I don't see how setting aside a Boon adds to the card. I know that Druid has a ton of variety and that's what you're trying to go for, but wouldn't "receive a Boon" be simpler?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and Donald said that drawing cards + receiving Boons = super slow turns. Especially with this card always giving you a Boon and drawing cards every time you play it. Yes, it can fairly easily get trashed, but that doesn't save it from Thrones.

I excluded Field's gift because a double lab+peddler is obviously too good for $5, and I used the wording from Sacred Grove. Forest's gift is also pushing it strength wise.

Resolving the same Boon every time wouldn't be any slower than on card text (or a choice of the same boons every game).

[NoMoreFun]

Tragic Hero- I don't think Tragic hero needs a buff, +3 cards and a buy isn't bad for 5.

It's a slight buff, but that's not what it's about. It's about being more interesting/varied. The current version seems like Margrave except it attacks you instead of your opponents.

Tormentor- Cute rework, I would also remove Envy for this effect. Repeating Locusts and War can be triggering.

I enjoy Bandit Fort games and Envy seems lIke an interesting spin on that. The trashing attacks hurt but you can see them coming, and this card does take a while to get going (you need to gain an imp as well as play it with an imp), as well as being a terminal.

Bard- This looks to make bard extremely strong.

Which Boons would do that? The +$1 ones run into the Silver problem I suppose.

Set aside- Do these reworks share the set-aside cards? Can Bard use druid's set aside cards for example? Also if Bard, Druid, and Tragic Hero are in play it cuts the boon deck in half.

It would be worth a reword to clarify that each set aside card corresponds to that card only. Half size Boon decks would be fine; more predictable isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[NoMoreFun]

It just becomes "If the Boon/Hex is good, this card is good and if they aren't then they aren't." Which to me is much less interesting than the printed cards.

Which of the Boons would be bad on a Smithy? Will-o-wisps do risk being drawn dead, but can be very powerful when they aren't "bonus" cards, and you can use it to help activate the self trashing.

As for revised Bard, none of the effects would look too weak for a $3 card, and you get your choice of 2 of them.

Revised Tormentor is an Imp gainer first and an attack second.

[Gazbag]

It just becomes "If the Boon/Hex is good, this card is good and if they aren't then they aren't." Which to me is much less interesting than the printed cards.

Which of the Boons would be bad on a Smithy? Will-o-wisps do risk being drawn dead, but can be very powerful when they aren't "bonus" cards, and you can use it to help activate the self trashing.

The thing with Tragic Hero is that the +buy is really important because it lets you buy back Heroes after they're trashed. So most of the Boons will be worse than that. Flame and Sky's gift are probably broken on this though. - especially Flame, that's like a super Masquerade that turns into a Gold when you're done trashing... Sea's gift also messes it up too.
 

Tragic Hero- I don't think Tragic hero needs a buff, +3 cards and a buy isn't bad for 5.

It's a slight buff, but that's not what it's about. It's about being more interesting/varied. The current version seems like Margrave except it attacks you instead of your opponents.

Ah yes, I think this is the problem in your thinking. If you don't want treasures you don't buy a Tragic Hero if it's likely to trash itself! If it isn't likely to trash itself it's basically just a Library with +buy that you can Mining Village style blow up on the last turn. The fact that people are thinking that Tragic Hero is weak is a telling sign that it's actually just interesting, it's fairly situational sure, but it has a very powerful effect in the right deck.

This version of Bard is also clearly too good, Sea's gift turns it into Poacher+, Field's Gift turns it into Conclave+, Forests's gift is non-terminal Woodcutter, Wind's gift is like a double Oasis thing. These are all too good on their own, and this Bard gives you an option of 2 Boons! No single Boon makes Druid stronger than an existing $2 card by itself and this should follow the same principle.

Tormentor is probably my least favourite card in Nocturne anyway, I'd rather it just stay simpler and unobtrusive like it is now or be replaced with something completely different.

[Asper]

If I had a Silver for every time people badmouth treasures, I'd be a rich man.

[dz]

If I had a Silver for every time people badmouth treasures, I'd be a rich man.

Does Copper count to that?

And I think when people think "Treasure" they think about how it clogs your engines (i.e. Silver), even though there are Treasures that work great in engines (i.e. Fortune and Crown).

[William Howard Taft]

Buying Silver is often bad, but free Silver? Woohoo! Like seriously if you're building an engine that's shaky enough that adding 1 Silver is bad then you should just not buy any Fate cards or build a better deck.

It's really easy to wind up with too much Silver in Nocturne, especially with Lucky Coin.

I actually like that you're forced to take it, but more Silver is not always ideal.

[NoMoreFun]

"Gain a Treasure" certainly makes Tragic Hero significantly more interesting than if it was "Gain a Gold", but as it stands it the top half seems too weak and uninteresting to be a restricted use card. The concept as a whole is interesting though and I can see people not wanting to change it.

"Trash, then +3 cards" was fine at $4 with a discard on play ("Dungeon", a base set outtake), so  at $5 without the discard seems fine. "+4 cards but a oneshot from a standard hand" seems like a better realisation of the card's concept to me too.

Druid being 220 cards in one is just so amazing that the other Fate/Doom cards  (many of which aren't going down well) seem like they could be improved. However wasted space isn't quite as much a frustration now that we're getting expansions past the "final" explanation (which was Guilds).

I like Asper's 2 Hex torturer idea. Maybe my ideas and other Druid style cards would work better as their own cards, not related to Nocturne's.

[Accatitippi]

Before Miserable was revealed, I wouldn't have been surprised by a Doom card that sets aside two Hexes at setup, letting players choose which one hits them Torturer style.

I guess I could work that into an Event or a card with Miserable banned or something.

I think it could work even with Miserable included. -4 points is fairly relevant, and card-shaped things need not always be awesome. 
I would be more concerned about having two indefinitely stackable attacks out (War, Locusts, Greed), or Deluded plus an indefinitely stackable attack.

[Asper]

If I had a Silver for every time people badmouth treasures, I'd be a rich man.

Does Copper count to that?

And I think when people think "Treasure" they think about how it clogs your engines (i.e. Silver), even though there are Treasures that work great in engines (i.e. Fortune and Crown).

When I say "badmouth", I mean "make it seem worse than it is". It's hard to badmouth Copper, unless you claim things like "Copper is worse than Curse".

[Awaclus]

If I had a Silver for every time people badmouth treasures

You wouldn't be able to draw your deck.

[Asper]

If I had a Silver for every time people badmouth treasures

You wouldn't be able to draw your deck.

The goal of the game is to have the most points, not drawing your deck. Sometimes the best way to do the former is the latter. Sometimes it just isn't.

This discussion derails this thread and it's my fault, so reply to this if you feel like it, but I'd rather have a "Let's discuss: Silver" thread.

[markusin]

Before Miserable was revealed, I wouldn't have been surprised by a Doom card that sets aside two Hexes at setup, letting players choose which one hits them Torturer style.

I guess I could work that into an Event or a card with Miserable banned or something.

I think it could work even with Miserable included. -4 points is fairly relevant, and card-shaped things need not always be awesome. 
I would be more concerned about having two indefinitely stackable attacks out (War, Locusts, Greed), or Deluded plus an indefinitely stackable attack.

Really, with the amount of concessions you'd have to make to make set-aside Hexes, work, the whole set of Hexes would need to be reworked, or just create an entirely different attack for Tormentor. Raider already exists in Nocturne, so there is no law about not having non-hex attacks. As is, the Hexes seem balanced around being in a cycle of 12.

[LastFootnote]

Let's necro this thread again! I've been looking through my imgur and found this.



This is something I suggested at the time, but noooooo, Donald X. was all, "You know what would be better than nothing? Anything!" and Sauna got its trashing ability.

Anyway, here's a simpler Sauna for $2.

[LastFootnote]

I've actually made quite a few more changes to my personal cards over the last couple years. If I can remember I'll upload Margrave, Cache, Mandarin, and whatever else I've got when I get the chance.

[LastFootnote]

You know what Transmute should gain when you trash a Treasure? A Horse. I gotta remember to mock that one up tonight.

[LastFootnote]

The Hinterlands crew! The changes to Duchess, Cache, and Margrave are ones Donald X. said he himself would make to Hinterlands, so I mocked those up. I didn't have the heart to remove Fool's Gold's reaction, as Donald X. would have done. The Mandarin boost is my own idea. It's seemed reasonable in the games I've played with it. Certainly it looks more natural now that we have so many +$3 Actions at $5 without a drawback (Legionary, Treasurer, Livery, etc.).

Here's the return of Chancellor! And also Woodcutter?



Less interesting since Messenger exists (I have only myself to blame for that), but a reasonable addition to the Base Set. I added it as a 27th card in my own copy.

[LastFootnote]

Aaaaand done with Transmute. Turn that Potion into a Horse! This is untested and I don't expect it to become a power card, but I bet it's worth pick up more often now.

[NoMoreFun]

Transmute (and potion costs in general) is an outstanding candidate for on gain/buy +buy

[popsofctown]

Making it impossible for Transmute to gain a Transmute seems like "killing the darling" :/  I don't care whether it can gain a Gold or a Duchy, but gaining itself at least some of the time is the meme.

[NoMoreFun]

Experiment is a card which would work fine as an event (Gain 2 Horses)

Every card that could be an event should be one IMO. You lose a bit by not being able to gain the card, but the space it saves can make room for more cards. Cache, Masterpiece, IGG should all be events (replace IGG's on play with being a Silver and Copper, and buff the other 2)

[spineflu]

Making it impossible for Transmute to gain a Transmute seems like "killing the darling" :/  I don't care whether it can gain a Gold or a Duchy, but gaining itself at least some of the time is the meme.

So are you thinking make it a choice (gain a Horse or a Transmute) or make it a both?

Experiment is a card which would work fine as an event (Gain 2 Horses)

Every card that could be an event should be one IMO. You lose a bit by not being able to gain the card, but the space it saves can make room for more cards. Cache, Masterpiece, IGG should all be events (replace IGG's on play with being a Silver and Copper, and buff the other 2)

Small disagree with IGG - using it as TfB fodder is like, my favorite part of the card.

[popsofctown]

A choice sounds fine.  It could also simply happen when you trash a Night, my interest in it is that empty and symbolic.

[LastFootnote]

Small disagree with IGG - using it as TfB fodder is like, my favorite part of the card.

Agree. I also enjoy gaining Caches to hand or onto my deck with Artisan, Develop, etc. In general I do not subscribe to "always make it a landscape if possible".

In general I also don't like to mix set mechanics, but because I keep my landscapes all together with my base cards, I'm going to have to always have Horses with me anyway. I had a long-standing plan to have Transmute gain some cheap, non-Supply Action of my creation, but now that we have Horses and I haven't come up with anything better, I'm going with them.

Making it impossible for Transmute to gain a Transmute seems like "killing the darling" :/  I don't care whether it can gain a Gold or a Duchy, but gaining itself at least some of the time is the meme.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

[grrgrrgrr]

How would you like these changes?

Mine (Action, $5)
+1 Coffers
You may trash a Treasure from your hand. Gain a Treasure costing at most $3 more than it into your hand

Makes it a terminal silver rather than a terminal copper. Used +1 Coffers to fit the long term benefit mantra.

Harem (Treasure/Victory, $6)
$2
+2 buys
-
2 VP
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, you may exchange it for a Harem

There are now quite a few Gold gainers, and this change makes these gainers more valuable late game. +2 buys fits well with the 2 of everything theme, and makes it more useful in general.

Cursed Village (Action, $5)
+2 Actions
Draw until you have six cards in hand.
-
When you gain this, take "Cursed entry"

Cursed entry (state)
At the start of your turn, discard down to 3 cards in hand and return this.

This is less random and also can be a synergy if your next hand contains a Cursed Village.

Stash (Treasure, $5)
$2
If you have played at least 2 Actions this turn, you may put your deck into your discard pile.
-
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

Stash is only good with Chancelor/Scavenger, so it may be best to impose conditions where Stash does the trick itself.

[popsofctown]

Shuffling every turn IRL sucks though (I am Criticizing Official Cards here, I'm not crazy about Scavenger really).
Also, stash's "honest" usage comes the closest to competing with other strategies when the game is a slog.  Making it key in on a condition that signals the gametype is enginebased likely means it is buffed only in games where there are even stronger incentives to stay away from 5$ Silver than usual.  You want this to trigger on buying a victory card or a Gold entering play or somesuch.

[NoMoreFun]

The other benefit of making IGG a landscape is it prevents IGG rushes leading to early game endings, though that was more of a problem 5 sets ago.

[LastFootnote]

Mine (Action, $5)
+1 Coffers
You may trash a Treasure from your hand. Gain a Treasure costing at most $3 more than it into your hand

I think if you wanted to make Mine a decent $5 card, giving it +$1 would be sufficient. I bet +1 Coffers is even a bit overboard, power-wise. Plus it's introducing a new mechanic to the card, making it especially not at home in the base set. I know I added Horses to Transmute, but in order to keep the core concept of that card, it had to gain some specific Action, and gaining another Transmute is usually just awful. I might yet replace Horse with some other custom Action card.

All that being said, I like Mine fine as it is. I still buy it, what can I say.

Harem (Treasure/Victory, $6)
$2
+2 buys
-
2 VP
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, you may exchange it for a Harem

Well it's a neat idea, Gold replacement. I would not use it here though, because that's three kinds of timing, needing two dividing lines. Also I like Harem for $5 just fine. I like to maintain simplicity where I can.

Cursed Village (Action, $5)
+2 Actions
Draw until you have six cards in hand.
-
When you gain this, take "Cursed entry"

Cursed entry (state)
At the start of your turn, discard down to 3 cards in hand and return this.

OK well here you're just asking the wrong audience. Basically the only two groups the tested Nocturne were Donald X.'s group and my group. We really like Hexes. If we didn't, it's possible they wouldn't be in Nocturne at all. I don't want Cursed Village to be less random! That's half the fun.

Also I don't love how the penalty becomes an advantage once you start having Cursed Villages in your hands. Discard two cards, but then draw up to 6? Yes please.

Stash (Treasure, $5)
$2
If you have played at least 2 Actions this turn, you may put your deck into your discard pile.
-
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

That reminds me.



Again, I go simpler when possible. And I'm at the point in my Dominion-testing and fan-card-making career that I can say, I don't believe in the "no Silver+ for $4" rule anymore. My feeling is, if you're playing the kind of engine board that's likely to 3-pile, chances are you are not running out the Stashes. And on money-ish boards, I sure would rather buy Stash for $4 over another Silver. Spice my deck up a little, you know? Somehow Patron isn't ruining the games its in, and I doubt $4 Stash will either.

Anyway, sorry for being such a naysayer. A lot of this is just a difference in design philosophy between the two of us.

[LastFootnote]

Seaside changes I'm thinking of trying soon:



Also, far more experimentally:



I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

[faust]

Aaaaand done with Transmute. Turn that Potion into a Horse! This is untested and I don't expect it to become a power card, but I bet it's worth pick up more often now.

Seems like all those Experiments have finally paid off!

[faust]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

[D782802859]

Pirate Ship should either dig for a treasure or action or have another resource other than action, because it's going to miss a lot. The Merchant Ship and Wharf changes are actually ones I've been thinking about myself, and they bring both of these cards into line well. Sea Hag is way too weak now, it isn't strong as a 5 curser with just terminal copper. I'm surprised there isn't a Navigator change, most think it's a dud and I'm inclined to agree.

[popsofctown]

That Pirate Ship bears no resemblance to the official card?  Like it's a cool fan card but I have little to no understanding of calling it a revised official card. 

[LastFootnote]

That Pirate Ship bears no resemblance to the official card?  Like it's a cool fan card but I have little to no understanding of calling it a revised official card.

That's a good call. I have another version in the works that's much closer. That being said, I want a replacement that's less wordy (ideally using the large font size) and hopefully doesn't help opponents more than it helps you. I could name it something else, though.

[popsofctown]

This came up with the gamble discussion, but we seem to lose lots and lots of real estate on cards due to dominion not maintaining a rulebook rule of "If a card instructs you to play an Estate, just ignore the instruction, because that's stupid", so every card has to specify (I suspect you don't have a balance concern about this playing Nights)

It's a shame!

[popsofctown]

More reliably hurt your opponent: "+1 Action. Each player reveals the top card of their deck.  For the highest cost among actions and treasures, play then discard one of those cards and opponents discard the rest."  Attractive when 5$ actions are king, not as attractive when you will hit a mixture of 5$ actions and golds.  It could be much more surgical but it would cost words.

Hacky terse: "+1 Action.  Each other player discards the top card of their deck.  Play such an Action or Treasure. Discard the card you played, return the others."


Accomplishing both goals seems unfathomable to me (To shorten it I had to backslide one of the goals), those are my cracks at each.

[mxdata]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

[popsofctown]

I believe that is correct.

[GendoIkari]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

[popsofctown]

I think this is confusion against the old "lose track rule".  The old "lose track" rule would make it whiff, right? 

This stuff is tricky.

[GendoIkari]

I think this is confusion against the old "lose track rule".  The old "lose track" rule would make it whiff, right? 

This stuff is tricky.

No... Lose Track also never stopped you from playing a card; only from moving it. See Throne Room + Feast... you can play the Feast a second time even though it has been lost track of. In fact I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for renaming "Lose Track" to "Stop Moving" is specifically because people kept making the mistake of thinking that Lose Track would stop you from playing a card.

[mxdata]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

So, then, you would have a card that's being played by two different people?

[GendoIkari]

I'm very interested in feedback on this one especially. My intuition is that it's very weak early, and maybe too weak overall.

Should definitely be a Command card and say "play one of the discarded non-Command cards". Compared to Tribute, I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

I think this version maintains Pirate Ship's issue of scaling very strongly with player count. Also, it should probably cost $2.

Hmmm ... would interact interestingly with Village Green.  If you play this card and I discard Village Green, I can choose the reaction.  Then, since it's no longer in my discard pile, I believe the Stop-Moving Rule would apply, and you wouldn't be able to play it?

No, that doesn't work... Stop-Moving rule never prevents you from playing a card. You would just fail to move it into play, which wouldn't even matter if you're "playing it, leaving it there". And as we now see from the most recent ruling; you could even play it if it's completely impossible to find because it's been shuffled into your deck!

So, then, you would have a card that's being played by two different people?

Yeah. And I don't see any issue with it. So long as playing the card doesn't move it to your in-play area, I don't see any rules complications that come from this really. No more so than any version of playing a card without moving it to in-play. The fact that the same card is also played by someone else wouldn't seem to be a problem.

Although, for this version of Pirate Ship; I think it should specify non-Duration. Playing a Duration without moving it to in-play is just not good in general.

*Edit* Just realized that this would just stay in play if it plays a Duration card anyway, like a Command card. So it shouldn't matter much.

[segura]

I'm not sure it should be an Attack.

It is a weak Attack, but after one or several plays the Attack effect can be like that of Fortune Teller.

[NoMoreFun]

Tracking would be a nightmare on that version of Pirate Ship. I think it would be good for at least 1 attack in the game to trash Copper (to make players think twice about over-thinning theor deck in games with good trashers), it should just compensate players for the way it helps in most games.

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Action or Treasure, then discards the rest. +1 Coffers if any Treasures were trashed, +3 cards if any Coppers were trashed.

[faust]

Tracking would be a nightmare on that version of Pirate Ship. I think it would be good for at least 1 attack in the game to trash Copper (to make players think twice about over-thinning theor deck in games with good trashers), it should just compensate players for the way it helps in most games.

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Action or Treasure, then discards the rest. +1 Coffers if any Treasures were trashed, +3 cards if any Coppers were trashed.

Well, this is way too strong. It's a nonterminal Knight for $3.

[faust]

How about:

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $4

+1 Action
Each each player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure and discards the rest. If all cards trashed this way are Coppers, +$3.

[LastFootnote]

How about:

Pirate Ship
Action/Attack - $4

+1 Action
Each each player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Treasure and discards the rest. If all cards trashed this way are Coppers, +$3.

I like that, except it has the Gladiator problem of being confusing when no Treasures are hit. Do you get the +$3 or don't you? By strict logic, I think you do. But it's not clear to the average person, I bet.

Also if it's a trashing attack, I wouldn't make it non-terminal anymore.

All that said, I like it better than the one I posted, which as people note has issues with Durations.

[LastFootnote]

I forgot to do this one:



A simpler version of Ill-Gotten Gains that maintains the trash-for-benefit potential and the $5 cost. No idea how this would play, but it seems reasonable to me. Let me know if you disagree.

[D782802859]

I think Donald has stated that he'd like to change IGG's above-line text to +$2, but this also works.

[LastFootnote]

I think Donald has stated that he'd like to change IGG's above-line text to +$2, but this also works.

I believe he said that he would make it worth $2 and cost $6. Hinterlands already has two $6 cards, which is why I opted for this instead. I guess making it $6 would be another combo for Farmland, which might be good? Even with that, I'd rather have it at $5.

[LastFootnote]

Now I’m thinking maybe this gives IGG rushes too much of a boost.

[popsofctown]

I don't really see how that version is going to accomplish the version of leaving IGG near its current power level but disincentivizing rushes, which I would assume is the goal.

I kind of think you could fix IGG just by adding 5 more of them to the supply.

[kru5h]

Embargo could be an Action/Night card so that you can play it AFTER you buy your card for the turn, but then you don't get the +2 money from it.

[NoMoreFun]

Research's setting aside and missing shuffles makes it not all that fun.

IMO

Research
Action - $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 it costs.

The horses could be top decked but without the duration type and setting aside it's a big buff.

[Gubump]

Research's setting aside and missing shuffles makes it not all that fun.

IMO

Research
Action - $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 it costs.

The horses could be top decked but without the duration type and setting aside it's a big buff.

Research is easily my least favorite card in Renaissance, but this change would make me like it a lot better.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I don't like artifacts (except Lost in the Woods)

Border Guard
$2 Action
+1 Action.
Look at a number of cards from your deck equal to the number of Border Guards you have in play. Put one in your hand and discard the rest.
-
If you have any unspent coin at the end of your buy phase, you may put this on top of your deck. If you do, discard all other Border Guards you have in play.

Treasurer and Swaskbuckler could lose the part about the artifacts and still both be fine. I just won't use Flagbearer IRL.

[LastFootnote]

You could just excise the Artifact abilities out of Border Village entirely. That's how it originally was. "+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the other." It no longer activates Patron, for what that matters. (It mattered a lot to me at the time, since there were precious few ways to activate Patron in Renaissance.)

EDIT: I enjoy Artifacts in real-life games, except Lost in the Woods! Lost in the Woods just makes Fool way too complex. I'd be interested in testing Fool as a one-shot and maybe moving Lucky Coin to Bard.

[LastFootnote]

I don't really see how that version is going to accomplish the version of leaving IGG near its current power level but disincentivizing rushes, which I would assume is the goal.

That's not my goal at all. The idea is just to make the card simpler. I wouldn't mind disincentivizing rushes, but that isn't the point of the change. I do worry my change makes rushes stronger, though, which I'd like to avoid.

[LibraryAdventurer]

You could just excise the Artifact abilities out of Border Village entirely. That's how it originally was. "+1 Card. +1 Action. Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the other." It no longer activates Patron, for what that matters. (It mattered a lot to me at the time, since there were precious few ways to activate Patron in Renaissance.)

EDIT: I enjoy Artifacts in real-life games, except Lost in the Woods! Lost in the Woods just makes Fool way too complex. I'd be interested in testing Fool as a one-shot and maybe moving Lucky Coin to Bard.

That's funny. The reason I don't like most artifacts, but don't mind Lost in the Woods is that I think the minigame of stealing powerful artifacts from each other is very annoying. But Lost in the Woods isn't particularly strong. If you don't have it, it means you can play Fool for a strong effect, so you don't miss it when it gets stolen. (Treasure chest isn't that strong either, but I just think it seems tacked on and Swashbuckler doesn't need it. Same for the Key and Treasurer actually.)

[NoMoreFun]

On Artifacts, since each Artifact only corresponds to one card, room could have been saved by making the Artifact the randomiser, with something like this.

[spineflu]

On Artifacts, since each Artifact only corresponds to one card, room could have been saved by making the Artifact the randomiser, with something like this.

but then how do i put the randomizer in the black market deck?

[LastFootnote]

That's funny. The reason I don't like most artifacts, but don't mind Lost in the Woods is that I think the minigame of stealing powerful artifacts from each other is very annoying. But Lost in the Woods isn't particularly strong. If you don't have it, it means you can play Fool for a strong effect, so you don't miss it when it gets stolen. (Treasure chest isn't that strong either, but I just think it seems tacked on and Swashbuckler doesn't need it. Same for the Key and Treasurer actually.)

I think Treasure Chest is the most fun part of Swashbuckler, but maybe that's just because I miss Jungle Explorer.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I like Jungle Explorer better than Swashbuckler. The coin token mechanic with Swashbuckler seems arbitrary to me (same with the discount on Fisherman), but Jungle Explorer earns her coffers and villagers. What is this card from?

[Gubump]

I like Jungle Explorer better than Swashbuckler. The coin token mechanic with Swashbuckler seems arbitrary to me (same with the discount on Fisherman), but Jungle Explorer earns her coffers and villagers. What is this card from?

It's an outtake from Renaissance, which evolved into Swashbuckler. It's in the Secret History.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I find your Duchess boring. Here's my Duchess:

Duchess
$2 - Action
+$2.
You may discard a card costing at least $3. If you do, +1 Action.
-
In games using this, when you buy a Duchy, you may gain a Duchess.

If this seems strong for a freebie, I'd just make it more specific "You may discard a Duchy for +1 Action."

[D782802859]

There really isn't anything wrong with Duchess as printed. It's not super powerful, but not every card has to be.

[LastFootnote]

I idea is just to make Duchess less slow, and simplifying it is a bonus.

But don't tell me. This particular change is straight out of Donald X.'s time machine thread.

[NoMoreFun]

Inspired by a post by Timinou in the Weekly Design Contest to necro this thread and post another revised Research (one that could actually fit in Renaissance)

Research
Action/Duration - $4
+1 Action
Choose one: Trash a card from your hand, or set it aside and at the start of your next turn, trash it for +1 Card per $1 it costs.

It's basically the same card, but it doesn't take cards out of your deck this turn. You also now have the option to trash instantly and avoid sending the card to Duration land, but with no benefit.

[NoMoreFun]

Donald X is on record as saying he wouldn't do Hexes in hindsight, so thinking about the official Doom cards (I posted something like this a few years ago in a different thread).

Werewolf
Action/Night - $5
If it's your Night phase, gain a Silver. Otherwise, +3 cards

Not a bad consolation prize for drawing it dead, and sometimes you'd intentionally play it at night.

_________________________________________________
Vampire
Night - $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 that isn't a Vampire, then exchange this for a Bat

Bat
Night - $2*
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trashed any, exchange this for a Night card.

Vampire doesn't need a buff to make up for losing the hexing, but just to be fair I changed Bat slightly so it can transform into an Exorcist or a Raider or a Den of Sin (might need an awkward "exchanging isn't gaining" clarification in the FAQ however for the "gain to hand" night cards)

________________________________________________

Skulk
Action - $4
+1 Buy
---
When you gain or trash this, gain a Gold

Skulk is on my veto list on Dominion Online so I'm not sure how strong it is, but my impression was the card would be fine without the Hexing. When trash bonuses are fun though.
______________________________

Leprechaun
Action - $3
Gain a Gold. If you have exactly 7 cards in play,  gain a Wish. Otherwise gain a Copper onto your deck.

Envious (as a "while this is in play" effect) is probably a better fit, but this is nice and simple.

______________________________

Cursed Village
Action - $5
+2 Actions
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand
---
When you gain this, put a card from your hand onto your deck.

Just like with official Cursed Village, it might hurt, it might not. This version can also be helpful.
_________________________________

Tormentor
Action/Attack -  $5
+$2
If you have an Imp in play, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain an Imp.

Incorporates another good idea from the forums regarding Imps (not sure who had it first - maybe it was LastFootnote?). May not need the Cursing but I like the idea that the little Imps are helping the Tormentor do mean things.

[NoMoreFun]

I think there's a consensus forming around Gatekeeper that it's a dud.

I remember hearing on AdamH's podcast that it cost $4 for most of playtesting and was bumped up to $5 late in the picture, as it was too strong in the early game to lock players out of their opening cards (but not otherwise). So as a suggestion:

Gatekeeper
Action/Duration - $4
At the start of your next turn, +$3

[spineflu]

Donald X is on record as saying he wouldn't do Hexes in hindsight, so thinking about the official Doom cards (I posted something like this a few years ago in a different thread).

Werewolf
Action/Night - $5
If it's your Night phase, gain a Silver. Otherwise, +3 cards

Not a bad consolation prize for drawing it dead, and sometimes you'd intentionally play it at night.

_________________________________________________
Vampire
Night - $5
Gain a card costing up to $5 that isn't a Vampire, then exchange this for a Bat

Bat
Night - $2*
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trashed any, exchange this for a Night card.

Vampire doesn't need a buff to make up for losing the hexing, but just to be fair I changed Bat slightly so it can transform into an Exorcist or a Raider or a Den of Sin (might need an awkward "exchanging isn't gaining" clarification in the FAQ however for the "gain to hand" night cards)

________________________________________________

Skulk
Action - $4
+1 Buy
---
When you gain or trash this, gain a Gold

Skulk is on my veto list on Dominion Online so I'm not sure how strong it is, but my impression was the card would be fine without the Hexing. When trash bonuses are fun though.
______________________________

Leprechaun
Action - $3
Gain a Gold. If you have exactly 7 cards in play,  gain a Wish. Otherwise gain a Copper onto your deck.

Envious (as a "while this is in play" effect) is probably a better fit, but this is nice and simple.

______________________________

Cursed Village
Action - $5
+2 Actions
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand
---
When you gain this, put a card from your hand onto your deck.

Just like with official Cursed Village, it might hurt, it might not. This version can also be helpful.
_________________________________

Tormentor
Action/Attack -  $5
+$2
If you have an Imp in play, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain an Imp.

Incorporates another good idea from the forums regarding Imps (not sure who had it first - maybe it was LastFootnote?). May not need the Cursing but I like the idea that the little Imps are helping the Tormentor do mean things.

I'm not sure removing the hexes necessitates removing access to envious/deluded. give vampire the ability to hand out deluded (since it's a counter to that in the form of gaining, and also is only on the non-bat turns) and leprechaun the ability to whammy yourself with envious imo.

[NoMoreFun]

Deluded is way too strong for a realiable attack, and the best counter play is Big Money.

I like Envious and with Leprechaun it creates interesting situations where you have to decide whether you want to play it or not, but I imagine it being too easy to work around.

[spineflu]

Deluded is way too strong for a realiable attack, and the best counter play is Big Money.

I like Envious and with Leprechaun it creates interesting situations where you have to decide whether you want to play it or not, but I imagine it being too easy to work around.

I mean, have it be something like "you may discard an action card; if you do, each other player takes Deluded. If you don't, each other player with 5+ cards in hand discards an Action or Treasure card (or reveals they can't)." (fear, iirc)

[emtzalex]

Skulk
Action - $4
+1 Buy
---
When you gain or trash this, gain a Gold

Skulk is on my veto list on Dominion Online so I'm not sure how strong it is, but my impression was the card would be fine without the Hexing. When trash bonuses are fun though.

Skulk is in my top five for opening pairs with Cathedral (and its presence on a board is enough for me to buy the Project, absent a strong handsize attack). The thing about Skulk is that getting the card itself is the reason that you are able to buy (or gain) a Gold for $4. The Skulk is the junk (and, at least conceptually, it is worse junk than 2 Coppers, which only discount a Gold equivalent to $5 in the form of Cache). As junk, trashing it is its own reward, and having it give an additional Gold would (imo) be busted.

I think it probably needs to still contain a weak/unreliable attack. One option might be something like

Each other player with 5 or fewer cards in hand gains a Copper to their hand.

That's probably the weakest junking attack possible, as it gives the least bad best piece of official junk, actually helps the opponent on their next turn, and doesn't stack (unless combined with a handsize attack). You could weaken it further by saying

Each other player may reveal a Copper from their hand; if they don't, they gain one to their hand.

This is substantially weaker than almost any Hex, will fail the vast majority of the time, and is an attack that a players would choose not to avoid when they could in a non-marginal portion of cases. Alternatively, you could give it an especially weak non-Attack function (like Duchess's universal deck control effect).

Ultimately, Skulk provides access to Gold at a significant discount, and also provides +Buy, which is absent from many boards, and which Skulk will not infrequently be the only source of. It might still be buyable with just the +1 Buy and on-gain, but I think it is more interesting with some other effect.

[emtzalex]

Ultimately, Skulk provides access to Gold at a significant discount

Well, yeah, but buying Skulk also adds two stop cards to your deck. Without the Hexing the card would be far too weak as Ruined Market plus Gold is identical to Woodcutter plus Copper.

Ruined Market + Gold is arguably significantly worse than Woodcutter + Copper, as the need for +Buys is strongly correlated to having lots of money, and any hand with a Ruined Market has one space fewer for payload. That's why I tend to get Skulk (even in it's current version) with the intention of trashing it, either with the intent to trash it using a TfB card I am intending to buy anyway (Sacrifice, Upgrade, etc.), or because I have very good trashing (Cathedral). If my plan for Skulk is not to play it, then I don't really care that much about it's on-play effect.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, +Buy is something that is not infrequently absent from boards. It is also something that can be very needed in a deck. Ergo, I have, on very rare occasions, bought (or intentionally gained) Ruined Market in games where I was desperate for +Buy and nothing else was available (especially where the nature of the Kingdom made turns very swingy, getting more than $13 in some turns and less than $5 in others, e.g. in games with Minion). There is a non-zero set of circumstances where buying a Ruined Market at $4 might be a strategically reasonable choice, albeit not nearly enough to justify that card existing.

[The Alchemist]

Here's how I personally changed Transmute for my sets:



This version still preserves all the normal options, including Copper to Transmute and Estate into Gold, while at the same time letting you trash Transmute and other $4 actions into Provinces, like a good remodler should, instead of just Duchies which I think was one of the big problems of transmute. Before it gave you 3 things you actually didn't often want in your deck, but a more expensive Transmute is a more desirable one.

[NoMoreFun]

I never liked how Wishing Well interacted with the 2nd top card of your deck, not the top card. It was mitigated by Mystic (which also Self Combos), and cards that combo with it like Secret Passage. But now I think Sorceress has provided the ideal wording.

[Commodore Chuckles]

Ultimately, Skulk provides access to Gold at a significant discount

Well, yeah, but buying Skulk also adds two stop cards to your deck. Without the Hexing the card would be far too weak as Ruined Market plus Gold is identical to Woodcutter plus Copper.

Ruined Market + Gold is arguably significantly worse than Woodcutter + Copper, as the need for +Buys is strongly correlated to having lots of money, and any hand with a Ruined Market has one space fewer for payload. That's why I tend to get Skulk (even in it's current version) with the intention of trashing it, either with the intent to trash it using a TfB card I am intending to buy anyway (Sacrifice, Upgrade, etc.), or because I have very good trashing (Cathedral). If my plan for Skulk is not to play it, then I don't really care that much about it's on-play effect.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, +Buy is something that is not infrequently absent from boards. It is also something that can be very needed in a deck. Ergo, I have, on very rare occasions, bought (or intentionally gained) Ruined Market in games where I was desperate for +Buy and nothing else was available (especially where the nature of the Kingdom made turns very swingy, getting more than $13 in some turns and less than $5 in others, e.g. in games with Minion). There is a non-zero set of circumstances where buying a Ruined Market at $4 might be a strategically reasonable choice, albeit not nearly enough to justify that card existing.

The principle that a good turn plus a bad turn is usually better than two mediocre turns would argue that Gold + Ruined Market is better.

[emtzalex]

Ultimately, Skulk provides access to Gold at a significant discount

Well, yeah, but buying Skulk also adds two stop cards to your deck. Without the Hexing the card would be far too weak as Ruined Market plus Gold is identical to Woodcutter plus Copper.

Ruined Market + Gold is arguably significantly worse than Woodcutter + Copper, as the need for +Buys is strongly correlated to having lots of money, and any hand with a Ruined Market has one space fewer for payload. That's why I tend to get Skulk (even in it's current version) with the intention of trashing it, either with the intent to trash it using a TfB card I am intending to buy anyway (Sacrifice, Upgrade, etc.), or because I have very good trashing (Cathedral). If my plan for Skulk is not to play it, then I don't really care that much about it's on-play effect.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, +Buy is something that is not infrequently absent from boards. It is also something that can be very needed in a deck. Ergo, I have, on very rare occasions, bought (or intentionally gained) Ruined Market in games where I was desperate for +Buy and nothing else was available (especially where the nature of the Kingdom made turns very swingy, getting more than $13 in some turns and less than $5 in others, e.g. in games with Minion). There is a non-zero set of circumstances where buying a Ruined Market at $4 might be a strategically reasonable choice, albeit not nearly enough to justify that card existing.

The principle that a good turn plus a bad turn is usually better than two mediocre turns would argue that Gold + Ruined Market is better.

But if you get the +Buy on the "bad turn" it is effectively useless. Thus, it's better to have it linked to at least some payload (with Woodcutter) than independent from it (with Ruined Market/Skulk, which both constitute terminal dead cards that provide $0 while taking up a slot in your hand).

[LibraryAdventurer]

Recently, I had a game with Annex, and every time I looked at it, I thought "boy, that event just sucks".
So here's my version strengthened by changing the timing:

Annex
- Event
During clean-up this turn, after discarding and before drawing your next hand:
Look through your discard pile. Shuffle all but up to 5 cards from it into your deck. Gain a Duchy.

What do you think?

[grrgrrgrr]

What I find kinda irksome, is that Black Market cards have no pile. This means that the stop moving rule comes into play whenever you try to return a Black Market card to the supply using Way of the Horse, Swap or Way of the Butterfly. This means that the latter two straight up don't work with BM, while the former gets rather overpowered. But isn't the Black Market deck supposed to be "their pile"? Here an attempt to fix this.



I know this is rather superfluous, and it'd also mandate a fixing in the wordings of Encampment and Experiment (to use "its pile" instead of "the supply").

And a better fix might be to somewhat fix the stop moving rule into: if a card tries to move out of your deck and has no destination, it goes to the trash. But that obviously opens its own can of worms with Fortresses originating from BM, and returning to the supply is probably too uncommon to warrant a "fix" like this.

Research's setting aside and missing shuffles makes it not all that fun.

IMO

Research
Action - $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 it costs.

The horses could be top decked but without the duration type and setting aside it's a big buff.

Honestly, I think Garrison has the perfect solution to this. Just put a token on this per $1 the trashed card costs, and at the start of your next turn, remove the tokens for +1 card per token removed. (and it's a Renaissance card, which makes the solution extra perfect)

[Holger]

Holger

• Jester
• 
• Offline
• Posts: 762
• 
• Respect: +497
• • 

Re: Revised versions of published cards