Dominion: Prosperity
Without the variable pricing, Peddler should probably be priced at $4, as a Market without the +Buy. With the variable pricing, it’s a steal at $2 or $0, and you should try to set up a deck with spammable non-terminal Actions to take advantage of it (e.g., Caravan, Spy, Treasury). Peddlers themselves are also good ways to get more Peddlers.
But Peddlers are best if you can get them down to $0 and then use them to soak up extra Buys. For example, the easiest way to grab Peddlers is with Worker’s Villages, which provide free Actions as well as ample +Buy. Past 4, each Worker’s Village represents an additional free Peddler. Markets can also work, though those are harder to get, as well as Pawns, which are not as effective.
The biggest problem, in fact, is that after a certain point cheapness doesn’t matter any more. When you’re regularly pulling in $6–$8 per turn, buying Peddlers is a bit of a waste without +Buy.
Peddler’s variable pricing also makes it work extremely well with cards that depend on its cost. You can:
- Remodel or Forge it into a Province;
- Upgrade it to a Platinum;
- Expand it to a Colony;
- Bishop it for 4 VP;
- Apprentice it for +8 cards;
- Salvage it for +$8.
It also defends against Swindlers extremely well, since once you run out the Peddler pile, an opponent’s Swindler becomes very dangerous to play for fear of turning your Peddlers into Provinces. Peddler is also one of the few cards that defends against Smugglers, since it’s cheap to buy but un-Smuggleable.
Works with:
- Worker’s Villages/Markets/non-terminal +Buy
- Conspirators/other Peddlers/Caravan/Treasury/spammable non-terminal Actions
- Cards that depend on other cards’ cost (e.g., Remodel, Forge, Apprentice, Salvager)
- Opponents’ Swindlers
- Opponents’ Smugglers
Conflicts with:
- Lack of +Buy
- Lack of non-terminal Actions
Dominion Strategy 
It’s generally un-Smuggleable, of course. But you can smuggle it with bridges or – you’ve written about that- with Black Market + Quarry. But I agree, that both are special.
Peddler’s greatest value is in its cost.
The more expansions we see, the more cards exist that refer to themselves and others in their cost value. Remodel was the earliest to do it, but Swindler, Smugglers, Saboteur, Salvager, Upgrade, Apprentice, etc. REALLY made it so. Prosperity added Bishop, Expand, and Forge to the mix – I can’t remember all of them off the top of my head. With all the cards that concern themselves with the costs instead of effects or types, what you buy isn’t always as important as what it could become.
Peddler is the first card to really be all about its own value and less about its effect. It’s a non-space-taking +$1, which is nice but also probably only worth $4 in a KC/TR board. However, because it can be turned into so much it is such a different card in the set – fun to play with a card that has this kind of effect, that’s for sure.
It’s the sort of card that I would hate to draw with a Swindler. Replace opponent’s Peddler with a Grand Market?
Sorry, I meant Saboteur.
I wouldn’t consider it much of a defense against swindler though, since that only works when all the peddlers have been sold. Before that point, they make swindler much more powerful as you can swindle a province into a peddler!
Peddler is either quite uninteresting (without + buys) or otherwise sold out very quickly. So your second scenario is not very likely to happen imho.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/6862534#6862534
I think this insight from David Goldfarb contributes a lot here. “Conflicts with” self-trashing actions since they don’t discount Peddler. “Works with” duration cards. So a Tactician alone goes a long way to setting up a Peddler buy for the next turn.
+1 to vidicate’s point. All the duration actions (especially Caravan, Lighthouse, Fishing Village, Tactician, and Wharf for the two extra buys) are doubly good for picking up Peddlers. If you’re really awesome, you play your Tactician with three other actions in play and then buy a $0 Peddler with your empty hand!
-hoff (lowercase ‘h’ — accept no capital-‘H’ substitutes)
Question to you all:
I played 8 Worker’s Villages in one turn which made the Peddler card worth 0$; I then bought 8 Peddler Cards because they were worth 0$ each, and as I said before, I had 8 buys. Is this a legal move? or am i missing something? or is this a game flaw? help please? clarify rules!
-cheers
Matt
Why would that be a game flaw? It’s what makes Peddler such a good card and one of the only cards that warrants a Worker’s Village opening.
You didnt answer my question. I asked because, in retrospect, it seems a little cheap*… to get 8 cards basically for free (no treasure). I am wondering if it is a legal move in the game or if I missed something. I am not arguing the potential awesomeness that is the Peddler.
You should have had 9 buys if you played 8 worker’s villages.
Within the constraints of the game rules, there is no cheap, there is only winning. Cards with +buys (and +cards and actions) definitely make peddler a lot better, and often those games depend on getting a big take of the peddlers in a single turn.
Of course, if your opponents are playing well, they have probably bought a bunch of the peddlers as a well, so they will be gone well before you can play 8 worker’s villages in a single turn.
You are right, I did have another buy; and I had three gold in my hand with which I bought a silver.
However that was not my question. You guys are kinda missing the whole point of my inquiry. You keep trying to tell me about how awesome certain cards may be; or how its all about winning; or about game strategy. But I am not arguing any of this. I am just trying to clarify the rules. By simply saying “yes, it is a legal move/play” this matter could have been resolved much faster. I just bought this expansion and the hand I described was the first time i had ever played these cards. These blogs are so tedious.
*not three gold… I meant three copper
The “is it a game flaw?” question set off the scrub detector, which justified the “win according to the rules” comment.
Geronimoo’s “why is it a game flaw?” question was an implicit answer that yes, it is legal.
Pardon me if I prefer straight forward answers rather than rhetorical questions and self-righteous attitudes from smarmy gamers. You’re a real piece of work! Good Day Sir.
If you want a straight forward answer, ask a straight forward question. I encourage you to try an experiment. Next time just ask a rules question with no side commentary, and see if you get a straight answer.
Also, http://boardgames.stackexchange.com is good for simple rules questions, and might not have the attitude that we have here.
*not three gold… I meant three copper
Just played a game with Peddler, Salvager, Mint and Crossroads. Won the game handily after trashing all my treasure by like turn 7 or something. (Had 2/5 split, bought a Mint on the second turn, bought another Mint as soon as my 2 Coppers+Peddlers was >$5) .
The other guy also went Mint on the first turn, but then he started minting Coppers to get enough buying power for other treasures. I bought a Salvager when I could, got one Province on $8 without needing to salvage, and then proceeded to fund the rest of my Provinces by salvaging Peddlers, adding Crossroads whenever I had surplus money from playing the remaining Peddlers.
It was fun.
Actually, now that I think of it, I did need to salvage. I salvaged the Mints. Just not the Peddlers at first.